Source

Source

Monday’s Question
Should creators insist on technology that will restrict the copying and transmission of copyrighted works? Any lock can eventually be picked. Do these restrictions provide speed bumps to help keep honest people honest? Or do they create a permanent war between creators and users that may hurt everyone?

======

Rick Cotton: Given our experience to date, it is clear that technology can be and needs to be part of the answer in many areas to protecting copyrighted works on-line. But this can be done flexibly, avoiding “war” between creators and users while respecting privacy, fair use and other reasonable concerns that too frequently are raised not as concerns to be addressed, but as excuses seeking to block any action at all.
It’s hard, if not impossible, to have a meaningful discussion on this issue unless we can agree on the following premise: the broadband, digital world is awash in a tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content. As to the question at hand, it is entirely reasonable to explore technological solutions. A few key building blocks:
1. There may not be a single answer to this question. It may vary by medium, by technological environment and by groups of creators. Some media may be more susceptible to flexible, effective and commercially reasonable technology protections than others. Some groups of creators may have different preferences than others. Some tech environments may be easier to address first than others.
2. Many creators devote huge amounts of time, creative energy, and — in commercial settings — monetary investment to produce copyrighted works. Media companies, including NBC Universal, have made major commitments to utilize technology to deliver great content to fans in many new ways and to build new business models. Both fairness and the law (firmly rooted in the U.S. Constitution) support creators’ right to control the use of their work and to be compensated for these efforts (if that is what they want). ” In today’s digital world, that includes taking steps to protect their works from indiscriminate, wholesale theft on the Internet.
3. Those who suggest that technological protections are not needed must, if they are intellectually honest, acknowledge, confront and speak to the tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content that is currently occurring in the digital world on the broadband Internet. This indefensible massive trafficking simply must be reduced in any kind of law abiding society. We should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to identify workable, flexible and effective approaches that reduce piracy without being intrusive and that fully respect other interests such as privacy and fair use.
4. Another feature of this debate that should change is technologists disingenuously trashing technology. Too often, the same people who enthusiastically and unreservedly sing the praises of the infinite and wondrous capabilities of digital technology in virtually every other respect pretend that technology has nothing to offer and no ability to reduce the massive trafficking in wholesale infringements of entire works (certainly in the area of video, film, TV, games and software). It is categorically and demonstratively untrue and unworthy of tech champions. Current filtering technology, for example, now being deployed on video sharing sites such as MySpace, Microsoft’s Soapbox, and even soon on YouTube work with a high degree of technical effectiveness, stopping unauthorized copyrighted material from being uploaded while permitting authorized material to be posted. There remain obvious challenges. But the tech community has demonstrated its capability to solve similar challenges in multiple other arenas. There is no reason to think that the challenges of content protection technology are any different.
5. The imperfect protection offered by anti-piracy technologies - “Every lock can be picked” - is no reason to give up on them. Despite the existence of lock picks, identity thieves, and hackers, cars and homes still have locks, e-mail accounts have passwords, and computers have firewalls. Our general approach — including most particularly in the digital world — is to put the strongest possible security in place and fix flaws and weak spots when they are identified through breaches, but not simply abandon the effort. The arena of content protection technology should be no different. Speed bumps do work.
6. Even if imperfect, the implementation of anti-piracy technologies also sends an important message. The technological infrastructure of the broadband internet must communicate to the vast majority of users that wholesale reproduction of entire works (or even major portions) is not acceptable. Committed hackers may develop work arounds, but that is not the point. The reality is that technology speaks — and speaks loudly. Today — and for the last decade — the ease of accessing pirated content has spoken to internet users — and particularly young users — “if can’t really be wrong if it is so easy to do.” That perception needs to change.”
7. Technological protections clearly need to be constructed to take account of a wide number of legitimate concerns such as not interfering with legitimate consumer expectations, privacy and fair use. But the extraordinary capabilities of digital technology have brought us the broadband Internet, dizzying mobile communications and marvelous desktop, laptop, and handheld computing. Digital technology is also capable of great exactitude and flexibility in identifying copyrighted content and targeting infringements with no more intrusiveness than when it screens out viruses and hacker attacks. I am sure we will be exploring those subjects in greater detail later this week.

=====

Tim Wu: Relying on digital locks is one business model, but certainly not the only or best one for all creators. I believe that the content industry tends to grossly overestimate its own interest in digital locks, let alone our collective interest. It is natural to want to secure and protect things that are yours. But decisions in this area are often driven by a sense of panic that displaces careful thinking about the true costs and benefits of digital locks. In short: digital locks are no substitute for a good business model.
Digital locks help protect the traditional business model based on unit sales; that makes them a useful tool, but hardly a panacea for industry woes. Too often ignored is the fact that every lock makes the product less valuable, by disabling the product in some way. Imagine that your car was feature-locked so that it could only make left turns — you’d probably want a different one. The example is ridiculous but it shows that at their worst, bad locking strategies can destroy a market and hurt consumers.
Sony BMG, of course, learned this lesson a few years back when they put on their CDs such an aggressive lock (the rootkit) that it began to damage people’s computers, creating a giant fiasco and class-action lawsuits. Similarly, the general failure of e-books over the last 10 years is also probably a product of too much security. Imagine buying an iron that required a password to operate.
There are other costs too often ignored. Locks will be broken, and so a business model that depends on locking is very vulnerable. The creator must budget money, effort and talent for the arms race. That’s a weird role for an industry that’s supposed to be good at developing talent, not trying to out-geek every basement-dweller in the world. Finally, a successful locking strategy also requires intense cooperation between many actors – if you protect a song with “superlock,” and my CD player doesn’t understand that, you’ve just created a dead product.
The other costs are missed opportunities. Content that is too locked down loses exposure. Remixes, fan sites and tributes are something firms pay millions for when they call it “marketing.” When a firm overlocks, it may so successfully build a stronghold around its product that no one actually finds out about it.
My sense is that the race to locks is too often a panicked reaction to a failing business model that can extract a terrific public cost. Locks may form a part of certain successful business models. But too much reliance on locking can seriously backfire. There is a reason, after all, that restaurants do not lock their doors during lunch.

=======

MUCH MUCH more at the source site folks! (The above is just round 1 from Monday!)