Interesting move by Cory Doctorow and the EFF in sending some letters to the FTC making a strong case that DRM requires some "truth in labeling" details in order to make sure people know what they're buying. We've been pointing out for years, that DRM often means that you don't really own what you think you bought. The argument is pretty straightforward:

The legal force behind DRM makes the issue of advance notice especially pressing. It's bad enough to when a product is designed to prevent its owner from engaging in lawful, legitimate, desirable conduct - but when the owner is legally prohibited from reconfiguring the product to enable that conduct, it's vital that they be informed of this restriction before they make a purchase, so that they might make an informed decision.

Though many companies sell products with DRM encumbrances, few provide notice of these encumbrances. Of those that do, fewer still enumerate the restrictions in plain, prominent language. Of the few who do so, none mention the ability of the manufacturer to change the rules of the game after the fact, by updating the DRM through non-negotiable updates that remove functionality that was present at the time of purchase.

The letter also includes numerous examples of people being stymied from actually using products they had purchased, thanks to unclear DRM restrictions. Here's an example from the music world:

Adam J installed Microsoft's Groove and it automatically imported his iTunes and Amazon libraries, and automatically - and erroneously - flagged 30% of his collection as being DRMencumbered. It then added Groove's own DRM to these tracks, and they will no longer play unless he buys a premium connection and even then, only when he is connected to the Internet.

And here's one from the hardware world:

John F bought a 27" Sony Wega HD flat-screen TV from a Best Buy store in 2004, believing that the set's HDMI port would accommodate his PC, allowing him to use it as both a TV and a computer monitor. However, Sony had deployed DRM code to prevent this use, significantly reducing the value of his $2,100 purchase. There was no notice of this DRM, and store personnel were not aware of it.

There are a lot more like that. In a separate letter from EFF, along with a number of other consumer interest groups, but also content creators like Baen Books, Humble Bundle and McSweeney's, they suggest some ways that a labeling notice might work.

This is an interesting approach to dealing with DRM. I'm always a little wary of the need to go running to the government for help without other alternatives being exhausted first, but the letters do make a strong case that this is a longstanding problem that has not been solved through the marketplace. Of course, it might be nice if retailers simply adopted this directly first, rather than it getting to the point where the FTC needs to step in.