View Full Version : Is DRM good?
My guess no, for the consumers and the companies.
DRM is teoretically to protect software against piracy. But piracy technology historically is capable to circunvent the obstacles imposed by protection systems.
The idea to prevent piracy is that people will pay for the content once they cannot have it using alternative channels, and then companies will make more money. But my guess most people will not buy new hardware (ex: new LCD monitor with HDCP) just to be complaint with DRM during many years, then many (maybe most) potential consumers will not buy the new HDTV content and companies will lose money. In fact this obstacle will just incentive the development, use and difusion of alternative technology by people who just want a fair use.
Also many people want a backup of the content they are paying for. In some countries like mine we pay diferentiated tax for the content and the midia. Then it is very clear that you are paying for two different things: the content and the midia.
Now we have to pay for new expensive DRM complaint hardware which are not increasing the value of our experience. I would rather pay for better quality and more robust PC technology with higher MTTF.
Also there are other concerns like privacy invasion and the possibility of some abusive pay-per-use explotaition.
DRM is teoretically to protect software against piracy. But piracy technology historically is capable to circunvent the obstacles imposed by protection systems.I don't believe DRM is really about piracy as such. If it was that would mean that corporate bosses are bubbleheads. I honestly think it's more about control, and the ultimate goal of more media playback being PPV. While the media cartels obviously have a vested interrest in combating piracy I think they know it's not as financially harmful to their bottom line as they make it out to be; and I don't think they'll mind alienating some of their existing customers if they can get mechanisms in place ensuring that those who remain will more than pull in the slack. The existence of casual piracy is a good marketing tool to achieve this end.
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
Maybe I'm just a cynic.Or being realist. Maybe this is their ultimate goal. Why sell one license when you can exploit many views?
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
I'm sure the corporations would label you as such, I on the other hand think you are 100% correct.
DudeMiester
23-Feb-2006, 09:53
Well I looked at the trusted computing platform, and it does have some very good uses and qualities. At the same time it can be used for rampant DRM non-sense, excessive control over the customer, competitor lockout and other nefarious deeds. The TCP does mandate opt-out abilities and responsible use, but expressly says it will not be enforced. Therefore, I think something like TCP is a good thing to have, but it must be controlled and regulated by the public interest. Unfortunitly, in the USA there seems to be a drought of such representation, so it will probably turn very ugly, forcing people to sue, boycott, protest, etc... only to find out that the RIAA has just patented self-expression. Thankfully, my country is not governed by the Americian oligopolists, so I hopefully will get through mostly unscathed.
I would put it this way: DRM is not inherently bad.
I would put it this way: DRM is not inherently bad.
Guns and bombs are not inherently bad, too... :)
randycat99
25-Feb-2006, 05:13
I can agree that DRM isn't inherently bad, when used as a tool to protect fair use for producer and user. However, we never see it just used for this, and that is where the troubles begin. It is then extended to block the user from all sorts of "fair use" scenarios which the producer has found need to be paranoid about. It often crosses the line to be excessively intrusive to the user and the user's property (a desktop computer, for instance). Then ultimately, it fails to stop the real threat target from doing what they do- career piracy. So it starts out as something innocuous with the only intent to keep everybody honest, but then it is augmented/warped/twisted into any number of nefarious measures which really succeed in giving it the worst reputation possible.
So I really don't know if it has a justified existence or not. Maybe it does, but the nature of our human imperfection is simply not equipped to use it wisely.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
25-Feb-2006, 14:39
The problem is that DRM will not be used just to protect rights. Greed will rear it's head and soon you'll be paying everytime you want to watch a movie, every time you want to watch a game, etc. Not because it helps prevent piracy, but because it makes them more money. If corporations like the media cartels can charge for a thing, they will charge for a thing. They'll have all sorts of justifications (like their fictional piracy figures), but it will basically come down to greed as every year their profits go up.
I read an article recently about some new tech that was demoed, which was basically a DRM's PDF tied to a fingerprint reader (like the one in the Thinkpads). Only with the authorised fingerprint can you open the document. Here, the control of what runs on your computer moves from you, to the person that supplies the content. It would be pretty easy to turn this kind of system into a pay-per-use model by combining it with an online authentication system.
Imagine something like Steam tied to a fingerprint authorisation (so they know it's you) that you need to run a game. The content provider knows it's you thanks to the fingerprint and can charge your credit card each time you play. You can do that with every electronic thing - films, Word documents, game, music, etc. It's being developed right now.
I've come to the conclusion that they've been lying to us all the time. That the serious pirates have never been the target. The real target is joe casual home user who doesn't bother to keep up with any of this stuff, and just figgers if he bought it he must own it to do what he pleases with it. . .and if you put even an ankle-high obstacle in his way he'll give it up nearly immediately from lack of technical chops, and lack of caring enuf to try very hard.
The only other element that makes some legal sense is that making people jump thru some hoops for their piracy makes it easier to convince a jury that there was a knowledgeable intent to break the law. And, again, this is a joe casual home user point --you probably don't have such a problem when the serious pirate has thousands of copies of the same CD and commercial duplication equipment to hang around his neck with the jury!
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
25-Feb-2006, 16:15
Piracy has never been the aim of these high profile busts that knock out a few servers or trackers that are instantly replaced. They are not catching the Russian crime rings making money, they are rounding up a few enthusiasts that probably buy as much as they download, and not putting a single dent in the P2P numbers. It's all about the publicity, and this has to an extent backfired by effectively advertising P2P to the masses. That's why they go after the small people who can't defend themselves (and thus are unlikely to cause a test case in court), and hit them with the fear factor of an unreasonable fine.
This is all about PR - making a big noise, giving out fictional numbers pretending that every download is a hundred lost sales. It's all in aid of being able to go to the lawmakers and get DRM into every device, such as BluRay, HDTV, Broadcast Flag, etc. Once that's in, they can start charging on a pay per use model, even for things (like time shifting, use in multiple players, multiple views etc) that we currently take for granted.
This also gives them massive control over content distribution (no more bands without a record contract, no listening to music not sanctioned by the cartels), and can be used to lock in their customers and steal market share from their competitors. One example of this is Amazon's planned competitor to Itunes. You buy a player from them, and the only music you can listen to is their own downloaded songs using their own proprietry DRM. Imagine every content providers also making money by selling you their hardware, none of them interoperating and all locked down by DRM so you can't use the content in any other device and no other content in your device.
digitalwanderer
25-Feb-2006, 17:28
Is DRM good?
No.
BZB, neither is pay-per-use inherently bad. You take multiple use for granted – but you pay for it.
nutball
25-Feb-2006, 18:13
Pay-per-view/use will end up costing people more on average. The music / movie / software companies wouldn't be so keen on it unless they thought it would increase their overall revenue.
You're right, it's not inherently bad (if you ignore a whole boat-load of potential privacy issues), but do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?
digitalwanderer
25-Feb-2006, 18:17
do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?
No.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
25-Feb-2006, 18:26
Pay-per-view/use will end up costing people more on average. The music / movie / software companies wouldn't be so keen on it unless they thought it would increase their overall revenue.
You're right, it's not inherently bad (if you ignore a whole boat-load of potential privacy issues), but do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?
Exactly - no company would do it if they didn't think they would make more money - just look at the row going on in the US now with regards to people not being able to choose their cable channels a la carte. Companies offer you "choice" when it comes to you giving them more money, but it never works the other way around - you choosing to not take certain parts of what they offer in order to save money.
Just look at the DCMA - this promised all kinds of great protection for content producers, which in turn was supposed to help customers. In fact once that was in, it's only been used to restrict people, and gives customers a worse experience with rootkits, music that can't be played on normal devices, etc. Even the hardware and software companies that supported these kinds of things have now admitted that it went too far and has made their business harder.
The same thing will happen with DRM. All the companies will espouse on how great it will be for the consumer, but once it's out there it will be a step towards them screwing the customer over for more money to line their fat-cat pockets.
DRM is not about piracy, it's about making more money and locking your customers in, and restricting their rights - unless they pay up of course.
Pay-per-view/use will end up costing people more on average. The music / movie / software companies wouldn't be so keen on it unless they thought it would increase their overall revenue.
Of course they think it will increase their revenue. That's the purpose of a business. Whether people are willing to pay more / the same for less remains to be seen. If you feel pissed off by their business practices, ignore their products.
You're right, it's not inherently bad (if you ignore a whole boat-load of potential privacy issues), but do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?
That raises the question what exactly a fair price is.
For a few people "free" is a fair price.
but do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?
Some of them will; and some of them won't. Look at, say, US pricing for original Star Trek and Babylon 5 DVDs for some content owners that "don't get it". Others will, as others do today.
It's generally not a mystery that the more reasonably items are priced the more you'll sell. To some degree the content owners are leaning on piracy as a crutch --some of them have convinced themselves that they would have sold all those units. Maybe as that crutch breaks under them they'll understand better that their own pricing is really the determining factor in how many they will sell and thus how much revenue they will have.
It's a nice thot anyway. :razz:
nutball
26-Feb-2006, 07:49
If you feel pissed off by their business practices, ignore their products.
I already do! I don't buy music any more (just listen to stuff I've bought over the years), and I own maybe half-a-dozen DVDs.
That raises the question what exactly a fair price is.
Well yes, and also who defines it. And whether it will be allowed to be determined by the normal operation of market forces.
I already do! I don't buy music any more (just listen to stuff I've bought over the years), and I own maybe half-a-dozen DVDs.
That's good. A price is only "too high" if customers refuse to buy. I only buy about one CD a year and only DVDs at £6 or less, which I think is a reasonable price.
Well yes, and also who defines it. And whether it will be allowed to be determined by the normal operation of market forces.
Since it's about art, the competing products only have limited similarities. But other than that, there's nothing blocking the normal operation of market forces.
That's good. A price is only "too high" if customers refuse to buy. I only buy about one CD a year and only DVDs at £6 or less, which I think is a reasonable price.
That trueism gets trotted out a lot, of course. And it is inarguably true on an individual basis.
The thing is, the content providers don't go around to each of us individually and strike a deal.
At the macro level, there must be a curve, and a point on that curve, where a sales price maximizes profit for that product across the entire market --where maybe you don't sell to Xmas, but you do sell to geo, jeff, and bob. Possibly to sell to Xmas your price is so close to your costs that the lower price does not increase your profit just because you got a few more (or even many more) sales to the Xmas-sensibilities crowd while giving up some of what you could have gotten from geo if you'd priced higher. Margins are nice --gross profit is even better, and margins are only a part of that. Some companies seem margin-obsessed --others are more open to "making it up on volume".
Good article about DRM at BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4816930.stmYet, there seems to be a belief that rigorous enforcement of technological restrictions, backed up by the ruthless application of draconian laws that allow the replacement of copyright with contract law and criminalise activities which used to be considered legal - or acceptable even when not clearly legal - will enhance the market, keep customers coming back for more and ensure the future success of the "content industries".
...
My opposition to DRM is not an opposition to copyright, or a claim that copyright is dead. But current attempts to use technology to enforce restrictions on use, restrictions that often go beyond those copyright law would demand, are unacceptable.
...
The music, movie and publishing industries do not deserve to survive if their only way to remain viable is to undermine copyright law and replace it with restrictive contracts backed by harsh penalties for breaking the inevitably flawed DRM they wrap around their products. Others will take their place, and I cannot see that this is a bad thing.
Everybody see the piece saying DRM is draining batteries on portables to the tune of reducing battery life by up to 25%? Lovely, just lovely.
Everybody see the piece saying DRM is draining batteries on portables to the tune of reducing battery life by up to 25%? Lovely, just lovely.
Yeah I saw that, another lovely reason for it (DRM) to exist.
You know I got the emusic 100 free downloads and went and downloaded my 100 songs. I was very dissapointed by the lack of mainstream music there. When it is so easy to illegaly download music why is it such a pain to legally do it? I hate that I must download some program that will make itself a pain on my computer and that I cannot easily transfer music to the mp3 player. Arg anyway it is frustrating...
darkblu
18-Mar-2006, 23:34
DRM, like many other things recently, is trying to enforce through technology something that until now has been carried by basic principles of human society, in this case the consumer's adherence to fairness in the context of a 'fair' deal, i.e. when they consider they acquied a product worth its price for its 'far uses'. now, the very notion of DRM voids the concept of 'fair use', as with DRM there's no 'fair use' - there's allowed and blocked use. generally that can be observed even now to its full extent in some hi-tech market segments. consider the case with PSP: sony have been desperately trying to deny the consumers their right to run unsigned code on the platform, regardless whether it's of harmless or malicious nature. to many PSP owners that is denying them of the fair use of that product - and it's not a cheap product to begin with. so many legid consumers of the PSP are now facing the dilemma to stay with more immature versions of the product (i.e. earlier firmware) retaining their fair use of that product, or to upgrade and lose that. that translates into many cosumers refraining from buying some new hot releases and/or services on this platform due to the imminent loss of some (considerable part) of the product's fair use. you can expect that in any sphere where DRM will be employed - many consumers will become 'consumer zombies' - they'll buy an early, hence inherently more 'hackable' version of the product and stop at that, becoming 'dead' to the producer.
poopypoo
19-Mar-2006, 00:04
That's good. A price is only "too high" if customers refuse to buy. I only buy about one CD a year and only DVDs at £6 or less, which I think is a reasonable price.
Since it's about art, the competing products only have limited similarities. But other than that, there's nothing blocking the normal operation of market forces.
This is my favorite post here... the key becomes whether you appreciate art, and the contributions of fellow men in general, or only appreciate the social events that marketing induces you to follow. So often I hear people complain that the only things "worth" watching or hearing you have to pay for. I counter that they have been cowered into the assumption that unless the greater body of peers agrees that something is "worthwhile" then it is not. For every new DRM scheme there are (to pull a random number) 1000 unsigned bands -- 10 of them making amazing music. For every new RIAA advertisement there are 1000 new filmmakers -- many of them offering free content on the web. These numbers will only increase as technology improves -- making it all the more important to filter out hype and make your own decisions. Take risks, try new (espeially free!) media, and share the results with friends, don't just watch every new, successively crappier Star Wars sequel -- because we all know it's that kind of content that's going to wind up pay-per-use, not your pal Joe's band, which could use some support at the bar every saturday night.
Luckily, this is far from an original idea, and there are many people doing this already. Probably in large part due to the web, we are bouncing back from the first mass-brainwashings that were early TV, and finding more incredible, free content available from our own peers all the time. For this reason, it seems pretty possible that (expensive) PPV will never succeed as a #1 revenue stream for these companies. At least, I certainly hope not! If it does succeed, it will be probably as sad a statemenet on the quality of the customers, as much as the quality of the publishers.
A lot of mainstream bands are actually good though. Sorry but it happens to be true. My main problem with the DRM crap is as I said.
It should not be less hassle to download songs illegaly than legaly. You should be able to simply go to amazon and download an mp3 without any strings attached, but no you must download a seperate program to watch what you do with the song you bought etc...
Kanyamagufa
20-Mar-2006, 05:18
I guess a worthwhile question might be how aware Joe-user actually is of what DRM is preventing them from doing.
How many people actually know what's going on every time they buy a song off iTunes? I meet someone new very frequently who is surprised when they can't listen to a song they bought on someone else's computer without "authorizing" it first. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who bought songs weren't aware of the actual limitations of the content they just purchased. Isn't that scary? To think that so many people don't really know what they've bought into?
nutball
20-Mar-2006, 07:38
How many people actually know what's going on every time they buy a song off iTunes? I meet someone new very frequently who is surprised when they can't listen to a song they bought on someone else's computer without "authorizing" it first. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who bought songs weren't aware of the actual limitations of the content they just purchased. Isn't that scary? To think that so many people don't really know what they've bought into?
It depends on what their reaction is to finding out that DRM is getting in their way. It's not particularly surprising that they've bought stuff without fully understanding the implications of the associated DRM -- DRM is a pretty complicated mish-mash of technology and marketing which frankly is enough to turn any sane brain to jelly.
Now if their reaction is "Oh, huh, I guess I'll go but an iPod and and iMac then so all my iTunes work OK from now on", then yes, it's scary. If their reaction is "WTF??!! I paid for this and those ****ers are trying to stop me listening to *MY* music on *MY* computer, that's the last cent of *MY* money that Apple ever get", then no it's not scary at all.
chavvdarrr
20-Mar-2006, 11:42
The problem is that DRM will not be used just to protect rights. Greed will rear it's head and soon you'll be paying everytime you want to watch a movie, every time you want to watch a game, etc. Not because it helps prevent piracy, but because it makes them more money. If corporations like the media cartels can charge for a thing, they will charge for a thing. They'll have all sorts of justifications (like their fictional piracy figures), but it will basically come down to greed as every year their profits go up.
I read an article recently about some new tech that was demoed, which was basically a DRM's PDF tied to a fingerprint reader (like the one in the Thinkpads). Only with the authorised fingerprint can you open the document. Here, the control of what runs on your computer moves from you, to the person that supplies the content. It would be pretty easy to turn this kind of system into a pay-per-use model by combining it with an online authentication system.
Imagine something like Steam tied to a fingerprint authorisation (so they know it's you) that you need to run a game. The content provider knows it's you thanks to the fingerprint and can charge your credit card each time you play. You can do that with every electronic thing - films, Word documents, game, music, etc. It's being developed right now.
For God's sake, please STOP giving them ideas , you sound scary :(
:evil::shock:
http://blog.wired.com/music/Posted by eliotvb at 8:24 AM EST | post your comment (0) | link to this post
Saturday, 18 March 2006
O Canada
While American music-downloaders frequently quail in the shadow of the Recording Industry Association of America, Canadians are in a more tentative place. Despite an ongoing review of Canuck copyright law, the government is still trying to figure out what its position vis a vis downloading will be; how close it will be to the American DCMA, or how far. CRIA is the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA and while it's fought hard against illegal music traders, it's not been able to be quite the vengeful presence that the RIAA is.
Via the blog of Dr Michael Geist, a professor of Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, comes a pointer to a new CRIA study into the habits of P2P users. As he points out, some of its conclusions challenge the standard anti-piracy line, and more importantly they sorta chime with my own intuitions as an occasional music pirate.
In summary, CRIA's own research now concludes that P2P downloading constitutes less than one-third of the music on downloaders' computers, that P2P users frequently try music on P2P services before they buy, that the largest P2P downloader demographic is also the largest music buying demographic, and that reduced purchasing has little to do with the availability of music on P2P services. I've argued many of these same things, but now you don't have to take my word for it; you can take it from the record labels themselves.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
20-Mar-2006, 16:05
For God's sake, please STOP giving them ideas , you sound scary :(
:evil::shock:
This is all stuff they are already thinking about. They are trying to force people away from consumer laws and into contract law. Thus you don't own anything you buy, you have a contract with the content supplier that governs how, where, and when you use the content. Then they back this up with technological handcuffs and draconian laws from the politicians they have bought.
This is nothing to do with piracy, this is all about putting the foundations into place for a pay-per-everything business model that the cartels think will make them more money in the long term by screwing the customer over for everything we currently take for granted.
darkblu
21-Mar-2006, 14:41
For God's sake, please STOP giving them ideas , you sound scary
chavdare, he's not giving ideas to anybody, he's barely touching the surface. let me tell you some more about it. with the advent of DRM there will be a new wave of prices raising rationalized on the basis of 'DRM service providers are processing too much information with this DRM, they need to charge for that'. the very same principle banks in north america have been using for the past 10-15 years, since they gained total information control over people's money flow - banks constantly charge you money for all kinds of information processing wrt the money you keep in those same banks. cool, eh?
Everybody see the piece saying DRM is draining batteries on portables to the tune of reducing battery life by up to 25%? Much as DRM = evil capitalist pig dog ware, if you actually read the figures, 25% was pulled out of thin air.
It was more like 8% over several hours of playing which is a lot different to 25%.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.