http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/columns/frog-design-mind-157155.php

As more and more consumers have become aware of digital rights management, they’ve taken to spitting out the technology’s acronym, rather than merely speaking it. “Oh, it’s that darn DRM again!” a consumer will screech, flecks of saliva spewing from his mouth. “Stupid DRM won’t let me do this!” It’s a level of venom usually reserved for overzealous traffic cops, or really annoying telemarketers.

DRM has been around a long time in the form of copy protection for software and games, so why such animosity now? The answer lies in the audience. Copy protection has expanded to content your average consumer cares about: movies and music. But DRM doesn’t have to be a swear word. By implementing some clever design choics, content owners can actually turn DRM into an asset, one that gives consumers greater access to digital media.


Music labels and movie studios currently view DRM as the silver bullet to prevent illegal copying of their products on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. As such, DRM in its current forms is so highly restrictive that it prevents even fair use. Fair use includes right to so-called first sale—that is, the ability to resell content you have purchased. Since DRM schemes are most often tied to the device on which they are used, there is no way to resell that Coldplay album you purchased on the iTunes music store unless you sell your computer along with it (save for giving the buyer access to your iTunes account). It’s problematic at best. In the latest blow to fair use, the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently decided that ripping your CDs for backup, or even to digitize music for your iPod, infringes on copyright laws.

Content owners fail to realize that trying to fight P2P file sharing is like trying to fight the rising tide: utterly pointless. They are desperately trying to hang on to outdated business models when the overwhelming popularity of P2P file sharing and the success of MySpace point to new business opportunities.

Consumers want the abundance of content and convenience that P2P networks offer. They are interested in discovering new, smaller artists that appeal to niche markets. Instead of hindering consumers’ needs, DRM could help content owners cater to them. This is already happening with subscription services like Yahoo! Music or Napster, which use DRM to lease consumers all the music they want for a monthly fee. The Apple iTunes Music Store offers the twin conveniences of an easy purchase process and of FairPlay, the least restrictive DRM scheme on the market. But there is room for improvement. The subscription services require a shift in how consumers think about their music libraries. And FairPlay, with its limits (you can only burn a playlist to CD up to 7 times, you can’t use your music on any portable player other than the iPod, etc.), still feels arbitrary and intransigent.



Consumers are accustomed to being able to take the CD they bought and play it in their car, in their home stereo, at work, or at a friend’s house. And that’s what they expect from digital content, too. Why not give them what they want? Promote new TV shows by giving away the pilot unprotected. Make different DRM schemes play nice with each other: if consumers could play the episodes of Lost they purchased on iTunes on their PSP, they would buy more TV shows. Give consumers streaming access to all the music in a catalog without the monthly fee; they will discover more artists and purchase more songs.

Perhaps most importantly of all—and here’s where the design aspect starts to come in—content owners need to rethink the the interactions between DRM technology and users. When you run out of allotted minutes on your cellphone, Verizon doesn’t just cut you off in the middle of a conversation with a message stating, “You have exceeded your minute-usage limit, please wait until next month.” So why are DRM systems being designed to do exactly that, to treat users like either infants or borderline criminals? If DRM let consumers exceed limits when they needed to, the technology would feel more flexible, more like it’s on the Average Joe’s side. And, as a result, there’d be a lot less rage directed against it.

The bottom line is that consumers will consume more if DRM is done the right way, and everyone will come out a winner. So, how can content owners design better DRM schemes? And who’s leading the way? Stay tuned for the next frog Design Mind to find out.

I see nothing in this article that convinces me that DRM can be a "good thing". One can polish a turd as much as possible, but in the end it is still just a turd.

The answer to the whole problem is for the industry to provide content with no restrictions and at a fair price. If this is done, then the problem will take care of itself. Yes, there may still be some file sharing going on and yes, the *AAs may still "lose" a little potential profit, in the end, a majority of people will use the most convenient method to get their entertainment. DRM brings nothing to the table.

Alot of people don't think DRM will ever be an issue for them.

Unless the following things are prevented from happening, it will.

1) MPAA/RIAA/BSA keep crying to congress and eventually get a bill passed like Induce Act 2.0 where all computer hardware must be DRM'd, with RFID and phone home spy technology built into everything.

2) MPAA/RIAA/BSA continue to twist arms of congressmen and pass a bill that makes it a crime to sell used CD's, DVD's.

3) Another bill gets passed like in Japan where the resale of electronics will be illegal, being made a felony with a minimum of 1 year in prison and a $10,000 fine.

4) Another bill gets passes making it illegal to talk about DRM in any organized manner in a blog, or website, whereas a DMCA take down notice will be issued (violating the 1st Amendment of the Constitution). It could happen though, remember, Dubya refers to the Constitution as "a piece of paper".

5) The Pentagon, CIA et. al. stage a secret attack against all the major backbone servers in the United States, knocking most of the internet offline completely throughout the country, and of course, blaming it on Al-Qaeda, and presenting the "more secure, safer" Internet 2, as the savior to rush in and save the world, thus achieving a fully DRM'd INTERNET itself.

6) By this time, anyoone who publicly protests will be tagged as a domestic terrorist and arrested and incarcerated in one of the new Gulags built by the U.S. Army and Dubya's emmisaries.

This article is pro-DRM propaganda disguised as being "pro-consumer".

"By implementing some clever design choics, content owners can actually turn DRM into an asset, one that gives consumers greater access to digital media."

Pure bullshit.

"DRM has been around a long time in the form of copy protection for software and games, so why such animosity now?"

Because the software biz didn't sue 20,000 people at random.

"The bottom line is that consumers will consume more if DRM is done the right way"

This is exactly the kind of butt-stupid logic that indicates we've got years to go before the industry catches a clue.

People do not consume music. They consume food, drink, and other stuff that disappears when you use it. Music is clearly a durable good, like a washing machine. You only replace it if it's worn out. Music can, however, be lost, which rarely happens with my washing machine but I'm missing a couple dozen CDs I know I bought last century. So maybe baseball cards is a better comparison.

People collect music, not consume it. This gives us... "The bottom line is that collectors will collect more if DRM is done the right way."

Collectors tend to value the highest quality of whatever it is they collect. DRM infringes upon the legitimate buyers' enjoyment of the product. It is clearly not desireable. The "right way" to make an audio CD is to follow the CD standard, which does not include DRM.

TrueAudio -- I think you give the government credit for way more actual intelligence (as in brains, not "secret" information) and ability than they deserve.

"I think you give the government credit for way more actual intelligence "

How true. Our government couldn't even figure out how to get food and water to people in New Orleans for several days, long after the media was already there filming it. Here we are, six months later, and most of New Orleans still looks like it was hit by a hurricane. And you think our government is intelligent enough to plan the demise of the internet?

"DRM Doesn’t Have to Suck"

Ya!

Going out of business does not have to suck ever.

But we will see soon what the RIAA/MPAA/Vivendi Universal and other parasites think about this because the rope is almost broken. Only one way to prevent their death would be to refund the money they extorted plus interest, drop all the law suits and harassment cases, including the college kids they sued for operating servers on college campus and a public appology.

Of course like the dinosaurs they are not going to do it and die! With a brain of that size they could not do much.

Good! We needed a new entertainment industry anyway!

Good night to the leaches! It will be fun to watch!

"...if DRM is done the right way"

The only "right way" is to do away with it.

DRM is a sin and an abomination. ("It doesn't even work in it's purported purpose of stopping the true copyright infringers ...the so called "pirates" bootlegging CD's on the street-corner.) It only causes headaches for the average end-user and would-be customer.

We don't want DRM. DRM is not any kind of solution to anything. There is no such thing as a "nice DRM"

The author of this article is a moron to believe otherwise.

"DRM Doesn’t Have to Suck"

thats a joke right?

DRM by definition cannot be good. It is intended to restrict certain uses. People don't want restrictions, they want to be able to enjoy their media when and where they choose. Either it has to go away entirely or the **AA's will continue to make it more restricting, since it isn't working for its intended purpose, which will piss off even more customers. And it will all be blamed on "piracy".

The increase in DRM in recent years was part of the cause of increase in file sharing, and it's only the fear of lawsuits that keeps P2P from being even more popular.

In related news "Slavery Doesn't Have to Suck"

good one, gfmlcka!