FTC DRM comments
Comments 001-101
downloaded from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/drmtechnologies/
| Comment Number: |
539814-00001 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 8:48:56 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Matthew Jaques |
| State: |
OH |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I would like all present to consider the status quo of piracy. I have never heard of a single piece of DRM'd software that was impervious to hacking. People who would and do pirate software always find a way around the DRM restrictions designed to stop them. Meanwhile, the only punished party is the unknowing, righteous consumer.
Also, please note that piracy does not necessarily affect sales, as the companies claim. Sins of A Solar Empire was released last year without any DRM and sold quite well within its opening month. Whereas a heavily DRM restricted title like Spore has infamously become one of the most pirated games of all time.
DRM is an ineffective method of copyright protection. Fighting piracy head on is an archaic and failed strategy. Remembering that pirates are people too, instead try to appeal to them by offering higher quality software without the DRM. Many pirates I know of and heard from pirate software because they feel insulted and restricted by DRM. Hopefully, this meeting will result in the abolition of DRM software and a brighter future for software consumers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00002 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 10:09:21 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Nederpelt |
| State: |
Outside the United States |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I think DRM should not violate user rights. Compare modern games to old SNES games - I could play those for as long as I owned the cartridge that contained the game. Similarly, I should be able to play my PC game for as long as I own the CD/DVD and/or serial key to the game. Current DRM practices with 'limited activations' violate that principle, turning the purchase into something more akin to a rental - where, at some point, I will no longer be able to play a game I legally own. And that point may come very quickly, as upgrading some hardware or even something as simple as changing a BIOS setting will void an activation with those systems.
Also, the current DRM system doesn't work. Games still get pirated, while legitimate users get hurt by the DRM. It would be better to focus on rewarding loyal customers and getting people to buy the game, rather than focusing on making the games harder to steal with a system that hurts gamers and gets bypassed eventually by pirates anyway. In metaphors: focus on the Carrot instead of the Stick.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00003 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 11:46:47 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Sidney Phillips |
| State: |
GA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is necessary and I don't think anyone would argue that artists and companies need to protect their creative and intellectual properties. But DRM must NOT be burdensome, ornerous or limiting for the end-user.
We MUST be allowed to use products we buy on multiple devices. We MUST be allowed to install them as often as we wish. We MUST be allowed to create backup copies on whatever medium we choose. We MUST be able to use the products wherever and whenever we choose. And we MUST be able to use the product today, tomorrow, a year, a decade or a century from now, even if the original owner(s) are deceased or defunct.
And NOBODY should be allowed to take our equipment, disable or cripple our equipment, or deny us service just because they *suspect* we have violated somebody's DRM. That applies to governmental agencies, businesses and individuals.
We want people and companies to protect their works and make money, so they can create more works for us to enjoy. We just don't want them to criminalize us for trying to use their works in the best way that suits OUR needs. We aren't trying to cheat them - but we don't want to be taken advantage of by them, either.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00004 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 12:18:19 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jeremy Colangelo |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Ownership is a necessary component o any free market. Consumers must be able to own the products that they buy in order for them to have confidence in their purchase, and to make their investment seem worthwhile. What certain DRM policies, specifically the practice of limiting downloads, do is degenerate the purchase down to the level of a long term rental. The consumer does not own the product in question, but instead is being allowed to use it for a limited amount of time. The consumer can no longer resell the product, lend it, or give it away, as would be allowed for the purchase of other commodities such as cars, furniture, and computers. DRM cripples the product, and denigrates it's value. The practice is also an artificial roadblock to the market that has developed around used video games and software. This market has existed for as long as the technology has, and is an important and profitable business practice that supports countless distributors. This market also does no real harm to the publishers, as a game that is sold on the internet, or to a retailer, does as much for them as one that sits idle on a shelf. Furthermore, though piracy is an issue; history has demonstrated that no protection is a match for a determined hacker. As the SecuROM fiasco with the game Spore has demonstrated, DRM does little good when faced with high demand for pirated software. Though despite being the most pirated piece of software in '08 Spore was still able to sell over two million copies in its first week (according to Wikipedia), more success than most games receive in a lifetime. In short, as has been shown above, aggressive DRM does nothing for the consumer, harms the publisher's reputation, and stymies the natural flow of the economy. For the good of the software market, and the rights of the consumer, the practiced involved with DRM should be regulated or banned completely, this is the only logical course of action.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00005 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 5:22:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Kevin Lowe |
| State: |
IN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Take a look at the recent outage of the TAGES DRM system for an example of how DRM can unintentionally harm consumers. DRM systems need to be built from the start to fail-open after a reasonable period of time, and should come with a minimum guaranteed service level such that consumers aren't left with software they can't use because the authentication servers are down, either temporarily or permanently. Placing unrestricted copies in escrow, while not ideal, would be an acceptable alternative.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00006 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 6:05:55 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Bryan Killett |
| State: |
CO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I support copyright, but my problems with DRM can be summed up as follows:
1. DRM never expires. Ideally, copyright is a legal device used to enrich society, to encourage artists to create works based on the understanding that they will be able to profit from said works for a limited amount of time. After this time period expires, the creative works get released into the public domain. Unfortunately, DRM’d files don’t do this- the music you bought on iTunes in 2003 will still be restricted in 3003.
2. DRM will never work correctly without overly restrictive government controls. For example, let’s assume that “Brand New Hyper DVD” format is completely uncrackable- the disks can never, ever be decrypted and copied digitally. So what? Take your camcorder, aim it at the screen, and press record. Voila! Brand new copy without DRM. The only way to stop this would be to force all electronics manufacturers to include complicated measures to insure that they can’t be used in this manner- but the next “DVD Jon” would show up around two days later and crack these measures. The only way to fight this from a corporate/government standpoint would be to force all electronics capable of being used in this kind of pirating scheme to “phone home” on a regular basis to update their DRM software, and to ban all older electronics without this “feature”. See where this is going? Do you want to live in this society?
3. DRM effectively turns your computer into a police snitch, working against you rather than for you. Just look at the Sony rootkit fiasco for an obvious example, or read up on the DMCA or broadcast flags or… you get the point.
4. DRM adds an extra degree of complexity to playback, which constitutes another failure mode. A computer crash can often reduce a DRM’d music library to binary junk unless the user has been meticulous enough to save the mountain of data necessary to identify his/her computer as “the authorized playback device” of said music. Want to switch to a different computer, or swap out some hardware? Good luck- this will probably be interpreted as a “new computer” and your music won’t play. Want to play your music on another device like your car stereo or your portable music player? You’d better hope the music vendor was “gracious” enough to bless you with that kind of “privilege”.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00070 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:29:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Lucy Kemnitzer |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I discovered that securom had made the system files on my computer invisible to me, even though I had set them to be visible. This made removing the securom files from my computer very difficult! It also left me much more vulnerable to other potential threats from viruses and other malware. Once I did succeed in removing securom, I was again able to see what is on my own computer.
I don't think it's right for a game to pre-empt my own authority over my computer, and I don't think it's right for a game to make my computer less safe from malware. I especially don't think it's right for a game to act like malware!
It's also insulting for EA to behave as if its loyal customers are vicious criminals just waiting to steal something from them as soon as they get the chance.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00008 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 8:44:57 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Stottler |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I would prefer to see this sort of control banned, but this is unlikely. Therefore I will stick to the following:
1. Consumers must be made aware of all software being installed and all its functions. This means the software must inform them before doing things such as searching for optical media emulators or phoning home. These are all things EA's SecuROM malware has done. Software violating this regulation should be subject to a stiff fine, and possibly be classed as malware.
2. All software must include simple removal tools. To cite EA again, what if when you uninstall the last EA game on your system, it (automatically) removes the DRM software.
3. Please bring up that Spore was the most controversial DRM-clad PC game recently, and also the most pirated. These are likely correlated.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00090 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 3:21:21 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Jason Robinson |
| State: |
ID |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Use of DRM is a way to fool a consumer into thinking they "purchased" a product, when in fact they have only an extremely limited use "rental" of the product under very specific rules that they are not made aware of at the time of purchase.
If DRM equipped items like AAC songs (iTunes) or encrypted & region restricted DVDs were sold with IT support staff and lawyers to help explain exactly how, on what devices, when, and where the consumer could make use of this product rental, then the items would not sell.
So instead, companies have taken to obscuring the restrictions, stretching the truth about the potential uses, and limiting the consumers use of the product in order to maximize their perceived profit. This serves to confuse consumers who then get angry when they find out that the songs, for example, they purchased cannot actually be played on a different device on in a different manor than expressly indicated solely because of corporate agreements and technical efforts at vendor lock in.
This has created an entire industry of "unlocking" or "cracking" where by consumers attempt to make use of their perceived purchase by jumping through hoops of workarounds, transcoders, and hacks to make use of the product in the manor they initially wanted to, but were unaware was not expressly part of the providers corporate strategy. These efforts are then branded as "illegal" by indecipherable legislation passed by ignorant legislators written by the content providers to help protect perceived market share and profit margins.
All of these creates incredible waste in the economy where by people waste money on duplicate "purchases" of products and waste time attempting to figure out the narrow set of devices compatible with the rented media they wanted to consume.
Evidence of the popularity of open media need be found no further than a common MP3 music player, which in addition to the producer's own proprietary DRM equipped format, is certain to support the unhindered MP3 format. Why? Because were a device to not support MP3 playback, it would be virtually useless to all consumers due to the unreasonable restrictions placed on the producer's desired DRM format.
An example of an industry that functions with out DRM is the national highway system. With relatively simple guidelines for width, weight, speed, and a few other guidelines, any manufacturer can build cars that will function on the nation's highways. If highways were like technology, then each person would need to own a unique vehicle for each state they wanted to drive through, because each state would have different requirements for vehicles to be able to travel on their roads. A car from California would be too wide to drive down an Oregon road, and would need either a duplicate road system to accommodate its use, or the owner would need to rent a compatible vehicle at the border in order to travel inside of Oregon.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00010 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 8:59:55 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
David Mackler |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Hello FTC,
I have two primary concerns.
The first is simple disclosure. What sort of DRM are forcing upon me? What impact does it have on my computer/peripherals/ipod/etc? How can I completely remove it when I find it misbehaves (like Sony's CD root kit)?
The second is to clearly indicate the restrictions forced by the DRM. Copyright law provides for fair use and archival backup. What sort of limits -- above and beyond the law -- does one's DRM place on my use of the software/music/video/game?
The big downside, aside from the clandestine installation of undesired and imperfect software, is the artificial limits placed on my usage.
Thank you,
David Mackler
| Comment Number: |
539814-00011 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 9:17:38 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Bailey |
| State: |
OK |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM sometimes makes it impossible for me to get at content that I have purchased because the DRM vendor has made their product in a way that causes CDs to be non-standard or otherwise quirky and so are not only hard for me to make a legitimate backup, but also hard for me to figure out what kind of DVD/CD drive I have to have in order to play it.
In more general terms, I am tired of being treated like a criminal even AFTER I have bought something. Copyright is supposed to protect artists but it has been extended SO LONG that people can't access and use their own cultural heritage. Companies like Disney should not be able to keep hold of things forever. Where is the justice in that? Copyright is supposed to work in the consumer's favor after a while.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00012 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 9:23:05 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Andrew Hamblin |
| State: |
UT |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
It is a simple fact, that invasive undisclosed DRM technology constitutes a trespass on my personal property. These technologies do not prevent piracy(Spore is widely cited as the most pirated piece of software ever), and do not add value to the product they are included with(In fact these systems damage the resell value of the software). In many cases DRM can introduce security vulnerabilities, or interfere with the day to day operation of affected computer systems.
Users have the right to be clearly informed of what is being installed on their computer system. They can then select the products they will purchase using this information to inform their decision. Furthermore corporations making use of DRM, must be held liable any provable damage which the DRM may have caused.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00013 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 9:26:11 PM |
| Organization: |
None |
| Commenter: |
Brighton |
| State: |
VA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
What about the impact of DRM preventing consumers from legally backing up the media and using that rather than the original in attempt to preserve the original? This is one of the most frustrating problems for me.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00014 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 10:14:48 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Matthew Nolin |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
As a gamer it has been frustrating for me to deal with DRM. I've been unable to play games that I owned in the past due to having misplaced the CD Key over the years, and I've even been unable to play a game because I didn't have an active internet connection (the game itself didn't require an internet connection). These are things that tarnish the experience and in some cases make it impossible for me to access the games that I have payed for. I do feel as though games purchased through the Steam client that Valve has distributed offers the best of both worlds but that does not mean it's perfect. Are we able to sell used games? Should we be able to? Are games simply a different medium where different rules apply? or do the same rules apply as books and movies? I feel as though I should be able to lend my friend a game and he should be able to play it and then I should be able to get it returned to me.
In any case, I think that steps that have been taken by EA and others with SecuROM are clearly in the wrong direction and should have never been allowed.
Beyond the gaming medium DRM has been a road block in a few other instances. There have been many instances where protection has blocked legitimate use of media that I own. I have purchased TV shows, songs, movies through mediums such as iTunes where then I have been unable to watch the said media on other devices that I own. I think that this is a right that I (should?) have. There's no reason I should pay for multiple copies of a song or a movie whether it's being played on a computer or dvd player or phone. The bottom line is there isn't any reason that every song I own shouldn't be playable from any capable device.
It has been shown time and time again, that DRM does not stop piracy, or at least the way that it infringes against consumers does not match with what it is intended to protect against. There are ways to make it worthwhile for a person to buy a product but the last few iterations of DRM and what is currently available for the most part fails to make this point and simply makes owning media in the digital age cumbersome and aggravating.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00015 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 10:25:14 PM |
| Organization: |
Hermes Cap LLC |
| Commenter: |
Eric Baker |
| State: |
UT |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I cannot express my disapproval of DRM in any form more strongly. Every version that has been force upon us causes damage to law abiding citizens computers, and - since it's so easily broken - causes absolutely no damage to pirates computers. We are being taught by that action that it is better to pirate media protected by DRM if we want to avoid damage to our equipment.
Also - as several failed music stores have shown - if you buy DRM encumbered media from a company and they go out of business, or more likely, if they get bored of running the DRM servers, we lose the ability to appreciate the media that we have purchased and legally own.
The music industry response to their failed business model has been to go to congress to try to force legislation down our throat that gives them unconstitutional powers. I'm so sorry to break this to them, but just because they produce something, we are not obligated to purchase it. I believe that we still live in America.
It is staggering to me that Sony and other companies have implemented as part of their DRM systems rootkits and other damaging trojan horses that are explicitly listed as illegal in the anti-spam, anti-virus legislation that has been passed. Why have they not been thrown in jail, and prosecuted as crooks? They are breaking the law! Instead, we are forced to defend our distaste for their blatant disregard of the law, and their obvious distaste for us the consumer.
In a normal free market economy, when a business demonstrates absolute hatred for their customer as these companies have repeatedly done, we are free to take our business elswhere, and they are free to fail. Please do not reward their abominable behavior with more illegal and unconstitutional legislation.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00016 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 11:00:40 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Torgerson |
| State: |
MN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I would like to throw my vote against DRM of all kinds. DRM is inevitably anti-consumer, because it restricts the use of legitimately purchased media to one or a small number of the customer's devices, often restricts the use of the media to a proprietary device because DRM is by nature opposed to the use of open standards (since it relies on secrecy for its efficacy), and generally hassles the legitimate user, punishing the honest person for actually paying for the product. Meanwhile, and this is the kicker, DRM has done nothing whatever to stop piracy. On the contrary, P2P filesharing has continued to skyrocket, and is more popular than ever. Ironically, then, all DRM seems to accomplish is make it more difficult and annoying to deal with a legally-purchased copy of a movie, game, or song than it is to pirate the same thing illegally. So it shouldn't take much to see, that DRM, in fact, has the opposite of the intended effect. In typical fashion, content owners are reluctant to acknowledge this, and may need a swift kick in the butt to get them on the right track. Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00017 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 11:15:06 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Charles Griffith |
| State: |
UT |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is a completely failed endeavor. It does not in any appreciable manner accomplish it's stated goal of reducing piracy or protecting copyrighted/trademarked works. It's only real achievement is to hinder the legitimate uses of legally purchased goods by their purchaser. I have watched the implementation of DRM as it has become more prevalent, and gauged it's impact on the availability of pirated goods, and that impact has been nil. For example, not a single music release protected by DRM has prevented copying of that music. Nor have I seen any computer games released with DRM that were not immediately available to the pirate community upon the day of their release. Even supposedly closed systems like the XBOX or Playstation that should be able to effectively utilize DRM have thriving pirate communities. The simple fact is that no DRM can or will work as a means of stopping piracy.
I am shocked that something as utterly useless as DRM still garners supporters, considering the cost to implement and the total failure to prevent loss. I'm also dismayed that something as completely detrimental to legitimate consumers is allowed to exist. Based on it's uses and it's complete lack of success at completing it's stated goals, I think DRM should cease standing for Digital Rights Management and should instead be thought of as Draconian Revenue Maximization as it seems apparent that only legitimate customers who are forced to re-purchase the same goods repeatedly are the target of this technology.
The time has come for the Fair Use Rights of the citizens to be protected for a change. Rather than continue to reward poor product development and unreasonable use restrictions, it's time to encourage manufacturers to utilize technology to ENHANCE products and IMPROVE the customer experience rather than treat all customer as criminals. History shows that products worth buying sell and are profitable. The honest customers willing to pay for good products far outnumber those that would pirate goods. If DRM were to cease to exist, no appreciable loss would be seen, as it is clear DRM only affects those that have actually purchased goods. Those who wish not to purchase have no problem finding goods that have the DRM removed.
If you think my assessments are off target, I suggest a little test. Pick ANY mainstream music, software, or movie product released in the last year that was protected by DRM and see if it does not have a DRM free pirated version available online. I can think of none that qualify. If you manage to find any, look at the sales for that item, I doubt they are leaders in their market segment. Now, is DRM really all that necessary?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00018 |
| Received: |
1/6/2009 11:15:26 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Dedes |
| State: |
VA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I think DRM should be made illegal at a federal level. In the case of movies i dislike how the mpaa tries have their cake and eat it too:
1) Consumers are buying the rights to see this film (in which case the blueray upgrade should be free, and if you've seen the film in theaters you get the latest version free in the mail for the rest of your life)
or
2) Consumers are buying a physical product (in which case consumers should be free to make backups - quote, display to a live audience)
it should be either concept 1 or 2, but not a combination both. since we go to a movie store to *buy* movies; then movies should be given just the protections they receive under copyright law. The DRM on the disc becomes almost a method of false advertising because you're not really buying the movie.
In the case of video games, I again feel like with the publishers in control it has gone way too far. For the pc especially. For years there have been games that require the cd to be in the drive to play the game; but these games are always "cracked" or modified to not require a cd, and then released on the internet in that form. This, in effect, penalizes consumers who paid full price for the game by requiring them to have the cd in the drive. While the consumers who downloaded the game for free are receiving a superior product that not only doesn't require a cd to play, but also runs faster and is usually more stable than the official release.
In the case of more recent versions of Microsoft Windows, where you must activate the software to receive software updates or to use the product. This wouldn't be too terribly awful, accept that microsoft has carte blanche to not let you activate it. Furthermore, their practice of suggesting the inclusion of a EULA (End User License Agreement) to insist that you are licensing your software and not buying it reeks of the same stuff as the movie industry. I go to the computer store and i buy a copy of windows. as such that copy of windows should only ever be given the protection of copyright law. The idea that I licensed it when i clicked the "Agree" button is ignores the fact that I already *own* the software, that I've already made a purchase, and that i'm free to cross out sections of the License that i don't agree to, or even to ignore it as a meaningless procedure i must undergo to use the software i have just aquired legally. I also think it's horribly wrong that the first sale rights are nearly universally destroyed under most software DRM schemes.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00019 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 12:46:36 AM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Matthew Ouzounian |
| State: |
MD |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
As both a gamer and a game developer I have a very strong opinion on this complex matter. DRM is the only method publishers and developers have to prevent piracy and prevent over-saturation. Up to this point DRM has failed on both fronts; it has proven to be nothing more than an annoyance for paying customers. DRM in its current form is an abject failure, but that does not mean it will continue to be so forever.
Many people will use the fallacious “secondary sales” or “yard sale” argument against DRM. The claim is that yard sales have existed for years, so it’s no different than selling a rocking chair at a yard sale. The difference, however, is that once you sell your rocking chair you no longer have it. In many cases you can install a game, sell the disk, and keep playing the game. This costs the developer a sale, and the consumer does not have the loss of playing the game. Essentially the consumer can profit from a product while using it.
Obviously it’s a larger issue than I can fit into a 4000 character limit, so I will end it here. Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00020 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 8:29:30 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Hughes |
| State: |
MN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
In addition to the well-publicized problems caused by current DRM technologies, it would be prudent for the Commission to explore the limitations imposed on the consumer regarding the sale of used software. The DRM "protection" present in games such as Spore and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 limits the number of computers the game can be installed on to a relatively small number (less than 10 in both cases). This limitation is not effectively communicated to the consumer, who may unwittingly be prevented from selling his/her game as a result of using up all of the available activations. The rights of the consumer as it relates to the resale of software are virtually nonexistent from the moment the plastic wrap has been removed from the box. The consumer is not made aware of this fact until they have opened the box, inserted the disc into the drive, and begun the installation procedure (at which point the consumer must invariably agree to a license agreement). If consumers do not agree with the license agreement, they have no recourse. They are not able to return the product, and in many cases are prohibited from selling the software due to the terms of its EULA.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00021 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 8:45:39 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jeffrey Harris |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM infringes on the rights of individuals to install, uninstall, and make archival backup copies of lawfully purchased software. While DRM is not, of itself, inherently bad, the implementation by vendors or their designated agents is often bad, for a number of reasons. In a number of cases, DRM is tied to authentication systems controlled by the manufacturer (or a designated agent), which 1) requires a connection to the Internet for software activation/deactivation (if deactivation is supported) and 2) is completely controlled by the manufacturer/designated agent. In some cases, periodic mandatory reactivation is required. If a user loses access to the Internet, or the product reaches its end of life and the manufacturer/designated agent decides to discontinue activation support for the product, the user can suddenly be denied access to software he lawfully purchased, or be prevented from reinstalling and reusing the software when a replacement system is deployed, or from reselling the software to another user under the first sale doctrine. This has already happened in cases involving digital music download services utilizing DRM, where the vendor has discontinued the service (or threatened to do so), orphaning lawfully purchased products.
While manufacturers have a right to develop mechanisms to protect their products from unlawful copying, this right should not come at the expense of a user's right to use (or reuse) a product as lawfully allowed under existing federal statutes and case law.
The Sony copy protected CD debarkle serves as an excellent case study of how not to implement DRM. DRM has several additional pitfalls - it often installs additional programs without explict user consent or knowledge, such programs often communicate on the Internet without the user's explicit consent or knowledge, and such programs often open vulnerabilities in a system which antivirus or antispyware software may be unable to protect against.
Any approved DRM system, then, must be: unintrusive, only installed with full user consent, disclose any communications with the Internet (and the nature of such communications), be secure, and the manufacturer/designated agent must design in advance a mechanism to deactivate the DRM at the product's end of life in such a way that users will continue to enjoy full use of the product as if it never had DRM.
One other point I wish to emphasize - ANY DRM must be prominently disclosed on the packaging or advertising for the product that contains it. It is important to include this disclosure in advertising, because many people purchase products over the Internet, and never see the actual packaging until the product arrives at their homes. The FTC should enact a rule that allows a 30 day return period for any reason on products that implement DRM, since the implementation, even with packaging and advertising disclosure, may prove detrimental to a particular user's configuration in such a way that is impossible to determine prior to installation of the software. Typically, most vendors refuse to accept returns on software once the software package has been opened, but the user should not bear the risk of a shoddy DRM implementation damaging his system without at least a refund on the purchase price of the software itself.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00022 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 9:36:12 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Matthew Reingold |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
539814-00022.pdf |
Comments:
I just wanted to say that I am disappointed in gaming companies implementing DRM in a variety of forms. DRM is easy to crack by determined individuals. It even has to be circumvented for fair use purposes such as back-up copies of games, or even due to encumbering to legitimate consumers. I'd like to cite/reference the Windows Vista DRM issue when it was released, or spore, or any other EA game. It also manages to break compatibility with other operating systems and software. As an example, EA's Punkbuster system is grossly incompatible with anything other than Windows, including Mac and Linux operating systems.
Focusing on DRM for gaming only doesn't address that all DRM needs to be addressed on the same page, if it involves a computer in any form. At a core, the phrase Digital Rights Management is flawed, because it doesn't include the fact that a consumer's rights are being managed by another entity. It takes away rights.
As an example of what happens when DRM is gone, I'd like to point to a UK article by a game developer:
http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html .
In his article he states: A few days ago I posted a simple question on my blog. Why do people pirate my games?. It was an honest attempt to get real answers to an important question. I submitted the bog entry to slashdot and the penny arcade forums, and from there it made it to arstechnica, then digg, then bnet and probably a few other places. The response was massive.
The two notable issues are ones that both show non-drm related causes by gaming companies were: Money and game quality. The most prevalent issue of why people copy games instead of buying them legitimately, was DRM itself.
I sincerely hope we do not have people from companies such as Electronic Arts or any Console gaming representative as their devices are a physical form of DRM that is wholly uncompatible with anything else. As noted, you cannot load a playstation blu-ray disc in your pc even to make a back-up due to DRM. These companies are not representative of anyone other than themselves and are at a conflict of interest with consumers.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00023 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 10:09:08 AM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Jason Johnson |
| State: |
FL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM needs to be disclosed to the end user at the time of purchase. If the DRM is not %100 removable after the software is uninstalled from the PC, this needs to be disclosed to the consumer. The type of DRM used and what restrictions (limited installs, internet activation, etc..) are implemented need to be disclosed to the consumer. This information needs to be clearly marked on the products front cover or top flap, and/or on the system requirements panel.
DRM also prevents resale of titles and therefor needs to be disclosed in a way that will not prevent the return of the software to the place of purchase. Most stores do not allow the return of opened software. Many instances you will not know what DRM is used until the software has been opened and installed on your system.
It is clear that publishers wish to hide this information from consumers to prevent loss of sale based on DRM being used in their product.
While I personally dislike DRM, I understand the need to protect ones intellectual property. In this case, the use of DRM needs to be disclosed to the consumer before purchase as outlined above.
Thank you,
Jason T. Johnson
| Comment Number: |
539814-00024 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:06:07 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
C. Davis |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I'm going to address software DRM specifically, as it's the worst offender, but as DRM is always about retaining control over a product after that product is sold, I think that it can be universally regarded as anti-consumer and should always come with clear warning labels.
The trouble with the most recent trend in DRM, in favor of software activation, lies in the perception of ownership - a person who buys something in a store expects to own that thing and to be able to use it whenever and wherever they wish. In this case, that means installing it and using it on any suitable computer at any arbitrary point in the future. Software activation prevents this by requiring that the consumer contact a server operated by the software's publisher and ask permission to use the software every time that the software is installed. Should the server be unavailable, should it be that the publisher has gone out of business, should permission be denied for any other reason, the purchased software is rendered useless.
It is my belief that these two things, owning something and requiring permission to use it from the previous owner, are contradictory.
Since the question here is about disclosure, the problem can be phrased this way: people who pay money for software that requires activation are currently under the impression that they are purchasing something in much the same way that they might buy another piece of non-DRMed software, or a book, or a lamp. As long as this transaction is made in a store and referred to as a purchase, or done in a setting typically associated with change of ownership, this misconception will persist.
The solution has to be a change in language - the transaction can rightfully be called a monitored rental, and the exchange can be an equitable one, as long as it's made clear that what's offered is a rental, good for a certain length of time, and rights holders are held accountable for ensuring that the obligation is met.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00025 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:36:13 AM |
| Organization: |
University of Georgia |
| Commenter: |
Casey O'Donnell |
| State: |
GA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
My work, which has been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), has demonstrated that in many cases DRM technologies actually systematically disable and discourage the very traits that are demanded by the industries that use them most widely.
I look particularly at the effect that technologies like DRM have had on the videogame industry. While I think short-term analysis encourages companies to deploy DRM far and wide, a more long term look at the situation indicates otherwise.
DRM technologies encourage us to not understand how our devices and software works. Combined with the DMCA, it becomes illegal to attempt to better understand or make use of our technologies. Attempting to make content created for one device work with another, a task that was previously commonplace amongst individuals interested in creating new technologies and content, becomes illegal.
Ultimately, we disable our very ability to work with and experiment with the technologies and media that we as consumers purchase. This discourages individuals from pursuing those skills which are crucial to innovation and the creation of new companies, products, and ideas. It runs counter to the founding principles of copyright.
I tend to frame the situation as one defined by the rights of copyright holders have overshadowed the rights of individuals to produce. Paradoxically, this means that copyright holders are actually preventing the production of new future ideas. Copyright should not overshadow the ability of users to make use of and experiment with technologies and media they have purchased rights to. As currently configured, DRM combined with the DMCA has created a situation where we have hamstrung those who in all likelihood have the opportunity to create new innovations in the future.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00026 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:53:54 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Anderson |
| State: |
TX |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Its great to hear that the FTC is becoming involved in this subject matter concerning DRM. While I understand completely the perspective of the corporations wherein they need to protect their products. However using DRM as a counter measure in this fashion is not only inefficient it is also insulting to the educated consumer. By adding DRM to distrubted software a companies is by default assuming that their clientelle are thieves and for their own gain choosing to inhibit the rights of the purchaser of the product.
When I buy software I should be entitled to being able to do whatever I want with my copy of that program as I have purchased it and not rented it. There is no need for it to attempt to inhibit other software that may or may not be used in aiding software pirates in the case of such DRM measures as "Starforce" and "Securom" this takes place. This invasive and hostile anti piracy measure assumes that it has the right to do as it pleases on my computers operating software with little or no concern for the incompatability and other issues that may arise from it use depending on the operating enviroment.
If I buy a product I fully expect to be able to resale the product if I so choose as the one copy of the software belongs to me wether it be at a resaler or a garage sale or any legal venue. DRM Such as Securom and others prohibits this which limits the purchasers right as a consumer. Further more DRM software such as Securom limits the number of times I can install software that I have purchased and should be entitled to install it as many times as I see fit on my machine without having to call their corporate head quarters for permission to use my own software. This I also feel goes against the way a consumer should be treated no one is by default a criminal nor should they be treated that way.
The above three reasons are even worse when you consider a large portion of the software using populace would have no idea about the presence or specific functions of the DRM software. This would make and problems arising from its use more time consuming on the end users part as well as more costly to fix if a problem did arise from the use of DRM software as it its primary function is hostile by design.
I would further argue that these companies are adding this malware to their software in an inefficient attempt to protect their intellectual property from a growing group of illegal downloaders. From the purely consumer standpoint its difficult to want to pay for a program that is bogged down by unwanted malware if an exact same thing is available free of cost and DRM. I'm sure the growing availablity of torrent based users on illegal sitse such as "The Pirate Bay" should stand as evidence to the ease with which DRM is cirucumvented and how little DRM does to stop this illegal downloading issue from growing. In my opnion DRM is only perpetuating the issue.
While I do not endorse piracy in any fashion large software manufacturers or distributors such as Microsoft and Electronic Arts give you little choice as to the matter of DRM. As a consumer im severly limited on choices that do not entail damaging my home and office computers and networks with malware. While I do not have a solution to this problem I can hope that the FTC helps establish limitations on this issue that restore consumer rights as well as protect the non technologically inclined end users from otherwise hostile software.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00027 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 12:41:16 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Shea Lovan |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Digital rights management is by its nature a contentious issue. As Dr. Lawrence Lessig said, "Code is law." DRM implementations define a de facto legal system (how it can and cannot be used) surrounding a protected application. This system may not relate back to any existing copyright law instead resting on contract law.
Therein lays the problem. The terms of the contract are generally not available for view until the application is installed. Further, the contract is not normally available to individuals for negotiation; it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The end result is that by combining DRM and contract law, what should be a relatively balanced transaction (consumers as a group vs manufacturer/distributor) get slanted severely in favor of the vendors.
At the very least is seems that a few DRM related issues could be addressed to help equalize the situation:
1.) The full text of the license agreement should be available on product packaging (for physical distribution) and prominently linked to on the product's web page.
2.) The license agreement should not be subject to change without notice. If the vendor wants to be able to change the agreement, the software should require registration (to facilitate the communication) and the customer should be able to reject the changes a reasonable level of refund due.
3.) When DRM software is used, its technical limitations (those that it enforces and any software or hardware incompatibilities) need to be documented with the application. Undocumented, unfixed incompatibilities need to be grounds for a refund.
4.) Uninstalling the protected application must completely remove the DRM software.
5.) Some DRM checks for authorization with a central server before allowing an application to launch or access to a protected data file. We have already seen cases where these servers are taken off-line when the vendor abandons the application or service. In these cases, the manufacturer/service-provider (or their successors) must provide a mechanism to remove DRM from installed version of the software.
6.) DRM circumvention tools should not be illegal to research or possess. They should be explicitly legal to use in the case of abandoned software (such as #5).
If the FTP were to enforce these six policies, the most egregious DRM problems would be avoided while still allowing companies to use such code to restrict access to their wares.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00028 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 12:45:14 PM |
| Organization: |
None |
| Commenter: |
Charles Teslovich |
| State: |
PA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Restricting use is not unlike restricting the freedom of speech. In addition, DRM effectively destroys the purchase agreement, i.e. contract law. When one purchases software or hardware, he has the right to utilize such for personal usage. The best example I have recently encountered deals with Windows XP. Because my sons computer became impractical to repair, we chose to use the XP which was already paid for to add it as an operating system on his new computer. However, because of DRM, he is deprived of using this program on his new computer. It seems to me, as a layman, that this amounts to theft of service. We paid for software that we cannot utilize.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00029 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 12:54:40 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Tamara Teslovich |
| State: |
VA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
As a Patent Examiner at the USPTO tasked with examining DRM technologies, Vice President of Washington College of Law's IP Society and a member of the Giles S. Rich American IP Inn of Court, I am very interested in the field of DRM including having submitted a recent paper on DRM for publication by a number of technology journals.
If possible I would like to participate in the town hall meeting on March 25th as a panelist trained in the area of encryption and security technologies, specifically those related to DRM.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00030 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 1:13:21 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Bowling |
| State: |
MO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I was doing some research on SecuROM and found on SecuROMs website that during their manufacturing process, "A unique, uncopyable electronic keycode is added to each CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or CD-R during the glass mastering process." Does this not violate our rights to make one copy for archival urposes? If so, could this be considered copyright infringement against the manufacturers of these discs. And also if this does violate our rights, then we need to get legislation passed specifically banning these practices.
Sources:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
http://www.securom.com/solution_concept.asp
| Comment Number: |
539814-00031 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 1:25:20 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Harold Harrington |
| State: |
WA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
It is not just games. System Mechanic manufactured by Ilo is an example the sort of issues that can occur. One use of this software is cleaning up problems caused be hostile or undesired software. Some processes should be done without the network connection active the user's virus, spyware, firewall, and other protective software disabled.
Starting the System Mechanic application it will not run without an active internet connection because the manufacturer demands it verify the license key and what ever additional information they are extracting from the machine (not disclosed) to verify the legal status of the legally purchased software.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00032 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 1:54:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Kent Campbell |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Hello,
I have been around the black a few time on both the light side as a buyer of games and on the dark side of pirating them. I have seen the effects of DRM on both sides and wonder if companies that use DRM are just deluding them selves some times. So in a world where cracks for the DRM are widely available and a google search away. Cracks you need not even pirate the game to use.
I put forward this simple question. Do the publishers really think that these methods are working? When cracks are more stable, and out with in hours of release if not even before. Do they really think that their security works to stop piracy? Or are they just deluding them selves with false information and in such, punish those that really would buy the software they offer.
Thank you for letting me be heard. And if it matters, I bought spore. My poor computer has not been the same afterwards. Here is to hoping things chance because as it is, the consumer either takes the bugs, or becomes a criminal.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00033 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 1:55:06 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Freddy Martinez |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
In relation to the statement "Among other issues, the workshop will address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations", I feel this a critical part of the use of DRM. I feel that a large part of DRM is the underground nature of it. There is heavy DRM use by companies like Apple (in their iTunes store for example) which consumers never hear about. When Sony's BGM DRM scandal broke in 2005, there was a huge consumer outcry. Yet this is only one of Sony's *many* uses of DRM and all the other instances are mainly unheard of. In order for consumers to make an informed decision on DRM they need to understand the true nature of what it intends to do, namely restrict consumer behavior based on a companies decision about "proper use"
Further, I also think the FTC needs to investigate if DRM use actually is beneficial. Does the cost of researching, implementing and monitoring DRM outweigh its benefits? In the monetary sense, does it make sense for consumers to pay companies to restrict behavior (because in the end their resources to use DRM comes from consumers). Also, was it the social-cultural risk of using DRM? Do we as a society lose out on fundamental rights/freedoms at the cost of protecting the bottom line of a company? Do we gain anything by DRM? Are there any reasons to think that DRM actually benefits consumers? Does it work and if not what would make it work. Is it a battle that can't be won? If so, fighting more vigorously with consumers should not be a recommendation of the FTC.
In short, I don't think we should extend E-books (or other digital media) DRM capabilities when we don't do so with regular books.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00034 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 2:22:57 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
William Dempsey |
| State: |
NV |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Digital Rights Management is an unfair limitation of consumer rights to use legally purchased content. If I paid for the right to play a game, view a video, or listen to a song, then I should be able to perform those actions using any piece of equipment I own.
It is time for a hero to emerge who fights for the people. It is time for our leaders to defend our rights as consumers. There needs to be a consumer bill of rights which allows us to fully use what we purchase. Consumers who legally purchase the rights to use content should NOT be treated as criminals by the vendors.
I stopped buying music from RIAA member companies because of their insane DRM practices, their unfair targeting of innocent users, and their illegal lobbying practices. Special interests should not be able to purchase our elected officials. Please step up and do the right thing. Defend your citizens from unfair treatment due to corporate greed.
I should be able to use media I purchase on any device I own. I paid for the right to use the media. It should be illegal for greedy companies to prevent me from doing this. I'm asking you to protect my obvious right to use media I purchase on any device I own. That really isn't too much to ask.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00035 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 2:50:52 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Michael Morgan |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Forms of DRM, most notably SecuRom, are detrimental to the gaming community. While I have personally not pirated any titles, many people I know were driven to illegally download titles, such as Electronic Art's "Spore," to simply avoid having the intrusive program SecuRom placed on their computer. They are not alone, as some statistics show Spore is the most pirated product of 2008, due mainly to the fact that it was released DRM-free on many torrent sites before the release date of the game.
SecuRom has been documented to cause a variety of problems on various PC set-ups, ranging from CD-R -RWs being read as empty when data is in fact on them to usb devices such as flash drives and iPods not being recognized the problem.
Personally, I find that DRM techniques such as Spore's three activation limit to be draconian. I purchase a game so that I will be able to play it how, where, and when I want. Yet when I have to call up customer service in order to be allowed more installs on more computers of a game I purchased legally to be outrageous. I payed $50+ dollars for a game that I have to go special to the company and beg to be allowed the chance to actually play, while people who illegally pirated the copy can play to their hearts content without having to get more activations allowed and without the risk of harmful effects on their PC, is detrimental to the customer-corporation relationship.
I purchased the game, I did not rent it, and that should allow me the opportunity to play the game without jumping through hoops to do so.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00036 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 3:20:38 PM |
| Organization: |
TeleRead.org e-book blog |
| Commenter: |
Chris Meadows |
| State: |
MO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
539814-00036.pdf |
Comments:
The attached document includes the flaws and limitations of DRM that I would like to see considered at your Town Hall Meeting.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00037 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 3:26:19 PM |
| Organization: |
Bright Hub Inc. |
| Commenter: |
Jean Amprimoz |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
"There are many great games to buy these days, but there is often a problem - DRM. For those of us who don't feel like fooling with activation limits and DRM software, it can be hard to find good games. But never fear. There are many great games left which don't feature restrictive DRM". - Matt Smith
I have recently edited an article for Mr. Smith that describes games with DRM schemes less objectionable to the consumer, such as: license keys, account logins based on email address, and toned down versions of SecureROM. These avoid systems like requiring the original physical media to be inserted or activation limits.
His complete article is at http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows-platform/articles/21836.aspx
| Comment Number: |
539814-00038 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 3:27:20 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Paul Brousseau |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM should not be allowed to affect (in any way) the use of other media or devices. Programs like securom inflict a permanent performance degradation into a computer affecting all of it's uses. Similarly Applications like iTunes prevent users form using portable music devices manufactured by other companies.
If Publishers want to limit how many times a media type can be used/accessed, such limits need to be clearly marked on the product packaging so consumers know before purchase.
Currently terms and conditions are not made available to consumers until after manufacturer packaging has been opened at which time the consumer can no longer return the product; returns because a user does not agree to such terms should be allowed as they could not make an educated decision prior to opening the package after purchase.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00039 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 3:53:18 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Parr |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Re DRM for software: I believe companies should be held to these requirements at a minimum:
1) State fully on the outside of the box the nature of the DRM software included, whether it will execute at boot time, whether it will communicate over the internet and to whom.
2) Include, at time of purchase, the ability to totally remove all parts of the DRM software when the software product is uninstalled.
3) Ideally, the DRM portion of the software should execute only when the product is being used and should not patch or replace operating system files, nor automatically load even when the product is not being used, nor remove, modify, or damage other software present on the user’s machine, nor attempt to hide itself from the user.
4) If the product is electronically distributed (i.e. the user does not get any physical media) the user should be allowed to burn a backup to physical media.
5) If the product requires internet access for authentication this requirement should be removed from all users copies of the product if the vendor shuts down the authentication servers.
I would like to note that I no longer purchase or play any boxed PC games because of fear of the intrusive DRM they include, so, in my case, DRM leads to lost sales.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00040 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 3:59:43 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Eric Ellington |
| State: |
TX |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM has been seriously misused and misrepresented in the last decade. People buy games that need to be authenticated online by the company who created the game every time the game is played or when the game is installed, even if the game has minimal or no online play.
When companies who publish works with DRM that requires internet access go out of business, or just decide to turn off the authentication server, every one who bought the game may completely loose the ability to access their legally purchased works. The companies will hold on to all of their intellectual right for a hundred years or more. However, everyone who purchased a legal version of the work will completely loose access to their legally purchased work.
What if the companies turn off DRM brand X and the next day, or years later, start selling the exact same work with DRM brand Y that is not compatible with DRM brand X in any way? Should everyone be forced to purchase a new copy of a work they previously bought simply because a company wants more profit? The aforementioned scenario should not be possible, it only brings profit to companies and leaves consumers with what they originally purchased.
If Barns and Noble went out of business should I be prevented from reading the books they sold me? Alternatively, should Barns and Noble have the right to disable my book when they feel like it? I strongly believe the answer to the two preceding questions is no. I also believe that if Barns and Noble tried to implement these restrictions the people and the government would be outraged and put a stop to such practices immediately.
Publishers of intellectual works should have tools to protect their works that do not remove legal rights such as the first sale doctrine from consumers. In the 21st century digital formats will continue to become the cheapest and easiest way for publishers to distribute their works. Publishers claim that DRM is the only way to combat piracy. Currently consumers are loosing rights at the same time there has been an increase in piracy.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00041 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:19:45 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
E. Hoch |
| State: |
PA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Everything we use and buy is created by *someone*, but very few products are treated the way music is. What if the prevailing thinking on DRM and copyright were applied to clothing, toys, or books? Books and toys, like music, find new fans when people are allowed to share. It would be ridiculous and unworkable to try to control how people use what they buy. I don't want to license music, I want to listen to it.
Or else I'll have to start telling my customers that they may purchase and hold their bagels and coffee, but they may not allow others to taste or share the food. The use of said food will expire after my company stops supporting that particular format, i.e. untoasted bagels may not be returned for toasting later. The food and beverage products sold by this establishment are creations of same, and may not be duplicated outside of the premises. We cannot allow customers to try to make our recipes at home, nor to share them with others. Doing so is a federal offense punishable by up to ten years in prison and $250,000 fines.
Seriously?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00042 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:24:56 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Justin Harris |
| State: |
TN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
The computer gaming and software industry is rapidly dwindling; the reason for this is two fold: piracy and oppressive DRM software. Each of these feeds the other, causing a feedback loop that ultimately will result in the collapse of the computer gaming and software industry if left unchecked.
When a company puts out a product, they have every right to protect their intellectual property; please note that I am not attempting to defend piracy. When their intellectual property is stolen and distributed for free, the company loses money, meaning they'll be less likely to provide quality products in the future. Enter DRM. DRM in itself isn't bad, but certain DRM software, such as SecuRom, creates more piracy by creating an undesirable product. For a perfect example, let's look at the recent release of Spore, a game I had been looking forward to for, literally, years.
Spore was released with SecuRom, and given several limitations. The end user had to have an internet connection to activate the game; the end user had a limited number of activations; the end user would have a separate program, SecurRom, installed without consent on his computer along with Spore, yet this program would require a lengthy and complex uninstallation process separate from Spore itself. This program collected data about the user to be sent to EA; this data could not be viewed, modified, or deleted by the end user. This program would also constantly run in the background, slowing down the performance of the computer; the only way to turn off this program is to uninstall it. Typically, this kind of software is called Malware.
This doesn't sound like a good product to buy. I certainly have not bought it, and will refuse to spend money on a product that I can only install on my computer a limited number of times. I like to reformat my hard drive once or twice a year to give my computer a fresh start. I want to purchase a product that I can install as many times as I need. After all, who keeps the same computer for more than 5 years anymore? Should I purchase a new copy of a game every time I get a new computer? That's asking too much. However, since I refuse to support piracy, as it is another cause of the collapse of the computer gaming and software industry, I have not been able to enjoy Spore, and I regret that Maxis, the developer, has lost my money and support because EA, the distributor, chose to use such an oppressive DRM program. I really don't know if I will ever be able to play Spore on my computer, and will certainly not do so if it requires SecuRom to be installed on my machine.
As a DRM program, SecuRom's purpose is to try to prevent piracy. Does it work? No. Spore is actually one of the most pirated games of 2008. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091400885.html)
While DRM may be necessary to protect intellectual property, it should never inconvenience the customer more than it prevents piracy. This is also the opinion of Stardock (http://uscpwned.blogspot.com/2007/03/developer-stardock-explains-no-drm.html), a computer gaming company that I gladly support. They are in no financial trouble, piracy of their software is much lower than other software companies, and their customer base is extremely loyal. Coincidence? I think not.
Piracy is like the common cold; you'll never see it go away entirely, but there are steps you can take to reduce its spread. Replace oppressive DRM schemes with sensible ones that don't restrict the customer's access to the product s/he purchased, and you will see a decrease in piracy of that product.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00043 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:30:25 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Greg London |
| State: |
MA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/index.htm
.......
The book addresses the issues around copyright. Specific issues around DRM (and the DMCA that enforces anti-circumvention of DRM) start at the section labeled: .......
"3.6 Digital Millennium Copyright Act" .......
The main issue with DRM is that it allows the author/distributer/publisher to use technological measures to enforce more rights than the author/distributer/publisher legally has according to copyright law. .......
If the author/distributer/publisher wants to prohibit the public from Fair Use rights, they can do so using the technological restrictions available from DRM. ......
If the author/distributer/publisher decides that the user can only have one working copy of a song, they can enforce that with DRM. If the author/distributer/publisher decides that the user will not be allowed to copy a work to timeshift it, they can enforce that with DRM. ......
The DRM on DVD's actually prohibits someone from playing a legally owned copy of their DVD on anything other than "approved" hardware. People with Linux based computers, for example, have hardware that would allow them to read DVD's in their drives and play them on their computers. In 1999, a Norwegian teenager named Jon Johansen reverse engineered the encryption on a DVD player he bought so that he could play DVD's on his Linux computer system. He was arrested and DVD Jon became infamous in the linux world for the court battles that law enforcement agencies were bringing against him. ......
Whoever controls DRM is essentially granted patent-like powers. No one can build a DRM player except the people approved by the DRM controlling group. Patents grant the exclusive right to manufacture a device if the device is a new innovation. Patents last 20 years, and then anyone can manufacture that device. ......
DRM grants exclusive manufacturing rights to whoever controls the DRM. And the rights last forever, because the legal protections of DRM do not expire. ......
Secondary issue is that DRM is always technologically based, and technology changes. So, while you may have a vinyl record you bought 30 years ago that you can still play on your turntable, your DRM-enforced files may stop working the next time you have to upgrade your operating system, the next time you buy a new computer, the next time you buy new computer hardware. .....
| Comment Number: |
539814-00044 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:36:58 PM |
| Organization: |
none |
| Commenter: |
cyrille de Brébisson |
| State: |
ID |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I am a computer scientist and do oppose DRM because
1) it can not fulfill it's purpose (protect digital content)
2) the only persons inconvenienced by RDM are the legitimates users
let me develop:
1) DRM can not work because ti attempts at the same time to let the user duplicate the content (music, video, book) in order to display/play it (the file needs to be copied/duplicated from hard drive to the computer main memory), while preventing the user to duplicate it (copying). Technicaly, this is similar to trying to send a secret message from A to B without B being able to see the message. a paradox.
2) in order to attempts to bypass the paradox, DRM users (ie, the company using DRM) have only one choice: build close systems (Apple with the iTune/iPod systems for example), but these have a huge drawback. If the provider goes bust, the user loses access to the content that it paid for. imagine one day going to your bookshelf and discovering that 1/2 your books can not be read anymore because the publisher went bust! This is unaceptable from the user standpoint!
the worst part of the whole scheme is that pirates do not have any problems. they are able to 'crack' the system because of 1) and then they enjoy a version of the media (movie, song, video game...) that is of higher quality because it is not loaded with extra 'non intrusive', but still disturbing extra stuff that 'normal' users have to endure.
Best example are video game where large number of users will buy a legit copy, and never open it, they will instead download a cracked version and use the cracked version because it works better once the DRM has been removed!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00045 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:42:36 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Christopher Meacham |
| State: |
AL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I would like to see a requirement that all software, including audio and video media, have a label on the box which clearly states how intrusive its copy protection software (herein referred to as DRM) is, and how to remove it completely. This requirement would also limit the number of steps to remove the DRM and require that the removal of such DRM be concurrent with the removal of the software. This requirement would also require that the DRM not inhibit the use of the PC for other purposes not related to the software, and that when inhibiting uses related to the software, such inhibition be limited to only times concurrent with usage of the software. And, finally, it would require that no hardware be damaged due to the use of the DRM.
I have been playing PC games since before the original CD was a requirement, thus I have been playing since the first software implementation of DRM. Here are a limited selection of issues that I have had with DRM:
1) A few years ago, my CD writer on my PC stopped writing. I could not seem to fix it. I took it in for repair since it was still under warranty and the technician returned it to me saying that no matter what they did, Roxio (the CD writing software that was originally installed) would not write. Any other software would, but Roxio would not. I later found out that disabling the CD-RW's writing capability when Roxio is running was part of the DRM called StarForce. It was then that I learned that, indeed, DRM in games can destroy the usability of ones PC. I attempted from then on to avoid any games with hidden DRM, but I was mostly unsuccessful because there is no way, currently, to know for sure whether a game includes DRM. Often, the existence of such is intentionally hidden from the user.
2) I own the game "Star Wars: Battlefront 2." This game included SecuRom (which I did not know until the first update was released) and, when updated to the latest, bug-fixed version, it disabled the game on any PC which included a dual core processor and an nVidia GeForce 7800 PCIx Video Card. The only feedback that the game gave to the user was that the game did not have the CD in the drive, even though it did. If I had not been keeping up with gaming news, I would not have known that my only recourse was to contact the distributor of SecuRom. Many never knew this and tried to return their games as defective, though they were not accepted for return, since they had been opened, and ended up in the trash more often than not.
3) I was considering the purchase of a game titled "Mass Effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect#Digital_rights_management) on the PC. I was truly looking forward to this game since I do not intend to purchase the original platform on which it released. Luckily, I found out before its release on the PC that this game had SecuRom included and that it limited installation. If I had not found out beforehand I would not have known because the box does not display anything explaining that fact. I have since chosen not to purchase the game, however, had I been informed through a label on the box, I would have been more likely to purchase it.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00046 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:51:26 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Cohen |
| State: |
MA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM reduces the usability of legally purchased products. For instance, if one purchases a song or movie with DRM, it can only be played on certain specific devices or operating systems. The owner can't listen to it in the car, in his home or office unless he purchases specific (and often inferior) technologies to play the media.
This makes people who would normally be happy to purchase a product likely to look at peer to peer systems to find copies with no DRM, so they can use them in a way the is convenient to them, not to the publisher.
Similarly, DRM on software, especially games, causes additional hassles (like number of times it can be installed, or requiring the use of a CD). If a user needs to upgrade computers, or looses the CD, the software can no longer be used.
Finally, some DRM products use very shady techniques to attempt to secure their product (like the Sony BMG CD DRM debacle).
Games companies that have opted to NOT use DRM have not reported any loss in sales (see Stardock).
Sales of DRM free mp3's have not seen any decrease, and many DRM free experiments have been exceedingly successful (see Nine Inch Nails)
The addition of DRM has not slowed the release of DRM free version of products. Virtually every game or song can be obtained through peer to peer mechanisms.
Based on this, it seems the DRM not only does not work, but makes for inferior or dangerous products. It also seems the publishers who choose NOT to include DRM do not suffer from that decision.
It is my opinion that DRM is the result of a bad business model, and an attitude that your customer is a criminal. It should be abolished.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00047 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 4:58:45 PM |
| Organization: |
The eBook Test blog |
| Commenter: |
Mike Cane |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Digital Rights Management -- commonly known as DRM -- is a hindrance to full-ownership of digital media.
1) It prevents buyers from placing digital media on any compatible device they might own
2) It restricts the number of owned devices such media may reside on
3) It often restricts the kind of device digital media may be placed on. For example, only Kindle-format eBooks can be read on a Kindle eBook reading device.
4) It leaves buyers at the mercy of DRM servers and DRM schemes which might not persist through the full-lifetime of the purchaser.
5) It is antithetical to the entire definition of "purchase." DRM at its worst redefines "ownership" to "ownership at-will."
6) DRM is against the tide of history. Just this week, Apple announced DRM-free music on its iTunes Music Store. This is the way and wave of the future.
7) DRM prevents universal adoption of digital media due to problems with authentication and restriction on types of devices used.
8) DRM is often a way for a company to employ monopolistic practices. It has been said that MobiPocket -- an eBook vendor owned by Amazon -- will not license its technology unless it enjoys sole DRM presence on a device. This is Restraint of Trade because we have had devices -- Palm PDAs and Pocket PCs -- which could simultaneously employ MobiPocket *and* other DRM schemes.
9) DRM is an annoyance to legal purchasers and merely a ridiculous challenge to the technically adept. So far, there has not been a single DRM scheme that has *not* be broken.
DRM is not in the best competitive interests of the United States technology industry, not in the best interests of fostering digital goods, and not in the spirit of what is universally and traditionally known as purchase "ownership."
| Comment Number: |
539814-00048 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:02:47 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Gary Coburn |
| State: |
OH |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
The motto on the FTC's webpage states, "Protecting America's Consumers." In the case of DRM, the consumer is not being protected by the FTC. The consumer is being literally short-changed when buying any media, whether a song, a movie, a game, only to discover that the purchase is crippled by DRM prohibitions on what can legally be done with the product. Portability from one device to another is denied or severely restricted. Archival protection from loss or damage is hampered or prevented. The consumer's "Fair Use" is routinely circumscribed by corporate decisions motivated by fear and/or greed, and the consumer who honestly just wants to enjoy the product he paid for is instead forced to find ways to work around or defeat this insidious abuse of his right to enjoy his purchase.
That DRM does not benefit the corporations and content producers is becoming abundantly evident. With record sales plunging, the large recording companies recently decided to eliminate DRM on music sold by digital music stores including Apple's iTunes. As Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies, a market research firm was recently quoted as saying, "I think the writing was on the wall, both for Apple and the labels, that basically consumers were not going to put up with DRM anymore. This is good news for customers across the board."
Hopefully this revelation will spread to other companies faced with the challenges of digital innovations in the production and distribution of media. For example, book publishers are facing the spread of electronic printing and the growing popularity of various devices for reading ebooks and other print material. Relying on DRM to control the distribution of books or to lock their use to specific proprietary devices is similarly doomed and reflects a business model unwilling or unable to adapt to change. It would be as though publishers had tried to restrict every library to only one copy of each book and required them to charge every patron its full purchase price before they could check it out.
The FTC should take this opportunity to urge hardware manufacturers, publishers, and other media companies to abandon coercive DRM strategies and to recognize, instead, the financial benefits, not to mention goodwill, of enabling greater consumer access to and use of their products.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00048 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:02:47 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Gary Coburn |
| State: |
OH |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
The motto on the FTC's webpage states, "Protecting America's Consumers." In the case of DRM, the consumer is not being protected by the FTC. The consumer is being literally short-changed when buying any media, whether a song, a movie, a game, only to discover that the purchase is crippled by DRM prohibitions on what can legally be done with the product. Portability from one device to another is denied or severely restricted. Archival protection from loss or damage is hampered or prevented. The consumer's "Fair Use" is routinely circumscribed by corporate decisions motivated by fear and/or greed, and the consumer who honestly just wants to enjoy the product he paid for is instead forced to find ways to work around or defeat this insidious abuse of his right to enjoy his purchase.
That DRM does not benefit the corporations and content producers is becoming abundantly evident. With record sales plunging, the large recording companies recently decided to eliminate DRM on music sold by digital music stores including Apple's iTunes. As Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies, a market research firm was recently quoted as saying, "I think the writing was on the wall, both for Apple and the labels, that basically consumers were not going to put up with DRM anymore. This is good news for customers across the board."
Hopefully this revelation will spread to other companies faced with the challenges of digital innovations in the production and distribution of media. For example, book publishers are facing the spread of electronic printing and the growing popularity of various devices for reading ebooks and other print material. Relying on DRM to control the distribution of books or to lock their use to specific proprietary devices is similarly doomed and reflects a business model unwilling or unable to adapt to change. It would be as though publishers had tried to restrict every library to only one copy of each book and required them to charge every patron its full purchase price before they could check it out.
The FTC should take this opportunity to urge hardware manufacturers, publishers, and other media companies to abandon coercive DRM strategies and to recognize, instead, the financial benefits, not to mention goodwill, of enabling greater consumer access to and use of their products.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00050 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:06:24 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
J Gurley |
| State: |
NV |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
It is my firm belief that DRM is currently on a course for drastic privacy invasion and is giving Corporations unjust cause for frivolous lawsuits against their consumers. What I do with a file once it has been purchased and downloaded to my computer should be my own business. I should have the right to backup and protect my investment. Also, my computer is not a place for companies to track my activities concerning purchased songs/software/updates
Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00051 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:06:52 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jeremy Smith |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM limits the fair use of products. It removes the right of first sale, among other violations. Therefore, any product including DRM cannot truly be "sold" - it can only be licensed or rented. As long as the product is unable to be used independently of the provider, it should not be legal to call the acquisition of the product a "sale". There should be requirements to prominently display the limitations of a DRM-encumbered product on the packaging, and to refer to the the transaction as something other than a sale - for example, a license or a rental.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00052 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:08:12 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Rick VanGessel |
| State: |
MI |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
While I do not believe DRM is good for the consumer and does nothing to stop piracy, I do not have a problem with them placing it on their products as long as it is mentioned on the packaging in an easy to find and understand form. Also, the companies that chose to use DRM should have to place the type of DRM used on the outside of the packaging as well. I have a few games that sit opened and uninstalled because I found out, after making the purchase, they contain a certain type of DRM that I will not install on my computer. I am unable to return the games to the store as they are opened and the publisher/creators will not take them back either. Now I do not buy music or games without first extensively researching the type of DRM the product uses on the web. Distributors do not realize that this stops impulse buying and makes the money they spend on packaging useless. No amount of cool graphics and mouth-watering game description will make me buy a product, even though I may want to because it looks cool, until I do my research. Often it is too much work and I just go without. For consumer protection and to be able to make an informed decision on a purchase, the inclusion of DRM and its type should be included on the packaging.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00053 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:25:24 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Kobin Kendrick |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I just have one brief comment, which I'm sure others will voice as well. Current DRM schemes do not allow consumers to resell or give away purchased content. This is an entirely unfair practice. If, for example, I decide to buy a digital copy of a film, I should have the same or analogous rights as I would if it were a DVD. I should be able to give it to a friend or sell it on eBay. Until the government forces content provides to allow such uses of purchased content, corporations will continue to limit consumer rights -- and I for one will spend money on digital content.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00054 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 5:39:36 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Jean-Philippe D. Leighton |
| State: |
Outside the United States |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
As a consumer, I have no problem purchasing a piece of software and respecting the developers in doing so. There are some forms of DRM that I actually accept and endorse. One prime example is the Steam platform (http://steampowered.com). Steam immediately ties your purchases to an online account. The most major restriction to Steam is that any piece of software purchased is tied to one account only.
SecuROM DRM at its worst allows me to install a game only 3-5 times. Even with the "de-authorization tool" it is still very possible that the end user could end up not being able to utilize the software purchased. One example where the de-authorization tool becomes useless is when a user's computer becomes defective and the computer's hard drive must be re-formatted. Also if I change once piece of hardware in my computer, I must uninstall the game before doing so. Then I must re-install the game after the new piece(s) of hardware are installed. If I do not do this, I lose an activation, and the game ceases to work until I use a new activation.
With Steam I am capable of installing my purchased software at any time, at any place provided that I have an internet connection and access to my Steam account. Steam even provides the tools to back up games on a disk. So in the future, I may install the game without having to download the software.
As consumers we are only willing to take a certain amount of "flak" from the software developers. Those who treat legitimate customers like pirates, and enforce too many restrictions actually make the problem worse. To me it is much easier to simply illegally download a piece of software then to purchase and install a piece of software containing restrictive DRM.
Let it also be known that the internet is sparking a social revolution that has not been seen to date. Never before has information been so freely accessible. Never before has it been so easy to distribute a piece of information to millions of people. Steam as DRM actually embraces the easy distribution and acquisition of information that the internet provides. Of course you couldn't categorize software purchased on Steam as free, but the Steam platform offers more then just DRM. It's easy to use, I can use it to communicate with other players, and I can freely access any software that I had previously purchased with little or no trouble at all.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00055 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:32:02 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Josh DuBois |
| State: |
MN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I am writing to encourage the FTC to minimize the extent to which companies are able to control content through DRM. I don't like the control that DRM allows. I am in favor of paying artists for their work, but I believe I should have the right to own a work and re-sell it once I have bought it, and that I have the right to listen to my music and view my movies on multiple devices and make reasonable, personal copies to do so. I think that artists have the artistic right to sample from other artists in order to create new art which incorporates snippets of other created works.
I don't think that draconian penalties for people who violate copyright or circumvent DRM technologies are appropriate. I believe that penalties for copyright violations or DRM circumvention must be reasonably tied to the actual economic damage suffered by the injured party, and not primarily designed to punish.
Thank you,
Josh DuBois
| Comment Number: |
539814-00056 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:32:24 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Aaron L |
| State: |
NV |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Generally speaking, I feel as though DRM is intrusive and causes problems for me as a consumer. I can certainly appreciate that businesses want to keep their intellectual property safe, as I work in the software industry myself.
That said, tying DRM to a base product (CD, DVD, video game) is only going to cause heartache to responsible legitimate customers, as it already has in many cases including Spore, the Sony CD rootkit fiasco, and others. Usually, it also interferes with my ability to view or access the media I've purchased on the devices I want to access it on. Movie DVDs can't legally be played in a Linux PC, for instance.
DRM hurts legitimate customers and does virtually nothing to curb piracy. My suggestion to most publishers would be to stop hurting their customers and to offer additional content for registration (patches, music videos, whatever). There are a few companies out there that do this now to varied success.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00057 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:33:16 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Chan |
| State: |
OR |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I am strongly in favor of media and content providers getting compensated for their intellectual property. If someone creates something of value to me, I'm willing to pay for it.
I am strongly opposed to DRM technologies. DRM-locked music is a case in point. I can purchase a music CD and play it in my car or at my friend's house. I can lend it to a friend, back it up in case of damage, and even sell it. I can put it on my iPod or iPhone, and move it to a different MP3 player if I decide to give up on Apple. I can even continue to enjoy playing the CD if the issuing label goes out of business.
All of this freedom helps me spread the word and generate enthusiasm for the music. This helps content providers by driving additional sales.
DRM-locked music prevents nearly all of these things. I will never purchase DRM-controlled content, as it reduces my rights as a consumer and fundamentally damages the business model that keeps the entertainment industry alive.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00058 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:40:09 PM |
| Organization: |
none |
| Commenter: |
david rausch |
| State: |
CO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
all digital files should state what extra code is added for copyright protection.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00059 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:40:36 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Roy Paddock |
| State: |
PA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Digital Rights Management (DRM) and its implementation in today's technological devices.
I am not, in any sense, a fan of DRM. It is quite often implemented poorly and with little to no regard for the end user. Such an instance can be seen in the Spore PC game from last year. The game installed a virus-like program without the users knowledge. The same can be said of Sony Music's attempt a few years back which rendered a number of user PCs crippled or inoperable with its rootkit software.
Even when DRM is implemented well, such as in Apple's iTunes content, it still reduces consumer choice. If I want to play a legally purchased video from iTunes on a non-Apple approved device, I would have to break the law, as removing or disabling any sort of DRM is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Leaving alone the fact that the DMCA is a horrible law, it is still a law and as such turns well meaning users into criminals merely for watching their iTunes video on their Zune or Blackberry.
In short, DRM is an abhorrent practice which allows unelected, unaccountable content creators to legislate the behavior of the general public without oversight or recourse.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00060 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:42:38 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Will Reisgies |
| State: |
TX |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
At an absolute minimum, any company selling software that includes any form of DRM restriction should be legally required to have an removal patch built and ready for deployment, BEFORE they are allowed to sell said software.
Since all DRM requires that the end user connect to an authorization server in order for the software to function, the software's ability to function is dependant entirely on the authorization servers remaining active and fully operational. As has happened in the past, however, the sudden inoperation of these servers can cause the software to become completely useless to every consumer who purchased it, whether that was a year before the servers went down or an hour before.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00061 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 6:52:28 PM |
| Organization: |
Computer Sales and Service |
| Commenter: |
Shahab Babakhani |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I just wanted to weigh in on the subject of DRM, or "digital rights management", being used in a variety of digital mediums. I believe this software only serves to limit consumer's rights, not to protect publisher's rights.
One thing that is very important to look at in this matter is piracy. Let us look at computer games, an industry in which there is a lot of compliant about piracy hurting publisher's bottom line. They claim that DRM is needed to counter this. But why does every new release get cracked and released online within hours of its retail release? Many times these DRM infested games are available for pirating BEFORE the game ever hits store shelves.
These companies are not stupid, they know that their DRM does nothing to stop piracy. So why do they continue to include it? I believe their goal all along has been to stifle the second hand market. Second sale is a right that publishers have long wanted to eliminate, even going to court over it. Having to input a separate serial key that is easily lost, requiring registration, and limited installs are all very good ways to make it very hard to resell your game when you are done with it. Look at Spore, you will find it very hard to find a used copy and even if you did would want to take a gamble and hope that there were still installs left?
I work with computers for a living and when a game I install starts to "phone home" so to speak every 15 mintues while I am playing in order to validate what I am doing and how, well that sounds a lot like spyware to me, the same spyware I get paid to remove from people's computers on a daily basis.
Please do not be fooled by the industry's cry of piracy. Piracy has been going on since before 5.25" floppies. It will continue to go on. You can only limit it. To do that you only require that a disc can not be casually copied, and a disc check to make sure the disc is in the drive. Anything else is over the line and not about piracy at all, but about restricting right to second sale.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. I love computers and the software that is published for them. I gladly pay for the software I use and love and while I support the men and women that develop this software, I despise the industry that has decided to squeeze every last penny it can out of the end user at the expense of the end user's rights. To be sure, there are a few exceptions out there, most notably Star Dock, but the rest need some regulation.
Sincerly,
Shahab Babakhani
Computer Sales and Service
| Comment Number: |
539814-00062 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 7:14:05 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Anderson |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
In this situation, the market is working well and government regulation is unnecessary. DRM is a brilliant invention for separating fools, both consumers and multinationals, from their money and has done wonders for the health of the entertainment industry in the United States.
A CD player is not a chainsaw - a few defective ones won't hurt anyone. One can always buy a new one. Let this nonsense die a quick death and don't prolong the agony.
Sharing is caring,
NA
| Comment Number: |
539814-00063 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 7:16:00 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Scott Wild |
| State: |
WA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I enjoy my digital media. Unfortunately, all DRM does is prevent me from using purchased media freely. It makes using media a large headache, even though I'm using it legally. Unfortunately, DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. While I try to work around the intricacies of DRM, sharing networks are filled with DRM-Free media that is easier to obtain and work with than legally acquired media.
When it is actually easier for me too use pirated music and video, DRM becomes a pointless headache.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00064 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 7:17:53 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Benjamin Granzeau |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
To whom it may concern,
My name is Benjamin "Gonzo" Granzeau. I am a systems engineer by trade, but a computer gamer by hobby. I have been involved in the gaming community since my early years. I am writing concerning "DRM Town Hall – Comment, Project No. P094502". I wish to voice my dissatisfaction with DRM protected products.
In particular, some computer games have particularly onerous EULA's and DRM embedded within them. These companies embed DRM into their product to protect their development from computer piracy, which can be understandable. However, who are you protecting? The consumer is unable to return these products to the store once they are opened, due to fear of computer piracy. Also, while Internet access is almost universal amongst gamers, it might not always be immediately available due to technical limitations. Or what about companies that go under, leaving their customers stranded with useless data that is inaccessible due to DRM.
So what types of piracy are being prevented through the use of DRM? Most popular computer games are 'cracked', or had their copy protected broken, within hours of their release. So DRM does not stop online versions from spreading across the network, free for all who download them. You're not stopping those copies from being spread on the street corner. You are not stopping the pirates in foreign countries. You are not stopping the real criminals here.
DRM does stop the passive pirate, the person who makes a copy for a friend. However, these people often find the 'cracks' out on the internet, while maybe infecting themselves in viruses or botnets in the process, maybe leading to a crash on the computer. However, the passive pirate originally purchased the product. And now their friend might be infected with spyware or key loggers, all trying to show that friend a game that they are interested in. Does this lead to greater sales of the game? This is unlikely because who wants to use a product that caused a computer to crash. What sort of loss of revenue does a reputable and independent source say this leads to? How many users? 10%? 1%? 0.5%?
DRM does stop consumers. This can be due to bugs in the code. This can be due to the DRM provider's server being down. This can be due to another piece of software on the machine being on the DRM's black list. This can even be due to buying the wrong style of CD drive. I know this because I have run into these exact problems in games I have spent money on, most recently a product called Spore by EA Games. I had a laptop freeze in the middle of a presentation because of video DRM. Now, this doesn't lead to a loss of revenue, because I cannot return this game or get someone to pay for my broken presentation, though I might tell a friend how bad the DRM is. But how many users does this affect? 0.5%? 1%? 10%? 50%?
What about 100% in some cases? When companies go under, who should care about the customers affected? What if they have games that cease to function, if their music is unplayable, if they have no recourse in losing their ability to use a product? The people who should be caring are the companies involved, but that is obviously not the case. And the last thing I want to do when I get home and just want to play a game is fight my computer because my software thinks I'm a pirate.
It is my opinion that DRM should be limited and restricted, if not discontinued. It is invasive of user's privacy, affects a user's computer operations, and can even lead to major problems for users, all for the cause of the misconception that DRM prevent privacy losses. In fact, it can lead to bad reviews, bad user experiences, and even loss of the product's use entirely.
Please protect the consumer from the scourge of DRM. Protect the little guy.
Thank you, and good luck with your task.
Sincerely,
Benjamin "Gonzo" Granzeau
| Comment Number: |
539814-00065 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 7:29:51 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Wade Burchette |
| State: |
NC |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
There is a simple immutable fact: DRM is ineffective. Any DRM scheme is always cracked. Always. Piracy is not affected by DRM, but innocent consumers are. We cannot make legal copies of our purchased product thanks to the DMCA. In my case, I have actually started to boycott companies who use restrictive DRM. I am not alone. Many have started to boycott these companies too.
The only pro-consumer decision is to ban DRM in all forms. I realize video game, movie, and record companies will not agree. But they are use outmoded thinking. And their thinking starts by blaming everybody and everything except themselves. They will argue that DRM helps to stop piracy, but a quick look on the internet will prove how wrong they are.
I am boycotting companies, such as Electronic Arts, who treat their consumers like dirt. I am boycotting any company that assumes I am criminal just waiting to steal. I am boycotting any company that assumes I am guilty until proven innocent. DRM is all those bad things. It is time to put individual rights over corporate rights. It is time to ban DRM.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00066 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 7:57:23 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Brian Bancroft |
| State: |
Outside the United States |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Good day, while this is an American matter, the choice makes will have effects which will change the way I do business.
I have nothing important or personal to include, except an opinion of a successful American book publishing company which is known for having DVD's in some of their hardbound books which they encourage to share with friends.
This is where their rant is, alongside their own free electronic library of popular titles which also are for sale
http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm
I sincerely hope someone reads this.
Thank you for allowing my opinion, despite having only foreign citizenship
| Comment Number: |
539814-00067 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 8:18:25 PM |
| Organization: |
United States Air Force |
| Commenter: |
Cotonio |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
First, thank you for allowing submissions from the general public on this topic with such an easy to use format. It's imperative that citizens be allowed a voice on such an important issue, and I'm quite pleased to see your efforts into setting that up.
DRM (Digital Rights Management) enforcement by the media and gaming industries is a farce at best. It makes next to no impact on "pirates". In fact, pirates in almost all cases end up providing a higher quality product for the average consumer. DRM is only restrictive to an honest, cash-paying customer. In many cases, DRM restricts the number or type of devices I legally own from legally utilizing that product, or denies me from using it altogether. For instance, with Apple media products I am restricted to 5 computer systems total (or less), and also only to certain brand names of systems. But if I were to purchase the music on a CD, I can play it on any device meeting the CD-Audio standard without any restrictions whatsoever. Yet, if I simply download that same product from a "pirate" resource, I have no restrictions of any type -- I can play that music on nearly any device.
For TV shows and movies, DRM is even more restrictive! At least with music from iTunes or Amazon, I'm allowed to burn a CD of that music (with some new DRM restrictions), but not with any TV shows or movies from any download-capable media outlet. If you "purchase" (and I use that word in quotes because it's a farce) a TV show from iTunes, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, or Amazon, you cannot play it except on very very few select devices. Sometimes only 1 device at all, and those devices are completely different for each competitor. This is not the case if I download a product from a "pirate" website -- nearly all devices (Mac, Windows computers, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, etc) all play non-DRM files with ease.
Finally, with almost all video games today, the DRM restriction not only cripples your ability to actually use the product in some cases, but it prevents reinstalls if your computer fails and you have to put it on a new hard drive or computer. For instance, many DRM restrictions now require an internet connection to authorize your play. Without this, you cannot play the game you purchased. This happened with a game I bought at the BX while deployed in Iraq. I legally purchased it, and could not use it because I required a non-military internet connection in order to play, when it CLEARLY was a non-internet enabled game and made NO mention of requiring the connection to play. To make the situation worse, because the software was now opened --- I could not return it. My only solution was to get a "cracked" version of the game from a friend...who downloaded it from a "pirate" website. Once again, the pirated version was of higher quality than the legal product.
Finally, the common theme with all of these systems is that DRM disallows "The Doctrine of First Sale" for copyrighted material. There's no way to remove a movie from your Xbox and sell it to a friend, though you could legally do that with a DVD. There's no way to remove a DRM-restricted music file from iTunes and sell it; it's not possible without cracking it, which is supposedly disallowed by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
This must stop! When a citizen purchases a product, it should be theirs to do what they wish within legal boundaries! I should be able to legally resell the product, like I can with anything else in my home! I should be able to play it on any capable device, and not be restricted because of monopolistic handshake agreements between companies!
Without action soon, "pirates" will continue to provide the product that consumers want --- even though they would prefer to be honest and purchase the product, rather than violate copyright by downloading from a torrent site. I implore you to take action, and provide an agreement that satisfies customers and companies alike. Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00068 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 10:28:01 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
William McHale |
| State: |
MD |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I welcome this opportunity to comment on an issue I feel has the potential to do a great disservice to not only to American consumers, but also to America as a whole.
The Constitution grants Congress the right to set, for a limited period, certain rights to use and profit from ideas via copyrights and patents. However, starting with the First Amendment, these rights have been limited by the concept of "Fair Use" where individuals, or even groups may make certain use copyrighted materials without infringing on the copyrights of the original authors.
This doctrine of fair use has been maintained for more than 200 years and until recently technology has helped broaden how individuals could exercise their right to fair use. Unfortunately, now technology, in the form of DRM is effectively stripping Fair Use rights from users of technology. Up until recently, buying a copy of a book, or a movie or a piece of music meant that you were only limited by the law in how you could use that copy of the media; you could lend it to family or friends, or in the case of movies and music, you could listen to it on the device of your choosing. Now, unfortunately, music, movies and even books (in electronic form) are being tied to specific devices. Unfortunately, it is not even always clear at the time purchase of said media (specifically with respect to movies on DVD) whether said media can even be played on the devices the consumer already owns.
Now, the questions is what benefit do companies actually gain from implementing DRM? The most compelling argument for DRM is that it stops or at least restricts piracy of copyrighted material and therefore maintained the incentive necessary for the production of new material. If such was actually the case, then one might concede that cost of DRM actually was worth the benefit. Unfortunately, even a casual examination of the internet can show that almost any media one could want can be obtained illegitimately via peer-to-peer networks. Further, as a computer professional, I can attest that any DRM scheme, that still allows the end user to access the material, can be circumvented by a group dedicated programmers. Even if perfect DRM was possible, lower quality copies could still be made through other means. Thus, tech savvy pirates will never be stopped by any sort of DRM and since the profit motivation of pirates is great, they will always end up being tech savvy in the end.
Ultimately, the only real benefit that is gained by the producers of copyrighted material is the limitation it places on consumers. DRM'd music, movies and ebooks, all but guarantees that shelf life of a particular product they sell will be limited to device it is sold for and it greatly limits the ability to share that material with others. The problem is that these gains are an erosion of "Fair Use". These gains also cost the consumer real money as they must often buy new hardware should they wish to view newer material (since, for example, newer DVDs don't always play in older DVD players because of DRM).
What is worse is that the erosion of "Fair Use" and other actions by the producers of media are such that the perceived cost of media has risen to such a degree that an entire generation of people are starting to believe that circumventing DRM and/or downloading illegal copies is perfectly acceptable. By maintaining laws that are seen as such a burden by the common citizen, our nation is establishing a citizenry who has little respect for copyright law or potentially any law.
Please do not misunderstand me; I am for the vigorous defense of reasonable copyright laws; unfortunately current laws are not reasonable and as such are becoming a serious burden to the very people whom those laws claim to serve.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00069 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:02:51 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joel Coldren |
| State: |
NC |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is a severe inconvenience to honest consumers. I am opposed to DRM, and as a paying consumer, I do not support products encumbered with DRM. Federal regulations which enforce or support DRM work intrinsically against the free market and against honest consumers. I strongly urge the FTC to support honest consumers and refuse to support DRM.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00070 |
| Received: |
1/7/2009 11:29:15 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Lucy Kemnitzer |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I discovered that securom had made the system files on my computer invisible to me, even though I had set them to be visible. This made removing the securom files from my computer very difficult! It also left me much more vulnerable to other potential threats from viruses and other malware. Once I did succeed in removing securom, I was again able to see what is on my own computer.
I don't think it's right for a game to pre-empt my own authority over my computer, and I don't think it's right for a game to make my computer less safe from malware. I especially don't think it's right for a game to act like malware!
It's also insulting for EA to behave as if its loyal customers are vicious criminals just waiting to steal something from them as soon as they get the chance.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00071 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 12:02:05 AM |
| Organization: |
NYCResistor |
| Commenter: |
Matthew Joyce |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM runs counter the the governing principles by which copyright is laid out in the constitution. It represents a proven methodology by which innovation in our nation is victimized by unethical business practices. It provides no valuable contribution to artists or designers in so far as it ultimately works against the rights of the consumer and degrades the value of their product and their name over time. It is my very sincere hope that DRM can be outlawed in our life time. As it stands it has directly victimized thousands and stands to victimize millions more as digital media content providers lean on it more and more. Companies fold, and products reach end of life. But art is a timeless product of ingenuity. Consumer products should not be tied directly to the stability of a company and it's services at the risk of them losing that which they paid for in good faith. But, the problems with DRM extend far beyond digital content delivery, and challenge the ability for engineers to improve upon and augment others technical achievements, leaving us at a severe economic disadvantage in the global market place. Additionally increased legislature that places an insurmountable legal burden upon small businesses will wring the death knell for the inventor and tinkerer's workshop. This sadly jeopardizes our stance as the worldwide leader in innovation. And that, is an unconstitutional application of copyright protection, which is to say nothing of it's basic lack of merit.
Please stand up to piss poor legislation. It is in all of our best interest, even the people advocating for it, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00072 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 1:47:12 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Elle Plato |
| State: |
WI |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Around 2001 I purchased 6 DVDs of Sex in the City to watch on my computer and was unable to play them, because MacroVision required software DVD players to ensure the return value of a function called "AnalogTVOut" was set to disabled, but my particular video card did not have an analog TV output, and hence this function could not be disabled, even though the video was not capable of playing video to any external device. The vendor had not mentioned this on the support site for my video card, but it was mentioned in the support forums once the problem appeared and I knew to look for it. In the end, I had to buy a television set and a DVD player, since I did not own either, just to watch six DVDs I had legally purchased.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00073 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 2:01:10 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Debbie Hadden |
| State: |
GA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I am an avid Sims2 player who is very upset about SecuRom being placed on my computer without my knowledge. My computer was damaged to the point of having to be replaced. My CD/DVD drive failed to respond, it attacked my virus scan program and made my Windows XP inoperable. Even though I removed it from the machine per their instructions, the damage was already done. I have spent a great deal of money on EA games and I think it is an outrage that they have caused so many problems for their loyal fans. I will never install a game containing SecuRom on my new computer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00074 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 6:39:20 AM |
| Organization: |
Lappeenranta University of Technology |
| Commenter: |
Hosia |
| State: |
Outside the United States |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Even the header is wrong, it should be "Digital Restrictions Management Technologies "
Standard procedure is to build a web shop to sell music, find after a year that not enought music is sold, shut down operations and leave anybody who bought something without music, essentially stealing the stuff they bought. Fraud, by other name. Claim that you sell just a licence to listen music, is invented afterwards. Every one of existing web shops is selling pieces of music, not licenses.
This kind of business making is obviously illegal if you are selling small consumer goods, why it is legal when selling bits?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00075 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 8:25:06 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Cody Sims |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
To Whom It May Concern:
As, I am afraid, it is with many "security" measures, DRM protocols do little to deter those who wish to pirate media while sorely inconveniencing the average, and might I say widespread, user. Those who, like myself, wish to strip the DRM from a file can most certainly do so with great ease. It takes only one person with some ingenuity to find out the mechanism for turning a DRMed movie into a personal digital copy, free from restriction. As it is with computer infections, it has become blaringly apparent that rather than attempting to inexplicably lock down a system, a more knowledgeable user base is more safe for everyone. One knowing not to launch some suspect piece of software will keep a system safer and more egalitarian than all the "iron bars" any corporation or similar entity can concoct. If one needs proof of such, they need only look at the speed and ease in cracking the codes for ripping HD-DVD's, found shortly after the release of the same. Bad business plans hurt consumers, by treating them like criminals, and businesses, by initiating a battle they are sure to lose. The best protocols are always open ones. We do a great many positive things working together, but a sight less when we are competitively racing towards the end.
Thank you
| Comment Number: |
539814-00076 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 9:26:17 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Daniel Longwing |
| State: |
MD |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Please stop calling it Digital Rights Management. The term is Digital Restrictions Management. The companies that developed it called it Digital Restrictions Management, the companies that use it call it Digital Restrictions Management, and the people who see their ownership rights stripped away call it Digital Restrictions Management.
Only two groups call DRM Digital Rights Management: The PR firms trying to sell the technologies to the public, and the public who hasn't yet seen the products they own stripped away from them by restrictive technologies.
When RIAA and the EFF can agree that the term is Digital Restrictions Management, isn't it time to acknowledge the truth of the situation?
| Comment Number: |
539814-00077 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 9:46:08 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Rob Compton |
| State: |
MO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is being used to prevent an owner of a product to exercise the rights they are granted by the purchase of the product. Many users prefer to use the back up copy of a movie or a music cd and keep the original safe from harm. Think of all the cd's in your car that have become scratched.
More importantly the use of DRM and what the tools to implement it are becoming more intrusive. Some computers will only display movies on certain "protected" video ports requiring the purchase of newer monitors .. etc... not that the monitor you have now is not capable of displaying the image.. but it is not compatible with the DRM that it is "protected" with
| Comment Number: |
539814-00078 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 9:47:28 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Eric Lambert |
| State: |
MO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I would like to see addressed the effect DRM has had or will have on First Sale Doctrine. Newer versions of common DRM schemes involve a limited number of required online verifications, which effectively prevents consumers from reselling the software they have legally purchased.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00079 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 10:06:45 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Keanon Liggatt |
| State: |
MO |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is unfair and a hindrance to maintaining a music collection. Data loss is far more common than physical loss of media, and the difficulty in managing a DRM'd collection makes the dangers of collection loss even greater. I am not a fan.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00080 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 10:08:59 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Carter Chamberlin |
| State: |
NH |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Like many folks, I have taken many VHS home movies of my children over the years. Wanting to avoid degredation of the tapes, as is often publicized, I undertook to dub them onto DVDs to preserve the material. I purchased a typical dual-deck device, as sold in many many 'normal' retail outlets, to accomplish this. Suprisingly, the DVD recorder claimed that a number of my home movies were 'copyrighted material' and would not record them onto DVD, no matter how many times I tried. I have spoken with other people, undertaking similar projects, to whom this has happened. This type of false-positive identification/accusation is particularly destructive in my situation, as I am left with very few options to digitally preserve the movies that I shot myself. Apparently, the overzealous 'protection' methods employed in today's technology are not without innocent victims.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00081 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 10:34:11 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
McKay |
| State: |
ID |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Upon installing Command and Conquer 3 Kane's Wrath on my Windows Vista Home Premium latop and the update from EA any time I right clicked on anything I would get an explorer crash error. It took 6hrs to find out that the issue was caused by SecuRom included in the update from EA. I did not find this info out from EA either. To fix the issue EA issued another patch, which didn't fix the issue. The only way I could fix the issue was to download a third party app to stop the auto startup of the SecuRom, then delete a SecuRom file, and uninstall the game, as I couldn't run the game without SecuRom adding everything I had just undone back to the startup.
This is the problem with DRM "schemes", yes to me it is a scheme. Whether it's music, CD's, DVD's, Games, or anything else, DRM ADDS MORE FRUSTRATION TO THE USER WHO PAYS, NOT THE PIRATE. Want to play your new MP3, or WMA, or AAC music on more than just your computer, sorry you have to jump through hoops. Want to Rip a DVD to your harddrive so you can stream it, or Encode it to play on a portable device, sorry again jump through hoops.
I paid for it once, why do I have to pay more, or have problems with my computer to do what I want with it? EA won't pay to have the computer fixed, yet alone even admit and make it well known that the problem was with SecuRom. Yet I waste 6hrs of my time trying to fix it. These are my problems with DRM. Please make it better for the people who do pay for the items. Stop making it a waste of money, or a lost sale, I have a hard time spending money on PC games now due to the DRM.
Thank you.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00082 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 10:39:05 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Jason Sherman |
| State: |
OK |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
As a consumer, I am concerned about DRM schemes involving internet-based authentication of software for which network connectivity would not otherwise be required. DRM-encrusted PC software often must connect to a publisher's servers periodically in order to verify the authenticity of the software. The DMCA forbids me from circumventing this process, but what happens when the publisher suffers from network outages or shuts down its authentication servers?
These companies have no legal obligation to maintain their servers once they are no longer financially viable. They are under no compulsion to release a patch that allows consumers to lawfully bypass the authentication system after they have shut it down. PC software that I purchased over a decade ago still functions just as it did then, even though its publishers may be long gone. Software that I buy today is guaranteed to function only for as long as the publisher wishes to maintain the infrastructure which exists solely to ensure that I have not stolen from them.
I strongly believe that software developers and publishers have the right to protect their creations, but I also believe that the problems with many current DRM schemes are due to an inequity in the law that offers many protections for the software industry, but few for the consumer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00083 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 11:20:45 AM |
| Organization: |
none - disabled citizen |
| Commenter: |
Douglas Sterrett |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRm is an unwanted affront to the ideals of American citizenship.
DRM is anattempt to destroy copyright freedoms meant to be
enjoyed by us, the ordinary citizens of the U.S.
Privacy violations, erosion of freedom of expression and
other deliberate effects of the strangleholders of creative and
artistic expression need to be reversed.
Anyone using DRM should be charged with public crimes and
subjected to all the penalities and restrictions that RIAA, MMPA,
etc. dream of using to destroy consumer lives.
Bad government ! T0 allow usurptation of our rights is horrible.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00084 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 11:25:25 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joshua Smeltser |
| State: |
IA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM is nothing more than a hinderance to those of us who attempt to remain on the legal side of the copyright line. It can easily be broken by scofflaws who obtain media by non-legal sources.
I purchased music through iTunes which became completely unplayable when I switched from Windows to Linux. The only way to play this music was now to break the DRM.
Who is served by this???
| Comment Number: |
539814-00085 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 11:45:36 AM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Douglas Henke |
| State: |
TX |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
539814-00085.pdf |
Comments:
Please see attached text.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00086 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 12:44:49 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Mike Trainor |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
The scope of DRM as addressed in this forum is wrong and can only lead to poor long term decisions.
As with any solid legal framework, you must always start at the fundamental level and expand outwards. You are starting with an ad hoc commercial problem (the periphery).
This forum SHOULD NOT be from a perspective of "How can companies protect their profits". Instead it should start from questions like "What is data?" (hint: it isn't just digital), "What are the rules that determine ownership?", and "Upon what basis can can data access be limited?".
This forum seems to seek to determine the solution before defining the problem. Ask yourself, "What have I purchased when I have purchased a CD?"
Any set of rules needs to be consistent and cohesive no matter what the data is. The data might be my DNA sequence, entertainment media, my biometric data, my travel records, paintings, song lyrics, etc. As technology progresses, these areas cannot be separated.
Right now we have a mess. We have EULAs which are draconian but unread, we have people being sued by their own record companies because they sound too much like themselves, and people patenting other people's DNA.
If you attack this problem only on behalf of commercial entities, you will continue to have the same conflict. Citizens will be in a war with commercial entities and "All's fair in love and war".
| Comment Number: |
539814-00087 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 1:31:04 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Glen Self |
| State: |
VA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
If I purchase content it is nobody's business what device I view it on.
All DRM should be made illegal. It does nothing to stop pirates, it only causes problems for legitimate users.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00088 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 1:36:07 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Andrew Spence |
| State: |
TX |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I don't mind DRM in general and think that is is not entirely a bad thing. Where I draw the line is when a company doesn't tell me about it in advance and when I find out about it I cannot uninstall it. I installed Spore before I knew about the DRM and then spent 20 hours on the phone with EA and still cannot get the DRM off my machine. I finally reformatted my hard drive to get rid of it and I will no longer install an EA product.
Hidden DRM hurts the industry and promotes piracy. If everyone was forthcoming about it and gave us a way to uninstall it if we wanted it removed I would have no problem personally installing it on any of my machines.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00089 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 1:43:53 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
James Kennedy |
| State: |
MI |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
I am strongly opposed to Digital Rights Management. After the consumer purchases music or video from a vendor, they should be allowed to do what they wish with that material. I recently changed my media player program from iTunes to VLC, because iTunes was a huge drain on my older computer. However, when I switched I lost several albums worth of music, and several television shows I purchased from Apple, because I was no longer using their software. DRM restricts legitimate customers--i.e. the people who actually buy their content from vendors. It doesn't stop piracy, almost as soon as one of these media companies devises a new encryption for their media, it's already decryptable. DRM doesn't hurt the illegal torrenters or pirates--at the most it's a mild inconvenience for them. It hurts the average consumer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00090 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 3:21:21 PM |
| Organization: |
N/A |
| Commenter: |
Jason Robinson |
| State: |
ID |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Use of DRM is a way to fool a consumer into thinking they "purchased" a product, when in fact they have only an extremely limited use "rental" of the product under very specific rules that they are not made aware of at the time of purchase.
If DRM equipped items like AAC songs (iTunes) or encrypted & region restricted DVDs were sold with IT support staff and lawyers to help explain exactly how, on what devices, when, and where the consumer could make use of this product rental, then the items would not sell.
So instead, companies have taken to obscuring the restrictions, stretching the truth about the potential uses, and limiting the consumers use of the product in order to maximize their perceived profit. This serves to confuse consumers who then get angry when they find out that the songs, for example, they purchased cannot actually be played on a different device on in a different manor than expressly indicated solely because of corporate agreements and technical efforts at vendor lock in.
This has created an entire industry of "unlocking" or "cracking" where by consumers attempt to make use of their perceived purchase by jumping through hoops of workarounds, transcoders, and hacks to make use of the product in the manor they initially wanted to, but were unaware was not expressly part of the providers corporate strategy. These efforts are then branded as "illegal" by indecipherable legislation passed by ignorant legislators written by the content providers to help protect perceived market share and profit margins.
All of these creates incredible waste in the economy where by people waste money on duplicate "purchases" of products and waste time attempting to figure out the narrow set of devices compatible with the rented media they wanted to consume.
Evidence of the popularity of open media need be found no further than a common MP3 music player, which in addition to the producer's own proprietary DRM equipped format, is certain to support the unhindered MP3 format. Why? Because were a device to not support MP3 playback, it would be virtually useless to all consumers due to the unreasonable restrictions placed on the producer's desired DRM format.
An example of an industry that functions with out DRM is the national highway system. With relatively simple guidelines for width, weight, speed, and a few other guidelines, any manufacturer can build cars that will function on the nation's highways. If highways were like technology, then each person would need to own a unique vehicle for each state they wanted to drive through, because each state would have different requirements for vehicles to be able to travel on their roads. A car from California would be too wide to drive down an Oregon road, and would need either a duplicate road system to accommodate its use, or the owner would need to rent a compatible vehicle at the border in order to travel inside of Oregon.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00091 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 4:41:32 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Brandon Ghigliotty |
| State: |
NM |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
A consumer should never have to choose to compromise the security of his or her personal computer to be able to enjoy entertainment they have legally obtained. There should be regulations as to the access DRM systems have to a consumer's personal computer.
In my opinion, DRM is less of a deterrent to illegal practices and more of a deterrent to potential sales. This is evident in the fact that if someone has their intention set on illegally obtaining entertainment, they will accomplish their goal. However, someone who sees invasive and/or harmful DRM will not purchase a product.
If companies producing and/or utilizing DRM in their products are subject to full disclosure of their product's capabilities, it will only strengthen the countermeasures that pirates utilize to achieve their ends. Perhaps the answer to this would be to have these applied DRM methods certified (by a public interest/consumer report type of company) as a non-invasive/non-harmful means that protect the rights of the consumer and provider.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00092 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 5:13:37 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Joshua Bell |
| State: |
IA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
A news story here http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/08/ebook-drm-provider-g.html details the closing of a DRM provider which is affecting an ebook companies customers from accessing their product. A product that they paid for. Despite click yes to comply terms that you have no access to if you don't agree stating that they don't guarantee access to the ebooks customer purchased. This seems very anti-consumer. This is the potential if not fate of all DRM encumbered products. Eventually there will be no support and access to something preserved will be lost.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00093 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 5:34:28 PM |
| Organization: |
Citizen |
| Commenter: |
Andrew Schilling |
| State: |
Outside the United States |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for inviting this public comment. I hope my experiance can help with your decision making.
When I was stationed in the U.S. I found DRM irritating. Growing up, a CD or a tape was something I owned, could copy for backup if I wanted, or give to a friend if I thought he'd like it better. It was strange to find that some company had decided I no longer had those rights with music I downloaded. After all, I paid the same price. Headlines like this one from today's news illustrate the problems with the notion of someone else controlling my rights: "Fictionwise used Overdrive to provide DRM encrypted ebooks to their customers and Overdrive has informed them that they will be shutdown on 30 January with no reason given. Since Fictionwise doesn't have the decryption keys, they are not able to provide new versions of the books to all customers."
It was my assignment to Japan that really brought the issue into relief for me. Japan is a nice place, but foreign to me. I was happy to know that media I loved in the U.S. was moving from the airwaves to the internet and that I would still be able to watch my favorite TV shows on NBC.com, HULU and the like. That I would be able to download my favorite movies from NetFlix's amazing new movie streaming system.
Imagine my disappointment then when I first visited HULU from Japan and was greeted with a message along these lines "due to the region associated with your IP address this service is not available." I got the same from NetFlix (though, bizarrely they were happy to continue mailing me DVD's), the same from NBC.com and others. The feeling was very much the same as the one I had paying the same price for music but being more restricted in my use. Nothing had changed except DRM.
I am the same person. I am in this place because my government told me to be here. I am willing to pay the same as any other American. What is the difference? Apparently, in the digital space I do not have the "right" to watch the movies I want. In physical space, I can have the movie mailed to me and watch it. It is the same TV, which the US government paid to have shipped here. It could even be the same movie. But some company has taken that right from me in digital space.
I struggle to see the upside of DRM for the consumer. What rights to I have now that I don't have with physical media? None. DRM is a misnomer. They are not "managing" rights, they are "restricting" or "removing" rights. You, my government, should make them stop. I'm no less an American citizen today than I was before the Marine Corps sent me to Japan. No matter what NBC says.
Very Respectfully,
Andrew Schilling
Captain USMC
| Comment Number: |
539814-00094 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 6:29:27 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Thomas Cohoon |
| State: |
IL |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM should only be used if it can be shown that it does reduce what it is said to address, is fully disclosed, and completely removable when IP product is no longer used.
As an example---- Sony's SecuROM is labled as an anti-priate DRM but can be proven to do nothing to stop priateing, is loaded without the knowledge of the user, and interferes with the users use of their computer. I've had two computers stopped by it, one HDD had to be replaced because it could not be reformated. I understand Companies wanting to protect their property with a DRM, but when it intrudes into my use of said product or my use of my computer it must not be used. Their rights end where my rights begin.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00095 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 6:35:26 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Justin Lief |
| State: |
WA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
The many disparate types of DRM in use are a large barrier to me enjoying content which I have paid for. Continually I am frustrated by attempts to use legal content on a variety of devices different manufacturers. Why should there be any restrictions allowed on bought and paid for content from content providers who have a monopoly on any particular piece? They can charge whatever they want but they should not be allow to restrict the use of it after it belongs to me. Phone makers don't tell me who I can call, automakers don't tell me where I can drive, but record/movie companies get to tell me where I can listen/watch.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00096 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 6:58:14 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Dawn Wilke |
| State: |
OH |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
After installing EA's The Sims 2 BonVoyage expansion pack, I noticed that my DVD drive started having issues. Nothing seemed to fix the issues, not even a reformat. My game had to be reinstalled on another computer, and I had the same failure with that DVD drive. Then my game stopped working completely because it needed an internet connection for something called SecuROM, even though the game is advertised as a PC game, not an ONLINE game. Then my anti-virus software started crashing constantly.
I was on the phone with EA Tech Support and their answer was to reformat my hard drive and reinstall the game!
Eventually I found out that secuROM technology that had been installed on my drive from that EA's The Sims 2 Bon Voyage game and was causing the issues I was having. The only way to correct the issues was to remove the program, which wouldn't uninstall without re-formatting my hard drive again!
Additionally, I would also have to download something called a NOCD crack to make my game run properly!!!! In otherwords, I would have to get a pirated copy of my game because the game I paid for was CAUSING MY COMPUTER DVD AND ANTI-VIRUS TO NOT WORK! That was the last straw!
I had to download several other programs and know how to edit the WINDOWS XP registry to remove the SecuROM or completely reformat my hard drive. EA Tech Support would not help other than to say I would have to look up how to fix my computer myself when their software caused the issue!
Needless to say, I have never had another game with SecuROM and I refuse to buy any product with DRM software in any form. The time, money, and effort to fix a problem and the absolute lack of technical support from the company that installed the software without my consent or knowlege is reprehensible and should be criminal. I actually lost all my personal files and data on the one computer because the SecuROM eventually kept it crashing constantly and corrupted the data files!
Please stop SecuROM!
Thank you for your time!
| Comment Number: |
539814-00097 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 7:00:41 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Eitan Shalev |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Hello,
As a consumer, I see DRM-laden products as significantly inferior to their DRM-free alternatives. Digital Restriction Management forces consumers to use a product only in the ways envisioned and approved of by the creators of the work. This is contrary to any other form of property, with which - once I own it - I may use as I please. I'm sure tire manufacturers didn't envision tires being used as an obstacle course for military training. Should Michelin have the right to tell you that you may not do so? That's effectively what DRM is, wrapped up in a nice package of technology and law.
As several cases in the past and another one from today show:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080724-drm-still-sucks-yahoo-music-going-dark-taking-keys-with-it.html
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/22/msn-music-customers.html
http://www.ditii.com/2007/08/25/microsoft-wga-servers-suffered-worldwide-outage/
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/08/ebook-drm-provider-g.html
DRM binds the consumer to the manufacturer (or publisher) of digital media, and contrary to non-DRM-laden digital products, these goods are good only for so long as the publisher sees fit, or stays financially afloat. Should my vinyl records have stopped playing the day the last phonograph was manufactured? Or do I have a right to listen to my oldies for as long as I live, and then inherit those records to my next of kin?
DRM is a scheme meant to allow publishers control where they should have none. Sure, it makes it harder (but never impossible) to unlawfully copy or use copies of their copyrighted products, but this is really cutting off your nose to spite your face. The good for these companies is negligible in comparison to the harm caused to the consumers, and to us as a culture as a whole. And the law should be inclined to aid the millions of citizens out there, not the few companies out there trying to restrict the use of goods once they've been sold.
In short, DRM does little good to the organizations it's meant to help, and nothing but harm to the consumers.
I leave you with this thought: http://www.xkcd.com/488/
Yours,
Eitan Shalev
| Comment Number: |
539814-00098 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 7:56:42 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Christopher Davis |
| State: |
MA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
Mobipocket's DRM scheme for their e-book file format has led to hundreds of comments (approaching 500!) asking for a Mac and/or iPhone version of their reader software, just so that legitimate purchasers of e-books in that format can continue to read their existing libraries.
The DMCA prohibits me (and others) from removing the DRM on these legitimately-purchased files so that we can move to new operating systems, or use different reader software that may have better features.
The government's power to protect copyrights is specifically "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- the DMCA, and its protection of DRM, actually inhibits progress as it prevents innovation in reader software and hardware.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00099 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 8:37:29 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Steven Stewart |
| State: |
CA |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM has proven to be a business killer. There are many people who will simply not purchase anything from a company that uses DRM.
You may note that Apple has dropped it for iTunes purchases. You may also note that the New York Times discontinued the TimesSelect subscription service because the revenue from subscriptions was far lower than they expected, and the columnists whose work was so protected lost most of their audience.
Companies that offer free samples and DRM-free content have far more sales than companies that use DRM; an excellent example is Baen Books' Free Library and Webscriptions.
My suggestion is to drop DRM completely.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00100 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 8:56:33 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Daniel Loftis |
| State: |
TN |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
First, I have no problems with companies protecting their investments and their rightful property that they have worked hard to create. I would only ask for more protection for consumers as well.
Having said that, most DRM tends to not only strip legal rights (for example, the first-sale doctrine) from users, but also to hinder legitimate use of a person's personal computer by restricting the use of other legitimate programs (Example: Securom's blacklist tends to conflict with Microsoft Sysinternals' Process Explorer, which many people use as a replacement for Windows' default task manager). Its also a commonly held belief (and some people claim proof, although I have not the knowledge to personally provide the proof) that some DRM software can damage hardware (notably optical drives such as CD-Roms, CD+/-RW, etc). Some such software also acts in ways befitting spyware, such as by scanning a computer's current running processes and currently installed drivers as well as submitting encrypted information across the internet which has contents that can only be speculated on. All of these functions are done generally without the consent or knowledge of the consumer. Even when a consumer is aware of a DRM technology, they often have little or no knowledge of what the software actually does or how it could affect their personal computer.
| Comment Number: |
539814-00101 |
| Received: |
1/8/2009 9:04:11 PM |
| Organization: |
|
| Commenter: |
Lubell |
| State: |
NY |
| Agency: |
Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: |
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle |
| Attachments: |
|
Comments:
DRM has become a hassle and in general a punishment to the paying consumer. When the pirated versions of entertainment are easier to use than the legitimate copies (e.g. unskippable warnings, bloated software to install, can be played anywhere), there is a definite problem. I understand that DRM may be necessary in some areas, and I feel that Steam should be used as the model case of DRM working: centralize all your games on a good service and allow you to access them anywhere, with no limitations on your downloads. This is how it should work. Apple's latest move is a good one, and I hope others follow these fine examples of giving paying customers the best possible product.