- . Digg It
- . Sphere It
- . E-mail This
- . Save to del.icio.us
- . Permanent Link
The Not-So-Great Debate
Can anyone honestly argue about copy protection?
Among the issues that technology pundits agree on is the utter evil of digital rights management, which they see as interfering with their inalienable right to free content. OK, I'm exaggerating — but not by much. From a programmer's perspective, copy-protection systems make things work worse, rather than better, and inefficiency is akin to sin.
This week The New York Times' Bits blog is hosting a debate about copy protection between NBC Universal executive vice president and general counsel Rick Cotton and copyright law specialist Tim Wu. (Disclaimer: I write for the Times, but not for Bits.) It's a revealing discussion, and it shows just how much the anti-DRM crowd relies on the same tired arguments.
The title of the debate: "Is Copy Protection Needed or Futile?" The answer is obvious: Both.
In the last few years, music sales have fallen by more than a third. During that time, peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic has accounted for up to half of all Internet traffic, according to some estimates, and a significant chunk of that consists of — yes, I'll say it — stolen music. Certainly, copy protection's needed.
At the same time, DRM has a lousy track record in terms of security. Wu points out, rightly, that "Locks will be broken, and so a business model that depends on locking is very vulnerable." Protection's also futile.
This futility is a common argument against DRM, and it's both completely logical and utterly irrelevant. I don't lock my apartment because I believe that it will be physically impossible to break in. I do so because it will be inconvenient and time-consuming to break in — so much so that prospective thieves will simply try another door. DRM works the same way. I could set up my computer to copy DVDs using one of the programs that breaks the encryption on them. But it's easier to get movies from Netflix. As Cotton says, "Speed bumps do work."
This week The New York Times' Bits blog is hosting a debate about copy protection between NBC Universal executive vice president and general counsel Rick Cotton and copyright law specialist Tim Wu. (Disclaimer: I write for the Times, but not for Bits.) It's a revealing discussion, and it shows just how much the anti-DRM crowd relies on the same tired arguments.
The title of the debate: "Is Copy Protection Needed or Futile?" The answer is obvious: Both.
In the last few years, music sales have fallen by more than a third. During that time, peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic has accounted for up to half of all Internet traffic, according to some estimates, and a significant chunk of that consists of — yes, I'll say it — stolen music. Certainly, copy protection's needed.
At the same time, DRM has a lousy track record in terms of security. Wu points out, rightly, that "Locks will be broken, and so a business model that depends on locking is very vulnerable." Protection's also futile.
This futility is a common argument against DRM, and it's both completely logical and utterly irrelevant. I don't lock my apartment because I believe that it will be physically impossible to break in. I do so because it will be inconvenient and time-consuming to break in — so much so that prospective thieves will simply try another door. DRM works the same way. I could set up my computer to copy DVDs using one of the programs that breaks the encryption on them. But it's easier to get movies from Netflix. As Cotton says, "Speed bumps do work."
What People Are Saying…
Leave a Comment
11:56 EST, 16.Jan.08