Comments on: DRM Debate with the MPAA’s Fritz Attaway http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/06/20/drm_debate_with_the_mpaas_fritz_attaway.html Musings of a techie lawyer Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:46:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Oren Levine http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/06/20/drm_debate_with_the_mpaas_fritz_attaway.html#comment-462 Oren Levine Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:47:11 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=351#comment-462 Hi Wendy, I enjoyed your discussion with Fritz Attaway, but I thought that it combined two issues that should be treated separately. The potential for creative re-use of digital content is interesting, but in my mind separate from copy protection and usage control, which are the primary goals of current DRM systems. I think the number of people who are interested in creating mixes and parodies, to name two, is far smaller than the number of people who just want to listen to music or watch videos. It's not surprising, then, that DRM systems are designed to deal with the perceived piracy threat from the mass market, at the expense of the small number of creators. The copy/control part of DRM may only be a temporary phenomenon, as media companies move from generating revenue from "things" (CD's, DVD's, files) to generating revenue from services and other non-tangible assets. There are already commercial music services (eMusic.com) that sell DRM-free files, for example. On the creative side, I agree that people whould be free to remix and adapt existing content, but only if the content creator agrees. This is not just a commercial or DRM issue. Creative Commons, for example, supports "no derivative works" licenses. Do you see the need for technological means to enforce those? Hi Wendy,

I enjoyed your discussion with Fritz Attaway, but I thought that it combined two issues that should be treated separately. The potential for creative re-use of digital content is interesting, but in my mind separate from copy protection and usage control, which are the primary goals of current DRM systems. I think the number of people who are interested in creating mixes and parodies, to name two, is far smaller than the number of people who just want to listen to music or watch videos. It’s not surprising, then, that DRM systems are designed to deal with the perceived piracy threat from the mass market, at the expense of the small number of creators.

The copy/control part of DRM may only be a temporary phenomenon, as media companies move from generating revenue from “things” (CD’s, DVD’s, files) to generating revenue from services and other non-tangible assets. There are already commercial music services (eMusic.com) that sell DRM-free files, for example.

On the creative side, I agree that people whould be free to remix and adapt existing content, but only if the content creator agrees. This is not just a commercial or DRM issue. Creative Commons, for example, supports “no derivative works” licenses. Do you see the need for technological means to enforce those?

]]> By: Wendy http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/06/20/drm_debate_with_the_mpaas_fritz_attaway.html#comment-461 Wendy Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:31:35 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=351#comment-461 Anonymous, my point doesn't depend on it being impossible to reauthorize an iTunes song -- even the phone call makes it more difficult than it would be without DRM. At that point, and it will be a different point for different people, the customer will tend to wonder why he's paying for non-features, when a track obtained from p2p would never require re-authorization or phone calls. Anonymous, my point doesn’t depend on it being impossible to reauthorize an iTunes song — even the phone call makes it more difficult than it would be without DRM. At that point, and it will be a different point for different people, the customer will tend to wonder why he’s paying for non-features, when a track obtained from p2p would never require re-authorization or phone calls.

]]> By: Andrew http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/06/20/drm_debate_with_the_mpaas_fritz_attaway.html#comment-460 Andrew Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:57:54 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=351#comment-460 It's a shame Mr. Ataway had a plane to catch. I loved this part: "DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy." It’s a shame Mr. Ataway had a plane to catch. I loved this part:

“DRM is not intended to prevent commercial piracy.”

]]> By: Anonymous http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/06/20/drm_debate_with_the_mpaas_fritz_attaway.html#comment-459 Anonymous Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:02:25 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/wordpress/?p=351#comment-459 > iPods that need their songs re-purchased after one too many computer crashes Come on Wendy... What you're discussing there is an issue with Microsoft's music service. The iTunes Music Store (which is what I expect you meant to say when you said iPod) lets you back-up (they greatly encourage in the documentation) your music from the iTunes Music Store. They'll gladly reset the authorized computer list to if you contact them and explain your computer died. No re-purchasing necessary, at least from the iTunes Music Store. > iPods that need their songs re-purchased after one too many computer crashes

Come on Wendy… What you’re discussing there is an issue with Microsoft’s music service. The iTunes Music Store (which is what I expect you meant to say when you said iPod) lets you back-up (they greatly encourage in the documentation) your music from the iTunes Music Store. They’ll gladly reset the authorized computer list to if you contact them and explain your computer died. No re-purchasing necessary, at least from the iTunes Music Store.

]]>