DRM =/= a good business model

The NYT Bits debate, "Is Copyright Protection Needed or Futile?" nicely gathered up the main arguments on either side of the DRM debate.  Most of NBC's General Counsel's arguments were more of the same: creators need incentive, creators have a right to protect their work, creators make huge monetary investments, most people on the internet are illegally stealing content, etc. etc.  Unsurprising.  He did, however, address that there are fair use concerns, but he didn't really present us with options to protect fair use right while simultaneously protecting creators' rights.

But I found Tim Wu's rebuttals to be interesting, not just because I agree with him but also because he has some ideas that I hadn't run across before.  He makes a great point here:

"I believe that the content industry tends to grossly overestimate its own interest in digital locks, let alone our collective interest. It is natural to want to secure and protect things that are yours. But decisions in this area are often driven by a sense of panic that displaces careful thinking about the true costs and benefits of digital locks. In short: digital locks are no substitute for a good business model."

It's the truth, too.  We've learned that this kind of over-protection has actually hurt companies in the past.  While protection is needed, it's important for content producers to find a new business model that embraces a happy medium.  It'll work for their revenues and it'll make consumers hate them less.