A Posteriori

I have to refute an argument I made in an earlier blog posting:

Digital Rights Management: Content Providers Rigging the Game

My earlier conclusion was false. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is absolutely and totally impractical and unfeasible. It’s also destructive, erratic, chaotic, accident prone, and suffers acutely from the problem of unintended consequences. Even if it’s legislated and architected to strike a balance between user and content provider interests, it will either fail miserably or create destructive side-effects/externalities for third parties. In short, it’s a Pandora’s Box.

The content industry must immediately abandon its unrealistic, delusional, and ultimately self-destructive objective of locking down and protecting every single piece of content ever produced. This campaign is tantamount to forcing every single person in the world to hum “God Save the Queen” on the way to work every morning. It’s unrealistic and will never happen. Given that every single DRM scheme has been cracked, from DVDs to copy-protected CD’s to iTunes Music Store digital tracks, their stated objective is to achieve the impossible. Also, given the fact that, by my estimation, 95%+ of illegally downloaded content would have never been purchased by the downloader if that were the only choice available to them, the investments in developing and implementing DRM are absolutely certain to achieve massively negative returns.

On the other hand, DRM punishes well-meaning, “law-abiding” users the most. The Sony rootkit targeted users who had paid for music CD’s, as opposed to those who illegally downloaded the equivalent MP3’s. Apple’s iTunes DRM prevents its customers from using any other MP3 player except the iPod. Users of non-iTunes legal DRM music file download services are locked into using Windows and Media Player, and non-iPod music players. Users who download illegal MP3’s face no such restrictions.

Insofar as the unintended side-effects of DRM, here is an excellent article from Gloglaw, arguing (quite convincingly) that DRM and security are two mutually exclusive objectives:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060111184253232

Given the absolute and total failure of DRM to protect either the fair use rights of copyright losers or prevent content providers from making less profit than they were earning before, not to mention the unintended and potentially disastrous side effects on third parties, it’s safe to conclude that the exercise of promoting, developing and implementing DRM should be abandoned immediately.

How should we protect content providers’ revenue you ask? Well, perhaps they could start an MP3 download service much like emusic.com, which sells unprotected music from independent, non-RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) downloads. The affiliated artists and labels don’t seem to have a problem with the lack of digital protection, as long as their customers are paying for their content.

Still, I suppose the content providers would allege that it costs hundreds of millions to make a feature film, and that they need to ensure they’re compensated.

In this vein, I think France was on the right track when that country’s parliament proposed a flat fee for internet users (about 8-12 Euros) that would allow them to download all the content they wanted. Too bad that law didn’t pass. The Register makes a convincing argument for why it should have:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/14/france_p2p_plan_fails/

According to The Register, such a fee would have easily compensated the industry for the amount of money it claims to lose due to digital piracy. What’s more, that industry would cease money-losing investments in DRM immediately.

Too bad this world isn’t ruled by common sense.

Quebec separatists have argued ad nauseum that a referendum vote with a bare majority, that is 50% + 1 of eligible voters who chose to exercise their right to vote in that referendum, is sufficient to break up Canada. What’s even more tragic and regrettable is that every single political party in Quebec, “federalist”, nationalist, or separatist, agreed on this falsified and fraudulent “logic”.

This is a fallacy. An event as monumental as the break-up of a country, preceded by the formation of a new country, cannot be decided by way of a simple majority. This does not reflect the will of the people, as it trivializes and renders meaningless the desire of a strong minority of Quebeckers to remain part of Canada. Furthermore, such a slim majority could reverse itself immediately afterwards; it is vulnerable, tenuous, superficial, and unstable. How can such a temporary state trigger the break-up of a country? It is a nothing more than a technicality, and not the reflection of the people’s will.

The above two paragraphs contribute nothing to the debate from the federalist side. A Posteriori is about bringing fresh ideas and perspectives to either old or new debates. Therefore, it is my duty as a passionate blogger to bring not only a fresh perspective on this age-old debate, but an absolutely irrefutable argument against 50% + 1 separation:

Suppose I were to acquire a magical power allowing me to prevent all but 100 Quebeckers from voting in the next referendum. Suppose further that I were to invoke this power the day of the referendum. Out of about five to six million eligible Quebec voters, only 100, a tiny percentage of the voting population, exercises the voting right of referendum day. Let’s suppose that 51 of those 100 voters vote in the affirmative, that is “yes” for separation. How would the “Quebec consensus” on the margin of the allowable margin of victory respond?

Well, according to their rhetoric, these 51 votes, literally 51 votes, would be sufficient to trigger separation. The vast majority of voters who were prevented from voting on referendum night, that is, well over 5 million of them, would have absolutely no say whatsoever in the future of the province. This is ludicrous!

The same government, the “federalist” Quebec Liberals, who stipulated that 35% of all eligible voters in de-merging municipalities vote in the affirmative to get back the cities that were unilaterally taken from them against their will, argue that a simple 51 voters out of a 100 can break up my country. The hypocrisy of the Quebec political class is absolutely beyond belief!