The Value of DRM

DRM seems to be a hot issue these days, and so after reading two interesting articles at Ars Techinca (here and here) I decided to write a bit more on the issue.  The new argument for DRM seems to be that that it benefits the consumers.  I would like to look at this issue and try to answer the question, “What is the value of DRM to society”?

To start this off we need to know what DRM is for.  One usage of DRM is to try and stop piracy.  I use the word try because for the most part cracks are quickly released for games and programs are created to brake the DRM on media.  This is because in order to allow a person that purchases the media to use it you have to give them the lock and the key, from that it is not hard for a specialist to figure out how to defeat the lock and tell others as well.  Google the darknet report for the details on why this is.

So with pirates eliminated the only people with which it can provide value to are the non-pirates.  That is the producers and the legitimate consumers.  Let’s look at the consumers.  The way it is argued that it benefits the consumer is it allows them to use the media without worrying about violating copyright laws.  This is argued because copyright laws are so arcane that the average consumer cannot possibly be trusted to understand them.  There are 2 problems with this argument.  The first is that DRM in addition to restricting illegal usages of media it also restricts legal uses, effectively blocking rights you would normally have.  This is because removing DRM is for the most part illegal.

The second objection to the argument is that if the copyright laws are too complex for the average person to understand then there is a problem with the copyright laws.  I have talked about lying through obfuscation in my post of simplicity and open society.  Laws which the average person cannot understand fail at their purpose, that is to stop us from doing bad things should be be so inclined.  For the most part when it comes to what you are allowed to do with things we tend to be pretty knowledgeable.  The problems arise when companies try to restrict what we can do with things past the point of that of physical things.

This is because we understand the concept of owning a thing when we buy it.  If we buy a hammer we know we are allowed to nail any type of nails into anything we own.  With DRMed music we have to buy one song for our iPod, one for our computer without iTunes and a third for our CD player.  From our understanding of physical reality we would think that we only need to buy a single song and it would be legal to use it in all 3 places.  DRM blocks this so we might brake the DRM which is usually illegal.

People often will seek out pirate versions of media they legally own due to the fact that they can’t use it the way they would like, and should they find the pirated versions easier to use, and they often are, they become more likely to pirate without buying in the future.  This means that rather then helping people know what they are and are not allowed to do, DRM adds additional, and often viewed as unreasonable, restrictions on use.  This can be seen in the outcry and boycotting of limited install video games for example.  The view that companies are trying to screw them over makes some consumers turn to piracy for both ease of use and even a slightly vindictive sense of righteousness.

So that leaves the only benefit to the producers of media.  They can get more sales from individuals by limiting the way the media can be used and then turning around and selling them other uses for more money.  This isn’t very moral but in the long run I assert that it will be bad for producers.  Why would selling multiple copies to each consumer be bad for the producers.  One it isn’t sustainable.  This is because as this behavior continues the trend is to lock people into more and more restrictive DRM boxes without really changing the cost of the boxes all that much.  This increases the cost of the consumer as well as gives them the nagging feeling that they are being screwed over.

As time goes on more and more people will decide that the laws are just their to hurt them and so they will ignore them entirely.  This creates a main stream culture that views the laws as invalid.  You can’t sue enough people once that happens to get people to change.  So to look at the question of who benefits from DRM, well Pirates benefit because their culture becomes more and more mainstream and acceptable, the companies benefit in the short term by increased sales.  On the other hand the legitimate users are treated like criminals, bare the burden of DRM problems and occasionally are forced to commit piracy in order to secure rights that are generally available to them if their purchase had been physical or an older type of media like  tapes.

All of this allows me to assert that the only people that will benefit from DRM is the pirates.  The litigations for copyright violations cost society money and resources which could be used for dealing with other crimes.  The media companies are treating their paying customers as criminals  thus alienating them.  Finally the customers are dealing with technical  issues and rebuying or choosing to brake the DRM.  So to change the question a little, “what is the value of a system that benefits only criminals and (in the short) the powerful to society as a whole”? My answer to this question is none.