Philosophizing about DRM and Free Software

During the past week, I've tried to reach out to various members of what I'd like to refer to as the "informed opposition." Despite my earlier failures in speaking with Russell McOrmond a member of the FLOSS/FSF community, I contacted Richard Stallman to see what he thinks of the idea. For those of you who don't know who I'm talking about:

In September 1983, he launched the GNU Project to create a free Unix-like operating system, and has been the project's lead architect and organizer. With the launch of the GNU project he started the free software movement, and in October 1985 set up the Free Software Foundation. He co-founded the League for Programming Freedom. Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft and is the main author of several copyleft licenses including the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license.
Since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time advocating for free software, as well as campaigning against both software patents and what he sees as excessive extension of copyright laws. (From his Wikipedia article.)

I figured that despite McOrmond's insistence that I'd "Drunk the DRM Koolaid", Stallman might be reasonable enough to see the benefits of what I've been talking about. During a week of back and forth emails, we debated the benefits of a Free and Publicly accessible online independent media distribution outlet. He went to great lengths to enlighten me of the differences between the labels Free Software and Open Source. Once I'd explained the basics of the concept to him, he was much more receptive to the idea than McOrmond had been. However, he had this to say:

"I look at your proposal in terms of the ethico-political philosophy of the free software movement. This is totally different from the apolitical philosophy of open source. For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.
The basic idea of the free software movement is that non-free software is unethical because users must have control over the software they use. I think that your proposal involves using some non-free software on the DVD. One can buy audio CDs with free software, play them with free software, and copy them with free software. A system which requires the use of non-free software would be a change for the worse." (Stallman - May 20, 2007)

He was quite adamant at this point, and I'm pretty sure we'll choose to differ on this until I can more completely outline the system I'd like to help build. While it is possible to build a DRM-Free database online that sells music in standard formats, it does nothing for physical distribution. Nor does it allow a consumer to repost their DRM-Free versions to their own website, at least not without the chance of legal action from the artist for violating their rights.

There has to be a way to generate this additional value system, which relies more on a link to a unique database. Instead of punishing or seeking legal action against consumers who're posting their purchased media online, we create a new system where their registered file is given a unique identity within the online database. This was what Weedshare started out as, but it quickly became obvious that the system was tailored more towards the restrictive aspect of media distribution than was necessary. For example, one Kelly Clarkson track was released into the Weedshare system, Since U Been Gone (club radio edit alt version) for $1.09. However, this track couldn't be played in Canada, which only demonstrated how easy it is to enforce those kinds of restrictions.

These kinds of tactics also fall under the term DRM, but are more a form of Digital Restrictions Management. The moment this file was released, I knew that Shared Media Licensing Inc. was doomed to fail. Admittedly, they were just enforcing content protection rules put forward by the Record Label who owns the rights to Kelly's music, but any form of media distribution that exists to control access based on nationality deserves to cease to exist.

However, the physical distribution aspect of the technology, as well as the revenue pass-along system they created, should not be allowed to disappear into the realm of digital artifacts.

Why am I so interested in this aspect of the system? I was trying to make use of it myself with the Weedshare system. I had loads of ideas for marketing the music, and I was pretty vocal about sharing those ideas with other ICPs, as well as trying to enlighten bands to the potential inherent in the system. However, Shared Media closed it's doors much too early for anyone to really demonstrate how to use this technology.

The idea that anyone with a computer and Internet access could start making money from their taste in music appealed to me too much. I sat to try to think of as many different ways this technology could be implemented by anyone. One idea I had was starting a web radio station that can broadcast and resell purchased music. The artists would get a much bigger cut from this system than currently exists through traditional royalty payouts, and would allow web radio to subsist off something other than advertising. (It would also eliminate the whole 'cheque is in the mail' aspect of current systems like SOCAN as transactions and payouts would be instantaneous.)

I've really got to sit down and break all this down into the bits and pieces that will be required to make this technology work. I'll see what I can put together for the next blog.