This week's events at Digg and the wildfire response across the Internet suggest there is a huge majority not in favour of Digital Rights Management. After all, who wants to be told how and when they can play a DVD or piece of music? We've all made copies of things and though it's not technically legal it's not really wrong... right?
Let's take it from the top. DRM is supposed to protect the likes of artists and producers by ensuring limited distribution through encryption technology. Having said that, EMI recently announced that their entire catalogue would be available through iTunes without DRM. Just weeks later, a leaked key that cracked DRM coding on certain HD DVDs was made public to the extent that it now appears on thousands of web pages, YouTube and even dodgy geek t-shirts. Digg, on cease and desist orders from the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) attempted to remove the links, but after users revolted and submitted the story countless times, it backed down and supported loyal Diggers.
So is DRM-cracking a freedom of speech or, to put it in US terms, First Amendment issue? Do we have the right to distribute DRM-cracking information? And beyond that is the bigger and more important question: is DRM is both right and necessary?
Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group, says: "There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech.
"They can discuss the pros and cons. We know some people are critical of the technology.
"But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then."
A part of me can't help but be sympathetic towards Ayers. After all if I were a songwriter or producer, I wouldn't want to see the fruits of my labour result in ever smaller royalties for me simply because the tracks were so widely available that no-one bothered paying for them any more. And yet with a mere 30 cent increase for each track (because they were higher quality), EMI was quite happy to release songs DRM free, safe in the assumption that people can and will continue paying for their music. And so far, their risk seems to have paid off, at least in PR terms. People like to be trusted not to be thoughtless copyright criminals. I don't actually think that it's morally sound to distribute things like the leaked HD DVD key, but then again I'd probably use it without really thinking about the implications.
We've all seen the anti-piracy ads of the you-wouldn't-hit-old-grannies-in-the-street-so-don't-watch-pirate-dvds ilk. And we've all scoffed, rightly, because no, watching a pirate dvd is not nearly in the same league as bringing down an investment bank or whatever else they're likening it to. Every single one of us has delighted in whatever the technological equivalent of a mix tape is, and I should think most Shiny Shiny readers have at some point downloaded a film, ripped a friend's CD or used software cracks to get their hands on prohibitively expensive programs. But I think it is a surprisingly low number who are consistent and habitual crackers and downloaders. The vast majority of us seem to pay for our entertainment most of the time. So isn't DRM pretty insulting?
Beyond that, isn't it insultingly restrictive? After all, it's not just technically illegal fiddling DRM can restrict, it's anything from which personal player you use to carry around your music to how many legal, personal copies of a track you can make. Essentially DRM can make ownership a very restrictive rental - you bought it, but we still own it.
Even some artists are behind the DRM-free revolution, and what with the recent Digg revolt and EMI capitulation it does seem that, if for no other reason than poor press, DRM might well be on the way out. And if it isn't? Well, then those of us who were once law-abiding listeners / watchers / users ready to put our hands in our pockets will turn to those unscrupulous users who will get round the encryption anyway. So one way or the other, I believe we have the death of DRM on our hands. Why? I leave you with the words of Steve Jobs in his open letter urging the demise of digital rights management:
"The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy."
Into fitness and health gadgets? Check out our new site, Connected Health
Check out the best iPhone 4 accessories here ,
A friend of mine quite aptly put it to me after buying a DVD recently - upon opening it, he found a huge flyer telling him how evil it was to pirate media as well as being treated to an unskippable anti-piracy advert before he could access the main menu. By being treated like a potential criminal after doing the "right thing", is it any wonder people pirate movies and music if buying it legitimatly either means being restricted in how you use it or harassed by anti-piracy measures?
The issue with the key is its just a set of numbers... which could be used for something other than hacking HD-DVDs. Its like a credit card number. Its out there. Doing something illegal with it is just that... but telling other people about it isn't. This is why people were so peeved about the Digg thing as Digg were put under legal pressure by these big companies yet had broken no law. Legal protection exists for Digg and others but the big media players can put smaller companies out of business while the dispute is resolved. Initially Digg caved in to protect their business, but when their customers went ape they (rightly) and finally stood up for themselves. This is why this story should be a big issue... not the talk about a key. The simple fact is all these DRM schemes will get hacked if there is enough interest in doing so because of the way the key and encryption systems work.
Speaking of anti-piracy measures in legally purchased media - here's a video making fun of that:
http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/114/Who+Watches+Movies%3F