I've been thinking about DRM and "content management" lately, partly because of the DRMprotests in Seattle on Wednesday.
The entertainment industry insists that we must have DRM to "protect the artists." To make sure artists get their fair share, we've got to prevent unauthorized copying of music and movies.
This might work, if it's implemented as a top-down solution. From what I've read, the biggest problem with seeing to it that artists get paid is from the recording companies and movie studios themselves. So, we should start by implementing DRM on master recordings, digital prints, and any other media that the entertainment companies use to create DVDs, CDs, and whatever forms of media come next.
Then, when an artist has a dispute with an entertainment company about royalties or other payments, they can simply deauthorize the company's masters -- in effect, preventing the company from making unauthorized copies until the dispute is settled.
Note that artists shouldn't be forced to wait for legal rulings -- the entertainment industry has pursued laws that allow it to bypass due process in order to sue users for suspected infringement, there's no reason why artists should have to wait for the legal system to put the smackdown on entertainment companies they suspect of cheating them out of royalties.
And, just as the entertainment industry is pursuing compulsory DRM, like the broadcast flag, artist DRM should be compulsory as well. All master copies should immediately be encrypted with a DRM scheme, with the controls turned over to the recording artists or other individuals that have royalty interests in the media. The same DMCA penalties for bypassing DRM that apply to you and me should apply to studio execs that break the rules.
Now, I know what you're thinking -- this could get complicated and messy, and might stop entertainment industries from exercising their contractually guaranteed rights. But that's OK, because it's all about protecting the artists, remember?
The entertainment industry, so concerned about the artists, is willing to let customers deal with incompatible DRM schemes and the loss of fair use -- punishable by law -- if they try to bypass DRM to create legitimate backup copies or use their legitimately purchased media on unauthorized platforms (like playing DVDs on Linux). The least those companies can do is submit to the same types of restrictions in order to see to it that the artists get every last dime that's coming to them.
DRM for artists
I've been thinking about DRM and "content management" lately, partly because of the DRM protests in Seattle on Wednesday.
The entertainment industry insists that we must have DRM to "protect the artists." To make sure artists get their fair share, we've got to prevent unauthorized copying of music and movies.
This might work, if it's implemented as a top-down solution. From what I've read, the biggest problem with seeing to it that artists get paid is from the recording companies and movie studios themselves. So, we should start by implementing DRM on master recordings, digital prints, and any other media that the entertainment companies use to create DVDs, CDs, and whatever forms of media come next.
Then, when an artist has a dispute with an entertainment company about royalties or other payments, they can simply deauthorize the company's masters -- in effect, preventing the company from making unauthorized copies until the dispute is settled.
Note that artists shouldn't be forced to wait for legal rulings -- the entertainment industry has pursued laws that allow it to bypass due process in order to sue users for suspected infringement, there's no reason why artists should have to wait for the legal system to put the smackdown on entertainment companies they suspect of cheating them out of royalties.
And, just as the entertainment industry is pursuing compulsory DRM, like the broadcast flag, artist DRM should be compulsory as well. All master copies should immediately be encrypted with a DRM scheme, with the controls turned over to the recording artists or other individuals that have royalty interests in the media. The same DMCA penalties for bypassing DRM that apply to you and me should apply to studio execs that break the rules.
Now, I know what you're thinking -- this could get complicated and messy, and might stop entertainment industries from exercising their contractually guaranteed rights. But that's OK, because it's all about protecting the artists, remember?
The entertainment industry, so concerned about the artists, is willing to let customers deal with incompatible DRM schemes and the loss of fair use -- punishable by law -- if they try to bypass DRM to create legitimate backup copies or use their legitimately purchased media on unauthorized platforms (like playing DVDs on Linux). The least those companies can do is submit to the same types of restrictions in order to see to it that the artists get every last dime that's coming to them.