Debate Tournament Round 2 - HK vs. Zirconaz

[retro]

HK vs. Zirconaz

Digital Rights Management

Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies are basically those technologies used to prevent the unauthorized copying of digital media (mainly music, films and software). Proponents say that music publishing and software companies have the right to prevent illegal distribution of their intellectual property. They point to the potential lost revenue by the music and software companies. Opponents take issue with the fact that that paying users are treated like the criminals that steal the media. It's obvious that in a lot of cases, these DRM products aren't successful in preventing the media from being stolen, and legitimate users run into problems with the DRM itself.

Should Media and Software Companies be allowed to use DRM?

There will be three rounds, the first two will be limited to 350 words each, and the third round will allow 400 words. There will be no editing of your post allowed, unless it is approved by me, and only before your opponent has their chance to respond. You will have 24 hours from the conclusion of each post in order to post your response.

I would request that nobody, other than the participants, post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate.

I used a random number generator to determine who would lead off the debate.

HK, you're up first...

 

[retro]

HK, you have a little over 12 hours to post your opening argument.

 

[HK]

A better name for Digital Rights Management is Digital Restrictions Management. Even media suppliers don’t all support it- although Apple iTunes originally used DRM, they are now opposed to it and have started replacing their DRM tracks with DRM-Free versions.

The fact is that DRM does far more than prevent illegal use of media files - it restricts how anyone uses them, legal purposes included. Some computer games now require online authorisation to be installed, which controls the number of times a game can be installed, ever, normally 3-5 times. In a household with three or more computers, this means someone legally trying to install their own game onto their computer will be blocked from doing so if the number of computer they own is more than the number of installations allowed. Even if you don't try to install the game on several machines, updating your machine and reinstalling the game will still be recognised as having used up an installation, despite the fact that it's for the same person on the same computer.

Looking into the future consequences, DRM prevents future historians from recovering information about our generation. DRM means media files can only be used a number of times, or for certain periods of time. Several DRM users also use it to restrict what machines can play their files - downloads from Napster will only play on Microsoft devices, which may well be a redundant technology in the future.

This is another point against DRM, that it allows the restriction of where you use your files. Taking the Napster example - once you have paid for a song, you should be able to play it on any device you wish. It's not illegal to play a song on an iPod as opposed to a Microsoft device, but DRM means the supplier can control who you have to give your business to if you want to be able to play the song that you paid money for.

DRM is flawed and goes far beyond protecting copyright - it restricts users in a completely unacceptable manner.

 

[freakofnature]

Absolutely, I think DRM should be allowed. Everyone wails about the rights of the consumer but what about the rights of the creator? If you create something, be it a game, a song or an article, there need to be guidelines in place so that the creator can maintain a measure of control. If there are no restrictions in place, the people who make their living creating things for us to enjoy would no longer be able to support themselves. What's wrong for paying for something that you want to use/enjoy? People these days have a sense of entitlement to everything.

 

[HK]

I agree that copyright is important and that we should pay for the media we want. However, the main issues with DRM are that not only does it put on restrictions that affect people who are using their paid-for media correctly and legally, it also isn't even that effective.

There are ways to easily get around DRM, even for those who aren't particularly technologically minded - like burning music tracks onto a CD, then ripping them off the CD back onto the computer. So it doesn't actually provide effective protection for copyright holders.

The problem with arguing for copyright holders is also that it's difficult to define what breaks the law, and therefore what DRM is entitled to fairly restrict. For example, is it breaking the law to burn a CD of music you've purchased, and to then give that CD to a friend? What if you just gave them the CD you originally bought, would that be any different? There are too many grey areas in the world of media files right now, making the use of DRM more of a hindrance than a help.

It's not effective for it's original purpose, all it does is create problems for people who in most cases aren't breaking the law in any way and are trying to access media they legitimately paid for.

 

[freakofnature]

So you're saying that DRM should not be allowed because it's ineffective and difficult to define? These failings can be rectified so that arguement does not hold water for me. I said it before and I'll say it again. Copyright holders need a way to maintain artistic integrity as well as to ensure their income. Since there are too many people out there aquiring digital media unethically I believe that DRM is necessary. It's not a perfect system but once improvements are made I believe that it can be an effective policing agent in the digital world.

 

[HK]

If it were just the fact that it's ineffective then I could see why it should be allowed to just tick along - despite the fact that the problems with it haven't been addressed and some media suppliers like Microsoft have even released software, like their music player Zune, that isn't even compatible with DRM - as like you say, there's got to be something to protect copyright.

However, it goes way beyond the fact that it's not that great at what it's supposed to do. Not only is it a waste of time and money for the purpose it was intended for, it imposes restrictions on people for doing completely legal things, with files and media that they've paid for.

This is why several groups are campaigning to change the name from the misleading 'digital rights management' to 'digital restrictions management', because it has far less effect on the rights of copyright holders than it does impose restrictions on people who have done nothing wrong. If you buy a song, that song should then be yours to play on whatever device you choose, for however long you feel like enjoying it for. DRM instead gives suppliers the ability to restrict how many times you can play your music track and what you can play it on. That's not protecting copyright - you already bought the song - but restricting your ability to use your purchase however you decide. If you're not doing anything illegal, why are you being restricted?

The fact is that DRM is ineffective and restrictive and causes far more problems than it prevents. It's becoming obsolete, as several media suppliers are now actively going DRM-free. It's not a system that can be upgraded to work, as it flawed in the very basis of what it does - attempt to restrict how you use your own privately purchased media.

 

[freakofnature]

Well, if it's ineffective and becoming obsolete then replace it with something that can do the job. I don't like the idea of digital media being completely unregulated because there will always be those who will take advantage of it and ruin it for everyone, so to speak. I'm sure something can be done to protect the copyright holders while allowing the consumer to enjoy their creations.