Entelligence: Have we demonized DRM?
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted September 24th 2009 6:34PM
posted September 24th 2009 6:34PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
I actually like DRM when it's used to help create new business models that just couldn't exist otherwise. |
I dislike DRM as much as the next person (unless of course the next person is Cory Doctorow) but I also don't mind DRM solutions that doesn't cause me hassles or lock me out of my content. I actually like DRM when it's used to help create new business models that just couldn't exist otherwise. Take subscription services for example. Sure, I'd love a service that would allow me to download unlimited content in high bitrate MP3 format for a reasonable fee every month. Except economics and greed will never let that happen (although I suspect we'd see a lot users sign up for about 30-60 days).
Am I alone in not being upset at the concept of DRM? In fact, Apple did sell two billion+ songs protected in this fashion before they removed DRM from their content so it seems that for many consumers, DRM is either a non-issue or something they are willing to put up with. The reality is DRM is neither good nor bad, like most things, it's how it gets used.
The real problem with DRM and protected content is when a user bumps into it while trying to use content they purchased in a legitimate way. A few years ago, I was locked out of my Microsoft Reader content by some wayward bits with no way to get at the content I owned. More recently, Amazon told me I downloaded a book too many times and therefore couldn't read it on a new device, even though it was no longer on the old ones. By contrast, Apple allows up to five computers to access protected content, so I activate and de-activate the machines I want to use and if for some reason a machine crashes and takes an activation with it, I can de-activate all my computers and get my licenses back.
Yes, I know most DRM solutions can and will be circumvented. If there's a lock on the door, someone is always going to try to find the key and usually they will. It's not about that. Folks that are looking to avoid paying for stuff will usually find a way. I'm talking about folks who are willing and looking to legally acquire content.
As my former colleague David Card used to preach, technology should be used to help create new business models, not attempt to preserve old ones. That's pretty much the story for me and DRM. So, what do you think? Is DRM inherently evil or just misunderstood?
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net, and he can be emailed at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
My father, who is almost 60, has had an ipod since the first gen mac-only model. Now he has a 40GB 2G ipod, in which he has all his collection, most of which (maybe 97%) comes from his CD collection. He doesn't care about video, pictures or color screen for that matter. He only uses iTunes for ripping CD's and syncing to his ipod.
He recently gave a shot at the Music Store to find some obscure album of greek music (Mikis Theodorakis), certainly not something on the top 10 most sold. He found the album and bought it immediately. He was so happy when he found what he wasn't able to find on CD at regular music stores.
Sorry for the long story. My comment is this: my father doesn't even KNOW what DRM is, but i'm 100% sure that if the album he bought had the most fierce DRM protection, he still would have bought it, even if the DRM only allowed him to listen to it once everyday.
Bottomline: 2 billion songs were sold not because people don't mind DRM, but because they don't KNOW about it. ipods (and iphones) are the leaders of their market, because apple has managed to put technology closer to uneducated people who were afraid to buy something with too many buttons. DRM are way past these people's understanding.
"Yes, I know most DRM solutions can and will be circumvented. If there's a lock on the door, someone is always going to try to find the key and usually they will. It's not about that. Folks that are looking to avoid paying for stuff will usually find a way."
...then what's the point? If it will be circumvented then all it's doing is getting in the way of legitimate users...if the pirates can get their content anyways, what's the point of DRM in the first place, when no matter what, the content is getting out there?
We haven't demonized DRM enough, yet.
DRM is a nice idea, but given thought, you will realize that it is impossible to enforce. You can only enforce DRM if you have perfect surveillance and control over the customer and his DRM-enforcing device. This takes away all the rights from the customer and gives all the rights to the distributor. And as a customer, I don't want that.
Um, after you finish all you can eat at a buffet, you need to throw it up. I'd rather KEEP the 3 slices down, thank you.
It should be unlawful to restrict a consumer’s access to their purchase. Would you let Toyota disable your Prius on a whim? Would you allow Toll Brothers to control access and use of your home? If it doesn't make sense for physical goods it doesn't make sense for digital or virtual goods.
In summary: DRM is morally wrong. DRM should be made legally wrong.
DRM makes no sense at all.
Its like if I bought a CD at a music store, listen to that CD in my car, but the terms of use of that CD disallowed me to listen to it anywhere else, so I had to buy a second copy of the same CD to listen to it at my home.
DRM is a mistake.
"... now what if I told you that the food at the buffet is poisoned and that you will throw it all up as soon as you leave?"
Brilliant. That puts it in better perspective than the OP did.
Ironically these Entelligence posts often lack Intelligence.
The concept of DRM reminds me of a classic cartoon character technique, which involves looking very nice and appealing while holding a giant mallet behind your back.
Here's my first experience with DRM:
"99cents for a song? Great, I'll download and give it a listen. Wow, that was fun, now I'll copy it to my mobile so I can play it while I'm out and about.... wait, it won't work with my mobile? Oh... I guess I'll copy it to this other PMP I have... huh... not compatible with the licence. Great :\"
I don't want to worry about shit like that, or be forced to buy a player that works with the DRM. I want to play the music I BOUGHT in the player of MY choosing. And what happens in 10 years when the latest and greatest no longer supports the old DRM format?
DRM _is_ evil. It's an assumption of guilt, and a symbol of greed and distrust, and a form of passive-aggressive attack on our freedom. Publishing corporations try to make it look necessary and legitimate, but it's inherently unfair to an honest consumer, and doesn't do anything to stop piracy.
From the technical standpoint _every_ DRM scheme can be broken, and the history shows that each and every one was.
The only way to prevent a computer from being hacked into via a network is not to connect it to a network. The only way to prevent a DRM scheme from being broken is not to use it.