Buzzword du Jour: DRM

mattmcal writes "Though the RSA Conference in San Francisco and Bill Gates' keynote were expected to stir up several headlines on 'security' today, the news coming from 3GSM in Cannes seemed to deliver more tangible results. From Qualcomm's new DRM chipsets to NDS' mobile VideoGuard, several interesting 'DRM (digital rights management)' announcements raise the bar for distribution-shy media companies who may have increasing opportunities for driving content to mobile devices. But Intel's Barrett knows this is only the beginning of a complicated standards problem."

Comments

It will take years for these standards to settle d

[Tangential]

If history is any guide, the corporate positioning, coupled with the slowness of standards bodies will make this a mess for at least 2-3 years.

It's fundamentally silly

[Theatetus]

DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware. It it's in memory and it's an architecture remotely similary to what we now consider a "personal computer", I can copy it.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[LousyPhreak]

how true...

but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

i dont know anyone who is not quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds, let alone copmuter games.

the point is its no problem for 99% of the /. crowd but remember not everyone spends enough time and effort just to get things going or else almost no one would be running windows ;)

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[asdf 101]

I agree.

In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware, there will always be instances where the content is never completely "locked-in".

Why do I say this? Simply because computers (the digital beings that they are) are not the ones paying for use of media content in the manner that we are? Which computer do you know of today that wants to watch a movie or listen to a song? And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback". And therein lies the greatest weakness of any DRM technology.

Or atleast they find some way to directly bridge the gap between the digital stream of ones and zeroes within computing devices and our senses of perception.

Till then, this is all goobledegook, albeit always at a higer plane than the last time round.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Sven Tuerpe]

DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware.

Bzzzt. Wrong! DRM serves as an anchor for legal enforcement. You are right in that it certainly won't work without hardware support. However, that's not the point. The whole point is to make you, or anyone who does manufacture devices without DRM support in their hardware, look like a villain -- a "hacker", a thief, a criminal.

An example: German news site Heise reports that the music industry here started to go after people who sell software able to copy music CDs. So this is what does happen:

1. Music industry claims there is copy protection (aka DRM) on some of their CDs,
2. Music industry claims this copy protection is "circumvented" if certain tools are used,
3. Music industry sues those who sell those tools,
4. Music industry assumes new_world == old_world - evil_tools, and claims that there is a working copy protection scheme (aka DRM).
5. Repeat ad infinitum.

It does not matter what works and what doesn't from a technical point of view. What matters is that the legal system accepts claim No. 1, and is sufficiently forgetful to not notice the loop when they return to claim No. 1 for the next iteration.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[k_head]

This is a good thing. Trust me joe average is not going to pay for windows and office. If it comes with the computer they are not going to upgrade.

If the people in the third world are unable to pirate they will turn to open source or at least cheaper alternatives.

The worst thing that can happen is that MS will also press non DRM CDs and look the other way while the third world pirates them.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[mirko]

but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

When I was using an Acorn RiscPC, I used to pay for my softs, then I switched to PC and, because of the volume of this mass market, I suddenly became reluctant to pay such amounts of money for buggy software, then I switched to Linux, then to OSX where I began paying for software.
The moral of this story is that I think if you want people to purchase your product, you have to act with them as if they were worthy customers, not as if they were just a mass market supposed to inflate your statistics.
DRM will fail because windows users are pissed off to be treated anonymously and believe me, like a hundred million monkeys coding on a hundred millions windows, they'll end up finding the flaw that will demonstrate how impossible it is to implement a definitely 100% secure DRM system.

(Note that the 100% security may come from ever-changing security schemes)

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Eivind]

But that's not what Joe Sixpack does.

What he's more likely to do is discover that the "originals" have various problems, like not working in his cars, while the stuff you get from Kazaa, or any of the other p2p-networks doesn't have that problem.

Thus he gets it from kazaa. If it initially took 5 minutes of work to rip the CD, or 30, is without consequence to him, as is what technical knowledge is required, because he's not going to be the one doing it. He's only going to download the finished, ripped-by-someone-else unencumbered mp3.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[trezor]

• In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware

Funny you should say that, as I thought of a handy anti-DRM slogan right now.

DRM is to media and playback, what fathers are to girlfriends and sex.

Ok, so now I am a geek.

Please, let's call it what it is...

[TheLoneDanger]

Digital Restrictions Management. Let's let the less technical people know what it really is.

Re:Please, let's call it what it is...

[pilgrim23]

Does anyone here remember the days of the Apple II, Copy protected 5.25 floppy disks, and all the various hardware and software tools developed to circumvent this silliness? Rememeber magazines like "The Computist" with articles describing how to sector edit? The (still) valid discussion that took place back then was: "I did not purchase the physical media, I licensed the software, and that license explicitly allows for backups". 20 years later and we are now attempting to make the equivelent of the COPYCAT Board, or the Central Point Options Card illegal. In other words: "Here we go again!" I seem to rememeber from history class that way back in the Middle ages the Church had a lock-down on clerks and copyists till this feller named Gutenberg came along.

New Oxymoron?

[Bobdoer]

"Intel's Barrett calls for more flexible DRM system" If I recall correctly, isn't DRM all about removing flexibility for the end user? CDs are "flexible"; you can do anything with them. Heck, I would even say that DRM is the opposite of flexibility.

Re:New Oxymoron?

[Daneurysm]

DRM doesn't seem so purposely intent on removing flexibility for the end user so much as enhancing the level of control for the content producer/distributor.

While this is merely a matter of symantics, and you have no argument from me about 'removed flexibility' being the end result, it is key to be even handed in reading, interpreting and explaining what they say, what they mean and what that means to us.

~Dan

Re:New Oxymoron?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding.. it's funny to hear the suits talk about "finding the right balance", especially during the Napster era. (Though, to be honest, I consider Craig Barrett more than just a suit.)

They would look at the completely unprotected MP3 which the music listeners where downloading in droves, and say with a straight face that they would work to find the right balance between what the customer wanted, and was currently consuming, and what nobody wanted. Huh??

MP3's are cheap to produce, have minimal technical support issues, and play in almost any device.

So what do these geniuses do? They adopt DRM-heavy formats and are *shocked* that they didn't succeed.

It took Apple to prove that, duh, minimal DRM is better.

Now that they've got most of their heads out of their asses, lets move to the next obvious step: NO DRM! You might just be shocked that enough people will pay for your content!

What's the first thing I do with my iTunes downloads? That's right, remove the useless DRM and convert it to MP3 so I can play it on my non-Apple stuff.

DRM is only putting off the inevitable

[Mrs. Grundy]

It's really pretty simple. The media companies are and always have been in the business of distribution. Distribution used to be hard and they earned their keep. Now distribution is easy (as any teenager with a internet connection will tell you) and there is little reason for creators and consumers to pay media companies a huge chunk of profit for a service that is essentially free today. DRM is the media/software corporations' attempt to make distribution difficult once again. Let's not be suckers and buy into it.

Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable

[zeruch]

this is probably the most pithy and useful response I've seen in thsi thread.

the artists aren't the most threatened here, it's the media comapnies that push their in-house distribution channels that are most at risk for extinction.

It's a marketing set up...

[wiresquire]

Average Joe: MS Security sucks
MS: DRM = security
Average Joe: So, I must need DRM

Game over.

just my .02

[kyshtock]

It's not I am against technology, but... do you really want to travel in a bus where 20 people are watching damn movies on their cell phones? Or listening to music? We already know most cell phone users are rude (see high pitch high volume ring tones and high pitch high volume speaking) and we know that cell phone in a bus (read Faraday cage) will emit at it's peak power. I wonder... do you want to be there?

Just my 2e-2 $

Re:just my .02

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know most cell phone users are rude (... high pitch high volume speaking)

I believe there's a physiological reason for that. None of the cell phones that I have ever used echoed the speaker's own voice back to the earpiece like land-line telephones do. So, people using cell phones don't hear themselves talking and they start shrieking to compensate. They're not aware that they're doing it.

In the few instances that I've ever used a cell phone, I just pivoted the earpiece a little bit away from my head while speaking, and brought it close to my ear when I want to hear the other person's response. This provides me with a simple way to avoid sounding like the vast majority of oblivious cell phone users.

It also helps me focus on where I am and what's around me while using a cell phone. If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation. Try it!

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't DRM a little heavy handed for any society that wishes to proclaim "freedom" as one of its virtues.

We're talking about installing a little policeman in every concievable piece of hardware. What the fuck is happening to this world? What the fuck is going on here?

Do free born human beings need to have an overseer partake in every aspect of their lives, just in case a crime might happen? We're going straight to hell, folks. And we won't have to die to get there! Weeeeeeeeeee!

DRM? RSA!!

[ackthpt]

Everytime I see 'RSA' I think 'Republic of South Africa'

I'm still screwed up on CRM. How about giving the damn acronyms a break?

IMO, DRM won't work

[Operating Thetan]

People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers

Remember the "science" part

[Xcott Craver]

My standard response to people who want DRM on computers:

Fine, go ahead and put together a DRM system, as long as we let the scientific community verify that it actually works before forcing companies to implement it, and people to put up with it.

No fair waving around white papers or assuring us that someone says this-or-that technology really works, and then demanding an act of congress. Let's see a working system first, and let's let the cryptographic community inspect the system's inner workings (if you can't even reveal how it works, it's not a secure system,) and let them decide if it can be trivially circumvented by any teenager.

I have a feeling that developers of many DRM schemes dread, and would rather avoid, such independent review of their systems.

Xcott

Re:Remember the "science" part

[Daneurysm]

I have a feeling that developers of many DRM schemes dread, and would rather avoid, such independent review of their systems.

I whole heartedly agree with you. The ironic part seems to be that this could only strengthen security...and if nothing else, development and testing time.(ie: OSS, et al)

While most of us here fully understand that DRM's primary purpose is to create a lock on content (distribution and--the part that affects me personally--creation. Think: 'DRM watermark' and having to pay for DRM-watermark certification...per client/license even, maybe)

The simple fact that consumer grade equipment, a little software and a little know how can create some extremely professional results (in audio, video, 3D/animation) seems to play a big part in it.

The bigger part must be the ease of distribution you are granted when 'going digital.'

Think about it - For little more than the price I already paid for my recording equipment, my internet connection and hosting service (and of course the time involved) I can have a professional quality album on hundreds of sites to thousands of users around the world in minutes.

I can do all of this without the aid of the RIAA, major labels, payola for radio support, or even 'knowing somebody'.....

The 'equal playing field' this provides means my music downloaded from any random site is being judged on one factor, and one factor alone: Quality.

They hate that.

Re:Remember the "science" part

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the scientific community *needs* general purpose computers to process particle collision events, sequence the genome, automatically track asteroids, etc. I don't think that they'll let Congress mandate that general purpose computers must become media applicances.

Saw Bill tonight

[evilty]

On a side note:
I just got back from seeing Bill Gates speak on "the future of computing" and how he got so damn rich. Apparently microsoft hires more people from my school than any other in the world (or maybe just in the nation?) What an honor!! It was actually pretty good in my opinion; he's a smart guy. The second question in the Q and A part of the presentation was "What your/microsofts opinion of the open source movement and why do you have a bad attitude about it" or something to that extent. Bill gave a good response pointing to evidence saying that many "GPL zealots" don't believe his business model should exist and that at least he respects open source as a software development method among many. The speech might have been a bit rehearsed, I do believe he gets that question a lot. Either way, you've got to ask your self: Am I a GPL zealot?

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[k_head]

The sec of education recently called the NEA a "terrorist organization" and now Bill gates refers to OSS programers are GPL Zealots.

I guess this is pretty standard tactic these days to describe people who disagree with you.

Civility is dead in this country. It's an all out war.

Needless to say I'd be shitting bricks if I was a teacher, we know what happens to terrorists in the US.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[bersl2]

Depending on what type of values you hold, you may have just been duped.

He has always been a businessman, and he'll always be one. Businessmen (IMO; I have very little respect for them) do really unscrupulous things (like trust-building), in the name of the bottom line.

Making money can be a noble pursuit. But most of the time, it's either for greed or for an ego boost. Is there any real reason for him to have as much wealth as he does?

And before I hear 20 people cry "philanthropy," or cite historical examples, let's remember that, for instance, Rockefeller believed that God had given him a mission to make as much money as he could, then give it away; but in the meantime he fucked over whole towns with a stroke of the pen, and he got kickbacks and rebates from the railroad industry, effectively forcing buyouts onto other oil companies.

I guess my message here is that, before we ask ourselves "Are we GPL zealots?" (as you are now thinking), he should ask himself "Am I a capitalism zealot?"

In retrospect, though, this is all just difference of opinion; we think it's better to distribute power, while he thinks it's best to consolidate power. Of course, that's a whole mini-rant in of itself...

DRM + open source

[LinuxGuyFriend]

It seems to me as though DRM methods are always sort of obscure and hidden. If you happen to stumble onto how they work (example by reverse engineering) you are going against the DMCA. So how is that going to work with free distributions like Debian? Implemented with an onboard hardware chip?

Re:DRM + open source

[anagama]

Well, fortunately the US isn't all the world. Someone elsewhere will find the solution, and then we will be able to access that information. But this scenario isn't the only area in which the US is forcing science to happen outside its borders (stem cells, cloning, etc.). Eventually, none of the really interesting science will come from here because of increasingly intrusive government restrictions on obtaining knowledge.

Re:DRM + open source

[packeteer]

Oh no, companies will still do research here. There is far too much money to be made doing research in the USA. Remember that scientific research can be patented and if its not banned itll be patented. Tonight i watched a show on PBS about cancer and how a company was able to patent a gene. Thats right they patented a gene. They didn't create the gene. Its been around as long as humans have been. But they have the patent on it. Now whenever anyone wants to do anything involving that gene (which is a genetic cause of breast cancer) they get paid. Remember in this country its not the researchers that are losing its the citizens.

DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Crypto Gnome]

1. DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
2. DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
3. US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal
   (These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)
4. OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
5. ALL OpenSource solutions (because they do not include DRM) therefore become effectively illegal

The *only* question here is "how long before this becomes a reality?".

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Neo-Rio-101]

Not to mention his proposed changes to DNS
(And lets not forget that a good deal of DNS goes through BIND, which is Open Source)

So here Bill is trying to stick a patented design into DNS, which he could leverage with his Windows monopoly and therefore forcing Open Sourced BIND to pay a licence to implement it now that Windows' "Trustworthy computing" won't accept anything else.
Hence breaking BIND's GPL....

I don't think it will really work out that way, but the possibility crossed my mind.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[CelticWhisper]

6. I leave this country and never come back.

I don't want to hate America as a country, but I can't help but hate a government that would be so easily manipulated as to sanction forced implementation of something so draconian-indeed, Orwellian-upon its citizens.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Crypto Gnome]

Doesn't work though.

The US is already forcing its DMCA style rules on *all* its trading partners.

Where exactly are you going to go?

Either you're "a friend" (and accept US laws as your own) or you're part of the "Axis of Evil".

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Anonymous Coward]

Asia seems to be only place which won't succumb to this kind of crap.

Main reason for this is huge potential in the internal market (>50% of world population).

Apple?

[CelticWhisper]

I have to wonder, though, what impact this would have on more *ahem* sensible companies like Apple. Apple centers its entire marketing strategy on digital media and the freedom to create, edit, and share personal media projects. Where is this going to leave them? They're smaller than Microsoft, but still a force to be reckoned with...it surely can't be so simple as "Microsoft pays off politicians, gets its way, game over." ...Can it?

Digital Rights Management

[DonaldDuckBigO]

My rights don't need to be managed, thank-you. You'll take gcc out of my cold, dead fingers.

DRM expensive yet ineffective?

[geoff lane]

The trouble is DRM may well become common and intrusive but will never become effective as it is attempting to solve the wrong problem.

People just don't assign a value to non-material stuff. You will never convince the target audience (which lets face it is a bunch of kids) that it's wrong to copy a music track for a friend. The reason is obvious, nobody seems to be hurt and nobody is deprived of the orginal.

This goes to the fundemental problem with copyright law today. The law was written for a time where perfect copying machines (aka PCs) did not exist. While copyright law was mostly dealt with by printers and publishers it worked. Now it has to cope with billions of people it's failing.

DRM is a response but it too assumes a perfect, closed world where everybody plays the DRM game. As we have seen with DVD region coding, the hardware suppliers just gave it the minimal attention needed because they just spent 20 years getting rid of having to stock different versions for different markets; they were not going to start all over again just because Hollywood gets it's nickers in a twist.

DRM will be treated in the same manner.

Dear Computer Industry,

[IvyMike]

We want DRM-enabled computers even less than we want pen-based tablet computers. And we know what a rousing success those are when you attempt to introduce them every three years.

Signed,
Computer Consumers

But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market

[Moderation abuser]

And pick up copies there for a couple of quid. Made by someone who is "quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds".

Freedom for corporations, not individuals

[Quizo69]

See, you make the classic mistake of thinking that when they say "freedom", they mean YOUR freedom.

They don't.

They mean freedom as in "We are now free to bilk the consumer in perpetuity, thanks to this wonderful Digital Restrictions Management tech we've put in place."

DRM is only software

[glassesmonkey]

I'm not concerned about software-based DRM because so far it seems to be limited to Windows. What REALLY concerns me is the large number of news items I've seen lately about hardware based on "Trusted Computing".

TCG TPM is the standard settled upon for trusted computing. An interesting EETimes article is about TPM chips going into systems (costs & chipsets, etc). Described as "low-cost silicon safes for a digital key" the article states, "IBM plans to put the current version 1.1b TPM parts in all but its lowest cost notebook computers by the end of the year." As well as the inclusion of these chips in Gb Ethernet, storage, memory, and I/O buses. The TPM v1.2 standard is worth a look over to see what the future holds.

Much of the software that goes into DRM is moving up the chain (especially seeing how effective DeCSS was for DVD decoding) and into silicon. I do not quite see how Trusted Computing is really that different from a full-fledged DRM hardware system. It seems to be an easy step to make those buses and storage devices scanning for 'trusted keys' to be applied to digital finger prints of unauthorized DRM-licensed media moving around on your motherboard.

It's not just the media companies...

[Media Withdrawal]

Yes, media companies will fight to own all distribution of old content. But watch out for the hardware companies. They're already trying to own all distribution of new content. It's slick. Just visit their online store, download the content, and it only runs on your phone/PDA/laptop/whatever. Until it breaks, that is.

As an artist, you'd think I'd just love this scheme. Hah! The problem is, once a company thinks it owns your distribution, it thinks it owns you! When I fell for DRM and the lure of easy money, all of a sudden I was spending months fighting to retain designs and customer relationships that had taken years to refine. All this fussing cut into my productivity, and my fans noticed.

For the record, when I dropped copy protection completely, sales doubled almost immediately.

So don't be fooled by the current battle between the media and hardware companies. They're just fighting for who gets to own the artists and milk their audience. I'm not falling for it again, and I hope you won't, either.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[uncoveror]

History also indicates that DRM will frequently make it impossible for legitimate owners of media just to play them. The problem with all DRM is that it is an attempt to tell customers what they can do with their personal property even after a sale is made. That is why there is always a backlash, and rightfully so. Take for example, "copy protected" CDs that won't play in a computer.