Comment Suggestions (Score 1) 686
The biggest difficulty with intellectual property (IP) in the Internet age is using a product model where it does not apply. IP is essentially different from regular property for all the reasons that people have mentioned: ease of duplication and ease of distribution being the core issues. Without DRM, it would seem that IP cannot produce a profit, because a distributor can no longer compete against pirates.
I suggest that this is not a problem, however. Distributors no longer perform a valuable service, and that is why they cannot compete. Why buy a CD or legal download when it is more convenient, cheaper, and of equivalent quality to download it from pirates? DRM legislation is an attempt to maintain the current business model (product-oriented) by restricting consumers' freedom.
A better solution is to view intellectual property from a service model. Musicians, artists, movie producers, authors, and software developers perform a service: the creation of new intellectual property. People will still pay for this service. Artists used to work primarily on commision, why can't other IP creators? I will still pay to go to a concert, even when I could listen to the same music at home, because the musicians provide a unique service that is not duplicated through digital distribution. Hearing good, free music on the internet could be considered advertisement.
Similarly, the role of distributors could be modified as well. I would pay for a DRM-free iTunes service because it would organize music, centralize it, and maintain a certain level of quality. These are service-oriented benefits, rather than product ones, that can survive without DRM. (Consider the services of Slashdot, except with music downloads.)
In summary, IP producers and distributors could still make money without DRM because of the services they provide. DRM only protects income from valueless services (distribution/replication).
I suggest that this is not a problem, however. Distributors no longer perform a valuable service, and that is why they cannot compete. Why buy a CD or legal download when it is more convenient, cheaper, and of equivalent quality to download it from pirates? DRM legislation is an attempt to maintain the current business model (product-oriented) by restricting consumers' freedom.
A better solution is to view intellectual property from a service model. Musicians, artists, movie producers, authors, and software developers perform a service: the creation of new intellectual property. People will still pay for this service. Artists used to work primarily on commision, why can't other IP creators? I will still pay to go to a concert, even when I could listen to the same music at home, because the musicians provide a unique service that is not duplicated through digital distribution. Hearing good, free music on the internet could be considered advertisement.
Similarly, the role of distributors could be modified as well. I would pay for a DRM-free iTunes service because it would organize music, centralize it, and maintain a certain level of quality. These are service-oriented benefits, rather than product ones, that can survive without DRM. (Consider the services of Slashdot, except with music downloads.)
In summary, IP producers and distributors could still make money without DRM because of the services they provide. DRM only protects income from valueless services (distribution/replication).
