Digital _Rights_?

Stories such as this pervade the internet- scenarios where honest, law-abiding people (such a cliche, but true) end up getting screwed by the very technology that supposedly is there to "protect" them. The technology I refer to in this case is DRM, or Digital Rights Management. Essentially, it's a form of copy protection. However, unlike typical forms of copy protection (although some may fall under the DRM umbrella definition) involving encoding or scrambling the content in some way, modern DRM makes use of a license issued by some central "authority".
(Photo by Magalie L'Abbé from flickr, used under Creative Commons license)

Here's the latest example of problems with the "system", posted to Slashdot. The original blog post is unavailable at the moment due to being overloaded, but if you scroll through the comments, someone has re-posted it. To sum up, this guy needs to have his licenses for videos he purchased from Netflix re-validated (they call it "reset"). In doing so, that will in-validate the licenses for the videos he purchased from Amazon. The really funny part? If he did have any illegal videos, nothing would happen to them. Sure, the software to fix the licensing could send a message to authorities, but this would be ridiculous, since your home movies are unlikely to be DRM-enabled. And what if it's a movie or song you purchased on CD, VHS, or DVD (haha, or DivX) that you, being Mr. (or Miss/Mrs.) Bleeding Edge High Tech, have converted to view on your PC, or send it through your Bleeding Edge High Tech 10-gigabit network to your Bleeding Edge High Tech Home Theatre, or to anywhere else in your Bleeding Edge High Tech house for that matter, to enjoy? Current copyright law allows for this, as long as it's still used for your own private use. Proponents of DRM (read: generally major media conglomerates) would like this to change, and this leads us into problem 2 with DRM- not only can it be used to prevent unauthorized, illegal duplication, but also to restrict authorized, legal use.

DRM can be used not only to control copying (including moving from your old computer to a new one), but also to control the "life" and usage of the item in question- for example, to allow playback/viewing only x number of times, or for x days after retrieval. And let's not mention what might happen if those authentication servers or standards change (as happened to MLB), which will eventually happen. Speaking of the MLB case, their videos (they're not the only ones, though- I remember looking into this for a friend (expat) in Germany for NFL) required that you use Windows Media Player 10. Got Mac? Too bad. Got Linux? Sorry. Got DOS? Well, you're probably not playing video, but if so, that won't work, either. That leads us to problem #3.

A third use for DRM (though not only- proprietary file formats often accomplish the same task) is device/platform/company "lock-in"- items from Vendor A will only work with devices also from Vendor A; you can only use Vendor S's software to load items onto Vendor S's device. Vendor M has a contract with Vendor N, so now Vendor N's files witll only work with Vendor M's products. Want a different ringer for your phone? They're not included anymore, you have to download (pay for) one (and they all suck, what ever happened to "ring"?). Verizon in particular is notorious for crippling their phones, so you have to use (pay for) their service instead- i.e. instead of using a Nokia's built-in IR port to transer an image to the phone, instead you use Verizon's service, which of course costs more. Another example, though due to it's design and ensuing popularity the outcry is a minority of the users, is Apple's iPod and iTunes. While this is starting to show signs of change (Macintosh versions of iTunes can now load songs to some non-Apple devices, something tells me we have France to thank for that, at least in part), for years if you wanted to use iTunes, had to have an iPod- the same is true in reverse. That leaves people like me, who might like to use iTunes (given the ability), but another device (a Sony mp3 player, that requires I use Sony's terrible SonicStage software- problem is I love the hardware!) out in the cold.

People that make their art available for sale should get their share. Companies that foot the bill up front so people can make their art, in hopes of getting a return later, should get their share (fair or not, that's another discussion altogether). However, placing systems such as this in place that (a) aren't well thought-out, and (b) seek to serve as another revenue stream instead of solving the underlying problem, are destined to only infuriate the people who use it leading to it being disabled, circumvented (legal or not), and encourages the "underground" "market" of file sharing, cam copies, etc.

#AA55