Digital Directions : DRM: The Battle Observed

Is digital rights management necessary, or will it hinder the opportunity that lies in digital, networked content?

September 2009 By Andrew Brenneman

The pro-DRM lobby is pushing to go beyond the DMCA to have federal requirements set for any device capable of content playback to comply with DRM standards. The anti-DRM camp holds that such a policy infringes upon free speech, innovation and fair use. A darker conspiracy is also suspected: a vision of media and technology companies—often with the same parent corporation—setting standards that support corporate interests, with the Feds providing the muscle on enforcement. This closed-door cronyism may pave the way to an Orwellian media nightmare in which unseen forces constantly monitor and control what we see, hear and say.

There is a clear need for open discussion on how these standards are set. Having said that, the rhetoric often runs toward the paranoiac. Most media companies would prefer a superior DRM solution in which no bona fide user would be adversely affected, but infringers would be stopped in their tracks. Alas, such is not the state of the art.

Even if such an ideal DRM technology were to exist, I wonder if we are all just missing the point. In the zeal to lock down content, are publishers demonstrating a lack of understanding of the dynamics and opportunities in digital, networked content?

Digital, networked content, particularly book content, when not restricted by DRM, has the potential to dynamically interact with other works in the form of links and collections; to connect and interact with communities instantaneously and globally; and to interact with software applications, such as search engines. This interaction can create tremendous value—a whole far greater than the sum of its parts. None of this dynamic interaction can take place if the content is locked inside DRM, as it is applied today. DRM allows content to be distributed and sold, but not to generate value through dynamic interaction.

The business models used to drive the creation of content will need to evolve in a DRM-less world. Such revenue models will likely vary depending upon the audience. In education, for example, monetization might be derived more from charging for certification exams rather than the textbook to prepare for the exam. Contextual advertising also has been proven to be a surprisingly robust revenue model. Author Cory Doctorow has observed that by making his works freely available, he actually sells more books. We need to be open to exploring these new models.

The case of iTunes’ movie rentals indicates that DRM is likely a necessary, though possibly transitional, aspect of many digital distribution scenarios in order to allay the fears of content creators. It gets the ball rolling, allowing participation prior to the emergence of new revenue models.

In the meantime, we need to continue to push for DRM approaches that are more elegant and do not impede legal uses of content, and to keep federal intervention to a minimum. In addition, we should continue to explore business models that are not dependent upon DRM, to continue to discover the tremendous value of accessible, fully networked digital content.

If we focus solely on short-term-risk mitigation and ignore the broader, long-term possibilities of digital media, then an opportunity truly will have been lost.

Andrew Brenneman is founder and president of Finitiv, a provider of digital content solutions. He has been leading digital media initiatives at major media and technology organizations for more than 20 years. Contact him at Andrew@Finitiv.com.