Ok, everyone hates DRM. So, what instead?

You have two topics.

The owners of IP getting paid on an ongoing basis for their work. (As an engineer I actually don't get paid for my IP on an ongoing basis though millions of people will enjoy my work and my IP).

DRM alternates.
One simple DRM alternate is simple in concept and hard to make real.
Either make digital content so cheap that copies are not worth the trouble. Or make it so you can't duplicate the product while making it so you can enjoy it wherever you happen to be.

A paperback book is a good example of the first. You can copy a book. The cost of photocoping it though is more than the book. The time to scan and shift to digital format to enjoy on your laptop, not worth the effort.

A DVD is a fair example of the latter. Any DVD player you put it in, it will play. I say fair because this actually isnt' true. Some DVD's will not play on some equipment due to copy protection schemes. DRM shemes try to make digital content work like that DVD. The lack of interoperablity, that you don't own the media, that you can't put the media on any device abler to play the media are all major problems.

If they could invent a file type that can't be copied (which is rather hard in digital) they would have the perfect DRM. You would own one book/dvd that can be enjoyed anywhere you want to enjoy it but you only have the one copy. Of course this would preclude a backup...but nobody has a backup for their paperbacks...

Folks have to separate out that anyone who makes IP had any right whatsoever to get paid for the work. The have zero right to get paid. They only have a right to market their work, and if and only if, the market holds the work as having value will they get paid.

Also the market works differently for different IP holders. Architects and Engineers have a completely different structure for their IP than what most people think about when they discuss copyright and IP. The A/E world get's paid ONCE for their work.

Well, how about nothing instead.

Yes, it sounds unreasonable. But in reality, no matter how good DRM is, within hours it is broken and put on the torrents. The "Zero Day" crowd are exceptionally good at it, and get a lot of kudos from their peers for being the first to crack a new product.

The only people who are harmed by DRM are the legitimate users. No one else is. By leaving software DRM free, your software is easier to copy, of course. But it's going to be copied anyway, DRM or not. Why invest money in DRM technology, when there is no appreciable return on investment? DRM only harms the legitimate user.

Spore is an excellent example of this. My partner and I each purchased a copy (before we were aware of the DRM.) We pre-ordered those copies in fact. 5 days before the game was released to the public, it was already available on the torrents. Obviously, EA's DRM scheme did absolutely nothing to protect that game, and it's left legitimate users angry and dismayed. From a PR perspective, it's a nightmare. Companies need to learn that piracy is a part of the digital market (like it or not. Personally, I don't like it, but it is a fact). By not investing in DRM, they can use those resources instead to lower the price of the game or to invest in R&D on new and efficient coding techniques (like better AI). Both would increase sales.

I sympathize with the content providers who feel a need to protect their intellectual property. But they have to be aware that games have been copied since the beginning of the computer revolution. (I remember people copying game disks on the C-64 and Commodore Amiga). Torrenting allows people to do that on a larger scale, but that doesn't make it much different. Their best bet is to create a unique gaming experience, and then people would be willing to pay good money.

Now here's an idea: Copied games are rarely, if ever registered. Pirates are (rightly) concerned that they could end up being found out. So why not provide exclusive content to those who register the game. Or, release the game engine for free, and charge for online access to the content itself. Don't worry about the software. It's the content that's valuable.

Just my 2 cents.

Tap water is virtually free but bottled water companies have convinced people that quality, convenience (and strangely, social status) are all good reasons to pay for it.

Record companies need to play up how much better their product is than files you pull off of P2P networks. Play up the safety issue (you won?t get viruses and malware). Playup the convenience issue (it won?t take you days to get all the songs off a particular album). And then offer high quality, DRM-free downloads with bonuses like liner notes and high res art to make the deal even sweeter. Do all of it at a reasonable price and you make the experience of buying music legally better than mucking around with file sharing software.

There will inevitably be some leakage. You?ll always have the demographic that is looking to justify what they were going to do anyway who parades out the tired old arguments about how ?music should be free? and ?artists make their money off of touring anyway?. But DRM isn?t stopping them anyway its just giving them another excuse. But some of the leakage is part of doing business. Think of it as building goodwill with your fans and customers. I spend 30-40 bucks a month on new music at Amazon and eMusic. 2 or three of my close friends and I share some of the best new tracks we?ve heard with one another. And when we share a bit we also end up buying more music from these new artists. Funny how that works, huh?

DRM is completely ineffective at protecting artists work as hackers can always get around it, and it only needs to broken once to be put on bit torrent.
So not only does DRM only punish the consumers who do the right thing, but it's a waste of resources and effort for content producers.

What about water marks on the songs or paying for the songs that work on different MP3 players like Amazon does. Having Songs and Movies under fair use so that some one can back up there songs or movies because putting DRM is only punishing the people who don't pirate. They don't hurt the people to Pirate the songs movies or software.

First I belive that artists (not promo companies) should benifit from copyrights.

I belive copyright should be held by a person and not a company/legal entity.

Copyright should be 14 years. (as the study shows)

What i think should be is that artist makes a work and has lifetime rights that totally expire once they die.

But after the 14 years the copyrighted work goes into public domain for the consumer.

This means that say you write a book, no one can re-publish it without your concent for your lifetime.
But the Average Joe/Jane after 14 years could give out copies all he/she wanted without charging for them.

This means a movie made by Disney can't be copied ever untill the holder dies. (there could be rules that allow for a limited ammount of transfer but there would still be a end date thats 100% firm and irevocable unless they did a re-release in the same venue (like a movie would need to be re-shown in theathers) before the copyright expired. (for softwear i don't know how that would be handeled)


But there is a option to replace DRM.
Controlling the install via seriel #'s and such.
I give Stardock as a good responsable party for this situation.
For there products you buy them and play and can move between UNLIMITED computers because there is NO DRM.
But its YOURS.. you OWN IT.. you don't own a LICENSE!!!!! You can't sell it though (per there EULA as i understand you waive that option to have unlimited installs without DRM)

so there are ways to do proper management without DRM per say that does NOT affect the legit consumer.
And there are ways to allow companies to make money and services and allow consumers there god given rights.

I have a choice...

* Pay for media - get less
* Don't pay - get more

People will always copy, and copying will always get easier (remember how hard copying a text book was on a photo-copier).

david

Okay, I ask you:
5000 buys and 100 pirates DRM
or 6000 buys and 1000 pirates no DRM
It's not costing you anything to have it pirated.