Anti-DRM efforts in Boston and Cambridge

[robertlaferla at comcast.net (Robert La Ferla)]

On Jun 8, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

> <quote who="Robert La Ferla" date="Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:03:31PM  
> -0400">
>> DRM is evil but it is a bit misguided to take aim at Apple's DRM.
>> Apple is "reasonable" when it comes to fair use.  You can authorize
>> up to FIVE players to listen to your iTunes music and you can even
>> burn your music to a plain unprotected audio CD.
>
> Maybe it is reasonable compared to others but it's not good. What if I
> want to take a full-quality sample of a song I purchase from ITMS and
> edit it and integrate it into a parody or a review? I have every
> *legal* right to do this under fair use but can't here.

You can burn it to a CD and re-rip it.  There's a small loss in  
quality but that should be adequate for a parody/review.  That's why  
it is "reasonable"  Now, I would love to export my iTunes music to a  
MP3 disc (to listen in my car) without the hassle of burning a CD.  I  
can't do it but it's not a showstopper.  I think there needs to be a  
tradeoff here between consumer and manufacturer needs and when I see  
a reasonable compromise by a manufacturer, I don't see the rationale  
in protesting it.  Especially when there are bigger things to protest  
like HDCP.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP

> In the past, when you bought media and bought your computer, you had
> the freedom to do what you wanted to do with both. That's what allows
> us to install Linux despite deals that our hardware vendors make with
> MS. If we violated the law (copyright or otherwise) we could be held
> accountable. The technology itself did not try to only allow or us
> from doing the things that the media or technology companies
> wanted. Our computers were our computers. But those days are
> gone. That's what this protest is about.

I totally agree with the larger issue.  I just don't think Apple who  
has put out a reasonable DRM should be targeted.