|
Close on the heels of Apple CEO Steve Jobs' public statement that digital rights management (DRM) does not work, an online petition signed by over 1400 citizens of the United Kingdom demanded a ban on DRM for digital media like music. However, the UK Parliament went on record rejecting the petition, stating that DRM is an effective anti-piracy tool when used properly.
Neil Holmes, a blogger that created the petition, cited a recent DRM system implemented by Sony on some CDs that secretly planted software on the owner's PC. This software was considered an invasion of privacy, besides the fact that it did not work as designed, as well as opening up the PCs to be attacked by hackers, and Sony endured numerous lawsuits until it was forced to remove the software from its CDs. Holmes supported Jobs' assertion that DRM is not an effective anti-piracy tool, and it adversely impacts consumers in its application, and therefore should be banned.
The UK Parliament disagreed. Their statement was a reiteration of the corporate stand that DRM allows companies to offer consumers more and varied content and choices, with a statement that the consumers' rights must be respected by having companies inform consumers of exactly what they are buying.
Although the UK government is clearly siding with companies, the discussion is far from over. DRM as applied to some products already conflicts with UK copyright and fair use law, and organizations are rising up and demanding that the full legal rights of consumers be honored. We can expect to see the same drama played out on this side of the Atlantic, and for the arguments to extend beyond digital music.
|
|
In a widely-publicized open letter, Apple CEO Steve Jobs has stated that digital rights management (DRM) does not work, and probably will never work, to safeguard music.
Apple's iTunes music store uses DRM to prevent piracy of its music catalog, a setup that Jobs claims Apple had to develop to satisfy the music labels they courted for the service. Unfortunately, the DRM system runs afoul of European regulations, and Apple has been ordered to open its "Fairplay" DRM system to other companies. Jobs' response to the order was surprising to many: Instead of arguing for the Fairplay system, he publicly stated that he didn't want to have to use it.
Jobs' open letter encourages music labels and stores to abandon DRM, which he insists doesn't work anyway, and therefore is only a detriment to sales, and an unnecessary burden on customers. Most of the music labels understandably disagree, standing by the belief that DRM is the only thing preventing them from being robbed outright by consumers. Jobs counters with the claim that only 3 percent of music on iPods is downloaded from iTunes, the rest being ripped from legally-purchased CDs with no DRM. He also points out the limitations with iTunes' DRM, namely, that it can be easily circumvented by burning the iTunes songs onto a CD, thus removing DRM, then ripping them to an MP3 player.
The numbers batted about by Jobs and the music companies could be debated forever, as they are based largely on anecdotal evidence and outright opinion. However, Jobs' statements about the effectiveness of DRM are beyond argument... it is a fact that DRM doesn't work, and that the most it can do is slow down the laziest of consumers. It is not hard to understand why the music industry would be afraid of losing money, and therefore would want to take advantage of something that would theoretically save them money. However, clinging to DRM as a revenue-saving system is akin to a turn-of-the-20th-century blacksmith throwing nails in the road to slow down the progress of the automobile.
The music industry is directly in the path of progress, and continues to stand its ground, clearly hoping that somehow progress will veer around it at the last minute. It is unclear whether the industry will wisely step aside, and try to jump onto the bandwagon as it passes, or dodge at the last moment and shake its fist in defiance as progress leaves it in the dust. But this game of chicken is compelling to watch, as its outcome will inevitably impact the literature industry.
Booksellers, faced with similar market-changing issues caused by the emergence of e-books, are still carefully monitoring the record industry, and hoping that the record labels (or someone else... anyone else) will figure out how to deal with electronic media, and allow them to save their money and effort in having to figure it out for themselves. However, the booksellers are so intent on watching the record industry that they don't realize they are standing directly behind them on progress' path, and therefore liable to be run down by progress with the record industry... or at best, being exposed at the last minute when the record companies leap aside, and not having enough time to dodge themselves.
And while all these games of chicken are going on, both industries are ignoring the consumers, who are standing by the side of the road, already ready to jump onto the progress bandwagon, and urging the record and book companies to join them. If the companies wait too long, the consumers are liable to jump onto the bandwagon, watch it run down music and books, weep for a moment, then shrug their shoulders and move on to other forms of entertainment. They will discover other forms of entertainment already on the bandwagon, including MP3s and e-books, and they will gladly make their acquaintence. Eventually, everyone will forget about the industrial roadkill left far behind them.
|
|
Print-based newspapers have been with us for literally hundreds of years. Throughout the twentieth century, newspapers have been the dominant news source for most of the world. Today, when e-book aficionados insist that someday electronic media will dominate all, many counter that the printed newspaper will always be with us, never to be reduced to content on fancy readers.
Which makes it especially interesting when the publisher of the New York Times tells an Isreali newspaper that he is actively transitioning the venerable, worldwide-circulated newspaper from press to Internet.
Arthur Sulzberger, owner, chairman and publisher of the most respected newspaper in the world, was in fact quoted as saying, "I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care either." Sulzberger points out that there are presently almost forty percent more subscribers to the NYT web edition, worldwide, than the print edition. The web edition is also bringing in younger readers, the future Times readers, while the print version's average age has stagnated. And most significantly, he notes that the costs of maintaining the web-based Times is nothing compared to the incredible costs of maintaining a print-based daily document. To him, transitioning to a web-based news source is a no-brainer.
Not that it's been easy, he adds. It took time for the journalists and other employees to "get" the concept of going to web and eventually abandoning print. "But once the journalists grasped the concept, they flipped and embraced it, and supported the move."
So, the NYT is going web someday. Does that mean that, in the immortal words of Dr. Egon Spengler, "Print is dead"? Well, obviously not right away. Even if most of the big newspapers decided to follow suit, there will probably be some papers that will continue to embrace the traditional form of delivery, at least in a limited scale, for some of its more old-fashioned readers. But as the twenty-first century dawns, we are seeing the clear transition from the dominant form of twentieth-century news delivery, via newsprint, and the rise of electronic news delivery to replace it.
Hey, if the New York Times says it, it must be true.
|
This site is designed to be fully functional to those with disabilities. Is yours?