DRM by Any Other Name...

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://avid.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=138192' target='_blank'>http://avid.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=138192</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Digital rights management (DRM) is the wrong term for technology that secures programmers' content as it moves to new digital platforms says HBO Chief Technology Officer Bob Zitter, since it emphasized restrictions instead of opportunities. Speaking at a panel session at the NCTA show in Las Vegas Tuesday, Zitter suggested that "DCE," or Digital Consumer Enablement, would more accurately describe technology that allows consumers "to use content in ways they haven't before," such as enjoying TV shows and movies on portable video players like iPods. "I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," said Zitter, who added that content-protection technology could enable various new applications for cable operators."</i><br /><br />You can't polish a turd. Plain and simple. DRM is NOT intended to help consumers in any way, shape, or form. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. DRM only prevents users from viewing or listening to content how, when, and where they want. It puts money in the pockets of content providers and distributors. An industry that is struggling to adapt to a new business model now wants to trick consumers by calling DRM something other than what it actually is, and pretend that it's a good thing. Good luck with that.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I wonder how this is "enablement?"

I used to be able to do whatever the hell I wanted with my content. Now I've been enabled to use it for approved purposes only.

Some "enablement."

[Jeremy Charette]

My thoughts exactly.

I understand that the current TV model works on advertising, or paid viewership (premium channels like HBO). I understand that networks are struggling with how to turn a profit in this new era of portable and online media distribution. I understand that they dont' want their content going all over the place willy-nilly, without them profiting from the investment they've made. I get it.

But so far, DRM has just been enabling the paranoid delusions of a few corporate officers, and pillaging the pockets of frustrated consumers. Were it not for DRM, I believe that music downloads would eclipse CD sales. As it is, we live in a world of locked platforms, walled gardens, and no hope of interoperability. Consumers are getting locked into one choice (MP3 player, online music store, television provider, operating system) simply because they made a decision a long time ago (right or wrong) and are now too heavily invested to change that decision. That sucks. I should be able to buy my music, put it on any player I want, play it on any software or OS I want, for as long as I want.

What kind of industry fundamentally assumes the majority of its customers are thieves? At what point did the music, television, and movie industries lose sight of what the customers' requirements are? At some point it became "how can we make money", as opposed to "how can we give the customer what he/she wants, and get them to pay for it?".

Piracy is rampant because consumers are being given few if any other choices.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I should clarify that I'm okay with a certain amount of DRM (although I'd prefer to be without it altogether), but frankly the way these companies want to control absolutely every aspect of what you can do with content you own and the presumption that you're a criminal are both repugnant to me.

[Felix Torres]

I beg to politely differ.
DRM is no turd.
It is an inconvenient necessity.

The problem with this particular debate is that is being carried out mostly by absolutists on both ends and they are shouting out--and shutting out--any voice of moderation. Both extremes in the "debate" as currently articulated are simply irrational:
1- On the one hand, we have the paranoid content providers who want customers to pay full (high) price for each and every single viewing of the content despite distributing it as a "sale" and who aspire to lock out even reasonable technologies such as place-shifting playback or on-demand access.
2- On the other hand we have clueless techies with established track records of ripping off everything that isn't locked down and a lot of things that *are* locked down, disingenuosly pretending that if all digital content were free of all forms of DRM they wouldn't be ripping providers off left and right.
Just because technology allows certain functions to be carried out (digital content redistribution, as one example) does not imply a legal or even moral right to do it. Might does not make right.
Clearly in the post-P2P file sharing era, *some* kind of usage restriction *has* to be in place if *any* legal content is to be available. To argue otherwise is to validate the position of the Disneys, Sonys and FOXes of the world. The fundamental problem is that while the studios are paranoid and irrational about us customers, there are *not* wholly wrong; there *are* in fact hordes of non-customers out there waiting to rip them off at the drop of a hat.
If this debate is going to be more than "sound and fury... signifying nothing" we need to accept that some form of DRM is necessary and move on to the real meat of the matter:

How much DRM is enough and at what price.

The debate has to focus, first and foremost, on what one can reasonably hope to do with legally acquired digital content and what one can do without as a part of terms and conditions that make that content legally available in the first place.
One obvious bone of contention is device compatibility: we would all like to be able to transport content to newer platforms (portable players, XBOXes, what-not) but to be realistic, we have no legal right to expect this. After all, we don't expect DVD content to be accessible on VCRs or Laser discs, right? Available technology allows this but the explicit and implicit terms of sale simply do not grant us these rights.
As a starting point, we have DVDs that allow consumers to access video content, one device at a time, on any compatible device and that allow consumers to pay either for viewing windows (DVD rentals) or infinite viewings (full sale) with resale rights of the viewing rights. Any equivalent video distribution system needs to be evaluated relative to that baseline position and any reduction in rights (and hence consumer value) should be accompanied by an appropriate compensating feature or reduction in price.
Now, how many people would be willing to pay extra if DVDs came with a pre-ripped DRM-ed version of the content that could be legally transported to non-DVD players? And how much? I suspect that a whole lot less than are actually complaining about DRM depriving us of our "rights". :twisted:
A show of hands might be in order; who would be willing to pay extra for transportability on those terms? And how much? $1 an hour? $2? $3?
Right now, Netflix allows (less-than-DVD quality) movie streaming at $1 an hour and XBOX Live sells TV shows (at DVD-or-better quality) for $2-$3 per 45 minute episode. Are those reasonable prices? Or is *any* price by definition unreasonable?
Come on, anybody out there actually *paying* for internet-delivered video?
I am. Just finished watching the "Italian Job" off XBOX live. (I love caper flicks.)
Now, me, I'm pretty sure that most opponents of DRM'ed content, in all forms, "on principle" are just plain cheap and would *never* buy the stuff in the first place no matter how lenient or flexible the DRM.
But that's just cause the cheapskates are the ones dominating the debate.
Would be nice to hear other voices but for now that's all you hear out there on the 'net...

[Vincent Ferrari]

I hate DRM.

I live with it mostly because I have to.

I have $2400 worth of iTunes music on my iPod. I don't have one track on there I didn't pay for.

Unless I'm the only one, your argument holds zero water.

[Felix Torres]

I hate DRM.

I live with it mostly because I have to.

I have $2400 worth of iTunes music on my iPod. I don't have one track on there I didn't pay for.

Unless I'm the only one, your argument holds zero water.

Unless you dominate DRM coverage in the media you're not who I was talking about.
I'm talking about the Larry Lessig and Richard Stallmans of the world, the GPL3 and P2P wienies who don't spend a cent on software on content but pretend to speak for those of use who do.
And in the process giveammunition to the bad guys on the content side.

As for you being the only one buying iTunes stuff, you just might. ;-)
You definitely are atypical going by the publised specs that say typical iTunes customers buy on the order of 7 songs each...

That said, don't misunderstand: I'm no fan of DRM.
I just see it as a necessary evil that is not going away any time soon because the people who most actively oppose it (see above) make it necessary.
Pretending otherwise is waste of time.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I'm talking about the Larry Lessig and Richard Stallmans of the world, the GPL3 and P2P wienies who don't spend a cent on software on content but pretend to speak for those of use who do.
And in the process giveammunition to the bad guys on the content side.

Felix, I'm disappointed in you.

How can you have those names and not have the number one weenie Cory Doctorow in there? :-)