So everyone’s heard about today’s announcement from Steve Jobs regarding his openness to moving the iTMS to a model that abandons the use of technological protection measures. This is big news since Jobs may have the power to single handedly shift the market for licensed music downloads to a DRM-free paradigm or, on the other hand, to single handedly veto such a shift, at least temporarily.
This statement follows a recent pronouncement by the Norwegian Consumer Council, requiring Apple to open its iTunes Music Store by altering its FairPlay DRM to allow tracks to be played on non-Apple devices. My last post prompted some who should know better to suggest, in jest I hope, that I might be becoming a DMCA apologist; nonetheless, I pose this question to the opponents of DRM (of which I consider myself one):
Is it preferable to eliminate unwanted DRM through governmental mandates that dictate software and product design or to instead tolerate DRM as a component of contemporary information markets while formulating market-based alternatives?
Of course, the DMCA has altered that market in important respects, and anti-DRM regulations could be seen as simply leveling the playing field. But that position fails to distinguish between a refusal to bless DRM with legal authority and an affirmative legal prohibition against a technology. It’s one thing to oppose governmental enforcement mechanisms for DRM schemes like the DMCA, but I think it’s a dangerous step to advocate anti-DRM regulations like those adopted in Norway. The DMCA itself, after all, recognizes the dangers posed by technological mandates. I, for one, would prefer, in the absence of egregious security and privacy violations, to keep governments out of the business of dictating design, even if that means eschewing a quick fix to the DRM problem.
Post a Comment