Tarmle ([info]tarmle) wrote,
@ 2006-03-25 12:47:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:civil liberties, drm, technology

Lessig Still Getting a WTF Reception
Lawrence Lessig offers this qualification on his blog for his recent positive statement on DRM.

Sun has made recent announcements about their openDRM project. In my view, they've made some commitments that are important for any DRM project. E.g., as I've seen it described, it would be implemented to allow individuals to assert "fair use," and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse. And they've described a platform upon which authors keep the freedom to turn the DRM off, and more the content from the secured platform.

These are good things. But some confuse praise for better DRM with praise for DRM. So let me be as clear as possible here (though saying the same thing I've always said): We should be building a DRM-free world. We should have laws that encouraged a DRM-free world. We should demonstrate practices that make compelling a DRM-free world. All of that should, I thought, be clear. But just as one can hate the Sonny Bono Act, but think, if there's a Sonny Bono Act, there should also be a Public Domain Enhancement Act, so too can one hate DRM, but think that if there’s DRM, it should be at least as Sun is saying it should be.


From a purely legal/logical position (which Lessig may have been occupying for that OMC statement) this might seem reasonable. However, this ignores the capitalist spin that will inevitably be applied to any implementation of DRM: if someone finds a path leading to something desirable, they will, inevitably, use the artificial advantage of a locked gate to make money through restricting access to it.

In Sun's DRM initiative there is an implicit intention to provide locks for everyone and everything. And once everything is safely locked up none of us will be able to move an inch without paying someone for the privilege of doing so. No one will be encouraged to produce free and open content because it will be so easy to apply the locks and make money for doing nothing other than sitting around swinging the keys on a finger. Inevitably, the ownership of all these locks will default to the current breed of pigopolist, those that would have perished without such measures, and we will find ourselves stuck with the RIAA+MPAA parasites forever. Opportunities to engage with our own culture, to contribute to it, will dry up as our tools lose the functions that permit us to build on the work of others. In the end, the entire creative output of our civilisation will recede behind manifold layers of digital defences so that all we can ever do is watch it go by from a distance (or perhaps just hear about it having gone by if we can't afford the ticket price).

Don't be fooled by the opportunity to "assert 'fair use,' and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse." There is little difference between a locked gate and guy with a baseball bat taking names.

Lessig's statements may have possessed some merit in a reasonable world - it's just a pity that world is a myth.

A quick scan of the responses to his last post suggests we are all having this same difficulty reconciling his round-hole activities with this square-peg opinion.



(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2006-03-25 06:37 pm UTC (link)
We need more entertainment artists who value their freedom more than money. We need more works of art produced mostly for entertainment purposes, even if they aren't yet "professional" quality. Who decides what is professional quality anyway? If someone is enjoying the work, then that is good enough, even if it is crayon scribbles on paper by a 2 year old.
We need to have more free-art, in every form and genre to the point where it is no longer economically feasible to produce proprietary or DRMed art works of any sort.
We also needs to pay artist for their time and require that the resulting work be free. DRM and royalties should not have any say in that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tarmle
2006-03-25 11:06 pm UTC (link)
It's a difficult thing to get a grip on. On the one hand we extol the virtues of open and accessible culture, while on the other we have to reward the creators of this culture, a dichotomy that would appear to be irreconcilable - how do you give away something for free and get paid for it?

We'd all like to think that everyone would simply reward the artists for what they give us out of the goodness of their hearts (as many of us do). But this is not a particularly capitalist arrangement, and we must accept the fact that we exist in a world of 'fundamentalist capitalism'. For the foreseeable future, artists and audiences will have a producer-consumer relationship that needs to be balanced by some assurance of return (charity not really being a suitable business model in our media rich environment).

However, there is something other than money that we give artists, something that is becoming ever more scarce, ever more valuable: attention. The lengths some companies will go to get our attention is evidence of their desperation for it, the vast sums of money spent not only on advertising campaigns but on research into alternative methods of drawing our gaze, the elaborate marketing strategies extending over months trying to engineer a particular mind-share, some even turn to criminal activity just to get us to read a few words about them. That is how valuable our attention is, and here we are paying to give it to artists.

Artists and the their work will be free when they start to realise the true power the have over their audiences, when they start experimenting with trading the attention they get from us, methods that don't just make their work free but require that it be as easily accessible as possible. Asking people to pay for music, or trying to protect it from copying, will actually become counterproductive, they will want us to copy, to share, to use and build on, to extend their reach, to have the greatest possible impact on our culture.

There are alternative business models that could thrive in this new environment, that live on openness and freedom, but they cannot even begin to function in a world that treats numbers as currency, that trades culture as though it is a luxury rather than a necessity of human existence. These models can only begin to work when consumers and artists take back control of culture from the groups that are living on the restriction of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tuxmentat
2006-03-27 01:55 am UTC (link)
You know what is the funniest thing about DRM? It has absolutely no effect on "piracy". I have yet to see a DVD or an album that is not on some P2P network because "the DRM was to hard to crack"...

We know this... The MPAA and RIAA execs know this. The only people who don't realize this are Joe Shmoe, and Jane Doe - the average, computer illiterate citizens of the US of A. DRM is not designed for enforcing copyright - it is designed to convince average consumer that there is no such thing as fair use.

The entertainment industry dreams about creating a pay-for-media + pay-for-play world out there. They almost failed during the Sony/Betamax rulling, so they want to make sure they get it right this time. This is not going to work.

The way I see it - the entertainment industry is terminally ill. It is currently going through the classic 5 stages of dealing with looming death:

1. Denial: we do not have a problem, our industry is doing great
2. Anger/Resentiment: it's all because of those damn pirates!
3. Bargaining: unless you use DRM we will not give you content!
4. Depression - entertainment companies going out of business like crazy - this haven't happened yet.
5. Acceptance - creating a new business model (haven't happened yet)

By my calculations, we have two more to go.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tarmle
2006-03-27 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps the bargaining stage might also be described as the current trend for law-changing and buying political representation (i.e. "We'll give you money, just get us out of this!"). And I'm afraid that, as a result, the depression stage could be a long, drawn-out process as these industries are slowly eaten alive by their own legal departments.

I'd like to think that the copyfight might be described by Gandi's "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win," - only they seem to have been fighting us since the invention of cassette recorder!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…