DRM: Protection for authors or pain in the arse?

[DGMacphee]

The Digital Rights Management debate has flared up again after reports that hackers are exploiting Window Media Player's DRM capabilities with trojans.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/13/drm_trojan/
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751248,00.asp
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39184120,00.htm

What's your view on DRM? Is it important for software authors (or any creators) to utilise digital technology to protect their work? Or is it a cumbersome way of dealing with things?

This als includes encryption on DVD discs, protected music stores like iTunes, key activation systems such as the first time you run Windows XP, and content protection software like Valve's Steam program.

[TerranRich]

Encryption on DVD discs: I believe this is important, more so than the others. However, it's nearly rendered useless by current software available out there. I had DVD Decrypter version 1.something that wouldn't work on one of my DVDs. I upgraded to version 3.something, and voila, it read it no problem.

iTunes Music (*.m4v or something like that): I used iTunes. It pissed me off. I switched to Napster. I was happy again. Why? iTunes uses its own highly-protected music format...that only iTunes can read, as well as burn to discs. Sorry, but I don't like being forced to use a certain burning program to burn music. Napster uses WMA files that aren't as highly protected, and that most burning software can read and handle.

Windows XP Activation: This is a major hassle. One example of a good idea done horribly. What's the big deal with sharing it among various computers in the household? Are we really expected to buy, say, three copies of XP for three computers in the same household, owned by the same family? It's ridiculous and seriously needs to be re-thought and implemented a different way, or not at all.

I don't know what Steam is, but the above three are really the only examples of DRM that I could think of (and I didn't even think of them). So there.

[DGMacphee]

Steam is a content program from Valve. It allows you to register and play Half Life 2 and other up-coming Valve games. I think it's actually a better form of digital content protection but I don't like it mainly because I've found it to be very buggy.

I also found an interesting interview with Bill Gates on the subject of DRM:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/index.php#gates-interview-part-four-communists-and-drm-029706

The bit I liked was this (the bold part I was most interested in):

Gizmodo: I think in calling that evil as opposed to whatever, I think that still basically comes down to, 'Do you feel like things should be able to have passwords on them or not?' And of course the answer is 'yes.' I do think that's reasonable. So I don't think anybody is trying to say 'DRM is evil.' I think what people are trying to say is that DRM, as sanctioned by the big players, may be holding back culture as a whole.

Gates: The DRM we put into these systems is used to protect medical records, and it's used to protect things people want to protect. And so it's hard for me to say, 'No, because it might be used for media for a way in some people don't like, I won't put it in there for medical records.' This is a platform that people can use in any way that they choose.

Gizmodo: I think that's a little close to, 'Think of the children.' I understand what you're saying, but just because, 'medical records, it's good to have a password on them' doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes to music or the things that I purchase that that's also a good thing. I think it all comes down to what it is you're actually paying for.

Gates: All we're doing is putting it in the platform. So I'm just saying, can you criticize us for having a platform that allows bitsâ€"bits, just bits; not music, not movies, not medical records, not tech thingsâ€"to have any usage restriction for bits. Are we doing a disfavor to the world at large by saying some of our users, when they choose toâ€"maybe for medical recordsâ€"they can limit the accessibility of those bits?

Gizmodo: I think setting up the platform? No, it's not inherently bad. But I think it does depend on what it is that you're protecting. But I think we just disagree.

Gates: No, I actually don't think we disagree.

[Darth Mandarb]

WindowsXP
I have 2 copies of Windows XP which I have registered ... and every time I have to reinstall Windows XP I use a crack/hack version so I don't have to go through that pain!

iTunes/Napster
They still charge too much for the music.Ã,  One of the reasons people were downloading mp3, instead of buying CDs, was because of the cost of CDS.Ã,  So now these geniuses finally start selling mp3 and they charge ~$1/song.Ã,  So if you want a full album, you pay about the same price as at the store, but you get no case/jacket.

I still download ALL my mp3 for free and will continue to do so until you can get mp3 for about 1 song for a penny.Ã,  That's about what they SHOULD be charging.Ã,  I will gladly pay for my music when they stop ripping us off.

DRM
I think it's a waste of time ... I mean, I look at it this way.Ã,  Any given industry can dedicate a section of their staff to 'protecting their merchandise' be it DVD, video game, or CD.Ã,  This extra research into the problem of copy protection costs that industry money ... so what happens?Ã,  The price might of their product(s) goes up a bit.

The reason this is a waste of time is because, realistically, how many people can these industries have working on the problem?Ã,  100?Ã,  1000?Ã,  There are MILLIONS of computer saavy folk out there that will create a work around/hack to your new copy protection within 10 minutes of the release of the product.Ã,  So you've just spent lots of money on a copy protection that is now useless.

I'll focus on the software companies:

IfÃ,  they'd just release the software (free of protection) for $5 a pop from their website (instead of a rediculous $60 in a store) they'd sell 100 times as many.Ã,  They wouldn't have wasted time/money on useless copy protection and now, because the price is so low, they'd sell infinitely more of them.

I don't care who it is that tries to convince me that they HAVE to charge that much money (in stores) I'll NEVER accept it.Ã,  There's MAYBE $3-$4 worth of material in that box ... marketing for each product simply can't be $50 plus.Ã,  I understand about making a profit and paying your employees and all that ... but still.

Software companies devoting [wasting] all this time/money on copy protection is like the CD companies fighting against mp3.Ã,  They're out numbered something like 500,000 to 1 ... might be time to rethink your strategy here guys!

[DGMacphee]

If  they'd just release the software (free of protection) for $5 a pop from their website (instead of a rediculous $60 in a store) they'd sell 100 times as many.  They wouldn't have wasted time/money on useless copy protection and now, because the price is so low, they'd sell infinitely more of them.

The idea behind Steam works in a similar way. You can purchase the games over the web and the product and it works out to be cheaper. I think you have to go through the same key activation as buying off the shelves. Like I said, I like the idea behind Steam but not implementation.

However, this raises another question: what happens when you want to use this software on another home computer? For example, say I have two home computers and I buy Half Life 2 for a 1-on-1 Deathmatch Slugfest. Can I use the same key on both computers? According to what I've read, you can. But that's if you use a certain amount of trickery in going offline. This method, however, is supported by Steam.

Now, apply this to something else like say Windows XP. Can I use the same copy of Windows XP on both computers? No. Why? Because the pre-install license only allows for install on a single computer and thus the key-activation only works once. Tfis causes problems in other scenarios. What if you trade-in your old computer and buy a new computer. Basically you are force to include the cost of a second-hand version of XP install under your name to a buyer and then you're forced to fork-out for a new copy.

And I think in that situation it's a little ironic since in the interview I posted Gates said : "We're the guys of empowerment." I don't think being forced to sell my OS secondhand and buy a new one is a sign of empowerment.

[Andail]

No, I actually don't think we disagree.

Isn't that a wonderful thing to say? Just think about it.

[Anym]

I'm against most forms of DRM. They handicap customers (if I buy a song, I want to be able to listen to it in my stereo, on my laptop and in my car) and open-source software (if I buy a song, I want to be able to listen to it on the operating system of my choice) and fail to eradicate copyright infringement.

For example, region codes on DVDs really suck. Why can't they release movies at the same time all around the world? And if they really can't, why can't I import movies if I want to? Or those un-CDs which I can't listen to in my PC.

Most forms of copy protection hurt legal users more than illegal ones. Remember in the old days, when you had to look up the third word in the fifth line on page nine of the manual, whereas an illegal copy would typically simply circumvent that screen?

As for iTunes, etc. I think 1â,¬/song is a fair price (although something based on the length of the songs would be even better IMHO), but using a file format that limits what I can do with it isn't O.K. If I want to buy the full album, I usually buy the album. However, there are far too many CDs with only two good songs on them, so it's a Good Thing to be able just to buy the songs you're going to listen to rather than being forced to buy a bundle (even tough most music I listen to falls in the first category; I buy my CDs and then rip them to MP3s and copy them to MCs for personal use). If I obtain the file in a format that limits what devices I can use them on and what software I can use them with, that's a Bad Thing. However, I've never used iTunes or Napster, so I don't know if and how these criticisms apply.

For 1¢/song, I think even horrible pop music trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in muscial taste would be hard pressed to make a living for the artist and it would become nigh on impossible for any music diverging from the mainstream. Of course, if the artists sold the music themselves online circumventing the record industry and without actual CDs the prices could be even lower than 1â,¬, but 1¢ seems illusory.

How much cheaper is Half-Life via Steam? Obviously, when you buy boxed software, you don't pay much for the physical contents of the box, the development costs and the profit margin being the two main components of the price, right? And I agree that software licenses should be on a per person/family/household rather than a per computer basis. And what payment methods for Steam are there? Something like this might not be an option for everyone, because it limits your customer base to people with a fast internet connection (important for multiplayer shooters but not for graphical adventure games) and a credit card (omitting all those kids with too much pocket money).

Actually, I do believe that there are actually companies profiting from so-called software piracy. For example, if everybody really had to buy their copies of Microsoft Office, much more people would use OpenOffice or WordPerfect Office, I think and it's the same with PhotoShop, there would be far fewer self-taught Photoshop-artists if they all had to pay for it, however, if you download it illegally, the prices of Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photo-Paint or The GIMP (all of which would cost a fraction of what Adobe charges) and Photoshop all become the same (near zero), making it much easier for Photoshop to keep its place as industry standard, recovering the losses from private customers via corporate customers (which usually can't afford the risk to use illegal copies).

[Pumaman]

This whole DRM thing is mad.

If I want to legally buy a single online, it'll cost me about 80p. For that, I get a WMA file with DRM encryption and rights to play it twice and maybe burn it to a CD once if it's an alternate Friday and a full moon.

On the other hand, I can download an illegal MP3 for free, and then do whatever I want with it.

If the music companies want people to embrace legal downloading, they're going to have to stop giving people inferior content.

[Sylpher]

Anym: Half-life is the same price on steam as it is in stores. This is due to the publisher not wanting to create competition between the two. Which sucks on our end, but from a business stand point makes pretty good sense.

I have no statistics or charts, but I'm sure the various video game, record companies and movie studios have spent just as much fighting piracy as they have 'lost' towards it. I'm not saying they should just bite the bullet and take it, but they are obviously putting in much more effort then it is worth.

There is only one way they can reach the level of protection they desire and I fear they might even find a way to do it. eGovernment coming to an ISP near you.

[Darth Mandarb]

For 1¢/song, I think even horrible pop music trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in muscial taste would be hard pressed to make a living for the artist and it would become nigh on impossible for any music diverging from the mainstream. Of course, if the artists sold the music themselves online circumventing the record industry and without actual CDs the prices could be even lower than 1â,¬, but 1¢ seems illusory.

I'm sorry ... I mistyped ... I meant to say 1 meg for a penny!

If you visit www.allofmp3.com this is what they do (though they do have a 'special' version of encoding which is $.02 per meg!)Ã,  It's a Russian based website and I would gladly pay their prices.Ã,  The only trouble is they quit accepting paypal and I just don't feel comfortable (yet) giving them my credit card number.Ã,  Maybe after they've been around just a little bit longer.

That is how I think it should be handled.Ã,  I truely believe if the all the record labels made all their material (past and present) available as mp3, ogg, etc.Ã,  And there were a few different competing websites which housed the ENTIRE collections of ALL lables, and it was run like allofmp3.com they'd make far more money than they are now.

Less distribution costs, less packaging costs, less production costs AND because they're selling them for so much cheaper, they'd sell far more of them.

I've said this before and I'll say it again ... If the record labels don't get on board with this mp3 thing ... they're going to be like the train industry of 100 years ago who had this mentality, "Nobody is going to want to own a car!!Ã,  They're always going to buy train tickets!!"Ã,  If they would have said, "Automobiles are the wave of the future, and we need to get in on it!" we'd now be driving Santa Fe Explorers and Union Pacific Corvettes instead of Ford and Cheverolet.

Personally?Ã,  I say good riddance ... they've irritated me so badly I don't ever want to give them another penny and would like to see them all bankrupt and out of business.

On another note:
I would like to personally apologize to DG for my degenerating this topic into my gripe about mp3!Ã,  I do apologize.Ã,  I tend to get heated when discussing mp3 ... don't ever ask me about my feelings on car insurance!!


I got Half-Life 2 for Christmas this year (I have already conquered it and felt it was too short, though it was lots of fun!).Ã,  I don't really like this Steam thing ... it's irritating.Ã,  I understand the 'why' of it ... but I just don't like it.

When I buy software (or receive it as a gift) I want to be able to click the icon and start playing.

I don't want to have to make sure that Steam is activated and connected to the internet, the original CD is in the drive, wait for updates to be downloaded and installed, and make sure that the moon is aligned with Mars and the 40th vibration of the 6th dimension is in quantum flux.

It's rediculous ... I paid for the software I should be able to click an icon and DONE!

[BerserkerTails]

I'm probably one of the only people who don't actually mind the whole Steam thing. If there's one thing that making video games has taught me, is some morals about pirating. I'm against pirating video games that you can still buy in stores, which is why I like the Steam system. I've never had a problem with it, I pre-loaded my copy of the game, unlocked it at midnight the day it came out, and played after school the next morning, all without trouble.

I've never had any trouble with Steam, and I think that Valve has the right sort of idea on it.

However, I don't like the whole iTunes, WMA and mp3 with DRM encryption. I mean, I download quite a bit of music, but if anything, it's actually made me buy more CDs and records (Yes, vinyl, I collect it). It's a good way to preview something.

DVDs I have no gripe about, mainly because I have an all region player, haha.

[Paper Carnival]

I don't like the whole DNR system. It's just a pain in the poopcaster. Steam was the most annoying thing I've ever seen on a game (other than Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness itself). I actually downloaded a crack for it, cause I had no mood waiting forever just to play a game that was already on my freaking harddisk. I thought serials for games were alright and justified, and do a great job for multiplayer.. But this?

At least the actual game rocked

[RickJ]

... If the record labels don't get on board with this mp3 thing ...

IMHO, the problem is that record companies own the means of production and distribution of physical media.   For a long time the intellectual property and the physical media were pretty much inseparable and so for a long time the distiction between the two has been blurred.   It is to the advantage of record companies to continue pretending that both are one and the same.   

What really scares the hell out of record companies, is that the thing they do is quickly becomming obsolete.   In a future where music is no longer distributed on physical media the only role left for a record company is artist promotion.  But you don't need a huge corporation for that; you only need an individual(s) who is a good marketeer.   I think movie actors and professional athletes do pretty well with just an agent, attorney, accountant, and etc.   

IMHO, DRM isn't really about protecting artists' IP rights, it's about protecting obsolete companies who have no role in a digital future.    DRM in it's current form denies consumers their "fair use rights under copyright law".    Let's say for example you purchase a copyrighted book.  You can read the book whenever and where-ever  you like.  You let some else borrow your book and they can read it where-ever and whenever they like.  You can make copies of the book, as long as only one person reads the book (including any copies) at any one time.   These are your fair use rights and it's legal to do these things. 

DRM seeks to prevent you from loaning your content to someone else, control when, where, and on what devices you can access the content you have purchased.    The complaints in the previous posts are the result of DRM interfering with "fair use" of the content.    Here are a couple examples of what I mean.

• Encrypted DVDs - A guy in the EU had a number of movies on DVD which he wanted to watch on his Linux laptop.  There weren't any DVD players for Linux because DVDs are encrypted and the folks who manage the encryption keys will only give out keys (or whatever info is necessary) if you pay a lot-o-money and promise not to tell anyone.   This EU guy didn't have a lot-o-money to give away so he figured it out how to do it himself and he wrote an open source DVD player and got promptly sued for violatoing copyright laws.  He won in his home country by aserting his fair use rights.  Since he owned the content he was allowed to use any method he wished to access it.   Another case was subsequently brought in California (where there is a huge movie industry influence) but I can't remember the outcome.   I think some websites had to take down their publication of the decryption algorithm the EU guy created and that was the genisis of a popular T-shirt with the forbidden algorithm printed on the back.
  
  
• XP Activation - It's my understanding that you can only make so many hardware changes (i.e. upgrades) before having to call MS and get permission.  It also prevents you from installing the OS on one machine then at some point unintsatling it and installing it on another machine.   I will not have XP sorry.
  
  DRM has been tried before; it used to be called copy protection.  Lotus 1-2-3 had somthing like 80-90% of the speadsheet market at one point.  They put copy protection on their disks.  People hated it and a year later copy protection was dropped but not before losing  market share to their competitors.
  
  Compare that to Turbo Pascal.  When it was first introduced it sold for $50 while other (any other) compilers sold for many thousands of dollars.  Urban legend has it that the founders were told "You have to sell it for a higher price to make up for losses due to illegal copying...".  They said "Good!  We hope people will copy it and when they see how good it is they will pay us $50 just to get a bound manual instead of a lousy photo-copy".  And that's pretty much what happened.
  
  So I say down with DRM!!!!
  
  
  
  
  

[DGMacphee]

On another note:
I would like to personally apologize to DG for my degenerating this topic into my gripe about mp3!  I do apologize.

You should be sorry!! OMG YUO AERS RUIN MY DRM THRAED!11!

[Sylpher]

(Side convo.. sorry)
Darth: When steam starts to connect click cancel and then select offline mode. Isn't exactly what you want, but it makes things much better.

[Radiant]

wikipedia has a couple of nice articles on it, that do shed light on the Big Brother'ish future that seems endorsed by upcoming windows versions.

[RickJ]

Here are a couple of releated articles froom GROKLAW.NET

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041118073308709&query=MS+Patents
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050106124812184&query=MS+Patents
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673&query=MS+Patents
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110103552944&query=MS+Patents
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050106124812184&query=MS+Patents
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041230173714712&query=MS+Patents

[Insanity]

No need to worry about the Big Brother future of computers and the internet ... no matter what they try to think of, there is no way to stop somebody making some sort of hack. And rest assured, they'll always be somebody to do it. This not only applies to computers and the internet, but many aspects of life ... if you look hard enough, there's always some sort of work-around.

On the subject of copy-protection, just think about it: what copy-protection scheme do you know of that it is 100% impossible to hack? Almost everything is hackable. Sure, I can think of a few schemes that would make it nearly impossible, but they're not practical.