Ryan Singel
Security

DRM is Dead; Long Live DRM

Though undoubtedly the headlines proclaiming the death of Digital Rights Management (DRM) were fun to write after the fourth of the big four big music companies announced it would begin selling digital music files without digital locks, DRM is far from dead. Most notably, Hollywood, cable companies and broadcasters are far from ready to ditch DRM and […]
Image may contain Digital Clock and Clock

Though undoubtedly the headlines proclaiming the death of Digital Rights Management (DRM) were fun to write after the fourth of the big four big music companies announced it would begin selling digital music files without digital locks, DRM is far from dead.

Most notably, Hollywood, cable companies and broadcasters are far from ready to ditch DRM and copy-protection technology when it comes to video.

Think of how cable companies are protecting HD content and crippling PVRs through their proprietary set-top boxes aand cable cards. But citizens are increasingly wanting to have their music and video files available wherever they are and on whatever device they want – cell phones, home media centers, and laptops. The long-and-ugly battle over DRM in the music world is likely to fought all over again in the realm of video, but it's not clear that the outcome in this battle will be the same.

Today, the New York Times' BIT blog opens up a week-long debate between Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu – arguing the anti-DRM case – and Rick Cotton, the general counsel of NBC Universal – talking about why the copyright holders of Hollywood films are talking with AT&T about eavesdropping on the internet to find file sharers.

The debate will go on all week. The arguments are cogent on both sides, but for copyfighters and music industry vets the song will sound very familiar:

Cotton starts:

It’s hard, if not impossible, to have a meaningful discussion on this issue unless we can agree on the following premise: the broadband, digital world is awash in a tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content. As to the question at hand, it is entirely reasonable to explore technological solutions.[...]

Another feature of this debate that should change is technologists disingenuously trashing technology. Too often, the same people who enthusiastically and unreservedly sing the praises of the infinite and wondrous capabilities of digital technology in virtually every other respect pretend that technology has nothing to offer and no ability to reduce the massive trafficking in wholesale infringements of entire works (certainly in the area of video, film, TV, games and software). It is categorically and demonstratively untrue and unworthy of tech champions.[...]

Despite the existence of lock picks, identity thieves, and hackers, cars and homes still have locks, e-mail accounts have passwords, and computers have firewalls. Our general approach — including most particularly in the digital world — is to put the strongest possible security in place and fix flaws and weak spots when they are identified through breaches, but not simply abandon the effort.

Wu rebuts:

Digital locks help protect the traditional business model based on unit sales; that makes them a useful tool, but hardly a panacea for industry woes. Too often ignored is the fact that every lock makes the product less valuable, by disabling the product in some way.

There are other costs too often ignored. Locks will be broken, and so a business model that depends on locking is very vulnerable. The creator must budget money, effort and talent for the arms race. That’s a weird role for an industry that’s supposed to be good at developing talent, not trying to out-geek every basement-dweller in the world. Finally, a successful locking strategy also requires intense cooperation between many actors – if you protect a song with “superlock,” and my CD player doesn’t understand that, you’ve just created a dead product.

The other costs are missed opportunities. Content that is too locked down loses exposure. Remixes, fan sites and tributes are something firms pay millions for when they call it “marketing.”

See Also:

Photo: Jay Adan