ntouk.com - Jerry Fishenden's technology policy blog

There’s been much debate in the blogosphere about the pros/cons of digital rights management (DRM).

In one corner stands the traditional creative industry, keen to ensure in the digital age that writers, film-makers, musicians, etc can continue to earn an income without digital replication being used to rip-off their work.

In the far corner stands another group, equally convinced that DRM is immoral and that it merely penalises the honest (since those who buy DRM restricted media are those who suffer most from its limitations and restrictions on usage).

And in the middle stand the rest of us, listening to both sides, but not convinced we have yet heard a proposal that balances creator and consumer needs adequately at both the business and technology levels.

Underpinning this is a recognition that somehow in the move from the twentieth to twenty-first century, something has changed: yet we have not yet worked out the cultural, social, contractual, legal and technical models to accompany this change. We persist in a mindset that presumes the old classical method of intellectual production and propagation (a creator, a “middleman” such as a publisher or a record company, a retailer and a consumer) is somehow still valid when all the evidence suggest that this model is rapidly changing.

In this debate, let me be honest. I wear several hats: as both a technologist and a published writer and musician. So I buy completely the worries of writers and others that digital technology can be used to undermine their livelihoods – and that often those most vocal in opposition to DRM are people who sit in comfortable salaried jobs and don’t have to worry about where their next royalty cheque (miserable as it may well be) will come from.

So let’s have a little bit of fun – and turn this debate on its head for a moment to see whether it provides us with a different perspective, one that might better inform the discussion.

There have been far too many stories lately of commercial and government databases that have been compromised in some way – and their contents leaked and abused for fraudulent purposes. So how about using DRM for citizens: to control access to their data? To prevent unauthorised individuals (accidentally or maliciously) accessing or abusing information that has been provided?

DRM could be used with information associated with identity systems, for example, so that citizens could ensure that only appropriate information was released (for example, you could prevent your date of birth being released to anyone who happened to interrogate your ID Card record: releasing instead only confirmation that you are over 18 and can therefore buy a drink, or whatever the particular eligibility criteria might be).

So DRM is not per se a negative, consumer-antagonistic idea. It could be empowering, building on the public policy of citizen centric models and the Web 2.0 mindset. Turned around like this, as a citizen you might then say “Yes, I can see the benefits to me”. So why are the benefits when someone else tries to control access to their content so hard to see or agree upon?

I think this goes back to a harder issue: of what we are actually buying when we buy say a CD. Is it the media, or the right to the content? Think back to the age of vinyl (hey, it wasn’t that long ago!). I remember buying the same album several times. Why? Because the medium (the vinyl) wore out. But each time I wanted to replace the medium, I had to re-buy the entire album: I had to pay the full asking price again. But if I was just buying the vinyl (rather than the content), surely I would have had the right to purchase replacement copies for just 20p or whatever the physical cost of goods were? This never happened in the vinyl age: you never bought the rights, you were buying the medium. Your rights lasted only as long as the particular medium happened to survive. Which has never been very long in my experience. Either that, or you had to put up with a collection of LPs with lots of clicks and other acoustic artefacts alongside the original content.

So why in the digital age is there now an argument that in some way we should move to a model where you own someone else’s content in perpetuity? What is the role of functions such as the “middleman” and retailer in an age when creator and consumer can be directly connected? How will technology scale to last – and deal with complex issues such as historic records and national archive requirements?

These broader issues should be at the heart of the debate. We are missing the point when we let this become a narrow technological issue: so in that sense the flame wars around DRM postings on the blogosphere are a complete red herring. We need to work out first what sort of copyright and intellectual protection regime we want. And then how we should protect the innovators and creators amongst us and ensure they are properly rewarded for making our world a more enjoyable place in which to live.

These remain early, difficult days – and neither the legal, social or technological models (to name but a few elements) have yet been fully resolved, particularly as we see the Web 2.0 possibilities transforming the way we think about creativity and co-creativity.

So let’s get that broader discussion underway: and remind ourselves that technical DRM discussions are but one small component of a much bigger picture.

technology policy government Web 2.0 DRM Microsoft innovation