Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

FSF's Stallman pitches new definition for C.R.A.P.

By | February 14, 2006, 1:51pm PST

Summary: If you’ve been following any of the news regarding the now draft version 3 of the GNU General Public License, then you also know by now that the Free Software Foundation and its leader Richard Stallman are looking to prevent the mashing up of GPL’d software with digital rights management (DRM) technology (see TiVo in [...]

If you’ve been following any of the news regarding the now draft version 3 of the GNU General Public License, then you also know by now that the Free Software Foundation and its leader Richard Stallman are looking to prevent the mashing up of GPL’d software with digital rights management (DRM) technology (see TiVo in unenviable role as GPL3 vs. DRM guinea pig).  Even though it’s a scourge that lives at the intersection of technology and entertainment — one that could severely limit our freedom to listen to or watch the content we pay our hard earned money for using the device of our choice — most people are simply turning a blind eye every time DRM gets mentioned.  It’s not a very sexy acronym.  There’s no shock and awe.  The DRM cartel likes it that way.  They don’t want any groundswell of opposition to interfere with their plans to control your horizontal and the vertical.  No, this is not Outer Limits science fiction.  This is the real deal.

To wake people up, I’ve come up with a new acronym for DRM: CRAP.  It stands for Content Restriction Annulment and Protection.  With CRAP technology (aka DRM), your ability to view or listen to the the content you acquire, record, or play in real-broadcast time (ie: a Cable TV or radio program) is easily resticted by its distributors.  They can restrict whether you can record it and what devices you can play it on (including the portable players and the type of computers you can use for playback).  You may agree to a certain license when you’re first exposed to the technology.  But the people at the CRAP controls can revoke those terms and issue new ones whenever they want (thus, annulment).  And, the worst scourge to many: you’re prevented by both the technology and the law (the Digital Millenium Copyright Act or DMCA) from tampering with CRAP technology, even if it’s only to make a copy that works on an unsupported device for your own personal use (the protection part). I’ve written about CRAP.  Made videos about CRAP.  And now, I’m getting emails from Richard Stallman about CRAP. 

Stallman appears to like the shock and awe value of CRAP but has proposed a different meaning for it’s initials. Wrote Richard via email:

The main reason I prefer "Cancellation, Restriction and Punishment" is that it avoids the terms "Content" and "Protection".  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for why I want to avoid them.  However, I think these words [Cancellation, Restriction and Punishment] are more everyday and simple, which are goals that you have emphasized in our conversation. 

The conversation he’s referring to is one where he originally proposed "Cancellation/Restriction of Art Presentations."  I objected to the "Art Presentations" part on the grounds that it’s just as problematic in resonating with the masses as "DRM" is.  I argued that we needed something that resonates with everyone who’s at risk (basically, everyone).  Cancellation? I get it.  That’s akin to annulment.  Restriction?  I’m jiggy with it.  I’m already using it in my own CRAP.  "A" for "And?" Just trying to make the acronym work.  "P" for "Punishment?"   Richard likes this because that’s what you can get (punished) if you tamper with CRAP (based on the DMCA).  It does get the point across.  I kinda like my defintion and we’ve received a lot of supportive email from ZDNet’s audience regarding my recasting of DRM as CRAP. But who am I to make such important decisions? Rather than work it out between us, I proposed to Richard that we throw it out there to the masses (kind of the way GPL’d software is developed) to see which of the two you prefer? So…

  • Content Restriction Annulment and Protection
  • Cancellation Restriction and Punishment

Let us know.  

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

David

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?page_id=2993

Biography

David

David Berlind, formerly the executive editor of ZDNet, holds a BBA in Computer Information Systems. Prior to becoming a tech journalist in 1991, David was an IT manager that was responsible for the design and deployment of custom developed software, local and wide area networks, PC-Mainframe connectivity, corporate technology standard-setting and end-user training programs. Since then, David has served as the Director of PC Week Labs (now eWeek), editor-in-chief at Windows Sources, editorial director at Computer Shopper and general manager at Ziff-Davis.

Talkback Most Recent of 33 Talkback(s)

  • I'd say...
    both yours and Richard's definition are pretty good at emphasizing the ugly side of DRM, but the acronym is a bit too chuckle-inducing for non-techies, so it might not be taken seriously.

    I don't think we need new acronyms to spread the word, we need more Digital Restrictions Management trainwrecks to show the masses how bad DRM really is. And judging by the recent trainwrecks publicly outed(Sony XCP/MediaMax, iTunes MiniStore, StarForce, Alpha-DVD in Germany), it may not be long until enough trainwrecks pile up to make everyone really take notice.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tony Agudo
    14th Feb 2006
  • I second this
    DRM has had some high-profile failures that resulted in a lot of back-peddling, especially on CDs. The real way to fight this is for the media to play on the consumer's fears - showing them how expensive and bulky DRM/CRAP is.

    DRM/CRAP = Sony installing spyware on your computer.
    DRM/CRAP = CDs not playing in your car's CD player.

    That's the stuff the populace will respond to. They need real-life examples of how it affects them personally.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tjleeland
    15th Feb 2006
  • What garbage. Get over yourself!
    There is a an entire world of data/content besides what comes from RIAA and the MPAA. You sound as if you would throw the baby out with the bath water. I WANT to have ABSOLUTE control over ALL of my content/data and I don't give a dang if you like that or not.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    14th Feb 2006
  • That's exactly the attitude...
    "I WANT to have ABSOLUTE control over ALL of my content/data and I don't give a dang if you like that or not."

    ...that leads DRM creators to severely tresspass over consumers' rights of fair use. Digital Restrictions Management(or C.R.A.P.) has a few major drawbacks:

    1. Limiting or outright denial of fair use. Music is music, movies are movies, yet with DRM you have music that is splintered;you may have the latest U2 album from iTunes Music Store, but that Linkin Park album you want is Rhapsody-only, for example. You can't take that Linkin Park album and play it under RealPlayer, according to both DRM systems. It's reasonable and fair to want to do this, but thanks to DRM we have little walled gardens that give little or no consideration to fair uses.

    2. Security risks. I don't need to tell you about the Sony XCP/MediaMax scandal, nor the iTunes MiniStore kerfluffle, we all know what happened there. But it demonstrates a disturbing possible trend emerging: DRM systems employing malware tactics, and deceiving users about it.

    3. Loss of control. Notice how DRM vendors can further restrict your rights at any given time, without advance knowledge? That's the "self technological help" that's stated in many DRM EULAs.

    Oh, and as your question about who's holding a gun to David's head: As a clue, look at your quote closely. If you're a DRM creator with that kind of attitude(there's a lot out there), you could be the one holding that gun saying: "I don't care how important my content is to you; if you don't accept this DRM, you don't get access, period".
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tony Agudo
    14th Feb 2006
  • Small correction
    "You can't take that Linkin Park album and play it under RealPlayer, according to both DRM systems."

    Sorry, meant to say U2, not Linkin Park in the example.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tony Agudo
    14th Feb 2006
  • CRAP
    I couldn't agree more. I do not want Windows Media Player on my computer at all. I have totally scrubbed it from my machine. I NORMALLY use a media player that plays WMA with no problem. Recently, I downloaded a purchased song. When I attempted to play it, I was taken to Microsoft's Windows Media Player download page. I then installed another player capable of playing WMA. Again I was taken to Microsoft's site. It seems I will be totally unable to play legally purchased music without kowtowing to C.R.A.P.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    dgsisson
    31st May 2006
  • playing your song
    I think you attempted to play the song directly by clicking on it, rather than firing up your other player and then accessing the song from your player's requester.

    If you try it that way, I think you will bypass the WMP need coded into the song.

    On the other hand, if you're a good programmer, get a hex viewer-editor and change the relevant bits which offend.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bart001fr
    1st Jun 2006
  • What if
    you can't produce any content or distribute it without their approval? Unless you are one of the big corporate people (which I wouldn't be suprised) You will not be able to distribute your own material. Between this, software patents, and other changing regulations, we are moving from a capitalistic society to a corporate one.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pcfixup4ua
    15th Feb 2006
  • But the problem is, you don't actually have that right
    See, under fair use laws you don't have the right to have ABSOLUTE control over ALL of [your] content/data. Whether you like it or not.

    Otherwise we wouldn't have things like libraries; and you could be stopped from lending or giving a book to a friend.

    And guess what, authors and publishers have somehow managed to do very well despite the fact that I can walk into a building and read thousands of books for free - in just about any city in this country.

    With DRM/CRAP applied to our past, you might not be able to get a book that's out of print (no reselling of books, per CRAP) or have an archive of historical texts (the author is dead, publisher gone, no one to approve your use). It's a dead end for everyone. So for the greater good, you don't get to have absolute control. Sorry.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tjleeland
    15th Feb 2006
  • Crap
    David: I prefer yours
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wayne pratt
    14th Feb 2006
  • One more question, who has a gun to your head?
    I mean you don't like the DRM model, ok I understand. So who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy anything (content) containing DRM?

    You see, I am a big boy that can look at a product and decide to spend my "hard earned dollars" on it or simply walk away. For some reason that seems to be beyond your abilities. Care to explain why?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    14th Feb 2006
  • sheeple I tell you...
    And what content won't have DRM in it down the line?

    db
    ZDNet Gravatar
    dberlind
    14th Feb 2006
  • Not much...
    "And what content won't have DRM in it down the line?"

    ...if the Analog Hole, Broadcast Flag, and Audio Flag bills get passed. Those would be the "3 Bills of Fair Use Death" if I'm not mistaken.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Tony Agudo
    14th Feb 2006
  • who has a gun to your head?
    Is the problem that "You really just don't get it", or are you as
    obtuse as you seem? It has been said many ways but it always
    means the same thing. Those who forget the past are condemned
    to repeat it.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Protagonistic
    15th Feb 2006
  • C.R.A.P. could actually be
    Corporatism
    Restricting
    Activities of the
    Proletariat

    The big media companies who operate as a cartel and control almost all artistic and most other media are using this to increase their profits. Their ultimate goal is to be able to charge for every view or listen from creation forever.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pcfixup4ua
    15th Feb 2006

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources