While this research addressed an attitude towards DRM in the independent music sector, it could be applied equally as well to the independent film distribution. Most widely used DRM systems currently are not user friendly in the terms of usability and carry very serious drawbacks such as a prohibitive cost of implementation and sub-optimal speed of viewing the encrypted content. To make matters even worst, there was not developed up to this date a system which could prevent the content to be captured by a knowledgeable hacker. It could always just be shot on a DV cam as it is done during the releases of new movies in the theaters by unsavory patrons.

It is interesting to note three major differences for the Indies in comparison to the majors’ perceived strategy of active and extensive DRM-protection. First, the smaller and more independent the label, the more sympathetic it is to consumers’ convenience and perceived rights. Second, Indies try to avoid active DRM whenever possible. But they acknowledge that this decision is up to the distributor. Third, Independent labels’ preferred DRM strategy is a passive one: watermarking. They feel that this does not limit their customers’ convenience and at the same time identifies users in case of infringement.

Again, among the labels using the portal for online distribution, there is not a single one insisting on DRM-protection, Mr. Krieger affirms. The company feels that legitimate buyers of digital music should not have less usage rights than those downloading pirated material.

Watermarking is completely useless unless one wants to identify the content for potential litigation. Even the big studios found this task overwhelming and are fighting an uphill battle. Perhaps, offering only low res files is a better solution. If somebody wants to screen it on a big flat screen, it will be totally worthless. They will have to buy DVD to do so.

BTW: Blue Ray Disks sales are up while the bad quality content IS available for free on p2p.