DRM @ PTC

Since embarking on the DRM project, I have been asked why we shouldn’t support the artists and pay them. This is a problem. I wholeheartedly support an artist’s right to recoup costs and earn a living anyway that they can. If they can earn a good living or get fabulously wealthy creating and promoting their work, I think that is wonderful. They do not have a “right” to earn a living this way, just an opportunity and a marketplace to do so. This is the way that all professions work, at least in American society. We have told entire segments of the workforce that the market will only bear so much for their skills. Is this what we are telling the Arts? I really hope not, but DRM may be off-putting enough to do just that.

DRM has nothing to do with paying an artist for their work, nor does it prevent illegal sharing of music. DRM is like the cable shackling furs to a garment rack at Macy’s. A customer can purchase the item with or without the existence of the cable; it assumes criminal intent on the part of customers; it inconveniences legitimate customers that want to try on the garment; and it is can be circumvented by a determined thief with a pair of tin snips. The difference is that the cable on the garment rack is intended to deter a thief, whereas DRM is not.

In its current implementations, DRM does very little, if anything, to control illegal file sharing. It does, however, limit the use of purchased content to proprietary interfaces and devices. The ultimate goal of DRM is to retain control of the legitimate distribution of digital content, like the good old days of buying an 8-track and a vinyl record to be able to play in both types of players. The record companies would love nothing more than for consumers to have to re-purchase 10,000 songs after a hard drive failure.

DRM limits a consumer’s ability to play purchased content across disparate platforms. Music purchased on iTunes cannot be played on any portable player other than an iPod. So, if you have a Microsoft Zune, you can’t play your iTunes music on it. This is, of course, designed to sell proprietary players and multiple copies of songs. Music with DRM is cumbersome to work with, especially if the consumer is not technically savvy.

DRM doesn’t respect fair use; DRM encumbered works are worthless for legitimate educational purposes or parodies. The RIAA may like it that way, but fair use is legal, and DRM takes it away from the purchaser.

DRM ignores the derivative nature of creative works and gives nothing back to the community as it locks the work in bondage. Creative work is a reflection of the time period in which it was created and genres come in and out of fashion. In the current **AA business models, creative expression is never free, only a commodity to be peddled to consumers. Sampling, once a valuable tool for creative expression, is now forbidden without paying an additional fee. Ultimately, someone must pay a record label for each and every sound it produces at each and every utterance. Similarly, we are forced to view a warning from the FBI before every movie we watch in our home theaters.  DRM prevents the skipping or removal of this quite redundant requirement.