Group: Defective by Design/Frequently Asked Questions
Contents
Doesn't DRM protect creators?
DRM is not about protecting against copyright infringement. The clearest point that illustrates this is that people who share files do not do so through DRM-encumbered services, they go to darknets, torrents, or their friends. The files that are shared this way have no restrictions on personal use. The user can do whatever they want with their files, at any time, on any of their devices, etc. Users who get their media through DRM-encumbered services on the other hand, are entirely limited from legal uses of their media: when, where, on which devices, operating systems, etc. they can use it.
Isn't DRM ineffective anyway?
The argument that DRM "doesn't work" because people still find ways to share media is moot because that isn't what DRM is for. DRM is about controlling what legal downloaders can do with their files, and has no impact on those who acquire their files outside of DRM schemes.
What DRM is very successful at is limiting the freedom of anyone who uses DRM-encumbered services, so that the company behind said service can sell any and all (previously disabled) functionality back to them. Because copyright already provides leverage against illegal distribution, this means that the largest distribution platforms must already adhere to the demands of publishers, studios, labels, and software companies. This demand is often DRM, which allows them to sell intentionally limited services and maintain their current monopolistic (or oligopolistic) positions in the market. This is bad for independent publishers, studios, and labels, as well as all media participants. This is not about fair compensation, it's about digitally enforced exploitation.
Why is DRM bad for free software users?
The web would certainly be better off without Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Flash Player, but the idea that putting DRM into HTML itself to make them obsolete is absurd. The EME proposal would not make proprietary, platform-specific plugins disappear; in fact it makes a new space for them as Content Decryption Modules (CDMs). These would be no less of a problem for Web users, especially those using free/libre and open source browsers and operating systems. The fact that they would gain legitimacy as a Web standard would make them a much bigger problem.
Providing a space for a DRM scheme in HTML5 invites the kind of incompatibilities that HTML was created to undo. EMEs would require that proprietary browsers and operating systems implement more restrictive antifeatures to prevent bypassing the DRM, and as the corollary to this, EMEs would be able to detect whether the user’s software did not have such antifeatures (as is the case with free/libre and open source software, specifically GNU+Linux operating systems) and refuse to deliver the media.
New implementations of anti-user technology are not preferable to old implementations of anti-user technology. While it may eliminate the corporate demands for Silverlight and Flash, at least in their current incarnation, the Encrypted Media Extensions plan takes what makes those particular technologies terrible for users (digital restrictions management, poor cross-platform support, etc) and injects it directly into the fabric of the Web. This is equivalent to inviting Microsoft Silverlight, Adobe Flash Player, and the like to be part of the HTML5 standard.
Is watermarking DRM?
No [expand].
Doesn't DRM make sense for streaming media and rental services?
No [expand].
Aren't Hollywood and the media companies really to blame for DRM?
Not exclusively, no. Hollywood and media companies work in partnership with technology companies on DRM [expand].
