You are reading The song of the future. You can leave a comment or trackback this post.
Posted on July 26th, 2006 by Chris.
Categories: Business/The Software Industry, Chris, General/Misc., Politics.
Problem: Overly restrictive DRM is allowing major companies to restrict our usage of information, and abuse intellectual property rights.
Solution: We shouldn’t do anything.
Wait.
As absurd as it is to have CDs that install rootkits on your computer and the RIAA suing 12 year olds, it’s only happening because the inevitable is coming, and I don’t mean just piracy; DRM can’t survive.
What if DRM is forced on all music players? Shouldn’t there be a law…
A law is the last thing we want now. Consider the legislative system of the United States, arguably one of the more efficient systems in the world (though there are certainly better examples). What have we passed in the past few years (Bush and pre-Bush)?:
-(A much more useful source than congress.gov for finding straightforward info on laws)
Now, many of us will have differing opinions on how well these laws work. But virtually no one would agree that McCain-Feingold caused politics to become significantly less money driven, or that Can-SPAM did anything to spam at all. In general, laws have not proved to be a panacea, or even a good solution.
Even worse, what’s likely to happen is that legislation will favor the large companies that lobby for it. Consider the broadcast flag, the legislative attempt by television companies to make it impossible to record TV. Legislation is more likely to be a tool to bludgeon illegal downloaders than a solution to corporate largesse.
Summary: Laws are just as likely to make things worse as they are to make things better.
You may wonder exactly what we can do without laws to keep companies in check. The fact is, we have laws, and things are better without more. Consider, for example, everyone’s favorite company right now:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the “Betamax case“, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.
You may not think of Sony as a particularly wonderful corporation, but the fact is that, on its own, technology finds its way around problems. This was true with the VCR, and as long as there aren’t new laws to further restrict our rights to intellectual property, this will also be true of DRM.
You may remember when Napster came out, record companies had a two pronged strategy for getting rid of it:
This is a short term strategy that is quite effective, but in the long term, the cards are stacked against the RIAA in a way that goes way beyond Sony’s videotape situation. Unlike Sony, modern distribution technology is everywhere; the code is so widely disseminated that it’s almost impossible to stop. DRM (the attempt by record companies to prevent you from copying your music) is basically trying to restrict access and give you the key at the same time. (Interesting longer article on this)
The inevitable is already here. Oddly enough, the only thing that will prevent the end of an era of DRM is the legal system.
You may remember in the beginning that I asked a question: What should we do? and I gave an answer: We shouldn’t do anything. Allow me to amend that statement.
We shouldn’t do anything. You should be doing everything.
The future is not in making the best laws. Our country was never known for our breathtakingly innovative government; Bill Gates wasn’t made by Congress. If we think the record companies are being abusive, the best and brightest are in a fantastic position to move them out of existence.
MySpace and eMusic are good examples of the music of the future. Anyone can put their song online; the record company producing the CDs are now no longer in control of the manner of production/distribution. Artists stick to major labels as long as they provide a vehicle to get more money than indie labels. There’s a good case that this is changing as we speak. The first time an artist gets a smash hit without touching a big label, other artists will notice.
This isn’t just a record company issue either. Entrepreneurs make the future; Congress just tries to keep up. (Keep this in mind if you ever decide to run for political office.)
(Thanks to Gas; half of this article could be said to be from a conversation from before)
Other stuff I ran across while researching: http://bobkrumm.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/if_you_want_to_.html
1 comment.
Pingback on September 16th, 2006.
[...] I wrote back in July that DRM was pretty much impossible to enforce without legal muscle. If the RIAA were unable to sue Napster and music downloaders, controlling access to music would be very difficult, because technically speaking, they want to let you hear a song without having the data that makes that song play. Anyone who’s seeing the parallels here will also see the next step in this train of thought. Privacy protection is pretty much impossible to enforce without legal muscle. [...]
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.