DRM technology and policy

[Carsten Kuckuk]

>> (copyrights, patents, ip, DRM, culture)

As far as I can tell, it's not the musicians, writers or artists in
general who demand DRM technology but it is the companies whose
business model is solely based on reproduction and distribution of
works. It's their business model that is threatened and they don't
bother finding another.

One of the original intentions for patents and copyrights was
to give their owners a monopoly that was limited in time to
reap the fruits of their work. I can fully understand this.
I have a wife and a child, mouths to feed, bills to pay. I
need to make a living. But I don't understand why these
monopolies get extended and extended and extended without
the original authors/artists profiting from it. Why should copyright
protection exceed the life of the author? Why should people who just
happened to be born to prolific writers inherit a monopoly that will
last several decades? (Why do authors of scientific articles not get a
single cent for having their works published?)

Another of the original intentions (at least for patents) was "to
promote progress in science and the useful arts". The idea is that you
only get the protection of a patent if you disclose everything so that
everybody can read about it, learn from it, and stand on your
shoulders - after the patent's term is over. In other words: the
public grants a limited monopoly in exchange for progress and free
access after a certain period.

When it comes to DRM systems, I can only see protection for the
busines models (and profits) of the distribution companies, but I can
neither see an advantage for the original authors/artists neither for
society in general:
- Artists/Authors won't get a higher percentage of the revenues
- The artists/authors will lose segments of the worlds population
because of DRM policies. Michael Moore's soon-to-be-released DVD, for
example, is listed on Amazon as "Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. This
DVD will probably NOT be viewable in other countries". By his
distribution company's choice of this region code, most of this worlds
population has been cut off. Selling his film as an "unprotected" VHS
cassette would mean that he could reach almost everybody on this
planet. But by using the DVD DRM system, his distribution company in
effect limited the potential reach of Mr Moore's film. What is the
advantage for Mr Moore here?
- In a few decades, when other media with different formats will have
replaced today's formats, all contents stored in today's DRM protected
formats will be lost. In 2103 we will still be able to read the Luther
bible, listen to Edison's recordings, watch Fred Astaire films, listen
to Elvis songs, but this decade's films and music will be lost because
it will be unaccessible. This decade's culture will be lost. Forever.
Society will have a collective black-out.

At home I have a shelf with digital files (programs, texts, databases)
I have created in the past. I can still (physically) read the CDs, the
3 1/2" disks, and the 5 1/4" disks, but only the ones written on PCs.
I can't physically read the 5 1/4" disks written on Commodore or Apple
PCs (at their time the dominating computers) nor the tapes written by
them. I can still read the punched cards I made at my first paid job.
And I'm only talking about a period of time covering the past 25
years. And when I look at the files I can physically read, I can only
really use a very small amount of them: Source code for computer
programs, and data files that are stored in plain ASCII. All the other
files -- compiled computer programs, data stored in proprietary
formats, like for example Visicalc, dbase -- are lost, because I can't
make sense of them anymore. So when I look at my personal digital
works, I have to conclude, that the only ones that survived are the
ones that were stored in a very plain format without any encoding at
all.

When I transfer this "lesson learned" to the world in general, I can't
help but notice that DRMs or proprietary non-obvious, undocumented
file formats are a one-way street and will lead to total data-loss in
the next decades. Our society will lose all works created by artists
and autors that are forced to use DRM technology. Society is on its
way to grant (and extend) monopolies without getting its part of the
deal -- free access to the contemporary culture, our heritage for
future generations.


Where would society be if God had handed down the ten commandments
in a DRM protected form disallowing making copies of it?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com