A Working Economy Without DRM?

Tilted Equilibrium asks: "In a few weeks, our school will be hosting a panel on DRM with several respected individuals. In advance of the panel, I have been doing some research on the topic and thinking about it in my free time. In economics, we learn that the price of a product is determined essentially by supply and demand. Without a DRM in place, we are capable of making as many copies of a piece of content as we want and seeding it onto the net. How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?"

Comments

Biased question

[swillden]

How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?

Most likely, you don't. But in large part you're creating a strawman, by specifying exactly the situation in which it is most difficult to make a profit.

It's entirely possible that the Internet will mean the end of $200M productions, because unless you can get your money back in the theater (I'm focusing on movies because they're the only things that fit your specifications), you can't make it back.

Maybe. I'm not absolutely convinced of that. I think DVD releases with lots of extras, including some that aren't digital, are a good model. Obviously, movie theaters have a workable model. There may be other approaches that can work. Any approach that offers the consumer real value for their money will work. People *want* to spend money on entertainment.

And, honestly, outside of movies, what other media meets your requirements? Not music. Music is cheap to make. Sure, it's likely that in a fully DRM-free Internet age that musicians won't be mega-millionaires, but I consider that a good thing. I think it would be great if we could support more musicians with decent incomes, instead of the smaller number with insane incomes. Heck, even if there aren't more of them, maybe they'll live longer and make more great music if we don't give them heroin and Ferraris.

I agree with Eric Flint's essay, found in the Free Library on baen.com: Until there's some way to make music/movies/books that doesn't require musicians/actors/directors/authors, and until people stop wanting those materials, there *will* be ways to make money off of them. It's just a matter of finding them. And, perhaps, accepting that people don't really need millions for doing what they love.

Re:Biased question

[aussie_a]

You assume DRM is necessary, but in actuality, it isn't. These people somehow make a profit without DRM (otherwise they wouldn't bother releasing the e-books). As does these people as well as these people.

Perhaps multi-million dollar movies aren't capable without DRM or Britney Spears being profitable without DRM, but the truth is that the big media cartels aren't the only people in town no matter how much they want you to think they are. And DRM isn't necessary for artists to not only make a profit, but to make a living. Not all artists will be able to make a profit or a living, but then again not all artists deserve a profit or a living. DRM isn't a necessary evil, it's just an evil.

Re:Biased question

[BadAnalogyGuy]

We're not really talking about Trusted Computing here, though it may be interesting to see how TC impacts the availability of DRM-stripping software on mainstream operating systems.

Once the upcoming crop of DRM-enabled operating systems (Mac and Windows) only support media playback through OS API-level function calls, your "control of your computer" will have reached its conclusion. As system APIs become more plentiful, more useful, and easier to use, control is slowly creeping away from the now-productive developer and towards the central programming model/operating system.

You have every reason to be worried about losing control.

"I'll run Linux!"

With DRM implemented as an encrypted datastream and licensed to hardware/software makers, who is going to be able to bring DRM playback capabilities to Linux without also being tied to strict licensing restrictions that prohibit DRM-stripping as a feature or side-effect? These DRM systems are of course already running on Linux, just look at your favorite DVR which already implements such a system. Does this translate to your PC being able disable DRM content? Unfortunately, no. Not unless a DRM-licensee decides to break their license and provide the tools to do so. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a rogue employee may do such a thing, but the financial hardship he would face would typically be a sufficient deterrent.

Re:Biased question

[gfxguy]

I tend to agree and more.

I honestly believe people should be more honest with themselves and their wallets. If something is worth buying, it's worth buying. If it's not worth buying, don't buy it. Just because you don't like the arbitrary amount someone has set for the product doesn't mean you should be able to just take it. I mean, come on! We're not exactly talking about stealing bread to feed starving children! We're talking about movies!

However, I don't agree with DRM at all, either, because if you do shell out the cash, you should be rewarded with a lot of freedoms with that content. You should be allowed to make backups, you should be allowed to listen/watch on different devices and so forth.

Now the reality - the more these idiots apply DRM, the more worthwhile it is to STEAL the content because the stolen content gives you the freedoms you should have had to begin with. I make the analogy with software copy protection, specificly from the 80s and early 90s. The copy protection became so bad, I'd buy a game and the first thing I'd do is look up on the internet (through ftp sites, at the time) how to break it. Damned code wheels and all that crap. Forget it! It's the guys that stole the game that didn't have to put up with that crap, and it's the people illegally copying the movies that can do whatever they want with it.

I'll make these analogies as well: when cassette tapes hit the markets as a cheap, convenient means to copy recordings, the RIAA complained it would put them out of business. Instead, sale of prerecorded cassettes opened up a whole new revenue stream for them. When consumer grade video recording hit the market, the MPAA cried it would put them out of business. Instead, the video sales and rental market opened up a whole new revenue stream for them; movies that wouldn't ever even have seen the light of day began returning at least some money, and movies that made hundreds of millions were making another hundred million in rentals when, if the MPAA had it's way, they'd be making nothing.

Then the RIAA complained about CDs. CDs sound so good, that cassette recordings made from them sound better than vinyl. Yeah. CD sales skyrocketed and the RIAA increased it's revenue again. Then there was DVDs and how people would record this high quality content on VHS, and they were wrong there, too - the sale of DVD quickly overtook VHS sales; the discs cost less to produce, but people payed more for them.

The bottom line is that if you give the people what they want, they will pay for it. I can download mp3s illegally, or I can pay for them. I choose to pay for them when I think it's worth it. Otherwise I simply don't download them at all.

I realize few people out there are as honest (my wife calls it brain dead honest) as I am; even people who are generally honest might not mind downloading a few things here and there. So yes, copyright violations will continue to happen, but there has to be an "acceptable" rate, which you would calculate by figuring out how much the cost of enforcement is versus how much is lost.

Frankly, the worst part about DRM is that we pay for it. We pay extra for licensing fees so that our DVD player will be crippled, and we pay extra for content itself so that it can be crippled. WE are the ones who pay for lost functionality and freedoms, and the more they squeeze us, the more ONLY HONEST consumers are hurt.

If that's not ass-backwards, I don't know what is.

So my question to these idiots is: honest consumers are paying extra for products with reduced functionality, while people with illegal copies of the content seem to have the most freedoms. How does that make any sense at all?

Re:Biased question

[NeutronCowboy]

Not only are we paying in terms of money, we are paying in terms of culture that is being locked up and lost forever because there is no legal way of archiving it. That, in my opinion, is the biggest cost of all and the prime reason DRM is Evil.

How? Ask Apple

[SuperKendall]

How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?"

Ask Apple, they are doing so today. Sure they use DRM but the way they work sales would not really be hampered much by them not doing so - after all, I can download any song for free today but I choose to buy through ITMS.

you don't...

[twiggy]

You don't.. you sell something other than the tracks.

You create a completely different model now that people expect the tracks in digital form for free (or will risk an RIAA lawsuit to get them).

you make your money on tours, tshirts, or making amazingly badass CD packaging (see: Tool - 10,000 Days) that makes it worth picking up a hard copy.

Or, you make your money by giving people valuable merchandise or preferred seating at concerts for joining your fan club.

You can't create demand for something that can be infinitely and freely copied.

Re:you don't...

[QuantumG]

You can't create demand for something that can be infinitely and freely copied.

Wow. How can you say all that and still miss the point. There's no problem "creating demand", there's only the problem of "limiting supply" and you can actually do that, but to do so requires you to be so fuckin' evil that you're willing to get in everyone's face and prevent them from helping others.

stupid question

[RelliK]

How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?

The same way it worked before DRM. You are making a ridiculous assumption that DRM is the only thing that prevents someone from distriduting copies of copyrighted works. That is utterly false. There is this thing called copyright law that works just fine without DRM. Photocopiers didn't kill the book publishers. Tape recorders didn't kill music industry. VCRs *multiplied* the profits of the movie industry, despite the fact that certain studios nearly had them outlawed.

For this reason your question is either biased or stupid or both. Turns out it is entirely possible to have a viable economy without infringing on the consumers' fair use rights or first sale doctrine. Who would have thunk!

Folks still buy Hamlet

[Spazmania]

Why do folks still buy copies of Shakespeare's plays or Beethoven's symphonies? They aren't even protected by copyright let alone by DRM.

There is always a business to be made out of selling value, even if the content itself is free.

Besides, given a reasonable choice most people will be mostly honest most of the time. If they're able to buy music or a movie they want at a price they consider fair in the format they want most will choose to do so. Take the money where you can get it; don't worry about the rest. As for the rest of the folks, most of them wouldn't buy your music or movie if they couldn't copy it. Its not important to them; that's why they were willing to make do with a mere copy.

the carrot rather than the stick

[macadamia_harold]

How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?

Simple: in addition to selling the music, you give people something else that requires no manufacturing cost, but is in finite supply, such as special "pre-sale" access to concert tickets. Fans are a lot more willing to give you their money when you offer a carrot, rather than threaten the stick.

Since when has DRM done anything

[CrazyJim1]

Only thing I saw DRM do is stop a Backstreet Boys CD from working on my exgf's portable CD/DVD player.

DRM doesn't stop online piracy anymore than a speedbump in your driveway slows interstate traffic.

Four ways to make money.

[thedletterman]

Given the presented variables, there are serveral ways to still make money.

1. Distribute the product yourself for free, request donations.
2. Merchandise goods that do not meet the same criteria.
3. Recreate the initial (creative creation) stage in live venues.
4. Control physical access to content.

Given the current "stage" with no shortage of supply of talented musicians, cheap manufacturing, and distribution mechanisms available, I'd personally like to see a revolution of internet radio where artists upload their tracks for free, stations stream their tracks to users, users rate their favorite tracks, and the station's advertising revenue distributes royalities to the artists and station manager. It creates like a democratic system of which artists get paid the most on which stations, and creates a very populist system for music completely destroying the 'mainstream' or even 'indy' model where station managers pick and choose their playlist and present that as the only options. As someone in the executive side of the music industry there's just way too much good talent and cheap processes for the ivory tower industries to remain standing. The business model is going to have to shift and adapt, or the people will throw everyone out of the ivory towers. No amount of intellectual property laws and drm is going to stop that.

Pay for labor, not for copies.

[Kadin2048]

I've discussed this in other threads before, but I think the way that you make money without DRM is by not trying to make entertainment on speculation.

Basically the entertainment companies go out right now, and make a movie/song/whatever, and spend a whole lot of money doing it, in hopes that they can then go and sell the end product over and over and over to make up the investment. There is really not any way to do this, without DRM. As I think DRM is fundamentally flawed, so is this business model. That doesn't mean it might not stick around for a few centuries, but it's eventually doomed.

The problem is that DRM tries to artifically limit the supply of something that requires very little labor in order to reproduce. The n-th copy of a digitally delivered Brittany Spears album costs virtually nothing; it's only the first copy that really costs a lot to make. (Okay, so this sets aside that the net value of any given Brittany Spears album may in fact be negative.)

In the past, since the recording companies basically controlled the means of producing more copies (vinyl/CD stamping factories), they could artificially inflate the cost of the marginal (that is, n-th) copy, in order to pay for a bit of that first one. The only reason this works is because they have a monopoly on the means of producing more copies. That's it.

What digital delivery, and computers/the Internet in general, do is make widely available the means of production. (Apologies if I'm sounding a little Marxist here, but it's tough to avoid the terminology.) When anyone can make that 'one last' copy, you can't fix the price of it anymore. You just can't. DRM is an attempt to put a finger in the dike, to make it artificially hard again to make an additional copy, but they have a whole lot of information theory working against them. There is no practical way, that I can envision, to allow people access to digital media which does not inherently give them an opportunity to copy it, particularly since copying is inherent to the digital distribution process. And this is only going to get more difficult in the future.

So given this, what to do? The answer is to make people pay in advance. There will always be a demand for new content; even with the entire past produce of human civilization on tap, it is the nature of people to want things that are fresh, that have been created specifically for them (whether individually or as a group). Rather than trying to make money up off of the marginal copies, which have little to no inherent value, charge for the first copy. Charge interested parties, in advance, for creation of the work. If people aren't interested in funding its creation, it doesn't get made. If fans want an artist to continue to produce, then they can pay to commission more albums. Rather than paying an inflated cost for each copy, which has some portion of the original labor's cost built into it, they will pay for the cost of that labor up front. It is the labor which is valuable, not the copies.

This of course would force a re-evaluation of both how we think of the relationship between artists and their public, and also of how much art we as a society produce (right now I think it's clear that we produce a surplus; we produce more new art than the public really demands, and one must understand that in a pay-in-advance system, this would no longer be supportable), but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. As people demand new content, they will pay for it to be created. Either they will pay what it costs to create it, or it will not be made.

This is the way the market should work: as people desire novelty, the business models would be formed around the demand. Instead of a top-down approach, it's bottom-up; allowing consumer choice and demand to drive how people will make money. There are lots of ways that they could do it, from straight work-on-commission to more subtle crediting schemes, or donationware/threatware (e.g. "I'll write the next installment of the

Re:Pay for labor, not for copies.

[shmlco]

The basic problem with your premise is that now an author (let's say) need only convince a small, select number of people that they should finance his work for a year. Further, once that work is completed there are many mechanisms the market can be use to judge that work (reviews, word-of-mouth, ratings, picking it up in a store and flipping through it) and find out if it has value to them, and is worth the twenty bucks.

Now, let's compare that with an assurance contract, where I have to convince a LOT of people that I can produce something of value, doesn't generate an advance so I can actually get on with creating it, and really provides no guarantee to the end user that it will be a quality product, or one suitable to you (you were expecting killer hard-code SciFi, not a time-travel romance novel). Once I produce it according to the contract, you have to pay for it, with no recourse.

I don't see paying in advance as the answer either, as it limits the available selection to "known" authors who've already made a name for themselves. Stephen King might be able to get a 100,000 people to pay in advance for the next chapter of his new book. A new and unknown author certainly can not.

Further, I tend to see it generating "more-of-the-same" content. Weber may be getting ready to branch out, but what happens when his fans only want to pay up front for more HH? How much of the storyline of The Matrix do I have to reveal before I can convince several million people to kick in $20 up front?

Finally, the up-front "salary" kills the dream as far as I'm concerned. Every author, singer, actor, and director dreams of the "great american novel" or hit song or blockbuster movie. Those dreams convince them to take risks and experiment with new ideas. I don't want those dreams dampened with a "just a job" mentality, working for minimum wage...

Re:Pay for labor, not for copies.

[arkhan_jg]

These problems are the same as any small business has getting off the ground. How do I get new customers when they could just go to the big chains they already know?

The answers are the same. You take out loans to pay for marketing, promotions (giving stuff away free), and then pay them off when you're established and making a profit. You might even have to work two jobs to support yourself while you follow your dream and get established.
Not everybody makes it. Either they have a product that not enough people want, or people didn't find out about it, and they go under. That's the free market.

It's very little different to how artists work today. Unknown artists struggle to get exposure, so do bread-and-butter work and 2nd jobs to get by.
Giving away some of your work for free, especially digitally where it costs you virtually nothing, is great marketing. The 'tip-jar' method does work sometimes, as does getting people to pay for higher quality versions of your material. Give away the low-res one, maybe with adverts embedded (hellooooo, radio) and use that to get people to pay for the high-res version. After a few cycles of that, people will pay in advance for the new one to get it made, or released if already made.

The old method of charging many times what something cost to produce is dying. The whole point of the free market is for new businesses and new business methods to be tried out, and live or die in the attempt. DRM is the complete antithesis of the free market as it uses government law to prop up an artificial and failing business model, and removes the freedom of the customer to choose alternative providers. DRM on physical products warps the meaning of physical property itself for the purposes of the big media cartels.

My singlle player version of Half-life 2 DVD is a great example of the evils of DRM on physical media. It's encrypted, so I can't use it without Valve unlocking it for me online. I can't resell it, as my key is now used. I can't even give it away, as the key is tied to my steam account which has other older versions of my games in, and I can't delete the key or move it. The physical DVD in my hand might as well be a blank piece of plastic with a number printed on it, and to add insult to injury, when the game was first released I had to put my DVD in the drive for the DRM check, while people who'd bought it online didn't. It's over a year later, and I'm still pissed at Valve.

Why DRM is counter-productive

[pen]

Let's say I just heard a song I really liked. I liked it so much that I want a copy of it to listen to again. Maybe even the whole album. Ok, what are my options?

I can buy a CD from a store or order it from Amazon. This means I have to either put on some pants or wait for days. And my computer doesn't have a CD-ROM drive. And this is really inconvenient.

I can sign on to iTunes or similar and buy the song. Except it's DRMed so I can't get an MP3. And that album was released by a label that doesn't participate in iTunes.

I can buy the MP3s from a grey market place online such as allofmp3.com. This is pretty much illegal, I have to pay for it, and the artist still doesn't get jack. Oh, and their selection is better than most stores but still sucks.

Finally, I can log on to my P2P network of choice and more than likely download whatever I want, in decent quality, pretty much instantly.

Now, should I support a corrupt, backwards, outdated industry that is working overtime to make my life a pain in the ass by lobbying for all kinds of crazy laws and filing lawsuits left and right, even if this is less convenient to me?