More on DRM

A helpful primer on file sharing:

For more, here's an interview between Fritz Attaway from the MPAA, and Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer. Some excerpts follow:

In a classic case of doublespeak:

Digital rights management is the key to consumer choice. The better the DRM, the more choices consumers will have in what they view, when they view it and how much they pay for it. The only valid criticism of DRM is that some of the DRM technology currently in use is not sophisticated enough. But it is getting better. Users of next-generation DVD technology will have more choices than they do today because the DRM technology will be more sophisticated.

Why is DRM the key to consumer choice? Because it allows content owners to tailor their offerings to what consumers want. Unless you believe in the tooth fairy, you understand that in order to make movies, which today average around $100 million in production and promotion costs for major studio releases, there must be a return. In other words, you must be able to get people to pay for the privilege of watching them. Many consumers want to own a permanent copy of movies. Others are only interested in having an opportunity to watch a movie once. DRM technology allows studios to offer copies of movies that consumers want to own, and a viewing only opportunity, usually at a much lower cost, to those who don't want a permanent copy. It is a win/win proposition for both the owner of the movie and the consumer.

Wrong wrong wrong. It is asinine to say that DRM gives consumers more choices - it does exactly the opposite! Furthermore, companies do not tend to charge less for less functionality; they have tended to keep functionality at the same price while charging more for more choice, screwing the customer any way you slice it.

But Seltzer does a much better job of getting to the heart of the matter:

Core to the question of DRM implementation today is the legal backdrop, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention provisions. The DMCA stops us from innovating in technology around DRM-restricted media, by declaring those innovations to be "circumventions" if not pre-approved by the copyright holders. The DMCA thus stifles technology innovation and scientific investigation, as well as interfering with end-user activities that don't infringe copyright. Our culture and our technology opportunities are poorer for the DRM-DMCA combination.

You raise the example of DVD as a success story, but DVD players have hardly changed in the last decade. True they've gotten cheaper, but I still can't buy one (lawfully) that lets me take clips to create my own movie reviews or "Daily Show"-style send-ups of my favorite films. I still can't play movies on my GNU/Linux computer. When Kaleidescape tried to build a DVD jukebox to allow people to burn movies to an enclosed hard drive rather than shuffle jewel cases and discs, the company earned high reviews -- and a pricey lawsuit.

DRM plus DMCA protects existing business models, such as that of the blockbuster movie, but at the expense of new developments that could create more value for both creators and users of content. In the era of podcasts and YouTube, I'm quite interested in seeing what those users can do as they become creators.

I won't quote anymore, but suffice to say the interview is sweet. It is incredibly refreshing to see somebody (Seltzer) extremely knowledgable on the subject take to town someone spouting bullshit. If only politics were like that...