Are DRM and social media inherently at odds?

Posted Apr 7th 2005 12:37PM by Barb Dybwad

Bringing together a few somewhat disparate threads from the blogosphere (my favorite pasttime!), I'm going to remix them all into today's question for you. As the Grokster case looms large and broadcast content creation companies seek to morph the internet into a one-way street more like TV, folks are being forced to define more precisely why this is an inherently bad idea. Techdirt reports on one individual who has just grokked this: he already has a TV, so doesn't really want more TV content via his broadband connection. What he really wants to do is use that internet connection to communicate with friends and family, which means precisely creating his own content and sharing it with others. However, as Clay Shirky discovered recently, locking up content with ever-more complex DRM protection schemes works directly against sharing and distributing one's own created content just as effectively as it prevents "piracy" of content prepared by broadcast media outlets. So, then, my question is this: are DRM and social media directly at odds? Copy "protection" isn't about to make communication any easier, and it makes media that wants to be social that much less valuable, because it can't be (easily) shared or discussed. Going further: does a social component have the potential to add value to all media? What's your take?

Reader Comments

(Page 1)

1. Just Say No To DRM.

My current bete noire is region coding on DVD players. It's easy to find multi-region DVD players to go under the TV. It seems to be hard to impossible to find multi-region DVD players for the PC, laptop, car or mobiles DVD players. This stinks.

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Julian Bond

2. I am not totally convinced that they are at odds, even though I agree with some of the points made in your post.
On your other question, I do believe that in some (if not most) cases a social component can add value to media. But it can do that without infringing on DRM...no?

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Francois Gossieaux

3. I think that this is a really great, important question.

Regarding Shirky, I think that the argument is being reduced to terms that are not meaningful in a _real_ context -- in reality, everyone should be compensated for the work that they do. But compensation can take many different forms. The question of DRM enablement is more a technical question than a social one -- should certain individuals deservedly be paid by their consumers for _exceptional_ works that wouldn't otherwise be available to the public? Consider school/university -- someone paid (it might have been the parents, as in my case) but someone certainly paid. In the world of more indirect revenue streams (advertising on the publisher/blogger's site) then being paid is rendered in a more indirect method -- but you're still getting paid -- and _everyone_ should be entitled to this. Shirky is off base in my opinion.

Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Erik

El nuevo Opel Insignia llegará a los EE.UU. bajo la marca Saturn El nuevo Chevrolet Camaro SS recorre Nurburgring en 8:20 La Guerra de los Clones: Fiat versus Great Wall	Perpetual Remodeling Syndrome: Deck building design Don't-it-yourself: Cracking a safe the hard way Roof: Repair or Replace?
Chloe Cyndi Tote, Handbag Of The Day Armani's Profitable Year Batman's Belstaff Jacket In Heavy Demand	Worst 10-year performers: The underdog methodology Worst 10-year performers: Fannie Mae hammered by mortgage losses Check your bank's safety rating
Tip of the Day: Use your grill for soup Slashfood Ate (8): Gourmet coffee at home A sour cherry cocktail	Russia considers banning Czech beer Bored? Got miles? Make some bag tags Talking travel with professional RV roadtripper Adelle Milavsky