Mainstream Media Way Behind on DRM and DMCA

from the behind-by-a-decade dept

The Guardian is a great newspaper and produces a lot of good content. So I was excited to see that it had done a story on Apple, digital rights management, and the future of the music industry. And the piece does a good job of summarizing the problems created by DRM and the business case against using it. However, one thing I found kind of amazing was the part where it notes an industry study suggesting that digital rights management has no effect on "piracy" rates. The Guardian says: "The assertion is remarkable. If DRM does not in fact discourage piracy, then it is merely a nuisance for the user." But of course the assertion isn't "remarkable" at all. It's a point people have been making for close to a decade. What's remarkable is that it's taken this long for the industry -- and mainstream reporters -- to figure out what a lot of us have been saying since the beginning.

But the even more annoying thing is that the article never mentions the DMCA (or its European equivalents). For example, it talks about the Microsoft PlaysForSure fiasco, and about the problems that users will have once Microsoft shuts off its "license servers." What it doesn't mention is that laws in the US, UK, and elsewhere make it illegal for third parties to offer software utilities to deal with the problems. That transforms the issue from an ordinary business blunder into a serious public policy issue. Microsoft has every right to shut down its license servers if it wants to. But consumers should have the freedom to download third-party software that would convert their PlaysForSure music libraries into an open format so they don't have to put up with Microsoft's arbitrary restrictions. So, for that matter, should customers of the iTunes store. But thanks to the DMCA, it's illegal to use such tools, and a felony to "traffic" in them.

Unfortunately, while there's been increasing coverage of the problems with DRM, there has continued to be little real discussion of the DMCA. Which is a real problem, because the millions of customers who made the mistake of purchasing DRMed music would really benefit from the freedom to use their legally-purchased music as they see fit. Indeed, a lot of them might be inclined to exert political pressure on Congress to change the law if they knew that the problem was largely Congress's fault in the first place. But because press accounts of the issue don't even mention the legal problems, most consumers assume it's just a garden-variety technical glitch and the law doesn't get changed.

Filed Under: dmca, drm, media

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Freedom, 19 May 2008 @ 6:23pm

    License Servers = Class Action Law Suit...

    I'm personally waiting for the first class action law suit to be filed on this stuff. The thought of needing to have activation/license servers from now till the end of time to get access to your purchased content is a business plan that I don't think any one ever really thought out.

    In the end, a bunch of expensive lawsuits will sort this out, but if companies insist on using license and/or activation servers to allow access to content and/or programs then the companies have to provide a way to permentantly unlock these files if the servers go offline.

    Should be interesting to see what happens when Microsoft decides to turn off the XP and/or Office Activation Servers. I'm sure 15 years from now there will still be someone that is legally entitled to run XP and/or Office 200x, but won't be able to because Microsoft disabled their servers.

    If this DRM/Activation is here to stay, we need a bill of rights type document to ensure that content is available and that companies properly fund ongoing activations/licenses even when the revenue stream no longer justifies it. Maybe then when the full true cost of this stuff is put on the table, companies that want to use it will start to re-think it. (Activation/License call center for 100 years, on-going server up-keep, maintenance and requirement to have re-activations within 24 hours or face stiff penalities type of thing. Costly migration for protected to unprotected content.)


    P.S. Who knows, maybe Microsoft has already put in a date/time switch to deactivate activation ... hmmmm...

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.