Meatspace vs. Cyberspace

by on May 11, 2006 · 18 comments

Yesterday I responded to Solveig Singleton’s comments about the Linux DVD player issue. Today I want to focus on the other major argument of her posts, namely that DRM is sufficiently effective that the DMCA is worth it even if it does have some disadvantages.

Unfortunately, the debate over whether DRM is effective often has a “Does not! Does too!” quality to it. I’m going to try to dig into the matter a little more deeply to see if we can get past that to some substantive discussion of when DRM is effective and when it isn’t. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.


To start off, here’s a stylized version of the typical debate over the effectiveness of DRM, in which I’ll cast Jack Valenti as the pro-DRM advocate:

JV: Our industry is being overwhelmed by piracy! Millions of young people are getting music and movies for free that they ought to be paying for. We need new technological and legal tools to protect our rights.

TL: This is nothing new. Since at least the 1970s, every new media technology–the cassette tape, the VCR, CD burners–has brought with it new capabilities for copying. The RIAA and MPAA has cried wolf with each technology, yet in each case the warnings proved overblown. The movie industry seems to have survived the tape deck, VCR, and CD burner just fine.

JV: But this time it’s different, because the Internet changes everything. Peer-to-peer applications allow people, with the click of the mouse, and without authorization, to send illicit files hurtling at the speed of light to every nook and cranny of this planet. Piracy tools are a lot more efficient than they used to be, and so we need new tools to fight back.

TL: But as the darknet critique shows, DRM isn’t going to prevent the spread of illicit files on peer-to-peer networks. All DRM schemes have flaws, and it just takes one person to crack the DRM scheme and upload the file to make the DRM scheme completely ineffective.

JV: Well sure, nobody said that DRM was perfect. Obviously, sophisticated hackers will always be able to break DRM if they try hard enough. But at least DRM will have some deterrent effect. It will keep honest users honest, and reduce the temptation of busy users to infringe.

There are actually two very different types of copyright infringement being discussed here, and I think a lot of sloppy thinking results when we confuse them.

The first, which I’ll call meatspace infringement occurs when you copy an orginal copyrighted file from someone you know in real life. This might include using your two-cassette tape deck to copy an audio tape, burning a copy of your friend’s CD, or running DeCSS on a friend’s DVD to make a copy for your laptop.

The second, which I’ll call cyberspace infringement occurs when you receive a file from a stranger on the Internet. This typically occurs using a peer-to-peer application like Grokster, but can also occur on the web, in a news group, or via email.

If you look at my imaginary exchange with Mr. Valenti, you’ll see that he’s promiscuously mixing up these two types of infringement. Let’s try to pull them apart and see how effective DRM is against each.

Meatspace infringement: DRM indisputably does deter some meatspace infringement. It’s easier to make a copy of a CD than it is to make a copy of a DVD, because the latter has CSS. I have to go out to the Internet and download a tool like DeCSS if I want to make my friend a copy of my DVD. However, the question is why is this any different from past generations of copying technologies? Banning dual-tape decks, VCRs, and CD burners would also reduce piracy. Yet people generally agree that doing so wouldn’t be worth the cost. They recognize that, as the Supreme Court put it in the Betamax decision, we need to balance the need for effective copyright protection against the “rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce.” Hollywood’s ownership of (some) copyrighted TV shows doesn’t give it the right to dictate what features VCRs are allowed to have. By the same token, Hollywood’s ownership of (some) DVD movies shouldn’t give it the power to decide who’s allowed to build a DVD player.

So why is 2006 different from 1984? That brings us to:

Cyberspace infringement: This really is new. It’s a big problem that (as far as I’ve seen) no one has really proposed a satisfactory solution to. It didn’t exist in 1984. But here’s the thing: DRM doesn’t prevent cyberspace infringement. It doesn’t even slow it down very much. As soon as one person cracks the DRM and uploads a copy to a peer-to-peer network, DRM has become useless. And on an Internet with a billion users, the cracking process is likely to measured in days, if not hours or minutes. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that DRM has no effect at all on the prevelance of cyberspace infringement.

When I wrote that DRM doesn’t prevent piracy, this is what I was talking about. I used the analogy of the Maginot line in my paper: no matter how high you make the DRM walls, it only takes a single breach and DRM becomes completely ineffective against cyberspace infringement, as everyone “drives around” the wall by downloading an already-cracked copy from a peer-to-peer network.

So with that very long introduction as background, let’s turn to Singleton’s argument:

DRM does not prevent all piracy. DRM schemes can be broken, some rather quickly, by determined hacktivists or whoever. The results, both hacker tools and decrypted content, are readily available on the Internet. But you have to go get them. And they are not sanitized in the manner of licensed offerings. An awful lot of consumers just don’t have the time or inclination to mess with this sort of thing.

I’m not sure I follow her example, as it sounds like in both cases he’s violating the DMCA (region-free DVD players are presumably circumvention devices) But in any event, she’s clearly talking about meatspace infringement here, and correctly noting that DRM has some deterrent effect on it. But then in the very next paragraph she switches to talking about cyberspace piracy:

DRM does not stop determined pirates. But that, coupled with the DMCA, makes it necessary for those making unauthorized copies to use black-market sources that are not especially convenient. This is enough to stimy those who would free-ride if the cost in time and trouble were near zero, but not otherwise. The idea that there are two classes of content consumer, the determined pirate and the honest consumer, and nothing in between, is nonsense. There are in my experience precious few in the latter category, especially in certain age groups. My young brother-in-law, for example, reported that he was the only student at his university he knew who did not download music from unlicensed P2P networks.

The cost of meatspace infringement is never “near zero.” Even back in the days before DRM, when dual-tape decks and pre-macrovision VCRs were the norm, lots of people paid for music and movies. The combination of convenience and a clean conscience was worth the money to them. The primary barrier to meatspace-copying a DVD isn’t CSS, it’s the time (and possibly the embarrassment) required to find a friend who has the DVD you want, borrow it, purchase DVD-R media, and make the copy. Most consumers wouldn’t bother to do that even with no CSS, just as most people who own CD burners still buy CDs. If that weren’t the case, the recording industry would have gone out of business in the 1970s, and Hollywood would have gone under in the 1980s.

But in this paragraph, she’s suddenly switched to talking about cyberspace infringement. The cost of that has been dropping rapidly, and at least for college students with a lot of time on their hands, its cost is pretty close to zero. But you’ll notice she doesn’t give any example of cyberspace infringers who are deterred by DRM. DRM simply doesn’t have any effect on peer-to-peer infringement.

So we seem to have a mild case of schizophrenia here. Singleton claims (1) that DRM reduces infringement, and (2) that unchecked infringement is destroying the content industries. Together, these seem like a pretty compelling case for DRM, at least until you realize that (1) and (2) refer to totally distinct types of infringement. (1) is about meatspace infringement, which isn’t a significantly bigger problem today than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. (2) is about cyberspace infringement, against which DRM is totally ineffective.

This reminds me a little bit of the experience I have every time I go into an airport. Airports these days are full of pointless security restrictions. My local airport, for example, has closed the closest couple of rows, presumably to prevent someone from driving a truck bomb into the airport. I have to take my shoes off for scanning. I have to surrender nail files to the security guards. When I point out that this is silly, the usual response is “9/11 changed everything.” Ever since September 11, no proposal to beef up security is too outlandish, even if most of it wouldn’t have done a thing to stop an attack like 9/11.

Similarly, Singleton seems to believe that illicit peer-to-peer networks change everything. And she may even be right. The problem is that the policy solutions she offers won’t do anything to stop illicit peer-to-peer networks. Her policy prescriptions only have an effect on old-fashioned meatspace infringement. But there’s no reason to think meatspace infringement has become a bigger problem in recent years. We didn’t think the threat of meatspace infringement was worth banning copying technologies in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s, and there’s no reason we should think differently today. Banning DeCSS to stop Grokster is akin to making people park farther from the airport to prevent another 9/11. It’s not completely useless, but the policy prescription isn’t really connected to the problem it’s purported to solve.

  • Doug Lay

    Singleton has a new paper out on the subject under PFF masthead. It appears to have been hurriedly thrown together, and has already been vigorously critiqued by some of the usual crew of good guys (EFF, Tech Dirt, Politechbot). It’s becoming pretty clear why Singleton is so irritated by you and your paper, Tim – you’re making the poor woman do some work!

    On a related note, while Singleton’s defense of the DMCA may or may not be sincere, I get the strong feeling that if she came out on the other side of the issue whe would be looking for a new job in a hurry. Would anyone care to call that an unfair statement?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Doug: I don’t think that’s really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don’t think that proves my views on those issues are insincere.

    One of the nice things about working in Washington is that if you’re smart enough, you can get a job advocating just about any position on the political spectrum. I think think tanks tend to hire scholars who already agree with them, rather than scholars changing their views to fit the outlook of their employer. So while PFF’s management may choose people with a particular outlook on IP issues, I don’t think that proves that any of them are insincere, any more than I’m insincere when I advocate lower taxes or school choice.

  • Doug Lay

    Tim:

    It sounds like you do think that support for the DMCA may be a requirement for working at PFF. Am I reading you wrong?

  • Doug Lay

    Singleton has a new paper out on the subject under PFF masthead. It appears to have been hurriedly thrown together, and has already been vigorously critiqued by some of the usual crew of good guys (EFF, Tech Dirt, Politechbot). It’s becoming pretty clear why Singleton is so irritated by you and your paper, Tim – you’re making the poor woman do some work!

    On a related note, while Singleton’s defense of the DMCA may or may not be sincere, I get the strong feeling that if she came out on the other side of the issue whe would be looking for a new job in a hurry. Would anyone care to call that an unfair statement?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Doug: I’ve never worked there, so I don’t know. Obviously, everyone at PFF who’s written on the topic has been pro-DMCA, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

    My point was simply that if it’s true, it’s not especially unusual, and it doesn’t discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren’t sincere?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Doug: I don’t think that’s really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don’t think that proves my views on those issues are insincere.

    One of the nice things about working in Washington is that if you’re smart enough, you can get a job advocating just about any position on the political spectrum. I think think tanks tend to hire scholars who already agree with them, rather than scholars changing their views to fit the outlook of their employer. So while PFF’s management may choose people with a particular outlook on IP issues, I don’t think that proves that any of them are insincere, any more than I’m insincere when I advocate lower taxes or school choice.

  • Doug Lay

    Tim:

    It sounds like you do think that support for the DMCA may be a requirement for working at PFF. Am I reading you wrong?

  • Doug Lay

    >> My point was simply that if it’s true, it’s not especially unusual, and it doesn’t discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren’t sincere?

    Not necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind. EFF makes no bones about being a lobbying organization, and it’s undobtedly true that an EFF employee wouldn’t have the same freedom to publicly change their mind about core issues as a tenured college professor.

    Regarding PFF, here is a paragraph taken from the IPCentral “about us” page (http://ipcentral.info/about/index.html):

    “Beyond this basic dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation, we regard everything as subject to analysis and dispute. How to adapt classic institutions to the computer age presents devilish and intriguing problems.”

    I simply do not believe the first sentence. If there is any evidence that dispute over the merits of the DMCA is welcome at PFF, it is certainly very well-hidden. Obviously there are plenty of people with “dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation” who oppose the DMCA. I doubt there is any place for them at PFF, however.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Doug: I’ve never worked there, so I don’t know. Obviously, everyone at PFF who’s written on the topic has been pro-DMCA, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

    My point was simply that if it’s true, it’s not especially unusual, and it doesn’t discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren’t sincere?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Plenty of think tanks hire people who tend to agree with their point of view. That includes the one I work for now and the one I worked for previously. I don’t know if PFF preferentially hires DMCA supporters, but I don’t think it’s a problem if they do. I’m much more interested in rebutting their arguments than speculating about their motives.

  • Doug Lay

    >> My point was simply that if it’s true, it’s not especially unusual, and it doesn’t discredit anyone who works there. I doubt EFF would hire anyone who supported the DMCA. Does that mean their arguments aren’t sincere?

    Not necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind. EFF makes no bones about being a lobbying organization, and it’s undobtedly true that an EFF employee wouldn’t have the same freedom to publicly change their mind about core issues as a tenured college professor.

    Regarding PFF, here is a paragraph taken from the IPCentral “about us” page (http://ipcentral.info/about/index.html):

    “Beyond this basic dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation, we regard everything as subject to analysis and dispute. How to adapt classic institutions to the computer age presents devilish and intriguing problems.”

    I simply do not believe the first sentence. If there is any evidence that dispute over the merits of the DMCA is welcome at PFF, it is certainly very well-hidden. Obviously there are plenty of people with “dedication to property rights, markets, and minimal regulation” who oppose the DMCA. I doubt there is any place for them at PFF, however.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Plenty of think tanks hire people who tend to agree with their point of view. That includes the one I work for now and the one I worked for previously. I don’t know if PFF preferentially hires DMCA supporters, but I don’t think it’s a problem if they do. I’m much more interested in rebutting their arguments than speculating about their motives.

  • enigma_foundry

    “Doug: I don’t think that’s really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don’t think that proves my views on those issues are insincere.”

    Understood. But in support of Doug, I would note the continued distortion of PFF’s statements about their motivations, using terms such as ‘Free Market’ and ‘Freedom’ when they actually appear to advocate some form of encroachment of property rights on the First Amendment. Basically, a power grab by a few large corporations, who are trying to subvert First Amendment. And PFF is the Front.

    Their continued refusal to acknowledge the conlfict between the DCMA and First Amendment is a bit frustrating.

    I was always taught in rhetoric to state your opponents case better then they themselves could state it and then show the fallacies in their position.

    PFF as a matter of policy mis-states and misconstrues the arguments of their opponents (those against the DCMA or part of the free culture movement)

    That is why:

    1. Their website could not allow comments,
    2. Few actually have any respect for their intellectual integrity.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    “Doug: I don’t think that’s really a fair statement. Most think tanks have some ideological orientation. If I decided I was for socialized medicine or higher taxes, my employers would probably ask me to find someplace else to work. I don’t think that proves my views on those issues are insincere.”

    Understood. But in support of Doug, I would note the continued distortion of PFF’s statements about their motivations, using terms such as ‘Free Market’ and ‘Freedom’ when they actually appear to advocate some form of encroachment of property rights on the First Amendment. Basically, a power grab by a few large corporations, who are trying to subvert First Amendment. And PFF is the Front.

    Their continued refusal to acknowledge the conlfict between the DCMA and First Amendment is a bit frustrating.

    I was always taught in rhetoric to state your opponents case better then they themselves could state it and then show the fallacies in their position.

    PFF as a matter of policy mis-states and misconstrues the arguments of their opponents (those against the DCMA or part of the free culture movement)

    That is why:

    1. Their website could not allow comments,
    2. Few actually have any respect for their intellectual integrity.

  • Solveig Singleton

    Several comments in response:

    –There is no requirement that one support the DMCA to work at PFF. Adam doesn’t, for one. Doug’s paper doesn’t. Jim and I would like to see alternatives, which so far are weak.

    –We accept email comments and post thoughtful ones on our blog. Send us a thoughtful comment and see! Of the comments we have received by email, most are thoughtful. I think they compare very favorably with blog comments.

    –I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy… but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both. The Grokster case (an entirely different topic) also addresses cyber piracy, of course, and is a key element. The larger point remains… I believe there is a big different between DeCSS or assorted unlicensed P2P networks as they exist today and what they would look like if they were taken over by, say, IBM or Microsoft and mass-marketed.

    Again, if DRM is doing NOTHING, the question, why is the content industry across the board (games, movies, music, photographers, software) putting so much energy into business models based on that? The theory is that they are 1) evil 2) stupid or 3) technologically blind. That strikes me as implausible–we are talking about a LOT of people working in creative fields. But if it were true, again, it would be a huge, gaping opportunity for some good, intellgient, and tech-savvy entrepreneur to come in and beat them at their own game. Investors would be falling all over themselves to fund this person. And it ain’t happening. It is still possible that someone will come in and do this, of course, we will have to see.

    Finally, alternatives? Still none.

    4) One final argument, that content markets do not need DMCA (or DRM) help at all… I will do a separate post on. I think that is a more interesting argument than all the stuff about security research and competition. But also very difficult.

    5) Re the intellectual integrity of PFF… Sigh. Yes, PFF has donors, corporate donors. A wide array of them, with differing views. We are very grateful for their support, without which we would not have desks, chairs, phones, or hold conferences, which are expensive. We are grateful for their war stories from the fast-changing world of business–though we have many other sources. But our opinions on the matter of what makes good policy are our own; our views on intellectual property are generally congruent with those of some of our donors (not with others), but our views are not derived from those of our donors. There is an important difference.

    PFF is a non-profit. The people who work there have eschewed work in much-better-paying jobs as lawyers or lobbyists for a reason. They believe in free markets. While I have found their ideas of what free markets might look like in futureto be somewhat broader than my former colleagues at CEI and Cato, as befits a think tank focussing on issues at the cutting edge of technology, their commitment to free markets is just as strong.

    The ability to function as a “hired gun,” to adopt a vision of someone else’s self-interest as if it were one’s own, and in the general interest, is an extremely valuable skill, and is very well compensated. As a general matter (with a few exceptions) those of us who work in think tanks (left and right) inside the Beltway either do not have this skill at all, or have given it up. I never had it. I was far too fond of my own opinion to function in a law firm. So now I earn perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of what most of the folks I graduated with earn. But I do have my independence, whatever that is worth.

    Most of the folks who comment on the connection between donors and think tanks as if they were shedding some deep light on the motivations of the organization simply do not know anything about how think tanks operate. It is easier, however, to write posts of this sort rather than contending with the substance of the issue.

    My experience in Washington DC is that rarely, very rarely, a non-profit ideologically committed to one position will get itself in a position where it depends on just one or two donors, and face losing its independence on one or more issues. But that does *not* happen all that often.

    Finally, my own views on IP, DRM and the DMCA have changed over the years chiefly because of the following:

    -Having a front row seat when Jim Delong and I were at CEI together, where many, many internal IP debates raged (Fred Smith was another player here).
    -Marrying a computer game designer, who comes from a family where the main economic actors have for a couple of generations been research scientists. These are not people who have any difficulty with the idea that taking IP is stealing! Got me thinking about how one’s expectations shape what one thinks of as property, morality, rights.
    -Watching forensics shows on TV. I used to do this to relax. But it, too, got me thinking how much of my efforts with abstract legal concepts during the day depend on working enforcement mechanisms, and what problems might arise if we take those for granted.

    Enough. Will post more tomorrow.

    Cheers,
    Solveig

  • Solveig Singleton

    Several comments in response:

    –There is no requirement that one support the DMCA to work at PFF. Adam doesn’t, for one. Doug’s paper doesn’t. Jim and I would like to see alternatives, which so far are weak.

    –We accept email comments and post thoughtful ones on our blog. Send us a thoughtful comment and see! Of the comments we have received by email, most are thoughtful. I think they compare very favorably with blog comments.

    –I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy… but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both. The Grokster case (an entirely different topic) also addresses cyber piracy, of course, and is a key element. The larger point remains… I believe there is a big different between DeCSS or assorted unlicensed P2P networks as they exist today and what they would look like if they were taken over by, say, IBM or Microsoft and mass-marketed.

    Again, if DRM is doing NOTHING, the question, why is the content industry across the board (games, movies, music, photographers, software) putting so much energy into business models based on that? The theory is that they are 1) evil 2) stupid or 3) technologically blind. That strikes me as implausible–we are talking about a LOT of people working in creative fields. But if it were true, again, it would be a huge, gaping opportunity for some good, intellgient, and tech-savvy entrepreneur to come in and beat them at their own game. Investors would be falling all over themselves to fund this person. And it ain’t happening. It is still possible that someone will come in and do this, of course, we will have to see.

    Finally, alternatives? Still none.

    4) One final argument, that content markets do not need DMCA (or DRM) help at all… I will do a separate post on. I think that is a more interesting argument than all the stuff about security research and competition. But also very difficult.

    5) Re the intellectual integrity of PFF… Sigh. Yes, PFF has donors, corporate donors. A wide array of them, with differing views. We are very grateful for their support, without which we would not have desks, chairs, phones, or hold conferences, which are expensive. We are grateful for their war stories from the fast-changing world of business–though we have many other sources. But our opinions on the matter of what makes good policy are our own; our views on intellectual property are generally congruent with those of some of our donors (not with others), but our views are not derived from those of our donors. There is an important difference.

    PFF is a non-profit. The people who work there have eschewed work in much-better-paying jobs as lawyers or lobbyists for a reason. They believe in free markets. While I have found their ideas of what free markets might look like in futureto be somewhat broader than my former colleagues at CEI and Cato, as befits a think tank focussing on issues at the cutting edge of technology, their commitment to free markets is just as strong.

    The ability to function as a “hired gun,” to adopt a vision of someone else’s self-interest as if it were one’s own, and in the general interest, is an extremely valuable skill, and is very well compensated. As a general matter (with a few exceptions) those of us who work in think tanks (left and right) inside the Beltway either do not have this skill at all, or have given it up. I never had it. I was far too fond of my own opinion to function in a law firm. So now I earn perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 of what most of the folks I graduated with earn. But I do have my independence, whatever that is worth.

    Most of the folks who comment on the connection between donors and think tanks as if they were shedding some deep light on the motivations of the organization simply do not know anything about how think tanks operate. It is easier, however, to write posts of this sort rather than contending with the substance of the issue.

    My experience in Washington DC is that rarely, very rarely, a non-profit ideologically committed to one position will get itself in a position where it depends on just one or two donors, and face losing its independence on one or more issues. But that does *not* happen all that often.

    Finally, my own views on IP, DRM and the DMCA have changed over the years chiefly because of the following:

    -Having a front row seat when Jim Delong and I were at CEI together, where many, many internal IP debates raged (Fred Smith was another player here).
    -Marrying a computer game designer, who comes from a family where the main economic actors have for a couple of generations been research scientists. These are not people who have any difficulty with the idea that taking IP is stealing! Got me thinking about how one’s expectations shape what one thinks of as property, morality, rights.
    -Watching forensics shows on TV. I used to do this to relax. But it, too, got me thinking how much of my efforts with abstract legal concepts during the day depend on working enforcement mechanisms, and what problems might arise if we take those for granted.

    Enough. Will post more tomorrow.

    Cheers,
    Solveig

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy… but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both.

    Thanks for commenting! I still don’t think I understand this point. Could you please elaborate? It seems to me that the ability of P2P networks to create an unlimited number of copies of a file means that preventing anything less than 100 percent of people from uploading files has no effect on the number of downloads. What am I missing? In what way does DRM add an “element of inconvenience” to the process?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    I agree with Tim there is a difference between meat space piracy and cyber piracy… but not that it is terribly significant. I do think that DRM inconveniences meat space piracy *more* than it does cyber piracy. But it adds an element of inconvenience to both, and the element of black-marketness adds further inconvenience to both.

    Thanks for commenting! I still don’t think I understand this point. Could you please elaborate? It seems to me that the ability of P2P networks to create an unlimited number of copies of a file means that preventing anything less than 100 percent of people from uploading files has no effect on the number of downloads. What am I missing? In what way does DRM add an “element of inconvenience” to the process?

Previous post:

Next post: