Learning From The Past: How DRM Failed in Australia
While doing research for my Ph.D. I came across the history of how radio was introduced in Australia – and how it initially failed due to some ancient DRM suggested by the industry heavyweights.
Official radio transmission in Australia commenced in 1923. In May that year the Postmaster-General convened a conference of all interested parties to consider the introduction of systematic broadcasting. At this conference E.T. Fisk, head of Amalgamated Wireless Australasia (AWA), the company that held the Australian rights to the most crucial wireless patents, proposed a scheme “which provided for competitive broadcasting by stations each having exclusive use of a particular wavelength in a given area and getting its income from subscriptions paid by listeners whose receivers were sealed to its wavelength alone” (Barnard, 1992: 6) – basically some old-school DRM (or should I say Analog Rights Management?).
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.
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).
In July 1924, after another conference, the sealed set was replaced by new regulations and a dual system, involving stations funded by advertising revenue, the so-called “B” stations, as well as stations financed out of listeners’ licence fees, the “A” stations, began operating. Already by the end of 1924 some 38,000 Australians held “A” station licences.
–Jens
December 5th, 2007 at 8:25 am
[...] Would that our modern day equivalents last so short a time. [Here is some more.] [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
[...] Relations, Political Campaigns, Technology, Social Media, Web 2.0: A blog analysis « Learning From The Past: How DRM Failed in Australia Hello BoingBoing readers! December 5, 2007 If you’re new to this site, it is [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Just wrote about it as well (in Portuguese)
http://ptnik.blogspot.com/2007/12/o-drm-j-chateava-os-australianos-em.html
December 5th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Strikingly similar to the state of affairs with the mobile phone industry — SIM locks, outrageous fees, contract lock-in.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Barnard, 1992; Counihan, 1992; Harte, 2002
Can i know what you’re quoting?
I don’t think that today the situation of DRM is similar to the radio in Australia on 20’s. A lot of things were too different
December 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Sure. These were my resources:
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
Counihan, Mick: Official History and the B-Class Stations. In: Moran, Albert (ed.): Stay Tuned. An Australian Broadcast Reader Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992
Also useful:
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
December 6th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I don’t really agree about the comparison between DRM and 20’s in Australia and i explained that here http://technosoc.blogspot.com/2007/12/wrong-business-about-radio.html
December 6th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Thanks for your interest in my post.
In regards to your post:
I have to disagree with you about “that nobody knew in which direction the business could lead”. The US, where the first regular commercial broadcast commenced on August 28 1922, from the beginning embraced radio as free enterprise with stations competing against each other for the good of the consumer. In England, as a product of a real distrust of the power of broadcasting to debase cultural standards, the BBC was taking shape. It commenced broadcasting in 1923. In short: There were to established models Australia could have adapted but didn’t due to industry pressure and the apathy of the government.
Interesting point about the manufactures. On the other hand: Does it matter eventually who enforces DRM respectively who’s behind the whole idea? It is still the same principle. As someone on BoingBoing commented: “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’”: The industry is crippling technology because it fears for its revenue, a strategy that is bound to fail.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
How is this plan any different than the encryption used by payTV channels? You have to buy specific equipment that is locked to a particular broadcaster and this system seems to have worked well in many countries so I don’t think there are any general lessons here.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Hi Matt,
good call. On the other hand payTV offers an extra service that you consciously engage with while basic TV services remain free. You have the choice - with the sealed set scheme you had not.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:24 am
“Does it matter eventually who enforces DRM respectively who’s behind the whole idea?”
Well, if you want to “build” a theory of social change with technology (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_technology)
it matters.
“The US, where the first regular commercial broadcast commenced on August 28 1922″
August 1922 means just few months before they started in Australia, therefore there wasn’t a business model that was a reference for everybody. In 20’s, without tv and without Internet, things were changing slowly, not like now.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Hi Hamlet,
“August 1922 means just few months before they started in Australia, therefore there wasn’t a business model that was a reference for everybody. In 20’s, without tv and without Internet, things were changing slowly, not like now”
I’m sorry but that is simply not true. Australia might be geographically isolated but nevertheless already had close ties to the US back in the 1920s and was engaging in a steady exchange of goods and ideas (aided by the telegraph). American movies were flooding the market, American consumerism stated to shape Australian dreamscapes, part of the Australian constitution and even the idea of dog licences was copied from the US. So I’m pretty sure that Australia was able to follow the discussions that accompanied the introduction of radio into the US (and quite frankly: considering the prevalent political philosophy in the US the idea of free enterprise was pretty much a no brainer).
The ties with Britain were even closer, after all Australia watched the world through London’s eyes making it very likely that the idea of a public broadcaster was already heard of.
The fact that Australia was aware of what was going on in the world is also evidenced by the fact that the A and B station scheme, introduced right after the failed sealed set scheme, the is pretty much a combination of both the British and American system.
Also: Could please elaborate what you mean by building a theory of social change with technology in connection with this post? And why it exactly matters who stands behind what? It’s early in the morning and I can’t quite comprehend yet what you mean
December 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“I’m sorry but that is simply not true. Australia might be geographically isolated but nevertheless already had close ties to the US back in the 1920s and was engaging in a steady exchange of goods and ideas (aided by the telegraph). American movies were flooding the market, American consumerism stated to shape Australian dreamscapes, part of the Australian constitution and even the idea of dog licences was copied from the US.”
I’m in Europe and a few days ago i was watching Kevin Rudd’s victory speech (he’s the new prime minister)in real time in Bbc world (without a satellite dish). Do you know what i mean? I don’t think that in 20’s after 5 minutes people in Europe could know the winner of austrialian elections.
“Could please elaborate what you mean by building a theory of social change with technology in connection with this post? And why it exactly matters who stands behind what?”
There are people who study the interaction between technology and society. You can read the theory called SCOT (Social construction of technology) or you can read the book “Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change” written by Wiebe Bijker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiebe_Bijker