from http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1765/

DRM at its worst? Here's a prime example

By: Sander Sassen

DRM, digital rights management is quite possibly the holy grail of the music and movie industry, allowing them to control exactly how DRM protected content is used, distributed, and above all, can be tracked right down to the individual end user. The way it works is that the content you buy is encrypted and can only be unlocked and played back if you follow and adhere to the requirements set forth by the producer exactly. This usually means that content can only be unlocked after connection to a DRM license server. This server will only send you an unlock key when you meet all of the requirements. This could mean that the content can be played back on just a specific device, or in a specific country, or worse, all of the above and only for a set period of time. I used to think that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as although I’m convinced that the whole idea of p2p-ing music and movies has hurt sales tremendously is simply a misrepresentation of the truth, I do think that copyrights should be protected, if needed by DRM. As long as it doesn’t restrict me too much in how I can use the content I bought I have no problems with using DRM, much like I find that registering a piece of software online with a product key is perfectly acceptable.

DRM is actually a part of Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system and has been for a while, but it wasn’t until I picked up a DVD recently that I witnessed the ugly and very user unfriendly side of DRM in person. The DVD in question, T2: Extreme DVD, produced by Artisan Home Entertainment Inc., is a two-dvd disk set, which holds a digitally optimized version of the T2 movie on one disk, and a high definition version of the same movie on the second disk, encoded in WMV9 format. As I already own a, legitimate, copy of T2 that wasn’t the reason I bought the two-dvd disk set, I was looking forward to playing back the hd version, which promises the very best image quality. This would be a great way for me to enjoy the full potential of my, hd capable, home theater installation. To make sure I could make full use of the DVD I double-checked the cover for any requirements on the computer hardware, or any region specific coding. The DVD cover was clear about the minimum requirements in terms of computer hardware for playback of the WMV9 content and since it had no warnings of the content being protected or only playable in certain regions I saw no reason to not buy it.

Unfortunately, after trying to play the DVD back with Windows Media Player 9, I couldn’t get it to work. For some reason I needed to install a 3rd party application, InterActual Player, that was required to play back the content. I was a bit surprised as to why I needed to install InterActual Player as it clearly says Windows Media Player 9 on the cover. Why can’t I simply play the content back without having to install yet another application? But then it became quickly apparent that I did not only have to install and download an update for the InterActual Player over the internet in order to facilitate playback, but would also need to acquire a license. So obviously the WMV9 content on the DVD was protected by DRM and could only be unlocked after connecting to the license server to obtain a license, which it failed to do. I was surprised to find that it failed to give me a license as it had determined that my physical location was not in the US or Canada. Apparently the content was only to be played back in either one of these countries and nowhere else. After routing my IP address through an anonymous proxy server in the US I however managed to unlock the content just as well and was presented with a license agreement I had to agree to prior to being able to play the content back.

That agreement, amongst other things, stated that I could only play back the content for a period of five days, on the computer I installed the InterActual Player application onto, after which I had to re-acquire a license. To be honest that really pissed me off, I spent about an hour trying to play back a disc I legitimately bought and went as far as installing and updating a 3rd party application to my system that would allow me to do so, and now I’m only being given a temporary license, where’s my rights as a consumer? If this is how future DRM protected content will be distributed I have strong objections to the use of DRM, as this is a prime example of how to quickly alienate any prospective consumers. If a license is given and the content decrypted isn’t it clear that I’m the rightful owner? Can’t I decide for myself when and where I want to play this content back on? Obviously Artisan Home Entertainment Inc. has other ideas about that, ideas they should clearly communicate on the DVD cover, instead of simply omitting them to prevent people not buying this two-disk DVD set. Shame on you Artisan Home Entertainment Inc. and may this serve as a prime example of DRM at its worst.

Sander Sassen.

"DRM, digital rights management is quite possibly the holy grail of the music and movie industry"

And yet, despite the billions spent to develop it, DRM remains just as elusive, having yet to rise above the hacking level of a moderately intelligent chimpanzee.

Sander should take that DVD back as defective & get his money back.

Oh, that's right..., once the shrink wrap is off, the product is YOURS.

No wonder folks sample music via filesharing before plunking down their hard earned money. Certainly wouldn't want to get screwed (AGAIN & AGAIN) by purchasing a substandard product laden with crap product.

NO WAY! Other then going to see a movie, or a concert, I've not bought and RIAA or MPAA media since 1998. When I buy something, It's mine to use when I want or need. Could you imagine if cars worked that way? "Hi boss...cant make to to work today..my car cannot be used till tomorrow, and no, I cant use my friends car...That would violate the DRM". Meanwhile, at a police incident, a cop gets shot cause his gun wont operate for another another ten minutes.

Hey, this is a roit! I don't have a problem with it. Since I am not buying either RIAA or MPAA supported crap this will have no effect on me.

Whats the quickest way to go out of business? Offer something the customer doesn't want and won't buy. With other means of entertainment out there, movies and music are no longer in the position they were in 20 years ago. What they forget is that the money isn't theirs till the customer spends it on their product. If the experiences of this one that wrote the article are any indication then there will be many who will figure out it isn't worth it to rent something when you paid full price for it and thought you bought it. This is one of the things I have harped on in one way or another from time to time here.

That under such a condition, the product isn't yours and you didn't get a break on the price because it isn't yours. That DRM isn't locked in stone and just because you can do this or that with it today, doesn't mean you can next week or next year.

I simply don't have an issue with this. Not going to buy the product. Best way I know to go out of business it to tee off the customer and more and more are going to feel as the author of this article did.

So they make another stupid business decision and drive yet another wedge between the customer and the "content provider". Cool!

Oh, forgot one thing here. Since this type of drm isn't locked in stone, wanna guess what they are going to come up with in the future?

How about this one....

You go buy a movie, you wanna play it you got get the license key to do so. After a week it doesn't work anymore. To get issued a new key you are going to have to pay a fee of so many dollars. Get ready, its coming.

Hey Sander...you spent an hour of
computer tech time getting this thing
to work. I figure that's at least $40.00
U.S. Since the DVD sells for $14.95,
they owe you $25.05. Send'em a bill.

It gets worse, soon theyre going to have DRM which breaks your player if they find a serial connected with it on a shared file..

Oh.. it doesnt matter if you bought it second hand from someone else, or if their program or clerical department made an error in turning it off... that DUE PROCESS clause in the constitution has gone the way of the dodo.

You cant deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless of course you want to break an alleged "pirate's" player that is.. then the constitution no longer applies.

The article forgot to mention - the file will become completly usless when it becomes unprofitable to run the DRM server.

It gets worse, soon theyre going to have DRM which breaks your player if they find a serial connected with it on a shared file..

can you link me the article on that awehr?

LOL,
Start with a google search on Palladium.
You will find a LOT of interesting write ups
on it, including the supposed "fact" that it
is "dead".
Patience will reveal it is not dead.
The name has been changed to protect the monopolists.

Palladium's been replaced with an innocent
sounding acronym, TCPA. Innocent that is
until you find out what it does. It basically
mandates DRM for all computer hardware -
this is the content cartel trying to control
the high tech industry, and you know there's
going to be a showdown. There are already some TCPA-enabled computers out - I for one
will never buy anything like this.

More on TCPA at http://www.againsttcpa.com/

I was wrong about Palladium. That is M$'
baby alone. But the next Windows OS will
most likely incorporate TCPA style hard
wired DRM.

Actually it WAS M$suck AND Intel

Intel backed out when word spread.
Thus, Palladium was "shelved".

So, Check out who is involved in TCPA Wink wink.

saw a great new word used by some dork on the Apple stock message board that I'm claiming as the definition of what you do when buying DRM-infected files from iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.:

DOWNLOAN.

Seems to fit perfectly since you really don't own the files.

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4686874&tid=aapl&sid=4686874&mid=406352

mmnuc:

here are some links to the DRM which shall put the bill of rights to its grave.

http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/
http://p2pnet.net/story/3344
http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/formatRequirements.html

i wrote up a small outline on its immediate implications on the 5th and 14th amendments and sent them in to p2p net. hopefully it will be posted with the extra links i sent in later that evening.

DOWNLOAN, love that phase JohnCarlton02. It accurately reflects the actual happening of paying for music and soon paying for movies on the net with the direction it is going.

goldenpi brings up one very important point in this getting a key for a purchased movie. That if the key source leaves the net for whatever reason that disc is absolutely worthless. It might supply 2 seconds of light while burning or make a suitable frizzbee for your dog but will be of no use for its original intended purpose. I won't be buying such I promise you.

DRM is inflitrating all products. Unless we can show them it isn't ecomonically sound they will continue to go this way. For now the big picture seems to be to include it in anything that computes. Hang on to your old computers folks, new ones aren't going to be worth spit shortly. If you need a new one, better get it today. Tomorrow doesn't promise to be a good buying year. This may also be the best thing going for weaning the world from Microsucks but I will reserve judgement on this one as it seems the sheepeople will accept anything if told it is good for them.

Sander,

Thank you for sharing this experience with the rest of us.

I'd like to share some of my ideas regarding DRM.

About 4 years ago, which was right around the time that I bought my first computer and started to deal with degitial media, I would have agreed with you on the view that, as you put it, "I do think that copyrights should be protected, if needed by DRM.". I also thought that "As long as it doesn’t restrict me too much in how I can use the content I bought I have no problems with using DRM".

At the time, my thinking was along the following lines: "Copyrights should be protected. Now, while I may be a good customer, there are just too many not-so-good people out there, and it is their irresponsibility that will make us all suffer the unfortunate "side-effects" of DRM: loss of privacy, not being able to all the things that you can legally do, since the software wont allow it, and so on." Thus, I thought of DRM as just another example of how honest people have to pay the consequences for the "sins of a few".

Since then, however, after reading up on the topic from various sources, I have come to reject that way of thinking, since I have found a flaw in it.

The flaw is as follows: I (as well as you, and many others), was taken it for granted that "copyrights should be "protected" ". I was incorrectly taking the wishes of the copyright holders to be "right", undisputable, and something that it just is our duty to respect. Now, if this WERE corect, then I would still think as I did before.

But, I have now come to reject the idea that copyrights should be "protected". Instead, I think that the interests of the PUBLIC should be protected.

Now, in the pursuit of protecting the interests of the public, one can realise that their are two goals that the public seeks:
1. To have access to a wide variety of published works, of as good a quality as possible
2. To be able to use these works in ways that we wish, which includes copying the works to share the works with your friends, transporting a copy of songs that we have to another location (ie, bringing your music in your car, at your job, and so forth), and so on.

Now, those two goals that the public wants are in some sort of conflict. The reason is that if we make too much use of our ability to copy works, and not as many copies of these works are sold, then the financial ressources available to those who make the works might be too low, which will perhaps diminish the quality and/or quantity of the works that are published. In other works, allowing too mch flexibility with goal "2" might compromise goal "1".

So, unlike before, where I incorrectly thought that copyrights deserved to be protected because the author had an inherent "RIGHT" to have this control (I used to gloss over the fact that typically, authors do not hold copyrights, but rather, some publisher, music label, etc. holds the copyright), I now believe that copyrights are nothing more than a NECESSARY EVIL, at best, which we should only put up with in those situations where, without them, the quality of the works would suffer too much.

Please also note that, in the US, Canada, and many other countries, copyrights are not a matter of "life or death", nor a matter of "eat or starve". If authors, musicians and so on don't make enough money by making their copyrightable works, they will not starve; they can find regular jobs like the rest of us, which will allow them to pay their bills, and prevent them from starving.

So, I now believe that copyrights deserve only to be enforced (and, in fact, to even exist at all) when the quality of published works deminishes too much, and where this dimishment is attributable to a lack of sufficient funds.

I think that it is safe to say that movie companies, and music companies, take in a sufficient amount of money to enable them to produce good quality movies and music, respectively. That is, if a song is released or a movie is made that is of low quality, I think it's fair to say that it is not due to a lack of money, but for some other reason instead.

Now, SO LONG AS THIS REMAINS THE CASE, I see nothing sacred about "protecting" copyrights (btw, copyrights don't "protect" anything: they "RESTRICT" people). Certainly, it is more important to allow people to share with their neighbours, than to protect copyrights which right now, don't deserve to even be in place.

Now, here's why I mention all of this. You've made a good case, Sander, through your anecdote, that DRM can be inconvenient. I have no dispute with this claim. However, I have come to believe, as I hope that you and others will as well, that, EVEN IF DRM could be made to be 100% convenient, that it did not require an hour of your time, that it did not compromise your privacy (I have some serious dobuts on this one; in fact, I think that this ability to erode the last remnants of people's privacy is one of the "real reasons" why DRM is pushed by copyrights holders, especially since it provides the convenient "excuse" of detering copyright infringement), and so on.... Even if DRM could fix all of those problems, and pose no practical inconvenience whatsover, even then, I still think that it would be wise to reject DRM on the ethical grounds.

My fear is that the following will happen. Early implementations of DRM will be way, way too annoying. However, then customers start to complain, and they will then ease up on DRM, making them appear to be such "good, reasonable people", in such a way that many people might take this as good enough, and no longer object to DRM. They would have thus imposed a system of DRM that, if it were to have been implemented right from the start, customers would have rejected it, but which, compared to the even worse DRM that they are imposing now, customers accept it. Do you know what I mean?

So, the whole purpose of my writing this is that, while I can understand the horrors of DRM (I have even have to deal with that myself), and their inconveniences, I think that we should all be careful not to let this fool us into thinking that these practical inconveniences are the ONLY reasons to reject DRM, and that, if they go away, DRM would somehow be "RIGHT", just because in such a case they would not be "as bad as" the current systems.

Anyways, that's all I want to say for now.

- A Nice Canadian Guy

^__^ i can boil that down to a small but relevant couple of lines:

"copyright does not equal a guarantee to profit, or a right to strip others of their individual property rights."

Paraphasing, in regard to the public having two goals that it rightfully seeks:
1. To have access to a wide variety of published works, of as good a quality as possible, at a reasonable cost;
2. To be able to have fair use of these works in ways that they wish -- which includes copying the work as a backup, or to a different format, or transporting a copy to another location (i.e., bringing your music in your car, at your job, and so forth), etc.

I agree, and can't really understand why a broad-based number of consumers across America can't be spurred to organize for joining some kind of protest group to defend what ought to be their basic rights.

I realize many consumers just aren't knowledgeable enough and are basically unaware of other issues that need addressing as well -- how the RIAA has unfairly manipulated artist contracts, or shares blame for the removal of copyrights from some authors, or tolerates unpaid royalties that labels don't seem to consider in the same league of fair demands as their almighty profit margins, etc.

Palladium's original intention was to keep data fully confidential with a network, computer or application. This has some legitimate use - many businesses would like all their documents to self-destruct if leaked. The problem is that Palladium is designed to protect a computer from the user performing actions forbidden by another authority.

1. The user has physical access - thats a big advantage to them. It wont work.

2. Users dont like having their capabilities limited by another person - be it the boss, a software company or a copyright holder/distributor.

Of course microsoft had its hidden aganda: to crush open-source with a code-signing system. This would have assumed any software that could be modified by the user to be insecure.

Although Palladium itsself has been abandoned, much of its functionality has been transferred to other projects. A Office feature for document control is in development, which will have the side-effect of causing compatibility problems with OpenOffice. It is likely the Palladium project will be revived in pieces over a few years.

TCPA is the intel-led attempt at secureing the PC architecture - currectly this is not suitable for protecting data from a user with physical access to the computer. Not a problem in conventional security, but an issue in DRM where a centrak principal is that the data must be protected from access by the legitimate user with physical access - a situation impossible to defend against in an open architecture where a skilled user is able to intercept data on the bus.

" . . . an issue in DRM where a central principle is that the data must be protected from access by the legitimate user with physical access - a situation impossible to defend against in an open architecture where a skilled user is able to intercept data on the bus."

Whether it's data, or whether it's music, DRM can be thwarted.
Doesn't that just infuriate them no end?
I mean, it's bound to grate on their compulsion to control!
So, with teeth grinding and fists clenched, they forge on to keep slapping those subpoenas around . . . until one day when they hope to get enough bought legislators to pass some new federally powerful deterrant, or maybe hardware manufacturers to incorporate some form of DRM in the chips themselves?

Music is data. Everything is data.

Avoid anything and everything that contains DRM. Yes, unfortunately, that will include just about anything and everything that comes from the RIAA/MPAA and affiliated content producers...

...but there is still always "open source" and independent content to be had. (much/most indie stuff is more inspired anyway!)

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

"Music is data. Everything is data."

I know, it's all digitally-configured material.

But it's hard for me to break the habit of speaking. When I talk to my wife, I distinguish word-data from music-data from picture-data . . . even though all of it is just unique arrangments of numbers as you said.

My personal choice is to continue enjoying music that is not digitally reproduced. I've been blessed to still have all the pre-1990 vinyl of my favorites to enjoy on some of the finest equipment. Analog rules with me.

"Sander should take that DVD back as defective & get his money back.

Oh, that's right..., once the shrink wrap is off, the product is YOURS."

Yes, but you can still claim that it is defective, make the retailer eat the cost of it, and they'll give you a new one. Keep doing this claiming that if it doesn't play back as listed on the packaging then it is clearly defective, and eventually the retailer will give you your money back, especially when you make it clear that the retailer has an obligation to provide functional items or a refund. If you make it so expensive for the end retailer to carry DRM merchandise, most of them will demand that merchandise be DRM free. Especially Wal-Mart, if they began losting profits they'd simply decide they won't carry DRM merchandise, and the content creators will scramble to comply or lose billions in sales.

*smacks her keyboard into submission* That's losing profits, not losting.

ty awehr and dredd...very interesting, and rather horrifying...time to go back to 98, or linux i guess hehe

Music is blobby.

Blob = Binary Large OBject. A more general form of file, a term usually used in database design.