DRM: The Dialogue

John brings up a crucial discussion that is taking place throughout the entertainment industry between artists, producers, owners, distributors and consumers.  There are many elements to the digital rights debate, but they boil down to two basic areas of contention: morality (as determined by law) and economics (as determined by self-interest).

John has suggested that the morality of so-called piracy has to do with the taker’s intention.  “Am I trying to defraud the artist by copying this DVD?”  Well, of course I’m not.  I am trying to watch a movie for free, and I don’t know (or care) who gets burned.  Most movies today are licensed for exclusive exploitation by studio distributors “in any and all media now known or hereafter devised throughout the universe in perpetuity,” etc, etc.  So for all intents and purposes the artists are not the owners of their work (and they can afford to be ambivalent): the studio takes the hit.  I won’t waste my tears on the fat cats, but stealing from Wal-Mart is still stealing.  Let’s face it, the kid using bit torrent to download X-MEN on Pirate Bay is no Robin Hood.

The economic arguments are much more intriguing to me.  Given that public self-esteem now accommodates piracy in the broad daylight of mainstream, how does this effect the production and distribution of good movies?  Adversely.  Distributors (who hold the purse-strings) are now only greenlighting films that will make a big opening-weekend boxoffice.  Piracy is undercutting long theatrical runs (because the films leak early), and simply gutting the DVD market.  And what kind of films slam-dunk opening weekend?  Franchises and genre pictures.  The veritable junk food of cinema.  And don’t get me wrong, I love junk food as much as the next guy– but we can’t live on it.

My forecast has one similarity to John’s: the theater screening experience has to kick up its appeal.  But I also predict that encryption technology and piracy-prevention will gain traction; compression technology will advance and consumers will begin to pay for access to streaming films (like Netflix‘s very successful online feature); the concept of owning a personal copy of a film will fade out and communal streaming libraries will fade in; piracy advocates will lose a few key legal battles and die slowly.

Even junk food costs money to produce, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

DRM and Movies

Digital Rights Management is a tough subject.  As a moral subject, I believe it comes down to “intent.”  As a legal subject, it comes down to who “owns” the rights to digital art.  The famous “fair use” clause makes this tricky.  However, there are a galaxy of questions one must ask to understand “intent.”

Am I trying to defraud the artist by copying this DVD?  As an artist, do I only want paying people to enjoy my work?  Do paying people understand my work better?  What rights does an artist have over his/her art?

Well, theoretically and legally, an artist has all the rights to the spawn of his/her creativity. However, there are very few artists that create art just to make money. Music, painting, movies — these things aim at communicating something. Arguably, all art is aimed at the pursuit of what is true.  Art seeks to break down preconceptions and prejudices.   It shatters the normal and shows us a different point of view. Great art reveals a world of beauty previously obscured by our own laziness or social conditioning.

In the past it wasn’t so easy to share art. Wealthy Roman’s had copies made of famous and fashionable Greek statues and paintings. Renaissance painters copied each other. There are several copies of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. However, before digital technology, the process of copying was a painstaking art in itself – and prohibitively expense.

On the other hand, digital art can be copied endlessly, without loss of quality. A DVD copy is identical to the original. Thus, digital rights management is a very new problem. The real battle is between those seeking to make money from art, and those wanting to enjoy art. The artists themselves are pretty much ambivalent to the debate over DRM.

As this Harvard Law Journal abstract states, the DRM mechanisms are often contradictory with other digital rights laws.

“Most DRM mechanisms are not engineered to include exceptions for fair use, and user circumvention of the DRM may violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even if the use for which the circumvention occurs is itself noninfringing.”

My opinion is: don’t fight a losing battle. If I’m playing on the record company’s team, I would try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible, squeezing as much profit from people willing to purchase DRM-limited MP3′s and CD’s. But, in the end, unlimited, free online distribution is what will be the norm.  It will be the norm, because it can’t be stopped.  The ability to record the audio/visual arts is a relatively new phenomenon.  Perhaps we’re moving back toward a world more focused on live events.

Groups like DefectiveByDesign.org are simply voicing the inevitable. There’s no need to start a movement. The economics of the situation will play out. Just as record companies are investing more money in live tours, I believe that movie studios will invest more money is the movie theater experience. These kinds of experiences cannot be pirated.

DRM can often lead to a diminished user experience.  But not always.  Apple is a case in point.  Though, they too will have to adapt to new consumer expectations.  Successful media companies of the future will find ways to profit from digital art without decreasing the user experience.

Me on Mandate

Get it?

Among the leading production companies Mandate Pictures is unique.  It combines spunky, independent fare with commercially solid genre films.  The company was founded in 2005 by Joseph Drake (CEO), supported by the prolific executive-producer Nathan Kahane (President), and is now under the creative guidance of  Nicole Brown (SVP Production).

Since its birth the indie studio has made its business producing some of the smartest mainstream movies in decades with the likes of STRANGER THAN FICTION and JUNO.  The company has hedged the inherent risk of  these non-genre films with a number of solid horrors from cult-favorite Sam Raimi by pairing with his Ghost House Pictures.  Among those are THE GRUDGE 2, THE MESSENGERS, THE STRANGERS and the recent DRAG ME TO HELL.  Mandate has also dipped into broader fare with the family film MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM, the broad comedy HAROLD AND KUMAR 2 and the emo darling NICK AND NORA’S INFINITE PLAYLIST.

Mandate’s upcoming releases include Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut, WHIP IT, a dramedy starring indie wunderkind Ellen Page (JUNO) and THE BASTER, a neo-romcom starring Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman (ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, JUNO).  Mandate is currently in production with the thriller PEACOCK (another vehicle for the Oscar-nominated Ellen Page).  There are also a number of noteworthy projects on the Mandate development slate, the most interesting of which are JAY AND SETH VS. THE APOCALYPSE and I’M WITH CANCER (Seth Rogan attached to both).

Mandate was acquired by Lionsgate in 2007, and since then has grown more than 500% (according to The Hollywood Reporter), helping to buoy the studio in its hour of need.  Mandate is located in Santa Monica.