[debate] Let's discuss DRM

[Rob Enderle]

To the Points:

 

1.        Actually Apple has largely abandoned DRM for music now and
Steve Jobs is on record opposing for music.  He seems to like it for
video though which strikes me as just a little disingenuous given his
Disney board seat.   For music DRM is largely dead except for
subscription services, purchased music from iTunes, Amazon, and others
now largely comes DRM free. 

2.       Actually DRM has little do to with the creator of media and
artists have been decidedly mixed on the topic.  It is more of a Label
RIAA thing and goes to industry control.   It has led to some really bad
practices like using Root Kits which resulted in a call to boycott Sony.


3.       The argument that it is working is questionable, pirating has
gone up and the image of the RIAA and the industry has declined.   The
ex-head of the RIAA has actually come out against the practice now.
Even the engineer who created the concept of DRM is on record as being
appalled at how it is being used.   

4.       DRM has little to do with the artists as it is currently
implemented, they don't have the control.  

5.       Because DRM simply doesn't work, what it does is punish those
that are actually buying the music and benefit the pirates while
constraining what otherwise would be a very healthy home distribution
and entertainment industry.   From a Macro view, since the introduction
of DRM the various electronic and media industry players have declined
in profitability suggesting a connection.  

 

Rob Enderle

Enderle Group

 

Work:  408 272-8560

Cell:     408 832-6326

FAX:    408 904-5274

 

www.enderlegroup.com

 

From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of Imri
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:28 AM
To: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [debate] Let's discuss DRM

 

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/20090520/5a2c6097/attachment-0001.htm>