The problem you have to worry about isn't the people who don't want to pay. It's the people who originally DID pay but redistribute the content to those who DIDN'T. Because it's an encryption technique, DRM cannot stop anyone from distributing content because the DRM system ITSELF decrypts the content. Once it's decrypted, it's trivially easy to copy and distribute. (Well, it's about as hard as hooking up stereo wires, which my girlfriend still claims she can't do.)

Honest people are hurt because they have to spend time and money messing with it.

For example, I happen to have paid for BOTH the CD and the downloaded copy of “Somewhere Down in Texas” (which, if you don't have it, you need to get it. I cried the first time I heard it.) When I downloaded George Strait's latest CD from Rhapsody I bought a license for the private, non-commercial enjoyment of music performed by the undisputed King of Country Music. I'm looking at the CD cover right now. It says that “Unauthorized copying is punishable under federal law.” There's nothing on here that says anything about “Unauthorized enjoyment” or “Enjoyment on Unauthorized Equipment”. Simply put, I have the legal right to enjoy the music on this CD on any gadget I have lying around, but not to make copies for anyone else. That's a fair deal. They should go buy their own.

If I want to play it on my CD player in my truck or my MP3 player while I'm waiting in line for some Mexican food, I have the legal right to do so, because I bought that right. However, because DRM is in place, I have to mess with untangling the DRM stuff.

What I really want to do is pay even more to a monthly service like Rhapsody so I can listen to all the other 30 albums Mr. Strait has ever made, in random order, all the time. It just comes natural.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is of little assistance to the industry.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is illegal to make a device the primary purpose of which is to circumvent restrictions that protect the rights of a copyright holder. However, if the primary purpose of the device is merely to enable the legitimate user to enjoy the content PURSUANT to the license granted, then no violation has occurred. Because DVDs and CDs explicitly allow users the private, non-commercial use of the content (without any other restriction), software or other devices that enable the users to exercise that right are not illegal.

This is a critical distinction, because it removes any argument that DRM protects copyright holders. Instead, the only real effect of the DRM system is to limit what software or hardware must be used, even though the users have the legal right to use the content on any device they want. The biggest effect of DRM is to require the use of particular software. The license for the content itself does not requires me to use Microsoft Windows or buy an iPod. However, the DRM scheme is licensed to only a few software vendors, and none of them open-source. The sole effect of the DRM system is NOT prevention of piracy, but a restriction on competition for the ancillary software and hardware. A similar arrangement between Microsoft and computer hardware vendors was ruled illegal. It's not a stretch at all to extend the same analysis to the DRM arena.

The bottom line is that DRM has been a colossal failure, and the sooner the industry moves on to more productive activity, the better off it and consumers will be.

Loye Young
Laredo, Texas