Digital Rights Management

The United States Congress recently approved a bill that would crack down on movie pirates. If the President signs this bill into law, movie pirates could, in some cases, face up to ten years in prison for distributing movies illegally (BBC News). A Canadian man was recently put in prison for distributing child pornography to his 90 clients. He was sentenced to 3 ½ years in prison (CBC News). Digital Rights Management is a tool that has rallied strong support from both companies and government. It protects media companies and their products from piracy and theft, but is it all at the expense of the consumer?

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the software embedded into music, movies, and other media that restricts their use in certain ways. These ways include, but are not limited to, limiting the number of computers that a song can be copied too, limiting the number of times a song can be copied onto blank CDs, or preventing a DVD or CD from being copied at all. There are two forms of DRM that this paper will address: restrictions placed on physical CDs or DVDs and restrictions placed on digital media files, specifically, music.

In the eyes of record and movie labels, DRM has become an essential part of modern day music and movie sales. Producers have every right to protect their product from those who would steal it. With so many consumers obtaining their media illegally, these protections have become crucial to the industry. DRM provides the consumer with a much better variety of merchandise, as it allows for many products to be released into the digital world that would otherwise remain outside of it. No company would willingly place its product in a position to be easily stolen. Finally, DRM balances protections against illegal activity with flexibility for the user, and still allows him or her access to legal use of the media. Usually these protections are so flexible, that many consumers do not even notice the protections.

In the eyes of many consumers, DRM is an evil device being forced upon consumers. While companies do have the right to take reasonable measures to protect their products, these measures become unreasonable when they interfere with the rights of consumers. DRM does not provide consumers with a larger digital media selection, as companies cannot afford to stay out of the digital realm. Finally, while it is true that DRM allows for some use of the media, there are many cases where the legal use of it is restricted or completely refused.

The advent of digital media has created an entirely new arena for property owners and property thieves. In this new medium, it is easier than ever before to rob people of their intellectual property. A music pirate can steal an entire album with just a few clicks. A movie can be illegally downloaded in less time than it takes to watch it. Companies have just as much right to protect their digital media as store owners do to protect their physical goods.

DRM is the best method of protecting digital media, and companies have every legal right to exercise that method. The "No Electronic Theft" Act, passed in 1997, outlawed the distribution of copied software over the internet, even if the distributor did not profit from it (GSE&IS). In 1998, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, made it illegal for consumers to circumvent DRM protections installed in digital media (GSE&IS). The law clearly supports DRM and companies' right to utilize it. Defense of property is considered a Constitutional right. Since the majority of DRM does not interfere with the legal rights of consumers, it is within a company's Constitutional rights to install DRM on their products.

On the other hand, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does provide a clause of exceptions to its ban of DRM circumvention. It provides that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." While the act never defines fair use, it has historically included creating copies of products for personal use. By selling CDs and DVDs that do not allow copying of any kind, companies are making it legal for consumers to develop and utilize methods of circumventing DRM protections. In a sense, this clause allows companies to incorporate DRM into their products, but does not allow companies to force consumers to follow those restrictions.

For many companies, DRM is an essential protection for a market dominated by pirates. With only 55% of music being obtained legally (Zeller), something must be done to protect intellectual-property owners. Even if the rights of consumers are being damaged by these protections, these damages pale in comparison to the damages inflicted onto companies by digital piracy. Music piracy has done great damage to record sales, as has movie piracy to sales of DVDs. DRM is the best way to implement protections in an industry plagued by piracy.

On the other hand, there are many that claim that downloads do not hurt sales, but help them. By allowing consumers access to virtually every form of music, downloads expose them to things that they otherwise would never hear. With interested piqued, the consumer is more likely to go out and buy the album. Folk artist Janis Ian states during the peak of Napster music sharing, her web site received about 100 hits a month from people who had downloaded her music and wanted more information. Of those 100 new visitors, about 15 bought CDs (Ian). If it were not for Napster, few if any of those 100 people would have even heard of Janis Ian. Thanks to Napster, Janis made an extra $2700 that year (Ian).

DRM helps the consumer as well. By allowing companies some protection against piracy in the digital market, they are much more likely to want to get their products into that market. Without any protection, releasing digital media would be like throwing a suitcase of money into a room full of known thieves. With DRM protections, companies can release their goods with at least a semblance of security. If it were not for this security, many companies would simply keep their products out of the digital market, denying consumers access to it.

On the other hand, the digital world is impossible for companies to stay out of for two reasons. First of all, the digital marketplace is far too economically lucrative for companies to simply keep their products out of. Consider Apple's iTunes music store. From when it began its music sales in April of 2003 until April of 2005, iTunes music store logged over 350 million songs sold (Smith). With such huge sales so quickly, no company would be foolish enough to simply stay out of such a marketplace, DRM protected or not.

Second, it would be impossible for a company to keep its product off of the internet because consumers are willing to put it there for them, legally or not. Movie pirates will frequently go into theatres with camcorders. These pirates will record the movie off of the screen, and then make that recording available for download. In this way, they are circumventing copy protections before the movie company even has a chance to try to release them. Companies are forced into the digital world, whether they like it or not.

DRM protects media from illegal use, but still allows plenty of flexibility for consumers to use their product legally. As an example, consider the Apple iTunes music store. Songs purchased from the store come with DRM software on them. These songs can be copied onto no more than five computers at a single time. Other than that, consumers are able to listen to them, burn them to CDs, and do whatever else they wish with them. Clearly, this allows the user the freedom to do what he or she wishes with the music, while the five computer limit prevents the song from being shared with half a million "friends" on the internet.

Take a physical CD as another example. Many CDs sold today contain DRM software that prevents them from being copied onto a computer at all. By refusing to be digitized, a CD cannot be shared on the internet. However, the consumer is still able to listen to the CD wherever and whenever he or she would like. Like iTunes DRM, these protections allow the consumer the freedom to listen unrestricted, but prevent the product from being shared online.

On the other hand, there are many times when even iTune's fairly relaxed DRM prevents legal activity. When trying to authorize another computer to play a song, iTunes needs to connect to the internet. With no internet connection, you simply cannot listen to the song. More importantly, imagine the day when Apple or iTunes goes out of business and their server shuts down, thus disallowing anyone from authorizing any new computers. This will leave users stuck with hundreds or thousands of dollars of music, and no way to listen to it.

Restrictions on physical CDs are worse than those on digital files. When a CD or DVD does not allow itself to be copied, it robs the user of something very important: a backup. CDs and DVDs are tough, but they do get scratched. Preventing CDs and DVDs from being copied at all looks more like a scheme to force people into buying replacements than it does DRM.

As you can see, there are very good arguments on both sides of the DRM debate. DRM advocates state that DRM is legal and essential for companies to implement. At the same time, critics argue that the rights of consumers take precedence over any protection companies feel they may need. Advocates also claim that there would be companies that would flat out refuse to have their product made digital without some kind of protection and DRM is therefore helping the consumer. Critics counter by saying that the digital marketplace is unavoidable, and DRM is not helping consumers at all. Finally, while DRM works to block only illegal use of media, there are a few times when it blocks legal use.

In the end, the DRM debate comes down to one basic principal. Does a company's right to protect its product from theft outweigh a consumer's right to do whatever he or she wants with that product? Regardless of the answer, one thing is certain. The DRM genie is out of its bottle, and for better or for worse, it is not going back in.

Works Cited

"BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Film | US Movie Pirates Face Jail Terms." BBC News. 20 Apr. 2006. The BBC. 26 Apr. 2006 .

"CBC News: Child Porn Distributor Draws Prison Term." CBC News. 17 Mar. 2006. The CBC. 26 Apr. 2006 .

Ian, Janis. "Janis Ian.Com : the Internet Debacle." Janis Ian.Com. May 2002. 26 Apr. 2006 .

Smith, Tony. "Apple ITunes Sales Tally Passes 350 Million | the Register." The Register. 14 Apr. 2005. 26 Apr. 2006 .

"The 'No Electronic Theft' Act." GSE&IS. 21 Jan. 1998. The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy. 26 Apr. 2006 .

United States. Cong. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 105th Cong., 1st sess. HR 2281. 28 Oct. 1998. 26 Apr. 2006 .

Zeller, Tom. "Sony BMG Stirs a Debate Over Software Used to Guard Content." TheNew York Times 14 Nov. 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. Ferris State Library, Big Rapids, MI. 26 Apr. 2006. Keyword: Digital Rights Management.