There’s a good question today over at Slashdot which I’d like to answer.
"If digital media was available for sale at a reasonable price, but subject to a DRM scheme that allowed full legitimate usage (format shifting, time shifting, playback on different devices, etc.) and only blocked illicit usage (illegal copying), would you support the usage of such a DRM scheme? Especially if it meant a wealth of readily available compatible devices? In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
In short: no. My objection to DRM is based on principled and practical concerns.
From the practical side of things, it’s impossible to exactly determine what’s legal and what’s illegal usage of content. Do you remember those old warning you’d get on video tapes, about the content being prohibited to be shown in ‘prisons, oil platforms’ and similar nonsense? I always wondered: can I watch the movie I’ve bought with a friend? I guess the answer is yes. What if I watched it with several friends? I’m pretty sure noone would object to that. But, how many people I can watch the video with before the whole event stops being a perfectly legal movie evening with some friends and becomes an illegal oil platform video distribution orgy? There are many practical reasons against DRM, so I’ll leave it at that.
What about objections based on principle? It’s simple. DRM is an invasion of our privacy, be that privacy legal or illegal. Would it be nice to catch all the drug dealers in the world? Sure. Does it warrant putting cameras in every home so the authorities can monitor what everyone is doing? No.
DRM is not about protecting content. It’s about greed. It’s a device made to milk money in areas where it couldn’t have been done before digital content appeared. It is not a reaction to piracy - it is an action to raise income of the copyright owners.
Remember the good old institution of borrowing books? You know, you buy a book, and then you borrow it to a friend? Technically, it’s illegal. It’s the kind of behavior DRM is built to exterminate. Basically, the copyright owner sees a new profit opportunity here. Instead of simply borrowing the book to someone else, they want you to be able to send this person an excerpt of the book which self-destructs in 2 days with its remains morphing into a link to their online store.
Copyright owners own information, but they also sell the way to get to that information. This is the trick. If they were only protecting information, it would be OK. But they’re also trying to protect every possible implication of the information. RIAA says it’s illegal to distribute the songs of their artists, the covers of the albums, the chords to the songs, the lyrics to the songs. But, can they also sell you the order of the songs on the album? The titles of the songs? The way in which your friends organize their music? Can they prohibit you from listening to a low quality version of the song? A MIDI version of the song? Can you at least play the song on your guitar? Can you hum it in your bathroom?
Would they monetize all this? If they could, they would. Instead of giving all this to you for free as extra value when they buy the product, they’re trying to sell you the product and every possible use of the product.
But - the DRM advocates scream - how do you exterminate piracy? How do you protect the owner’s rights? How do you keep the poor record and movie industry from going bankrupt?
It’s easy. Instead of putting negative DRM into your content, introduce positive DRM into it. Instead of putting restrictions into the content, add value to the content. When you download an MP3 song from eMule, you get the song and nothing else. When you download it off iTunes, you get a code which gives you a free t-shirt. Or 20% discount on a concert of the band. Or a password which enables the user to watch the video of the song. Give instead of taking. Beat piracy by being better than piracy. Because right now, DRM-free stuff is better than DRM stuff - thus, pirated content has more value than bought content. And people aren’t stupid.
The bottom line: negative DRM can never be good. It goes too far, it reaches too deep, it takes away value. However, positive DRM might make a difference - both to the copyright owners and to the customers.
And besides what you have mentioned it assumes that the current distribution model is satisfactory - which it isn’t. If an artist I liked actually played were I live I would in most cases happily pay 5-10 times what one of their songs is worth to listen to them play, and I would assume that they would get a much larger % of my money than they would if I bought their album of iTunes.
I think that the only way to go is the alternative method were songs are free for non-commercial use (includes radio) so that the artist can be promoted - from there the artist should be working like the rest of us and perform live - that is how they should make their money.
And besides the fact (as it was pointed out on Slashdot) that it would be almost impossible to implement DRM is an evasion of what the user can do in their own space whether or not it is allowed - which of course could lead onto all those privacy arguments …
@kilps: there are many ways for the record companies to sell and promote and protect their content; they just want us to think that there’s only one fair and legal way: their absolute control over all the content, its usage and its implications. It is, actually, far from the truth: in the past, record industry has lived and thrived without such extreme protection of their content. As a kid, I had over hundred audio tapes with music, and none of them were originals - i simply recorded the music from the radio or someone else. Everyone was doing it, and noone in their right mind would call you a thief because of it.
Is it conceivable that “the powers that beâ€? are also attempting to influence our thoughts\attitudes and thereby our actions by controlling and\or restricting what we watch, read, and listen? (it isn’t all about MP3’s)
In a world wherein information and data have become a commodity, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the powerful to restrain the free exchange of ideas –despite the medium form by whatever means necessary?
@Ervin: it’s being done, however in this case I think it’s less about control and more about money.