A Posteriori

These days, the copyright debate seems to be framed, mostly by the content provider industry, as a stark choice between two extreme outcomes:

1. Free and unimpeded access to all copyrighted material with zero protection for content providers and artists.
2. Content that is restricted severely and solely according to the rules set by the content providers, with no input from the consumers, with draconian penalties with those accused of copyright infringement.

The debate is further framed under an absolutely fallacious presumption that all content providers and artists wish to completely restrict the copying and distribution of said material. Some artists wish to freely distribute their work without compensation, or license their content under a limited “Creative Commons” arrangement.

In order to “protect” their copyrights, content providers have begun experiment with a variety of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes. DRM is a mechanism by which content providers, through either hardware, software, or both, restrict the ways in which digital content (music, movies, digital literature) can by copied through copy protection. It also restricts how digital copies can be used, for how long, and on which devices. There are presently several competing flavours of DRM. Suffice it to say, all of these variations on DRM were established without the consent of the end users in any way shape or form.

In the rush to implement DRM, consumers’ legitimate concerns are not being taken into account. These concerns include the fair use of content for which they’ve paid, including the right to make backup copies of this material, and the ability to transfer said content to portable digital devices, like MP3 players.

A group of consumers (ie copyright users) has finally spoken out in opposition to this seriously flawed and simplistic paradigm, and the way in which DRM is being used to enforce this paradigm:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/18/drm_consumer_opposition

In light of the Sony rootkit debacle (in which Sony CD’s were found to have surreptitiously damage users’ Windows computers), it has become painfully obvious that the content providers cannot be trusted to unilaterally impose the rules of the game. Somewhere in this process, some powerful third party must defend the legitimate interests of copyright users (ie consumers).

The only way DRM can be made to be fair is through government regulation. All DRM schemes, by law, would have to conform to a government-defined DRM specification. Among other things, the specification would have to include the following requirements:

1. Support multiple computer operating systems, including (but not necessarily limited to) Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
2. Support multiple digital devices, including all MP3 players, portable movie players, etc.
3. Allow the consumer to make backup copies of the content.
4. Replacement of any lost or destroyed copies of the content with a free digital copy or a physical copy at minimal cost to the consumer.
5. Full disclosure of the nature of the DRM included with the physical or digital copy of the content.
6. Full warranty against damage done by the DRM mechanism to a user’s equipment, including computers, portable devices, etc.
7. Deposit of a fully open and non-DRM’d digital copy of the content with an appropriate government agency, to be disseminated to the public upon expiration of the content’s copyright.
8. Severe restriction against any included mechanism to allow the content provider to collect data on the consumer’s use of the content or any other content or any other activity on the consumer’s computer.
9. Allow the free and unimpeded distribution of content by those artists or content providers that wish to do so. The DRM mechanism for a copyrighted work should have an “off” switch for content providers.
10. Require that the source code for the DRM program be fully disclosed to the government agency, with a current copy maintained by that agency. This code can be audited at the initiative of the DRM agency to ensure that it’s complient with the rules above.

It’s absolutely senseless to expect content providers, who represent only one side of these transactions, to solely run the system in a way that is fair to the other side, the consumer. it’s time for the government to get involved.