DRM (Digital Rights Management) From Jason @ LPB
I’ve been doing some thinking the last few days about DRM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management) and I can’t seem to come to a conclusion on how I should feel about it. Generally with any issue I can look at it with my moral lens of libertarian ideas, and it becomes very clear what is right and wrong. In this case, I’m lost, so I wanted to toss this question out there and see if anyone has any opinions one way or the other.
First a synopsis of DRM. DRM is a method used to control how digital content is used. It uses different types of encryption technologies to prevent users of digital media (DVDs, CDs, HD-DVDs, video games, downloaded music, etc) from accessing the content without a “key” that is approved by an issuing authority. To put it in real terms, the encryption prevents you from making a copy for your friend (pirating intellectual property). In no way am I in favor of violating intellectual property laws or advocating piracy. Copyright laws are important in a libertarian society. I’m simply looking at this in terms of “legal” usage of the content. In addition to preventing me from pirating the content, DRM also prevents me from watching the movie on a Linux based computer where no “licensed” DVD playback software exists, making a backup of the disc in case my original gets destroyed, or even copying the DVD movie onto my iPod so I can watch it there. All of these things in my opinion are 100% valid and legal uses of the original DVD, however according to the DMCA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA) they are illegal.
I have a number of arguments in my head both in favor of DRM and against DRM from a libertarian perspective. At the 30,000 foot level the question is simple. I buy something that contains DRM, a DVD for example, and take it home. Does the manufacturer of that DVD have the right to dictate to me how I use it? Post purchase, do they maintain any rights beyond copyright?
If I don’t like DRM then don’t buy content that is protected with DRM, right? The problem with that argument is that it isn’t possible. The standards body that created the DVD format and the HD-DVD format was the MPAA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America). The MPAA is controlled by movie studios and so a core component of the format is the DeCSS DRM encryption (Or AACS in HD-DVD movies). Put simply, no movie can play on any player without the encryption being in place. Thus, even small independent movie distributors are forced to include the encryption on their disks or else they will not play in the vast majority of players that installed in the homes of their consumers. Also, there is a specific clause in the DMCA that requires the use of one particular type of DRM in all video that is produced (Macrovision). Macrovision is used in combination with the DeCSS encryption sponsored by the MPAA. The organizations behind it (MPAA/RIAA) and the DMCA have effectively made it impossible to get DRM free content, so voting with my dollar is out of the question, short of not consuming any digital media.
The DMCA is also the primary tool used to combat violators of DRM technology. In practice it is fairly trivial to circumvent the encryptions put in place. There are tools readily available that will decrypt a DVD and copy it onto my iPod, or allow me to make a copy of the DVD disk for archival backup purposes, and yes tools that would allow someone to pirate the content. These tools are all technically illegal under the DMCA, but easily obtained. The MPAA/RIAA will send cease and desist letters to anyone making them available, but the internet is an international anarchy, so no matter how hard they try they can’t control what gets posted online.
A quote from Timothy B. Lee, in a paper he wrote for the Cato institute
“The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.”
So, in summary, is DRM anti-Libertarian? Or is DRM free enterprise deciding the terms in which you can consume their product?
–
Jason Vallery
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Of course folks selling products can sell various levels of usage rights. The problem arises (as always) when the government uses force to mandate activity.
“there is a specific clause in the DMCA that requires the use of one particular type of DRM in all video that is produced”
This is an example of a law that uses force to mandate how owners can sell their products. In theory, even with all DVD players looking for DRM, a band could include tools and permission for users to copy the DVD to their iPods. But this voluntary arrangement is against current law.
Why do we need a separate copyright law? Using intellectual property in a way that violates the agreement you made when you purchased it, is theft. Or at least a violation of contract.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Copyright and DRM are an incredibly complex area of law, and one in which it’s hard to determine what the “libertarian position” would be.
My personal view is that our current notion of copyright law has been rendered obsolete and unenforceable by rapid advances in technology. I’m a capitalist and I do believe artists should be paid for their work and distributors should be paid for their service of connecting a product and a consumer, but I don’t believe the old model can work any longer. Simply put: we need to find a new way to get artists paid.
However, this is a huge shake-up to an established intustry with lots of money and lots of influence with lawmakers. It’s hardly surprising that existing players are acting to protect their own interests — people do act in their own self-interest. However, at the end of the day, these attemps (including the DCMA) will fail to produce the indended results as government attempts to change the market almost always do. I don’t have a simple answer, but I do believe that the market will find a solution to the problem. However, it wont find it quickly. The more the government gets involved, the longer it will take and the more painful it will be. Therefore I think the “libertarian position” is to keep the goverment out of it as much as possible, let the market test different approaches as only a free market can, and then update the copyright laws when we know more than we do now.