How about this explanation for some of our criticisms. We don’t like having fences that limit our use of the goods we buy forced on us. Please be careful to distinguish libertarians from liberals here. I don’t mind the iTMS’ DRM. It doesn’t restrict me at all in my regular use. It is almost as transparent as the I/O system in OSX or Windows. It’s like a fence that I can freely come and go through.

A lot of DRM is very intrusive, just look at what DVDs can do. The vendor can force you to watch commercials on a DVD you paid for! Perhaps the solution is a great deal of nuance in the law itself. What is the cracker’s motive? There’s a big difference between me cracking my DVDs to make backups and a high school student ripping off Blockbuster. Why should I be hindered? I bought the DVD and my changes are for my own use. There is no economic harm to anyone but me if I make multiple copies for my own use.

It seems to me that IPCentral’s contributors are squeemish about using *gasp* law enforcement to separate the two. I wouldn’t mind increasing the FBI’s IP enforcement division 200% in order to ensure that they could shut down mass copying at universities for example. At its core, it’s a social, not a technological problem, and the only way to make extremely good DRM is to sacrifice openness and competition in IT.

The one thing that I find most annoying about DeLong, at least, is his avoidance of the technical issues involved in implementing his legal ideas. On what technical basis does he assume that his ideas about DRM are feasible? My primary experience is in application and web development, but I do have some formal education in operating system design. The technical problems are quite real, and what I don’t see is DeLong posting concise implementation ideas. Interoperable, open DRM that doesn’t balkanize IT is great! So what’s his plan for how to make it happen when there is both a business and technical incentive for a leading DRM vendor to be 110% proprietary in their approach? I seriously doubt that DeLong and others really appreciate the technical ramifications of what they propose. Ironically, the PC industry was made possible by the violationg of IP rights.

Sorry for the rant and I’m sorry that you end up doing the grunt work here for him.

How about this explanation for some of our criticisms. We don’t like having fences that limit our use of the goods we buy forced on us. Please be careful to distinguish libertarians from liberals here. I don’t mind the iTMS’ DRM. It doesn’t restrict me at all in my regular use. It is almost as transparent as the I/O system in OSX or Windows. It’s like a fence that I can freely come and go through.

A lot of DRM is very intrusive, just look at what DVDs can do. The vendor can force you to watch commercials on a DVD you paid for! Perhaps the solution is a great deal of nuance in the law itself. What is the cracker’s motive? There’s a big difference between me cracking my DVDs to make backups and a high school student ripping off Blockbuster. Why should I be hindered? I bought the DVD and my changes are for my own use. There is no economic harm to anyone but me if I make multiple copies for my own use.

It seems to me that IPCentral’s contributors are squeemish about using *gasp* law enforcement to separate the two. I wouldn’t mind increasing the FBI’s IP enforcement division 200% in order to ensure that they could shut down mass copying at universities for example. At its core, it’s a social, not a technological problem, and the only way to make extremely good DRM is to sacrifice openness and competition in IT.

The one thing that I find most annoying about DeLong, at least, is his avoidance of the technical issues involved in implementing his legal ideas. On what technical basis does he assume that his ideas about DRM are feasible? My primary experience is in application and web development, but I do have some formal education in operating system design. The technical problems are quite real, and what I don’t see is DeLong posting concise implementation ideas. Interoperable, open DRM that doesn’t balkanize IT is great! So what’s his plan for how to make it happen when there is both a business and technical incentive for a leading DRM vendor to be 110% proprietary in their approach? I seriously doubt that DeLong and others really appreciate the technical ramifications of what they propose. Ironically, the PC industry was made possible by the violationg of IP rights.

Sorry for the rant and I’m sorry that you end up doing the grunt work here for him.

Perhaps content vs. tech is the wrong way of looking at the breakdown of interests. Incumbents vs. disruptors is more like it – with the DMCA providing protection for the incumbents. Piracy is largely a red herring – as people like Ed Felten and Tim have demonstrated again and again.

All this proves is that incumbent content companies think that DRM does something. They might be right, but they also might just be gullible and risk-averse.

Also, the fact that it hasn’t been a nightmare for you (or for the business community) doesn’t mean it’s hasn’t been a nightmare for anyone. Perhaps the reason there are so many geek activists is that they’re the ones for whom the DMCA is a nightmare.

-Well-financed business models that do not use DRM continue to be … thin. So DRM does seem to be doing something. It does not prevent piracy in the sense of stopping determined crackers. What DRM does do is enable sales to ordinary people who might casually pilfer if the cost (in time and trouble, not money necessarily) of doing so were absolutely negligible. This is two sides of the same coin, but, still, different sides.

-What the DMCA seems to have done is manage to keep the commercial development of consumer- friendly cracking tools enough in check to keep the costs of cracking (not monetary costs, obviously, but time and trouble) higher than it would otherwise be. Whether this effect is necessary, helpful, or negligible is very hard to say–it probably differs with the media in question. My colleagues have done more in this area than I have.

Here’s what we do know: Lots of business models that use DRM have cropped up since the passage of the DMCA, and while there have been problems it has not proven to be the nightmare for tech that some anticipated; it is an activist issue but not so much a business issue.

Again, an analogy to the ban on lock-picking tools–is this absolutely necessary? I can imagine a world without such a rule, but I think a lot of effort would be expended on the simple act of securing doors; a lot of folks would prefer to be doing something else. Is it helpful? Is that enough? It might be, unless one is an “act utilitarian.” I’m not.

Bottom line: Back to my starting point. In an environment where boundaries of any kind were getting awfully hard to maintain, it isn’t surprising that there has been legal tinkering to compensate. This is problematic, but that direction is unlikely to be abandoned unless there is some other solution to the enforcement problem.

-Software and other digital-age tools being potentially much more varied and flexible than tools to manipulate “meat space,” the line between crowbars and specialized lock-picking tools becomes hard to draw. Lots of tough calls. Again, I’m not an “act utilitarian,” I just hope that the line can be drawn somewhere where as little damage is done as possible.

Oops, that was supposed to be short. Crikey.

Another thought, though, that I want to jot down before it gets away from me: the DMCA was passed long before the Supreme Court decided Grokster. One thing to think about is the extent to which the boost they give to antiquated enforcement methods overlaps. I will have to think about this some more and where one might go with it.

I think this is precisely the grounds on which the merits of the DMCA debate should be argued. I would be curious to see you elaborate on your view on the effectiveness of DRM (and the DMCA) at preventing piracy.

There’s also a question about whether those “specialized tools” have other legitimate uses. A crowbar is a useful burglary tool, but you would not (I assume) support banning it on those grounds, since crowbars are also useful for many legal activities, such as home improvement. Likewise, the merits of banning “circumvention devices” turns not only on whether doing so will reduce piracy, but also on whether the ban will needlessly constrain people who are not engaged in piracy.