[CS-FSLUG] DRM Restrictions: Bug or Annoyance

[Ritchie, Josiah S.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christiansource-bounces at ofb.biz [mailto:Christiansource-
> bounces at ofb.biz] On Behalf Of Robert W.
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:23 PM
> To: Christiansource at ofb.biz
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Real Player Rhapsode for Linux
> 
> On 01/22/2006 01:07:51 PM, Timothy Butler wrote:
> > I think some DRM is that way, but not all... I'd rather have no DRM,
> > but in a digital world where stuff can be copied perfectly and the
> > majority of the populous lacks scruples, is that possible? I mean
> > look at the other side too. I have a client who goes to my church.
> > He's a law-abiding small business owner, and yet he wanted me to
> > install a pirated copy of Photoshop for him. He didn't call it
> > pirated -- of course -- but he gave me this CD "a friend gave him"
> > and thought nothing of it.
> 
> That phrase "thought nothing of it" is why I am opposed to DRM in all
> forms. I have been reading The Art of Unix Programming by Eric
Raymond:
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/index.html. He lists 17 rules for well
> designed programs. Rule number ten is called the Rule of Least
> Surprise. It means what you would expect: do the least surprising
thing.
> 
> New users soon learn how to copy files. It's one of the first things
> they're taught. As you yourself stated, one can make perfect copies of
> any digital data. The least surprising thing is to actually make those
> copies as you need them.
> 
> DRM, EULAs, and other proprietary devices create artificial
> restrictions. Artificial restrictions that feel wrong because one
would
> not normally expect such restrictions. I'm sure most people don't
think
> about the rule of least surprise. But they will feel it. We usually
> describe such items as un-intuitive, clunky, annoying, or stupid.
> 
> When copyright first came about, it applied to books, pamphlets and
> papers. Physical items that required skill and time to copy. Violating
> a copyright required some form of investment (printing press, ink,
> hours of handwriting, etc...). An ordinary person wouldn't consider
> making a copy. Therefore, for these items, a r	estrictive
license wasn't
> a surprise. It merely re-affirmed something they won't do anyway. So
> why care?
> 
> Digital items completely changed that formula. Copies are cheap. Now
> the least surprise IS making copies. And a restrictive license blocks
a
> person from doing what they normally expect to do.

I like the base of this argument, but I'd say it's a bit stronger than
how you state it. It is more than "un-intuitive, clunky, annoying, or
stupid". It is intentionally breaking things. It is equivalent to an
intentional bug in the software. I suppose any kind of bug in annoying,
but this is just malicious.

I find the best argument is that the guys they are hurting are the ones
buying the stuff. The ones that want it will break the protection. An
unbreakable DRM will not be built until humans stop building the DRM and
pass it entirely off to self-aware machines, and I'm not sure those will
be unbreakable either. :-)

JSR/