DRM is failure in action

2009 January 18

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 133

I was born in 1975. The media of my childhood consisted of cassette tapes and VHS tapes. Only years later did I get to play with CDs and DVDs. I was also born during that magical time when one could still find a functioning 8-track cassette player, or cumbersome 8-inch reel-to-reel tape players. Convenient they were not.

But with any of them you could still easily break copyright law.

This certainly isn’t just within my generation. My dad has told me stories from his college days, when he would illegally record someone’s music on to his analog reel-to-reel tape recorder.

Reel-to-reel tape recorders: Weapons of Mass ProductionCopyright violations have always been possible, even easy, but not until CDs brought us digital audio was copyright theft so fast. A copy and paste technique is all that’s needed to give my music to you. Today, we can email music, download bittorrent collections, acquire illegal movies and software in minutes or even seconds. This speed advantage is a major reason why certain agencies are so upset. In particular are their legal representatives, the MPAA and the RIAA (these are the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America).

DRM stands for “digital rights management”. In the old days, this was called “copy protection”. DRM is copy protection for digital products. It’s often a software restriction or a type of encryption. It’s intended to prevent the unauthorized copying of the music on your iPod, the movies in your DVD collection, the ebooks in your ebook reader, the programs on your computer, and any other digital media you’ve purchased.

The big problem is that DRM doesn’t work. Every mass-distributed DRM scheme has been compromised – every single one. If you want to copy one of your “uncopyable” DVDs or other media, yes, there are plenty of tools to do so.

DRM hurts the consumer: it penalizes people who have legitimately purchased their media. And since DRM is compromised so easily and quickly, those who want to break the law can still easily do so. If this is a deterrent, it’s a remarkably ineffectual one.

You may accuse me of taking the side of the consumer because I don’t stand to lose anything from having people steal copywritten material. Actually, I do stand to lose. I have multiple websites that make money from the content they provide. I’ve written some fiction ebooks and sell those online. And I have no DRM or limited-use mechanism in place. I made this decision intentionally, for three reasons:

1) Today’s technology is beyond the point where DRM is practical. Content protection schemes inconvenience those who legitimately have a product, and are just a tiny speed bump to those who want an illegal copy.

2) The Internet has changed the availability and presentation of media, and copying (legally or illegally) is commonplace. The days of visiting a library to access a rare book are fading into the past. The previously rare books are now online for everyone to see. Everything is coming online. Everything is getting easier and easier to access.

3) The cost of digital media should be very low, and is therefore less likely to be pirated. Take ebooks as an example: when you purchase a traditional book, a part of that cost is for the creation of the book itself. The book has to be physically printed, bound, warehoused and distributed. This is a majority percentage of a book’s price tag. Ebooks have a very low (or zero) cost for physical media. Yes, the artist and their representatives should get paid for their efforts. One reason piracy happens is because the cost of an object is perceived as unfair, and not worth the price. The actual production cost of digital media is very, very low. The final prices should reflect that.

The intent of DRM – protecting the interests of copyright holders – is a noble idea. But it’s also archaic and easily circumvented. Unfortunately, it will take time for those in power to recognize this. They need to realize that you can’t protect 21st Century media with 20th Century thinking. They need to grow up and work with the world as it is today, not what it was fifty years ago. During the transition away from DRM and towards a – for lack of better term – meritocracy, we will see lawsuits and corporate spin. We’ll see crackdowns and fines. And inevitably, they’ll all go away to be replaced by something else. I can’t say what that “something else” is just yet. But we can intelligently predict these four probable outcomes:

1) Digital media (like ebooks, music and video) will be incredibly cheap compared with today’s non-digital counterparts.

2) Digital media will not be restricted to one particular device.

3) Distribution to the audience will be increasingly managed by the creator. Large companies might still be needed for publicity, but actual electronic distribution is easy. If you have a website and a computer, you can easily and cheaply distribute your own media yourself.

4) A talented person will be able to live by their creative talent without DRM.

So what’s next? We need to be patient while digital rights management thrashes around for a while. And we need to be available to help the next generation of media take over. We’ll get there. How do we make this happen? We have to wait, watch, and – most importantly – never stop creating.



Other articles related to this topic:

6 Comments
2009 January 19
TheThomas permalink

Succinct.

2009 January 19

…as is your comment. :)

2009 January 21
starlatk permalink

I’d be interested in what the other side says… Are there any valid disagreements?

2009 January 22

Sure, starlatk, here’s an article with some detail:

Speakers at a Federal Trade Commssion event Wednesday argued that controversial DRM (digital rights management) technology may actually be good for consumers because it could give them more choices for downloading or buying copyrighted content, despite previous high-profile failures of such projects.

Selected quotes from the article:

Before DRM, “you could do what you want with it,” he said. “But is that a good thing?”

…and…

But Andrew Moss, senior director of technical policy at Microsoft Corp., claimed that DRM will be important to consumers as more of them began to create their own digital content. DRM will allow them to control how their creations are used, he said.

“What [DRM] is intended to do is give people choices,” he said.

2009 January 24
Dave permalink

Great episode. The issue of piracy and DRM is a hot-button topic in the hardcore video game community, especially in the PC sector of that industry. TweakGuides did a very good and thorough examination of that debate here:

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

I’m on the same side of the debate as you, but in the PC gaming industry, piracy (and the response to it) has been a largely destructive force. Many publishers have either dropped projects altogether in favor of releasing them on home consoles instead, or have expanded DRM to the extreme.

The most likely solution, with PC gaming at least, will be digital distribution models, such as the very popular Steam service by Valve Software. The user has a Steam account to which all of his or her purchases are tied. They are free to download the game as often as they want and on as many different machines as they want, as long as the user is signed in to his or her Steam account at the time they are playing the game. This does not reduce piracy to 0%, but it has proven to be far more effective than everything else in the PC gaming DRM arena.

This episode of DBS was great. For general feedback about DBS, I would personally like it if you could expand on subjects a tad more in the episodes, making longer segments, but then I suppose it wouldn’t really be “bits” anymore. Keep up the good work!

2009 January 24

Thanks for the feedback, Dave! Good or bad, it’s very helpful.

Also thanks for the information on the gaming industry. That’s an arguably bigger can of worms than the publishing industry.

Andy

Comments are closed for this entry.