January 6, 2004
Put Two and Two Together, and You Get MP3
Project Hudson, the Content Reference Forum, and Phillips’ as yet unnamed project are all billing themselves as better DRM – DRM that’s open, interoperable, and non-proprietary, with liberal usage rules. They might even allow some sort of file-sharing in a limited form. Kevin Doran has some particularly choice thoughts on the first; here are some older comments from me on the second.
A quote from the article on the third exemplifies what is so perplexing for me about these ventures:
“‘The electronics industry recognizes that Microsoft is a formidable player, but consumer electronics makers do not want to become dependent on Microsoft. They need an interoperable and independent system,’ said [Ruud] Peters [Phillips’ chief executive of IP and standards unit]. ‘DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon,’ he added.” (emphasis added)
Someone should put that last point on a billboard somewhere – DRM should not be a “competitive weapon.” But why do they stop there?
Remember three key reasons for DRM that its proponents use: 1) Protect copyrighted content to prevent infringement, 2) limit and charge for consumer uses, 3) act as a “competitive weapon,” limiting interoperability and enabling tied products (e.g., iTunes with iPod).
At least on their face, all music services today talk as if (2) is not a goal. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that they honestly mean that.
These new DRM standards also reject goal (3). In today’s digital music market, it’s a surprisingly novel concept, a clear deviation from how DRM is being used right now (and in the future)(via Frank, for this link and others). Now, almost there, they’re about to put two and two together…
and then they get all caught up on point (1). They watch as DVD Jon creates workarounds for Apple’s FairPlay. The analog hole is and will be there. For the forseeable future, DRM does not seem to be the solution. As Fred von Lohmann notes, “Every song on iTunes Music Store has been available on the Peer to Peer networks within four hours,” regardless of the DRM.
So how do they add this all up and get DRM? They make DRM about apparent, not actual, protection given present circumstances. They want to “convince media companies their content is protected,” even though that’s not the full story. The equation doesn’t have to add up.
At least the digital music services out there seemed to have a reason for the DRM by pursuing goal (3). Ultimately, I think it’s a bad choice, both for consumers and the long-term livelihood of the market, but at least in that sense there was a rationale (or rationalization). But now people are putting that goal aside. If they’re going to pursue point (2), and frustrate consumers, then I think everything is pretty hopeless. And point (1) seems pointless for the forseeable future.
So why all this push for open DRM? If the RIAA and music vendors are willing to go with that, why not just use MP3 and have a go of it? To do that, you don’t need to invest any time, effort, and money into creating the standard, popularizing it, and competing with the others. MP3 is already ubiquitous.
To me, it’s that simple. So when I hear these tech companies talking about new open DRM standards, it’s all about competition. It’s got little to do with what will help move the music marketplace along, and everything to do with those tech companies duking it out. For those that don’t see DRM as a competitive weapon, they probably would prefer it if the RIAA just let Apple sell MP3s. But since those tech companies don’t have that option, so they have to keep fighting it out in the DRM market.
Seems like a total waste to me, particularly when a better way remains out there.
Filed by Derek Slater at 7:24 pm under General news
Comments Off on Put Two and Two Together, and You Get MP3
