Is DRM good?

[pascal]

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.

 

[Zaphod]

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.

 

[_xxx_]

DRM == pure evil.

 

[pascal]

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?

 

[ANova]

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]

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.

 

[Xmas]

I would put it this way: DRM is not inherently bad.

 

[_xxx_]

I would put it this way: DRM is not inherently bad.

Guns and bombs are not inherently bad, too...

 

[randycat99]

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.]

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.

 

[Geo]

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.]

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]

Is DRM good?

No.

 

[Xmas]

BZB, neither is pay-per-use inherently bad. You take multiple use for granted – but you pay for it.

 

[nutball]

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]

do you really trust these people to come up with a fair and reasonable pricing scheme?

No.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

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.

 

[Xmas]

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.

 

[Tahir2]

For a few people "free" is a fair price.

 

[Geo]

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.