Australian DRM from 1923 - dumb radio idea that refuses to die
In 1923, radio was introduced to Australia, complete with a scheme for "analog rights management" that presaged the dumbest anti-copying/anti-use schemes of the modern day. In the early years of Aussie radio, the radios were sold permanently tuned to a single frequency, sealed shut to prevent their owners from changing the channel. Each broadcaster had its own model of radio that it sold to the public, one that could only receive its programmes, and this was how the stations made money. The system lasted less than two years and was a complete failure.
The regulations were approved in July, the first licence was applied for in August and by the end of the year six had been issued. By March 1924 it was widely held that the sealed set system had failed: Less than 1400 listeners bothered to (officially) apply for a subscription.Link (Thanks, Parker!)The scheme was not only unenforceable but it also was not supported by the wireless dealers, therefore the main responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the scheme was placed in the hands of those most likely to undermine it (Counihan, 1992: 14): Of course the dealers weren’t enthusiastic about selling some crippled technology that potentially could receive dozens of stations – and neither were the customers who resorted to ‘piracy’. In short: “It was obvious that the sealed set scheme was doomed from the start” (Harte, 2002: 56).
the latest
latest episodes
I don't know if I'd call this DRM as a really stupid business model.
I live in Australia, but I've never heard of this - that is incredibly funny! Especially in the light of the fact that radio must have had it pretty tough here even without such lunacy, given the distances (unless a pure local channel).
Something must have been done right though later, 'cause some radio stations here are truly awesome, mainly via public broadcaster ABC.
All hail to public media, so it doesn't have to be a business model but can remain a service. I'm sick of schmuck privatisation evangelists gutting one good thing after another...
They should have never entered these shores, just like cane toads and rabbits...;)
#1: i would, it's the same sort of 'you can only use our content on our device, even though you're the one paying. oh and you can't change it to work better either' mentality we're seeing all over the place now.
Well, at least now we know where Microsoft got their business model.
Hi there,
thanks for your interest in my post.
Hey, since when are bad business ideas and DRM mutually exclusive?!
#2: Radio did have a tough time in Australia, mainly because stations kept to the most populous areas, and country listeners were neglected. This is actually the reason why the ABC came into existence: The government was determined to maximise the capacity of the new medium to bind the new nation together. In 1928, in large part as a result of pressure from rural areas, it announced its intention to "nationalise" the "A" stations and turn them into a broadcast section. The Postmaster-General's department assumed responsibility for the "A" stations when their licences expired, with programming conducted, firstly, by a commercial consortium (which sucked) and then, in 1932, by the ABC
I love this! This is a good example of public attitudes in Australia to media. Traditionally we've seen media in all forms as a very public space... I think that's been a powerful part of our makeup.
I've tried to explain the UK tv licence scheme to friends in Australia and people just laugh. Same with the idea if digital rights.
No one owns ideas and anyone who seeks to is not to be trusted. A very Australian attitude, methinks.
It has been reported (see http://www.cpj.org/censored/index.html for one source) that radios and TVs in North Korea are sold pre-locked to government-approved frequencies.
"You can't stop the signal", as Mr Universe observed, but that doesn't mean that people won't try.
Kamapuaa:
Yes, it's a recurring theme with Mr. Doctorow that while intellectual capital is a thing of value, "intellectual property" is somewhat of an oxymoron.
But so far as his Economics chops go, Mr. Doctorow has proven that making money by giving one's work away is possible (and perhaps inevitable). At the same time, restricting access to creative works actively reduces demand for them.
"Jens", the author of the article to which Mr. Doctorow has directed us, has provided citations on this subject for our mutual benefit.
"Each broadcaster had its own model of radio that it sold to the public, one that could only receive its programmes, and this was how the stations made money."
Wow. And history repeats itself, in the Clearwire wireless modem, which uses a proprietary frequency band.
For those who're interested, these are the books I cited from:
Harte, Bernard: When Radio Was the Cat's Whiskers
Kenthurst: Rosenberg Publishing, 2002
Barnard, Alan: AWA, the Radio Traders And the Government in Early Radio. In: Moran, Albert (ed.): Stay Tuned. An Australian Broadcast Reader Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992
Also useful:
Counihan, Mick: Official History and the B-Class Stations. In: Moran, Albert (ed.): Stay Tuned. An Australian Broadcast Reader Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992
Walker, R.R.: The Magic Spark. The Story of the First Fifty Years of Radio In Australia
Melbourne: The Hawthorn Press, 1973
and the standard work...
Inglis, Kenneth Stanley: This is the ABC. The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983 (2nd edition)
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2006
At first I thought this was a joke and you were going to say that this describes the current cell phone market in the USA.
Wow, Australia had North Korean Radio first? Must be where the leaders of that country got the idea.
As cory said, it is technically ARM
Thanks Jens for the additional info.
Before moving here, I travelled extensively through the more remote parts of the country in a van, and stations such as TrippleJ and ABC National Radio became pretty good companions.
I couldn't believe what sort of coverage they actually had and it was perfectly clear that it could never be done on a commercial model.
Your explanation makes perfect sense...to not exclude the small but very important part of people living scattered across these vast areas. Not unlike the "Flying Doctor Service", I guess.
Next step...broadband.