DRM nightmare: Why $20,000 worth of gear won't play my 99 cent songs

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1911' target='_blank'>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1911</a><br /><br /></div><i>"It's kind of screwed up if you think about it. In search of that zen feel where I can have the benefits of modern day audio/video in any room in my house, but without all sorts of unsightly equipment, wires, and splitters spilling out from the nooks and crannies of those rooms, I've already sunk nearly $20,000 into a state-of-the-art whole-home system and I'm not even done yet. Microsoft's Bill Gates may have the ultimate digital crib in the suburbs of Seattle. But, by the time I'm done, I won't be far behind. The sidebar to this story (perhaps for a different day or a different blog) is that the gear you need to do that home audio/video project the right way isn't sold by Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Dell or any of the other brand names that we've come to know and love (or hate) in the computer industry. Nor will it be. What they sell, and plan to sell in the coming years, are toys when compared to the gear sold by companies that specialize in home theatre..."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/no-drm.jpg" /> <br /><br />This is the biggest battle between corporations and consumers in the electronics industry today. Consumers want to be able to take their music, movies, and tv shows with them wherever they go. Corporations want to dictate what they can do with these files, how they can do it, and when they can do it. Encryption and fair use management have been seamless until now, and compatability has been guaranteed. CDs play in any CD player for a reason: Philips (the CD format licensee) guarantees it. They've sued several music companies recently because some of the new DRM'd music discs that have come out <i>don't</i> play in every CD player, therefore Philips won't let them use the CD logo and license. Corporations are intentionally trying to break compatability in an effort to carve out a market niche for themselves. Don't believe me? Just ask a <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1911">high-end audio engineer</a>, or the <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1905">founder of the EFF</a>.

[Felix Torres]

I find it interesting that an "audiophile" would actually spend money buying medium-quality 128kbps music. Or worry about lock-in *after* investing in a widely-known closed system. :roll:

That said, I see a collision of two separate dysfunctions here:

1- An architectural dysfunction between the client/server model behind the best DRM schemes (basically MS. If Open DRM ever amounts to something more than specs, it too would fit here) and the federated-module model used by Escient and the other high-end vendors. Where the DRMs come from the PC-Internet world where client/server is the established operating model and well understood, the audiophile world is accustomed to dealing with modular heterogeneous systems that integrated into a seamless whole by the front-end command and control system. The computer industry had a similar model in the late 70's/early 80's that was similarly broken by the emergence of corporate PCs in the late 80's; client server was the architectural solution adopted in the wake of the commoditization of computing power that corporate PCs brought about. I'm guessing the audiophile world will have to similarly re-architect itself, either by establishing integration standards that will allow the heterogeneous modules to seamlessly link and cooperate--think: an enhanced X10-type control protocol combined with a high-quality data transfer system--or, more likely, they'll join in the existing trends and adopt computer industry standards (TCP/IP, WiFi, DRM, etc) and build their federated systems that way. A third possibility would be to abandon federated systems and adopt client/server but that would require reengineering all their modules and expose them to the commoditization effects of the Media Center PC model. (It is worth pointing out that these systems are essentially super high-end niche products with audio specs that only dogs and "golden-ears" type can detect; even the highest-end PC-based systems fall way short of the specs and integration this market expects. Especially the specs...)

2- The second dysfunction is more common and better understood, but significantly less tractable: the well-known collision of user expectations and content provider paranoia created by the internet peer-to-peer music publishing craze. What makes it intractable is that the two camps are entrenched and completely uninterested in any level of compromise: the EFF crowd is philosophically opposed to *any* content controls, (even on private corporate systems for internal use!) while the content providers are convinced every customer is dead-set on redistributing their content for free on the internet the moment they get their hands on it. Not much to be done there or any hope of resolution any time soon. If anything, things are going to get worse now that politicians are getting involved in the DRM-standards debate. Expect things to get worse before they start to get better.

Will be interesting to see which way the audiophiles go and whether they choose to adopt open standards that would allow the trickle-down of high-quality features to the mainstream home media networks mere mortals can afford. :wink:

That said, my heart fair bleeds for somebody who can afford a US$20K audio system and can't get it to work right. :?

[Jeremy Charette]

Well said Felix (as usual).

I agree on the point about architecture. However that's not the whole solution. Some high-end audio companies are trying to migrate to a server/client architecture, but even so, DRM holders such as MS and Apple aren't providing them with the tools to (legally) decode DRM'd files. From David Berlind's original article linked above:

"In a phone interview earlier today, Escient president Bernie Sepaniak confirmed that DRM is not only a very significant challenge that his company and his customers must deal with, but that even if he did (or was able to) license the necessary technology from Microsoft and/or Apple, that the technology isn't even mature enough for most serious applications. "For example," said Sepaniak, "if you download something that's DRMed and then you want to stream it to a remote device where it must be decoded (a scenario supported by Escient's gear), you can't. If you tried to do this today, the stream would end up encrypted as a result of the DRM and you'd have to pass a key to the remote device. The software to do this doesn't even exist.""

So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

I do agree on the second point entirely. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Just read the response by EFF's founder (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/p=1905)to see how extreme the no-DRM camp is. There's no compromise on either side.

[Jason Dunn]

A perfect example of why I still buy CDs, or buy/burn/rip to bypass the DRM the same day I buy the track. Things are starting to get ugly though - I've had two DRM'd CDs in the past month, and NONE before that. The music companies are starting to get gung-ho about pushing their pseudo-CDs. :roll:

[Jeremy Charette]

Let me guess, they were from Sony-BMG or BMI.

Here's a link to an article regarding Philips' defense of the use of it's CD logo on products that don't conform to the CD specification:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,50101,00.html

"Those are silver discs with music data that resemble CDs, but aren't," Philips representative Klaus Petri told Financial Times Deutschland.

Note that the above article was published in 2002. 8O

[Felix Torres]

From David Berlind's original article linked above:

"For example," said Sepaniak, "if you download something that's DRMed and then you want to stream it to a remote device where it must be decoded (a scenario supported by Escient's gear), you can't. If you tried to do this today, the stream would end up encrypted as a result of the DRM and you'd have to pass a key to the remote device. The software to do this doesn't even exist.""

So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?


I saw that and I was kinda scratching my head over it.
Cause Roku, Dlink, Pinnacle, Buffalo, and others have no insurmountable problem streaming DRM'ed WMA files across a home network. So the software (and licensing) clearly exists.

Best guess is he was talking about Apple Fairplay DRM and not MS DRM.
Cause nobody, not even Apple, can stream Fairplay'ed files to anything but iTunes. Also, later both Berlind and Sepaniak talk about MS making their spec available for licensing.

A bit ambiguous for sure, but then, heaven forbid anybody at CNET/ZDNET say anything good about MS and their products. :wink:

[Macguy59]

A bit ambiguous for sure, but then, heaven forbid anybody at CNET/ZDNET say anything good about MS and their products. :wink:

A bit like you and anything Apple :lol:

[Felix Torres]

A bit ambiguous for sure, but then, heaven forbid anybody at CNET/ZDNET say anything good about MS and their products. :wink:

A bit like you and anything Apple :lol:

Oh, I'm not *that* contrarian.
I may regularly debunk their hype but I do defend their right to run their business the way they choose to, which is more than many Apple fans do.

CNET headline writers are singularly amusing in the way they seek to spin everything into bad news about MS, even when they are forced to report record MS profits...

[Macguy59]

Oh, I'm not *that* contrarian. I may regularly debunk their hype but I do defend their right to run their business the way they choose to, which is more than many Apple fans do.

Just some friendly chiding Felix.

***Excessive quoting deleted by mod JD***

[Jeremy Charette]

Cause Roku...Buffalo, and others have no insurmountable problem streaming DRM'ed WMA files across a home network. So the software (and licensing) clearly exists.

They've tried. I can say with certainty (having used a Buffalo Wireless Media Player) that the actual implementation is anything but smooth. Many of my DRM'd files won't play on the Buffalo device because it's not "authorized" by MS. I've had particular problems with internet-purchased WMA files, and WMV HD files. While MS has tried harder than Apple at licensing their DRM technologies, frankly, that's not saying much. Just read Jason Dunn's recent post concerning Windows Media Connect, as well as all the problems he's had with Roku's products.

Now, did Sepaniak mis-speak? Or does he not know about Windows Media Connect? Who knows. Either way it really doesn't matter, since WMC is buggier than the beta release of Windows 98. If he was speaking about Apple, then he's 100% right. It seems that audio companies are trying to work with DRM licensors, but they're hitting a brick wall.

This is a problem that isn't going to be resolved soon. I don't think things will change until some major publisher takes the risk of vowing not to use DRM, and sees increased music sales because of it. Unless someone leads the way, the rest of the industry will just keep going down this path.

[Jason Eaton]

They've tried... not "authorized" by MS.

Well did it have the 'Plays for sure' logo on it? Wait that doesn't mean it will play... sorry. :D

DRM is sad. Period. I have to agree that DRM is nothing more then a business plan to position one company above another. Is DRM bad? Not at the core purpose, just the current implementations.

Till a better DRM scheme comes along we are stuck with letting the digital player deal with DRM and pass it out in analog fashion... hey it is compressed audio anyways, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig it is still a pig.

[Felix Torres]

I've heard my share of WM Connect horror stories, mostly relating to DRM'ed music files.
Haven't heard the same about MCE extenders.
(Conspiracy theorists, go for it!)
However, its unclear at this point (anybody know for sure?) if the cause of the problems is:

- the DRM spec
- the DRM license servers
- the player software
- the Connect server
- the Connect client firmware
- the Connect spec itself, which is, after all, built on UPnP, which has a checkered history to start with.

Worth keeping in mind that WM connect is less than a year old and a very immature tech. And that proprietary alternatives have hardly covered themselves in glory...

So before dumping on the DRM or the Plays for Sure program, I'd need to know more about the cause of the glitches.

I'm thinking we'll know a lot more by this holiday season. Say, starting nov 22nd... :wink:

After all, the XBOX 360 will be supporting both WM Connect and MCE extender technology. So if the 360 starts exhibiting the same glitches we'll have a good idea where the fault lies, once the patches start arriving...

[dberlind]

Thanks for vetting my personal conundrum here. In particular, the insinuations about my objectivity when it comes to Microsoft. For the record, at least Microsoft is licensing its technology. Not that I'm happy about what the goal of that tech is. Regarding the point about how an "audiophile would actually spend money buying medium-quality 128kbps music. Or worry about lock-in *after* investing in a widely-known closed system".... bear in mind that I never considered myself to be an audiophile. What I wanted was the ability to have audio and video in most rooms in my house. I intuitively knew, based on my experience with computers, that buying separate DVD players, tuners, cable boxes, etc, etc. was not just a bad idea, but would ruin my goal of having the a/v benefits with as little unsightly **** being an eye-sore to me and my family. The last thing, for example, we want in our master bedroom is a pile of gear and wires and whatnot.

In consulting with someone who knows more than I, my objectives were clearly achievable, and in the process, I fall into the audiophile category by virtue of the sheer dollars I'm spending on the gear and the in-wall wiring. In terms of total budget, I probably shot right past most readers of the publications and web sites dedicated to the subject matter. So, I do not fit the classic definition of an audiofile, but rather, just the economic one.

So, would I buy 128 kbps encoded audio? Well, my answer to that is.. what if I happen to have some of my audio encoded at that rate? Forget for a minute how I ended up with it (legally) and just acknowledge that it could happen. Shouldn't I be entitled to use it in anyway that I wish? In the spirit of the eleganace and convenience I'm afforded by my new centralized system, should the content stand in the way of taking advantage of it? I think it sucks that the ability to have a central server for all my music and video exists, but that I can only by my music in one or two ways in order to use it. Otherwise, I have to decentralize the system which runs counter to what I was trying to acccomplish in the first place.

db

[dberlind]

the other goal that I think is worth shooting for, audiophile or not, is not to have to maintain the same content in multiple formats. So, if FLAC is what I should be using as an audiophile in the truest sense, then I have to keep separata MP3's for my iRiver. Or WMA, or whatever. That kinda sucks. I'd much rather not have to worry about format. In other words, have one centralized copy of my music. MP3 appeals to me since if I have one centralized copy and can synch it to other devices, MP3 is one format I know everything will play. Not that I have to take it at 128. I could take it at 192 or something like that provided a service like AllofMP3.com does the on the fly encoding.

[MuzikDude]

I just wanted to post my 2cents here.

As a member of the Entertainment Community I can say its NOT the Artist who are pushing DRM its the Record Company BigWigs. The main reason GREED and CONTROL.

With the Industry I am involved in I must state I am AGAINST DRM for many reasons and have REFUSED to associate Artist/Entertainers I work with offers from Record Companies that stand behind it.

Ironicly it seems these are the 2 main reasons most Artist/Entertainers have problems and issues with there Record Companies.[/b]