I think the problem raised by DRM technologies is too big to leave to a company, even as big as IBM, or even a consortium of companies. This is because the rights being managed are not inherent and inalienable rights, but stem from a bargain between the the entire public and creators of information.
The bargain is this: the public grants exclusive copyrights to a work for a limited time to the creators or their asignees, in return for the public using that work as they see fit (other than creating commercial copies).
Viewed in this light, the idea of digital rights management is not inherently bad -- it can serve a good purpose. It addresses the problem that computer technology has made copyrights harder for the copyright holders to police.
However, the problem is other things that are being slipped into the bargain under the rubric of copyright management. First, it limits the rights of members of the public to use the work as they see fit (for example, fair use copies). Second, encrypting a work essentially extends the copyright holder's control over it in perpetuity.
In other words, DRM as I understand it is now envisioned doesn't just enforce the bargain between copyright holders and the public (as well it should). It fundamentally changes the bargain to the detriment of the public. This is why participating in the development of DRM technologies is a potentially a reprensible thing -- apart from whether you think open/free software is a good thing or not.
I think DRM technologies should be legally required to meet the following requirements:
(1) The consumer should have the ability to have digital keys which will unlock the copyrighted material on ANY device which they own.
(2)Illegal key sharing should be technologically discouraged, perhaps by requiring that installation of a key on a device be mediated by a trusted key management service.
(3) Consumers should be able to obtain a special key that permanently unlocks a specific work that has fallen into the public domain for some reason. The term of copyright enforcement would be ended by the distribution of this key. This would allow the legal system of a country to extend copyright terms OR abridge them. It would also allow works to fall into the public domain by other means.
These changes would give the public an equal footing in striking the copyright bargain. It should not be within the power of any private entity to alter the nature of this bargain -- either by unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works, or by interfering with legal copying of works it does not own, or by excercising extralegal control over uses of works that it happens to own copyright to.
But in some cases I should be allowed. (Score:2)
The bargain is this: the public grants exclusive copyrights to a work for a limited time to the creators or their asignees, in return for the public using that work as they see fit (other than creating commercial copies).
Viewed in this light, the idea of digital rights management is not inherently bad -- it can serve a good purpose. It addresses the problem that computer technology has made copyrights harder for the copyright holders to police.
However, the problem is other things that are being slipped into the bargain under the rubric of copyright management. First, it limits the rights of members of the public to use the work as they see fit (for example, fair use copies). Second, encrypting a work essentially extends the copyright holder's control over it in perpetuity.
In other words, DRM as I understand it is now envisioned doesn't just enforce the bargain between copyright holders and the public (as well it should). It fundamentally changes the bargain to the detriment of the public. This is why participating in the development of DRM technologies is a potentially a reprensible thing -- apart from whether you think open/free software is a good thing or not.
I think DRM technologies should be legally required to meet the following requirements:
(1) The consumer should have the ability to have digital keys which will unlock the copyrighted material on ANY device which they own.
(2)Illegal key sharing should be technologically discouraged, perhaps by requiring that installation of a key on a device be mediated by a trusted key management service.
(3) Consumers should be able to obtain a special key that permanently unlocks a specific work that has fallen into the public domain for some reason. The term of copyright enforcement would be ended by the distribution of this key. This would allow the legal system of a country to extend copyright terms OR abridge them. It would also allow works to fall into the public domain by other means.
These changes would give the public an equal footing in striking the copyright bargain. It should not be within the power of any private entity to alter the nature of this bargain -- either by unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works, or by interfering with legal copying of works it does not own, or by excercising extralegal control over uses of works that it happens to own copyright to.