http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/17/drm_security_shortcomings/
Cryptographers to Hollywood: prepare to fail on DRM
By John Leyden (john.leyden at theregister.co.uk)
Published Thursday 17th February 2005 19:37 GMT

RSA 2005 Movie industry representatives at RSA 2005 in San Francisco today called on the IT industry for help in thwarting illegal file sharing before the problem threatened its revenues. But they were told that they must recognise the limitations of digital rights management in their fight against digital piracy.

Speaking on the RSA conference panel Hollywood's Last Chance - Getting it Right on Digital Piracy, Carter Laren, security architect at Cryptographic Research, noted that cryptography is "good at some problems, such as transmitting data so it can't be eavesdropped or even authentication, but it can't solve the content protection problem. If people have legitimate access to content, then you can't stop them misusing it.

"Anyone designing content protection should design for failure and if it fails update it," he added.

John Worrall, marketing VP at RSA Security, agreed that content protection systems should be easy to upgrade. The entertainment industry must also learn from its previous mistakes in pushing the weak CSS copy-protection system for DVDs. "If content providers open up standards to good cryptographic review they will get a better system," he said, to applause from the RSA 2005 audience.

The entertainment industry also needs to be responsive to changing market conditions and consumer preferences, according to Worrall: "Don't lock down a set of content rules that look draconian five years from now. Be flexible enough to incorporate change in rules. If rules are too restrictive people will go to other channels, including pirated material."

Andy Sentos, president of engineering and technology at Fox Entertainment Group, argued that device manufacturers need to recognise the requirements of the movie industry in the design of their products. "There's a value in both content and functionality but there has to be a balance," he said.

Piss off the consumers with DRM and the consumers will simply choose to consume something else.

How hard is that to get thru their thick skulls?

"Andy Sentos, president of engineering and technology at Fox Entertainment Group, argued that device manufacturers need to recognise the requirements of the movie industry in the design of their products. "

Earth to Andy Sentos: HOLLYWOOD HAS NO LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO REGULATE OTHER INDUSTRIES BECAUSE IT FEELS IT"S POCKETS ARENT FAT ENOUGH! THIS IS NOT A COMMAND ECONOMY LIKE OLD SOVIET RUSSIA, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES.

DRM is UNConstitutional. Why? Because it intends to lock the media it protects up forever. Yet, copyrighted media is SUPPOSED to have term limits. Therefore, unless DRM expires when the copyright expires, it is unconstitutional.

Here's a novel concept. Could it be that DRM may actually be leading to more illegal *cough* filesharing as they so ineptly put it.

Here are the basics for the majority of the music fans and movie fans.

a) I want to purchace media at a fair price
b) I want the right to listen or watch that media on my choice of players
c) I want to be able to backup those same legally purchased items

What DRM has managed to do is help foster the need for file-sharing of these same items. If I want to purchase music or movies online, I have a few choices from where to purchase those same files. However (just to use Itunes and Napster for example purposes) different companies offer different music on their sites. So If I want to buy the latest band X and I own a Ipod and Itunes doesn't offer that artist or complete album, thanks to DRM, I'm out of luck. Same way with people who own Rio products not being able to use Itunes legally.

So what are they to do to find the music they would like.

Look, p2p has the music I want at a quality I like in a format I can use with no restrictions. I'll just get it from here.

Another thing is, I have been a loyal music buyer in the past. My CD collection is well over 1300 titles. However, I have noticed that many of my supposedly "forever lasting" CD's have started to not play. Now I am given a choice. Either I can go back out and if I'm lucky find a copy of this album in the stores, or I can go on p2p and get a copy of what I have already purchased. Hmmm... Tough Call

Basically to the RIAA and MPAA all I can say is if you can stop viewing your customers as criminals and release your tight reigns on content and release some GOD D@#$ TALENTED ARTISTS instead of the fluff of the month, maybe we would come back to you, but probably not... you don't get it, and we're quickly figuring out, we don't need you.

FREE MICKEY -- FREE MICKEY

One more idea. I think that we should replace the circled c with a set of handcuffs with c's in each cuff to indicate on one hand the view of customers as criminals and on the other the hand the fact that there is no fair use anymore.

The music majors are starting to suffer from the same thing the automakers in the states were suffering from in the later 70's and the 80's. They learned the hard way. The automakers made a product that wasn't holding up, was leaving dissatisfied customers when they went to get the vehicles repaired, and the prices were steady going up. It didn't take too long for the customer to figure out there were better bargains to be had and they weren't American.

What happened was that the American automakers were forced to retool to make a better vehicle or they would have lost the complete market to foreign makers who were making a better product. While they dawdled and balked at doing the retool, they were losing customers. Customers that brand name meant nothing compared to the value of the item purchased. I for one, never returned to the major makers of autos. I ceased to be a repeat customer for the major automakers in this country.

It is one thing to buy an item worth the money, it is an entirely different thing to buy a product that does not give the customer satisfaction in the item. This is the lesson that the music majors aren't wanting to learn. They figure it is theirs forever and that you the customer will want it for as long as you are living and can spend money on it. Only they are now wanting more and more conditions on the use. Fine, remember that those same altered conditions are having the result of less and less people seeking to purchase those items. Isn't p2p that is wrecking music sales, it is the majors themselves offering a product no longer worth the money. The customer sees the value of the goods and it doesn't match the price and conditions. The net result is a drop in sales as more and more customers get the idea that there is other products out there that don't require such to use their products. Not only do they not require such agreements but the price is cheaper and the quality is better.

I also wished to take the time to welcome Robbin-da-Hood to Boycott-RIAA site. I saw you post the other day, forgive my rudeness at not welcoming you then.

Yes, welcome aboard!

...aw, man.

Did someone complain about the copyright of the picture or something? I thought I linked to it fairly but see it's gone.

(For a picture of fools gold, google "fools gold" ... but screw anything without a Creative Commons license.)

What a bunch of idiots the media companies
are, buying into this. And they are only just
starting to figure out that if it can be heard
or seen, it can be copied or recorded.

._. There is another much more important reason why DRM is unconstitutional (at least when protected by the government).

It's sole purpose, in conjunction with DRM protection laws, is to serve as judge, jury, and executer of copyright law... in short.. it's purpose is to deny the common person due process of law when it comes to copyright by placing the fair use test under the control of intrenched copyright interests.

Yet another reaon why it's unconstitutional is, since copyright grants a monopoly, and DRM protection laws force any company which interacts with their DRM'ed product to obtain a license.. it gives Private corporations legislative and regulatory power over sectors of our economy and the people in general.

The constitution expressly states only the house and senate in conjunction may pass laws..it does so for good reason. and the DMCA pisses all over that reason.

I think they could make more money if they stopped chasing DRM and copy protection measures and started just trying to reach the customers where they want to be met. It's an on demand world. We want it now, we want it cheap, and we want it to be good quality.

Fail to provide these three and you might as well get out of the business.

drm is the only defense a sane musician has against copyright pirates

i am trying hard not to be a "troll" on your site, but you stupid idiots (that I have read so far) leave no other choice.

you think everything should be free or some bs

can i come in your house and do it to your wifes and children?

--i didnt think so.

when you violate copyright, you do the same damn thing

stop being advocates to thiefs

Whose advocating thievery? I am saying the price isn't worth the product. How is that stealing?

Take every major music label offering and delete it. Remove it from the hd. They keep their offerings, lock em up for all I care, where they are never seen again. I will keep my money. Whose stealing?

SaveTheMusic,

Do you really think DRM does any good? If I can get an audio signal going out of that BOX, drm or not, another box sitting right beside it can capture the stream drm free to do with as I see fit.

I haven't run across any copy protection that I can't break. And that includes the new bullshit on the DVDs.

You should learn the simplistic definition of a theif; Copyright Infrigement is not theifing! The owner of the cds I borrow always gets them back; I do not keep them. I do not deprive him of them, I deprive money hungry loosers like you, repeat money for each cd. and I enjoy it.

SaveTheMusic is a silly little Troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.