1. The digital age of information is not yet a done deal and copyright is not the only potential “block” DRM

2. book modification Although Claire wrote: “One response to this has been the rise of technological protection measures (TPM), so-called Digital Rights Management technologies. Digital Rights Management, or DRM, is a technology that enforces a restriction on the use of content after it passes into the hands of the user.” I'd just as soon not limit DRM to “after it passes into the hands of the user” because in the future we are going to see many schemes that don’t allow material to get that far and still act to manage digital rights.

3. Ugly but telling example in 2009 that brought DRM into the headlines Orwell, Kindle, and Amazon In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.angered customersAmazonKindle An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers’ devices, and refunded customers,” he said. Amazon effectively acknowledged that the deletions were a bad idea. “We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances,” Mr. Herdener said.

4. who’s digital rights managed? the IP ownership rights of the legal rights owner the schemes don’t protect the digital rights of users. Although, big content holders say that the measures protect consumers from breaking the law without knowing it, and/or dissuade them from trying as they would if doing so were easy. In other words, protect ourselves from, ourselves, and protecting content by making piracy more difficult.

5. places/ways to exert control the physical layer The file/cd/dvd will not engage with/in certain devices During the “last mile” in a fiber system, a switch on the relay could control access to wireless service log on technologies of many sorts that engage physical devices (card swipes and the like) net neutrality restrictions enacted via monitoring and bandwidth adjustments the code layer Encryption proprietary platforms Within the standards ( Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) ) the content layer “traditional” DRM speed bumps (notices, contract restrictions, etc.) watermarks flags

6. strength of control/applied to what functions? strong everything you have to the single allowed use. (dvd) moderate everything you have to multiple allowed uses (e.g.,downloaded music) only some aspects of the thing you have, to single uses (e.g.,downloaded movies--free watching, no copying/transfer) weak not everything you have and only in some uses (version file conversions; music over home networks, etc.)

7. in this corner: Pro-drm if you don’t lock it up, they'll steal it. user rights? we think users have way fewer rights than they think they do or than they actually do. Digital files can be protected (sort of) DRM is strongly supported by the DMCA and further extension of it is hotly pursued by big media AND big software. loads of folks zero in here with the need for the lock down, ways to do it, and money to be made by doing it. Most large, corporate, holders of protected content, and many digital enterprises, advocate strong DRM.

8. in this corner: con DRM locking stuff up is often an excessive intrusion on user rights. don't blame users for the lack of user law and don't limit their fair use rights because of that void rootkit fiasco... generally, drm doesn’t work and often violates user rights neutral but true: No widely distributed DRM scheme has yet actually defeated determined users DeCSS (and other such schemes) unlock them DVD rip studio or others: the stuff is like mushrooms Apple gave up Even the feds are worried that DRM is often over done: FTC: We’ll “come calling” about deceptive DRM Even the feds are worried that DRM is often over loads of folks are "agin it" Creative commons EFF ALA

9. some of the battlegrounds downloaded music digital TV (digital everything) pay for services restrictions broadcast flag restrictions interoperability restrictions implications of “total” cloud or subscription-provided computing closing analog holes Status of cryptography research and information exchange

10. DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat Why the HTML5 Standard Fight Matters (EFF against it) Why the HTML5 Standard Fight Matters HTML5 steps closer to baked-in DRM support Web Daddy Berners-Lee DRMs HTML5 into 2016 Support for “the playback of protected content” DRM in HTML5 is a VERY hot topic

11. DRM looks silly In hassles over phones in two instances (within the tri-annual rulemaking) the Library of Congress determined that “unlocking” a cell phone so that consumers could switch from one wireless carrier to another without having to purchase a new instrument, should legally receive DMCA exemption (US Copyright Office, “Rulemaking”). Under similar logic, the process of “jail-breaking” a cell phone, “hacking” the phone in order to install software from a source/vender other than the product manufacturer and network, has long been given that legal exemption. However, in 2011, the Library of Congress reversed itself and did not renew the exemption for unlocking cell phones (“US phone unlocking deadline expire”). Somewhat confusingly, the exemption for jail breaking was left in place, but only applies to cell phones, not tablet devices (many of which use the same aps as found in cell phones).

12. Not long after the failure to renew the exemption was fully in place. In January, 2013, a petition at whitehouse.gov zoomed past 100,000 signatures, thereby crossing the mandated thresholds for administration attention (“Make Unlocking”). Soon thereafter, the Obama administration called for a return of the exemption and by September, 2013, the Department of Commerce began examining mandating a return to the exemption (Mullin, March 4, 2013; Farivar, Sept. 17, 2013). None of this action appears closely related to the intent of Congress to use the DMCA’s anti-circumvention language as a way to combat copyright infringement via piracy.

13. DRM looks silly In hassles over phones White House calls for cell phone unlocking ban to be overturned White House calls for cell phone unlocking ban to be overturned Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal (petition) Dept. of Commerce takes tiny step towards restoring right to unlock cellphones Dept. of Commerce takes tiny step towards restoring right to unlock cellphones FCC Chairman's Phone Unlocking Fix Is a Good Start, But Consumers Need More FCC Chairman's Phone Unlocking Fix Is a Good Start, But Consumers Need More

14. License v. Sale (for example, of software): First Sale Doctrine doesn’t applyfor example, of software Who owns the copyright on a copy is also not always clear. the case of the software on a chip on a smartphone that I “purchase”the case of the software on a chip on a smartphone that I “purchase” Big Content wants DRM controls on music to work forever Big Content wants DRM controls on music to work forever Wii U won't play games from other regions Wii U won't play games from other regions

15. Logo, Copyright Notice and Link on Web Site Constitute "Copyright Management Information" under DMCA Logo, Copyright Notice and Link on Web Site Constitute "Copyright Management Information" under DMCA Court: breaking DRM for a "fair use" is legal Court rules copying your own DVD’s is illegal Microsoft Reverses (Another) Anti-User Xbox One Policy Microsoft Reverses (Another) Anti-User Xbox One Policy Smartphone access to Jay-Z’s ‘Magna Carta’ comes with a price: invasion of privacy Smartphone access to Jay-Z’s ‘Magna Carta’ comes with a price: invasion of privacy DRM in Cars Will Drive Consumers Crazy

16. Cunningham v. McMahon Which state? WV Which court? Pre-trial magistrate for U.S. District court, southern What kind of court action do we have here? Lower threshold for getting the case into court. Issues? Cunningham wants to put DRM on trial Has tried 15 earlier times Not swinging with EFF or big lawyer Sues McMahon, who owns the rights to the theme song purchased through iTunes...the DRM is free play….

17. Cunningham v. McMahon What happens? Denied, out, no trial Why? not enough of a case insufficient evidence of harm essentially, asks the court to do the research as to whether the practice violates fair use.The court declines.

18. U.S. Southern District Court, NY Two motions for summary judgment (one from each side) are combined Issues? Cablevision is rolling out a DVR system but has not licensed (for copying) 20th C.F. content. Cablevision claims Sony/Betamax protection 20th C. F. claims infringement 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision

19. First, by briefly storing data in the primary ingest buffer and other data buffers integral to the function of the RS-DVR, Cablevision would make copies of protected works and thereby directly infringe plaintiffs’ exclusive right of reproduction under the Copyright Act. [a DRM claim] Second, by copying programs onto the Arroyo Server hard disks (the “playback copies”), Cablevision would again directly infringe the reproduction right. And third, by transmitting the data from the Arroyo Server hard disks to its RS-DVR customers in response to a “playback” request, Cablevision would directly infringe plaintiffs’ exclusive right of public performance.

20. 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision “For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are granted, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice. Cablevision is permanently enjoined, in connection with its proposed RS-DVR system, from (1) copying plaintiffs' copyrighted works and (2) engaging in public performance of plaintiffs' copyrighted works, unless it obtains licenses to do so.”

21. 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision, appeal United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (NY) Given that the data reside in no buffer for more than 1.2 seconds before being automatically overwritten, and in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary, we believe that the copyrighted works here are not “embodied” in the buffers for a period of more than transitory duration, and are therefore not “fixed” in the buffers. Accordingly, the acts of buffering in the operation of the RS-DVR do not create copies, as the Copyright Act defines that term. Doesn’t directly address the DMR aspect. Rather, decides that there isn’t any copying, so the protection of the ACT (including DRM/DMCA) doesn’t apply.

22. 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision, appeal We conclude only that on the facts of this case, copies produced by the RS-DVR system are “made” by the RS-DVR customer, and Cablevision’s contribution to this reproduction by providing the system does not warrant the imposition of direct liability. each RS-DVR playback transmission is made to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber, we conclude that such transmissions are not performances “to the public,” and therefore do not infringe any exclusive right of public performance