DRM's biggest problem is the name, according to HBO chief technology officer Bob Zitter. The solution, he believes, is simple: change the name to something that sounds a bit more friendly. "I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," Zitter told a panel at the National Cable Television Show in Las Vegas earlier this week, according to Broadcasting & Cable.

Zitter's suggestion? Digital Consumer Enablement, which he believes would more accurately communicate the concept that DRM helps consumers enjoy content in ways previously not possible.

Why stop there? How about Happy Fun Content Surprise with a smiling, large-eyed bunny (think Thumper with an iPod) as the mascot?

Think what you want of Zitter's idea, but it does illustrate the fact that the content creation industry is aware that consumers by and large find DRM distasteful. Unfortunately, it also reveals the extent to which some elements of the entertainment industry are willing to fool themselves into believing that if it can just sell the concept of DRM in the proper manner, most of the opposition will evaporate.

Zitter's assertion that DRM enables us "to use content in ways [we] haven't before," is also debatable at best. While it does enable new business models for the content-creation industry—like selling a DRM-crippled movie download via Wal-Mart that costs the same as a DVD but that can only be watched on a single PC—it really doesn't benefit consumers in any meaningful way. All of the applications Zitter names, like watching TV shows and movies on an iPod, we can do just fine without the "help" of DRM. In fact, we could do a lot more if it weren't for DRM and the DMCA, which constantly get in the way of both technological innovation and the abilities of consumers to exercise their rights.

The music industry appears to be slowly waking up to the idea that consumers really don't like DRM: witness EMI's decision to sell DRM-free music on the iTunes Store and the Barenaked Ladies' desire for a compulsory music license. The movie and television industries, however, are still fully behind the concept. Speaking at a conference in Beverly Hills, MPAA head Dan Glickman swore allegiance to what is apparently the MPAA's new holy trinity of fair use, interoperability, and DRM. He wants DRM to work without constricting consumers, to be sure, but its presence is still a requirement. And no name change will be able to disguise the true intent of DRM: limiting our ability to consume content at the time, place, and on the device of our choosing. Change the name if you like, but the rotten smell won't go anywhere.