The DRM Scorecard

An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe put together a scorecard which makes the obvious but interesting point that, when you list every major DRM technology implemented to "protect" music and video, they've all been cracked. This includes Apple's FairPlay, Microsoft's Windows Media DRM, the old-style Content Scrambling System (CSS) used on early DVDs and the new AACS for high-definition DVDs. And of course there was the Sony Rootkit disaster of 2005. Can anyone think of a DRM technology which hasn't been cracked, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't the industry just give up and go DRM-free?"

Comments

Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Atlantis-Rising]

Just because the ability exists to crack it, doesn't mean that the average Joe on the street can do so.

It discourages casual copying, nothing more, but I can't imagine it was intended to do any more. Nobody's that stupid.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[QuantumG]

Music execs are.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Atlantis-Rising]

Never assume stupidity for what can be explained as malice.

To do otherwise is naive at best.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because the ability exists to crack it, doesn't mean that the average Joe on the street can do so."

Ummmm, lets think about that:
1) It only takes ONE person to "crack" and copy music, a movie, etc. and make it available to all the average Joes.
2) It only takes ONE person to create a patch or an app and every average Joe can use it.

Where do these newbies come from on here? Sheeez.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[QuantumG]

No, they really are dumb.

"You mean you can supply me with uncrackable protection from unauthorized copying?"

"That's right!"

"Wow, and I don't really understand all this stuff, but when it gets cracked later this month I'll keep sending you your checks."

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Atlantis-Rising]

That's a naive view. Even if they believed that the first time, (which anyone with a little common sense would not have), it's even less likely they believed it the second, or the third, or the fourth time.

Given that assuming everyone in the entire media industry has the combined intelligence of a bowl of fruit is irrational and unreasonable, malice (although not exactly the "Buwahahaha evil" type of malice) is the most reasonable explanation.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Atlantis-Rising]

I realize that. That was not the point.

The point was that the RIAA/MPAA is taking a dual-pronged approach, as is visibly obvious- they are targeting torrent sites with an offensive barrage of lawsuits to prevent downloading and they are targeting the media with an offensive barrage of DRM to prevent casual copying which is decentralized and untraceable.

Is this approach effective? To some degree, yes, it is. Will it ever be 100% effective? No, it will not.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[mark-t]

And the irony of all this is that the industry isn't even hurt by typical casual copying, which is often be done for the private use of the copier anyways.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Original Replica]

The Average Joe doesn't need to be able to crack it himself. He just needs to get ahold of a cracked copy. Which he can.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[langelgjm]

It discourages casual copying, nothing more, but I can't imagine it was intended to do any more. Nobody's that stupid.

Of course not. That's why the MAFIAA and similar parties use the legal system to fill the holes that technology can't. If you can't actually stop everyone from doing it, simply make it illegal, and sue anyone who gets past the initial hurdles.

DRM and IP law, the technological and the legal - the two work in tandem, but I would say that the end goal is perfect control over content. Anything less than perfect control is, after all, simply an unexploited opportunity for profit.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[shark72]

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Are you also of the opinion that auto industry executives hold the naive view that auto theft-deterrent systems are infallible?

When I first got into the Apple warez scene in the early 80s, I asked somebody older and wiser why, say, they bothered to put copy protection on Wizardry when clever guys like me could easily crack it.

"Because," he pointed out, "if the copy protection prevents just one person from copying it, it's done its job."

And that's why copy protection on CDs and DVDs exists today: to deter casual copying. Much to their disadvantage, most people out there just aren't as technically adept as Slashdot readers.

Can you clarify why you believe that folks who use DRM don't understand this? It requires quite a stretch, but if you think you have solid evidence, I'd like to hear it.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[imtheguru]

Mod parent up.

This is indeed the root of any high-distribution system and is applicable to several domains--piracy, drugs, airborne diseases. It only takes one copy on a viable transmission medium to start the ball rolling.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[QuantumG]

I'm a reverse engineering guy. I can and have cracked programs. Do I still do this? No. Because there are people out there who have a whole lot more fun doing it than I would.. so I just use their stuff. Same with DVD copying. You don't have to be "skilled" to use DVD Shrink.. in fact, it's trivial, and millions of people do.

So take this "deter casual copying" crap and smoke it. If the residents of MySpace can work out how to copy and trade DRM'd stuff then anyone can.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[ucblockhead]

The Average Joe doesn't need to crack it. The Average Joe just uses the torrent that The Knowledgeable Joe uploaded after running the ripper he downloaded from a site run by The DRM-Cracking Expert Joe.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Gnpatton]

Your assumption that this stops the average Joe is incorrect. Average Joe will just pay someone else to do it for him. Nothing ever stops half a population from doing something, the unable half will simply pay the other half to do it for them.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[QuantumG]

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the RIAA/MPAA are losing.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[cyphercell]

Organized crime if they are worth the title will have a professional duplication process and will charge at least Wal-mart's latest prices, or better yet be involved in a video rental place or something where they can sell/rent videos ad infinitum.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[FooAtWFU]

Are you also of the opinion that auto industry executives hold the naive view that auto theft-deterrent systems are infallible?

Some car insurance companies hold this viewpoint, officially. It lets them get away with paying fewer claims one way or another. "But your car couldn't have been stolen, you must have been negligent and left the keys in." Or something to that effect.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[crazybasenji]

Two important reasons for DRM. 1. Price discrimination. Some people have the ability to pay when told that they must, regardless of the actual legal status. Also, the time value of money plays a factor. 2. But the more important one. Without DRM, then the DMCA can't be enforced. The whole, "yes you have fair use, but you broke the law to exercise it.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[bersl2]

No, I think that the reason they keep doing this is economic.

If they determine that the cost of adding DRM (licensing fees, lost sales, etc.) is less than the benefit (more legal purchases in place of casual copying), then they can say that DRM helps them (in the short term). I think that they have believed this to be the case.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[ubermiester]

The question is not whether people can do it, its a matter of whether they actually will.

To get DRM-less content, they need to:

• know that a crack exits
• know how to get it
• khow how to use it
• AND...feel as though it was really worth it to go through all that trouble so they can avoid paying for someone else's work.

Each step filters people, and those people pay. Simple as that.

The real question is how long the RIAA will take to realize that there are alternatives to this model.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Fordiman]

""Because," he pointed out, "if the copy protection prevents just one person from copying it, it's done its job."

And that's why copy protection on CDs and DVDs exists today: to deter casual copying. Much to their disadvantage, most people out there just aren't as technically adept as Slashdot readers."

'Cept most are adept enough to just download a copy from someone whose already cracked and transcoded it.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[QuantumG]

You're assigning your motives to others. The majority of people don't copy to avoid cost. They copy because of the social good it does. Your friend likes a song/movie/game, you offer "I'll make you copy", now both you and your friend can enjoy the song/movie/game.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[SanityInAnarchy]

My grandfather once said to me that locks were there only to keep the honest people honest.

Which is what the MAFIAA continues to say, and I find it a bit insulting. It's basically implying that all honest people would instantly be dishonest, were it not for the wonders of locks or DRM.

Anyway, I disagree. The point of a lock is only sometimes to "keep honest people honest" -- for example, a bathroom door which is normally closed should have a lock, so you know when someone is in there. This is certainly not the case of other locks, for example -- it's not as if people think an unlocked front door or an un-DRM'd file is an invitation.

The point of a locked front door is, it deters people without training in lockpicking, and if it's sufficiently well done (deadbolt, etc), it can be difficult or impossible to enter without leaving significant damage, or creating enough noise (with the alarm, if the lock fails) to alert the neighbors.

In other words, it's not to prevent someone from getting into your house, it's more to deter them, and to prevent them getting away with it. DRM does neither effectively.

There must be a better way to do this. Something that isn't so obtrusive and aggrivating for the end user.

Well, Apple did it -- watermarking. It could be done much more subtly, though, probably some type of stenography -- hopefully nothing that'd worsen compression much, possibly only at certain points in the file, hopefully in a way that could withstand re-encoding. The trick would be not to reveal any details about it until people are already leaking their copies, then start nailing people based on it -- again trying to keep the details confidential as long as possible.

It would eventually be defeated, but it's a much better way of deterring people from sharing those files in the first place. DRM, as currently implemented, controls far too much (watermarks in no way prevent fair use), and doesn't really deter anyone -- because you know whether it's cracked or not, and once it's cracked, it's no more dangerous than any other cracked media. But watermarks, you never really know if it's cracked, and if it's not, you'll be able to watch it, but they will be able to track you down.

I think the fact that the majority of the industry uses DRM instead of watermarking proves that DRM is about control, not about stopping piracy.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[lupis42]

Unfortunately for them, that's not entirely accurate. The MafiAA style lawsuits are, at least for now, so full of legal and technical holes that each court loss causes several more people to fight, rather than settle. If just one person can get a countersuit to stick, odds are good that the landslide of lawsuits that will follow would have a crippling effect on the whole program. Remember what the tobacco world looked like in the 70s/80s? One loss opened the floodgates, and cigarette companies are now a pale shadow of their former glory.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[bendodge]

Someone older and wiser once told me that, "Locks keep honest people honest."

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[RLiegh]

*AND...feel as though it was really worth it to go through all that trouble so they can avoid paying for someone else's work.

Each step filters people,

With you there, I could find the cracks (easily); mostly I don't care to

and those people pay.

Not necessarily, a lot of people, like me, simply say "fuck it" entirely and stick to what they already have.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[heinousjay]

If the copy isn't to avoid cost, then why not just tell the friend about the movie, and explain where it can be purchased?

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Eivind]

You assume that the "casual copyers" today start with original "protected" media. They don't.

The casual copiers of today visit a p2p-network and download the already-cracked, unprotected files. They don't notice that these files ever had DRM.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[TechyImmigrant]

> "You mean you can supply me with uncrackable protection from unauthorized copying?"
>"That's right!"

It's more like the media execs were asking for it, so the IT execs sold it.
I work in one of those huge companies that defined those crackable, ineffective DRM standards.
I'm a security expert in that company. I know the other security experts. There's not one of them that believes the DRM standards can work, because we understand that DRM cannot work from a fundamental point of view. It is an intractable problem.

So the engineers and security experts that defined those standards, in my opinion, to a one, did not think the DRM standards would last long and as such, dutifully rolled out the pointless technical specs knowing in the long terms it would not matter. The keys would fail. The IT execs got their solution based on unsupportable assumptions (the keys in the equipment can be hidden from the owner of the equipment) and the unsupportable assumptions turned out to be just that. The media execs got what they asked for and were disappointed when they found that the assumptions were so easily violated.

What failed, as is typical, is that the execs were deaf to the technical arguments of the experts and went for it anyway. They will do so again and again, because snake oil sells.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like "good fences make good neighbors"?

You know that's satire, right?

I don't disagree. I'll admit to opening the occasional medicine cabinet. But I don't actually CARE what I see, and I'm certainly not trying to swipe anything. These days voyeurism is practically a national past time, not a vice. ;-)

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Durandal64]

The other side of that coin is that if copy protection prevents just one customer from legitimately using the content he paid for, it's become an irritant that devalues your content. You can lose money either way. If a customer gives his copy of your software to one of his buddies, you've potentially lost a sale. If a customer tells one of his friends that your software is a pain in the ass because of the copy protection, you've almost certainly lost a sale.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[TGoddard]

Locks are a good way to keep honest people honest, but they should be simple and unobtrusive. The reason why we have key locks on our front doors instead of complicated biometric systems (this may be the wrong audience for this comment) is that they are simple, cheap and less prone to failure. The DRM systems created today are complicated, expensive (especially in hardware cost), unreliable and confusing. A simple restriction against copying marked files in software would do just as well to keep honest users honest and would avoid all the complexity and expense.

Neither DRM nor simple copy prevention will protect against users who really want to get around it as the problem of protecting such media is fundamentally impossible to solve. Even if a perfect system could be devised, until the day CDs become obsolete unrestricted copies will be widely and easily available. Neither consumers nor hardware manufacturers have much incentive to actively support DRM, even if most consumers are only apathetic. Simple economics and the constant competition between vendors will prevent DRM from gaining the strangle-hold required for it to be effective, which is fortunate for us all since such a strangle hold would create its own problems.

The best form of DRM would be standardised machine-readable copyright information that could be embedded as metadata in or alongside a file. This would at least force users to knowingly override copyright restrictions when they copy restricted files. Do this right and you could even get adoption in open source operating systems - I can imagine uses tracking ownership of code and managing packages.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Opportunist]

I don't think it's stupid as in having the intelligence of a slightly age slice of toast. It's more allowing themselves to be BS'ed.

Here's music exec Joe Shmoe. He's fairly intelligent when it comes to business related topics. He has a masters in BA. He doesn't understand jack about all that computer stuff, but that's not his biz. His biz is music.

Then here's Alex. He may or may not have a degree, but he sells Joe the DRM tools for his music. He knows both, commerce and computers.

Joe realized that Alex' DRM tools were cracked. Alex knows that too, and he knows well that the spin of "we make it uncrackable" doesn't hold water. But he also knows how Joe thinks. His selling strategy thus is:

1. Cracking DRM is another burden, which keeps a few more people from copying.
2. Cracking DRM has been made illegal, which keeps another few more from copying.
3. Our DRM solution costs less than the losses due to illegal copying.

Joe understands that. And thus Joe buys.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[donaldm]

Looked for the smiley but you are wrong (should have stayed with "Windows") :-).

Locks in many forms have been around for a very long time http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blloc k.htm however eventually they do get cracked.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Yer Mom]

Pay for it (requires a credit card)

Not always. You can buy iTunes credit (in £15 or £25 blocks) in supermarkets in the UK, and they take cash. Not a great deal of use if you just wanted to buy a couple of tracks, mind...

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[daem0n1x]

I can't tell if they are stupid or evil, but I always thought business men were really smart, learn really fast and have a huge outlook. None of that can be said about music industry executives.

I guess they've been sitting on their asses receiving a shower of money for too long. They can read the writings on the wall, but it's too much for them to handle.

My country has a lot of textile industry. Years ago, the WTO decided to open the textile market to China in 10 years. The industrials had 10 years to change their business models, and did nothing. The 10 year period has ended and Chinese textiles invaded the market. Now they are all crying and demanding government protection. Factories are shutting down like crazy and many people are being thrown into unemployment.

Just like the oil business executives, they stick to their dying business model and try to protect it with all kinds of artificial measures. They just can't face the truth.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[N Monkey]

Someone older and wiser once told me that, "Locks keep honest people honest."

... it also keeps the "moderately lazy but potentially dishonest people honest".

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[msormune]

Locks also keep dishonest people from stealing things from honest people.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Applekid]

The subtle wordplay in the statement that perhaps wasn't entirely obvious is that a dishonest person, dedicated enough, could break/pick/destroy the lock anyway.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[BigDogCH]

I think you missed the point. It takes little effort to get past most locks.....but it does take some effort. An honest person sees the lock, and backs down (realizing it was intended to be locked). The dishonest person plays with the lock (and since most are easily opened) and then gains access.

A simple example is your front door. Locked or not, one kick and someone has access (assuming you have a normal wood-framed door).

Another example, with 5 minutes of research, and a $20 device, you can open most locked car doors. Ever call triple-A? It takes them less than 5 seconds to open most car-doors. 3-seconds with mine.

The GP was correct, locks keep honest people honest. They do nothing for stopping dishonest people. The same goes for DRM.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[amolapacificapaloma]

"Locks keep honest people honest, and locked."
Would I like a world where everybody is honest? Sure. But I, by far, prefer a world where everybody is free.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[someone1234]

DRM keeps honest people frustrated, pirates rich (those who sell cracked stuff to Average Joe), and the RIAA look stupid.

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[OMEGA Power]

You left out

4. Joe's company gets bad press for selling CDs that don't work in many cd players
5. Joe's customers go online to download copies of the CDs they bought but now can't play on their computers, rip to their iPods, etc
6. A percentage of the customers mentioned in 5 decide that since they are downloading songs from the CD they bought (which Joe's propaganda campaign has been telling them is illegal anyway) they might as well download music from other CDs (which they haven't bought) too
7. Retailers get sick of having to deal with Joe's CDs being returned at a much higher rate than anything else since people consider discs that won't play on their particular hardware defective.
8. Sales of Joe's CDs plummet while his competitors cash in by promoting the fact that their music is DRM free

Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.

[Hellkitten]

The GP was correct, locks keep honest people honest. They do nothing for stopping dishonest people. The same goes for DRM.

Sorry that's not what DRM does.

DRM prevents honest people from using the stuff they buy in ways they are legally entiteled to, pissing them off and turning them into dishonest people

The only reason I have on occasion bought DRM burdened material is because I expect the DRM to be breakable, now or later. I'll be doing something that is legal, but not approved by the copyright holder, when converting that material to any format I choose. If I was interested in uploding material and breaking copyright law I wouldn't bother buying anything in the first place, I'd just download it. Unfortunately the RIAA and MPAA and their sister organisations in other countries are continually pushing stronger DRM to keep their product inferior to what the pirates are offering.

The only thing not cracked yet...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Frivolous lawsuits. Until the RIAA finally realizes that its lawsuit tactic isn't working it's the only attempt at DRM that hasn't been made completely useless yet. Unfortunately I don't see that happening unless/until they lose bigtime in multiple court cases.

You mother fuckers are pissing me off

[Anonymous Coward]

I have this massive pile of digital rights that I really need to manage. Yet every fucking piece of management software I download has been hacked. There's not even any patches for this shit. How the fuck am I, as a concerned citizen, supposed to manage my rights?

Re:You mother fuckers are pissing me off

[v1]

you're trolling, but with a valid point. The bottom line is that the idea itself is fundamentally flawed. You cannot give the public limited access to information that requires their full access (however carefully managed you make it) without making it vulnerable to defeat. The only true three purposes at this point are (1) to make casual infringement difficult enough to be inconvenient, (2) to prevent use of IP in a way that you really don't feel like letting them use it, and (3) to give them a legal defense. (if you fail to defend your IP you tend to lose it in court)

They know how evolution works. The most draconian systems they come up with today will be childs play eight years from now. So in reality, for as nasty as they look now, they will be almost pointless 10 yrs from now. (look at CSS...) So what they're doing now really this isn't any worse than CSS was when it was made, relatively speaking. Six years from now we will look at this and yawn, as we feed a spindle of old blue rays into a reader (at 25 seconds each) and download our entire collection to our data cube.

Re:You mother fuckers are pissing me off

[gbobeck]

How the fuck am I, as a concerned citizen, supposed to manage my rights?

Well, you can surrender all of your rights to me, and I'll manage all of them for you.

The only thing really not broken... yet

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Is Blueray. That's going to last another decade.

Re:The only thing really not broken... yet

[infonography]

I used a Yellowray on the disk and got greenlit. Copy away!

Re:The only thing really not broken... yet

[bleak sky]

MiniDisc uses SCMS (Serial Copy Management System), and it's relatively trivial to defeat. It's not encryption, it's just an extra bit set in the S/PDIF stream. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Managemen t_System and http://www.esrac.ele.tue.nl/~leon/scms/ (or Google for SCMS killer) for more information.

DRM isn't supposed to be foolproof

[cavetroll]

The point of DRM isn't to hinder in any noticeable way the large groups that are responsible for most of the copyright infringement that takes place, rather the aim is to annoy and infuriate the average 'consumer' to the point where needlessly buying extra copies of $ITEM is the path of least resistance.

The same effect has been observed in software for years, Windows XP had an activation thing built in, anyone who knew what they were doing would bypass it, anyone who didn't (and didn't know anyone who did) would eventually go and buy superfluous copies of software they already owned.

Bad arguments and bad reasoning

[timholman]

Okay, let's try Alex Wolfe's argument in a different context:

"When you list every major law implemented to "protect" life and property, they've all been broken. Can anyone think of a law which hasn't been broken, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go law-free?"

DRM doesn't have to be perfect to do its job, anymore than law enforcement has to be "perfect". It just has to be effective enough to keep Joe Average from copying the file. Whether or not DRM is actually "good" or "bad" for media producers is a completely different argument, but Wolfe's sophomoric reasoning does nothing to address it.

Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning

[Original Replica]

The question is not just have they been broken? But, by what percentage of the populace are they regularly broken? I'm thinking of things like: speed limits, marijuana laws, jaywalking, (in it's day) prohibition, etc. If the people choose to ignore the law, then why is it a law? There are countless laws on the books, left there to be tools for the police or local government to use to control the citizens. Is there any doubt that parking or most speeding tickets are nothing more than revenue for the local government? Do marijuana laws do anything other than create a source of funding for organized crime? DRM does it's job just fine, it criminalizes people, which gives other people the leverage to control them.

Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning

[Braino420]

"When you list every major law implemented to "protect" life and property, they've all been broken. Can anyone think of a law which hasn't been broken, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go law-free?"

Oh what is this, a law analogy? What are you new here? Nerds don't understand laws, they understand cars. Watch and learn:

When you list every major car safety feature implemented to "protect" life and limb, they have all failed. Can anyone think of a car safety feature which hasn't failed, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go seatbelt-free?

Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning

[cdrguru]

Marijuana and other drug laws absolutely keep some people away from the stuff. They (a) have fear of authority and (b) zero self control.

We do not want to see these folks roaming the streets on drugs. A few times a year someone does something utterly boneheaded and gives their friend drugs. Then finds out their friend falls into the above category and get to watch while they (a) destroy their life with drug-seeking behavior, (b) do unbelievable stuff like burning down their house, running over little old ladies, etc. and (c) end up in a head-ward or jail.

Some people do not belong getting drunk. Some people do not belong using drugs. Some people should never, ever smoke marijuana.

Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning

[damiam]

That's a fallacious way to rephrase things because "break" has several meanings, and "breaking" a law is not the same thing as "breaking" DRM. One important difference: If someone breaks a law, the law still stands and can be effective in other cases. OTOH, once DRM is hacked (or "broken" if you must confuse terms), it's effectively useless - it only takes one exploited flaw for decrypted media to end up on p2p networks.

Re:The best DRM

[User 956]

The best DRM is rot13. No one has ever cracked that yet in nearly 25 years.

In the eyes of the DMCA, the best DRM is ROT26.

Cracking DRM needs to be easier to use

[Anonymous Coward]

we (geeks) can do it because we are prepared to go through the many steps to remove the DRM
the average joe needs a (free) really easy (integrated) app that strips the DRM, no command line stuff or blind them with options
and (in|un)stallers hell i bet they dont even know what DRM is other than the dialog in their player saying "sorry you dont have a license"
just a simple .exe "click here to remove any DRM found on your system",
no need for finding keys or running multiple apps to crack it just a press button and joe can play his file again

the easier it is to do something the more people will do it

I don't like them Putting Words in people's mouths

[JamesRose]

but as far as this goes: "However, like true Brits, they're soldiering on and releasing it, possibly convinced that it's not much use worry about what those stupid Americans are up to with their software schemes, anyway." I think they got it pretty bang on.

DRM is doing it's job

[dirk]

No one ever expected DRM to stop all copying. That was never it's purpose. The purpose of DRM was to curb copying, which it has done. Everyone realizes there will always be a way to get around DRM (or anything else really) if you really want to. But if you can implement DRM and stop 50% or 75% of copying, that is a big improvement. That is exactly what they did. They implemented a solution that will reduce copying by the average person, which means more money in their pockets since less people are copying CDs and giving them to friends (and no, I'm not claiming every person who copied a CD would go and buy it, but certainly some of them will).

DRM works under the same concept as locking your car. IF someone really wants in, they will get in. But it certainly cuts down on the casual person who will take an easy opportunity, but doesn't care enough to put in the effort to get around the measures you put in place.

Cable HDTV DRM

[nukem996]

Last I looked Cable HDTV DRM still hasn't been cracked which sucks if you want to use a myth box. You can only get an HDMI with HDCP signal out which I also don't think has been cracked. I really hope they do crack it so I can watch the HDTV that I pay for on my computer whenever I want. As a side note I once talked to my friend(who works for comcast) about driving a GNU/Linux driver for the CableCard. He told me it would be hard and was 100% sure we would be taken to court. The CableCard apparently looks to make sure the hardware using it is certified. Cracking that shouldn't be to hard but apparently the deal that at least comcast has with the content providers is that if there DRM is cracked they have 30days to fix it otherwise they have to recall all devices with the DRM capability and destroy them. Then they can issue new ones with newer DRM, otherwise they risk losing that content.

Re:Cable HDTV DRM

[afidel]

HDCP has been cracked but unless you have a display with DVI and no HDCP support it does you very little good. The problem is the HDCP protected signal is a full bandwidth signal, not the compressed OTA or disk steam, and there is currently no system available that can really deal with capturing that much data in real time that is in the consumer price range.

Why DRM?

[Crypto Gnome]

DRM is just "an electronic lock".

There's a well known saying "Locks secure you against honest people" (or words to that effect).

The hard-core/organized/professional criminals have the skills, technology and motivation to bypass these "security measures".

Remember people, locks aren't about making you secure, they're about making you FEEL secure.

s/locks/airport security screening procedures/
s/locks/the department of homeland security/ (well, that and political empire-building and creating a police-state by stealth)

Smokey The Bear Says: Only YOU can prevent the violation of your civil rights "in the interest of National Security".

Re:Why DRM?

[qbwiz]

Remember people, locks aren't about making you secure, they're about making you FEEL secure.

So you never lock your car, or your house, or anything you own?

Re:The best DRM

[martin_henry]

no crack.

All bank vaults and locks have also been cracked

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There is no uncrackable security technology. This does not make them worthless.

A mechanism that is difficult to crack (whether that is a physical lock or DRM or password) makes it harder for the cracker and reduces the likelihood of someone actually doing the cracking. That removes casual crackers from the equation.

It also makes the cracking act more deliberate and makes it far harder for someone to claim: "That diamond got in my pocket.... I just found it on the sidewalk and thought it had been thrown out." or "Oh that music on my MP2 player... I thought it was free!"

DIVX

[MBCook]

I don't rember ever seeing DIVX ever being cracked. The fact that it failed in the market and you could get the exact same content off of a non-DIVX DVD aside, I don't know of a crack for it.

But everything that has been in use for a little while or on successful product? Yeah, it's cracked. The article doesn't even begin to mention all the software protection schemes that are no longer effective.

We have everything we need... almost

[BlueParrot]

TOR
Plausible deniability
Analogue hole

What we miss is a file sharing program that makes use of a TOR like network and stores the files in a plausibly deniable container by default (i.e no need to be a computer geek) so that everyone can use it. Such a program would essentially be a tactical nuke against the record label's business model. Some time ago I may have considered promoting this immoral, but after I had a night ruined by region codes ( my girlfriend* at the time had bought me a present while visiting the states ) I sort of want to see this bullshit fail as much as possible. Unfortunately I don't know shit about designing a decent network so I can't write the stuff myself, but if things continue the way they do it is only a question of time before somebody does it.

*Yes yes, I know I'm not supposed to have had a girlfriend and post to slashdot... If it helps maintain the stereotype I could disclose that I'm nocturnal, skinny and still living with my mother...

Re:We have everything we need... almost

[AnyoneEB]

Wow, once again showing some truth to the meme that all technology is better in Japan. Winny (and its successors Share and Perfect Dark) appear to be far more advanced than any p2p popular in the US, although Wikipedia points out that they assume high speed connections which are most common in Japan.

What I find really interesting about those programs though is that they are all closed-source Windows programs. Is Windows really that overwhelmingly pervasive in Japan? Or is it just too difficult to write a cross-platform app which looks pretty and has good Japanese language / Unicode support? And why would a p2p app be closed source? That seems very strange to me.

Certainly there are some things which come to mind

[zuki]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but the dongle systems that protect many Mac music applications and plugins seem to have held up so far, as in either iLok
or some of the Synchrosoft dongles. Logic Pro 7 is not really something that has been cracked yet either, to my (admitedly limited) knowledge.

From what I recall reading, when H2O did manage to [k] Nuendo, it took them so long that I think they said
they were not going to bother doing it more, as the process was just too annoyingly time-consuming.

Theoretically, these systems could probably be made to protect anything which is a software-based application. Not sure if this qualifies as DRM, rather than just some 'copy-protection'
technique but certainly it has helped ensure that many small developers of quality audio plug-ins survive because their creations cannot be cracked.

Z.

A Long-Standing Illusion

[ewhac]

Copy protection systems have been around a lot longer than the recent crop of Defective Recorded Media would suggest.

There's only one copy protection system I know of that hasn't been (meaningfully) cracked, and that's MediaCipher, created by Motorola for the cable TV crowd. Ironically, it was one of the first ones ever created. (Of course, it helps that the boxes implementing MediaCipher are only rented -- never sold -- to end-users.)

Copy protection next showed up in a major way for computer games, most notably for the Apple ][ computer. This fetish briefly spread into applications software as well as games, until the users thundered, "No Fscking Way." It took about four to six years for this to shake out.

Despite the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that copy protection has any meaningful impact on sales, anti-copying measures are still used extensively, but by no means universally, throughout the games industry. In particular, Unreal Tournament's initial anti-copying measures are little more than perfunctory, and are later dropped entirely.

Near as I can determine, copy protection advocates claim as axiomatic that unsanctioned copying will depress sales to livlihood-threatening levels. They cleave to this axiom with a fervor usually associated with religious fundamentalists. However, every time this axiom is honestly examined, mitigating or even entirely contradictory evidence is discovered. Yet the myth persists.

It's not the technology we need to combat (since Turing proved it can never work). It's the defective thinking.

Schwab

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[langelgjm]

Oh that music on my MP2 player.

Was someone a little strapped for cash?

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[danpat]

Unfortunately, the analogy doesn't quite hold. Breaking into bank vaults is more like performing a brute force attack on a DRM scheme, every time you wanted to break it. DRM schemes don't work like that. Typically once a scheme is compromised, it becomes possible for anyone subject to it to break it almost instantly. All it takes is for someone to write a quick tool that automates the cracking process and all the barriers presented by the DRM scheme pretty much fall away.

I'd say that DRM schemes are like having one giant bank vault. Yes, it will eventually get compromised, and once it is, everything inside is trivial to take.

Apple iTunes Video

[IdahoEv]

Last time I checked, you can strip the FairPlay DRM from iTunes music files pretty easily, but nobody has released a tool that does the same for video files purchased from iTunes.

So ya can't yet burn that episode of "Lost" you bought on iTunes to a DVD.

Re:Apple iTunes Video

[The Lost Supertone]

Actually we really don't have the iTunes DRM cracked. I mean it can be circumvented but it hasn't been cracked since version 4.6

Re:Apple iTunes Video

[QuantumG]

There's better places to get the content, so why bother cracking it?

Grammar Nazi

[Haganah]

That does not "beg the question" at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

FairPlay on videos not cracked

[Shrubbman]

What annoys me is that while current versions of QTFairUse strip the DRM off audio files just fine, nobody as of yet has put out a simple tool to strip off FairPlay from Apple's video files. If it's the same DRM scheme you'd think they'd just extend FairUse to do video files as well, but they've just not done that. I guess there must be some issue with the exploit they use that precludes using that hole for video as well I suppose...

It's been what, 2+ years since Apple started selling videos and still no crack?

Re:DirecTV

[Dun Malg]

I don't think DirecTV's DRM has been cracked since they replaced it a few years ago. DirecTV encryption isn't classical "DRM". It's a live, encrypted delivery system rather than a chunk of data in a fixed medium, which makes it a moving target. It would be quite possible (though not exactly trivial) to record a given segment of the data stream and hack the particular key used to encrypt it, thus "breaking the DRM" on that particular block of content. This could not be done in a timely enough manner (i.e. in real time) to make it worthwhile, though, which is why no one does it.

You know

[SoulRider]

one definition of insane is doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results.

it really doesn't beg that question.

[buddyglass]

Can anyone think of a DRM technology which hasn't been cracked, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't the industry just give up and go DRM-free?

The industry isn't trying to make uncrackable DRM. They're trying to make DRM that's just annoying enough so that the majority of users don't go to the trouble. Expert users will always crack whatever they put out. That wouldn't be a problem except for the ease of distribution BitTorrent affords and other P2P services afford. The same principle applies w/ the RIAA lawsuits. They're not trying to sue everyone who pirates music. They're just trying to get enough publicity so that people start thinking, "Gee, if I download that song then there's a chance, however remote, that the RIAA is going to sue me. Even if the law is on my side and I win, that would be a colossal hassle. Maybe I'll just buy it instead."

Re:it really doesn't beg that question.

[dido]

They're trying to make DRM that's just annoying enough so that the majority of users don't go to the trouble of buying the product legitimately in the first place. There, fixed it for you. This is a fine line these benighted fools must walk, as they are engaged in marketing a product that is inferior to and which can be more easily and cheaply obtained from illegitimate sources.

Uncracked DRM

[krelian]

I've never heard of an MMORPG that was cracked to that you could play for free (on an official server) or even play without purchasing the client software.

My idea of a cracked DRM is one that allows you to use the product exactly is if the DRM was not included. I think starforce which is used for gaming was never fully cracked. At least not the latest version. I remember seeing a crack for a game (I forgot its name, go figure) which used starforce that required you to physically unplug your dvd drive from the motherboard in order to work... Starforce was such a violent protection that even the game companies themselves decided to ditch it. It would do havoc to your machine and I even heard several cases were a DVD drive was rendered useless because of it.

As someone has already mentioned, no DRM is uncrackable but some of them require a lot of work. The DRM's of popular products will always be cracked because of the demand but there are many people who use niche products that are usually not worth the effort for the skilled crackers. These will just have to take the pill and suffer quietly.

Re:HDMI

[sssssss27]

From Wikipedia:
"Cryptanalysis researchers demonstrated fatal flaws in HDCP for the first time in 2001, prior to its adoption in any commercial product. Scott Crosby of Carnegie Mellon University authored a paper with Ian Goldberg, Robert Johnson, Dawn Song, and David Wagner called "A Cryptanalysis of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System". This paper was presented at ACM-CCS8 DRM Workshop on November 5, 2001.[1]

The authors conclude:

"HDCP's linear key exchange is a fundamental weakness. We can:

* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
* Create new device keyvectors.
* In aggregate, we can usurp the authority completely."

It must be noticed, however, that for this attack you first have to break Blom's scheme (the linear algebra based key exchange system). In the case of HDCP you need a minimum of 39 device keys in order to reconstruct the secret symmetrical master matrix that has been used to compute all device keys.

Around the same time that Scott Crosby and co-authors were writing this paper, noted cryptographer Niels Ferguson independently claimed to have broken the HDCP scheme, but he did not publish his research, citing legal concerns arising from the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act [1].

The most well-known attack on HDCP is the conspiracy attack, where a number of devices are compromised and the information gathered is used to reproduce the private key of the central authority.

To read my post

[Geekbot]

To read my post please enter the first word from pages 6, 27, and 32 from the manual.

This is called "the Smart Cow problem"

[Spy der Mann]

From Wikipedia:

The Smart Cow Problem describes the method by which a group of individuals, faced with a technically difficult task, only requires one of their number to solve the problem. Having been solved once, an easily repeatable method may be developed, allowing non-technically proficient entities to accomplish the task. The term Smart Cow Problem is thought to be derived from the expression: "It only takes one smart cow to open the latch of the gate, and then all the other cows follow." [1]

This has recently been applied to Digital Rights Management (DRM), where, due to the rapid spread of information on the internet, it only takes one individual to defeat a DRM scheme to render the method obsolete. [2]

      1. ^ http://www.wired.com/news/business/1,60901-0.html Buck a Song, or Buccaneer? , retrieved 2007-02-13
      2. ^ http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67556,00 .html Give Your DVD Player the Finger, retrieved 2007-02-13

DRM and honesty

[ucblockhead]

The purpose of DRM isn't to keep dishonest people from copying music.

The purpose of DRM is to force honest people to repurchase music every time the format changes.

Once you understand that, the obsession with DRM makes more sense.

Re:All DRM has been cracked?

[JeremyBanks]

Probably because who knows enough to work on a crack knows anything by Real isn't worth their time.

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[Nazlfrag]

Even given the proper tools, it's a major pain in the arse for Joe Blow to decrypt CSS for example. The average consumer has trouble burning a data CD, let alone decrypting and copying DRMd content. It doesn't stop him downloading the divx torrent though, so I guess the bank vault is open even if just a fraction actually do the crack.

Fundamentally, you're spot on. It is a hell of a lot worse than bank vault security. You can't have the party it's secured against also the one it decrypts for. It just makes no sense! All DRM is crackable by definition, they know this, they just want to make it as much of a hassle as possible.

The Alice and Bob analogy

[Spy der Mann]

No, it's flawed because it CAN be cracked easily: The decrypting key is in the firmware contained in your DVD player.

In cryptography, we have an explanation using Alice and Bob. Alice is communicating with Bob, while Eve (eavesdropper) tries to decrypt the message. Alice and Bob have the key to decipher the message, but Eve doesn't. She wants to decrypt the communication *without* the key.

A --- E --- B

Alice in this case, is the Digital Media producer (or encrypter), and B is your DVD. You're Eve. The problem with DRM is that Eve *HAS* the key. By cracking the DVD software (some disassembly, debugging and you're done), Eve can obtain the key from Bob.

A --------- B E

This is the problem with DRM. It's flawed by design. The DMCA is a legal "patch" to this algorithm, punishing Eve if she gets the key from Bob. The problem with DMCA is that the punishment doesn't apply to all countries, and trying to enforce it results in attacking freedom of speech.

Locks are for Honest People

[MBAslug]

There isn't a door lock that can't be cracked by the most humble of clerks working at Home Depot, but that hasn't stopped the door lock industry. Next time you walk into the office, look up and imagine how many offices could be entered by simply removing a set of $2.00 ceiling tiles that stand in the way.

The fact is, humans need these reminders. They give people who know what is right permission to do the right thing.

Re:Locks are for Honest People

[tkrotchko]

"They give people who know what is right permission to do the right thing."

George Orwell just called and said he owns the IP to "newspeak", and he's giving you permission to do the right thing and stop stealing it.

The Answer: Greed Makes You Stupid

[rudy_wayne]

"this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't the industry just give up and go DRM-free?"

The entire entertainment industry is so consumed with greed that they are no longer able to think clearly. The failure of DRM is so painfully obvious, but the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc. are so blinded by greed that they can't see it. To them, the failure of DRM is proof that they need bigger badder DRM along with bigger badder laws to punish people. This is what greed does to you.

The secret to success is simple: make a good product and sell it at a fair price. But when you are bkinded by greed and convinced that you're losing billions of dollars to "piracy", you think that the secret to success is to control your precious "intellectual property" with the most draconian iron-fisted methods possible.

Preventing competition

[bitspotter]

Ed Felten took a whack at this question a while back that stuck with me in the context of HDCP DRM.

First: Why is the weak system worth spending 10,000 gates for? The answer doesn't lie in platitudes about speedbumps or raising the bar -- any technical bumps or bars will be obliterated when the master secrets are published. ...

So temporary piracy prevention doesn't seem like a good explanation.

A much more plausible answer is that HDCP encryption exists only as a hook on which to hang lawsuits. For example, if somebody makes unlicensed displays or format converters, copyright owners could try to sue them under the DMCA for circumventing the encryption."

Because if there's anything a tech mogul hates worse than his own customers, it's his competition.

DRM in a Nutshell:

An encryption system is a way to deliver information securely, even through the hands of the thieves.

A DRM system is a way to cut out the middleman, and deliver information securely into the hands of thieves directly.

See the problem?

Confusing the thief for the customer is why DRM can never work.
Confusing the customer for the thief is why DRM can never sell.

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[quanticle]

Bad analogy. You see, digital media can be copied for zero cost. Physical objects cannot. Therefore, as long as one person cracks the DRM, then essentially everyone has because that one person can the redistribute the DRM-free media for free. In fact, its even worse than that because not only can that one person distribute, but every person that the first person gives it to can also redistribute, and so on and so forth.

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[Eravnrekaree]

I dont like the analogy of a bank vault at all. Its not like people are breaking into a video store and stealing videos. These are usually people who have lawfully purchased a video and want to use it for their own private purposes but this has been restricted by DRM. DRM circumvention is often an attempt for a consumer to simply use something they legally purchased for their own private use, such as making back up copies or playing it on their computer, or copying to their ipod. I dont see any problem with that unless they are distributing it to others, Once a person has legally obtained some work, it should be theirs to do as they please with it for their own private use.

We already have copyrights to protect the producers of works. DRM is going too far as it restricts the users rights to use something for their own private use, for which they have legally purchased.

doesn't

[begbiezen]

doesn't matter what anyone says, neither my mom or my dad, nor my three sisters, nor any of my cousins know how to use any tool to remove drm. and i doubt they ever will. most of my cousins and sisters can handle the likes of limewire though.

It's the convenience, stupid

[mblase]

1) It only takes ONE person to "crack" and copy music, a movie, etc. and make it available to all the average Joes.

"Available" is a relative term.

For your average iPod-buying Joe, it's easier to find a desirable song by buying a CD on the way home or to search and download it from the iTunes Store, than it is to find a reliable and spyware-free Gnutella client, search for the song, eliminate all the junk matches, find one that's good quality, and download it.

I like using the iTunes Store to download singles because it's MUCH more reliable and usable than browsing for free MP3s, as long as the iTunes Store actually carries said singles. It's also much, much faster at downloading movies.

For the non-geek, legal DRMed media files are generally easier to find, easier to download, faster to play, and usually have their metadata tagged properly too. The only downsides are that you can't give it away to your friends and it costs more. But like Linux, cracked multimedia files are only free if your time is worth nothing.

Re:It's the convenience, stupid

[icebrain]

But some people enjoy working on their homes, and like the satisfaction of getting done and knowing that they did it. And I know that if my choices were either:

A. work overtime so that I can pay someone to do it, or
B. not work overtime and do it myself

I'd choose B. Working on a house is more interesting than sitting at a desk driving Catia all day, and (usually) the frustration level isn't any higher. It may take me longer overall, but I'd be at home with my family instead of at work.

Re:The BBC and Licensing?

[tkrotchko]

"The BBC's iPlayer has recently come under fire for being Windows only and DRM-riddled, but what can they do?"

Send everybody who pays for a TV license a card with an ID and password.

Person must first log into the web site with their ID and password, and then they can stream the programs using some sort of open CODEC or even Flash.

The solves 98% of the problem. And it's one of those good enough solutions that lawyers and bureaucrats will turn down because they're not thinking rationally. They're looking for a 100% protection solution that can never exist. They're only making it harder for their customers, and it makes no difference to "protecting" the content.

Re:DirecTV

[Fred Ferrigno]

This could not be done in a timely enough manner (i.e. in real time) to make it worthwhile, though, which is why no one does it. Sure they do. Grab a DirecTiVo unit off of eBay, hack it and you can download recorded shows in a DRM-free format. You'll still have to pay DirecTV to access the video in the first place, but as you rightly point out that really isn't DRM.

DRM is about letting you have the content while preventing you from doing anything with it. DirecTV is a pretty good example that even though they can prevent you from getting the content, they can't control what you do with it once you have it.

It has nothing to do with content protection

[Groo Wanderer]

It is all about enforcing a monopolistic distribution channel, a walled garden. They are trying to get all of the pie, not just a chunk. I went into more detail here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29161

              -Charlie

perhaps it was too subtle.

[User 956]

You're missing the point. That whole post was about the misuse of the phrase "begging the question".

Re:DirecTV

[XedLightParticle]

You're right in that what's currently used for digital cable and satellite TV feeds hasn't been cracked. But this has a history, at least in Europe, of being cracked, holes found in the algorithms and all sorts of fun, then 6 months after it gets public known they change encryption system, and the TV pirates can start over. The encryption systems have in that way gotten so tough to crack that the pirates have found other ways, the most common way to get around the encryption today, is to get a receiver of which you can replace the firmware, and in that way get the receivers to share the smartcards with each others over the internet, for the time being the TV providers knows it's happening, but they fail to figure out how to prevent it, so instead they spread rumours that their encryption providers in Israel are able to detect when cardsharing occurs, but I have yet to hear about them catching anyone in that way.

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[mr_matticus]

Which is exactly why they feel they have to make it harder to copy. It doesn't cost anything, so the only thing they can do is throw the law around while simultaneously making it more difficult to copy.

Now, obviously the honor system doesn't work. If DRM vanished tomorrow, most Slashdotters would still keep downloading. It provides something to bitch about more than anything. The fundamental problem is that Slashdot has decided it doesn't like the media industry's business model. It doesn't actually have anything to do with DRM in the overwhelming majority of cases--precisely because every single kind of DRM has been cracked. It's not a real deterrent to Slashdot. But it's good for the go to pretend that it was supposed to be and you beat "the man."

The only real deterrent is the law, which is why there's all the sabre-rattling here. You don't want to pay for the content. You've all but declared it every single time this issue comes up. There aren't many people here who carve a rational balance. Most of you will continue getting it for free because a) you can and b) you don't think they deserve money in the first place (or "not as much as they charge" in the truest mob fashion). Rationalize all you want, but that's all it comes down to.

There need to be massive changes in the media industry. Lots of things which are fundamentally clear have become confused in the fiery rhetoric and the balance is wrong. But if you won't come to the table, why should they?

Re:HDMI

[CityZen]

Actually, an HDMI input card is only $249.

See: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensit y/

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[Eivind]

Sure there is. A correctly employed OTP is completely, mathemathically proven, uncrackable.

But there is no uncrackable DRM-technology. There can't be. By nessecity the users machine MUST contain all the information needed to decode the media. If it didn't, it couldn't display it. If it can display it, it fundamentally CAN also save it in an unrestricted format.

Yes, it may be more or less tricky to get at the keys. But it'll always be *possible*.

The sony umd movie recording format

[MemoryDragon]

has not been cracked, but the only reason for this is, that there is no real incentive to do so, because all the movies are on DVD anyway, which is by now an "open" format.

Keys work locks

[Don_dumb]

Locks are a good way to keep honest people honest, but they should be simple and unobtrusive. The reason why we have key locks on our front doors instead of complicated biometric systems (this may be the wrong audience for this comment) is that they are simple, cheap and less prone to failure.

Remember the front door is public, the lock is public but only the owners have the key. The front door system works because not everyone who can get to the door has the key. DRM simply doesn't work because you have the content, the lock and the key.

DRM is here to stay!

[dhavleak]

Not trying to be a troll. But I strongly disagree with the hive-mind about DRM being as hopeless as the comments proclaim.

Frist off, digital piracy isn't that different from brick-and-mortar piracy -- sellers will always try to find ways to prevent theft, and those who want to pirate stuff will always find ways to circumvent the checks. This is human nature and the it'll probably never change.

Second, while we (rightly) think that the RIAA could save itself a lot of effort by revamping its model, that argument doesn't scale to other media. For example, movies. Movies are expensive to make, and don't sell in the same volumes as songs. The RIAA might easily solve its problems by moving to an AllOfMp3-like model, and pricing structure. But the MPAA won't be able to do the same -- charging 10 cents a movie will mean that they need to sell about 150 times the volume to make similar profits. Charging even $4 a movie will be enough incentive for people to go back to bittorrent. So clearly, its a never-ending tug of war, and while we think the RIAA/MPAA should in good faith adjust it's pricing model etc. the MPAA (at least) can't rely on the same good faith from its customers.

But of course, the RIAA and MPAA are not blameless. And neither are Apple and MS and anyone else creating DRM schemes for multimedia formats (in fact, perhaps the Apple and MS folk are more guily than the RIAA/MPAA. Thier real sin is, they are trying to exploit a side-effect of DRM by not openly licensing thier DRM schemes and not making them interoperable/platform-agnostic. They have seen the side-effect of locking in customers by not licensing thier DRM schemes and by using proprietary formats, and they're frothing at the mouth with the possibilities of locking in customers, and getting duplicate revenues from those that do defect.

At one point, I was actually willing to give MS some props for trying to rally the industry around a single DRM scheme (PlaysForSure) and keeping the API for it open. The lack of PlaysForSure on Macs and Linux is a big problem, and using WMA is a bigger problem, but the real sin was when they came out with yet another DRM system for the Zune. (Unless their PlaysForSure contracts made it a necessity by stipulating that MS will never come out with a PlaysForSure device or something like that - I wonder).

And Apples fault is in how they choose to license FairPlay. They seem to have some arbitrary 'coolness factor' that needs to be met before they license FairPlay (which they do license out). For example, it's clear that the Xbox ppl have given iPod integration a lot of importance, and they must surely have approached Apple to license Fairplay so that even protected songs could be streamed to the 360 from a PC/Mac or iPod. The fact that this doesn't work today can only be because Apple did not license FairPlay. A terrible sin, for what would have been a very cool and easy to use feature. They did not think about the benefit to their users first -- they thought about lock-in instead.

This is really what's wrong with DRM today. Companies are having a field day with trying to lock in consumers, and not giving any thought to enabling them to use thier property in as many fair ways as possible. The focus is completely on lock-in, and disabling, rather than enabling, and maintianing an audit trail without hindering.

The solution might come from the market, in time. But for that people need to be very vigilant about shunning DRM schemes until these companies learn thier lesson and start inter-oprating with each other. That doesn't look like its happening anytime soon -- what with iTunes downloads crossing the 3 billion mark the other day. Consumers only have themselves to blame if they endorse DRM in this manner.

The solution might come faster through litigation. Either through class action lawsuits (iTunes customers who want to migrate so a non-apple mp3 player, who get pissed because thier collections are now worthless), or Congress (ve

Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke

[Opportunist]

I dare to say I speak for many when I say, I don't mind paying for content. But I insist in being able to use content I pay for.

I buy my music. I also buy my movies. I don't want so many that I couldn't afford it, and likely I wouldn't buy enough to make the industry survive. A handful of movies or music discs a year isn't really making or breaking it for them.

But I do want to use those items in the way I intend. I want to be able to hear that music in my car, I want to be able to watch those movies on my computer. If this isn't possible, the item I paid for is not what I want. Now, the licenser can dictate how I may use the item, that's his right. But he should at least inform me about it, so I can avoid wasting money on it. If the DVD tells me it won't play in my computer, I won't buy it. The product does not match my requirements.

Unfortunately, this information is not given. All you get is "this item is protected by copyprotection technology", which can mean pretty much everything from "it won't work in anything but our own players" to "it's just CSS encrypted, so all you need is a player that can handle it". I won't know 'til I slip in the DVD into my drive.

Now, the opened medium is more often than not impossible to return. No matter what you do, the store won't take it back. I checked with my lawyer, and they even have the right to do that.

So, consequence? I feel wronged. I feel tricked into buying something that I cannot use. Consequence? I don't give a fuck about copyright laws and remodel the disc to do what's intended with it: Giving me access to the content I licensed.

So far, no problems with my conscience at all. I paid to see the movie, so I feel entitled to do what's necessary to see it.

I can see that it's only a minuscle step from here to "why the heck go through all the hassle and even spend money on it, when you can get it free and hassle-free through the net?". I can see why people take that last step, too. Actually, I can see that a lot of people even got wind of this way of acquiring movies that way:

1. Buying a movie that doesn't play.
2. Lament with their "clued" friends and ask for a way to see that movie.
3. Friend tells him about P2P.
4. People stop buying and start downloading.

uncracked DRM

[olman]

Hmm.

I propose Xbox 360 DRM.

Essentially un-hacked after all this time. Interestingly enough it's been possible to run warez for long time but ONLY if it's right region and no modification whatsoever is possible (cheats etc)

However, homebrew software, cross-region mods, or any modification to the games: Big Ix-Nay.

Yes, if you go to extreme lenghts and took the necessary steps long time ago it's possible to change the region code of the console. The kernel vulnerability was patched and there's no way to un-patch unless you exploited the vulnerable kernel to obtain one of the encryption keys. Or in other words, if this is news for you, forget about it.

Re:security != technology

[Opportunist]

Good luck trying to get this information past any tie.

I've been in the computer security biz for a long while now. You'd be amazed how many suits think of security as a product to buy, to install and then never think of it again. When you tell them that it should be audited and reviewed every now an then at least (personally my suggestion is every month or at least every two months), they look at me bewildered and reply with something akin to "but we just bought the security you mentioned. What gives, is it not secure?" (implying "Are you selling snakeoil?")

You have no idea how hard it is to get it past an exec's skull that security is an ongoing process and evolving, not something static that you set in stone for now and forever.

Casual Copying / Fair Use

[Bert64]

DRM doesn't exist to stop the big organised cracking groups who release media online (they try to do this with lawsuits).
Nor does it try to prevent the street sellers, who mostly buy their stuff from the above, mass duplicate and sell cheaply.

What it's intended for, is to screw more money out of the average consumer.
When i was a kid, my parents would buy me music on vinyl records, and record them to audio cassette for me to play, because being a kid i would invariably ruin the media at some point. When that happened, they would make me another copy. Similarly, they would make copies to play in the car (tapes often got damaged if they were left on the dashboard in hot sunny weather, and i doubt there are many cars which can play vinyl).

DRM will stop these law abiding citizens from making their own personal-use copies, and force them to buy multiple copies of their media, and there are even more reasons to format-shift now:
CDs - to play in the car
CDs - for kids to destroy
Digital files - to play on a media center
Digital files - for an ipod or cellphone

Ofcourse, those who pirate media will continue to do so, and will be better off than those who don't. Eventually more of those people will choose to pirate media instead so that they gain the benefits of drm-free media.

Re:The BBC and Licensing?

[FireFury03]

The BBC's iPlayer has recently come under fire for being Windows only and DRM-riddled, but what can they do? They can either implement some form of UK-based DRM or not attempt to show programmes online at all.

DRM is unnecessary - they can simply restrict access by IP address to UK residents. This would put the "protection" on par with their DVB streams (which they are actively pushing to be unencrypted), which are geographically restricted to (more or less) the UK. Just because you are delivering content over IP doesn't mean you need extra protection - it's just as easy to proxy a DVB stream to a non-UK IP address as it is to proxy an IP stream to a non-UK IP address.

The BBC's charter requires that they make the content available for all licence payers without tieing them to equipment sold by specific manufacturers. The current iPlayer does not meet the charter since it requires you to use Windows. They have not said when a Linux version will be available, only that they will review the situation every 6 months (which implies it will take several years). Also, they keep saying they are aiming for a platform agnostic solution by releasing players for Windows, OS X and Linux - that is _not_ platform agnostic - what happens if I want to play content on my phone or other device not running these OSes? The *only* way to be platform agnostic is to use an open standard and thus allow anyone to implement a player for a platform of their choice.

I'd prefer the DRM version then to wait for some form of non-DRM equivalent to be implemented!

As a licence payer, I would prefer them not to waste my licence fee on this crap if they aren't going to implement it in a platform agnostic way in accordance with their charter. Using the licence fee to pay for a system that can only be used on a platform produced by a single vendor (a totally unethical vendor at that) is unacceptable.

usage Nazi: "begs the question"

[FreeBSDbigot]

No. Nope. Uh-uh. It does not beg the question.

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

..begs the obvious question

Beg what? You sure? Read this.