I'm So Unpredictable. DRM and the MPAA

In the most logical pro-DRM statement made coming from a position of power, MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman commented on DRM for the first time since taking over, two years ago. He's called on all high-level leaders in the entertainment industry to put their heads together to come up with an effective DRM solution. He even said that he's in full support of "managed copying," meaning that he'd like to find a way to allow consumers to make authorized copies of the "content they purchase." It's their right, he said. This is near the center of the DRM controversy: when you purchase a CD or a DVD, do you own the physical copy or the content. Most industry heads would argue that they own just the physical copy. It's an abstract concept, so it's a difficult argument. It's not the same as passing the content off as your own creation, nor could you use the music in a movie without the rights. Now, clearly we cannot allow people to take credit for other people's art, but licensing is a profit-generator. Also, most artists are very conscious of their image, and perhaps they wouldn't want to be associated with particular domains (specific advertisements or films, for instance), so by removing those restrictions it would be anarchy in the world of music. But what harm is done to most artists who would never make it on the Billboard 200 when fans buy their music and share it with their fans? They lose the little money they make on CD sales and gain thousands more from ticket sales. Though, Glickman's word choice might be a bit misleading, he does say that consumers own more than just the physical copy. But that's just semantics.

Where I think Glickman's argument fails is that the music and film industry are very different animals, and they could never find an all encompassing solution. While free digital downloading often helps the musicians, it can only hurt those who have a stake in a film. Money is to be made in a live show, but there's no equivalent in the film industry. They rely on DVD sales and theater tickets. There's not a play attached to every film. And there's not much gained from an expensive theater experience. So, I respect Glickman in that sense. For the film industry to remain intact--to actually produce a film, money needs to be made, and the only way to look ahead is to develop a DRM solution that does not alienate the consumer (allows them to make copies for themselves and allows for interoperability) but is still effective in keeping the free consumption of movies to an absolute minimum. Whereas a record company is coming close to losing its purpose in producing an album, studios will always be necessary, mostly because of the huge amounts of cash it takes to film. So, while musicians can still make money, the players in film absolutely cannot if there is no income from sales. The whole purpose is entertainment--to spread the experience of art. We lose sight of that sometimes. Music will survive the free digital download revolution, but film cannot, and that is why, for once and probably only once, will I say: "DRM? Go for it." I can't justify that urge to download free movies, because if it continues there won't be any movies to download.