Group:Defective by Design/Frequently Asked Questions

If we want to avoid a future in which our devices serve as an apparatus to monitor and control our interaction with digital media, we must fight to retain control of our media and software.

What is DRM?

Digital Restrictions Management is the practice of imopsing technological restrictions that control what users can do with digital media. When a program is desiged to prevent you from copying or sharing a song, reading an ebook on another device, or playing a single-player game without an internet connection, you are being restricted by DRM. In other words, DRM creates a damaged good; it prevents you from doing what would be possible without it. This enables the concentration of control over production and distribution of media, giving DRM peddlers the power to carry out massive digital book burnings and large scale surveillance over people's media viewing habits.

DRM is about restrictions, not rights

Industry supporters of DRM refer to it as "digital rights management," as if users should be powerless and others should have ultimate authority to decide what rights a user has and how they can use and interact with their media. DRM is a mechanism to enforce severe restrictions on users' media that would otherwise be possible. Users should have control over their own media, not be left at the mercy of major media and technology companies. For that reason, opponents of DRM refer to it as "Digital Restrictions Management".

What are some examples of DRM?

Depending on the DRM system, various limits and controls are imposed. Users may be forced to use certain hardware and/or software platforms, prevented from accessing their media on a certain number of devices, required to have a persistent internet connection to use local files, have their files tied to an online account, unable to use accessability software such as a screen reader, cut off from accessing media in certain places, or even stripped of their media by having their files silently and remotely deleted at any time. Anything that you can do with digital media, DRM may restrict, in often invasive ways.

• If you purchase electronic copies of games from Steam, but you can't sell them or share them with a friend after you're done playing them. If you so much as try, Steam will disable your account, which takes away your entire game collection.
• During the mid-2000s, Sony bundled DRM with its music CDs that tracked users' listening habits, created security vulnerabilities in their computers, and prevented CD copying software from functioning.
• Netflix and YouTube have constructed anti-features to prevent customers from viewing their media in certain countries or on a certain number of devices.
• In 2009 Amazon remotely deleted copies of George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, distributed through the Kindle store. This chilling example of potential malicious behavior would have never been possible without DRM.

What is the purpose of DRM?

While it is advertised as a mechanism to prevent copyright infringement, DRM is actually designed to restrict all of the incredible possibilities enabled by digital technologies and place them under the control of a few, who can then micromanage and track everything interaction with digital media. In other words, DRM is designed to take away every possible use of digital media, regardless of legal rights, and sell some of these functionalities back as severely limited services.

Doesn't DRM (also) limit copyright infringement?

DRM is not about limiting copyright infringement. Such an argument attempts to make DRM appear beneficial to authors and is based entirely on a (very successfully advertised) misrepresentation of DRM's purpose. To illustrate the absurdity of the argument that DRM exists to prevent copyright infringement, consider the nature of file sharing: to obtain a copy of a file without permission, downloaders would go to a friend or a file sharing network, not a DRM-encumbered distribution platform. If DRM existed to prevent that method of copyright infringement as advertised, every distribution method for that particular piece of media must only be distributed by an uncrackable (which is impossible on its own) DRM-encumbered distribution platform. So long as one copy becomes available without DRM, countless more are easily produced. Proponents of DRM are well aware of that DRM is not a copyright enforcement mechanism, and it is entirely besides their interests. DRM is only marketed as a copyright enforcement mechanism to mislead authors into tolerating and even defending it.

What is the difference between DRM and copyright enforcement?

DRM restricts entirely different activities than copyright does, and serves an entirely separate function. While Copyright restricts who can distribute media, DRM restricts how users can use their media. Copyright already provides leverage against illegal distribution, meaning that the largest distribution platforms must already adhere to the demands of large publishers, studios, music labels, and software companies. DRM provides antifeatures (literally, features that exist only to worsen the service for users) that take legal rights away in order to be re-sold as a service. This gives major media and technology companies much broader control over the use of media than is enabled by copyright law, while copyright allows them to force all legal media distribution services to use DRM.

Who does DRM harm?

DRM only restricts and punishes those who have acquired their media legally through DRM-encumbered platforms. Without DRM, users have control over their own media such as where, when, how, and on what platforms they choose to use their files. Even authors, along with independent labels, studios, and publishers suffer. When a distributor gains significant control over a particular market, DRM enables them to lock in their customers to their platform. Once customers are locked in, so are labels, studios, and publishers. If an independent publisher wants to switch away from a DRM-encumbered distributor, customers would have to re-purchase their media on the new platform. As with any instance of monopolization, businesses which dominate a market can arbitrarily dictate the price they charge, as well as the price they pay for media, because suppliers are dependent on them.

Doesn't DRM make sense for streaming media and rental services?

The problem with this argument is that it invites a future in which nobody has any control over their devices and can only access media through DRM-encumbered distribution services. This argument is also based on misinformed claims that DRM prevents copyright infringement (see above). Streaming media services are rising in popularity, and DRM turns this into an opportunity to bring an end to personal media ownership. Rather than having services that can stream a user's media to any device using whatever software they choose, DRM invites distribution and services to be consolidated, such that all access to media must be through these services.

Isn't DRM ineffective anyway?

The argument that DRM "doesn't work" because it can often be circumvented misses the point, because DRM is not about copyright enforcement. DRM is very effective at what it does. It limits the freedom of anyone who uses DRM-encumbered services so that some functionality can be sold back as severely limited services.

Why is DRM bad for software user freedom?

DRM is incompatible with free software. DRM is only possible by keeping some parts of a computer secret and unmodifiable from the user, which is a direct attack on users's freedom. DRM cannot function while being free software as this would allow the antifeatures enforced by DRM to be undone.

Are Hollywood and the media companies to blame for DRM?

Not exclusively. Major media companies work in tandem with technology companies to create DRM and force all legal media distributors to encumber files with it. This way, all their users and authors looking for distribution remain dependent on them, and they maintain their dominant position in the market.

This page was a featured resource in August 2013.