An honest expansion of cinema into the home
(First published on IT World Canada blog)
I have never hidden that I consider so-called Digital Rights Management (DRM) to be dishonest, oftencalling it Dishonest Relationship Misinformation. I have alsosuggested that fairness is a matter of law and not technology. I will use the expansion of cinemainto the home to illustrate the differences.
The cinema relationship
The relationships in the traditional cinema experience are simple. Copyright holders authorize movie theatres to display (public performance in copyrigh tterms) the movie. Audiences pay for tickets to enter into the theatre, and are presumed to not be doing any copyright regulated activities (ie: no recording, etc).
Put in other terms, copyright holders authorize a platform to display the content. The platform is owned by someone other than the audience, with the audience only doing things that do not require a license or any interaction with copyright law at all. If an audience member doesn't pay their ticketand goes in anyway, they are breaking the law but it is not copyright law: most likely trespass.
The traditional/analog home entertainment experience
This is where the audiences owns the platform, and purchases, rents or licenses content that can be displayed on the hardware that they own (VCR, TV, cassette/recordplayers, stereo, etc). It is the audience that chooses what brands of technology they will purchase, and copyright holders directly license audiences to do any copyright regulated activities. If the hardware is locked in any way to keep unauthorized people away from it, it is the owner (audience) and not a third party that has thekeys.
The media formats that win are those that are not dependant on any specific technology brand, with vendor-neutral standards being the norm and the most open platform winning when there are less open competitors (VHS winning overBetamax).
An extension of cinema into the home
With digital technology it is possible to create a smart technology platform that is owned by a third party just as the movie theatres are, and yet the sound and picture are viewable from within the home.
The platform could be owned by a variety of intermediaries, including cable companies or possibly even the traditional theatres wanting to move into this market. The platform would be locked such that it is the owner, not audience, that controls the platform. Like the traditional cinema experience, the audience is presumed to not be doing any copyright regulated activities and thus do not need to be licensed by copyright holders.
From the perspective of the audience, they are renting or otherwise possess but do not own the technology platform. They are paying fees to the platform owner to view content just as they would for cinema outside the home.
There is an obvious need to regulate this relationship to ensure that the privacy and other rights of audiences are protected, just like we have laws to protect tenants who are living in a home owned by someone else.
Like any other situation with locked property, it must be illegal for someone other than the owner to circumvent the locks. It must be made clear to audiences that no matter what the payment system is (one time, monthly, whatever) that they do not own the hardware, and should never be confused in tobelieving that they do. Confusion on the question of ownership will make enforcement of the property rights and the locks protecting those rights far more complex. Audiences should not be held legally responsible when the question of ownership is deliberately obfuscated by the platform owner or their agents.
What is wrong with the current DRM situation
The problem with current DRM systems is that they are offering technology similar to what I described as the extension of the cinema relationship into the home, but misdirecting policy makers and the public by falsely claiming it is like the traditional/analog home entertainment experience. The question of who owns what, who manages the keys to digital locks, and what regulatory regime should be used to keep all the various relationships fair and honest are deliberately obfuscated.
Anyone with a respect for the rule of law should be rejecting this obfuscation, but unfortunately lawmakers currently seem unaware of these abuses.
A technology person will notice that what I described as a honest extension of cinema into the home uses pretty much the identical technology to what is currently called DRM. The difference is entirely in the honesty of the relationships, and whether the appropriate laws are regulating those relationships.
Federal Copyright Bill -32, currently being debated by a special legislative committee, grants legal protection to this deliberate and dishonest obfuscation. While it is possible to ratify the two 1996 WIPO treaties and respect the traditional contours of existing Canadian law (federal and provincial), the government has thus far chosen a very different path. I believe it is critical that Canadians speak out and demand that politicians pay better attention to this critical issue.
—
Russell McOrmond is a self employed consultant, policy coordinator for CLUE:Canada's Association for Free/Libre and Open Source Software, co-coordinator for Getting Open Source Logic INto Governments (GOSLING), and host for DigitalCopyright Canada.