The DRM argument for piracy is a bit of a straw man.
Music hasn't been sold with DRM for over three years, but it still makes up a sizable portion of The Pirate Bay's offerings. You could say that musicians are being tyrannical by choosing to distribute their recordings in the way that maximizes their profit instead of choosing to give it away. I would reply that some people do choose to give away their work. I'm happy to live in a world where people get to make that choice of what to do with something they've created.
Obviously movies, tv shows, and books are another matter. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time until those go DRM-free too, but a "matter of time" might longer than any of us would wish for. This is more of a matter of business model. There never really was a rental model for music in the physical media era, however, consumers seem to have a demand for a digital version of renting movies. With books, I think the parallel is libraries where you could sign out a book and return it. In any event, consumers seem to prefer paying a lower price for the ability to consume a movie/tv show/book for a limited time window to paying a higher price for the ability to keep it.
It should go without saying in this community that a rental model for media without DRM simply wouldn't work. Because there would be no means to return the movie/tv/show/book other than making the user promise to delete the file, a DRM-free "rental" would become equivalent to a sale. The result would be less consumer choice.
As for when the "sale" option goes DRM-free, I think someone will come along and offer movies in three tiers:
1. rental (with DRM, obviously), for about $4
2. sale, with DRM limiting how many times it can be copied, for about $8
3. sale, DRM-free, for maybe $12
It will be interesting to see how many people opt for #3. Getting a critical mass of people to choose to spend a little more for a DRM-free product is how we'll get to a future without DRM. The number of people using sites like The Pirate Bay won't even be a major factor in those discussions.
Expecting people to know and care about DRM, is like expecting people to read and understand the Table of contents in food.
The Hambuger seller:
1. A picture of an Hamburger $4 2.Sale, with just a tiny bit of arsnic in it, $8. Sale, Arsnic free, for maybe $12.
With this hypothetical Humburger product, most people will still pick option 2, not thinking about reading the table of content or understanding the effect arsnic has on the body (maybe they do not know what the word arsnic mean). They will look at the price and pick the cheaper one of two semi-looking identical products.
The way to get food arsnic free is not about teaching the average man what arsnic is, what its effects are on the human body, and that they might prefer the arsnic free food. That its their responsibility, and noone else, to identify food that are arsnic free.
DRM is by its definition a program, created to disrupt computer operation and gain access to private computer systems. This is an identical definition to that of malware. That DRM is indistinguishable from Rootkits should make it obvious to society as a sign that DRM is harmful.
DRM should thus be illegal in commercial sold products, identical to the food industry regulation. Consumers are protected from food that is directly harmful (like arsnic sprinkled hamburgers). If a program is written to be directly harmful, it too should be illegal to sell. If the goal of the program is to disrupt computer operation and gain access to private computer systems, it should not matter if a song is attached to it.
I actually really like your idea of comparing the choice of DRM-encumbered vs DRM-free files to choices we make with respect to how our food is produced.
I think many Americans have a general idea that the food they eat is the product of a corporate farming system that can be pretty sketchy. We expect the government to get involved when the practices of food producers create a food safety issue, but otherwise we leave it up to consumers to choose. And some consumers do choose to buy grass-fed beef, free-range chickens, and organic produce, and pay extra for it.
There are probably some parallels to be drawn with respect to product labeling. (Should Amazon and iTunes be forced to warn consumers that the movie they're about to buy includes some type of DRM?)
More importantly, though, both of these situations require consumers to be educated in order to make informed decisions about which product to buy. If we as a culture want our farming system to be more humane to animals and better stewards of the earth, we need to teach our peers how to read food labels and understand what they mean. If we as a technical community want DRM to not be forced into the files we buy, we need to educate our peers on the drawbacks of DRM and persuade them to make it an issue.
> DRM is by its definition a program, created to disrupt computer operation and gain access to private computer systems. This is an identical definition to that of malware. That DRM is indistinguishable from Rootkits should make it obvious to society as a sign that DRM is harmful.
I think you must be thinking of a different DRM. DRM means Digital Rights Management, and describes any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content provider. And that's it.
I'm guessing you're thinking of Sony's 2005 rootkit incident, which was an example of DRM implemented in a completely stupid and dangerous way. And it wasn't legal at the time nor is it now - Sony was forced to recall the CDs and settled a class-action lawsuit. But regardless of this, the fact that the program "gained access to private systems" was completely secondary to its goal of making the CD's content uncopyable.
I'm not saying I support it, but you're not helping your cause by telling hyperbolic lies about what DRM is.
DRM for music is deeply entrenched in the ecosystem. The most overt of DRM layers can't exist on old media CDs, but it's still everywhere.
None of the major online music services allow unlimited sharing (of files), and even getting this far was a long legal mess, representing part of the extensive history where DRM has attempted to parasitize the legal system.
I work for a small record label in my spare time. We submitted a song for pressing (on vinyl), and received a warning from the RIAA not to sell it. The record contained a (very interpreted) cover of a pop song.
DRM at every level of the industry. The lack of direct software enforcement in digital music files really doesn't mean anything.
I think you're stretching the definition of DRM a bit. In my comment, I was referring to the set of technologies used to make it harder to copy a legally purchased file.
In any event, we're talking about technical solutions to licensing problems.
I haven't read any reports of Google or Amazon's cloud music players adding DRM to files after they've been uploaded. Has anyone heard differently? I thought the whole reason they were legally in the clear is because they're basically file lockers with playback functionality.
The "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media" amendment to the AHRA may be an example of the Recording Industry's lobbying efforts being rewarded more than we'd like, but DRM it is not.
As for your warning letter from the RIAA: did they have reason to believe you wouldn't be paying your publishing royalties? I imagine your record label probably works with the Harry Fox Agency all the time. Was there something that was unusual about your case?
It's true I'm overloading the term. Originally we were talking about DRM as an excuse for piracy; my point was that the inconvenience and restriction is all over the market, not just on an album.
That particular case was years ago, and the only time we've brushed with the RIAA. We're a very small operation and didn't bother to get lawyers involved. Paying royalties wasn't something we'd consider as the work is only superficially related to the original (by my reckoning), riding the line between parody and fundamental re-interpretation. I feel the IP test for such works is unethically restrictive and greedy.
Music hasn't been sold with DRM for over three years, but it still makes up a sizable portion of The Pirate Bay's offerings. You could say that musicians are being tyrannical by choosing to distribute their recordings in the way that maximizes their profit instead of choosing to give it away. I would reply that some people do choose to give away their work. I'm happy to live in a world where people get to make that choice of what to do with something they've created.
Obviously movies, tv shows, and books are another matter. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time until those go DRM-free too, but a "matter of time" might longer than any of us would wish for. This is more of a matter of business model. There never really was a rental model for music in the physical media era, however, consumers seem to have a demand for a digital version of renting movies. With books, I think the parallel is libraries where you could sign out a book and return it. In any event, consumers seem to prefer paying a lower price for the ability to consume a movie/tv show/book for a limited time window to paying a higher price for the ability to keep it.
It should go without saying in this community that a rental model for media without DRM simply wouldn't work. Because there would be no means to return the movie/tv/show/book other than making the user promise to delete the file, a DRM-free "rental" would become equivalent to a sale. The result would be less consumer choice.
As for when the "sale" option goes DRM-free, I think someone will come along and offer movies in three tiers:
1. rental (with DRM, obviously), for about $4 2. sale, with DRM limiting how many times it can be copied, for about $8 3. sale, DRM-free, for maybe $12
It will be interesting to see how many people opt for #3. Getting a critical mass of people to choose to spend a little more for a DRM-free product is how we'll get to a future without DRM. The number of people using sites like The Pirate Bay won't even be a major factor in those discussions.