DRM technology injures consumer rights

by Laura Berger

October 18, 2005

On Oct. 25 at 7 p.m., the Free Culture Club is holding a protest in front of the Virgin Records store at 14th Street and Broadway. The purpose of this protest is to educate customers about the use of digital rights management technology that might be be placed on CDs unbeknownst to the customer and to encourage Virgin to use a label that clearly indicates and explains DRM technology on CDs that have DRM technology blocks.

Many CDs currently on sale have DRM technologies on them in order to prevent the customer from duplicating copyrighted music. The technology can work in a number of ways — anything from scrambling the legitimate audio data to sneakily installing software onto users’ computers. But the intention is always the same: to prevent the consumer from making a digital copy of the content.

The problem with DRM is that this technology actually restricts consumers from transferring their new CD onto their computer, or even making a backup copy. As a college student who loves her iPod and uses her computer as a jukebox more often then not, this restriction struck me as deeply unjust. There’s a provision in U.S. copyright law about fair use, which establishes that if there is a reasonable and legitimate legal use for a technology, it should be legal.

The fair-use doctrine allows “ripping” CDs to a computer so that people who purchase music can put their music onto their iPods. This is also what allows people to use their computer to play the music. College students, who often don’t have the space to keep both a computer and a sound system in their dorms, tend to have just the former. They are especially harmed by DRM, which prohibits ripping and prevents them from playing CDs on their computers.

“Fine,” you might say. “So I won’t buy a CD that uses DRM.” Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to tell a CD with DRM from a regular one without using it first. There is no requirement that these CDs to be sold with a special label or warning, and because most music stores won’t allow customers to return a CD after it has been unwrapped, customers can find out for themselves for $15. Pirates, whom this technology is designed to hinder, are usually technologically savvy enough to get around the DRM software, but the average customer won’t be able to use the CD that was legally purchased. This technology is designed to prevent illegal duplication of music but, in the end, all it ends up doing is harming the innocent and technologically naïve.

DRM restrictions have also made an impact on buying music from the iTunes music store. The DRM attached to the iTunes music allows users to copy a song a certain number of times. If the customer wants to make more copies than is allowed, they could “hack” the DRM (using a program called FairTunes), but unfortunately, according to “The Customer is Always Wrong,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s guide, “breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even if you're not making any illegal uses.”

Organizations like Free Culture and the EFF support your fair-use rights to the music you legitimately purchase and thereby object to technologies like DRM. While we support artists’ rights, we also contend that consumer rights are just as important. DRM constricts, if not totally undermines, the doctrine of fair use and there is currently little opposition toward more record companies implementing it. Record companies and stores need to hear from the people who count, namely consumers, that we notice and care about the substantial negative consequences of DRM.

If you want to find out more about DRM and other copyright, technology and cultural issues, check our website or come to our protest. We'll be handing out flyers, talking to consumers and raising awareness about DRM and new technologies. Copyright should be about helping artists make music that consumers want to support and participate in, not about helping record executives fatten their revenue streams and lock consumers into backward technologies. The point of copyright law is to protect the artists, not the record labels, and it’s not supposed to hurt the general law-abiding, music-purchasing public.

Laura Berger is an op/ed contributor for WSN. E-mail responses to opinion@nyunews.com

I'll be there, say hello to the BOYCOTT RIAA
T shirt guy.

AWSOME! get us some .jpg images and give us an on location report gfmlcka! I hope more of our pals will show up! I'd certainly be there myself if I possibly could.

For those who DO attend these sort of things, please do whatever it lawfully takes (NO violence) to get this covered by the media.

While they may not be labeling jewel cases with "This product contains DRM" there is something else you can look for. Maybe saying something else missing you can look for is more accurate. Look for the official cd logo. Sony had a big "to do" over the use of the logo along with DRM cds.

Unless it follows the redbook standards for manufacture and playablitily standards set forth by the Redbook, it can't bear the cd logo. If it is missing be sure that it contains DRM.

And I say this: DRM to the consumers, NOT to the machines. The DRM should say: "Welcome", not "Don't you dare..."

And get this. Personal copying is not only fair use, it's important for innovation.

No matter what anyone says, DRM is not designed to prevent piracy. They know that no DRM will prevent true pirates -- those that copy CDs and sell them on street corners -- from making copies. The only people it will stop are non-tech-savvy consumers and there are more of them out there than many people realize. DRM is designed preserve the "multiple-purchase" market and keep these folks coming back to repurchase CDs that have been damaged or lost.

Some of us may say, "Hey! According to 'Fair Use,' we have a right to make copies! You need to make sure we can!" To which, the RIAA member labels childishly reply, "You can't make me!" Unfortunately, this is true. They are not legally obligated to ensure that their products can be copied.

Although many of us believe they should be, they are not legally obligated to ensure that DRM expires when the copyright of the protected work does either. At least, not yet.

"Some of us may say, "Hey! According to 'Fair Use,' we have a right to make copies! You need to make sure we can!" To which, the RIAA member labels childishly reply, "You can't make me!" Unfortunately, this is true. "

It's even worse in the movie industry. The MPAA says if you want a copy, go buy another copy. The hell with your so-called 'rights'.