Slashdot Mirror
What's The Future of DRM?
Cdgod asks: "I am working on a thesis regarding DRM (Digital Rights Management). I would like to get it published and instead of having the regular recycled net material, I would like to hear opinions and thoughts on how it should and could work. Think 20 years in the future, how can you see your world with DRM in place? Will it cost you a few pennies every time you look for the time on your watch? Are you limited to only coping that CD 3 times before it is locked forever? Can you think of uses where DRM will actually give the user more rights? Try to think outside the current models in place, such as video on demand, purchasing music online, and DRM e-books. And yes, I will be arguing that the current laws are not taking the user's point of view, but of the large media companies." My personal thoughts on Digital Rights Management (copy protection, for laymen) is that as long as it interferes with the user's use of the material, it's not worthwhile. Most of the current solutions which have been proposed seem more like draconian measures that will be forced down our throats...whether we like it or not.
One thing DRM might do is enable me to share my personal information privately with one entity, without fear that the entity could share it with others. (That is, if DRM could work.)
That might be good, but I'm much happier with the world we live in now!
Think that, except for firemen coming in to regularly set fire to all your media. No matter if you're grandfathered or not: there exists the picture of impropriety, so better to err on the side of safety.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Have you ever used Emusic? You pay like $10/month and you get access to everything in their catalog. It's all MP3 so I could certainly distribute it all over creation, but why would I? If somebody else wants to hear the music they can get their own subscription. It's very easy for me to share a few songs with friends which gets them interested in the bands and gets them signing up for the service.
A thing I've noticed in my personal use of Emusic is that I've discovered music by a lot of obscure bands I never heard of that I like. I mean since I'm paying for it anyhow it's worth it to me to download a whole album by some band I've never heard of. I can just delete it when I don't want it. Why go buy the new album from some big name band for $15+ when I can download music for free?
Trying to impose pay-per-use technology on music is just going to turn people off to it. If you want proof of people's reaction to this, just look at DivX. People like to own things, and they hate having to deal with complex rights mangement architectures. The only way you could find a DRM that would be really appealing to people would be one that's transparent, but by it's nature it can't be transparent because it has to stop me from doing something forbidden by the publisher.
If The big RIAA labels opened up their collections to me and charged me like $15-20/month to download all I want, I'd be all over that. But if they had some goofy DRM technology on the music, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If I were to look 20-30 years down the road at a U.S. ruled by DRM via laws like the SSSCA, I would have to say it would be a pretty sad place. First of all, you have a generation of people who will have grown up beleiving that its normal to have to pay for *any* kind of information, and then think its taboo to share that information.
People will collaborate less and will have learned that it's 'wrong' to pass along data or information of any kind. This kind of mentality will manifest itself in an atmosphere where it's considered morally and ethically wrong to try to do things without doing them in the approved (legal or corporate) manner. I don't see a lot of technical or scientific innovation coming from people who have this mindset.
The Dark Ages was a fairly direct result of the Catholic Church's desire to control information, in their case, religious doctrine. The crusades brutally crushed scientific, philosophical, and mathmatic progress in the middle east. Human progress came to a virtual halt for several centuries.
This is the same thing. Instead of a rich, powerful church, we have a oligarchy of rich, powerful corporations who beleive it is in their best interest to control information of any kind, be it entertainment, scientific data, math, or any kind of production algorithm. The future is grim indeed if these companies get their way.
The renaissance, the richest period of exploration and innovation in human history happened when the controls imposed by the Catholic church started to break down and both religous and scientific information began to flow freely.
Freedom of Information == Human Progress and Advancement
Proprietary Information == Fear, Paranoia, Superstition, and Human Misery
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Can you think of uses where DRM will actually give the user more rights?
No.
I don't think so. Lawmakers who support the draconian DRM measures will be voted out of office, and they will be replaced with more citizen friendly policies.
Laws that are passed which overstep the rights of citizens will be repealed by courts.
Users will choose not to purchase and use DRM protected media. (Remember DIVX?)
Savvy users will break the DRM Schemes and post the cracks to the net effectively destroying the technology.
DRM won't work. It has no benefits to end users, no one wants it and everyone will resist it. Its a bad idea, plain and simple.
Take care,
Brian
--
100% Linux Based Web Hosting: http://www.assortedinternet.com/hosting/
However, DRM in my opinion, is only useful if it meets the following conditions:
Is transparent to the user.
Requires no processor overhead.
Is secure. (increasingly difficult, arguably impossible) If the DRM is circumventable it's pointless.
It's cheap, and doesn't raise the cost of the medium. If it's costing more to protect it than it's saving, it doesn't belong there.
It must allow at least one copy to be made.
All in all, that's a very tall order. So I doubt any time within the next ten years these things will be realized. Until then, consumers will continue to scream bloody murder.
--I hate big sigs.
There's a story of a king who passed an edict forbidding the tide from rising. He sent his soldiers to the beach with orders to beat the ocean back if it didn't obey the edict. The King was trying to make a point that even he, the almighty King, could not alter the forces of nature by a simple decree.
Imagining a world where successful DRM laws exist is no different than imagining the world if the ocean had been held to the King's edict.
I could be wrong. I suppose if all hardware manufacturing was nationalized, borders were sealed, and prisons were cleared of drug users (to make room for copyright offenders), it may be possible to put digital media genie back in the bottle.
If it is possible to have successful DRM, I guess imagining the future would be like imagining the present if the printing press had been outlawed by the Monks who were put out of business by it.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
In the end, DRM management will hinder, not help, even those who seek to profit from their creative works. The petty steps needed to make use of copyrighted material under DRM will ultimately have to give way to yet another system I see as the ultimate answer. Such a system will have to be a broad subscription based scheme, where instead of paying specifically for each creative work, you end up paying a general rate, and then have access to all those works. The authors and publishers then earn from that based on the proportion of how much their works are used. Even a random sampling of 5% of usage would give a fairly accurate measure of proportion for the various works to determine how much each author and publisher is paid.
Take a look at some of the big MP3 collectors. There are some people with over 100 gigabytes of downloaded music. At the statutory wholesale publisher rates paid through HFA, this comes to over US$100,000. The retail value of such collections could be US$1,000,000. And it would take months just to listen to everything once. But these are people who would not go buy all that at $12/CD. They aren't downloading it to be able to listen to it all, but for the stud factor of having an awesome jukebox. Eventually we will reach a point where we can have any creative work delivered in real time whenever we want, and even mobile at some point. We'll be paying for delivery of content, not the scale of the choices. Many of the downloads now are to achieve scale of choices, and that will be greater as bandwidths and storage leaps allow, but eventually it might not be needed (except for those unwilling to pay a dime).
Imagine paying a rate about the same as cable TV or internet access that lets you listen to any music you want, any time you want, anywhere you want. Whether you listen to the same 5 tunes over and over, or jump around among 100 genres, your rate would be about the same since it would be based on what is delivered, and at most you could listen to about 43,200 minutes a month (there might be a lower price for listening to less). Once this kind of service is available, there won't be much value in actually storing the music. As long as the pricing structure is based on fixed time, rather than how many different tunes you have access to but rarely listen to, it will beat not only most piracy, but also recorded media sales (why buy 1000 CDs if you typically listen to about 20 of them?).
It might still take another decade for the music industry to get a clue and try to build it this way. Last mile bandwidth is not there yet, especially mobile, for everyone. And then it might take a few more years for the motion picture industry to "get it", too. But eventually it will have to happen. DRM will then simply be a yes or no question.
The system won't be totally perfect. There will be those unwilling to subscribe at all, and will still steal music. There may be privacy issues regarding what we listen to. Some of this can be addressed by legislation (whether we agree that it should or not). Some of this can be addressed by the open market. And some of this can be addressed by technology. The delivery is certain to be encrypted. The ability to decrypt it is certain to be isolated to hardware like portable players and sound cards in your computer (the software would just be shuttling an encrypted data stream through, and hence open source operating systems won't be a risk). Time window based encryption would prevent storing the data for later playback (and this defeat delayed leakage to non-payers). Interim technology could allow doing a combination of storing encrypted streams with live delivery of a time window based key (and the hardware still does the work).
Given this, storage of music by consumers won't be needed, and thus DRM will be moot. This is still a few years off, but mark my word, it is coming as soon as entertainment executives figure it out for themselves.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Originally intended to provide a public benefit -- to encourage and promote the widespread availability of information -- copyright law has been distorted to the point where it allows a powerful few organizations to control vast seas information, allowing access only those who can pay fees that are often unreasonable. Gone, too, are the days when we could realistically expect copyrighted material to be contributed to the public domain after a reasonable period of time. Our national concept of "copyright" is a perversion.
Before we legislate "rights management" into hardware, we ought to ask why we have these "rights" anyway. And if the answer isn't solely to promote the public good, we should do away with them.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not draconian if you have a choice, and you do have a choice in the matter based on your wallet.
Don't like the DRM measures coming forth on CDs? Don't buy the CDs. Don't even listen to the music. While some pop bands are obviously a profit-centered venture, most artists actually *do* want you to listen to their music; measures taken to stop this listening will not only hurt the labels in the pocketbooks, but also get the artists themselves to argue against whatever measures are being taken to reduce public listening.
Also, let me just say that paying "a few pennies every time you look for the time on your watch" is X-Fileish and activistic to the extreme. Obviously this is not going to happen. Do you think high-level executives in the government and military personnel (to cite recent events) would ever warrant this?
For that matter, I'm a firm believer that the subscription plans in place now (like cell phone bills) will eventually be dwindled to nothing based on current competition. There are only so many minutes a cell phone company can provide in a month. After a while you hit limits, and gradually the costs erode to practically nothing (similar to water and electricity, communication will eventually become publically-owned).
with a very simple question: "Does this particular law increase the freedoms or quality of life for the majority of individuals it will apply to?" Traffic laws are a good example. The law that says you must drive on the right (in the U.S.) increases your freedom to move about by reducing the chance that some other fool will be driving on the left. Laws that are passed to increase someone's profits do not pass this test. Laws that increase someone's profits are the direct result of political bribery, and political bribery is a fact of life in the U.S. of A.
That depends on how the compromise is drawn. Consider the position of the framers of the U.S. Constitution: from a natural rights perspective, all expressions of ideas, works of art, etc. covered by copyright are free to be shared and copied as desired. However, the framers also understood that taking this approach would not maximize the amount of intellectual "property" or "content" available to the public.
The founders' response was a compromise between the natural rights and the best interests of the people. They allowed useful, novel ideas such as machines to be patented, or writings and art to be copyrighted, granting a monopoly for a limited time. The key here is the "limited times" clause. By making sure that works would eventually enter the public domain, the founders gave inventors, artists, and publishers a compelling reason to fully disclose their inventions and publish their works: monopoly profits. In exchange for the protection of patents and copyrights, the owners agreed to release all claims on the works after a period of time.
This compromise was a stroke of genius, as it balanced the need to provide incentives to creators and distributors of ideas to maximize their production with the natural rights of the people. Unfortunately, the founders left it up to Congress to define what the "limited times" clause meant. The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause allows Congress to set any non-infinite period without violating the Constitution. The Court cannot set a maximum period on its own authority because that would violate the separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches.
The problem with current DRM schemes, the DMCA, and the SSSCA is that they completely ignore the natural rights of the people. Intellectual "property" corporations like publishers, movie studios, and conglomerates (AOL Time Warner, Viacom) have spent the last two centuries trying to indoctrinate people with the belief that intellectual property is a natural right. The repeated extensions of copyright terms during the 20th century suggests they are winning.
However, a DRM system consistent with the framers' intent would be beneficial to everyone. Digital media technologies have undermined the balance between natural rights and maximizing available content. Current DRM systems and supporting legislation go too far in the opposite direction, undermining the peoples' natural rights.
What we need is a DRM system that works to maintain the framers' compromise, rather than benefitting either side. It should ensure that fair uses are permitted, that works enter the public domain when their copyright expires, and that creators are given the necessary returns from their work to ensure a vital public discourse.
This suggests that legitimate DRMs must codify ideas like limiting the number of serial copies (copies of copies of...) that may be made, but must also codify the right to view at any time after purchase, the right to transfer ownership to another person, etc. The Congress has thus far failed to strike this balance because they have not been educated about its importance.
DRMs do not have to be totally secure; that is unnecessary and probably impossible. However, they do need to be sufficiently secure that the cost of circumventing them is prohibitive. (Should circumvention tools be legal or illegal? I'm not sure.) I believe such a level of security is attainable and sufficient in the general case, because people value their time.
This is as far as I've been able to get, but I think it's a good starting point for a reasoned, non-kneejerk discussion of copyrights and intellectual "property" in the digital age. I look forward to reading comments and followups to these ideas. DRMs need not be the end of the world.
in order to have a truly "strong" DRM system, you have to tack on strong encryption
This is the most fundamental failing of DRM, and why (in it's current form,) it will never work.
At it's most basic level, encryption (weak or strong) is designed to allow person A to send something to person B without anyone else (person C) being able to view it.
It is not designed to allow person A to decide when and how person B can view it, or whether person B can send it to someone else.
These are two VERY different goals. In the first example, once person B has the data, s/he can view it any time they want, rewrite or mangle, or even send it to someone else (with or without encryption.)
If the goal of DRM is to prevent person B copying the content, then there is no technical way of doing it.
To quote Bruce Schneier, trying to make bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet. Encrypting the data will not alter this fact.
The problem is, nobody has come up with a way to make bits uncopyable - and the people who believe that encryption will do this simply don't understand encryption.
Fast forward to the 80's and 90's through today. Hardly anybody plays an instrument. It is virtually impossible to make a living as a working musician. DJ's and CD's are vastly preferred to live bands. A small pool of incredibly-successful performers -- performance corporations, really -- dominate the airwaves and the music stores. A mere million-seller is a disappointment. Great musicians can't find work, and play their music as part-time hobbies.
What changed? A few things.
1. Powerful music publishers and distributors now control the industry more tightly than did the old Hollywood studio system.
2. Changes in IP laws have essentially eliminated the concept of 'public domain,' except for very old music, making some of the cornerstones of music illegal unless license fees are paid: theme-and-variations, quoting material from other songs (a fundamental jazz technique), quoting lyrics, and performing or adapting music written by others. It's hard and expensive to follow today's complex licensing and performance rules. Why bother? Buy Musak.
3. The industry's stranglehold on performance and publication has generated enough profits to allow manipulation of public taste. At this point, a public has been molded that doesn't want to hear a local band playing at a bar, but instead demands concerts with superstars, light shows, pyrotechnics and other special effects, performing exactly what was heard on MTV, preferably using lipsynching to ensure that no differences exist. This is *not* intrinsically the way public taste would have developed without guidance by the industry.
This is a complex issue, and obviously many other aspects of our lives and cultures have changed dramatically since WWII. However, the death of musicmaking as a core feature of USA life is a tragedy, and I'm convinced that neverending copyrights and powerful publishers take major responsibility. They claim to help performers, but instead they have contributed to the destruction of music as a profession and the elimination of all but mass-produced music in the lives of most of us.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
There are two huge daunting problems with DRM, both technical and social in nature.
Technical Issues:
Most DRM suffer from a fatal flaw. They trust the client (hardware, software or individual) to manage rights properly. For example, CSS counts on the DVD player to keep both the CSS algorhithm and the encryption keys secret. Any such system will be cracked eventually. Once cracked, the only way to keep it from being worthless is to legally enforce totalitarian control over information distribution.
For DRM to function as advertised, there needs to be a server in place to handle authentication and authorization of clients. Few DRM systems are set up this way (Two examples: Automated Cable TV Pay-Per-View systems and Circuit City's Divx system being one example).
Social Issues:
People don't like to have rights taken away. If they've been able to do something before, and they're told they aren't allowed to anymore, they get upset. DRM systems will not be accepted if they're being used to remove rights.
Similarly, if there is are two competing systems, and one uses DRM to make things more restrictive than the other system, it will greatly hurt acceptance. For example, DVDs and Divx disks were in direct competition. Both use DRM, but DVD's DRM system is much less intrusive than Divx's was. The only advantage Divx offered was slightly better prices (at least when first introduced). Most people are willing to pay a little bit extra to not have to worry about making phone calls and expiration dates.
Let's look at a successful DRM system. Most cable companies allow you to purchase pay-per-view events through the cable box, this is a DRM system. You hit a couple of buttons, your cable box contacts the server, the server verifies that you are allowed to view pay-per-view, charges your next bill, and sends your cable box the key to access the particular show you requested.
While the system isn't perfect, it shows the halmarks of what I consider to be requirements for a successful DRM system:
* It allows you to do something you otherwise couldn't do (watch almost new movies or events without leaving your sofa).
* All critical security issues are handled on the server side (yes, except for channel lockout, I said it wasn't perfect)
* It's easy to use (12:00 flashers can even order pay-per-view)
* It makes use of an existing business arrangement, so there are not financial or contractual issues to iron out
* It makes use of an existing data connection, so there are no privacy issues to iron out (they already know who you are and what you're watching)
I think we are going to see more and more DRM systems in the near future. Assuming that most civil liberties stand in most countries (at least most of those with a consumer market), I think most DRM systems will fail, badly. The few that survive will have many of the same things going for it that pay-per-view has now.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
With fewer and fewer Americans voting, and more and more money spent on lobbyists,
Note that there may well be positive feedback going on here.
I share at least some of your skepticism about U.S. law makers. The mere fact that there are even a few law makers that think that the SSSCA is a good idea, should make all of us pause and think about the safety of our society.
However, I don't personally think that laws like the SSSCA will shield the entertainment industry from a serious turn of affairs. Laws like the SSSCA make it harder and harder to copy copyrighted works, but that is a small part of the battle. A much larger concern, especially for the music industry, is how easy it is to create and distribute the material. Right now, to get your music, movie, book, or whatever into the hands of the American consumer you have to sell your soul to the devil, but that is changing.
Slashdot is an excellent example of how the Internet is leveling the playing field. A couple of punk kids from Michigan have created a site that is more widely read than many very expensive publishing industry ventures. Journalists have been the first to switch over to the web, but it won't be too long before novelists, musicians, and even movie producers also start to take a look at the powerful distribution method that is the Internet.
Heck, I have already read two novels that were released on the Internet because the writers couldn't find a publisher. One of them was even pretty good :). And there is literally an entire world of music written by artists that want you to download their music. Even movies aren't really that safe. In ten years every teenage kid is going to have enough computer power to create and render realistic digital movies, and he or she will probably have enough bandwidth to consider sharing their work as well.
The high costs of distribution (and in the case of movies the high cost of creation) is what has created the necessity for the big production houses with their massive investments, and disgustingly large margins. But it is getting easier and easier to distribute and promote your art over the Internet.
How much longer are we really going to need the entertainment companies? Your guess is as good as mine, but I can guarantee that the harder they squeeze the faster we will find a way to reward the artists, novelists, musicians, and actors directly, without their help.
You comment touches a nerve.
What is "Digital Rights"?
Is it my right that I need to know, and get to choose what is installed on my hard drives?
I'd love to see laws that protect our hard drives from being installed spywares, marketing softwares, junks that is vastly inferior to the competition and I don't want to use (e.g. MSN Messanger) and propaganda materials (Software channels, AOL portal links, etc.)
I think I have the "Digital Right" to manage my hard disk space, every byte of which I bought with my own money. Same goes for RAM. I DO hope laws will be passed soon that respect my rights.