Entelligence: People will live with DRM as long as it's done right

Every Thursday Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research contributes an interesting item of gadget-related research data. Last week he discussed digital video and why it's still too hard for most people, this week he looks at the thorny issue of digital rights management:

The issue of DRM has been raised again in recent weeks when Apple "broke" a popular utility that allowed users to bypass the DRM built into the iPod and allowed copying from the iPod to a PC. Consumers, the argument goes, are against any DRM for their media and will not buy protected music.

JupiterResearch has done a lot of work in this area and contrary to the conventional wisdom, consumers are willing to pay for digital music, as our research indicates. Consumers value the portability and flexibility to which they have grown accustomed with conventional CDs and the MP3 file format but fifty-five percent of users also said they would pay $9.99 for a CD they could copy to multiple devices. This number is in contrast to only 23 percent of users who would pay the same price for the same album they could not copy. For single downloads, only 17 percent who would purchase a song for $0.99 they could not copy. By contrast 47 percent of consumers would pay $0.99 per song they could download to their PCs and copy to multiple devices.

The message is clear. Consumers will live with DRM and in fact will pay for content. The key is the flexibility of the DRM and keeping allowing users the portability they desire. It's not an either/or issue and there's no reason DRM can't live together with what users want.

---

Michael Gartenberg is vice president and research director for the Personal Technology & Access and Custom Research groups at Jupiter Research in New York. Contact him at [e-mail]. His weblog and RSS feed are at http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg.

[Bill Walle @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

It's all about convenience for the consumer. Time and space shifting one's license to music means flexibility to hear when and where to enjoy the content.

[Todd Plants @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

I think it's also important to remember that the big draw of file-sharing isn't "no DRM" it's "free." People use Kazaa and BitTorrent because they're free, not because they have DRM-free music. I mean, if all Kazaa had was DRM music, but it was still free, wouldn't you DL?

[Kurt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

I think the big issue with DRM (assuming you ignore the social toll, unprecedented levels of copy protection, and a ridiculous law like the DMCA) is that it has to be flexible enough to work how may conceivably want to use it on down the road. When I was compiling large portions of my CD collection, I never would have predicted that I would someday want to be able to copy those onto a network share and make them available throughout the house. I mean, Apple's already had to up the allowable number of computers for their iTMS tracks, due to the changes in consumer behavior. That took less than 2 years.

IMO, consumers are accepting of DRM right now because technology isn't to a point where the restrictions are that visible. Consumers don't have media players in their cars yet (largely due to auto makers fears of lawsuits), nor do most households have more than one or two media consumption devices they can use with their purchased files.

If the market isn't shaped by laws and regulations, I think we'll find that DRM is a fad, and nothing more. In a free market, I completely believe that DRM would go away due to normal market forces. We may actually never know, unfortunately.

[Dave M. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

My big problem with DRM music is that I can't play it everywhere I want to play it. I'm stuck using what ever player supports the DRM.

My TiVo will play MP3's, yet I have almost 2000 songs that won't play on it because they are iTMS DRM'd. So I go out and find torrents of the albums/songs that I have DRM'd so that I can play them on my TiVo and other MP3 players.

[Russell Vandercook @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

The reason Apple was able to take the lead initialy with thier iTunes Music Store is that (aside from the iPod being cool etc.) was that they were able to secure rights for the consumer that by most accounts should already have been there. Of course some people will always want to steal, but the vast majority of consumers aren't savvy enough to navigate peer-to-peer technologies but they SURE as hell know when they are being ripped off by an overly aggressive music publishing industry. When you are sold a music CD you did not only pay for the physical CD, you paid for the license to 1 copy of the music. This is a personal license to play this media on any player indefinatly (most computer software and other media follows the same model). This is unlimited in the sense that if you play a digital copy of the music on your iPod and the CD breaks, you still own the license as long as you still have the proof of ownership. The RIAA has been trying to intimidate consumers for years into purchasing multiple copies of media by conveniently ignoring this.

[010111 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

i'd still rather have a broadband tax/fee of say $10/month or so for as many and as much music as i wanted. no matter where it came from. of course the music industry would make *more* money than they do now... but loose their precious power. and in some cases their jobs out of loss of relevance.

provided there was a convenient foolproof method of accounting for what was downloaded (as to reimburse the appropriate artists) this would be an invaluable marketing tool for the record labels.

so they'd a) make more money b) get useful consumer data c) have less work to do in sueing 12 year olds. i guess that makes too much sense...

but whatever. i mostly just buy CDs and rip em. works for me.

[Sebhelyesfarku @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

RIAA can french kiss my arse.

[syzygy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

DRM just doesn't allow bending or the rules for obviously ok things. I'm sorry, but if my cd deteriorates I feel perfectly justified copying a friends CD. I also feel justified copying my music to other formats. I think this falls under what I consider fair use. I know legaly some of it may not.

I think the biggest problem is that music companies don't tell customers what they can and can't do with their music. They say you can't copy it, but there are exceptions. They say you can't play it for the public, again there are exceptions.

I for one will not buy music if I am only allowed to keep it in more than one format. I think ITMs is a total rip off. I'd much rather rip a CD myself and use it anywhere. Am I willing to pay for that, damn straight I am. People bitch about DRM and then they buy it. We as a society are to damn cheap and we don't read the fine print.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:07AM]

If I can make copies of the files and burn CDs, exactly what is the DRM supposed to be doing? Makes not sense at all. Just sell the music in a format people really want.