Matchstick, The More Open Chromecast, Destroyed By DRM, Announces Plans To Return All Funds

from the drm-sucks dept

A year ago, a project called Matchstick launched on Kickstarter -- designed to be an open, WiFi connected HDMI stick, built on Firefox OS, to let you stream over the top video to your TV. It was touted as a more open version of the Chromecast device. It got over 17,000 backers (including me) and raised nearly $500,000. It was supposed to be delivered in February of this year but was pushed back after the Matchstick team announced that it had decided to build in DRM support. This angered plenty of people who, quite rightly, noted that they had bought into the vision of an open platform, rather than one that furthered the cause of DRM. However, the Matchstick team had weighed that against the fact that many popular video streaming services, including Netflix, require DRM, and decided that it couldn't exist without DRM. The plan, the team announced, was to ship in August.

Well, now it's August, and... the project is dead and Matchstick is refunding everyone's money. Because DRM.
After struggling with the DRM development based on Firefox OS for most of this year, we realize continued development of DRM, though showing early signs of promise, will be a long and difficult road. We have come to the conclusion that we will not be able to reliably predict the completion date of the DRM development without significantly more research, development and integration.

We feel the only responsible thing to do now is to refund 100% of the pledge money to our backers. You have been very patient with us, and we feel announcing another major delay in the Matchstick delivery would not be fair to our backers. We apologize for not being able to update you sooner.
Not surprisingly, many of the comments in response to this are asking why the team bothered with DRM in the first place. Multiple people are asking the Matchstick team to go back to its original promise and just ship a device without DRM, because that's what they backed and that's what they want. The vast, vast, vast majority of comments look pretty similar to the following:
Of course, given that Matchstick was built on Firefox OS and heavily promoted and associated with Mozilla, some will undoubtedly point to Mozilla's decision a little over a year ago to give in and adopt DRM in HTML 5, something it had fought for a while. While the two are not directly connected (and the decision on DRM in Mozilla had been made before the Matchstick product even was announced), it shows how companies that are trying to build more open, DRM-free offerings, are increasingly being pressured into adding DRM for no good reason.

Once again, can someone remind me of a single positive thing that has come from DRM?

Filed Under: drm, firefox os, matchstick, ott, streaming
Companies: matchstick


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 1:37am

    Define 'positive'

    Once again, can someone remind me of a single positive thing that has come from DRM?

    Well that depends, does any of the following strike you as a good thing?

    - Infinite duration copyrights, no matter the current duration, allowing you to lock up a work forever.

    - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine, barring any ability of a customer to resell what they bought from you.

    - Similar to the above, being able to severely restrict what someone is able to do with your product, regardless of whether or not the actions desired would be legal without the DRM in place.

    - Provides a single point of failure for your product, such that if the DRM fails to work for whatever reason, the product itself is bricked, and utterly useless.

    - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice by only affecting paying customers, making the paid version noticeably worse and providing incentive for even those that want to pay to pirate instead if they want a working product.

    And probably the #1 'benefit' of DRM:

    - Allows those selling it to rake in the cash like bandit kings, after they convince a company that the best way to build a professional relationship of mutual respect with their customers is to treat them as criminals by infecting their product with intrusive and restrictive malware/DRM.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:42am

      Re: Define 'positive'

      Those are "benefits" of the DMCA and not of DRM itself.
      DRM's only "benefit" is to quote some industry reps "keeping honest consumers honest". And even that is eventually defeated.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 4 Aug 2015 @ 5:16am

        Re: Re: Define 'positive'

        DRM's only "benefit" is to quote some industry reps "keeping honest consumers honest".

        More like "keeping honest consumers exasperated" and "keeping bootleggers out", namely out of the temptation to meddle with legitimate copies that are likely to brick their systems, scan its contents and report them. Why pay money just to get the most expensive, invasive, and destructive malware on your systems?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 9:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Define 'positive'

          You just nailed the incentive, almost always it's for the challenge to win the included game. To beat the DRM FTW.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 5:24am

        Re: Re: Define 'positive'

        Those are "benefits" of the DMCA and not of DRM itself.

        Both I'd say. DRM without the anti-circumvention clause means you can break it without worry, while the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA without DRM would be pointless. One requires the other, and vice-versa.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:42am

      Re: Define 'positive'

      Those are "benefits" of the DMCA and not of DRM itself.
      DRM's only "benefit" is to quote some industry reps "keeping honest consumers honest". And even that is eventually defeated.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:04pm

        Pirated experience > Honest experience

        Well, except that then the experience of being dishonest is better than the experience of being honest, which we've seen not only from tedious authentication processes, but also honest versions of movies having large amounts of unskippable commercial content (which is actually an abuse of said honesty, not of DRM itself).

        Both of these discourage the honest from staying honest, once there is a vector by which they can get dishonest material.

        There's also the factor of convenience: If I own an optical version of a movie, the business wants me to buy again for any new version of the movie or a replacement of broken media (even though it's a license). And they don't want me to rip the media to data form so I can play it on my mobile device.

        I'm sorry, but no-one's going to tell me I can't put rum in my Coca-cola, or require that I use proprietary overpriced, poor-quality rum.

        So yeah, there's actually a lot of impetus for the honest to resort to pirate sources in order to get their movie on.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      lfroen (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 6:11am

      Re: Define 'positive'

      While I'm hardly DRM defender, your points are nothing but FUD.
      >> - Infinite duration copyrights,
      That's legal issue, not technical

      >> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine
      No it does not. Legal issue, too.

      >> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
      You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?

      >> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice
      I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.

      In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 4 Aug 2015 @ 7:49am

        Re: Re: Define 'positive'


        >> - Infinite duration copyrights,
        That's legal issue, not technical

        DRM does not have built-in expiry provisions, and after copyright ceases, DRM circumvention does not become legal. How much are you going to bet that being in possession of a DRM-encumbered medium with expired copyright will give you legal standing to sue the producer for copyright misuse?

        >> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
        You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?

        Not a "single point of failure" because I can legally ask people to open the door and/or crack the door and/or put in a lock of my own choosing when I lose the key.
        In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product.

        Yup. That's what I do. And the industry attributes their loss of sales to "piracy" which makes as much sense as Chanel accusing me of piracy because I forego perfume.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re: Define 'positive'

        That's legal issue, not technical

        You're splitting hairs. Whether it's technical or legal, it's still something that DRM enables. In the absence of DRM, does a company/seller have the ability described? No? Then you can attribute it to the DRM

        No it does not. Legal issue, too.

        See above response.

        You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?

        Locks on your house and car actually serve a purpose, and benefit the owner. DRM punishes the owner, and if it fails it punishes them even more. A lock on a car or house provides protection for the car/house owner, DRM provides 'protection' against them, and ensures they never own what they thought they purchased.

        I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.

        Right, let me put it this way. Say a store had a problem with shoplifting. Say in response they set up a system that only affected paying customers, making their shopping experience drastically worse, and did absolutely nothing to even mildly inconvenience the actual shoplifters.

        That's DRM.

        It's not a matter of 'inconvinience', it's a matter of who it's affecting, and more importantly, who it isn't. When the ones paying you are getting a worse product and/or experience that the ones who aren't, you're doing something wrong.

        In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.

        Well, yes. Why would someone like malware?

        As for 'Don't like it, don't buy'? I don't. If it has DRM, I give it a pass. If it might have DRM and I can't tell? I give it a pass. Saves me a lot of money that I can spend on people and companies that actually deserve it.

        However, this doesn't stop me from being affected by it, because the same type of people that think DRM is a great idea also love to think of even worse way to screw people over, and they generally don't pay too much attention to who is affected. It also doesn't stop DRM from being an insanely stupid idea, thanks to the whole 'Punishes everyone but the claimed target' bit, a fact that always bears repeating.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 5:23pm

        Re: Re: Define 'positive'

        >> - Infinite duration copyrights,
        > That's legal issue, not technical
        No, he's misusing "copyrights" but the issue is technical: DRM prevents copying, even when doing so would be legal.

        >> - Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine
        > No it does not. Legal issue, too.
        I agree: it side-steps FSD, it doesn't undermine it.

        >> - Provides a single point of failure for your product
        > You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
        No, because those locks, if they fail, can be easily broken or circumvented (by breaking a window). Most physical locks are more a social construct than actual security. DRM is usually truly difficult, unless poorly implemented. Look at it this way: DRM equivalent in the real world would be having someone inspect your house and then check to see if you have the proper access rights before allowing you to read a book you bought. The lock on your house is similar to the password on your computer; DRM is about a second party having control over how you access things already in your possession.

        >> - Makes piracy a much more attractive choice
        > I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is [much] simpler.
        Bad analogy. Using my analogy from above, it would be like obtaining a pirate copy of a book so that the second party never even thinks to inspect your house, you never have to let them in, and you never have to ensure your records with them are still accessible in order to read your book (that you would have bought, except for all the restrictions). Another (loose) analogy might be using solar panels to generate your own electricity instead of having to pay a utility a monthly fee for the privilege. If you really want to stretch it, it might be running an electrical cord to a public plug to avoid paying for your electricity -- but that leaves out the D and M from DRM, only the rights (copyright or distribution right/property right) are affected.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 3:11am

    DRM creates jobs. 'nuf said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 4 Aug 2015 @ 3:49am

      Re:

      quote: DRM creates jobs. 'nuf said.

      Yes, a few temporary jobs for programmers and a bit more for lawyers. with the public paying for both.
      It is really not something to be proud of.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Another Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:35am

        Re: Re:

        >quote: DRM creates jobs. 'nuf said.
        >
        >Yes, a few temporary jobs for programmers and a bit more
        >for lawyers. with the public paying for both.
        >It is really not something to be proud of.

        Keeps the guys a Techdirt busy, too - gives 'em something to write about.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      DRM doesn't create jobs, it protects them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2015 @ 1:09am

      Re:

      How many jobs did drm create with this project?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 3:59am

    >Because DRM

    Maybe, but I doubt it. It's just another lofty Kickstarter that was made by individuals that bit off more than they could chew. Blaming DRM is a good scapegoat. Lucklily there are FOSS projects like Kodi and OSMC which have bigger communities than this would have ever dreamed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:03am

    It is a pity. We are lacking a good hdmi stick that simply streams stuff from your pc to another screen. I do hope DRM becomes highly toxic as soon as possible.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 6:21am

    Once again, can someone remind me of a single positive thing that has come from DRM?
    The only thing that comes to mind is the saying "You can't fix stupid" is one of the greatest scientific facts ever discovered by man.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 6:35am

    One single thing?

    There is zero good coming from DRM (or Digital Restriction Management as Mr. Stallman would say). It is only a way to cause users serious pain and suffering. I can get that simply by asking my wife how her day went...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 8:24am

    The unfortunate side effect of not supporting DRM

    The unfortunate effect of Matchstick not supporting DRM is that they'd have to miss out many parts of the web that are currently taken for granted in any respectable streaming device. Netflix is the obvious MIA, but there are also the rentals for YouTube and Vimeo, the movies from Apple and Google, and many audio streaming sites. Without DRM, the offerings such a device could offer would be very limited. Not their fault of course, it's the way that the media industry defends its model, and prevents third parties from participating in full without submitting to the whims of said conglomerate. All in all, I understand why Matchstick preferred to close their project, instead of releasing a "crippled" device due to factors out of their control.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dakre (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 9:44am

    Loving the benefits

    We all love DRM, because can't modify your own car's software because it's to "keep you safe," and you can't benchmark games on EA's Origin without them blocking you for 24 hours for swapping out hardware multiple times. I think the reason was for logging into multiple computers. The only difference is the legal issues you'll have on the former.

    Now obviously it should be clear of my sarcasm for loving DRM (otherwise it is now). Let's all just get in the Pharmaceutical industry while we're at it, since they are copyright/DRM pros. Specifically referring to (for those that don't know), that they keep their expensive drugs on the market by delaying generics from joining the market. It's like implementing DRM and saying you can't do this because they said so, and you have no choice in the matter. Especially for the people who have to have the drugs.

    It's not enough to make it difficult (or impossible) to get, but they also have to kick them in the nuts too. Next up, they implement DRM (Diseases Ready for the Masses), so they can suck up more money. More sarcasm there of course.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 9:47am

    Journalisnm

    So, techdirt, when you reached out to the project owners to ask for their comments, what did they say?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2015 @ 9:49am

      Re: Journalisnm

      "Journalism-free zone" was what I meant the subject line to be, before I somehow accidentally submitted the comment early.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2015 @ 3:48am

      Re: Journalisnm

      Perhaps you missed the block quote in the article of what they said. Reading comprehension is a useful skill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 12:07pm

    Let's cut deeper.

    Can someone tell me with reasonable certainty of a single good that has come from copyright?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DocGerbil100 (profile), 4 Aug 2015 @ 4:11pm

      Re: Let's cut deeper.

      As I understand it, in earlier times, it allowed legitimate publishers - the ones who had proper legal agreements and paid royalties to authors - to prevent the commercial book pirates of the day from completely hammering the market with unlicensed copies.

      Back then, this meant the difference between authors benefiting financially from their work and authors - in some cases - dying in poverty.

      It's debatable - and I doubt anyone can honestly put figures to it - but I'm reasonably certain it incentivised the creation and publication of new work, provided a legal framework for the creators to be identified as such and provided creators with the chance to make a living from doing so, just as it was supposed to do.

      These days, of course, the same middleman companies are now aggressive multinational corporations, synonymous with rampant abuse of copyright, with actual content creators and the general public being screwed over at every turn.

      But that abuse doesn't take away from copyrights ancient past, where it served as a positive force for the public good - and it's a damn shame that corporate greed has so thoroughly destroyed both copyrights credibility and it's ability to serve for the good of us all.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Socrates, 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:36am

        Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

        Uriel-238: Can someone tell me with reasonable certainty of a single good that has come from copyright?
        It reduced the number of people that were unhappy with Queen Mary (*)
        It also increased the number living in ignorant bliss, and made the guild of printers that got the copyright monopoly rich.


        DocGerbil100: But that abuse doesn't take away from copyrights ancient past, where it served as a positive force for the public good.
        Queen Mary is the original creator of copyright, and she did so on May 4, 1557.


        (*) The way she did it is why she is known as Bloody Mary
        Recommended reading on the subject: http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/02/history-of-copyright-part-2-tudoric-feud/

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:21pm

          Maybe we should try cutting to the bone...

          What good has come from intellectual property (including patents)?

          I keep thinking of Charles Goodyear who made some critical advancements in vulcanization yet died penniless. Our system seems to less reward innovative inventions rather innovative ways for the business-savvy and financially enabled to steal ideas from their creative sources.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:26pm

            Let me rephrase that...

            Considering how IP is causing more damage to the public and to industries in general, while benefiting only their owners, is there any reason at this point for a society to continue to respect IP as a property?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          DocGerbil100 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:42pm

          Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

          I wasn't referring to Bloody Mary. For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright.

          The legal right of a single company - literally just one - to determine, censor and publish all of Britain's printed works is a far cry from what came into being later.

          Copyright - more-or-less as we know it today - came into being with the Statute of Anne, which was a lot more civilised than its predecessor.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            DocGerbil100 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:51pm

            Re: Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

            Oops. Lost a sentence edit, sorry:

            "For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright."

            should read

            "For all that they share similar names and terms, what came into being as a result of Mary's Stationers Monopoly and the subsequent Licensing of the Press Act 1662, bare little resemblance to modern copyright."

            Techdirt and the edit button. When will they ever meet?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 4:02pm

            Little resemblance to modern copyright

            To be fair, copyright as described in the US Constitution bares little resemblance to modern copyright.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2015 @ 3:54am

            Re: Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

            "I wasn't referring to Bloody Mary. For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright."

            Oh, please excuse us, we thought you wrote actually "in earlier times". We all hate it when Techdirt changes what we wrote like that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2015 @ 3:57am

        Re: Re: Let's cut deeper.

        "It's debatable - and I doubt anyone can honestly put figures to it - but I'm reasonably certain it incentivised the creation and publication of new work, provided a legal framework for the creators to be identified as such and provided creators with the chance to make a living from doing so, just as it was supposed to do."

        Yah, if it weren't for copyright classics like Shakespeare's works would have never been written. Oh, wait...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 1:16am

    Another good idea destroyed by Digital Restriction Management software.

    I don't see any good reason why DRM of this kind should not be reclassified as malware and it's use banned.

    Tie it to the next copyright extension the maximalists demand - if they want the bad, they'll have to take the good along with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 4:25am

    Still confused

    I did RTFA and I fail to see the benefit here. Netflix (the given example) doesn't require DRM from my computer to the display. I'm not even certain how DRM would prevent 'piracy' as I am unlikely to try to send a copy of the signal to my neighborhood - given than the device is a relatively low power receiver and, one presumes, there is already a 1:1 pairing system. At least they are returning everyone's money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Scott, 5 Aug 2015 @ 7:25am

    DRM Benefits

    TONS of DRM benefits. I know you'd rather it not exist. But truth be told my iPhone (looking at it now for examples) has tons of things that are thanks to DRM. Apple Music (millions of streaming songs without having to buy them all), TiVo (stream and transfer shows recorded on my TiVo), Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and about 2 dozen streaming channels (NBC, ABC, ESPN, Disney, etc).

    Let's be honest. None of those apps would have been developed, and none of that content would be available outside of piracy without DRM. Nobody was going to get contractual rights to stream the content without some form of protection.

    It's that simple... it may be annoying. It may be cumbersome. It may limit your options... but without it... we'd still be renting from Blockbuster and rewinding VHS tapes.

    Sure, I could open a VPN and Torrent away and have ultimate freedom, but as far as legal options go, I'm glad there are some, since I don't mind PAYING for content, since if we all stopped doing that... there wouldn't really be much content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 9:26am

      Re: DRM Benefits

      ...thanks to DRM, [we have] Apple Music (millions of streaming songs without having to buy them all), TiVo (stream and transfer shows recorded on my TiVo), Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and about 2 dozen streaming channels (NBC, ABC, ESPN, Disney, etc).

      [citation needed]

      Seriously that's like saying we couldn't have FM radio because someone might dare record it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 9:11am

    Not arguing DRM

    Just asking why the project thought it was needed for a short distance wireless video link. I don't believe my ChromeCast has one, for example, I don't use DRM for the other ways I connect devices to TVs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 9:22am

    D R and M are pretty useful letters in the alphabet, The words Dodgy , Radical and Magical would not exist without them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 11:02am

    DRM

    I was going to say that it reduces aerodynamic drag in order to increase top speed and promote overtaking in motor racing, but that's wrong, right?

    :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    be positive?, 6 Aug 2015 @ 7:22pm

    Well, it once stopped me from installing norton for someone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Richard Stallman, 17 Aug 2015 @ 1:01am

    Eliminate DRM

    You can help eliminate Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). The first step is to agree that DRM is an inescusable injustice, and ought to be eliminated. The second step is to sign up at DefectiveByDesign.org. The third step, if you wish, is to join the Free Software Foundation at fsf.org.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.