Everyone who is reasonable about the DRM debate agrees that DRM is not going to keep protected content off the filesharing networks forever. All DRM will eventually be broken and, at the very least, the analog hole will for the forseeable future remain an open path for copyright infringement. However, let's assume for the nonce that DRM can significantly delay the spread of protected content onto filesharing networks.

This leads to one of the problems with DRM that I've noted before (Speed Bumps on Your Car). DRM typically outlives its usefulness:

Long after DRM has provided whatever "speed bump" effect it can, consumers are still inhibited from many perfectly legitimate uses of a work. Indeed, many of the costs of DRM are backloaded. DRM likely doesn't create much of an initial issue for many. However, down the line, when people purchase new PCs or devices, DRM is likely to make transfers from old to new devices more difficult or impossible. Looked at from a long term perspective, DRM seems an extremely poor choice if all you're interested in is short term benefit.

I stand by my analysis. But recent DRM debates here and on Copyfight have given me an idea. Read on...

Microsoft is soon to unleash a new DRM technology code-named "Janus" (Rental Nation). What's special about Janus? Well, Microsoft isn't the first developer to create DRM with this capability, but they are the biggest (Microsoft to Publicly Preview New DRM Technology):

Janus includes a "secure clock" that is designed to time-out subscription content for which a customer's license has expired.

But what if we reversed the concept and applied it to DRM? Why not a "secure clock" that is designed to time-out DRM after a set period of time after the DRM has lost whatever speedbump effect it had? Once the DRM has timed out the consumer is left with a non-DRM'd file. I don't see any technical reason why this cannot be done. If DRM can erase expired content, it can also erase DRM.

How long before the latest music has managed to become widely available on the filesharing networks? A few weeks, months? Why not have the DRM time-out over a set period, such as 3 months? Such a strategy would certainly indicate that those using DRM are doing so only in order to reduce piracy. It would treat honest customers with a lot more respect than they are getting now. Heck, it might even become a copynorm. People would certainly be more supportive of a DRM strategy that was more narrowly targeted at infringers and infringed on fewer of their rights.

Of course, I doubt that any major content producer would adopt such a strategy. Why? Because I don't think that the purpose of DRM is to reduce piracy (Why Use DRM If It Doesn't Work? and Potemkin Village - What Secrets DRM Encryption is Really Hiding).