[debate] Let's discuss DRM

[Alan Light]

Imri wrote:

[ 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. ]

Note that Apple - for all its faults, mostly linked to trying to keep everything proprietary - does actually make good products, especially as regards the user interface.  In his article, Cory noted that he hit the limits of that quite early, because he updates his equipment frequently and he hit the three computer limit within a year.  For most people, that takes a little longer..  The longest I ever used one computer as my primary computer was about 7 years.  At that rate, the proprietary model would work for up to 21 years - at which point I would become quite angry when I could no longer play the music I had collected and paid for over 20 years.  Keep in mind that many people in their 40s have paid for their favorite music many times over now:  on vinyl, on 8 track, on cassette, on CD, and now perhaps online as well, not to mention paying to attend concerts.  Naturally, they will taken advantage of if they are required to pay again and again
 and again.  Previous upgrades they understand, as they got more value each time - but now they have reached the end of that, and while they might not have understood at first exactly what DRM meant, once they understand they are not going to put up with 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? ]

There are actually two contrasting libertarian views on intellectual property, depending on whether one emphasizes the "intellectual" or the "property" part.  The two types of property are quite different.  With normal property, only one person can own it at a time.  If you sell me a widget, it is no longer in your possession - it is mine, and clearly mine.  I would now possess all rights to said widget, to do with it as I wish.  With intellectual property things are different.  If you sell me a copy - especially an easily created electronic copy - you still have your original.  You still have the right to do as you like with your original.  You can read it/play it/listen to it/watch it as much as you like - and I can do the same with my copy.  This gets especially interesting when you consider that every time one person speaks to another, the second person now has memories of that conversation in their brain.  Does this mean that various
 copyright owners have a right to the various portions of our brains where such memories reside?  This is beginning to get into very dangerous territory.  Apart from that, humans have gotten to the point where we store many of our memories outside of our brains - books, audio and video recordings, computer files, etc.  Where exactly do the creator's rights end and the audience's rights begin?

At one extreme, we could say that intellectual content is entirely different from physical property and that no one "owns" intellectual content at all.  At the other extreme we could say that the creator owns all their intellectual output in perpetuity.  Both extremes have problems:  in the first case, we have to figure out how to compensate intellectual workers for their hard work, in the second case, we have effectively declared the eternal slavery of the human race, as every "producer" would own a piece of the memories of every person they have ever met..  It would become impossible for anyone to communicate legally with others, as every thought we have has been influenced by others - each of whom we would have to negotiate compensation with for even the simplest of conversations.

Copyright itself is a monopoly created by States.  It is a relatively new idea - there was no point to prior to published books.  The basis for copyright law can be different in various States, but in the United States its purpose was clear - this was actually included in the Constitution, where it was declared that for the purpose of promoting the useful arts and sciences, Congress could write laws establishing a copyright for a limited time.

As with everything else, Congress has exceeded its authority by extending copyright terms ex post facto, which cannot possibly promote the creation of materials that have already been created.  But in its original form copyright for a limited time is a reasonable compromise:  it provides a means for authors, artists, and inventors to earn a living while ensuring that everyone can eventually use and improve these new works and ideas for their own benefit without having to unravel the impossibly complicated histories and interactions that have led to the present.

That said, it is certainly the right of vendors to use Digital Rights Management - but I fail to see why society as a whole should be required to enforce the provisions of such contracts.  Perhaps those who enter into such agreements freely should be required to fulfill their contracts, but those who come across the material by other means should not be so restricted - and whereas DRM attempts to bypass copyright law, I am not sure that we should allow DRM-protected material to be copyrighted at all.  After all, copyright law is based on a compromise by which the material eventually enters the public domain - but if a company is doing their best to make sure that cannot happen, why should the public be required to keep their side of the bargain? 


[ 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*". ]

Short Term versus Long Term thinking - well, that's OK, just don't expect the public to enthusiastically embrace any model which requires them to get screwed for the benefit of business.


[ 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? ]

In the example Scott Adams gave, DRM would not have helped.  Shortly after publication, someone SCANNED a PHYSICAL COPY of the book, and posted the results online.  If Mr. Adams had tried selling an ebook with DRM, quickly people would have realized that they had a crippled copy, and would go get the illegal copy instead, because it would be more useful.  A sizable number of people who would otherwise pay for the legal copy would not do so because they don't like being treated like criminals - and if they still wanted the book in electronic form they would likely go get the illegal copy - in which case the use of DRM would quite possibly reduce the author's income AND create criminals where there were none before.

I am not saying that it is right to take an artist's work without paying the artist for it, within a reasonable copyright term.  I *am* saying that if an artist makes an ass of themself and treats their legitimate customers like criminals, they will find themselves punished by the natural sense of fairness and justice that most people have.  Instead of finding allies and friends, they will discover that they have unnecessarily made enemies of people who were inclined to favor them.

[ 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. ]

Alternately, such DRM will prevent novices from making copies, and turn the business over to professionals who will make perfect copies of the originals and sell them as their own to customers who believe they are buying legitimate copies, just as many users of counterfeit Microsoft products believe that they have paid for a legal copy.  This opens all sorts of doors to organized crime.


[ 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@ :) ]

Not all of my computers and computerized devices are connected to the net.  I dislike this trend and find it insulting.




Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090520/2468dc4b/attachment.htm>