On the one hand, this could potentially make it harder for viruses to get a toehold on your system. On the other hand, it also makes it possible for originators to control how their code or media is used. Such bulletproof Digital Rights Management (DRM) capability is highly controversial. Ross Anderson of Cambridge describes TCPA systems' effect on users as follows:
TCPA and Palladium do not so much provide security for the user, but for the PC vendor, the software supplier, and the content industry. They do not add value for the user. Rather, they destroy it, by constraining what you can do with your PC - in order to enable application and service vendors to extract more money from you.
Such claims are overly simplistic. Digital Rights Management will certainly give media companies the ability to control the manner in which consumers use licensed media, which could be considered a "limitation." Looked at from a different angle, however, the protection of license rights could attract companies, both large and small, to the digital space, leading to more choices for consumers.
There are three primary advantages to strong DRM:
1. More investment in digital content
Major media companies invest billions every year into their businesses, yet spend little on digital content. Why?
Digital copies are perfect whether it's the first or the 100th copy. With Napster and its clones showing how popular such copying can be, media companies favor old fashioned distribution technology which has demonstrated its ability to generate revenue over an environment where the returns are questionable. Should DRM become widespread, however, media companies can be expected to shift their resources to digital content, resulting in an explosion of services limited only by the capabilities of the computing environment.
2. DRM as the great leveler
Large corporations are not the only creators of content. I recently purchased a digital video camera, and have been amazed by the broadcast quality of the image it produces, not to mention the ease with which I can edit that media on a desktop computer. Similarly, I have friends who have an entire sound studio in a spare room of their house. Media production is no longer the exclusive domain of big companies. Technological advances and mass production has brought media production capability within the purchasing range of the average consumer.
A mechanism by which small-scale producers can generate revenue will help to boost the market for such media. The Internet has always been promoted as the great equaliser, giving the little guy a voice in a world formerly dominated by those with the money to distribute through traditional channels. The Internet as a global medium already serves as a low-cost distribution network from which thousands of small-scale software producers benefit. Strong DRM is the final piece in the puzzle, making it possible for them to ensure a revenue stream at lower cost. This can only serve to boost the prospects of small content and software producers, growing their businesses and making them better competitors to large corporations.
3. Good DRM means more legal free media, and lower prices
Media studios in a non-DRM world are less likely to release much free media due to the habit it forms among consumers. Once a consumer is accustomed to downloading one free song, it is not that difficult for them to find and download the whole album.
A bulletproof DRM system would make legal free music more common, given that the media companies can be assured of a revenue stream from the fee-based, DRM-protected media. Eminem's recent single was one of the most traded songs on the Internet before the album was released, helping to create a buzz around the new album. I could see more studios willingly tapping into that marketing opportunity if they were assured payment on the rest of the album.
Lastly, strong DRM increases the number of paying customers, giving producers more price flexibility. Digital distribution also costs less, making it easier for smaller competitors to participate in the market. As discussed in item 2, universal DRM makes it easier for smaller companies to generate revenue, making their businesses more viable. An environment with more competition borne of lower distribution and collection costs and greater price flexibility will tend to drive prices down.
A TCPA computer would limit what consumers can do with protected code and data on the system. This is something to which we are already accustomed with other products we buy. We disallow trademark infringement so that companies can build brand recognition that consumers can trust (grandma can't make Levi Strauss jeans in her spare room). We don't allow people to republish Stephen King books at no compensation to Mr King or the publishing house with whom he has a contract. People can't release for sale a compilation of hits by the Police without paying the owner of those songs a licensing fee. These limitations are all designed to ensure the existence of incentives to create.
The incentives created by strong DRM would drive a proliferation of digital content, attracting both large and small producers to enter the market. That benefits consumers, and more than makes up for the "harm" caused by limits on what consumers can do with their computers.
John Carroll is a software engineer who lives in Switzerland. He specialises in the design and development of distributed systems using Java and .Net.
Your arguments are well presented for DRM in general, however you have ignored the practical side of the argument.
How will DRM be implemented in practice?
Consumers may well baulk at buying any DRM-controlled content when they realise that they can play their freshly downloaded content on only one device. If I download content to my PC, can I transfer it to my iPod? Or QuickTime streaming server so I can play it on different PCs in my home? If so, will they have to adopt the same DRM model as the PC? Who will licence DRM? Who will control it?
You have also ignored the system that will provide the underlying platform for DRM. How will any device know who is using it and what content they can play? What system of user identification will be sufficiently secure, yet will not seriously erode the current useability of digital devices? If biometrics are to be used, how do I transfer my biometric ID to another device? If someone steals my biometric ID, how do I get it back?
As has been pointed out many times, the entire digital security system is dependent upon its weakest link. This is usually the method of establishing your biometric ID in the first place, or that of transfer of the ID.
I think some serious challenges could be made to many of your arguments, such as the presumed increase in investment. Surely that will only come at the expense of investment in other areas. And will any cost benefit be passed on to consumers or artists? And even if the increased investment does occur, how is this necessarily good? It may well be simply viewed as an additional cost that is passed on to consumers. Gee, thanks. I pay for DRM whether I use it or not.
The regional encoding of DVDs has already been hacked, as has the DVD encoding itself. What will happen when DRM is cracked (as is most certainly will)? Do I pay again for a new system? Can I transfer content from one system to another? Is this a great opportunity to legitimise content I have previously stolen?
The technology to create a secure DRM platform has existed for ages: making it palatable for common consumers is the real trick.