The most consistent argument that I hear against the use of DRMs, and my personal frustrations against the technology, is that they impede legitimate use by the real purchasers. It is well known that the content that the pirates share and trade is not restricted by these technologies. Meanwhile, users such as my self face compatibility issues, which due to corporate financial interests will remain as such for perpetuity.
Meanwhile, it is no secret that Apple is purposefully using its legal arm to hinder the development of products that would increase the compatibility of iTunes with portable players other than the iPod. This is a self-preservation tactic, as Apple is in the business of selling hardware. iTunes in itself, Apple’s executives maintain, is barely profitable due to the disproportionate fees placed upon their service by the labels et. al.
I was once told that in a few years, the technology will finally be smoothed out, and things will work the way they were meant to. I beg to differ. The issues that stand today do not stem from technological immaturity so much as a lack of cooperation between rivaling corporations. Fueled by financial interests, it is unlikely that these companies are to resolve the issue anytime soon. Apple is a good example on why this expectancy of cooperation is naive. While pacts may eventually form between companies, the going is simply too good at present time to promote such a development. It would be naive to think that corporations would sacrifice short-term profits for a more meaningful long term. In the mean time, customers are forced to stand idly by, legally prohibited from implementing technological solutions of their own.
Nevertheless, this critique does not mean that DRMs are useless. However, their validity does ride on two fundamental conditions:
- The pirates don’t use mainstream file-transfer networks, and are unable to strip the DRM.
- The profits garnered from such an implementation outweigh the losses due to piracy.
Reguardless of the complexity of a DRM system, the validity of implementing such a technology is completely undermined if individuals are simply able to download an un-DRMed version off of the Internet. In short: If pirates aren’t stopped by the presence of DRMs, then there is no reason to maintain that presence. Therefore, for the implementation of DRMs to be effective, a significant amount of the population must be unable to obtain un-DRMed copies. While the industry hopes to eliminate such illicit file-transfer networks all-together, it is but a pipe dream given the fundamental technical resiliences these networks have displayed.
Likewise, the population of those able to strip the DRM has to be insignificant. If DRMs can simply be removed all-together, their purpose of implementation is again defeated.
This brings us to the second condition: that the losses due to piracy incurred by legitimate music purchasers is significant enough to warrant all these troubles. This is as opposed to losses due to corporate competition. If these losses due to piracy are beyond the marginal, then I would then support the presence of DRMs, despite my internal reservations. I just hope that the implementation of DRMs was based upon sound data on sources of piracy, and that these are not manipulative corporate tactics for which we are the pawns.