Digital Restrictions Management

Just listened to part of a broadcast discussing the pros and cons of DVDs (presumably a shorthand for all forms of discs) versus streaming. This is actually a false dichotomy. There is a third option that is only hampered by digital restrictions – something that is an infringement on people’s rights.

Streaming services use (essentially) the theatre model – you pay to watch something once while DVDs use the book model – you pay to have access to something forever. However there is nothing sacred about either model. They simply arose from the technology of the time.

You couldn’t let an unlimited number of previous viewers back into the current night’s show simply because they had previously attended nor could you give them access to a non-existent (at the time) recording of the show.

You similarly couldn’t easily copy books. Even with photocopiers, it required a lot of time to make a less-perfect copy. However libraries were allowed to lend purchased originals to all.

Modern digital technology opens up a third option – the digital copy. And that’s where it gets complicated. Led by the U.S., some nations have instituted strong anti-copying laws that punish people for owning a copy they didn’t acquire through an authorized channel. And all the authorized channels provide copies that are designed to be difficult to copy.

However copyright law was not originally intended to go after the purchaser but rather the people producing the copies. They didn’t have a copy right – permission to make copies. Extending copyright law to penalize the purchaser of said copies is a huge change to the intention of the law.

Moreover, many jurisdictions recognize the right to make backup copies of material you acquired and also to copy sections of materials for educational purposes or to comment on or satirize such material. Modern copyright restrictions have resulted in infringements on those rights.

Even worse, some of the digital restrictions have nothing to do with stopping unauthorized copying. Instead they are used to prevent material released in one continent from being played in another – something that counterfeiters have no difficulty circumventing but that inconveniences anyone who moves between continents.

Let’s imagine a different scenario, one where material can easily be copied. Streaming and discs simply become content delivery mechanisms. Any material you acquire can be stored locally for later viewing or re-viewing. Would this actually impact the content creators?

Currently new Hollywood productions are more expensive to make than ever yet people still line up to see them on the large screen. People still attend live theatre events as well. And there is no evidence that live concerts are going away.

Even the atrociously fragile LPs are still in production while people have largely stopped buying audio CDs – often because of (fear of) the digital restrictions they may come with. Meanwhile iTunes DRM-free music hasn’t caused the recording industry to collapse.

The era of recorded music having primacy over the live performance, like the rise of cinema over theatre, wasn’t brought about to destroy the livelihoods of performers but rather created a new audience for them. No longer did performers have to go onstage night-after-night to earn a living.

Instead recordings of their art reached a larger audience and gave them new sources of income.

Nor did TV destroy either theatre or concerts. Both are still thriving.

However the attempts by content owners (as opposed to the creative artists) to keep a tight lid on their products are actually harming the potential reach of content creators. While the Internet allows people to share, DRM is intended to stop that. You can no longer “lend” someone something you bought except as a physical copy or possibly a reference to some ad-backed content.

Meanwhile the old gatekeepers still exist. You can create as much as you want, but without active promotion, most of it goes unnoticed. And with so much content available online, getting noticed is harder than it used to be. Promotional campaigns cost money that comes from wealthy backers who want a safe return on their investment.

I don’t lament this. The creative arts have always been competitive. A few make a lot of money from it while many struggle to earn a living. Some can never do more than create for their own enjoyment.

Most musicians continue to make their living from live performances or commercial work such as soundtracks. DRM exists mainly to support those who own the content created by others. Artists benefit more from having their recorded content attract a larger audience to their live shows.

While some people may take advantage of the ability to copy digital content, most people who are fans have no issues with paying for their own copies. Indeed, many musicians supplement their performance fees with direct audio CD sales.

It would be better if copyright law returned to its original use – to stop the large scale duplicating of the material. There is no evidence anywhere that DRM has slowed down counterfeiters but a lot of evidence that it costs consumers money.

Stopping large counterfeiting operations is a matter of enforcement. However governments have been reducing their import and export controls, allowing counterfeiting to thrive. Controlling that, not instituting DRM to stop casual copying, is the real path forward.