Individual consumers evaluating DRM in connection with specific purchasing decisions may focus mainly on the details of what the DRM’s practical impact is and how that impact is disclosed. But product reviewers and consumer advocates should also step back and look at the big picture. Proponents of DRM often say it facilitates the development of new business models and delivery channels, which ultimately benefits not just content providers but consumers as well. Reviewers and advocates should try to evaluate whether particular DRM schemes appear in fact to be playing such a positive role in the marketplace – or whether they seem mainly to serve some other purpose, such as locking in users to a particular company’s technology platform.
This inquiry may be more subjective than, for example, determining the particular usage parameters established by a DRM scheme. But in many cases, the purpose and role of DRM may not be terribly difficult to perceive.
For example, suppose an online video rental service uses DRM to cause downloaded video files to expire at the end of the agreed upon rental term. It is easy to understand why this online rental business, or the content companies licensing videos to it, would not be comfortable distributing so called “rentals” that in fact take the form of permanent files on customers’ computers. Furthermore, there is clearly consumer demand for video rentals (at appropriate price points relative to those of outright purchases), and some renters may find it more convenient to obtain the videos online rather than from the local video store or through the mail from Netflix. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the DRM causing the video files to expire is facilitating a business model for which there is real consumer demand.
Another example may be DRM schemes that focus primarily on tracking and accounting for usage – rather than just restricting it -- to permit appropriate payment. A service named Weed offers a technology platform to enable users to share media files (songs or video) with one another on a temporary basis, and to earn commissions when those referrals lead to sales. A person downloading a Weed file – whether from a friend’s website, an email, or a peer-to-peer service – can play the file three times for free. If the person then decides to buy the file, portions of the purchase price go to whomever that person received the file from, and to whomever were the previous two sources of the file before that. This is an innovative business model that taps into consumers’ interest in using peer referral systems to promote and identify media they particularly like. It seems clear that, for the system to work, it needs to have a means for tracking referred files through the distribution chain, as well as for limiting each user to three free plays prior to purchase.
While DRM may help foster new choices for consumers, DRM with narrower competitive aims may limit such choices by making it harder for consumers to switch brands. We do not mean to suggest that it is or should be impermissible for companies to employ DRM for such a purpose. Companies are likely to seek to use DRM for competitive advantage where they see an opportunity to do so. However, we believe it is fair for reviewers and consumer advocates to point out when DRM is being used in ways that offer no significant consumer benefit, and to be appropriately critical.