[Sigia-l] On DRM

[Olly Wright]

On SundayDec 3, at 2:44 PM, Laurie Gray wrote:

> I don't know that this is the strongest argument - it WAS easy to copy
> from one format to the other! I remember being thrilled as a teenager
> at getting an all-in-one home audio system that contained a turntable
> and dual tape deck so I could transfer my albums to tape, or copy
> existing tapes...

Yes good point. Making cassettes off your vinyl was very normal  
behaviour. And fun :) But this was different in that it is a one-way  
process, was slow and involves a whole lot of loss of quality. If we  
were willing to do this today we could get past any DRM... just copy  
the the audio-out from your PC onto another recorder, or (with some  
cable-hassle) do this with video too. Although I understand the new  
HDMI connector has some blocks for this, they think of everything...   
But the point is we don't do this anymore, we see it as too much like  
hard work.

>
> To me, and I suspect many others, that mp3 file on my computer is just
> that. A file. And it's on *my* computer. Because of this, and that
> fact that I'm not really seeing or holding it in my hand, per se, like
> I would a CD or cassette or album, I *am* disconnected from the fact
> that it technically belongs to someone else.


Yes I think this is at the centre of the point I was raising. The  
intuition has changed somewhere. In the past we associated in the  
content with the physical form that held it, and applied physical  
laws to it. Now we see the content as a computer file, and apply the  
same intuitions to it that we do to our other digital files: such as  
simple and fast copying, duplication at no cost.

As an IA trying to make user friendly consumer experiences for DRM'd  
content, I'm trying to understand what the natural intuitions would  
be for users.  And then design user-interface metaphors that they can  
easily associate with. I personally believe that one of the most  
effective ways to make something user friendly is for it to behave as  
people expect it to... In the case of DRM'd content this is tricky,  
as it is hard to figure out what peoples expectations really are.

I find the whole rental of web-delivered digital movies situation  
very interesting in this regard also.

The idea of 'rental' of a digital movie makes no sense. Just none  
whatsoever. If taken out of the historical context of old physical  
media. The 'value' of rental is tied to the notion that a movie is a  
physical object, a dvd or vhs cassette. Rental has value in this  
context because you only get to keep the object for a given amount of  
time, then you give it back and someone else can use it. Blockbuster  
get it back and can make more money off it with the next customer. No  
problem with that.

But why 'rent' a digital object? There is no value in returning it,  
no purpose in switching the file off. E-blockbuster can't resell that  
file to someone else any more easily because your file just timed  
out. We're applying our physical-media intuitions to an area where  
they don't apply. The old rules just don't make sense when looked at  
with sufficient scrutiny.

And yet the rental of digital movies is something that most media  
companies and consumers have accepted reflexively without questioning  
the foundations. It is familiar and intuitive so we accept it, yet  
underneath it is nonsense, groundless. A curious thing.

I suspect this is behind Apple's refusal to have rental on iTunes,  
and why the 3-play limit on Zune squirted tracks is offensive. My  
prediction is that the time-out / play-limited methods of providing  
content will die a death sooner rather than later, once people's  
intuitions catch up with reality and consumers see it for the thinly- 
veiled marketing ploy that it is (that delivers them no value  
whatsoever).

Olly Wright