Following on from part 1, our look at the challenges facing the media industry from new technology, we now look at DRM.  DRM aka Digital Rights Management is arguably the digital extension of the existing 'physical commodity' model of media. By this, we mean that media is financed by selling a copy of the media artefact. For example, when you buy a DVD you are buying the limited rights to use a copy of the media artefact in a legally prescribed way; you can watch it at home on your TV but you can't screen it in your local cinema and charge for entry. When media started going digital it became apparent that there was an issue with this model. If I have a VHS video you are interested in, I can loan it to you. If I have a digital file of a film you are interested in, I can give you a copy. With the first there is still only one copy involved. With the second we get two copies. So DRM was developed to stop people using digital files in ways they were not supposed to; so echoing the existing 'physical commodity' model of media.

But right from the offset DRM hit problems. Some took issue with the name itself. The Free Software Foundation were unhappy with the use of the word 'rights', arguing that it is misleading and posed the alternative term 'Digital Restrictions Management'. Some DRM was implemented in physical systems that contained digital artefacts such as CDs, but they hit problems when some types of CD Player could not recognise and play the disc. 
The proliferation of digital media and its formats have not only created more problems for DRM technology but also more potential areas they feel it needs to be imposed. In music there seems to finally be a slipping away of DRM; Apple now offer DRM-free music though iTunes (though the fact that it costs more than a track with DRM has been pointed to as proof that DRM lowers the value of the product ).  At a recent conference on the subject (in December 2007) Ian Rogers, VP Video and Media Applications at Yahoo! Music stated ;

"Hopefully we all agree it’s good news that DRM is finally dead. Five years ago I started saying we were in the age of PURE CONSUMER CONFUSION...and it wouldn’t be gone until DRM was gone and digital media was interoperable. With proprietary DRM there are only two possible outcomes: PURE CONSUMER CONFUSION or Monopoly. We’ve been saddled with both in varying degrees. But now that MP3s are finally for sale we’re headed toward much less consumer confusion and a much better value proposition for sales. Please don’t look at this as the labels 'giving up'. It’s much better seen as an acknowledgment of the physics of the space and an appreciation that attempting to create scarcity only wastes precious time and money."

This does not mean that DRM has gone away; far from it.  One could speculate that it does mean that in music, with so much available and the huge number of easy-to-use ways to get music; from legal free music given by bands on MySpace to illegally downloaded music though p2p, to legally purchased music via iTunes and the like; it does look the the ability to impose something that lowers the value of a commodity is a hard-sell with so many other options.  Thus far, in the digital realm, what has happened to music has then happened to film - does this means DRM is in difficulty overall?  One of the most prominent strands of DRM around today can be found in the new Microsoft operating system, Windows Vista - however its sales have not been great and it has come under intense criticism for its DRM, called 'Protected Media Path '. One analysis of Windows Vista's DRM noted ;

"[The analysis] describes in great detail the various measures Microsoft has taken to lock down Windows on behalf of Hollywood....in order to playback HD-DVD and BluRay content, Microsoft agreed to degrade video and audio functionality in Windows...leaving the user with minimal (eg VGA) functionality."

This may lead one to the same conclusion that a well-known blog Techdirt came to, when trying to fit an older model (the 'physical commodity' model) into a new hole (digital network media);

"However, it's interesting to see that relying on the supposedly 'successful' old model is starting to come under stress from everyone else in the industry. It highlights, once again, that when we talk about these models, it's silly to compare the 'old way' and any 'new way.' It's more important to recognize that the old way just isn't sustainable. You need to compare the new models to what the old models are trending towards."

The paradigm of charging for reproduction seemed appropriate during the age of type-setters, however, we need to move on.  This is a new digital age, with many media artefacts being reducible to code.  The industries involved need to move on, to recognise its a different landscape and work with the artists and producers; allow the free-flow of media artefacts.  With encouragement and a loose grip, who knows what new markets
could open up?