

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere - sinak
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/cory-doctorow-rejoins-eff-eradicate-drm-everywhere/

======
bobajeff
I,ll rooting for this initiative. I used to take for granted that I'd own the
things I buy. But it seems that every year that goes by I'm having less and
less ownership of my possessions.

------
patrickod
I'd recommend Cory's latest book: "Information doesn't want to be free" where
he addresses the problems presented by DRM and other copyright issues. It's a
short read but hugely valuable for folks creating digital content.
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R4ZJTMO?btkr=1](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R4ZJTMO?btkr=1)

~~~
K_REY_C
The book is recommended (and the print version is surprisingly attractive). It
may be somewhat disappointing if you've been following Cory for a while though
as the book doesn't really tread any new ground from his previous works,
speeches, etc.

That said, he seems to be trying to hit a different audience with this book
and his message is communicated simply enough to make an impact. It seems that
hitting a broader audience would be a core mission of this "1201" project with
the EFF.

~~~
famousactress
I agree, but would put a more positive spin. The book didn't break open for me
any new ideas about the topics that Cory's been super eloquent on in the
past... but it was marvelous in it's simplicity and encapsulation of concepts.
I felt better for reading it, if only because it provides new ways of
communicating these arguments to others.

~~~
K_REY_C
The positive spin is more fair and accurate. I didn't intent to come off so
negative. Part of the reason I've kept reading and listening to Cory is
because, as you note, he provides new ways of communicating arguments and it
was interesting to see him work to direct this at a broad audience at the same
time. For example, at the end of a long section talking about the fluidity
between the roles of creator, investor, intermediaries, and audiences in the
introduction he closes with: "...and some of the most dedicated audiences are
made up of creators themselves (which is why authors are usually photographed
standing in front of a wall of other people's books.)"

It's not fully represented in this quote, but when you read that closing line
it instantaneously becomes obvious how blurry the lines have always been and
how silly many of the distinctions truly are. We're talking about something
bigger.

------
click170
DRM isn't inherently bad, it's just that it's most common usage today is in
controls that deprive me of my rights. What about scenarios such as if I where
to use DRM in the kernels on my systems to restrict the loading of modules
that I have not signed?

What if instead of abolishing DRM, we advocated to change the laws to require
that any consumer who wishes to control the keys to their own property must be
given said keys, because this allows people like my parents and grandmother to
relinquish the controls that they aren't interested in to people they trust.

~~~
throwawaymaroon
DRM _is_ inherently bad, because there is no such thing as perfect DRM and
whenever you construct an argument for DRM you have to add the sort of "it's
just that"s you've just written.

If you are given content to play, you should be given it in a 'perfect'
format. Anything else is idiocy, because at some point it'll be played in that
format anyway.

~~~
fubarred
From considering the demand-side point-of-view only, I would tend to agree. It
gives content distributors a false sense of control at the expense of
complicating the average customers' lives. ("Penny-wise, pound-foolish" like a
neighborhood coffee shop that requires a key to use the restroom and doesn't
put out napkins whereas the Starbucks next door making far more money does
neither.)

From the supply-side point-of-view (film maker, movie theater, on-demand
service), it depends. Artists can choose to release for free like The Beastie
Boys are other doing, knowing enough people will still buy the retail package
to keep them afloat. But to see your blood, sweat and tears shared without
people paying a dime, might be tough. It's further complicated because you
don't want to tick off freeloaders that can be converted to customers or whom
happen to be major customers in same-brand products/services.

Both taken together, it's becomes a self-selecting, personal choice to vote
with one's wallet.

~~~
famousactress
Cory's book is written specifically for the content creators (slash
distributors), not the demand side. He handily makes the argument that DRM is
an inherently and objectively Bad Thing for them, bar none.

The problem is you're presenting a false choice "Release for free, or release
with DRM and get paid". In truth, that's not quite what happens. Instead DRM
hurts sales, and lack of DRM helps (or at least doesn't hurt) them... and I'd
challenge you to find any time-tested evidence to the contrary.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Instead DRM hurts sales, and lack of DRM helps (or at least doesn't hurt)
> them... and I'd challenge you to find any time-tested evidence to the
> contrary.

The math on this is very straight forward. Very few of the pirates the DRM
stops go out and pay instead, but 100% of the customers who don't buy your
product because the DRM sucks are actual lost sales. This is basic supply and
demand. Offer free chocolate and everyone will be filling up the back of their
trucks with it, but charge $1 and you'll be lucky if each person even buys one
bar. Even less when it comes out that you've made it hard to eat. Worse, all
but the first pirate are getting the DRM-stripped version from the first
pirate but all your paying customers are getting the annoying DRM version.

And to add insult to injury, you have to spend money to build and maintain the
DRM system -- unless you outsource it to someone like Apple or Amazon, in
which case they become a toll collector that sits between you and your
customers.

It's like paying someone to chase away your customers.

------
FrankenPC
I love Doctorow. Great work sir.

