The Digital Rights Management and Interoperability panel at TPS yesterday provided a (relatively) fresh perspective on the extremely tired topics of DRM and fair use. I’ve seen a lot of these panels (there has been at least one every day for the past 5 years), but despite the predictable disagreements, this panel came to one enlightened joint conclusion:
DRM is just a technology. It doesn’t prevent free speech, kill fair use, etc. It is the business rules that are wrapped into specific DRM implementations that we’re REALLY arguing about.
It seems like a simple truism, but it is usually lost in a foul and skewed debate. DRM is not a technology for limiting freedom (while it can be used that way), it is an “access control” technology. In the hands of a user, DRM technology is actually an empowering technology.
I couldn’t have agreed more with Talal Shamoon of Intertrust who said, “I just wish the medical industry took up DRM before recording industry.” THe same technology that the recording industry has used and misused can be central to keeping your medical records secure as your doctor shares them with a specialist. It is the same technology that can keep your financial records safe as you send them to your accountant.
Why is this confusion a problem? Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of DRM has lead Richard Stallman and the FSF to attempt to ban the use of DRM, for any reason, in Free Software. The FSF has included this anti-DRM language in the current draft of the GPLv3, which is expected to be finalized later this year. It is an untenable solution that throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater as Jonathan discussed in a CNETcolumn last year, and it is why Linus Torvalds has sworn off using the GPLv3 for Linux.