I agree with what Michael says. However I'm not sure the rights holders insist on DRM. They insist on protection of their income which flows from copyright, which is not the same thing. DRM is today's solution to provide that protection, but it is broken, costly, complicated, annoys end users, abuses their rights to view content, invades their privacy, and leads to platform dependence. (Pick any or all of these issues as unethical.) It may be possible to deploy a non-wretched DRM solution, which provides sufficient rights holders protection while minimizing the problems. But I wouldn't bet on it. Moreover, even a functioning DRM system will be useless if enough people are interested in the content, since it is so readily available in the clear and powerful transcoding tools and distribution methods are available to anyone. DRM is doomed over time.
So the best thing to do with DRM is trash it. But that begs the question as to how to protect the rights holders income. It's a very tough question which reaches to the heart of copyright, which after all is an artificial construct, a state-decreed monopoly designed to protect and reward creators, with legal recourse in case of infraction. Several possibilities exist: * How about outright payment for perpetual rights? Way too expensive, especially worldwide. And how would payments be calculated in advance for popular content vs. unpopular? Rights holders believe that popular material should be compensated accordingly, as an incentive to create. Of course, that approach favors lower-common-denominator content and encourages advertisers to most support what is most popular. Some have suggested that specialized "content creators" have had their day, that we are entering the era of "UGC" user-generated content, and that an adjustment is necessary for professional content creators. That may be true, but informing rights holders that their era has ended will meet with resistance (cf. US screenwriters strike). * How about advertising? It's the television and radio model, with rare exceptions (including the BBC and PBS in the USA). Are users ready to be advertised to just to view content online? I'm not at all sure, even if advertising could be sufficiently narrowed to a person's interests, an approach with privacy implications in any case. * How about tracking file use, and basing payment on that use? That may be technically possible with watermarking (sort of DRM lite), but monitoring downloads and sniffing packets may not be the best way. And who pays if UK-produced content becomes wildly popular in the US but is a bust in the UK? * How about proportionally taxing bandwidth? Well, like the schemes in France to tax blank CD-R and DVD-R media, it penalizes users who don't download & copy illicitly. Besides, how do you tax the entire world? That said, I think this may not be as farfetched as it seems. After all, telcos (not just in the UK ;) are upset their margins will drop with the growing popularity of internet video; they are pushing for multi-tiered access, "premium" or guaranteed bandwidth. I think that would be a mistake. However, it *is* common around the world for people and companies to pay for their bandwidth and for companies to finance infrastructure; although controversial, I think that could work. But only on the basis of an international convention concerning internet use of copyrighted works. There are precedents: international legal conventions exist for the copyright and patent systems. * Other ideas? Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
