[This is slightly off-topic, but since this is my only blog I'll be diving into other subjects of professional and personal interest from time to time. One of those, needless to say, is Wired. I don't want to make this a running editor's letter, at risk of losing focus on the Long Tail, but the two subjects quite often overlap: Wired is about how technology is changing our world, and the Long Tail is a prime example of that.]
EFF organizer, BoingBoinger and Wired contributor
Cory Doctorow, perhaps the best-informed person I know on the subject of Digital Rights Management,
argues that Wired should be taking a more activist stance against it:
Wired seems to be a little soft on DRM these days; the recent Wired spin-off, Wired Test, featured page on page of reviews of music players, media PCs, and PVRs with hardly a mention of the fact that all of these devices were fundamentally crippleware, and all controlled by entertainment companies who can and do arbitrarily remove functionality from them after they have entered the marketplace, so that the device that you've bought does less today than it did when you opened the box. If you're publishing a consumer-advice magazine, it seems like this is the kind of thing you should be noting for your readers: "If you buy this, your investment will be contingent on the ongoing goodwill of some paranoid Warners exec whose astrologer has told him that your pause button will put him out of business and must be disabled."
Hmmm, "soft". Well, in one sense he's right: we're not following the EFF's idealistic line on DRM. This isn't because of journalistic impartiality. We, too, are unashamedly activist on issues we believe in, and DRM abuse is one of them. It's just that we take a more pragmatic stance to serve a more mainstream audience. (We are also a commercial magazine, not a pressure group.)
Like Larry Lessig and his
Creative Commons project, we believe in the value of protecting intellectual property rights, but we're opposed to overzealous extensions and implementations of those protections. Copyright good; infinite copyright bad. Piracy bad; treating everyone like a pirate worse.
But equally, we believe in putting the consumer first. Consumers want more content, easier-to-use technology, and cheaper prices. If some form of DRM encourages publishers, consumer electronics makers and retailers to release more, better and cheaper digital media and devices, that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is just being realistic: much as we might want it to be otherwise, content owners still call most of the shots. If a little protection allows them to throw their weight behind a lot of progress towards realizing the potential of digital media, consumers will see a net benefit.
The real question is this: how much DRM is too much? Clearly the marketplace thinks that the protections in the iPod and iTunes are acceptable, since they're selling like mad. Likewise, the marketplace thought that the protections in Sony's digital music players (until recently, they didn't support MP3s natively) were excessive and they rejected them. Indeed, we were one of the first to criticize Sony in a big way for getting that balance
wrong. And, for what it's worth,
Test and the rest of our reviews do take points off for intrusive DRM when we encounter it.
At risk of opening myself up to anti-Microsoft flames, I'll personalize this by giving an example. I recently bought a Media Center 2005 PC to serve as a central tv/video/music/photo server for our house--essentially a DVR on steroids. So far I love it. It sits in the study, by all appearances a regular PC available for regular PC use, and streams content to thin set-top boxes called
Extenders or the existing Xboxes at each TV. It has some DRM restrictions, including not streaming DVDs over the network and not supporting DivX, but nothing I care about that I can't work around in one way or another.
Some will wonder why I didn't go for a DRM-free open-source media server, such as
MythTV, instead. And the answer is, I just can't be bothered. More importantly, my wife
really can't be bothered. The Media Center works great, is easy to use, and given that we needed a new PC anyway is cheaper than the other DVR options (no monthly fees). Did I sell my soul to the Man? No, I just got a cool technology that makes our life a little better. In the real world, that counts as a win.
Sony's giving it another try.
Posted by: praktike | December 29, 2004 at 01:12 PM
hey chris, since you have a media center 2005, as you mentioned the extenders are pretty cool, i just got the xbox one going, works well. i posted the how-to version of it on engadget if you want to check it out, also-- check out www.orb.com i've been streaming all my content and watching live tv through my phone, all from my media center pc, it's pretty amazing.
cheers,
pt
Posted by: phillip torrone | December 29, 2004 at 03:22 PM
Philip, I saw that and even shared a comment of concern about the requirement that the disk stay in. Any idea how I can join the beta test for remote programming?
Posted by: Chris Anderson | December 29, 2004 at 03:31 PM
Hi Chris! I'm a giant fan of your "Long Tail" article; I've been shoving it under the nose of everyone I know lately. Great stuff.
But I think you've missed the mark in your argument that the market has accepted DRM. You argued that the success of the iPod, and the failure of Sony's offerings is an example of the market's acceptance of a reasonable level of DRM. I think the difference between Apple's and Sony's offerings is far simpler: MP3 Support. The iPod is a fantastic tool, and supports MP3s as well as Apple's DRM-afflicted format. Sony, on the other hand, shied away from MP3 support, alienating, well, everyone. iTunes has also been a success, but I have a hard time believing that a 40GB iPod is filled with more than a couple GB of AAC files. Everyone I know crams a zillion MP3s into it, and completely ignores iTunes.
Anyway, just wanted to drop my $.02 in the bucket here. I've enjoyed reading both sides of this debate.
Posted by: Chris | December 29, 2004 at 03:47 PM
Something wrong with your rss feed
Posted by: noone | December 30, 2004 at 11:52 AM
Hi Chris,
I think perhaps there are a couple of important points that you're missing about the "consumer acceptance" of DRM in the marketplace, and I'd like to take the opportunity to expand upon them.
The first point is that the vast enormous majority of consumers don't know what DRM is. The technically adept often suffer from an acute case of myopia when we consider what an average consumer knows and understands about technologies. Rights Management in the form that we're discussing it is novel to consumers, and it's readily apparent that most consumers are utterly ignorant of the fact that service providers (when you buy a TiVo or an iPod, you're buying a service, the hardware is incidental) can and will alter the terms of service at will, and with no notice nor appeal available to consumers. Until the market begins to realise that the promise of digital media is effectively offset by the paranoia of content owners, any assumption about consumers knowingly accepting those limitations is quite an imaginative leap.
A second point is that, due to the service-oriented nature of devices such as the TiVo and the iPod, there's really precious little actual competition in the market. It might appear that there are a wealth of device manufacturers and that the Digital Media market is thriving: however, as the bottleneck of the market is actually at content distribution as opposed to hardware sales, no amount of variation in the devices themselves can create a thriving marketplace. Whilst DRM technology provides an avenue for content owners to prevent consumers from exercising their legally protected rights, the content market will continue to stagnate.
It's all too easy to get caught up in the flurry of enthusiasm for the marvels of technology and design that these new kinds of device represent. As leaders in the field of technology, you have a responsibility to look further than the veneer of empowerment that we're being sold, and to realise that technology isn't just about being cool, it's about changing the way that people live their lives. If buying a PVR means losing the ability to exercise a legal right whenever a content provider chooses, the consumer must be provided with accurate information to make a choice about the real price they're paying.
Posted by: Seb Potter | December 31, 2004 at 08:51 AM
Seb,
Those are good points, but I have great trust in the marketplace to sort this out. Consumers may not know or care much about DRM now, but if companies start to really abuse it they will both notice and react. Consumer electronics have a useful life of just a few years, and these are still early days in the DRM wars. If Apple really screws up the iPod or TiVo caves too much to the networks, consumers will go elsewhere with their next purchase. Like the Internet itself, people are pretty good at routing around damage.
Posted by: Chris Anderson | December 31, 2004 at 09:34 AM
Excellent to see such a well-written post supporting this stuff. I posted a similar entry on my weblog in response to some thing I had heard prior to buying my Portable Media Center. I got some pretty good comments...
"DRM is Not Evil" - http://weblogs.cerkit.com/mearls/archive/2004/12/28/665.aspx
and
"Even more DRM Madness" - http://weblogs.cerkit.com/mearls/archive/2004/12/29/685.aspx
Posted by: Michael Earls | January 01, 2005 at 05:32 PM
"Consumer electronics have a useful life of just a few years, and these are still early days in the DRM wars. If Apple really screws up the iPod or TiVo caves too much to the networks, consumers will go elsewhere with their next purchase."
The thing missing in this analysis is that people might be locked in by DRM. If your whole music collection is locked into iPod/iTMS, then you might not be so sanguine about switching to another platform, even if you're chafing at the restrictions in iTunes.
It's worse with video, where switching away from Media Center PC might cost you the footage of your son's first steps, your sister's wedding, your holiday films.
Under non-DRM circumstances, say, with MSFT Office, there's always the option of finding a product that will import your old media to your new platform. But in a DRM world, "importing media" requires circumvention of the DRM, which is itself illegal, which means that the average user won't have the ability to avail themselves of this technology.
I was once the CIO of a tech services company. I wrote POs for a million dollars worth of hardware every year. One year, I noticed that I was spending unreasonable fortunes on Sony AC adapters, because Sony gouges on these and won't allow third parties to make more. I weaned us off of Sony by buying everyone new speakers, etc, over the next 18 months. It was a good decision and an easy one of make.
But what if switching away from Sony had cost us, say, our financial records? Or our client files?
If buying Sony in the first place meant committing to them forever or risk losing mission-critical data, I would have made an entirely different calculus when I first bought into Sony products. Maybe I still would have ended up with some Sony equipment, but I never would have deployed it in the same way.
If I buy a consumer electronics review magazine, I rely on it to help me identify all the pluses and the minuses of my purchases: I *especially* rely on it to help me understand hidden downsides that might surface later in the device's duty-cycle, problems that aren't visible on the show-room floor or in a couple weeks' trial.
Whether or not the DRM in Media Center PCs is unduly restrictive, I think that it would have been useful to, for example, note that each capability in a Media Center PC, like fast-forwarding, burning to DVD, storing permanent archives, and recording itself are all subject to being disabled on a show-by-show basis, and that there's no agreement in place that limits that and no way for you to tell, a priori, which shows will and won't have those restrictions activated.
Posted by: Cory Doctorow | January 02, 2005 at 04:44 AM
"but nothing I care about that I can't work around in one way or another"
If you're having to find work arounds to issues caused by the DRM, isn't that a reasonably good indicator that it's overly protective?
Posted by: Richard Smith | January 02, 2005 at 05:21 AM
Richard: In a word, no. All technologies have limitations regardless of DRM, and advanced users often have to find ways around them. Indeed, none of the limitations I've encountered and had to work around on the Media Center have anything to do with DRM. (Remote programming is still a bit clunky, etc...)
As for the DRM restrictions, I don't really want to stream DVDs over the network anyway (we play them locally) and I'm happy watching DivX video on the machine itself or burning it to a DVD to watch elsewhere. Compared to the real-world limitation of all the alternatives, from TiVo or DirectTV's closed platform to the mind-boggling complexity of making my own open source DVR, this counts as very small beer indeed.
Again, I'm not an absolutist: I don't subscribe to the view that any DRM impact is too much. I'm a pragmatist: if DRM doesn't annoy me in practice I don't care much about it, and if it does annoy me I'll reject it. And if any company is stupid enough to actually deprive me of access to the media I thought I'd bought free and clear, I'll reject them with extreme prejudice ;-)
Posted by: Chris Anderson | January 02, 2005 at 08:55 AM
Cory:
I'm been enjoying your many excellent points, and even swayed by some of them (although I'd challenge you to find a mainstream consumer magazine that raises the issue of DRM as much as we do).
But I think this borders on the alarmist:
"It's worse with video, where switching away from Media Center PC might cost you the footage of your son's first steps, your sister's wedding, your holiday films."
Even the darkest tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists don't suggest that Microsoft is going to hold my WMV-encoded home videos hostage. But you seem to be taking it even further, somehow tying it to the Media Center itself. Please explain.
Posted by: Chris Anderson | January 02, 2005 at 09:07 AM
MSFT has a track-record for tethering all the media you import to the CPU you import it to (see http://trevor.typepad.com/blog/files/msftdrm-purple.html#purp887 for example) and whenever the capability exists to device-tether your imported media hostage you should be aware of the possibility, if only so that you can ensure that tethering isn't taking place (a household with only one PC has no easy way to check whether the media it imports is being tethered).
More significantly, though, is that MSFT controls the entire market for WMV/WMA playback devices. If your only home movies and recordings are in WM*, the entire market for devices that will play them back is controlled by MSFT.
That means, for starters, that you won't ever be able to move your videos to a Linux-based PVR, like a TiVo. Hell, MSFT has pretty much abandoned WM* players for the Mac, too -- WMP OS X is so old that even on my latest Powerbook (the fastest Powerbook ever built, with maximum video and main memory), video doesn't play back smoothly -- sometimes not at all.
It's not an issue with the media center per se, except to the extent that Windows Media and Quicktime are the only formats that're owned by OS vendors who have an incentive to limit the number of platforms that can play them back, so if you're investing in a "convergence device" that natively uses those formats, you run a real risk that you will be locked into a single vendor or have to abandon your old media.
I don't think that Wired does a worse job than others in calling out DRM, but I *do* believe that there's a lot of room in Wired's reviews to call out DRM more explicitly, particularily in terms of what the DRM is capable of doing down the line: which features are revocable and under what circumstances? I think that as soon as the featureset in a device moved from a static to a dynamic one, the job of the reviewer became more than technical research and metastasized to include investigative reporting on the nature of the underlying consortia, governance and legislation, since these have a much larger potential impact on the device's utility than its features at purchase-time.
Posted by: Cory Doctorow | January 02, 2005 at 09:47 AM
It'd funny how the EFF and everyone else who wants to question the copyright system seems to forget that it is only in the anglo-american world that the copyright rules the music business. And that we as artists actually prefer not to have our songs stolen. Here in Scandinavia, as well as in countries like France, Author's Rights are the basis upon the which the rights system builds on, not Copyright. It basically means that the author of the song retains the right to decide who gets copyright to the song - no matter what! This right can never be sold off, like it is done in the anglo-american music world. This means that when I've written a song, I can regard it as being MY song, just like I would think of a house or a fence or a table I built as being mine. And I would like to be the one who decides what happens to it, thank you very much! I can easily see why there is something to debate about in your part of the world, where the copyright is easliy sold off to big corporations. But from a artist perspective in Northern Europe, DRMs are a tool to make sure I retain my right to do what I want with what I've made. And that's why most of us over here actually embrace DRMs. Just another perspective on things.
Morten Bay
singer/songwriter/geek
Posted by: Morten Bay | January 02, 2005 at 04:14 PM
Oh - and by the way,
Your choice of the media center for sheer convenience proves my theory of survival of technology:
The technology that becomes the most successful with the broad public, is the one that makes stuff we're already doing at some scale, more convenient.
Convenience is king, as I usually say.
Getting music via file sharing is not convenient outside the UK or US, since e.g. local Danish music is hard to come by on Gnutella-servers or Bittorrent. The same goes for countries from Hungary to Portugal....and believe me, everyone in Europe wants local music. Legal alternatives make it easier to get all the local stuff you want. It's just more convenient. Just like it's more convenient to buy back catalogue music online, that's too old to be found on P2P or in regular music stores.
The reason for the long tail effect is sheer raising of the convenience level, if you ask me.
Now we're at it:
The 'The Long Tail'-article is nothing short of a revolution. It was the big topic at a recent rights society event, I went to here in Copenhagen, Denmark - as well as at the 35th Internet anniversary at UCLA which I also attended on october 29th. I expect it to be a big reference point at the MIDEMnet conference on music and technology in Cannes later this month.
Just thought you should know.
M.
Posted by: Morten Bay | January 02, 2005 at 04:32 PM
Morten, that's a very coarse depiction of the author's right/economic right split as practiced on the continent. Of *course* copyright is employed on the continent at great length and breadth: otherwise how would CanalPlus enjoin Universal France from duplicating its broadcasts and selling them on DVD? The way that you have divided Moral Rights and Economic Rights is not technically accurate: the whole bundle of economic and author's rights are collectively called "copyright" in the field; the thing you're calling "copyright" is more usually called "economic rights" or "industrial rights."
Authors in *some* European states may have an strong, inalienable Droit Moral (though, certainly this is not the case throughout Europe -- see the Netherlands, for example, where authors are not entitled to a cut of the monies from the resale of their works as they are in France), but every European state, including Sweden and France, has decided to turn a blind eye to the droit moral, reducing it in practice to a mere economic right, in the case of technology. That's why VCRs are legal for sale throughout the continent (even if there's a levy on the devices or media). No filmmaker, actor, composer, director, or other creator associated with the production of a film has the right or ability to stop Europeans from recording the transmissions of their works, nor from playing them back later, nor from making copies for personal use, nor from fast-forwarding past the dull or offensive parts (so much for the much-vaunted European right of integrity).
I live and work in Europe, and am a delegate to the UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation, where I am surely as exposed to the world's copyright systems as you are. When you characterise the European concept of author's rights as governing everywhere except the US and the UK, you commit the same arrogant sin you accuse me and EFF of: exporting your notions of how the copyright system should work to the rest of the world. It is as untrue to say that the whole world runs on European copyright as it is to say that it runs on American copyright.
It is categorically untrue that European songwriters labour under this regime: "...when I've written a song, I can regard it as being MY song, just like I would think of a house or a fence or a table I built as being mine. And I would like to be the one who decides what happens to it, thank you very much." In actual practice, every commercial songwriter in Europe is part of a collective licensing scheme, often a compulsory scheme (though in practice it makes no difference) through which their "inalienable moral rights" are traded like any other manufactured commodity: otherwise the Beatles' publisher EMI could ban phonograms of Joe Cocker singing "With a Little Help From My Friends," since Cocker recorded this under the compulsory mechanical license that governs composers' creations in the USA.
Posted by: Cory Doctorow | January 02, 2005 at 10:43 PM
Dear Cory,
Thanks for your comments. You are indeed in the know about these things from your position in the UN I can tell - the reason why I avoided terms like moral rights/Droit Moral and so on is because the are so eurocentric that I honestly thought no-one here would know the slightest about what I was on about if I used them.
I myself is on the board of one the organizations that make up KODA, the main author's rights collection society in Denmark. And if you read my post again you will notice that I'm actully not talking about Europe...I'm talking about NORTHERN Europe, i.e. Scandinavia and the Baltics. The reason why I included France is because the whole idea of author's rights originated there in 1895, and I know for certain that the rights societies down there struggle to retain droit moral and the divide towards what you call economic rights (a term I've never heard before in the past 6 years of representing Denmark in international talks about rights - is it the same as mechanical rights?).
I have never claimed that the anglo-american notion of copyright is not employed across this continent. Of course it is. It would be quite difficult to have a pan-european hit if it wasn't.
I have also never claimed that the rest of the world outside America runs on author's rights. I have said that the copyright system - in contrast to the author's rights system (And there IS a difference) - works in the parts of the world that have adapted the anglo-american way of running music business. That's why I used the term "Anglo-american world" and didn't simply write Britain and America. Because you are right - even our brother country of Sweden are fighting the international publishers all the time trying to keep the author's rights with the authors. And in Germany, Holland, Italy (and France, apparently) that struggle is lost by now.
You are right that the rights societies in the EU in general have granted permissions for certain ways of copying to be legal (Your VCR argument), but this is a decision made from country to country, and here in Denmark it is made as a collective decision in our rights society, KODA, to grant this permission. It is not the same as turning the blind eye to Droit Moral, it is actually putting our Droit Moral to sensible use. After all, it is still - through a democratic process - ourselves who decide what happens to our music, not some corporation. Because of the way the author's rights system is structured (at least here and in Norway and Finland) we can also choose NOT to retain that right. If I want to make one of my songs "public domain" by putting it up on my website and asking everyone to copy it, I can do so. I can even do it without terminating my membership of my rights society - I just have to fill out a form - which basically makes the Creative Commons idea non-sensical in this country.
So there IS a big difference between the author's rights and performance rights and the mechanical rights/copyright (which of these are the economic rights, you write about?), Membership of the three different rights societies that handle these rights are in NO WAY compulsory. There are several examples in this country of successful artists who have done their rights collection themselves.
Were you at the last Cisac conference in Seoul? Our representative there came back with a broad grin, reporting that after many years of advocating for author's rights in contrast to the dominating anglo-american model, the anglo-american world (...not just Britain and America) were starting to listen, since their own model was falling to pieces through pressure from people like yourself and technology giving us new opportunities.
So to sum up:
"the whole bundle of economic and author's rights are collectively called "copyright" in the field"
Not in this country. Author's rights are so much more than just the right to copy. And that's why the Scandinavian model differs from the anglo-american.
"When you characterise the European concept of author's rights as governing everywhere except the US and the UK"
I haven't. I haven't even claimed there IS a European concept. So please don't call me arrogant.
"Authors in *some* European states may have an strong, inalienable Droit Moral"
Yes, like here - and the world is finally starting to see the sense in a model based on author's rights (more than droit moral) - that was the result of the Cisac conference in Seoul.
"...through which their "inalienable moral rights" are traded like any other manufactured commodity"
Only if I choose to let a publisher or an organization that works in the anglo-american world, like ASCAP or BMI administer my rights. If I do it through the Scandinavian model, it is my choice.
But all of this is academic. This discussion shouldn't be about what hellish situation we are in now in this transitional phase in music. It is a question of which system we whould end up with when this digitalization process is over - where the whole "copy" discussion is irrelevant, since music consumption in the future will be streamed music that isn't stored anywhere, probably paid for with flat fees. Then everything