[debate] Let's discuss DRM

[Imri Goldberg]

Alan wrote:

> Some wonderful points have been made, but I'm afraid Imri is preaching to
> the choir here.
> The points that Imri and Chris make are all quite good, and I especially
> enjoyed Chris's anecdote about high cigarette taxes in Canada.
>

I would like to note that while personally I don't like DRM, the points
above are not my own, but Cory Doctorow. I would actually be more interested
in hearing good points for DRM rather than against it, as a way of educating
myself on the subject.

I'll try to put up a few counter points I thought of:

1. DRM doesn't work:
Yes it does, see Apple and iTunes. Although Cory Doctorow detailed his bad
experience with it, I'm not sure it is the common case. If it was that bad,
people wouldn't have used it.

2. DRM is bad for (society | business | artists):
DRM allows a producer to limit how his work is distributed. From a
libertarian point of view, it's his work, and he is entitled to set any
rules and limitations he likes on its distribution. If he wants his song to
play only on full-moon nights, DRM allows him to do it. Even if you think
it's bad for his business, that's the producer's prerogative, not yours.
If a producer doesn't wish to sell you his work, but license it so you can
hear it only once, why shouldn't he be able to do it?

3. DRM is bad for business 2:
Cory Doctorow's explanation on why it's bad for business is that it prevents
opening new markets. However, on the short term it seems that working with
DRM might be profitable, and depending on potential future markets is a
risk. Basically, Cory Doctorow says: "If you use DRM, you are hurting many
future businesses". The natural reply is: "Well, I care about *my* business
*today*".

4. DRM is bad for the artist 2:
Scott Adams makes an argument against copyright violations here:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/is_copyright_vi.html

Why shouldn't he use  DRM to limit people copying digitally released ebooks?


Chris wrote:

> 1.  If I can play music I can record it.  Worst case I can place
> microphones in front of speakers and just record it all over again.  A
> little bit of technical knowledge and I can skip the actual speakers and
> microphones.
>

Of course, that severely reduces the quality of the recording. Quality DRM
will either prevent you from skipping the speakers & microphones, or at
least make it more costly than just buying the music.

Rob wrote:

> In addition, my DRM enabled player may not be compliant with the DRM
> release level of the content requiring an upgrade that also requires a
> network connection.  If I don’t have a network I may not be able to enjoy
> the content even once.
>

Well:
1. If you want an upgrade, pay for it, and
2. I think it is fair of the publishers to assume that you have a network
connection. Otherwise it would have been hard to send emails to debate@ :)

Rob wrote:

> In my mind there is something terribly wrong with a process that seems to
> criminalize a protected group like children.
>

I don't really like arguments in the vein of "but who will think of the
children?!?". It may be easily argued that the criminalized entities are the
childrens' parents, who are responsible for their actions.

Again, I'll be happy to read more arguments on both sides of this issue.

Cheers,
Imri
-- 
Imri Goldberg
--------------------------------------
www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/
--------------------------------------
-- insert signature here ----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090520/3a793259/attachment.htm>