In ages past, the seas were teaming with opportunity, limitless bounds, the lure of faraway lands, and were threatened by a scurge of thieves that plundered the waves of hidden riches. The romanticized image of pirates that Americans hold today is a conglomeration of Disney's Captain Hook and Captain Jack Sparrow, and perhaps a few other wily characters. But today's riches do not lie in the waves or are marked by a vivid X. These riches are not plundered by a narrow spectrum of individuals with a hook or an eye patch. In the digital milenium, the scoundrels are brilliantly networked in dynamic communities, and steal products protected under copyright in a highly democratized exchange of resources. In recent years these same scoundrels have been romanticized in a similar fashion to their comrades centuries ago. Hackers and multimedia pirates have been sculpted into a form that has been condemned by industry yet embraced and heralded in underground forums.

The current ammunition against individuals obtaining illegal copyright material is called Digital Rights Management, or Digital Restrictions Management depending on the context. These terms encompass the practice of creating technologies that can easily be copied to multimedia, and “protect” the content from being shared that is contrary to current copyright regulation. There is uncertainty regarding the legality of some DRM technologies, and several leading companies have been confronted with choices in protecting their products. One of the first implementations of a DRM system was introduced by the DVD forum, which created a simple encryption algorithm to protect against high quality output copies of material contained on the disc. This format, called a Content Scrambling System, allowed the DVD forum to control and limit copying; device manufacturers were legally obligated to comply with these standards in order to host DVD content. However, the CSS algorithm was hacked by Jon Lech Johansen and made the DVD content accessible to personal computers. This tends to be the pattern in the digital rights arena; content that has been protected by companies through encryption have inevitably fallen to independents working to gain access, or hack the content. This trend was continued when commercialized HD DVD discs became available and utilized a highly more sophisticated encryption standard set under the Advanced Access Content System License Authority. An internet hacker under the alias of Muslix64, cracked the HD DVD encryption by December of 2006, and posted a dramatic YouTube video that detailed the process. The fundamental flaw with encrypting media is the necessity of encryption keys located in the software that plays the encrypted media. The encryption keys can be observed running in memory. Digital Rights Management has significantly curtailed production of pirated content, but it is not impervious to those wishing to open the content freely. This assault on copyright infringement has led the industry “to fight back with lawsuits designed to alert the public that downloading for free violates copyright law and carries real penalties. The heavily publicized suits appear to be slowing traffic at sites like Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster, which allow illegal file sharing. But millions of people are still obtaining their music in this new-fashioned way” (Greenblatt). Proponents of DRM have won many battles yet have lost the war, as content continues to be exchanged, in most part, without any legal ramifications.

As a consumer of media, I both purchase and steal music, movies, and programs. Like many Americans, I have made conscious decisions to either purchase the content, or download it in opposition to copyright restrictions. I cannot justify breaking the law. I also cannot deny that artists have claims on their copyrights and are employed to defend them. What I can justify is the widening disparity that exists between independent minds and giant corporate interests. Both of these variable entities are interdependent upon each other – but when the middle ground expands, it becomes harder for both interests to be heard. What do I base this opinion on? I can only cite specific examples that I have encountered which lead me to believe that exchange of opinion and information is not as efficient as it could be.

For example, Apple's Quicktime software now comes bundled with iTunes. You cannot choose to either download one or the other. This poses a problem to Quicktime Pro users, which pay $30 in order to unlock the Pro features. Once a user has purchased Quicktime Pro, he cannot install updates to iTunes or Quicktime because it disables the Pro features. Ordinarily, the programs can be downloaded without incurring any fees, but those who upgrade for a premium fee are punished. Apple has recognized this and added a warning as a disclaimer when the user tries to update, yet have done nothing to actually correct the problem. This can be easily solved, simply change the nature of the bundle, and preserve the purchase of serial numbers to extend into updates. This is senseless, and hinders the development of independent minds. Was it not Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak who developed this company in a garage? Rationally, I would assume that Jobs' company would embrace the vibrant wealth of independent minds, but it does not.

Another example: if one were inclined to add independently created videos to a video iPod, the process is extensive and the video compression requirements are hidden in small, gray print at the bottom of an obscure page on Apple's website. Apple's motivations can be easily identified: BUY the latest episode on iTunes Store, BUY that movie, BUY it from us. Or you can BUY Quicktime Pro which has a “Video to iPod” built in compression setting. Millions of users have unconsciously submitted to content that is controlled by a vertically integrated corporation. Apple controls exhibition, distribution, and sponsors production through its editing systems. The level of control is dynamic and widespread, and I fear that Congress has overlooked a behemoth that continues to operate without restriction. Proposed legislation has been thwarted by corporate interests in maximizing profit, “Clinton administration and congressional proposals to thwart copyright infringements have met resistance from academics and librarians concerned about longtime protections for 'fair use' in scholarship and journalism” (Clark). This legislation needs to be revisited, with the intentions and integrity vested in the people.

Perhaps I should stop picking on Apple, but it is not a coincidence that Apple is one of the leading proponents in the integration of DRM technologies. Apple has a strong vested interest in maintaining the copyright protection of its product, yet this will never be successful until the company, and others acknowledge the independent minds who are reliant on their products. This is the widening middle ground that I have described. I oppose DRM protection rights, because their combative nature fail to embrace sweeping, democratized change that will influence the rest of media history. These restrictions are inherently designed to be broken, as this has been proven, and will fail to capture the momentum of an exponentially accelerated industry.

Greenblatt, Alan. "Future of the Music Industry." CQ Researcher 13.41 (2003): 989-1012. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 19 April 2007 .

Clark, Charles S. "Clashing Over Copyright." CQ Researcher 6.42 (1996): 985-1008. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Emerson Library, Boston, MA. 19 April 2007 .