Group: Defective by Design/Frequently Asked Questions

Doesn't DRM protect creators?

DRM is not about protection from copyright infringement. Clearly, people who share files with their friends are still able to do so despite the proliferation of DRM in media products. Content obtained this way has no restrictions on personal use: users can do what they want when they want, and on any device.

Users of DRM-encumbered services are unable to use their files the same way. There may be restrictions on how they can be accessed, how many times they can be used, and so on. Content obtained this way is objectively inferior to the same material from shared sources like darknets or torrents.

DRM hurts content creators because it reduces the incentive to purchase products from "official" services. Would you pay more for an inferior product when the superior alternative is free?

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 Encrypted Media Extensions (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. Their air of legitimacy as parts of 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. DRM is restricting your rights of using. Watermarking is protecting the right of the author...

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

No. DRM disallows offline use, so it prevents people from having full access to legally-obtained content. Having to download content every time you want to access it contributes to network congestion and works against users with capped Internet service. Netflix alone uses nearly a third of U.S. bandwidth during peak times!

It can even cause people to lose access to their content altogether. For instance, users of XBMC, a popular free software media center, suddenly lost the ability to watch Amazon Instant Video content on GNU/Linux devices when Amazon decided to enable DRM following the launch of its in-house streaming shows. Affected customers were told to buy an "approved" proprietary device and received no compensation for the loss of their video collections.

DRM in streaming media/rental services has become so pervasive that many people equate "streaming" with "cannot be used offline" instead of "optimized for real-time transmission." It perpetuates a cycle of de-education whereby users become accustomed to increasing levels of restriction and start thinking of technological freedom as irrelevant, implausible, or even impossible.

It would be better to use a "paid subscription" model whereby users receive access to DRM-free copies of media as long as they have a subscription.

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].