DRM Interview

A friend interviewed me for a paper on DRM. Here's the transcript:

How are DRM and copyright related?

1. Copyright is a government mandated, artificial monopoly which evolved historically to support authorship by providing an economic encouragement; it is a legal term. Digital rights management, which is more aptly called digital restriction management, refers to any number of technological limitations which attempt to prohibit the copying of content; it is a technological term. DRM is technology enforcing the rights that someone thinks the law gives them. They may or may not actually have those rights. In the past, when technology did not allow for the reproduction of content as easily, copyright was hardly an issue. The common man could not reproduce copyrighted material with ease and great fidelity. So, in the limited copyright infringements that occurred, the courts dealt with the situation. Now, due to the viral spread of digital media, rights holders are attempting to use technology to prohibit what technology also allows - reproduction.
   

What is your stance on DRM?

1. It is silly. It is nonsensical. It is dangerous. Copyright law was never designed to be black and white. That is, it is a complicated set of statutory designations and suggestions of precedence. Unlike physical property where the good is exclusively used by one party, intellectual property (IP) is non-rivalrous. While I cannot use the same bicycle as you, we can certainly both use an idea. Thomas Jefferson recognized this when he analogized IP to a flame: when I light your torch with mine, my flame does not diminish. DRM, however, is a intrinsically binary solution. It is black and white whereas copyright is gray.
   

How do you think DRM affects the advancement of our digital society?

1. It presents a danger to nearly every field of endeavor. Cory Doctorow wrote a great piece where he points out that it is a technological impossibility to make a byte any less 'copiable'. It is their nature to be copied. The Internet is just a system of reproducing 1s and 0s locally after requesting them from a distant server. Every single DRM system that has ever been designed has been opened. I think a good analogy which I just thought of is that of water. DRM may freeze it and stop the flow of water (information/content) for a while, but it will melt (be cracked) eventually.
   

Should DRM be made illegal?

1. I am usually hesitant to involve government in industry. I think business realities of the new century will demonstrate that DRM is just tilting at windmills. However, the danger to history of locking information in proprietary formats is a real one. Further, as a proponent of the free market, I worry that DRM prohibits the vast majority of consumers, who have no knowledge of freeing their material, from choosing the products they desire. The music I purchase on iTunes will not play on anything but an iPod unless I break the law and break the DRM. Do you really think the iPod will be your music player of choice for the rest of your life? I sure as hell don't and I want my music to play on whatever I wanted. So, perhaps government intervention in cases of monopoly are worthwhile, but writing a law to prohibit digital "locks" without prohibiting necessary security features will be a tedious and tricky job which, quite frankly, Washington, D.C. is not up to.
   

Is DRM appropriate in any situation?

1. In its common usage, I would be hard pressed to find a reason. The truth of the story is that the content owners are scared and they have high-billing lawyers whispering in their ear at every turn. When the MBAs recognize that the JDs aren't improving their bottom line, DRM will fade.

• What about the DMCA?

1. The DMCA is one of the most ill conceived laws in recent history. Its anti-circumvention portion shows just how much certain Congresspeople are willing to shill for campaign donations. It makes it illegal for people to circumvent DRM even if it is for legal purposes. Since when has our legal system not taken into account intent!? Say, for example, I wanted to remove the DRM on a movie in order to produce a satire. This would be completely legal as the use is a fair one. Fair use is the best example of how copyright law is gray. It allows people to use copyrighted material as long as it is a "fair use" (this is a more in depth legal question which I will save for later, but satire counts). This threatens news reporting, the arts and scholarship -- all of which rely on fair use.

• What can be done?

1. I think time will do a lot to solve this problem, but at the same time, people must be aware of this issue. The Free Software Foundation's campaign called Defective by Design is doing some high profile demonstrations against DRM to raise consumer awareness. People need to know why their iPod is malfunctioning. People need to know why you can't skip those aggravating previews on the DVD you legally purchased. Further, I think technologists need to unify in lobbying so that our voice is heard on Capitol Hill.