Ian Morris

Friday 18 May 2007, 12:34pm

What's in a name?

A lot, according to Bob Zitter, CTO of US cable channel HBO. In his infinite corporate wisdom, Zitter reckons the problem with DRM isn't that it restricts what people can do with their legally acquired media. It's the name. So he proposes a change, to make the consumer understand that DRM is here to help us and enhance our lives.

Zitter claims that for the public to embrace DRM, all movie studios need to do is rename it. His suggestion for the new name is "Digital Consumer Enablement". Clearly he thinks this will evoke thoughts of fluffy kittens and puppies in the mind of the consumer. For me, it evokes thoughts of conservative politicians reframing reality -- like calling the inheritance tax the 'death tax'.

He says DRM allows consumers to "use content in ways they haven't before". In fact, what it does is stop customers from using their media in ways that used to be perfectly acceptable. For example, in the old days, you could lend a VHS or DVD of your favourite movie to a friend with no problem at all. Can you do that with a DRM-infected download? With a CD, you could copy it to your MP3 player -- can you do the same with a DVD or downloaded movie? No, because DRM isn't about fair use, it's about squeezing every last penny out of the consumer.

Obviously, there are ways round the copy protection on DVD, but that's not the point. I don't want to be forced to break a law to use my licensed content on a portable device. So therefore DRM isn't enabling anything. It's restricting. So I propose a name of my own: from now on, DRM should be called Digital Content Restriction.

Oh, and if you don't think DRM -- sorry, DCR -- is a problem now, imagine a situation where your next-generation HD disc will only play on one player, so you can't lend it to anyone. It may sound far fetched, but I believe that's what awaits us if we don't start making a noise now...

0 Comments | Post a comment