Brightly colored Hazardous Materials suits make headlines; even when the hazardous materials aren't chemical but rather, digital. DefectiveByDesign is a broad-based anti-DRM campaign that is targeting Big Media, unhelpful manufacturers and DRM distributors. The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market.
Their campaign has received stacks of media coverage. The headlines, sound-bites and quick one liner quotes help to raise awareness, but I wanted to get the deeper story.
I contacted Gregory Heller of DefectiveByDesign who was kind enough to pass my list of questions around the office. What follows are my questions and unedited answers of the folks at DefectiveByDesign.
TDMW: DefectiveByDesign's stated goal is to target "Big Media, unhelpful manufacturers and DRM distributors" in order to stop the spread of DRM technology. How did the Free Software Foundation become involved in such a wide ranging debate?
DefectiveByDesign: We became involved because DRM is an attack on the free software community. The Free Software Foundation has a mission dedicated to gaining freedom for computer users. That freedom consists of the users rights to use, study, copy, modify and redistribute free software. DRM restricts our freedom to modify and use our free software.
A practical example of this happened with the Tivo. The Tivo is a well known digital video recorder built using free software. The problem with the Tivo was that it was built with a secret digital signature incorporated, that meant if you modified the code (that they were obligated to give you under the terms of the free software license the GPL) and attempted to run the modified version, it would fail. This meant they had taken away what we refer to as Freedom 1, the right to tinker. As DRM becomes more prevalent, we see a world of Tivoization - the use of free software in environments that defeat the purposes of free software - becoming widespread.
DRM is also a ploy by companies like Apple and Microsoft to lock you in to using their software and hardware, by locking all the music and video you buy, to that software and hardware. This means that you will be less likely to make the switch to free software in the future.
Because of the actions of hardware manufacturers our community is finding it increasingly difficult to purchase hardware that does not contain DRM enabling technology. And in the same way that this technology is imposing restrictions on music and video, it will impose restrictions on users of free software.
Overall our calculation is that to protect our community and all computer users, we are best served by launching a campaign to make the imposition of DRM an unacceptable social practice.
TDMW: As a consumer and a user of new technologies, what do I risk when I buy DRM crippled equipment?
DefectiveByDesign:
1) You will lose control of your hardware. The corporations imposing DRM systems will be in control of your computer and electronic devices, restricting your actions and monitoring you.
2) You will lose your traditional rights. You will lose the right to sell the music/video/e-books you thought you purchased, and you won't be able to make private copies or backups or share with family and friends.
3) You will have additional privacy concerns. Your personal viewing/listening/reading habits will be available in the same way that your telephone records now are.
TDMW: DbD's creative demonstrations have received quite a lot of attention in the blog-o-sphere, and some attention in the major media. They've also created quite a precedent for activism, how does DbD plan to keep up the momentum?
DefectiveByDesign: By having fun at the expense of those imposing DRM, whilst organizing actions that you can get involved in. Actions that will allow you to show your frustration with Microsoft, Apple, Sony and the major record labels. And by organizing high profile actions that will gain mainstream media coverage.
Our Bono petition is one simple example. The announcement of that petition saw press coverage in more than 115 news papers and news sites in the USA alone, including the Washington Post, Newsday, ABC news, Boston Herald, Fox News, Forbes and MSNBC. When we deliver that petition and seek out Bono's response, the mainstream medias interest will be even greater. So one simple way you can help us get the public debate going, is by signing the petition now.
TDMW: Does DbD see any viable alternatives to the current structure of DRM that would protect content owners, while still allowing consumers open access to media they've purchased?
DefectiveByDesign: DRM is an unacceptable approach to this problem. We understand that online music presents a challenge for corporations steeped in old business models. But technology that restricts our freedom to use and tinker with our computers is not an acceptable solution. Our message is, you don't get to protect your rights by usurping ours.
I think your recent article "Minor Alternatives to Major Labels" shows that there are alternatives to the current system for artists. A new slew of record labels and distributors are appearing, experimenting with new business models. Lets give them the time to mature.
TDMW: Are those two goals (content protection and consumer protection) compatible with one another?
DefectiveByDesign: A better word than consumer, to describe me and you, is citizen. So is content protection and the rights of citizens compatible? When we live in a age where all digital works of art and all human knowledge can be transferred at (next to) zero cost, and where the cost of making one more copy is zero. Is it right to be building digital fences and digital handcuffs around this art and knowledge? If, as citizens of a society, we can see the advantages of allowing art and knowledge to flow without impediment, we as citizens will also have reason to find new ways to recompense the artists and knowledge purveyors. In fact, there are more artists working today than ever before, and more of their art is being enjoyed because of technology free from DRM and free of the Big Media gate keepers. The term "Content Protection" is a loaded term, framing the debate with their slant. I would say that this term really describes their attempt to hold back advancing society.
TDMW: How would you describe a DRM'ed future? What does the face of DRM look like in 5 years if DbD is unsuccessful?
DefectiveByDesign: The notion that someone is not "authorized" to use "my media", becomes a natural and accepted part of appreciating culture. A future already described by FSF President and founder Richard Stallman in his 1997 essay The Right to Read.
TDMW: Lawrence Lessig has said that we (in the West) view property as progress, due to what he calls a "Post-Communist Obsession". And that questioning property rights causes one to be immediately labeled as a communist, which in turn removes you from the political discourse. Have you found this to be the case when arguing against IP protection via DRM?
DefectiveByDesign: As you probably know, Lessig is a board member of the FSF, and he has been instrumental in helping us think about these things. Certainly people have said "If you guys succeed it will be the end of art!" and other equally ridiculous statements. And as the campaign starts to gain more mainstream coverage we can expect more of these types of comments from the mouthpieces of the Big Media corporations. But we welcome that debate, because as Peter Lee, an executive at Disney said in an article for the Economist, "If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed". And that is what the DbD campaign is all about. Also, as our foundation's name suggests, we care about freedom. Lets have business models that don't require computer users to give up their freedoms. To argue for DRM is to argue against freedom. Again, we welcome that debate.
TDMW: Prof. Lessig has also said that he fears we won't learn that we are wrong about this obsession with property rights in time to save the creativity of the little guy. Are the folks at DbD more optimistic?
DefectiveByDesign: We are optimistic that there is a changing tide. With DbD we are witnessing the creation of a grassroots network of technology activists taking the lead on a social issue. Our community has a lot to offer and by engaging more fully in this debate we can see if we can change the course that DRM would embark us upon. We are optimistic because to defeat DRM is less work than to impose it. But a crucial part of this is that every time you buy DRM music or purchase DRM enabling equipment you are adding to their war chest - so don't do it.
TDMW: How does DbD plan to stay in the center of the debate over DRM, rather than being forced to the edges?
DefectiveByDesign: That's an interesting question. I would say it's all bout the debate. That is our goal. We are lucky that there are many organizations and influential people who are against DRM. Lets help give them a platform. Our campaign is just part of the story - the get up and take action part of the story. But we also consider ourselves part of an informal coalition alongside organizations like EFF, Free Culture and Creative Commons.
TDMW: Readers of mine have asked, "Why Apple? Why not the record companies who demand DRM?". What would you say to someone who feels that DbD's efforts are valid but, misdirected?
DefectiveByDesign: Our very first action was against Microsoft, launching the campaign by targeting executives gathering to listen to a keynote speech by Bill Gates at WinHEC in Seattle. We're interested in targeting all the corporations who push DRM. Apple is a particular target because they are the largest purveyor of DRM technology. And through their activities, Apple are saying that handcuffs on art and technology is socially acceptable practice, when it is not.
But we have also gone after the RIAA, and with our Bono petition we are targeting the music industry where they are most vulnerable. At the place where they say that DRM is there to protect the artist, and where the artist is connected to the fan.
TDMW: What can one person do to further the anti-DRM cause?
DefectiveByDesign: Stop buying products with DRM, then ask your friends to do the same. Join us and participate in the next direct action to help us raise the public debate.
1. although I agree with most of their views expressed here, I have to comment on this:
"you don't get to protect your rights by usurping ours. "
When you buy something, it has always been a choice, and a many times that choice requires you to agree to terms and conditions. It has always been that if you do not agree with those terms and conditions, you re welcome to walk away.
Knowing that, I think saying that drm products may be infrindging on your rights is going way too far. You have the choice to buy elsewhere, so how is anyone affecting your rights?
I stay away from DRM products because they usually are of a low quality, for the same price as a higher quality product in the stores.
Posted at 5:13PM on Aug 2nd 2006 by Airik