{"id":3432,"date":"2004-01-06T19:24:55","date_gmt":"2004-01-06T23:24:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/01\/06\/put-two-and-two-together-and-you-get"},"modified":"2004-01-06T19:24:55","modified_gmt":"2004-01-06T23:24:55","slug":"put-two-and-two-together-and-you-get-mp3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2004\/01\/06\/put-two-and-two-together-and-you-get-mp3\/","title":{"rendered":"Put Two and Two Together, and You Get MP3"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a546'><\/a><\/p>\n<p><P><A href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2004\/01\/05\/business\/05share.html?ex=1388725200&amp;en=a91c73054f2d133f&amp;ei=5007&amp;partner=USERLAND\">Project Hudson,<\/A> the <A href=\"http:\/\/www.crforum.org\/index.html\">Content Reference Forum<\/A>, and <A href=\"http:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/content\/4\/34725.html\">Phillips&#8217;&nbsp;as yet&nbsp;unnamed&nbsp;project<\/A> are all billing themselves as better DRM &#8211; DRM that&#8217;s open, interoperable, and non-proprietary, with liberal usage rules.&nbsp; They might even allow some sort of file-sharing in a limited form.&nbsp; Kevin Doran <A href=\"http:\/\/kevindoran.com\/denews\/news\/n040105.html\">has<\/A> some particularly&nbsp;choice thoughts on the first; here are some older comments from me on <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2003\/12\/12#a523\">the second.<\/A>&nbsp; <\/P><br \/>\n<P>A quote from the article on the third exemplifies what is so perplexing for me about these ventures:<\/P><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P>&#8220;&#8216;The electronics industry recognizes that Microsoft is a formidable player, but consumer electronics makers do not want to become dependent on Microsoft. They need an interoperable and independent system,&#8217; said [Ruud] Peters [Phillips&#8217; chief executive of IP and standards unit]. &#8216;<STRONG>DRM<\/STRONG> <STRONG>is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon<\/STRONG>,&#8217; he added.&#8221; (emphasis added)<\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Someone should put that last point on a billboard somewhere &#8211; DRM should not be a &#8220;competitive weapon.&#8221;&nbsp;But why do they stop there?<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Remember three key reasons for DRM&nbsp;that its&nbsp;proponents use: 1)&nbsp;Protect copyrighted content to prevent infringement, 2)&nbsp;limit and charge for consumer uses, 3) act as a &#8220;competitive weapon,&#8221; limiting interoperability and enabling tied products (e.g., iTunes with iPod).<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">At least on their face, all music services today talk as if (2) is not a goal.&nbsp; Let&#8217;s accept for the sake of argument that they honestly mean that.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">These new DRM standards also reject goal (3).&nbsp; In today&#8217;s digital music market, it&#8217;s a surprisingly novel concept,&nbsp;a&nbsp;clear deviation from how&nbsp;DRM&nbsp;<A href=\"http:\/\/www.itunes.com\">is<\/A> <A href=\"http:\/\/www.napster.com\">being<\/A> used right now (and <A href=\"http:\/\/news.com.com\/2100-1027_3-5135382.html?tag=nefd_top\">in the future<\/A>)(via <A href=\"http:\/\/msl1.mit.edu\/furdlog\/\">Frank<\/A>, for this link and others).&nbsp; Now, almost there, they&#8217;re about to put two and two together&#8230;<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">and then they get all caught up on point (1).&nbsp; They watch as&nbsp;DVD Jon&nbsp;<A href=\"http:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/content\/6\/34712.html\">creates<\/A> workarounds for Apple&#8217;s FairPlay.&nbsp; The analog hole is and will be there.&nbsp; For the forseeable future, DRM does not seem to be the solution.&nbsp; As Fred von Lohmann notes, &#8220;Every song on iTunes Music Store has been available on the Peer to Peer networks within four hours,&#8221; regardless of the DRM.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">So how do they add this all up and get DRM?&nbsp; They make DRM about apparent, not actual, protection given present circumstances.&nbsp; They want to &#8220;convince media companies their content is protected,&#8221; even though that&#8217;s not the full story.&nbsp; The equation doesn&#8217;t have to add up.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">At least the digital music services out there seemed to have a reason for the DRM by pursuing goal (3). Ultimately, I think it&#8217;s a bad choice, both for consumers and the long-term livelihood of the market, but&nbsp;at least in that sense&nbsp;there was a rationale (or&nbsp;rationalization).&nbsp; But now people are putting that goal aside.&nbsp; If they&#8217;re going to pursue point (2), and frustrate consumers, then I think everything is&nbsp;pretty hopeless.&nbsp; And point (1) seems pointless for the forseeable future.&nbsp; <\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">So why all this push for open DRM?&nbsp; If the RIAA and music vendors are willing to go with that, why not just use MP3 and have a go of it?&nbsp; To do that, you don&#8217;t need to invest any time, effort, and money into creating the standard, popularizing it, and competing with the others.&nbsp; MP3 is already ubiquitous.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">To me, it&#8217;s that simple.&nbsp; So when I hear these tech companies talking about new open DRM standards, it&#8217;s all about competition. It&#8217;s got little to do with what will help move the music marketplace along, and everything to do with those tech companies duking it out.&nbsp; For those that don&#8217;t see DRM as a competitive weapon, they probably would prefer it if the RIAA just let Apple sell MP3s.&nbsp; But since those tech companies don&#8217;t have that option, so&nbsp;they have to keep fighting it out in the DRM market.&nbsp; <\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Seems like a total waste to me, particularly when a better way remains out there.<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Project Hudson, the Content Reference Forum, and Phillips&#8217;&nbsp;as yet&nbsp;unnamed&nbsp;project are all billing themselves as better DRM &#8211; DRM that&#8217;s open, interoperable, and non-proprietary, with liberal usage rules.&nbsp; They might even allow some sort of file-sharing in a limited form.&nbsp; Kevin Doran has some particularly&nbsp;choice thoughts on the first; here are some older comments from me [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}