DRM / IP

......the growing backlash against DRM is causing dissension in the pro-DRM ranks. Paul Sweeting's excellent report on the DRS conference records the frustrations of the DRM community at the tactics of the content industry. They apparently feel that an overzealous content industry is abusing DRM; this is a bit like Smith & Wesson complaining that bullets can kill.

When DRM proponents start pointing fingers and attempting to separate the theory (really, the ideology) from the practice, we have to stop and ask: what's going on here? It appears that players in the DRM ecosystem know the tide is turning against them because DRM is punishing the wrong people, namely the folks who are buying DRM-laden content. This is bad for their business, because a DRM backlash could harm DRM peddlers.

....a few weeks back the SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) contacted Scribd, a site that allows users to post documents in the same way that YouTube allows people to post videos. SFWA alleged that numerous works on Scribd violated copyrights of SFWA members and requested that these works be taken down. They were. But it quickly became apparent that the USS 1701-SFWA had a crack in its dilithium crystals.

Stories began to emerge from the blogosphere, and not the sort of Stranger in a Strange Land stuff that the SFWA exists to promote. Nick Senger, an eighth-grade teacher and promoter of teen literacy, found his sci-fi bibliography targeted in the crackdown. "I'm not sure what the SFWA has to gain by requesting that the list be removed," he notes. "That list does nothing but encourage people to buy their books."

See, after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. This is one of the major flaws in any DRM system based on secrets and centralized authorities: when these DRM data warehouses shut down, the DRM stops working, and consumers are left with useless junk.

Furthermore, Google is not refunding the total cost of the videos. To take advantage of the credit Google is offering, you have to spend more money, and furthermore, you have to spend it with a merchant that supports Google Checkout. Meanwhile, the purchases you made are now worthless. To do it right, Google should either provide users with non-DRMed copies of the videos they bought, or they should refund the money entirely. The current option is hardly acceptable, however. Would you buy a TV, a car, a book, or anything if the guy who sold it to you could take it back at any moment so long as he offered you a coupon?

What makes this survey important is the fact that it was aimed squarely at the music-buying public, not the anti-RIAA crowd, not the techno-libertarians, and not our general readership. I've been told more than once that the views on DRM found at publications like Ars Technica are "not representative" of the general public. Perhaps this was once the case, but it can no longer be maintained generally. At least in the UK, the dirt on DRM is out, and it's spreading.

First, the bird's eye view: 68 percent of those with opinions on the matter say that the only music worth purchasing is that which is DRM-free. Yet less than half (39 percent) are willing to pay a little extra for it, while 18 percent say that they'd rather save a little dough and keep the DRM if they had to chose between the two. In the middle is a mass of people with no opinion on the matter, because they're not sure what DRM is or don't know their preference. That will likely soon change.

Familiarity with DRM has grown significantly in the last year. In 2006, more than half of respondents had never heard of DRM, but that number has dropped 16 percentage points in 2007, to 37 percent. The number of people who claimed to have a good or exact knowledge of DRM nearly tripled in that same timeframe.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."

Of those who have some idea of what DRM is, their views are largely—but not entirely—negative. 61 percent said that DRM "invades the rights of the music consumer to hear their music on different platforms." 49 percent called it a "nuisance," and 39 percent expressed concerns that DRM could have privacy implications. Despite this, 63 percent agreed that DRM "is a good idea because it protects copyrighted music from illegal file-sharers." In other words, the idea of stopping illegal file-sharing via DRM doesn't bother these consumers much, but the effect the effort is having on their own purchases is not appreciated.

This view isn't surprising. Few are those who, in principle, believe that all information (and content) should be "free"; the mainstream viewpoint is still staunchly in the "artists should be compensated" camp. This appreciation for the music business does not surmount all other concerns, however.

Consumers aren't interested in a "nuisance" for the sake of stopping file-sharers, and of course those of us who play closer attention to the world of DRM know that DRM actually does not stop file-sharing at all. As this general truth spreads, so does dissatisfaction.

The takeaway from the survey is that DRM's bad reputation is spreading among general music consumers, and there is a growing aversion to purchasing music that comes with DRM. Despite this, the general understanding of the struggle the industry faces with piracy is still somewhat positive among those same consumers. Still, given that file sharing in the UK is at an all-time high, it would appear that the the music industry needs to remove the digital locks on its tunes, and fast.

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.

“rights management” is itself an industry-sponsored euphemism for what would more straightforwardly be
called “restrictions”. But somehow the public got the idea that DRM is restrictive, hence the need for a name change.