The technology I describe is quite different from most DRM proposals. I will say up front, however, that there are severe, perhaps insurmountable technical problems with my ideas that are shared, I believe, with the better known software proposals.

In broad outline, these are ideas to enable a considerable variety of voluntary arrangements between the content owner and user—arrangements that can be enforced largely by technical means. The libertarian slant is that these schemes are voluntary and do not require new legislation. They would, however, depend on significant penetration of personal computers equipped at least with novel software, and most likely hardware.

While copyright law has served well and content producers and consumers have adapted to it and flourished, it may be at the end of its rope. The schemes envisioned here are not patterned after copyright law. They presume mainly technical means and some contract law. Perhaps Jessica Litman has a better idea.

The first element of the solution is a system architecture within the personal computer that supports a variety of interests within one computer, that is owned by the end user. This architecture depends to a degree on new hardware which may be along the lines proposed by the Trusted Computer Platform Alliance (TCPA). Palladium plans by Microsoft hint at similar features.

Copyright law has produced several useful, but inflexible patterns of content distribution. Contrasted to paying to see a movie in a theater, a purchased copyrighted book can be passed on to other users whereupon the previous owner of the copy looses access. That has its logic for physical copies but it would be a pity to limit the world of bits to so few patterns of distribution.

One objection often heard to early and anticipated DRM practices is that the content owners will arbitrarily limit the options of the user. Some seem to propose that distribution schemes must be narrowly limited and mandated by law. I do not subscribe to the idea that groups are unable to come to mutually agreeable rights over content in an open market. The content owner must respect the wishes of his customer if he is to make any sales.

Fair use is a doctrine that was recently cobbled onto copyright law precisely because the earlier literal reading of the law precluded obviously useful behavior; behavior that on the average benefited everyone. I fear that trying to solve distribution problems for content by patching copyright law will work poorly for all parties.

The Road Show

Here are some possible deals that might well be mutually agreeable:

• You can amortize the cost of downloading the content by copying that content to another similarly equipped computer. Independently you might transfer some of your rights to perform the work. You might subsequently purchase additional performance rights without the cost of retransmission. See parable.
• You might get for free, or for a very small price, rights to view portions, chosen by you, of the movie, or book. One charm of current book stores is that you can see an unbiased sample of a printed work. If it is a reference work you might pay for incremental access. I cannot afford the $800 for the Oxford English Dictionary on CD. My usage would be light enough, however, that a lesser price might penetrate a market that the current CD cannot enter.
• Volume discounts can be provided with restrictions such as performance on the same equipment.
• Derivative works can be produced with a new class of rights, to be negotiated, of course. (I have fantasies of writing a program that removes Glenn Gould’s humming from his piano recordings.)

Here is fascinating discussion with Jack Valenti on DCMA and its ramifications. Valenti appears very intelligent, yet ignorant of software issues.

Another DRM players: Digital Transmission Content Protection; IBM’s xCP which is connected (somehow) with CPRM stuff.

An interesting background article.