DRM – Driving us to piracy?

Dan Wallach tipped me off to a Times article explaining Hollywood’s latest effort to get consumers to buy new DRM-wrapped videos. Danielle Levitas, an analyst at IDC, remarked “The market desperately needs this, but in some senses it is already moving past it toward rental of content over ownership.”

I think to most consumers of digital media, this is a bit of an oxymoron.  The studios will be the first to admit that they see consumers as only licensing content (especially digital)–never really owning it. Can one ever really own DRM protected content?  I may have a library full of DRM protected music in my iTunes library, but despite the move to iTunes plus, something interesting has happened. A number of songs I “bought” cannot be upgraded, even though they are available in the store.

With lousy customer service like this (…make that customer service based in restrictive copyright policies), is there any wonder consumers are becoming slow to “buy” DRM protected media. Strangely enough, those who download “unauthorized copies” of their media don’t have these sorts of problems.

Many will expect to get it free

Bono: ISPs should filter music, Steve Jobs should make cars.

Ars writes a scathing review of a Times Op-Ed by U2’s Bono. They take him to task for arguing for ISP filtering, despite the fact that concert revenue has been on the rise.

Bono makes one statement that grabs my interest:

The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.

The funny thing about the “free expectation,” I would argue, is that it’s based on our collective media experience over time. We’ve been receiving shows like 24 and music by U2 for free for years via the airwaves, though it’s supported by advertising. One might even argue that a cable bill is much like an bill from an Internet Service Provider–a cable company simply provides a conduit into homes and does not (can not) block Maury Povich, Fox and Friends, or The Colbert Report simply because someone objects to the content.

Just because the post office technically could have opened letters, or ISPs technically could examine packets does not mean it should be done–especially to protect businesses that are more interested in their bottom line than quality content and customer service.

Happy Public Domain Day!

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2010?

Had copyright law not been changed in 1976, you could now enjoy Fahrenheit 451, the first issue of Playboy, and Watson & Crick’s article on the double helix free of charge. Instead, we’ll have to wait until 2049.

For comparison’s sake, my wife and I watched La Vie En Rose last night. Anyone can listen to Edith Piaf’s wonderful voice thanks to the Internet Archive and sensible copyright terms: http://www.archive.org/details/EdithPiaf-11-20

Nintendo to fans: We know you like our game, but…

Nintendo struck a deal with the creators of the full-length Zelda fan film, forcing the movie offline, and one would presume, preventing it from being further distributed.

I find this fascinating on a number of levels.  First, I might have never heard of this movie, had it not been for Nintendo’s legal action (ok, and Slashdot). Bringing in the lawyers frequently creates media attention–and usually not to the benefit of the ones with the legal team.  As the title of the post suggests, I also find it odd that Nintendo would go to such great lengths to “protect its characters and trademarks.” While they are completely within their legal rights here in the states, being a Japanese company one would think they’d appreciate a Dojin work when they saw it. It’s all a matter of perspective.

THE HERO OF TIME UPDATE 01-01-10 | The Hero Of Time.