The Inefficiency Of DRM: Empires Built On Barbed Wire Never Last

from the we're-still-having-this-argument? dept

While there's not much necessarily new in this recent TechCrunch piece by author Jon Evans, it does make a nice point that's worth repeating, in that empires built on barbed wire never last. The article notes that one of the problems of the old Soviet economy was the fact that so much effort was wasted on production of things that didn't really aid the overall economy, but instead held back others. For example, a significant amount of effort from the metallurgical industry was focused on creating barbed wire, rather than building something that might actually improve the economy. And, as he notes, "DRM is the barbed wire of the media world." It serves no productive purpose, but is simply designed to "protect." From there he notes:

Although it pains me to say this, it's the pirates who are on the right side of history. Empires built on barbed wire inevitably collapse, and the sooner the better; while this one reigns, it perpetuates yesterday's regimes, and squelches innovation and progress. Is piracy wrong? Yes, but that's the wrong question. The right question is, which is worse: widespread piracy, or the endless and futile attempt to preserve DRM everywhere? So long live the pirates. Those jerks. Please don't make me say it again.

Of course, there's a corollary to this as well. If you recognize that getting rid of DRM helps allow for more openness and greater innovation, at some point it occurs to you that perhaps you shouldn't be so worried about "pirates," and can start focusing on actually using their enthusiasm to your own benefit.

Filed Under: drm, future, pirates

One Of The Earliest Computer Viruses Was Really DRM Gone Wrong

from the no-surprise-there dept

Author William Gibson has a nice little opinion piece claiming that we've now hit the 25th anniversary of "digital vandalism" in the form of computer viruses. I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that, as just a few years back there were all those news reports about how Rich Skrenta (who later went on to found the Open Directory Project, Topix and Blekko) created the first widespread computer virus in Elk Cloner back in 1982. That said, Elk Cloner was more of a prank. The virus Gibson is talking about was more malicious, in that it locked up files. So, if Gibson's point is that this was the first malicious virus, perhaps that's more accurate (though, I would imagine there are some other claims to the throne).

Still, what may be most interesting is that the virus that Gibson discusses was really based on an early attempt at DRM:

IN January 1986, Basit and Amjad Alvi, sibling programmers living near the main train station in Lahore, Pakistan, wrote a piece of code to safeguard the latest version of their heart-monitoring software from piracy. They called it Brain, and it was basically a wheel-clamp for PCs. Computers that ran their program, plus this new bit of code, would stop working after a year, though they cheerfully provided three telephone numbers, against the day. If you were a legitimate user, and could prove it, they'd unlock you.

But in the way of all emergent technologies, something entirely unintended happened. The Alvis' wheel-clamp was soon copied by a certain stripe of computer hobbyist, who began to distribute it, concealed within various digital documents that people might be expected to want to open.

Gibson talks about his own surprise that it was hobbyists who really drove digital vandalism (and to some extent, still do). What I find even more interesting is how early on DRM was already over-aggressive and getting in the way of legitimate uses.

Filed Under: drm, viruses, william gibson

Just What No One Needs Or Wants: Web Images With DRM And An Expiration Date

from the good-luck dept

The BBC is reporting on a new project to create web images that "expire" after a certain period of time. The thinking is that people who put photos up on social networking profiles may be embarrassed by them later, so, this way, the photo can only stay up for a set period of time and then no longer be viewable. Of course, to make all of this work requires DRM. And, to make the DRM work means that anyone who wants to see such photos has to actually install a browser plug-in that they're unlikely to want to install. And, if they do install the plug-in, they can probably still just take a screenshot of the image anyway -- especially when you realize that someone is so embarrassed by the image that they want it to automatically delete at some point after forcing you to install annoying DRM you don't want.

Filed Under: drm, expiration date, images

Deep Linking Could Be Infringement In Germany If Website Puts Even Ridiculous Weak Attempts To Block It

from the anti-circumvention dept

We've pointed out numerous problems with anti-circumvention rules, which make it infringement to break pretty much any attempt at circumventing any type of content protection measures (even if not to infringe on the copyright). Sometimes courts realize how silly this is, such as a ruling from a few years ago in Europe, which noted that it's silly to consider such anti-circumvention rules reasonable if the technical protection measures are not considered "effective." In other words, if your protection scheme is laughable, it's silly to make it infringement to get around it. Apparently not all the courts in Europe have gotten this message yet. An anonymous reader points us to a case from a few months back in Germany, in which the court said that deep linking to content that had ridiculously weak measures to block deep-linking is still infringing (that link is a not so great Google translation of the original German -- though, the submitter gave a more complete explanation).

In this case, the content involved online maps, and the "protection measures" were that to visit a page with an actual map, you had to have a sessionID, that you would get as you visited the website. If you went to a deeper page without a sessionID, you would be redirected to the front page. Of course, it's not hard to actually provide the user with a sessionID, which one site did upon linking to these maps, meaning that visitors went straight to the deep-linked page, rather than being redirected to the home page. This is basically how the internet works. While the lower court properly rejected the copyright infringement claim as being ridiculous since the technical protection measures were so laughable, the higher court appeared to ignore all precedent on this matter, and said that as long as the site owner made any attempt whatsoever to block such deep linking, getting around those measures could represent infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, deep linking, drm, germany, session id

Intel Claims DRM'd Chip Is Not DRM, It's Just Copy Protection

from the um,-that's-the-same-thing dept

There's been a lot of talk this week about Intel building DRM into its Sandy Bridge chip. I had initially passed on writing this story, as we seem to hear the same thing every few years. Back in 2005, for example, there were similar stories about Intel planning DRM built into its chip. However, what got me interested enough to actually write about this is Intel's bizarre response to the press coverage, in which they play one of the most ridiculous games of corporate doublespeak in ages. First, they insist it's not DRM. They say that right up in the headline: "No, It's Not DRM" Then they kick it off with an explanation of what DRM is, followed up by again saying: "I am not going to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of DRM in this blog; but I will say that Intel Insider is NOT a DRM technology." Ok. So what is it. That's in the next paragraph:

Intel Insider is a service that enables consumers to enjoy premium Hollywood feature films streamed to their PC in high quality 1080P high definition. Currently this service does not exist because the movie studios are concerned about protecting their content, and making sure that it cannot be stolen or used illegally. So Intel created Intel insider, an extra layer of content protection.

Um. So it is DRM. You just said it's not, and then described DRM. Content protection is DRM. I'm not sure exactly what Intel thinks it's doing here. If they say it's not DRM and then explain how it is DRM, they think people will think it's not DRM? If you're going to include DRM, just admit that it's DRM. Then we can argue about whether or not it's smart (and, no, it's not).

Filed Under: copy protection, drm, hollywood
Companies: intel

Weighing The Benefits And Costs Of DRM: Type I & Type II Errors

from the letting-in-too-much-or-not-enough dept

In statistics, there is the concept of "Type I errors" and "Type II errors," with Type I errors representing "false positives" (reject, when should be allowed) and Type II errors representing "false negatives" (allowed, when should be rejected). After reading Simon Phipps' recent excellent analysis of why DRM is "toxic to culture," it occurred to me that one of the main areas of disagreement concerning DRM is over disagreements over the types of "errors" that DRM creates. Phipps compares subways in France and Germany -- with the French subways involving a barrier which only rises if you insert a ticket. The idea here is, obviously, to prevent people from getting on the train without paying. In other words, they want to stop those who should not be in the set from riding the train. They're trying to minimize Type II errors (get on the train when they shouldn't be on the train). However, there are "costs." The barriers cost money and need to be maintained. The technology may break at times, requiring repairs and blocking legitimate ticketholders from getting on their train (a Type I error). Law enforcement is needed to monitor the barriers to watch for "gate jumpers."

In Germany, the system is much more open -- there are no barriers, and no one may ever check your ticket. However, every so often tickets do get checked (somewhat randomly), at which point you would get fined for not having the proper ticket. This minimizes a different type of error -- where someone who has paid and has a legitimate ticket has trouble getting through a gate. In other words, it's minimizing Type I errors (blocking someone from getting on the train when they should be on the train). It also lowers many of those other costs (or takes them away entirely). Of course, the "cost" to such a system is that, obviously, some number will game the system and ride without paying (a Type II error).

I think one of the problems that people have in discussing DRM is that they only look at one type of error, and never bother to compare the two. As a result of that, those who support strong DRM tend to focus only on the "error" of letting people get a "free ride," and ignore all of the collateral damage, as Phipps explains. Yet, when you compare the two, it's difficult to see how one can argue that the "free ride" problem is worse than the problem of collateral damage from limiting legitimate uses. And that is why so many people have such problems with DRM. It's not that we want a "free ride." It's that we worry about the costs associated with all of those collateral damage points.

Filed Under: drm, errors, type i, type ii

Ubisoft's New DRM: Vuvuzelas

from the Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dept

Well, give Ubisoft points for humor, I guess.  The videogame company that has made a habit of using DRM that fails and annoys has unleashed its latest effort at being irritating.  According to The Escapist, the company has incorporated "the horror of the vuvuzela" into the DRM for their Nintendo DS offering, Michael Jackson: The Experience.  You can see the DRM in all its horrific action and glory on YouTube below:

However, efforts like this cause me to ask a couple of questions.

1. How big is Nintendo DS piracy that you need to actually spend the time and effort to evolve DRM strategies around it?
2. How can a company that shows that it's creative through annoyingly humorous efforts like vuvuzela DRM not come up with equally creative ways to do business that don't require this nonsense?
3. How long do you think it'll be before this DRM, like every other that has preceeded it, will be undone?

We've already had an instance of crackers breaking Ubisoft's DRM and subsequently issuing a message to the company, thanking them for the challenge.  I imagine that those same folks would consider it their esteemed duty to avail downloaders of the headbangingly annoying aural attack known as the vuvuzela.

Filed Under: drm, vuvzealas
Companies: ubisoft

Google To Make Video Services More Annoying After Buying DRM Company?

from the seriously? dept

You would think that the folks over at Google would know by now what a joke DRM is -- especially after the company's disastrous foray into server-based DRM on its original Google Video platform that required users to "check in" before they could watch videos they thought they had "purchased." However, Google made some news this week by buying DRM vendor Widevine. It's no secret why the company did so: it wants to appease the big entertainment companies, promising that it's "protecting" their works and trying to sign big dollar deals to distribute their content via YouTube or the as-yet-unannounced Google Music offering. But, still, it's unfortunate that (even if it's demanded by these companies) Google would legitimize technology that purposely is designed to destroy value for consumers.

Filed Under: drm, video
Companies: google

Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM

from the anti-open dept

Apparently Netflix has not yet been offered up on Android phones because the platform just has too much damn freedom. Netflix admitted in a blog post that the lack of DRM that makes Hollywood happy means that it couldn't offer movie streaming to Android. This seems rather ridiculous. Hollywood's focus on DRM seems like such a huge waste of time, money and resources. Did they learn nothing from the music industry's failed obsession with DRM? DRM doesn't work. It doesn't prevent unauthorized sharing, but does end up pissing off legitimate users -- such as by preventing them from watching Netflix films on their Android-powered devices.

Filed Under: android, drm
Companies: netflix

Apple Prefers To Keep GPL'd Software Out Of App Store So It Can Keep DRM On All Apps

from the drm-vs.-gpl dept

Slashdot points us to the interesting bit of news that the developer of the popular VLC media player is complaining that the way in which Apple distributes apps through the App Store (including a port of VLC) contradicts the GPL license for VLC by putting all sorts of restrictions and DRM on the product. The FSF is noting that Apple's response to similar complaints in the past isn't to remove the restrictions, but to remove the software instead. Pretty sad considering Steve Jobs' own words about DRM, which apparently he doesn't even believe for any industry outside of music. Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at some of what Steve Jobs said three years ago:

[One] alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy.

Now there are some caveats there, focused on music, but it seems like much of that certainly applies to other areas as well, so perhaps Steve Jobs can listen to Steve Jobs.

Filed Under: app store, copyright, drm, gpl, vlc
Companies: apple