Does knowledge want to be free?

The rampant spread of digital technology overwhelms us like the flu pandemic that has yet to arrive, and as in a medical emergency we scramble frantically, seemingly in the dark, seeking out solutions. We feel that we have to do something but what? Certain players on the field, having money at stake, are driving the agenda. Once something is created in or transcribed to digital form its distribution over the internet is very cheap. With one purchased music CD I could "give" free copies to a few billion of my dearest and closest friends. While distribution costs do exist, these are low and the unit cost tends to zero. So, does information want to be free? Or is there some happy middle path that will satisfy all?

Commercial digital media distributors have teamed with software and hardware suppliers to work on Digital Rights Management (DRM). One problem is that these systems aren't robust enough to hold hackers and the curiousity-driven adepts at bay. And even if they can't stave off the barbarian assaults they do interfere with historically legitimate rights. Such that your movies work at home but not if you take them on vacation to Europe. Or it works in your computer but not in the car or on your neighbor's computer. These are difficult issues. In the 'old' days people didn't buy two records, one to use at home, the other to use at the school dance. And before magnetic tape came into play noone expected to listen to their favorite music in the car; you simply listened to (or put up with) the radio. At least the 45rpms worked on all record players.

Another problem with the DRM people is that their search-in-the-dark solutions do more than protect their "rights" by invading the larger space of your computer. Witness the Sony-installed rootkit. There are kids in jail right now for doing less than Sony. Some DRM schemes may have the effect of not letting you share files that belong to you or are otherwise unemcumbered legally. In their haste to protect their pocketbooks and thereby their control over us, their influence with legislators may bring us draconian laws that we will later regret. And not satisfied with prosecuting thieves they want a techno-fix that will render theft impossible. How's that for chutzpah!

The digital revolution has changed the landscape. The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. One thing that's occurred is that different groups' interests have been more clearly exposed. The companies that sell this stuff and now even the the companies who own the transportation pipes are all eyeing our wallets. Our interests are broader. Should we want to protect the rights of content creators? Yes. Should we disown theft and let thieves be prosecuted? Yes. Should we accept media companies as our masters and let them rule the ways we work, play and communicate? Of course not.

Artists and authors need protection and so do we. After all we own that landscape. That copyright and patents exist is a matter of law, and I don't mean God's. Perhaps we need to find a way to compensate the creative ones and rely less on the industrial behemoths. That's their biggest worry. With broadband and P2P we don't need the middlemen. Let's deal with the issues directly. Protect artists' rights. Protect fair use. Preserve and enhance our liberty. And let the dinosaurs die, again.