WebMink
Simon Phipps's personal commentary

DRM for the citizen

Visiting the Jobim Foundation made some thoughts resonate from last week. Paulo's burden in securing the rights he needs to publish his father's heritage on the internet also relate strongly to an event I spoke at.

I recently participated in a panel which at the EU 2004 conference in The Hague. It considered the future of Digital Rights Management (DRM - the control an originator can wield over uses of the works they produce). The rather ad-hoc nature of the event made me feel it was appropriate to express my own opinions rather than any that Sun might corporately have. I admit to a feeling of unease over DRM - mostly stemming from the feeling that some unseen external party can still control what I do with my purchases but also growing into a concern over who is tracking what.

As I have listened to the discussions on the subject I have repeatedly felt that no-one is speaking up for my concerns - that is, me as an ordinary citizen. I'd suggest that much of the conflict arises because the thinking on DRM is usually articulated either from the perspective of the technologist or from the corporate "rights holder". It seems to me that historically the state, in order to encourage creativity, gives the creators of works the right to a temporary monopoly on their creations in return for their open publication. Today, the debate has lost sight of that 'social contract' and treats the control of 'intellectual property' as an abstract right.

I'm not an advocate of the elimination of that social contract - I disagree with those who oppose the granting of copyrights as it seems to me that creativity deserves proportionate reward. My suggestion is that the discussion needs to move frome being technology- or commerce-centric and instead become citizen-centric. Three issues immediately came to mind when I considered this.

1. Grey areas - Many benefits assumed by citizens result from "grey areas", uses where the law is imprecise, over-reaching or subject to varied interpretation. DRM policies are inherently precise and quantise the imprecision. Shades of gray become limited zones of precision and the 'space' necessary for people to experience trust and exercise discretion is eroded.


2. Holistic view - Historically, citizens view media entities as one, despite their different venues. I won't want to pay twice to use a music file on phones on different networks. Most citizens don't treat the same expression as a different entity because it is delivered in a different medium.


3. Long view - Solutions need to look beyond the 'now' and realise that devices and uses will be different in just a few years. Escrow may offer a solution but citizen rights need to extend beyond the current platform or version. Failures to protect grey areas and take a holistic view lead to short-sighted approaches to media entities.

These may not be the only, or even the most important issues for the citizen-centric approach but I think policymakers need to politely but firmly take the view that they represent the citizens of their countries and therefore adopt a citizen-centric view on DRM. Time to return to the social contract and strengthen it into a win-win instead of a win-don't care.

posted at 11:39 PM (UK) | |