I think the basic thing Cory is asking for is labels so consumers are aware that, say, music they purchase from the iTunes store won't work the same way as music purchased on a CD. The differences aren't being made clear enough, and the consumers are having to learn the hard way.

For example, I recently filled up the hard drive on my computer. I bought a new, larger drive, installed MacOSX on it, then restored my files. None of my iTunes purchases will play anymore on this computer. The old incarnation of my G5 is authorized to play them, as are a couple of other computers throughout my house (but not all of them, as I have more computers than they allow). I now have to figure out how to deauthorize the non-existing instance of the OS in order to authorize this one. I also can't listen to the AAC files on my car mp3 player, so I have to "break" the DRM (burn to CD, re-rip as mp3) in order to use the files I purchased.

I never, ever have those problems with music purchased on CDs. I rip to mp3 and use the files on any of my players.

Worse yet, Apple (still using the same example) can release new versions of iTunes and change the rules as they see fit. They can retroactively take away features that I had already been using. And they do it.

The real problem is one of consumer awareness. The early rounds of CD copy protection were released without notice. People got home with their new music and it didn't work in their players because the DRM interfered, but as far as they knew it was just a "broken" CD.

Worse still is the ability to remove capabilities after the fact. Cory has explained that one sufficiently.

Content providers are free to cripple their content however they feel. They can lock it up in a vault and never let anyone see it if they so desire. That's their right under copyright law, but consumers also have rights under copyright law. The laws are there to protect both sides; to ensure the rights of the owners, as well as to promote sharing and progress.

Its a tradeoff. Right now the content owners are trying to take all the control. Cory, myself, and others are all letting our voices be heard on behalf of consumers. I don't deny that content owners deserve to profit from their wares, but I do have issue with them trying to rip me off by trying to charge me for capabilities I can already do for free, or trying to charge me more for something of less value.

I don't mind buying things for a fair price. That's how the market works.

Nope. Missed no point. He has an underlying theory of autonomy from the ownership interest in content that is untenable and not in line with law. Pure wishery. If folks are not aware that music licenses purchased are media specific <i>as they have always been</i> then that is a lesson - but it is not future shock but wilful blindness of how the world has been all along. The fair use rules are extremely restricted and have been for a long time. In light of the rapacious nature of the new technologies in the hands of the consumer, it is a bit hollow to point the fingers at the content owners. <p>Just because a tool can do things for people doesn't mean they should. That is why possession of break and enter instruments is a crime in itself.

>>the disposability of most things
That's an insightful quote which points to the way the market will correct itself. The DRM'd versions of things will be disposed of by a fickle consumer base and another less restrictive version will eventually take their place.

On the other hand, the problem with DRM today is not how the content providers decide to publish their goods. I strongly object to content providers attempting to legislate and control the playback and recording products I own. I will never be convinced it's acceptable to disable the fast forward button on my DVD player regardless of the content provider's wishes.

>>Just because a tool can do things for people doesn't mean they should.
We're not talking about products that break DRM protection here (though I own and enjoy them). We're talking about products that allow the consumer to practice fair use of intellectual property they have purchased. This is a basic assumption that's in line with decades of usage and legislation in the United States. The pro-DRM content providers want to limit my legal behavior in my home with content that I own.

Let content providers publish in any form they want. Let electronics and software creators publish every form of playback and recording products the market demands. We should not allow our laws to stifle innovation and normal market forces.

Those are interesting comments, Edgar, but do you not still place yourself as consumer of a licence to use for a defined and limited purpose ahead of the granter of that licence? Fair use cannot trump the copyright itself as it is an exception to the copyright and as such is dependant on the greater interest. Fair use cannot come to mean loss of ownership interest and control - the new economists would have you believe that is possible but they are just wrong. Your ownership of a playback machine cannot define a right to the creative content of others that it plays.<p>You do point out to the correct response - do not buy the DRM product if you fear its restrictions. But do not expect any vendor to sell the farm to get your business back. It will only advance by increments and the hack will always remain illegal. If not, why would anyone create content for sale?

>>but do you not still place yourself as consumer of a licence
>>to use for a defined and limited purpose ahead of the granter of that licence?
Great question, the answer illuminates why I feel so strongly that DRM legislation is inherently wrong. I don't place myself as a 'consumer of a licence'. I place myself as an owner of a product. The product is, of course, a licensed copy of a CD, movie, book or other IP. I believe that I should have legal fair use of that product. I should be able to rip a song and add it to a mix CD for my own use, fast forward a movie whenever and however I choose, or use the book to prop up a short table leg.

>>Fair use cannot come to mean loss of ownership interest and control
Fair use has always implied a degree of lost ownership control. That's how it should work. Until recently people who pay for and receive a product have been granted by default certain rights and abilities concerning that product. This same system we've had for decades has created a thriving industry for artists, distributors, and publishers even though they have never before had the kind of control they now want.

>>Fair use ... is dependant on the greater interest
I agree, and believe consumers who legally purchase products make up the greater interest.

>>But do not expect any vendor to sell the farm to get your business back.
I expect them to create better content and distribution systems and attractively price products to get more of my business. I do not expect them to distort the market by limiting my choices with anti-competitive practices.

I would accept a publisher's choice to release content only to DRM crippled systems. That's their perogative. I can't accept that they would try to force legislation so all systems be crippled and controlled by them. That is certainly not in the greater interest of American consumers or businesses.

The big media corporations interest lie in market control not copyright protection. On the subject of controlling the market, I recommend a great episode of 'This American Life', 'The Fix Is In':
http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/00/168.html
"...we go inside the back rooms of one multinational corporation and hear the intricate workings--recorded on tape--of how they put the fix in."
You're in for a treat if you haven't heard it before. It's a fascinating story that reveals a facet of big business we don't often see in this kind of detail.

BTW, this kind of vibrant online discussion, post, trackback, comment, and so on, is just one of the reasons blogs probably won't die off. Thanks for the fun.

Anytime.<p>Hardcover books. Publishers make you pay 75% more for the book in the first year. Should that be outlawed? Is it analogous?

The hardcover is, in theory, a value-add and doesn't limit the fair use of the content. The price of the product is irrelevant. A better analogy would be publishers attempting to outlaw libraries and used book stores. Do you believe these should be outlawed?

Alan, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for allowing the content providers to disable my fast forward button.

All these functions are either in your license or they are not. Know what you are buying. Do not confuse, like Doctorow does, capacity with right. If you look at an earlier writing of his, starting at the line numbered 261, you will see that he argues because hacking cannot be effectively stopped universally, the property interest being hacked is not so absolute. Accordingly, by that logic, theives who break in you house must be accorded a measure of property interest in your stuff. Similarly, the fast-forward is not so much disabled as not enabled. The particular medium this content exists upon simply does not come with that option. Does the record button work when you put a store-bought cassette? No. Why? The holder of the right to which you get a license to use did not grant it. These digital toys are merely content-displaying instruction-reading machines. If the instructions are not granted to you, the machine does not provide the content. If you do not like the fact that you do not have that control, that is too bad - but you do not have it because you did not buy it.<p>My problem with Cory's writing is not so much the failure to honour property so much as to honour analysis. Whatever will happen with DRM, it will not create a world of copyright exception which undermines other forms of copyright interest or other property right. There has to be - and simply will be - consistency. Wishing otherwise is seeing the question partially. Thinking that mere new technological capacity conveys that change in legal rights inherently is simply foolish. The rights balance will always be in favour of the owner of a thing, even with that which is copyrighted - otherwise what is the point of ownership as a concept at all? Cory does not get that and it is his abolutism that wastes whatever good points he may have.

Edgar - I just noticed you had posted too. I was thinking of price as another part of the license function, another term that could be tinkered with. What if you could get the fast forward but only if you paid 100% more? What if you could get a very important book but there were only 100 copies sold on one day and they cost $100,000 but could be copied indefinitely once all were sold so that the author was ensured of a great income? Prince in this was is an element which could be addressed in a content license transaction to provide a mechanism for access for the consumers and return for the content owners. <p>That hardcover comment is a diluted version of this - if you want the content first, you have to pay a premium. Timing, format and pricing combined. Libraries actually counteract this by using public purchasing power and collective purchasing to put the hardcovers on the shelf asap - but the reader loses the exclusivity of the instance of the item. Again, there is that balancing.