"DRM Doesn't Work"

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt">http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt</a><br /><br />Cory Doctorow gave a talk on DRM to Microsoft's Research Group on June 17, 2004 and tried to convey 5 basic observations on DRM:<br /><br />1. That DRM systems don't work<br />2. That DRM systems are bad for society<br />3. That DRM systems are bad for business<br />4. That DRM systems are bad for artists<br />5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2004/20040621-nodrm.gif" /><br /><br />If you want to take this with you and read it - it is roughly 18 pages - here is a copy in <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2004/DRM_Doesnt_Work.rgo">Repligo 2.0</a> format. You can get the free reader at <a href="http://www.cerience.com">the Cerience web site</a>.<br /><br />Cory works for the <a href="http://www.eff.org">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> and writes science fiction. I still have <u>Down And Out In the Magic Kingdom</u> on my memory card but I haven't read it yet. It is free at his site.<br /><br />So, after reading the article, do you agree with his assessment of DRM?

[Dermot81]

Call me stupid, but what's DRM? :)

[GoldKey]

Digital Rights Management.

And book "Down And Out In the Magic Kingdom" is really great! It was really funny walking through the park after reading it!

[IceCaveman]

Am I the only supporter of DRM there is left?

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry - I assumed everyone knew, which was a dumb assumption on my part. :oops:

DRM is Digital Rights Management and you can read up on it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

[cuteseal]

Hey that poll reminds me of that email that has a dialog box asking you whether you want a pay rise.... and when you try to click on the Yes, it "runs" away from your cursor... :D

[Janak Parekh]

Call me stupid, but what's DRM? :)
Read the linked article - it is very clear and straightforward, even if you know very little about DRM.

And... I totally agree with his viewpoint. Of course, one must realize Cory was speaking to MSR, not Microsoft themselves. MSR is much like an "embedded university" at Microsoft, and while they do absolutely fantastic work, they're likely to have very little effect on the business decisions of the rest of the company.

Am I the only supporter of DRM there is left?
Even if you are, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the poll; the poll asks if DRM works. ;) In my opinion, having downloaded both ebooks and music, there's many different scenarios that demonstrate, over and over, that DRM doesn't "work" in a reasonable fashion. In any case, even if you disagree with Cory's viewpoint, give the article a read, as it makes several good points for not only the end-user, but also the publisher, the artist, and the technologist in the DRM equation.

--janak

[c38b2]

Here comes the obligatory poll gripe:

There is no option to indicate that we feel DRM does work.

[Ed Hansberry]

Here comes the obligatory poll gripe:

There is no option to indicate that we feel DRM does work.
I made no room for the illogical and incomprehensible. ;-)

[Kati Compton]

I have no problem with mild DRM. Something easy that doesn't interfere with my ethical (note I'm not saying "legal", as I think a lot of "ethical" use isn't currently "legal") use of the software/music/movie/etc. I'm happy to pay for something that I like or will find useful, but I want to be able to USE it the way I want after that.

"Real" pirates will always pirate. But SOME level of DRM can deter the more casual pirate, or perhaps more importantly, people that just don't "get it" and don't understand why they can't just install the same copy of Office on all 45 computers in their small business.

I don't think there's any type of DRM that will ever be foolproof, and making it really "tough" is just a pain for the paying customer. I have no objections to the token effort, but that's about it.

[Zack Mahdavi]

I think DRM can be a good thing if it doesn't get into the user's way too much. For example, I think WMA and Apple's Fairplay were both well implemented. The only thing you have to do is "authorize a device." After that, you never have to worry about the DRM. Generally, the files transfer easily to music players.

I get really bothered, however, with some of today's software's insistence on product activation. Sure, we're only allowed to install the program on one computer, but what if you have a desktop and a laptop? I don't think companies really expect for us to buy 2 copies of the same program, and they should design their product activation schemes to be just as flexible.

The worst things I hate are the new programs that constantly need to check your network for other computers that are running the program. If there's another computer running the program with the same security code, then both programs are shut down. I think that's silly...

Some of today's DRM schemes really bother and frustrate me. I hope it doesn't get worse, although I tend to believe that it will.

[shawnc]

Here comes the obligatory poll gripe:

There is no option to indicate that we feel DRM does work.
I made no room for the illogical and incomprehensible. ;-)

How long were you waiting.....and hoping, for this response.

[Felix Torres]

Am I the only supporter of DRM there is left?

No.
DRM is necessary in many markets.
If nothing else, it annoys the hell out of the Open Source crowd and that is a great thing. :twisted:

[Anthony Caruana]

I agree that DRM has just not worked and I doubt that it will ever work. The basic assumption of all DRM is that most users are dishonest. Perhaps I'm naive but I believe that the vast majority of people are honest.

When I buy a CD or DVD, I buy it with the intention of listening/watching it. Sometimes that's at home but more often it's in the departure lounge of an airport, on a train or when I'm out for a walk.

I use two different PDAs (usually a Pocket PC but sometimes a Palm) andf I'd like to listen to my music on both devices. At the moment that's a PITA as I only got the Palm recently and most of my music collection is in WMA format and I've yet to find a free WMA player for my Palm. The guy that made the records (the codec provider) is telling me what record player to use. Sure, I could have ripped to MP3 but why did the software that was bundled on my PC only allow ripping to WMA.

Let's go to Utopia. I buy a CD or DVD. I decide to watch that movie on my Pocket PC while sitting on the train. I rip it from the DVD to a CF or SD card and enjoy the movie. I don't share it via Kazaa or any other similar thing. It's just for my use. I take that RIP and watch it on my laptop cos I ran out of time to catch the end on the train.

Why is this illegal in our world? I have not yet heard a good reason that applies to the honest person.

[kosmicki]

Why is this illegal in our world? I have not yet heard a good reason that applies to the honest person.

And that my good friend, is why most people hate DRM with a passion. There is no truly fair 'Fair Use' out there at this time.

[alex_kac]

How can that possibly be a great thing? Where do you think this board's source comes from? The web servers for 60% of the net? And so on and so on? I don't think open source is the panacea that the Open Source zealots do - but they are zealots. Just like Windows zealots, Mac zealots, and Pocket PC zealots.

I find that FireFox works far better than IE. I find that Null Soft's Installer System is one of the best I've ever seen - even after playing with the multi $$$ installer systems and willing to pay for them.

To me I choose the right tool fo the job. A lot of the time its an open source app. And a lot of the time its not. I prefer Trillian Pro over anything else. I prefer Pocket PCs over Zaurus devices. I prefer iTunes over many open source versions.

But to dismiss the Open Source crowd is wrong. We get so much from them that dissing them outright is just wrong.

Now back on topic...DRM - I dislike most of it. I think that SOME DRM is OK if it was possible to only affect the real pirates. For example, I'm not against Activation per se. I'm against Activation that assumes that its not possible to be legal yet have more than 1 activation.

To me DRM should have a net that allows (without any encumbrance) every legal use, and some illegal use. It only comes into effect in blatant and large illegal operations. So for example - Activations. Instead of allowing 1 or 2 activations. If you allow 2 activations - then technically set it to allow 10 or 20. That way it won't encumber any legal use - yet it will stop big time pirates from uploading it to large numbers of people.

I love Peanut Press' DRM (I know they have a new name...not sure hat it is). Name and CC# of the user on the front. That won't work for everyone....but its great.

iTunes DRM is on the good side of the border of being an encumbrance and not being one. Allowing unlimited CD burns (yeah limit x of the same play list), 5 machines, and unlimited iPods is pretty much going to allow me unlimited use. And you don't see a large number of iTunes AAC DRMed files being shared.

The other end of the spectrum is what Intuit did with their great DRM tactic in 2003. What a fiasco. Especially with financial software.

OK - anyhow, that's my basic views on the matter.

[Blue Zero]

Call me stupid, but what's DRM? :)

It stand for "Dumb, Retarded, Mombo jumbo"
Which is very true :)

[arebelspy]

Hahaha, love the poll. I actually lol'd. :lol:

-arebelspy

[Jorgen]

I was not aware that Microsoft was an advocate for DRM. Some publishers and some authors demand DRM and Microsoft therefore provides a product that can satisfy this need.

Otherwise, I believe that DRM must be certainly be bad for sales. Personally I do not buy DRM-protected books any more because of the more than slight risk of not being able to read the book in 2, 5, 10 ... years time for whatever reason. I have paperbooks that are more than 40 years old and certainly expect even longer life of ebooks.

Funny, we had this discussion in the 80ies about copyprotected Apple-II and MS-DOS software. Copyprotection died literally overnight towards the end of the 80ies - that was a relief.

Jorgen

[djdj]

I'd have to support DRM, if it is transparent.

If I was an artist, I would never release something without some sort or protection on it.

[Bichcake]

I have a point of view that has been lost by many since the early days of mp3 trading (even before napster). I'm all for going after the guys selling CD's on the side of the street. They are actually making full quality copies of CDs and selling them for a profit. To me, they are the real, and only pirates.

If i listen to the radio, i get to hear a song i like. i might just download the rest of the album and like the band more because i got to hear more of their stuff. now, i might not buy the album, but sometimes i do. or i'll put it on my amazon wishlist and hope one of my relatives will get it for me as a gift.
If i really like the album i am certain to buy it eventually, cause i start to feel bad for not supporting the band.

some people think that this is "totaly different" than listening to the radio, but i don't think the arguments really hold up in the real world. how many of you watch tv comercials because you think you would be stealing the show if you didn't? I think it's the same with radio. it's kinda like "time-shifting" with tivo, except that i'm time shifting for maybe a year or two or twelve before i buy an album. I feel that what i'm buying is the physical copy of the music, and i should be able to do what i want with it as long as i don't profit from it
(i.e. like the pirates above, not by some argument like i'm profiting by not having to pay for listening for all those years)
what i find i do the most is i borrow a cd from a friend and rip it, cause i know i'll get all the metadata right and i'll encode it the way i like it. it's not much different than making a tape of it, really. and i don't think that proponents of DRM(other than RIAA) are advising that they send cops after me for that.

regarding P2P, though, i must say that I would not buy anything if i didn't have it. it is the sole reason for my taste in music, and without it i would be lost, drowning in a sea of pop music, which i wouldn't buy anyway, cause you hear it even when you don't want to. you can't escape the pop music.

the debate has shifted from "should this be illegal?" to "how far can DRM go?" The RIAA has already won. it will be an uphill battle, in 100-200 years, to get back the rights we are currently losing. Don't you think that by then, with the technology that they have at that time, they will be able to keep track of all the content that you see or hear and charge you for it? perhaps instead they'll just give it away for free, for the betterment of mankind.

so in conclusion, I think that if mp3's were really a really bad thing then the music industry would be in a REAL bad situation, not this pretend claim that it hurts their sales. many many people in their core audience are using mp3's now and they are still doing fine and dandy. what more could a perfect DRM method do for them?

[bjornkeizers]

Perhaps instead they'll just give it away for free, for the betterment of mankind.


Better wear my long undies then - 'cause it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

My views on DRM and so-called 'piracy' are well known. DRM only punishes your customers; it certainly won't stop the pirates. Why spend millions developing a protection scheme that hurts your customers? A scheme that a pirate can crack in seconds, sometimes even with a magic marker?

Not everyone who cracks DRM and protection is a pirate. There's a difference between selling DVD's for profit, or ripping them so you can watch them on a PPC. Most so called 'pirates' don't do it to sell the warez for a profit - they do it for the same reasons we've mentioned here: fair use. The pirate slogan is 'if you like it - BUY IT!' and I for whole totally agree.

[dean_shan]

The only DRM I will tolorate (to an extent) is PalmReader and iTunes (only casue you can burn and rip to MP3). I only buy from them (iTunes) when there is somting I can't find any where else and I will only buy if it is less then getting the physical CD. And I only us PalmReader when I want somthing in electronic form for my PPC, and only if they less-than or equal to a paper-back book. That's as much DRM I can take, and that's even a little to much.

[farnold]

Am I the only supporter of DRM there is left?

No.
DRM is necessary in many markets.
If nothing else, it annoys the hell out of the Open Source crowd and that is a great thing. :twisted:

I'm in this group as well. Isn't it surporising that the document you're supposed to read is not in a standard format that everyone can read :roll:

DMR protects the unwwanted spread of information and give power back to the owner of content. Yeah, of course the Open Source Software crowd is not interested in anything like that - their entire existance is based on the general denial of intellectual property...

[davenicholls]

I have a point of view that has been lost by many since the early days of mp3 trading (even before napster). I'm all for going after the guys selling CD's on the side of the street. They are actually making full quality copies of CDs and selling them for a profit. To me, they are the real, and only pirates.

I struggle a bit with this view. Underlying all of this is the fact that Music is a product. Economies everywhere are built on the fact that people see some value in products and are therefore willing to spend money to purchase them. Saying that you do not profit from P2P just because you don't sell them on to other people just doesn't work. If you see value in having the Music but you don't always pay for it you are profiting.

I do understand the 'extended audition' idea where you will buy it eventually because you want to support the band, but that doesn't change the overall argument.

Moving away from Bichcake's specific message, I am not a great fan of DRM but I do see that it has some value. For example, when I leave my house I lock the doors and switch on the alarm, does this mean that I'm branding the entire population as burglers? Obviously not, I'm simply taking reasonable steps to ensure that my home is protected. By the same token I do not see that DRM brands everyone as a thief, it simply acts in the same way as locking up. My house could still be burgled, but the person doing so will have to go to some effort rather than just walking in.

Dave

[surur]

Itunes just came to UK, which is cool. I cant play m4p on my pocketpc, which is not.

Some-one made HYMN (Hear Your Music aNywhere or something like that) which strips the protection, which is cool.

Now Itunes can convert the file to mp3 itself, which is also cool.

I can now play this on my pocketpc (and look forward to a pocketpc player that can do m4a directly)

Hymn is command like, but I found I can easily add it to the right-click menu, and convert any song very easily. It leaves my name in the file (which I confirmed by looking at it with a hex editor). Now itunes drm has been reduced to the same level as Palm Digital Media ie tracibility, rather than restriction.

I can now do what I want with the file, but will presumably face the music if I abuse my freedoms.

This is the way it should be, and I hope more producers take up this simple way of doing things.

Surur

[jonathanchoo]

Am I the only supporter of DRM there is left?

No.
DRM is necessary in many markets.
If nothing else, it annoys the hell out of the Open Source crowd and that is a great thing. :twisted:

And what's wrong with Open Source? With Open Source, PocketPC users now enjoy the best DivX player and Ogg Vorbis music format.

Getting back into the subject - DRM works if implemented properly. I like PeanutPress/PalmReader/eReader's credit card approach.

[Ed Hansberry]

I'm in this group as well. Isn't it surporising that the document you're supposed to read is not in a standard format that everyone can read :roll:
What, the big TEXT file? Or do you mean the Repligo file I made so mobile users could download it and read offline? The file that can be used by the free Repligo reader that works on Palm OS4, OS5, Windows Mobile for Pocket PC, Windows Mobile for Smartphone, Nokia 60 Series, the Sony Ericsson P800/P900 or Windows desktops?

[Philip Colmer]

And... I totally agree with his viewpoint. Of course, one must realize Cory was speaking to MSR, not Microsoft themselves. MSR is much like an "embedded university" at Microsoft, and while they do absolutely fantastic work, they're likely to have very little effect on the business decisions of the rest of the company.
I particularly liked the bit at the beginning where he says

Raise your hand if you're thinking something like, "But NGSCB can solve this problem: we'll lock the secrets up on the logic board and goop it all up with epoxy."

Put your hand down.

Raise your hand if you're a co-author of the Darknet paper.

Everyone in the first group, meet the co-authors of the Darknet paper. This is a paper that says, among other things, that DRM will fail for this very reason.

In other words, there are already people in Microsoft (although the paper is 2 years old) (and they do say Microsoft Corporation, not Research) that believe that DRM is doomed to failure.

Love it! I also really enjoyed his style.

--Philip

[Kati Compton]

With reference to the "radio" argument...

One big difference here is "on demand". So, you can watch movies on TV and listen to music on the radio, but basically, unless it's requests nights and your call gets in, you listen to what *they* tell you to. If *you* want to listen to something in particular at a given time, or watch a specific movie at a specific time, you have to buy/rent it.

I'm not sure that trading mp3s is therefore directly related to radio. It's exactly like trading tapes that you've made from purchased albums, but on a much larger scale, and they're going out to more than just personal friends of the originator.

Personally, I have zero problem with trading mp3s of live performances not available for purchase. But if I'm going to be listening to a song more than 1-2 times, I buy it. I still really think there should be legal means to say "Hey - listen to this song!" to someone not physically sitting next to you. I really think it's important to keep the one-off listens of music you don't own. I think *that* actually can help sell music.

And I really don't think that purchasing an album of mp3's or whatever should cost the same as buying the CD. But I also think ebooks should be cheaper than physical books.

[Janak Parekh]

If nothing else, it annoys the hell out of the Open Source crowd and that is a great thing. :twisted:
You're utterly, completely wrong. DRM isn't incompatible with Open Source.

http://www.sidespace.com/products/oggs/

"Media-S is an open-source development project that aims to create an open Digital Rights interface for the creation, playback, and management of multimedia files. Because of its open nature, Ogg Vorbis will be the first format to be protected by this initiative. Media-S is now in beta"

If anything, an open DRM standard would work far better than the existing, proprietary, incompatible solutions we have today. I still dislike DRM, though, even this effort.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

DMR protects the unwwanted spread of information and give power back to the owner of content.
Did you read the article? It discusses how DRM hurts the artist/content creator in the first place.

Yeah, of course the Open Source Software crowd is not interested in anything like that - their entire existance is based on the general denial of intellectual property...
No, you're wrong - if anything, Open Source relies on copyright. But, more importantly, this comment and potential resulting debate are off-topic, and I request that we end the open source discussion. If you want to discuss it, start a separate thread.

:nonono:

--janak

[stlbud]

It's the same argument the NRA has. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Whether you agree with the NRA or not, doesn't matter. It's true. A gun, a club, a car or a safe dropped from a seventh storey window can be used to kill someone.

In that same sense, people who want to steal content will find a way to steal content. They will use Windows, OS X, Linux or invent their own operating system to do it. Bock them in hardware and they'll hack the hardware. It is impossible to stop them.

Now, consider that MPAA and RIAA has convinced lawmakers, elected by us I might add, that we are all out to steal their hard earned content, flies in the face of constitutional law that states we are innocent until proven guilty.

I challenge everyone who reads this to take a stand. Say it out loud - "I am not a criminal!" Let lawmakers know you don't approve of their contention that you are.

One more thing, Microsoft is expending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to figure out how to stop honest people from copying content. They should be expending those resources trying to figure out how to protect my computer from the jerk on the Internet who is trying to crash my system with "malware".

[davenicholls]

DMR protects the unwwanted spread of information and give power back to the owner of content.
Did you read the article? It discusses how DRM hurts the artist/content creator in the first place.



I felt that this section was the weakest part of the article. I very much agree that the Internet has greatly widens the scope for artists of all types to share (or exploit) their work, but the article talks about historical copyright situations and asserts that copyright law has always been changed and that artists have remained protected. That has been true in the past but I believe specific factors allowed this to happen:

1) There was agreement between the 'copiers' and the artists. Early on this meant the piano roll makers, of whom I am sure there were a limited number who needed expensive specialist equipment. Later on it was the radio stations, again a limited number. In both these cases (indeed all cases to date) the 'bulk' rate payments suited both sides and were relatively easy to police.

2) There were clear advantages to having an 'original', which meant that royalties could be collected through a limited number of outlets.

Neither of these factors is in play today. I can rip a CD and pass it to as many people as I want, I do not need to use any party that has an agreement to pay royalties for doing this. I can also make 'better than good enough' copies so my copying acts less as 'advertising' and more as 'replacement'.

The article doesn't give any hint as to what the next iteration of copyright will be, it justs assumes that there will be one, and that it will work to the benefit of artists. I see that as a dangerous assumption.

Dave

[Kati Compton]

DMR protects the unwwanted spread of information and give power back to the owner of content.
Did you read the article? It discusses how DRM hurts the artist/content creator in the first place.
Not all DRM would be detrimental. But DRM that makes it too much trouble to the consumer to do things "legitimately" certainly would, and something that prevents the "Hey - come listen to this great new song I got" type of single-time "loan" to a friend certainly would.

[Bichcake]

benjamin franklin set up the first lending library in america, in philadelphia. it allowed people to borrow a book and read it without having to buy it, just like today.How are libraries going to keep up in a world where physical ownership is no longer necessary?

in a world where there is no paper, what would i actually be borrowing but a right to view a file containing the book, without buying it. if i could do this from the libraries web site, why would i bother to buy the book? it's the same for cd's or movies or whatever. now some might say that the content owners are going to have to crack down on libraries, restricting them to only analog copies. this will basicaly doom libraries into obcelesence in an increasingly digital world.

now i for one don't think that this is going to happen. i can't imagine a world where libraries don't keep pace with technology, so somehow they are going to avoid the crackdown by content providers, while providing greater access to their archives through digitization.

I feel that that process has already started through p2p programs. i'm not breaking the law, i'm just borrowing from the digital library. I think benjamin would be proud.

[davenicholls]

benjamin franklin set up the first lending library in america, in philadelphia. it allowed people to borrow a book and read it without having to buy it, just like today.How are libraries going to keep up in a world where physical ownership is no longer necessary?

in a world where there is no paper, what would i actually be borrowing but a right to view a file containing the book, without buying it. if i could do this from the libraries web site, why would i bother to buy the book? it's the same for cd's or movies or whatever. now some might say that the content owners are going to have to crack down on libraries, restricting them to only analog copies. this will basicaly doom libraries into obcelesence in an increasingly digital world.

now i for one don't think that this is going to happen. i can't imagine a world where libraries don't keep pace with technology, so somehow they are going to avoid the crackdown by content providers, while providing greater access to their archives through digitization.

I feel that that process has already started through p2p programs. i'm not breaking the law, i'm just borrowing from the digital library. I think benjamin would be proud.

Didn't lenders at Ben Franklins library have to pay a subscription....

Dave

[Ken Mattern]

I challenge everyone who reads this to take a stand. Say it out loud - "I am not a criminal!" Let lawmakers know you don't approve of their contention that you are.

Exactly my sentiments. Join the EFF. It is tax deductible and they do excellent work supporting our right to be innocent. When I joined the first time I received a bumper sticker that says "Coding Is Not A Crime".

Coding is not a crime, neither is fair use of material.

Stand up and be counted.

[Gutsandglory]

I personally believe the solutions to stop the general public stealing music and movies is to provide a similar service to kazaa or napster but make them pay for it. Restricting what can be done with movies and music is simply counterproductive and as this article outlines, its detrimental to sales. Your customers are your business, you dont want to piss them off.

You will never stop the "hardcore pirate", just like you will never stop the "hardcore thief" stealing.

Though i must admit the internet and computers has made this a whole lot more complicated compared to similar circumstances in the past like casettes, im sure i have read that when casettes came out they were going to cripple the music industry, it didnt happen, labels just released casettes as well, or in other words provided a payable service based upon the very thing that was going to destroy it.