Comments on: DRM Manifesto http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7681 p2pnet.net - reader powered Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:27:55 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7681/comment-page-1#comment-32465 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:19:39 +0000 #comment-32465 DRM is a wrong solution to the right problem. The intention of the copyright law is to protect royalty payments to the content creators, but few of them are interested in limiting the content distribution as such (providing the payments are made). DRM is protecting mostly the existing content distributors (e.g. record companies) who are bound to loose most if alternative distribution channels become legal and gain popularity. However, the copyright law should not be used as an excuse to protect distributor’s business model and stiff progress. At the core of DRM concept is to limit the user’s ability to make copies of the content (“distribute”). There are valid cases when DRM may be much desired: confidential content is the most obvious one. One may also imagine “limited edition” creations that derive part of their value from their relative scarcity. Nevertheless, most authors do not mind if their creations: books, music, videos, software, etc. are widely distributed. Quite contrary, they would be happy if their productions become more popular and they can benefit financially from it. DRM works against the best interests of the content authors, since it blocks the most efficient, peer-to-peer (i.e. word of the mouth) distribution of their work. It only benefits distributors since it forces users to go to central servers or buy physical media. In the ideal world, DRM should be replaced with a different system that enforces royalty payments when the content is consumed. Copying of the content admitted for a wide distribution should be unlimited and free. Only the use of the content should carry a fee. As a software designer, I can imagine many systems that would fit this description. Eventually, such a system can stimulate the use of digital content, much like credit cards stimulated shopping. (Note that credit cards made it easier to acquire the item by eliminating the need to pay upfront, and rejection of DRM may have the same effect.) DRM is a wrong solution to the right problem. The intention of the copyright law is to protect royalty payments to the content creators, but few of them are interested in limiting the content distribution as such (providing the payments are made). DRM is protecting mostly the existing content distributors (e.g. record companies) who are bound to loose most if alternative distribution channels become legal and gain popularity. However, the copyright law should not be used as an excuse to protect distributor’s business model and stiff progress.

At the core of DRM concept is to limit the user’s ability to make copies of the content (“distribute”). There are valid cases when DRM may be much desired: confidential content is the most obvious one. One may also imagine “limited edition” creations that derive part of their value from their relative scarcity. Nevertheless, most authors do not mind if their creations: books, music, videos, software, etc. are widely distributed. Quite contrary, they would be happy if their productions become more popular and they can benefit financially from it. DRM works against the best interests of the content authors, since it blocks the most efficient, peer-to-peer (i.e. word of the mouth) distribution of their work. It only benefits distributors since it forces users to go to central servers or buy physical media.

In the ideal world, DRM should be replaced with a different system that enforces royalty payments when the content is consumed. Copying of the content admitted for a wide distribution should be unlimited and free. Only the use of the content should carry a fee. As a software designer, I can imagine many systems that would fit this description. Eventually, such a system can stimulate the use of digital content, much like credit cards stimulated shopping. (Note that credit cards made it easier to acquire the item by eliminating the need to pay upfront, and rejection of DRM may have the same effect.)

]]>