For all the opponents to digital rights management technologies, the questions is ... why? The seemingly predominant argument is that it inhibits the flow of (content media) information. Isn't this a rather trite and limited scope argument?
- Would you, for example, want someone else leeching off your cable box if you were the only one paying for the access?
- Would you, for example, share your entire CD collection worth several thousand $s to all of your neighbors?
The point is, digital rights management
protects your rights as a consumer as much as it protects the rights of the artists, content owners and so forth. Why not just take the laptop you've been using for the last year and instead of selling it on eBay, just give it to someone? As consumers, sure we all want the best deal and of course, "free" is inevitably the best deal around, but if all the world had everything for free, why have money at all?
And realize that digital rights management usage rights extend much further than just the simple one-play or one-machine level - rights can be extended quite a bit farther than that so the average consumer can in fact share media depending on the originator's desire.
Posts
4 comments:
It really comes down to managing end-user expectations. Digital music world got rocked by likes of Napster and others who utilized P2P technology to allow people to swap their music for FREE. When a coin got flipped and music services start operating on the Web with DRM protection on their files, consumers got shocked. All the sudden they were not able to copy or share their music. It went from one extreme to yet another without a proper plan or strategy how to manage consumer expectations. Apple made this transition by creating a complete music eco system. They developed a device that is cool and easy to use (iPod) so that was a big plus, secondly they offered intuitive music software (iTunes) that works very well with iPods on both MACs and PCs and lastly they deployed their DRM (commonly known as FairPlay) to restrict how music files are used.
However, this system is far from perfect because its biggest strength (the closed eco-system) is also its biggest downfall. If music files can only be played on one type of device and the rest of music stores are not compatible with it, it will have to change or ultimately perish as new and improved devices and music stores flood the market.
There will always be an underground where information is exchanged outside the "system".
My history with all of this: I grew up almost entirely on the internet instead of television. When people started using MP3's in the early 90's, the usage of the file type spread fast. People would exchange songs on irc. The legality of it was not questioned because of the copyrights stating that if you owned the original, it was okay to copy the information because it was for "backup" purposes. In sending a file to someone else, well, it was looked at like loaning the file.
This is no different than making a "mix-tape" on a tape deck.
When Napster came on the scene, it was amazing. It was perfect. It simplified trying to find rare music. The creator was not even making money off of it except through t-shirt sales and donations. However, being the first also made him the perfect target. As a sidenote, no conclusive records showed that Napster actually hurt record sales. In fact, after Napster was shut down, record sales fell nearly 35%.(I will find this article if anyone is interested)
So, other software emerged to take its place. Just like Darwin's hypothesis, any closed system is doomed to fail because it can not evolve in the face of competition. Like any other human controlled system, an underground or "alternative" system will emerge to compete.
If you haven’t seen the latest Yahoo ‘DRM DRAMA’ click here to read it. Somebody sounds frustrated? Needless to say there are still many challenges with DRM functionality, interoperability, adoption and even vision where the product is headed.
Other than making headlines of major media outlets, this ‘philosophy’ will be short-lived and here is why. First, content owners will not settle for a non-protected media. Somebody forgot why Napster got shot down! Secondly, revenue won’t be there. As soon as somebody buys the ring tone and puts it out, it will be redistributed freely via P2P or other methods. Frankly, patience is the answer here. I can talk how we can resolve their implementation issues with DRM, get them up and running quickly and cost effectively but that will not align their vision, or lack of it, with market forces.
Sorry, neglected to place a link
Yahoo DRM Article
Post a Comment