Seller.dist.book

In the current Seybold Bulletin (e-mail subscription so no link) Bill Rosenblatt uses his editorial to take the publisher's view on how Palladium is good for all of us. Many of his points are reasonable and, to be fair, he also notes the risks to users and to Microsoft in the Palladium strategy.

Where Rosenblatt errs is in his underlying assumption that what publisher's want is what the rest of us need. We have ample proof that, left to their own devices, most publishers (regardless of media and like most entrenched businesses) view customers as little more than tokens from which revenue can be extracted and would choose all manner of user-hostile control and revenue generation schemes -- while doing little to improve their business models or increase the value they provide.

A robust, ubiquitous control mechanism that enables this sort of dreary, burdensome business practice hardly deserves support. There is no question the protection of copyright and intellectual property must be preserved, but Palladium-like architectures shift the balance of power totally to entrenched businesses, and do so in a way that is far more invasive and damaging to creators, innovators, and users than is called for.

[...] In the end, Palladium seems like publishers' best hope for DRM functionality that is as transparent, robust and ubiquitous as they would like it to be. Microsoft seems to have realized that it's very difficult to make money from DRM functionality per se, yet such functionality is necessary to support the various software and services from which Microsoft (and other vendors) could make money; therefore, it's necessary to build DRM technology and give it away as a way of moving things along. If publishers want DRM, they should take an open-minded attitude toward Palladium and find ways of working with Microsoft to ensure that it meets their needs.
Bill Rosenblatt is lead consultant at GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies.