How DRM Won

Nerval's Lobster writes "In 2009, when Apple dropped the Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions from songs sold through the iTunes Store, it seemed like a huge victory for consumers, one that would usher in a more customer-friendly economy for digital media. But four years later, DRM is still alive and well — it just lives in the cloud now. Streaming media services are the ultimate form of copy protection — you never actually control the media files, which are encrypted before delivery, and your ability to access the content can be revoked if you disagree with updated terms of service; you're also subject to arbitrary changes in subscription prices. This should be a nightmare scenario to lovers of music, film, and television, but it's somehow being hailed by many as a technical revolution. Unfortunately, what's often being lost in the hype over the admittedly remarkable convenience of streaming media services is the simple fact that meaningfully relating to the creative arts as a fan or consumer depends on being able to access the material in the first place. In other words, where your media collection is stored (and can be remotely disabled at a whim) is not something to be taken lightly. In this essay, developer Vijith Assar talks about how the popularity of streaming content could result in a future that isn't all that great. 'Ultimately, regardless of the delivery mechanism, the question is not one of streaming versus downloads,' he writes. 'It's about whether you want to have your own media library or request access to somebody else's. Be careful.'"

Comments

The Battle Continues

[ScottCooperDotNet]

There's hundreds of plug-ins, extensions, and rip programs to grab the content. It has to be de-coded to be played, moving to streams only turns the tide slightly.

It seems we're coming to a middle ground though, as most streaming DRM does not significantly get in the way of most (read:Windows) users.

Re:The Battle Continues

[chuckinator]

I listened to an OpenBSD release song once. I will never make that mistake again.

Re:The Battle Continues

[thunderclap]

True. Its one of the reasons that I still use Windows rather than abandon it totally for Chromium. The tools to fight the drm to download and archive content still exist for Windows. While Windows thinks its converting to tablet its actually committing suicide. However, that's neither here nor there on drm. Streaming and the cloud have not given DRM a victory by no means. In fact its a sign of desperation. The content distributors are so desperate to continue the distribution that they are willing to lose it entirely. Huh? you say.
What happens if we suffer a terrorist attack? A nuclear 9/11 on silicon valley? Or an earthquake? That cloud will dissipate and with it goes all those songs, movies and games. You don't have it if it doesn't sit on a device in your possession. You rent it instead. Anyone remember those DVDs that lasted 3 days? I loved them. Why? because there had absolutely no encryption on them at all. All I had to do was rip the movie and I owned it. Still do in the original sleeve. of the new disc has a name in sharpie on it.
DRM has never been about copyright infringement. DRM has always been about blocking alterations to the change in distribution. The big names like their money. They don't want it to go away. Short of having all their property seized and them arrested and put in jail, this wont change. (unless aforementioned event above happens)
The cloud is meaningless extension of that interference hailed as progress so those who do it causally will quit. We need to be vigilant to remind that that ownership requires physical possession. If you don't have it so it can play anywhere at anytime, you don't have it.
Will it ever change? Not until either aforementioned event or arrest is made.
We are headed to the world of Continuum. (if you haven't watched this series, you should. Its excellent and very prophetic in a not overt way.)
We must be the change in which we seek. We must continue to fight. DRM has not won. Its hasn't lost either.

Seems like an over generalization...

[maccodemonkey]

I use iTunes Match which means all my files are stored in the cloud. But, before the cries of "evil lock in!", iTunes lets me download all my cloud files at any time DRM free, so I can listen to them offline or even archive them.

Am I upset I can't download rented media DRM free? No. Why would I be upset about that? It's the same deal I had with movie rental stores. If I buy it to own, I definitely want a download. But I haven't run into many services at all where I purchase something and I can't download it.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[h4rr4r]

Amazon lets you download the music over and over.

You can simply download it again if it gets corrupted.

Just shows what we already knew

[Barlo_Mung_42]

DRM is only an issue if it gets in the way of letting the user do what they want. Make a service that is convenient and easy to use, that works the way the user wants it to work and they won't care about DRM. e.g. Steam, Netflix, Hulu etc.
Music streaming services have the nice feature of me not needing to worry about storing, tagging, organizing my music collection. If the service is good and people are willing to pay for it that's all that matters.

Before responding about how much you personally care about and dislike DRM please note that you are not a part of the "they" I was talking about.

Re:Just shows what we already knew

[JaredOfEuropa]

The thing with the rising popularity of streaming is not DRM. The real problem is (as usual) the way they'll ruin it with advertisements, and then DRM will come into play, making sure you cannot edit out or skip ads. And thanks to technology, it's now super easy to inject all manner of interstitials and pop-ups and pop-overs and watermarks and other crap on top of the content.

That is why I hate streaming, and it's why I will cling to media that I *own* for as long as I can. Until they start ruining that with ads too (like Disney and their infamous unskippable trailers).

They keep trying and failing

[davecb]

The first DRM I saw was funny formats on Apple ][ floppies, followed by DOS format misfeatures, followed by dongles, followed by own-code in apps, followed by ... ite ad infinitum.

Note that you don't see these forms of DRM any more. What you do see is that, each time a new format of anything comes out, some DRM vendor talks the publishers into "protecting" their work[1].

As long as new publishers are suckers, the DRM vendors will suck them in, and make lots of money off a technology that motivates people to not buy the publications.

The publishers lose two ways!

--dave
[1. One of my former employers almost got taken in by this scam, but the techies caught it. ]

Re:1st

[pixelpusher220]

Saying it's 'OK' because it's like your cable company may not be the best argument...

Re: 1st

[i_ate_god]

How is streaming online any different than streaming over The air?

Re:Popularity of streaming content?

[Mitreya]

Sounds like you should hate your home internet not the streaming content.

It's a use case regarding the "popularity" of streaming content. There are others -- I also tend to travel (watching things on a train is great). If these streaming clients had at least allowed a "local cache" option, they would be far more usable.

Re:War on DRM?

[fredprado]

All DRM is bad. DRM is not and never was about protecting content, it is about control. Protecting content from pirates is impossible. Controlling apathetic legal users is feasible and profitable, on the other hand.

Re:EMusic and Bitrot

[jedidiah]

It may be easier but it certainly isn't cheaper. HELL, the thing you are interested might not even be available. That is one key problem with all streaming services. They ALL have limited availability when compared to what's available on physical media.

Once something is available for sale as a physical product, it's in the market permanently. So even if something is discontinued, you will still have access to it. It may be hard to find. It may even be expensive. But it will still be available.

Also, a rental may not even be available.

They also aren't as cheap as you're claiming.

I don't think you even use it at all despite the fact that you are trying to lobby for it.

Re:XBMC

[Em Adespoton]

XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.

Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.

Odd; I use iTunes to control my own content. It's on my computer, and is not controlled by Apple (not even in their preferred "Library". The stuff in iTunes is also mirrored in the cloud.

"The Cloud" is a means of distribution; it's equivalent to making backup copies of your DVDs that you use all the time, keeping the originals stored away. Cloud services allow you to access select content from anywhere; I'd stay away from ANY cloud service that didn't allow you to have a local copy of your cloud contents as well (I'm looking at you, Facebook).

As such, this entire article is based on a false premise. While Cloud services could be moving in that direction, right now they are used (and advertised) as an alternate distribution system for content you own. Deleting all copies except what's in the cloud is silly, as you never know when cloud access will vanish.

The big issue with Cloud data is that you lose primary control of the data -- that's fine for disposable/consumable data (music, movies, etc) but for anything you don't want to also belong to other people, don't put it in the cloud.

All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.

Re:XBMC

[Ash Vince]

All that said, DRM still won: it lost in the audio realm, but won in general computing, mobile computing and video. Steam is really a much better example of this than iCloud.

Steam is a good example of DRM.

It is fairly obvious though that it won simply because it works and the only restriction it places on you is not being able to sell games you bought second hand (which you agreed to when you bought the game from them anyway). It does however let you install games on loads of different machines, even at the same time unlike most DRM systems. They also release games on steam at the same time all over the world to my knowledge which is another reason why people pirate, to obtain something that is not yet available by legal means in the their country.

When DRM is invisible in this way to most users then they simply don't care about it. I am sure there are some people who refuse to buy all steam titles as part of some crusade to get them to drop the restriction on second hand sales, but they are so few in number that Valve just ignores them as acceptable losses.

This is probably made even easier by the same people piping up how bad Steam is on forums and saying they boycott it for restricting second hand sales through DRM while also having obviously played games only available on steam with this restriction. This means they played the game illegally anyway without paying so it is very easy for Valve to dismiss them as people who just want to play games without paying for them. If you are actually trying to boycott something effectively, you have to really boycott it or it dilutes the message you are trying to put across.

Sorry to disappoint you that this is not a troll, I just think that if I pay for every game I play then you damn well should too or do without playing it. I know that this might not result in any lost sales to the publisher, but if I pay for something and you don't that is not fair.