Mon 19 Jun 2006
This is the Anti-DRM protest that took place at the San Francisco Apple Store on the Saturday morning of Vloggercon.
Featured are Henri Poole of DefectiveByDesign.org / CivicActions and Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons.
Producer: Kent Bye
Music: “The Next Step” by Trifonic via ccMixter.org
Graphic Design: Brooks Cole of Holocosmos.com
UPDATE 6/20/06: I wanted to clarify the “you can’t give it to a friend” comment that Mike Linksvayer says because I edited out the full context for what I think he meant by the inability to “transfer rights” with DRM. Here is the full context of his quote:
DRM isn’t about letting go of control, it’s about taking control that previously media companies didn’t have over consumers. When you had tapes and CDs and records, you could do what you wanted with them. You — Because of for sale you could even sell them on eBay or a long time ago sell them at a garage sale. Now you download something from iTunes, you can only put it on devices that Apple wants you to put it on. And you can’t give it to your friend — I mean, even though you bought it, you can’t transfer those rights. So it’s become a rental as opposed to property that you own.
So I think that Mike is trying to say that you used to be able to legitimately transfer music, but that now it is impossible to do so with DRM.
Update 6/20/06: Linksvayer clarifies his thoughts on this matter on his blog
The point I wanted to make is that consumers are getting a substantially different deal with DRM media than they have gotten in the past, indeed a substantially worse deal.
Only desperate or stupid consumers would lease a home theater from Rent-a-Center. DRM media should be seen in the same light.
Spread This Video: You Tube Mirror
June 20th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Wow, I must be living under a rock; I didn’t know there were activists against DRM. Thanks for sharing this.
I strongly disagree with them though. As a consumer you have a choice of who to purchase from; and you must abide by the rules set by who you buy from. If you don’t like those rules don’t buy.
As far as not being able to use other devices, I don’t see the gun held to the consumers head saying you must buy iPods.
Well, thanks again for sharing.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:25 am
well done.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:19 am
The video talked DRM doesn’t let you share music with your friends? Of course. You’re not allowed to share music with your friends. In the same way you’re not legally allowed to share Mac OS X with your friends, Windows XP, or that latest game you buy. Buying any sort of software or online multimedia does not give you the right to share it with friends, whether with DRM or not. It’s the same when you buy an XBox game and decide you’d like to make copies for a friend. Complaining how DRM impacts your personal usage of media? Sure, that’s a valid argument. Complaining how DRM restricts you sharing your music with friends? That’s always been restricted. If you want to share music with your friends have them come over and listen to it.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:50 am
the guy in the video made a mistake when he said that drm doesn’t allow you to ’share with your friends’ — ‘borrow’ would have been a better thing to say. no, apple isn’t pointing guns at anyone’s head but lets say you own an ipod now, you load it with drm purchased music from ipod; then creative comes out with the ‘hip new mp3 device’ you’re going to buy another ipod because you have such an investment in music on your current ipod. it’s proven that the itunes model works if they stripped drm i’m positive it would continue to work.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:56 am
[…] now there is a short video documentation of the anti-DRM-protests that took place in san francisco and other places here: 33whitehall.video.blip.tv/uploadedFiles/Jen-AntiDRMProtest601.mov (credits) […]
June 20th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Re: “Give it to your friend” comment — The full context of what Mike was trying to say is that you used to be able to buy a CD and then resell it or legitimately transfer the rights to a friend. But now with DRM, this is no longer possible. I think Mike realized that he was being imprecise by saying “give it to your friend” because he clarifies it immediately by saying “I mean, you can’t transfer those rights.” The way that I edited it doesn’t fully explain what he meant by this. Here is the full context of his quote:
June 20th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Lan Bui, you’re missing the point. This particular protest was targeted at Apple, but the issue of DRM goes deeper than just one company. For example, in the coming years, it will be impossible to find a digital media device (such as a DVD player) that will have analog outputs. This is to prevent people from making copies of digital media using analog methods. So, in order to watch that spiffy new BlueRay DVD you just bought, you’ll have to buy a new TV unless it has only digital inputs. check out the EFF website for more information (www.eff.org). They have an animated short that’s corny, but explains all of the issues in detail.
DRM doesn’t protect companies from piracy, it only punishes people for actually paying for their media. Pirates will always find a way to circumnavigate DRM, but honest, paying customers get screwed. As another example: mix CDs will become not only impossible to make in the next few years, they will actually become ILLEGAL thanks to the efforts of DRM-obsessed lobbyists. If you purchase a CD, the music must remain on that CD as it is. No more ripping to MP3 and storing it on your media player. Won’t that be fun?
You do get to chose what companies you buy media from, the problem is once you choose that company, you’re locked in to them. Your freedom is then taken away. Choose wisely, then since you’ll be married to them for life.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I’m sure all you educated protesting folk are fully aware that Apple’s business model means that Apple Retail stores are treated by Apple as any other retailer - Comp USA, Best Buy - etc. Pestering the part time college kids that work the retail stores has no effect on the record label’s demands that if Apple carries their music product, it has to have DRM on it.
If you’re going to be an obnoxious protester, do it where it matters - the record execs. Not a computer retail store.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Let’s face it, Apple’s music has pseudo-DRM. It takes all of 3 minutes to turn protected AAC files into a generic MP3s which play on nearly every music player on the market.
If you want to get bent out of shape, starting bitching about Apple’s video DRM. You cannot convert the video to another format.
But quit with music-AAC bashing. It’s not DRM if you can convert the music to MP3 format.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Kent, This is really well done. Thank you. And thanks to the folks commenting here. Please take a moment to sign up at http://www.defectivebydesign.org
We’ll be taking action against the RIAA later this week!
-Gregory
June 20th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Wow, cannot believe so many people are okay with the DRM. But while some of those pro DRM points are valid, I think you guys are missing the broader picture that companies are completely trying to flip the normal business model of responding to consumer demand and instead telling consumers what they are going to. Trust me, I had the privilege of working in the legal department of one of the big labels and sitting in on key meetings back when they were first trying to kill Napster and it was both awesome and mind boggling the way the execs COMPLETELY ignored rooms full of interns(ie. music fanatics between the ages of 16 and 30, yeah, their target demographic) who basically said, “yeah, those ideas you are putting out there suck, but if you did this (insert emusic.com business model) we’d spend craploads of money.” At which point it was like when you talk to your dog and he cocks his and is all “wtf”? At that point, it was obvious to all of us that nobody cared AT ALL what consumers think. And we were consumers who WANTED to work for the damn company, so, not a lot of reason to try steal music from. We just wanted to own, not rent, our music.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
[…] I make a brief appearance in a DRM protest video noted by Boing Boing today. […]
June 21st, 2006 at 12:53 am
[…] Link […]
June 21st, 2006 at 9:53 am
Those comments about choosing a non-DRM company would be fine in a regular, competitive market, but the reason there are protests against DRM is a) to tell consumers exactly what is going on (because nobody would switch company if they didn’t realise the problem) and, more importantly, b) the “choose another company” idea is completely blown away when it becomes illegal to market a device without DRM. The current efforts by many European countries (like Norway, and to a lesser extent the UK) to force Apple into a cross-platform DRM scheme might be a short-term blow to their business model, but in the long-term it may produce a universal DRM format which would be used by all DRMed music stores, be put onto all RIAA, etc. CDs (since the DRM would be built into the OS/Player so there would be no Sony-esque fiascos) then what will the devices do? They will ONLY play this format. Independant groups will be forced to use this format (which they will have to have a license from the corporations involved to do) to work on any player (effectively letting the record industry regain the noose they had around every artist’s neck before the advent of the Internet) and once everyone is forced into using it the RIAA et al will lobby to make it into law. Then where’s your “use a different company” argument? Any non-DRM company would be breaking the law. Yes, this would cause widespread protest, but why try to fight something so deeply entrenched when you can fight the seeds of it now?
Remember that the record industry is the main force behind the adoption of DRM technology by online stores and hardware manufacturers, but you should never feel sorry for them. Just stop for a minute and look at how their business works. Talented artists come to them, many are turned away to become burger flippers in McDonalds, and those that are accepted have the priviledge of having their work stolen and put under ridiculous licences. In return these favoured few may gain ludicrous payments which would be better spent on doctors, etc. whilst the record industry sorts out how to ship their music world wide. Now that the Internet is here these companies have lost any real function, since the artists can now spread their work by themselves, under any terms they want. It is not losing customers which frightens the record companies, it is losing their control over the actual artists. With the artists gone the record industry is left with only it’s own abilities, which (apart from effective lobbying) are worth nothing. It is clear that P2P is an incredibly effective method of distribution, so much that even a voluntary donation system may gain enough money for the artist, since their work can legally be made available to millions with no transport costs (even the bandwidth is paid for by the users). I am not saying that mandatory payment schemes should be dropped, but I am also not saying that DRM removal is about P2P. I am showing that there is an alternative to DRM, which is no DRM, and there is an alternative to record companies, which is P2P sharing. The old business models are gradually crumbling, even Top Of The Pops in the UK is over after 40 years, since their chart is based on the number of singles bought, but the BBC has realised recently that downloads are becoming more and more popular, and now that the Internet has freed independant artists who are willing to share their work freely, there is no possible way to keep track of the most popular music (since it can be spread instantly millions of times in a distributed way). The record industries won’t accept a new business model because in the information age they are now obsolete, and “embracing the Internet” will lead to their inevitable failure as a business.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Hello Spoonman,
Thank you for offering the animated short as something to watch, I understand better why the protesters were there. I do think that the future of digital media will inconvenience many people if they will have to abide by those rules. I cannot disagree with that at all. It will even be unaffordable for many people to use the new and great technologies that come out. This is the reason why it will be done though; to make money. The companies are just looking for better ways to make money. Many americans must work every day just to make money. Companies will squeeze every dollar they can out of people because they want profit. Just like an employee will ask for a raise or work overtime for more money.
These companies exist to make money, they are not non-profits out to change the world.
I will agree that it will not protect against all piracy but it will make it harder for low end pirates to pirate. And regarding paying customers, they will just have to abide by the rules and pay for new (this goes back to the companies just wanting more money).
I see you point that you lose freedom once you chose a company for these things, but that again relates to the companies wanting “loyal” (you may say trapped) customers.
I have made a choice to participate in free entertainment called vlogging. If you want to be able to do what you want with media that yoou buy (or get for free) then just find the stuff that you can legally do so with. If you want to say that you like certain songs or videos then you just have to abide by the creators/distributors/owners rules.
It isn’t really bad, there are alternatives to iTunes music online that you don’t have to get tied into, you just probably will not find the new pop songs there.
Ok, I’ll stop now; I see how people don’t like what is happening and they can fight for what they feel. I don’t think it is worth it at all, just pay now and pay later for the upgrade. It just money and you won’t need it when you die.
-Lan
July 5th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
I’m really shocked by these responses. First, the little comments: great editing and solid interviews.
I didn’t think anything said was confusing, but maybe it’s because I’m already familiarized with the issue and am not playing a lingustics game about it? Restricting your customers will send them away. People could choose to illegally download music. If you pay for it, you should have the same rights as if you purchased a CD, etc. Why are we arguing about this, and yet, why are people just giving up? No, I suppose you don’t need money when you die, but if that’s the answer for everything, you might as well send me some cash while you’re at it. I may live longer and need it more than you.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Don’t you people realize that you can burn a CD full of protected music, and copy that as many times as you like! Give that to your friends!
November 12th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
These guys are not much better than anti-abortion activists, with protests like these. Sure, I support them, but they should keep themselves in line.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I will never buy DRM’d music online. If there isn’t an option to buy online without DRM (for which Yahoo is trying to start with the recent McCartney albulm, and perhaps others) then frankly I will buy a CD. The only real solution is to veto iTunes and ANY other DRM related stores out there. That’s what the anti-DRM movement is all about I’m all for that. For now, I’ll place my vote by buying a real CD (how very old fashioned
)
January 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Morons. The lack of DRM is why AllofMP3 has taken hundreds of my dollars and iTunes has taken zero!!!
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Awesome, man
February 17th, 2007 at 6:49 am
juggling shirt
juggling shirt info and more
March 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Not bad, it really can occur
March 28th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
and then come in and mop up the dregs?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I’m not quite sure I understand that?
Then again it’s probably just me.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
I like your site. Well done!
I’ll come by again soon.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Hey This is pretty cool. I think it’s a decent blog.
You all have fun now!
June 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Hey Your site is a little “different” but not bad.
I’ve seen a lot worse. Good content but try spicing it up a bit.
Thanks and good luck!
July 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Topic of your article is very interesting, i have bookmarked your blog
regards
fluflaken
September 10th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I love your site.
Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. Sign: ndsam
November 6th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
This is what I have been looking for since I switched to Firefox.