Communicating freely
Thoughts on how we can all talk a little easier, and how that can make life better.
A reply to a comment on DRM
Marcos posted a very interesting article about DRM. I couldn’t help commenting. As I said:
==
- I’m glad that many discussions are appearing around DRM. I think there is a lot that needs to be said on this subject, and it’s our duty to be at the forefront of this process. One way or another, DRM will have a huge effect on the entire digital sphere in the coming months and years. This blog entry is a very interesting read. I don’t agree with all the points, but I think you raise some legitimate concerns. One of the clearest messages in your article is that DRM – as currently appearing in things like trusted computing chips – has the real and scary potential to take away end user freedom. In this sense you are absolutely right that DRM is a weird and unacceptable thing, because it basically involves allowing companies to decide how we live our lives.
- The one thing I want to raise is that you equate the "trusted chip" (trusted computing) with DRM. Trusted computing in this form is not DRM. It is a method of applying DRM. Digital Rights Management can be anything related to digital rights management. Trusted chips are an important technology, and one that is already on many computers, but it’s just one technology. I think your article is in danger of confusing trusted computing chips with DRM itself (a confusion of concept and implementation).
- Linus Torvalds does not claim that you would want to use exactly the same technology to protect your diary. He is saying that fundamentally the same technology is used for both personal protection and DRM. To quote, he said the "basic technology is about encryption, public and private keys and so on." I guess that if we can fault him for anything, it’s for being too general. Perhaps this is because he made it pretty clear he wants to keep clear of dictating the implementation of DRM. Again, to quote him: "I don’t want to make my software be "activist." I try to make it technically as good as possible and let that part speak for itself. I don’t want it to make politics."
- Gosh, this is a heated topic. There is a good reason for it being heated: if DRM is indeed allowed in the form that many companies want, we’ll lose freedoms we have enjoyed for generations. On the other hand, if we don’t work out some way for businesses to sell digital goods without losing their market after shipping a couple of copies, economics problems will appear. We have to discuss and discuss this issue, and look at it from all sides.
==
I think DRM is really going to be the big word in the coming nine months. Web 2.0, Windows Vista, UMPC…these are small things compared to the confusion around how we are going to control (or free) our digital futures. Without the painful process of creating coherent policy around this subject we will not advance as digital societies.
Some day my fridge will be connected to my laptop, and that’ll speak to my car. This is great because it means no more surprises regarding running out of milk or gas, but I don’t want anyone hacking in (pro digital rights management). That does not mean I want EMI to tell me what music I will listen to over breakfast (against digital rights management). It’s a difficult topic.
For the record, let’s not forget about software patents. I’m pretty worried about them too.