You all know the slogan: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." At the Digital Rights Strategies conference in New York City, a similar message could be heard: "DRM doesn't anger consumers, content owners abusing DRM anger consumers."

Few, of course, would argue that the mere existence of DRM is a bad thing. Locked away in a vault somewhere or trapped in one of those nifty mirrors featured in Superman, DRM can do little harm. Such assertions are merely academic, of course. Tools are designed to be used, and DRM is being used to do what it was designed to do: control how consumers interact with content.

But the growing backlash against DRM is causing dissension in the pro-DRM ranks. Paul Sweeting's excellent report on the DRS conference records the frustrations of the DRM community at the tactics of the content industry. They apparently feel that an overzealous content industry is abusing DRM; this is a bit like Smith & Wesson complaining that bullets can kill.

When DRM proponents start pointing fingers and attempting to separate the theory (really, the ideology) from the practice, we have to stop and ask: what's going on here? It appears that players in the DRM ecosystem know the tide is turning against them because DRM is punishing the wrong people, namely the folks who are buying DRM-laden content. This is bad for their business, because a DRM backlash could harm DRM peddlers.

Then, of course, there's the hypocrisy. At a conference convened by the overlords of DRM, Sony vice president Scott Smyers admits that he circumvents the copy protection on DVDs (CSS) in order to make backups for personal use. Apparently Mr. Smyers doesn't agree with Hollywood or the Register of Copyrights, both of which argue that "backups" can readily be had in the form of new copies you can buy at the store. The corporate hypocrisy is obvious: what the corporate parent demands (DRM that prevents DVD copying), even its own employee disregards. We can't blame him.

Among DRM peddlers, there's also a bit of jealously because some DRM systems are "successful." Take the comments made by Talal Shamoon, CEO of InterTrust (a company working on interoperable DRM schemes, among other things): "Apple is using encryption to try to do what Ma Bell used to do with the phone network: wall people in," he said. "It frustrates consumers and ultimately feeds piracy."

Such views are nonsense, of course, when you're trying to pin them on just one proponent of DRM. Re-read that quote, and replace "Apple" with "DRM." It's every bit as true.

While proponents of universal or interoperable DRM schemes might say that they don't want to wall people in around any given manufacturer's products, the "Cask of Amontillado" aspects remain: interested consumers can only utilize DRM'd products on devices that support that DRM system (interoperable or not). Take the widest, most universal DRM implementation to date: CSS for DVDs. A properly equipped computer still cannot legally play DVDs in countries like the US if it runs an operating system or carries components not blessed by the "powers that be" (in this case, the DVD-CCA and friends). Then look at the next-gen version of CSS, known as AACS. The implementation requirements for AACS are even more stringent, even more exclusive. If you don't have a team of engineers available to make your new product work with AACS, then you're out of luck.

The consumer electronics world is well aware of the devastating effects of DRM on innovation. Take the comments of Jim Helman, CTO of Hollywood-backed MovieLabs. Helman says that if he were in the hardware business, he'd be focusing his attention on building a DVD-ripping movie jukebox. Yet this is something that is currently illegal and scares the DVD-CCA to death. The same activity that gave birth to the MP3 player and revolutionized the music industry is anathema to the content owners in Hollywood. MPAA VP Fritz Attaway even suggested that without DRM in place, Hollywood wouldn't have any other option than to simply not release its movies. DRM-free is apparently unthinkable at the MPAA, despite an acknowledgment from Attaway that current implementations cause problems for fair use! The message is, essentially: yes, we know this CSS stuff stomps on fair use, but better that than we release products without encryption.

The DRM backlash is indeed coming, and kudos to these industry players for realizing it. Heck, the backlash is already here and has been for years. Now that major players like Apple and even labels like EMI and Universal are starting to realize it, it's only a matter of time before it turns into a full-scale revolt. Whether or not there will be a revival of interoperable DRM cure-all theories remains to be seen, but backers have at least figured one thing out: when DRM does what it is designed to do—namely inconvenience and control end user behavior—users bite back.