In today's digital world, the role of content ownership has dramatically changed from the days of physical production and distribution. Whereas just a few decades ago media was created, recorded, and shipped across the world by large companies with massive supply and delivery infrastructures, it is now possible for any individual with a home computer and an internet connection to record, encode, and disseminate music, text, or video with a minimal investment of time. As a result, the control enjoyed by media companies in previous decades is now being challenged by file-sharing and peer-to-peer networks. Furthermore, these systems allow anyone to download copyrighted material without paying the owner of that copyright; consequently, the livelihoods of artists, engineers, technicians, and everyone involved in the production of media is now in jeopardy.
In an attempt to retain control under this new distribution paradigm, content owners have employed what is called Digital Rights Management, or DRM, to manage the digital forms of their media. DRM is a mechanism by which a media player, such as iTunes or an iPod, can attempt to determine the legitimacy of a file and decide whether or not to allow that file to play. Additionally, DRM can be paired with a specific individual or account, meaning that if the file is shared over a network, the person receiving the file will be unable to use it. Advocates of this content control mechanism assert that it is necessary to slow the rate of music and video piracy, which they argue is responsible for the marked decline in sales in recent years[1]. Opponents of DRM contend that it restricts consumer's rights and locks them into proprietary media players.
While a small segment of the anti-DRM community argues that content should be free and available without any technological or economic restrictions, most individuals agree that content publishers deserve to be financially compensated for their work; without this compensation, the incentive to create entertainment is nullified. However, DRM clearly limits the rights of consumers to use their purchased media where, when, and however they see fit. For example, music purchased at the iTunes music store comes in a DRM-enabled format[2], and will only work with Apple products, even though it was paid for by the end-user. If an individual purchases a large portion of his or her music collection from iTunes, that person is now locked-in to Apple products; in order to play the music on a Microsoft Zune, for example, it would be necessary to re-purchase the entire music library in either a Microsoft-DRM or a non-DRM'd format[3]. Clearly this is not an ideal situation, and it is most unfair to the consumer who is forced to remain with a specific vendor if she wishes to retain the use of her media.
As nearly all Digital Rights Management schemes rely upon secrecy and obscurity to remain effective, they deny open-source platforms from competing in the media market. While large companies such as Microsoft can arrange to have their software function with hardware-based DRM, such as that found in Sony's new BluRay technology, free software developers are left to reverse-engineer copy protection controls in order to make their products compatible. The result is unstable software which cannot be guaranteed to work, and consumers are left to choose from a limited selection of media players. Ultimately, content owners are given complete control over the devices on which legally purchased media will play, rather than market competition and consumer preference.
It bares noting that none of these restrictions apply to media that is obtained through peer-to-peer networks; since DRM is intended to cripple content that is shared between end-users, it is only files without copy protection that are shared on these networks. Therefore, files that are acquired through these channels are actually more consumer-friendly than those that are purchased legitimately through online media outlets such as Microsoft's MSN Music store. It is no wonder, therefore, that consumers are hesitant to pay for content that they may not be able to use if they decide to change MP3 players, when the same files are available, for free, and without the same technical restrictions.
While Digital Rights Management is clearly not the appropriate solution to combat file-sharing, there is little doubt that the entertainment industry will continue to suffer losses until effective measures are taken to encourage consumers to purchase their media legitimately. Furthermore, it appears that there is little that can be done in terms a technical or legal resolution to media piracy. It is evident, therefore, that media companies must radically change their business models to survive in today's information-based world. One such solution is that of rewards – rather than constraints -- for legitimately purchasing an entertainment library. Content owners must provide their customers with the highest quality recordings feasible, and ensure that these files will play reliably on any device owned by the consumer. Additionally, incentive must be offered to choose legitimate sources of media over illegitimate ones. Including customers in lotteries to win concert tickets, band t-shirts, and free music are all among the options available to media companies. Above all, however, these companies must immediately cease their litigation targeted toward the very individuals that make up their market-base, and remove the copy controls that have negatively affected those consumers who have taken the moral high-ground and legitimately purchased their media libraries.
The advent of digital recordings and the internet has radically changed the way media is created, sold, and shared. While artists and producers certainly deserve to be compensated for their work, this does not necessitate stripping consumers of their right to determine the manner in which they play their purchased media. Ultimately, content owners must learn to accept that the immense control they once enjoyed is simply no longer a part of today's world; those companies that embrace the new model of information delivery will reap the rewards of innovation, while those that fail to do so are destined to go the way of all the companies before them that attempted to dictate their own rules in the face of progress.
Citations/Endnotes
1. "Global music sales drop." BBC News Music16 Apr 2002 08 May 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1932344.stm>.
2. EMI has recently announced that it will offer music through the iTunes Music Store without DRM. See:
Van Buskirk, Eliot. "In EMI-ITunes Deal, the Big Loser May Be Microsoft." Wired 03 Apr 2007 08 May 2007 <http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/04/emihardware_0403>.
Kirn, Peter. "Apple DRM Lock-In: Illegal in Norway." Create Digital Music. 25 Jan 2007. 8 May 2007
<http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/01/25/apple-drm-lock-in-illegal-in-norway/>.
Save This Page-
Recently added in Articles:
- Do I need an AntiVirus on Linux?
- Clinton vs. Obama - On the Issues: Technology
-
Recently added in Lists:
- 10 Steps to Convert a Windows user to Linux