By Peter Cochrane, 27 January 2009 17:26
COMMENT
Compiled in a coffee shop in Taunton UK and dispatched to silicon.com later the same day via a free wi-fi service provided by my hotel
When I buy clothes I expect to use them as I wish. I might wear them or I might want to give them away or lend them to someone else. Along with everything else I purchase, I see them as mine, to do with what I want when I want, within the limits of the law and reasonable social behaviours.
This is also the case with cars, tools and computersÂ… in fact everything I own. What I don't expect is to pay a royalty to the designer and manufacturer for their intellectual and other skills in the production and delivery of the product, time after time after time.
Postcards from the bleeding edge
Read more missives by Peter Cochrane, as he blogs from around the world.
I have to say the same applies to the services and advice I purchase. They are all one-shot deals: I purchase, I use - end of story. If you borrow my screwdriver, torch, coat or computer, I have it covered - there is nothing more to pay, no extra fees per use, no royalties, no nothing!
So should anyone be surprised that digital rights management (DRM) is collapsing both as a concept and a viable proposition? Well they seem to be! If I listen to my music, they want a fee. If I watch my movie, they want a fee. If I play my computer game, they want a fee. Not a chance!
The reaction of the global market is clear and plain: you gotta be kidding! Everything subject to DRM or other form of control is now freely available, the control mechanism having been circumvented.
Don't get me wrong: I want people to get rewarded for their innovation and creativity. I really do. I want to see them encouraged to ensure we have thriving and vibrant industries. At the same time I don't want anyone dictating how, where and when I can use my mobile phone, or what I can do with my movie and music tracks. They really are mine to use and share as I please.
Trying to lock down and control anything, or trying to dictate behaviour always receives an adverse response.
What the tech industry and its legal eagles don't get is that for every man hour they expend trying to lock down hardware and software, thousands of hours are dedicated to breaking that control.
But even worse for them, they have inadvertently encouraged the creation of a new and competitive industry of free or very low cost lookalikes that do the job just as well, and sometimes even better. So more options are now available than ever before, and we the consumers have a richer choice as a result.
Creativity and use are not things you can control for very long. They are like any fluid - they leak out at every opportunity and spread by unexpected tracks and mechanisms. The impact isn't linear or some simple progression but rather it is an exponential cascade of enablement and further creativity. If it wasn't this way our progress would have come to a grinding halt a long time ago.
Comments
There are 10 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ian B
I think there's a fairly fundamental difference between a "screwdriver, torch, coat or computer" and "soft" material such as software, music, video, and anything electronic or otherwise easily copiable.
The distinction is that items in the former group are no longer available to me to use if I dispose of them by lending, selling etc, whereas those in teh second group can be.
In the first group, the owner of teh mechanical right (aka seller) is protected - they receive thier reward for each item in circulation, since copying such items is (relatively) hard. Those items that can be copied, will be - as you point out, that's the nature of human endeavour!
And hence the DR owner loses a sale. At worst, following your argument to a daft extent, it would only be necessary for one person to purchase the rights to a piece of (say) music, who could then distribute it free to the rest of humanity!
The arguments all need to be about how to strike a balance.
2. anonymous
When you share a music track, you by deifnition make a copy of it. It's not valid to compare it to lending a screwdriver is it?
It is better to think of existing digital media files as a blueprint - giving you a licence to transfer the content to audio/visual reproduction for your consumption. If you're going to make copies of this and give them to your friends then they need to factor that into the orginal price presumably? Or in some way enforce copy/distribution by customers to their friends?
3. drew stephenson
I think there's a difference between DRM and copyright remuneration. It's a subtle one and could be argued to be cause and effect. DRM is a mechanism (there are a number of different ones) that restricts the transfer of a file. That's the theory, the reality is that it gets hacked and the file becomes freely available illegally whilst those who have purchased it legitimately are then left with a useless file when the selling company stops supporting the format (or when they change their computer).
Paying a creator a fair price for their work is something that should happen (i will say that because i'm a musician, but lots of musicians disagree with me!), but DRM is not the way to do it. Other models are being developed but anything that makes it easier to be illegal than legal is going to struggle. Likewise anything that makes a legitimate purchaser subject to the whims/lifespam of a supporting company is not going to work.
Sorry about the long comment!
4. anonymous
I am amazed that anyone over the age of 25 could write such an immature article.
5. Phil Blades
Bravo Peter, I do agree with you. Why is it that (large corporates) invest millions is safeguards and prosecutions rather than embracing change and innovating.
As an early user of drm music sites I now have a fine collection of (paid for) music that won't play as I have changed PC too many times!
6. Peter Cochrane
Ian = Yes indeed - and DRM is an extreme that is unlikely to survive a fast changing world. Peter
7. Peter Cochrane
Anonymous = Like listening or watching you mean...the old ways of thinking take a long time to die. As the standard of radio and TV material continue to degrade, as more people become enabled to get their creations to the masses....the models will change ....The over aggressive DRM model is very unlikely to survive. Peter
8. Peter Cochrane
Drew = Agreed! When I was a youngster listening to anything other than the BBC was a crime. So the Pirate Radio stations changed the law in pretty much the same way CB radio did, and audio tape and video tape etc. I see new business models solving this one - and everyone does indeed get paid. Peter
9. Peter Cochrane
Only an anonymous lawyer could post such a silly comment. It shows a lack of critical thinking and intelligence. Peter
10. Peter Cochrane
Phil = It seems that we as a species have real problem with change. When production lines and business models get established over decades they almost always have to go bankrupt before they get changed or replaced. Right now there are new channels of creativity and new models damaging many of the old lines. I can only see it getting much worse in the future. Peter