Slashdot Mirror
The History of Hacking DRM
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica writer Nate Anderson has penned an in-depth look into past DRM-crackings and what the future looks like for people who are vehemently anti-DRM: 'Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape. This isn't always due to the decisions of corporate executives; often it's the work of hackers who devote considerable skill to cracking the digital locks that guard everything from DVDs to e-books. Their reasons are complicated and range from the philosophical to the criminal, but their goals are the same: no more DRM.'"
While almost every software[Windows XP,soon Vista too!],copy protection schemes [DeCSS] have been cracked , why hasnt the WMA/WMV DRM been cracked?
What makes it hard to crack WMA? How did Microsoft get this one right?
Wincopy
"I know several people who are pro-drm...they are joe consumer incarnate. They don't follow the issues, they are unaware that their is even any type of debate over this subject"
And I am a technical proponent of DRM.
Do I like it? Fuck no. It gets in my way. Its annoying. I occasionally lose data.
And who do I blame?
The Fucking Information Wants To Be Free internet-fuckwad cabal.
I don't blame the companies. I have a well known name in the type of software I put out and I've generally put out my works at lower than the 'professional' packages -- without protection. Who's work do I find on eBay? Mine or the big guy? I'm more likely to get ripped than the big guy because I only charged $30 for my stuff where the other guy is selling theirs for $130 -- I've heard pirates tell me that its not like its that big of a deal because its not 'professional' software (and the only difference is the price).
Gotta tell you, the last upgrade I put out with DRM on it -- sales increased 400%. Its not that big of a market to attract the crackers, and by the time they get around to it, I'll have moved on to another system of DRM (I could care less if someone is trading an older package...too far down the long tail for my needs).
If it weren't for the whole crowd screaming Software Piracy Is Not Theft, I'd be totally for unDRM'd software. My old software is put out free and I'm starting to give away the source to software that isn't too close to the current code base...but until a maturity comes over software users, I'm totally pro-DRM.
"Failed market" is an economic term. Informally it means a market where the usual workings have broken down for some reason so it's no longer operating efficiently.
For instance operating systems are a failed market because network effects make it economically unviable to break the Windows monopoly.
In the absence of copyright (and a way to practically enforce it - DRM), creative works would be a failed market because supply is infinite, therefore pushing prices down to zero. The creator of the creative work gets nothing in return for production of that good so, the market has failed.
Failed markets are very common. A market is quite a fragile thing, which is why we have lots of regulation designed to protect it and bracket it (like anti-trust law). I would say many of the more stupid errors of the 20th century were due to inappropriate application of a market, which then failed .... the UK rail privatisation is a good example of that.
Failed markets aren't necessarily unprofitable. In the case of failed DRM then the 'failed market' becomes unprofitable in the classical sense because nobody makes any money. In the case of operating systems it's obviously very profitable for the dominant monopoly.
Bullsh@t. You own the media of the CD but you don't own its contents. We can all get high and mighty about how awful DRM is, but the sad truth about human nature is that if there is a freebie to be had most are going to take it. An official release of a movie put online in decent quality without DRM for $2.00? Who is going to buy it? How many are going to buy a copy and then through the magic of p2p spread about a million copies all over the internet. It is easy for you kids to sit and blame the evil corporations for being evil with their awful DRM thing. Go and create something, software, a movie, music, whatever, watch it get copied, stolen all over the web and then get back to me on that. When you actually work for a living, I think your perspective changes. I have worked in the software industry for some 20 years, and I have had the "great pleasure" of seeing software for which I get royalties for my hard work show up all over the place thanks to the web. "I'm just sharing it with my friends - all ten million of them." It's nice to b!tch and wail about the evils of DRM but the mindset is such that it ignores the realities of the digital media and human nature.
Everyone seems to be media centric here. Maybe it is just because everyone (including myself) wants to grab the latest album off the web and wants to not have to shell out a few bucks. Maybe it is because that is all we see being used. Who knows - But the fact of the matter is just about everyone in this space has a very slanted view on reality.
;) ), it is instead that media companies are forcing overly restrictive DRM. Did you know that napster and apples contacts w/ those music bastards pervented them from keeping online backups of users rights (in other words if you lose you harddrive, you have to repurchase your music)? This may have changed since, but this gives an example of why those bastards are the root of the evil.
First and formost DRM has a GREAT place in documents. Now I know everyone wants to view DRM as a way to stop the owner from getting access to their content - but that is just some stupid idea that someone spitting alarmist hyperboles came up with. With DRM on documents a company can effectivly impose rights on an important document. This helps secure valueable IP. For instance with MS Office RM at my company I am able to write up a draft of a new design and I can easily limit the people viewing it, printing it, and copying it. I don't have to worry about people saving the document locally or taking on their laptops - it is always protected and accessible to anyone who has the right. I see no reason why this is 'evil.' In fact this is a very valuable tool to me. There are lots of other companies besides Microsoft that offer this kind of DRM, and I encourage you to investigate yourself before you make remarks like "DRM is flawed by design," those types of remarks only make you appear ignorant.
Now I am not going to defend any of the media companies here, in fact I believe that the reason why everyone hates DRM is not b/c of Apple, Real, Microsoft or Adobe (but possibly Sony
Also what I find paradoxical about this conversation is that many people hate DRM because it binds you to that system (like Apple's FairPlay). These are the same people who have no problem buying a Mac that locks all your hardware to the same system. Why aren't we protesting this? If openness is the issue then we should be attacking (and we are) MS's closed source and (we are not) Apple's closed hardware and mostly closed source (Granted parts of OSX kernel are open)? Seems like we are guided more by emotion, branding and familiarity (we expect Apple to be closed, but not music - hmm what about the next gen of music listeners...) then with logic.
Also DRM on media content is inharently bad, it is just effectivly bad. The reasons why we don't like it is b/c it is cumbersom and restrictive. Now imagine a world where everything you had rights to just worked - forever. You had some database in the clouds that kept track of everything for you. Now worring about losing songs, you could play on your iPod, on Linux, on you cell phone, in your car. You just couldn't steal the music off the web, or give it away free to everyone you know. The problem is that is far off, but until then we will just have to make due with what we have (or purchase CDs and DVDs for gods sake!)
Any well-informed individual who values our cultural heritage and wishes to preserve it for our children will go out of his/her way to acquire DRM-free versions of media content, whether by legal purchase, from hackers, or if necessary even from commercial pirates.
The history of our civilization over the ages teaches us that media stored in one or only a few repositories will most likely be lost - prime examples being the great libraries of Alexandria and Constantinople. But while these libraries flourished for hundreds of years, the volatile nature and rapid change of digital storage technology of the current era practically quarantees that the majority of works stored in digital form which cannot be readily copied will vanish within our lifetimes.
Highly acclaimed works often have an initial spike in popularity but then languish in near obscurity for years or decades until rediscovered. And of course some works considered valuable in later years never even achived that initial spike. But rediscovery requires that a work remains available, which will not be the case if a DRM-enabled work goes out-of-print for very long. It's difficult to judge apriori which works will be recognized as having lasting value and it takes considerable resources for a publisher to continually re-archive all works for the sake of preserving the unknown few.