RicRicho

Reviewing the tags for DRM and copy control on Technorati, the blogosphere search engine and other places it is clear that there is a real concern by users about Activation in terms of the longevity/ business viability publishers and the consumers rights to use their own software if the product requires re-activation but the publisher no longer supports the activation server or worse has gone out of business.

An idea I came up with spilling out of the discussion is that consumer supportive publishers, advertise that they have a copy of their software in an unprotected state and tell them how to get a hold of the un-protected version of the product in the event that something happens to their ability to provide activation…

Possibly a kind of voluntary escrow where a group of consumers can petition a 3rd party to release the unprotected version of the software citing the publishers inability to live up to their side of the bargain namely to ensure that the user retains reasonable rights to use their purchased software.

I can see a simple banner-ad system and an escrow account with a long legged law firm (one that will outlive most of the publishers) and even the option for the consumers to pay as a group to have the software released for a small stipend. And then possibly somewhere down the track, something reasonable like say 10 years, the lawyer is allowed to destroy the software.

Seth Godin rightly opines regarding automated computer responses to enquries:

“There’s a middle ground, one that is not computer-decided. It’s based on a human being treating another human being the way they’d like to be treated.”

This very issue is, I believe, at the heart of the DRM debate… DRM debate?

My point. Anyone who makes a living from intellectual property knows the value of keeping your rights as author, but DRM has become a whipping stick to force the law abiding public to accept unreasonable software licensing terms.

Someone who buys a $50 piece of software or even a $300 copy of Windows should not be expected to invest the time and energy into understanding and thinking of the ramifications of a twenty page user agreement… (that box we all click when we install the software binding us to who knows what).

Fair use should cover us… the licence is between the publisher and me.. Im the buyer… not the computer… and if I want to use it on my 10 PCs then thats ok.. its me using my software on 10 machines… Microsoft or anyone else should not stop me, the same way as i should be able to photocopy a chapter from a book I bought and read it on the train.

As an inventor in the space, and a key DRM patent under my belt… I should know. Technology can be used to help people do the right thing… it IS smart enough to let a consumer use the software on their own 5, 10 or even 15 machines but also detect when a kid has shared the software with their whole dorm… or the bittorent community… copy control is not the problem… publisher greed is…