DMCA, meet your twin brother, the DCPA. This time they would like to prevent us from doing anything that could even potentially be used to put an audio recording out into the world unencumbered.

What are the ramifications of this law? An Ars article seems to think that it would prevent all manner of fair use:

The broadcast flag is embedded in the signal like a special tag that defines the content’s terms of use, while the secure moving technology acts as a sort of DRM wrapper/sandbox for the content that ensures that any (compliant) playback device not only respects the restrictions dictated by the broadcast flag but also does absolutely nothing novel or unexpected with the content that the broadcast flag’s terms did not or could not anticipate.

Is it an accurate deciphering of the legalese? From what I can tell, it is. I don’t want it to be, because it seems that it’s a horrible thing to enact into law, but that’s what I get out of it.

For me it comes down to a simple question: is it the government’s business to regulate the music, movie, and other related industries? Let’s see what happens on the two extremes:

The government does not regulate them at all

In this scenario, there are no restrictions on what a “playback device” can, should, or must do.

Pros

  • There are no enforced regulations on playback device manufacturers, allowing them to produce a product without a legal team (or at least a small one), saving money for them and their customers
  • This gives consumers choice in how they access their content. If they wish to purchase a playback device that is laden with DRM, they can. If they wish to buy one without DRM, they can

Cons

  • This would make it easier for the casual music pirate to copy, distribute, and acquire music - arguably a loss for the music industry, despite the possibility that it could actually spur interest in new and otherwise untouched artists
  • There may be very little incentive for playback device manufacturers to incorporate DRM into their systems

The government regulates all playback devices

In this scenario, the government dictates that all playback devices created from now on must obey the Broadcast flag embedded in some digital media, which can arbitrarily limit what can be done with that media

Pros

  • As a pro for the content industries, this allows them to force playback devices to be compliant with their DRM, possibly growing their industries and creating more jobs etc
  • Casual piracy may shrink down to a very small size, though “professional” pirates will find a way around it

Cons

  • This is an added expense for all playback device manufacturers, who will pass the cost onto the consumer
  • Consumers may be confused and frustrated by the restrictions on their content, which they paid for and feel they should be able to use however they like

I believe that the government does not have adequate cause to regulate these industries based on the possible benefits to society as a whole. Not only would the be violating individual rights (those of the playback device manufacturers), but this system may actually lead to a decrease in consumer spending in the affected industries, producing an overall negative economic effect.

That one kid

There’s always that one kid who has to ruin the monkey bars for everyone else by falling off of them and breaking his arm after doing something stupid. Pirates may be doing something stupid, but should we all be forced to live in DRM chains as a result? No. Unfortunately our government has a recent track record of stomping on individual rights in the name of whatever they’re calling the greater good these days (the War on Terror; the Liberation of Iraq; the Protection of our Children).

Technorati Tags: , ,