All Your Content Are Belong to Us

It's been a while since I've addressed the issue of Digital Rights Management, or DRM, but it's a subject that never seems to go away. It's back on the front burner this week after a blog post by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes over on ZDNet about the DRM in Amazon's Kindle ebook reader. You can read it (and vote on what you think about the Kindle's DRM) at
Is the Kindle one massive DRM timebomb? | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

The Kindle connects to Amazon's servers to download the content directly to the reader itself (unlike earlier readers, most of which had to be connected to a computer that had downloaded the books). This makes it much more convenient for users to get new content - but it also gives Amazon more control over those devices. These means that, at least in theory, Amazon could disable specific content so you could no longer read it, or even disable the entire device. Adrian says some folks have had their Kindles disabled because they returned too many items. Ouch! Amazon also disables certain features, such as text-to- speech, for certain titles.

In my opinion, DRM is probably the number one reason that the transition from paper books to electronic has proceeded as slowly as it has. There are numerous advantages to ebooks - you can carry the equivalent of a small library with you on a tiny card that weighs almost nothing, you can quickly and easily search the text for key words and phrases that might not make it into a formal index, you can highlight passages and make annotations without "ruining" the book, and so forth.

When I've written about ebooks in the past, some readers have protested that they don't offer the same "feel" and even the same smell as paper books - but the most common complaint by those resistant to going electronic is that they just don't trust that their books will still be there and remain usable over the years. Proprietary formats mean that if a particular reading device disappears, you may not be able to read those books that were made for it. And anyone who's used a computer knows that digital data can be corrupted or the files accidentally deleted or the media on which they're stored can fail or be lost. That's why we're constantly told to back up all of our important data. But DRM technologies can make it impossible for you to back up data for which you shelled out many dollars.

DRM has probably been at least partially responsible for the music industry's recent financial downturn. It has certainly been the biggest factor in the public's antipathy toward that industry. In attempting to thwart the illegal sharing of their content, record companies have managed to alienate those people who provided much of their income. When anti-piracy measures make it harder for honest people who purchased the content to enjoy it, you push them toward either joining the illegal downloaders or just giving up on the music altogether. Many have pointed out that DRM is like gun control - it only restricts the good guys while those with the pirated copies aren't restricted by DRM hassles.

It's a little ironic that Amazon, with the Kindle, is imposing such stringent copy protection when the company was one of the first to offer music downloads without the DRM that caused many people who bought songs from other services to lose their investments, such as when Microsoft's MSN Music store gave up the ghost.

The most heinous form of DRM is the sort that ties content to a particular device. Most users believe that if they buy a digital song, they shouldn't be restricted to only playing it on the computer they used to download it. They want to be able to play it on their portable players, on their car players, etc. If you buy a movie, you want to be able to play it on both your desktop and your laptop computers. People point out that when you buy a DVD or CD, you can play it on any device that plays that type of disc.

Some content providers have tried to accommodate this by allowing you to "authorize" a certain number of devices. The problem is that you generally have to connect to their authorization servers to do so. What happens when they go out of business and those servers go offline? Ask MSN music owners about that. The other problem is that even if you're using the same computer, it has to be reauthorized if you upgrade or reinstall the operating system, using up one of your allotted authorizations. Many of us get new computers every year or two, either by choice or because the old one dies. Why should that mean you have to pay for your content all over again?

Apparently some folks have actually learned from their DRM mistakes. Sony CEO Howard Stringer said in a recent interview that in the future, Sony will use technologies that are more open; he admits that they made a mistake by not going with an open music solution and says they would have beaten Apple if they had done so:
Sony CEO Howard Stringer on music: "If we had gone with open technology from the start, I think we probably would have beaten Apple"

In other areas, DRM is becoming more popular rather than less. I'm not a gamer but apparently many game publishers stepped up their copy protection efforts in the last year. Irate customers drove down the ratings of a game called Spore because of its overly oppressive DRM. At the same time, at least a few game publishers released games without any DRM and one of those noted that "people who pirate the game are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway."
Game Developers Speaking Out Against DRM - Tom's Hardware

Anti-DRM sentiment is so high that even a mainstream company like CNET seemingly endorses software to remove copy protection; they recently pointed readers to a giveaway of Wondershare Music Converter, which strips the DRM from popular protected music formats. Of course, removing copy protection is unfortunately a violation of federal law under the DMCA.

Content providers are obviously struggling with the DRM issue. At the Digital Hollywood conference earlier this month, there was a panel discussion about the legal, legislative and social issues surrounding DRM. Not surprisingly, most of the panelists (which included representatives of f RIAA, MPAA and others in the film and television industry) think DRM is a good thing and even accused ISPs of being "enablers of piracy." You can read their perspective here:
DRM Debate: How Much Is Too Much? - InternetNews.com

So what do you think? Is DRM a good thing, a necessary evil or should it be done away with altogether? How much DRM is too much? What level of protection is reasonable? Is DRM holding back the adoption of ebooks? Was it responsible for the falling sales of music? Or would those industries be even worse off without it? Let us know your opinions