Friday, August 5. 2005
DRM and Tech Mortality Rate
Most consumer complaints about digital rights management revolve around the limited interoperability of proprietary systems. Those concerns are still legitimate and remain unanswered by current DRM technology. But there exists another concern beyond the simple lateral limitations of trying to move a file from one DRM-supported system to another. Those concerns also apply to the longevity of your media. The introduction of digital rights management can greatly decrease the lifespan of your files, whether they be music, video, text, or any combination thereof.
In my very short lifetime (I'm 26), I've watched the evolution of ownable, compact media unfold before my very eyes. I danced to "Disco Duck" turning on a Fisher Price record player, sneered at my mother's Neil Diamond 8-tracks, played "Thriller" on cassette in my boom box, bought "Queen's Greatest Hits" twice on CD, and swapped Tori Amos mp3's via my dorm's T3 before Napster was even a glimmer in Shawn Fanning's eye.
Bad taste quips aside, the format and delivery of music is going to keep changing. In eras past, new branches in music evolution meant that you couldn't play your old files in your new players. But now that the files as well as the devices are digital, the physical limitation is no longer present and the next step in media evolution shouldn't render your old files useless. Rather than having to build a special machine that accepts multiple forms of physical media, you just have digital versions of your old files. After that, it's just a matter of the vendors writing software on the new devices that is backwards compatible with your old files regardless of how those files are delivered to the device.
This is all true until you encounter digital rights management on the files. Sure enough, the inclusion of DRM significantly hinders the designer's ability to make the new devices and software backwards compatible. The problem becomes even more complicated when you're dealing with multiple proprietary DRM's each with their own platforms, encryptions, keys, watermarking, and usage restrictions. Now the lifespan of your files is tied directly to the lifespan of that DRM. And you can forget about taking those files with you to the next generation of media.
Content owners want us to buy DRM'ed music not just because they think that the DRM protects their assets. They want DRM on their content because it forces consumers into a Walmart-style brand of consumerism in which we truly consume the product; we use it a few times and we throw it away, because it's cheaper just to buy a new one than to actually buy the higher quality, longer lasting item. Some music lends itself to this play-play-over-play-and-die model. Some pop music fits that one-time-use mold with its cultured-from-a-test-tube, rhinestone divas and their fifteen minutes of fame. But there's some music that we want to listen to over our lifetime, and no matter what genres you listen to, anyone with a spare dime has their own trove of beloved music.
When I do buy music, I buy so that I can listen to it for my whole life. It's not some casual fling with BMI's flavor-of-the-month. I suppose that's the difference between liking music and being a music lover. I want that music to be with me for the rest of my life. The same goes for a book or a movie or even the files I create myself. As a writer, my world is tied to the words I inject with meaning and string together in a document. Some of my writing I post; some I want my children (should I ever have them) to read in all their embarrassing glory.
Many misguided writers have argued that such fears could be allayed if an interoperable DRM were created. Oh? I'm assuming by this they mean one based on open standards formed by an alliance of industry leaders that would set basic standards for all players in the industry to adopt. Hrm, like the OMA, perhaps? We see how effective that has been. Or perhaps we should look to an even older market: browsers. We've seen how well-behaved Microsoft has been when deciding whether or not to comply with open and established standards. Read their latest decision to ignore CSS compliance once again with IE7.
Even if the industry somehow manages to stumble upon the perfect solution for interoperability among DRM platform(s), it still slows down the growth of the industry as a whole. The presence of digital rights management hinders the adoption of new technology. Let's use the most recent buzz about the Trusted Computing Alliance and Vista to illustrate. Other than the people who buy their computers off the shelf and don't know the difference between an operating system and their keyboard, how many people do you think are going to buy and install Vista knowing that they'll have to buy a new monitor to watch their normal media? Other than those who don't know any better, who would actually choose to spend money on a device or software that gave them less capability and lower quality than they already have? Now imagine if Vista included many new tools that were useful and attractive to consumers and businesses instead of catering to content owners' paranoia. Many many more people would make the switch to Vista. Thus DRM slows the adoption of new technology by users who no longer see the upgrade as attractive when its paired with its DRM limitations and increased hardware expenditures.
I think I may have made the DRM vendors' and some content owners' agenda clear. The only way that they can make DRM standard and indispensable is if they sell it unknowingly to the average user who doesn't know any better. As long as that enormous knowledge gap exists between the common end user and the platform designers, DRM vendors will pray upon this lack of awareness and slip into the lap of the silent majority. I don't expect consumers to learn every detail on how their computer works, but I do know that awareness can be fostered without the need for technical knowledge. We have the most influence on people who are in our immediate circle of family, friends, and colleagues. You don't have to preach. You just have to talk, listen, and teach.
Author: Ginger Cox
In my very short lifetime (I'm 26), I've watched the evolution of ownable, compact media unfold before my very eyes. I danced to "Disco Duck" turning on a Fisher Price record player, sneered at my mother's Neil Diamond 8-tracks, played "Thriller" on cassette in my boom box, bought "Queen's Greatest Hits" twice on CD, and swapped Tori Amos mp3's via my dorm's T3 before Napster was even a glimmer in Shawn Fanning's eye.
Bad taste quips aside, the format and delivery of music is going to keep changing. In eras past, new branches in music evolution meant that you couldn't play your old files in your new players. But now that the files as well as the devices are digital, the physical limitation is no longer present and the next step in media evolution shouldn't render your old files useless. Rather than having to build a special machine that accepts multiple forms of physical media, you just have digital versions of your old files. After that, it's just a matter of the vendors writing software on the new devices that is backwards compatible with your old files regardless of how those files are delivered to the device.
This is all true until you encounter digital rights management on the files. Sure enough, the inclusion of DRM significantly hinders the designer's ability to make the new devices and software backwards compatible. The problem becomes even more complicated when you're dealing with multiple proprietary DRM's each with their own platforms, encryptions, keys, watermarking, and usage restrictions. Now the lifespan of your files is tied directly to the lifespan of that DRM. And you can forget about taking those files with you to the next generation of media.
Content owners want us to buy DRM'ed music not just because they think that the DRM protects their assets. They want DRM on their content because it forces consumers into a Walmart-style brand of consumerism in which we truly consume the product; we use it a few times and we throw it away, because it's cheaper just to buy a new one than to actually buy the higher quality, longer lasting item. Some music lends itself to this play-play-over-play-and-die model. Some pop music fits that one-time-use mold with its cultured-from-a-test-tube, rhinestone divas and their fifteen minutes of fame. But there's some music that we want to listen to over our lifetime, and no matter what genres you listen to, anyone with a spare dime has their own trove of beloved music.
When I do buy music, I buy so that I can listen to it for my whole life. It's not some casual fling with BMI's flavor-of-the-month. I suppose that's the difference between liking music and being a music lover. I want that music to be with me for the rest of my life. The same goes for a book or a movie or even the files I create myself. As a writer, my world is tied to the words I inject with meaning and string together in a document. Some of my writing I post; some I want my children (should I ever have them) to read in all their embarrassing glory.
Many misguided writers have argued that such fears could be allayed if an interoperable DRM were created. Oh? I'm assuming by this they mean one based on open standards formed by an alliance of industry leaders that would set basic standards for all players in the industry to adopt. Hrm, like the OMA, perhaps? We see how effective that has been. Or perhaps we should look to an even older market: browsers. We've seen how well-behaved Microsoft has been when deciding whether or not to comply with open and established standards. Read their latest decision to ignore CSS compliance once again with IE7.
Wilson's post is disappointing because Microsoft doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0. Instead of using well-established Web standards, IE 7.0 will continue to foist proprietary technologies on Web developers, forcing them to choose between two competing ways of creating Web sites.Wishing for one platform to rule them all isn't an acceptable solution either. Every DRM vendor is lusting after the idea that their platform might one day gain enough market share to become the standard. Interoperability would increase, but so would prices for everything from the media to the devices to everything in between. Don't take my word for it; ask The Register when they interviewed Ed Gracyzk about MS's IPTV DRM.
But even if DRM licensing from Microsoft is low priced now, we could point out that it used to charge very little for its operating system, but that’s managed to inflate over the years, so why not DRM license fees?Hello, barriers to entry; goodbye, competition. And don't think that other proprietary DRM vendors will play nicely if their platform becomes the market winning standard. Apple's practices are just as proprietary as Microsoft's, perhaps even more so because they want to sell the hardware as well as the software.
Even if the industry somehow manages to stumble upon the perfect solution for interoperability among DRM platform(s), it still slows down the growth of the industry as a whole. The presence of digital rights management hinders the adoption of new technology. Let's use the most recent buzz about the Trusted Computing Alliance and Vista to illustrate. Other than the people who buy their computers off the shelf and don't know the difference between an operating system and their keyboard, how many people do you think are going to buy and install Vista knowing that they'll have to buy a new monitor to watch their normal media? Other than those who don't know any better, who would actually choose to spend money on a device or software that gave them less capability and lower quality than they already have? Now imagine if Vista included many new tools that were useful and attractive to consumers and businesses instead of catering to content owners' paranoia. Many many more people would make the switch to Vista. Thus DRM slows the adoption of new technology by users who no longer see the upgrade as attractive when its paired with its DRM limitations and increased hardware expenditures.
I think I may have made the DRM vendors' and some content owners' agenda clear. The only way that they can make DRM standard and indispensable is if they sell it unknowingly to the average user who doesn't know any better. As long as that enormous knowledge gap exists between the common end user and the platform designers, DRM vendors will pray upon this lack of awareness and slip into the lap of the silent majority. I don't expect consumers to learn every detail on how their computer works, but I do know that awareness can be fostered without the need for technical knowledge. We have the most influence on people who are in our immediate circle of family, friends, and colleagues. You don't have to preach. You just have to talk, listen, and teach.
Author: Ginger Cox
Comments
Yes this is right that the files as well as the devices are digital, the physical limitation is no longer present and the next step in media evolution shouldn't render your old files useless.
Agreed. We have to stop making existing technology comletely and immediately obsolete to new technology.
The author has not allowed comments to this entry
