A Step Forwards...

I've just gotten off the phone with Brad Beutlich, the Director of Business Development from SafeNet, Inc.

He informed me that a Canadian version of the solution I'm looking for would have to pay out to none of the patents that would be required to operate a system like this in America. He informed me that paying out royalties to these companies to use such a system in the States requires a fee of around 10 cents per user per year (which is pretty small), but in Canada these issues can be sidestepped completely. However, this gives a means for comparison against the system developed by Shared Media, which charged 15% of every transaction to cover their overhead costs.

Therefore, it's possible to setup a Canadian Independent Digital Publishing system without the need to bow to any sort of regulatory system. This system would allow independent Canadian artists and consumers to distribute media without lining the pockets of a private corporation. Thanks to the Internet, this coverage can be extended outwards to other artists living around the world.

Mr. Beutlich has quoted me a startup cost of $150,000 required to build the database and frontend that would keep track of these files as they move through the digital economy. He also gave me the names of two more companies, SyncCast and Entriq, who should be able to build such a system for the cost previously mentioned. He's also offered his services as a third-party in seperating the fact from the fiction in regards to the overhead costs of setting up this enterprise.

As a sidenote, I've also been in contact with Russell McOrmond, a member of the policy board of a Free/Libre Open Source Software community. When I explained the possibilities inherent in such a system, despite the broad economic and environmental benefits he said:

"Trying to convince me that DRM is good for me is like trying to convince me that DDT is good for me, or that the world is flat. We can discuss ways to accomplish your business model goals without DRM, but I don't see a point in discussing these things if you have already decided to fail by introducing DRM."

Which is flawed logic based around a knee-jerk reaction to the acronym DRM. The entire DRM concept is based around the creation of Rights systems. Instead of being purely restrictive, it's possible to consider DRM a means of drafting a Digital Constitution that can provide additional rights and freedoms. However, he went on to tell me that DRM is an inherent evil which will never be truely cross-platform largely due to opposition from the Open Source initiative itself.

"All DRM requires that you remove the encryption in order to enjoy it given there is no encrypted interface into our brains."

I found this sentence quite confusing. It doesn't get much better when placed in the context of the email. No encrypted interface into our brains? Whats that supposed to mean? What would you call a computer then? Further discussion degenerated past hope of recovery. When I insisted that DRM was Human Rights issue first and a software issue second, his response was:

"You have drunk the DRM cool-aid. That is your choice, and obviously you are closed minded to not be interested in recognizing the costs."

At which point I asked several questions in regards to the environmental benefits provided by DRM systems and the potential for providing additional Fair Use benefits to the consumer, which were disregarding as being irrelevant.

All things said and done, these conversations have led me to two conclusions:

1. The Free Software community, despite advocating fairness to the consumer, is more interested in playing mp3s and DVDs on a Linux box than fighting for the Rights of the consumer and the artist.

2. Members of the corporate community are perfectly willing to assist in initiating this kind of change. However, the cost for the time investment of the coders who build the final database, as well as the hardware infrastructure, have to be considered.

Stay tuned...