Douglas Lichtman on DRM

by on February 13, 2006 · 4 comments

Douglas Lichtman of the University of Chicago has a sensible paper on digital rights management technology:

Legal rules in every area of human interaction are implemented through a combination of powerful public mechanisms and weaker but less costly private ones. With the advent of DRM, copyright law is today no different. The task now is not to legislate DRM out of existence, but instead to follow the model adopted in every other arena: calibrate copyright law such that it harnesses the very real advantages of technological enforcement while at the same time keeping an appropriately wary eye on what might turn out to be overly aggressive uses.

This is exactly the way the issue should be approached. My only quibble is with the idea that there are people trying to “legislate DRM out of existence.” All we DRM critics are trying to say is that it ought not be singled out for special legal status in statute. There isn’t a federal fence-hopping statute, and there shouldn’t be a federal anti-circumvention statute.

In particular, I hope that Prof. Lichtman pursues this line of inquiry further:

With respect to DRM in the form adopted by iTunes, meanwhile, maybe copyright law should adopt nuanced rules like those that today limit the scope of the privilege of self-defense. The commonality here is that in both instances self-help ought not be allowed to become too common. Frequent self-defense would give rise to a vigilante state; widespread iTunes-style restrictions would reduce hardware competition by in essence making it impossible to enter the hardware market without simultaneously entering the relevant content business as well.

This is, I think, the most compelling critique of the DMCA: not that it gives content owners too much control over their own content, but that it needlessly balkanizes media technologies into mutually incompatible platforms controlled by companies like Apple and Microsoft.

Prior to the enactment of the DMCA, we had “nuanced rules” governing the intersection of copyright and technology. The Supreme Court, in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision, stressed the need to insure that the monopoly granted by copyright law did not interfere with “the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce.” The courts were doing a pretty good job of striking that balance.

But the DMCA threw that evolving body of law out the window, replacing it with a blanket anti-circumvention rule. That rule has allowed the monopoly granted by copyright to bleed into monopolies in “substantially unrelated areas of commerce,” such as MP3 players, DVD players, televisions, etc. All repealing the DMCA would do is restore the courts to its proper role of fashioning “nuanced rules” that properly balance competing interests as the Supreme Court did in Sony and Grokster.

  • http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com Precision Blogger

    In addition to the Balkanization issue, there are a few more serious problems with DRM. When these are discussed, I cannot blame DRM’s adherents for feeling we are trying to get rid of it:

    (1) Fair use and library archiving: DRM makes fair use impossible (although it is a constitutional right), and in the long run ensures that no library will have a working copy of the material. Over the next 100 years, how many versions of OS’s must every library archive, to be able to play today’s DRM-controlled materials? What happens when iTunes goes out of business? (And note that when a machine dies, all the music purchased from iTunes dies with it, must be repurchased on the replacement machine.)

    (2) “Protecting DRM software” is too much like writing spyware. In order to try to ward off hackers, DRM must conceal itself on every computer, and use some of MY CPU cycles to try to control what I do.

    (3) DRM still primarily inconveniences its honest users. The “rewards” go to the people who freely download the one illegal copy of each item that escaped into the wild from DRM’s clutches.

    No DRM for me, please.
    - precision blogger

  • http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com Precision Blogger

    In addition to the Balkanization issue, there are a few more serious problems with DRM. When these are discussed, I cannot blame DRM’s adherents for feeling we are trying to get rid of it:

    (1) Fair use and library archiving: DRM makes fair use impossible (although it is a constitutional right), and in the long run ensures that no library will have a working copy of the material. Over the next 100 years, how many versions of OS’s must every library archive, to be able to play today’s DRM-controlled materials? What happens when iTunes goes out of business? (And note that when a machine dies, all the music purchased from iTunes dies with it, must be repurchased on the replacement machine.)

    (2) “Protecting DRM software” is too much like writing spyware. In order to try to ward off hackers, DRM must conceal itself on every computer, and use some of MY CPU cycles to try to control what I do.

    (3) DRM still primarily inconveniences its honest users. The “rewards” go to the people who freely download the one illegal copy of each item that escaped into the wild from DRM’s clutches.

    No DRM for me, please.
    - precision blogger

  • Doug Lay

    Precision Blogger:

    Reegarding your point (1) I think one of Prof. Lichtman’s points was that DRM won’t make fair use impossible, since it will always possible to crack DRM. Of course this view sort of implies that we should get rid of the DMCA anti-circumvention provision, or at least amend it to allow fair use.

    Regarding your points (2) and (3), you’ll get no argument from me, though in the case of point (2) I would argue that only SOME DRM systems (such as the XCP/MediaMax CD “protection” systems analyzed by Ed Felten) are so much like spyware that they should be illegal.

    I find Prof. Lichtman’s paper heartening in one respect – it is one of the first admissions I’ve seen by a DRM advocate that the DMCA anti-circumvention provision is excessive and (presumably) should be changed.

    Although Lichtman’s paper has been published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, unsurprisingly the primary posters on the PFF’s IPCentral blog have so far said nothing about the paper. Instead, we have Jim DeLong continuing with his bizarre “shopping cart” series of posts, now spiced up with unabashedly Chicken Little cries that changing the DMCA would be tantamount to “destroying society’s ability to nurture creativity” and come “at the cost of destroying the possibility of erecting truly remarkable market-based systems, that would greatly benefit consumers.”

    Really, this guy wants DRM skeptics to get a grip? I’d really like to know what Lichtman and other reasonable DRM supporters think of this sort of ranting.

  • Doug Lay

    Precision Blogger:

    Reegarding your point (1) I think one of Prof. Lichtman’s points was that DRM won’t make fair use impossible, since it will always possible to crack DRM. Of course this view sort of implies that we should get rid of the DMCA anti-circumvention provision, or at least amend it to allow fair use.

    Regarding your points (2) and (3), you’ll get no argument from me, though in the case of point (2) I would argue that only SOME DRM systems (such as the XCP/MediaMax CD “protection” systems analyzed by Ed Felten) are so much like spyware that they should be illegal.

    I find Prof. Lichtman’s paper heartening in one respect – it is one of the first admissions I’ve seen by a DRM advocate that the DMCA anti-circumvention provision is excessive and (presumably) should be changed.

    Although Lichtman’s paper has been published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, unsurprisingly the primary posters on the PFF’s IPCentral blog have so far said nothing about the paper. Instead, we have Jim DeLong continuing with his bizarre “shopping cart” series of posts, now spiced up with unabashedly Chicken Little cries that changing the DMCA would be tantamount to “destroying society’s ability to nurture creativity” and come “at the cost of destroying the possibility of erecting truly remarkable market-based systems, that would greatly benefit consumers.”

    Really, this guy wants DRM skeptics to get a grip? I’d really like to know what Lichtman and other reasonable DRM supporters think of this sort of ranting.

Previous post:

Next post: