Branko Collin must be on a roll, for he has just came up with another gem–on the need for sanity about DRM. Like Branko, I hate the consumer-abusive form so dear to DRM Mafia. What’s more, DRM is poison for many small publishers, and the DMCA‘s anti-crack measures are toxic to fair use. But should DRM per se be banned? Absolutely not. Branko cover the basics well:
…I do not have any real arguments against DRM. Sure, it will enable others to write their own private copyright laws, but nobody is forced to buy their works in the first place. As a matter of fact, works that aren’t encumbered by DRM are likely to do better in the market, because they are more usable. Would you buy a car that refuses to drive into certain streets? Would you buy bread that you are only permitted to eat between 12 and 14 o’clock?
But the thing that struck me the most, is that DRM is both the result of what we asked of Big Copyright, and the result of what we presented as the right way.
What we asked of Big Copyright: that they take technological instead of legal measures to lock up their content. Hence, DRM.
In the case of OpenReader, the organization will work toward the development of DRM Lite–a more consumer-friendly version that will use a standards-based approach to keep the inconvenience to a minimum. But most small publishers would be better off without copying restrictions, and we will do our best to discourage the gratuitous use of the technology.
Detail: While I would be against laws banning DRM per se, I’m certainly in favor of legislation to prevent the most flagrant abuses. Sometimes the laws of the marketplace are not enough to protect consumers.
Related: Doctorow on DRM: reloaded, via p2pNet.
