通过

So what's wrong with DRM in the platform anyway?

  • 项目

As I said yesterday, it's going to take a bit of time to get the next article in the "cdrom playback" series working, so I thought I'd turn the blog around and ask the people who read it a question.

I was reading Channel9 the other day, and someone turned a discussion of longhorn into a rant against the fact that Longhorn's going to be all about DRM (it's not, there will be DRM support in Longhorn, just like there has been DRM support in just about every version of Windows that's distributed windows media format).

But I was curious.  Why is it so evil that a platform contain DRM support?

My personal opinion is that DRM is a tool for content producers.  Content Producers are customers, just like everyone else that uses our product is a customer.  They want a platform that provides content protection.  You can debate whether or not that is a reasonable decision, but it's moot - the content producers today want it.

So Microsoft, as a platform vendor provides DRM for the content producers.  If we didn't, they wouldn't use our media formats, they'd find some other media format that DOES have DRM support for their content.

The decision to use (or not use) DRM is up to the content producer.  It's their content, they can decide how to distribute it.  You can author and distribute WMA/WMV files without content protection - all my ripped CDs are ripped without content protection (because I don't share them).  I have a bunch of WMV files shot on the camcorder that aren't DRM'ed - they're family photos, there's no point in using rights management.

There are professional content producers out there that aren't using DRM for their content (Thermal and a Quarter is a easy example I have on the tip of my tongue (as I write this, they've run out of bandwidth :( but...)).  And there are content producers that are using DRM.

But why is it evil to put the ability to use DRM into the product?

Comments

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    I'm pretty anti-DRM but a few years back i went to a DRM presentation (at work) and after asking some troll-ish type questions actually got a pretty clever answer.

    If Microsoft (or some technology company) doesn't provide a DRM platform, either the Media conglomerates will come up with one themselves (awful), or they'll get what they want via legislation (even worse).

    They're going to get their DRM either way. It might as well be MS that provides it instead of Sony or Warner Bros or $bought_and_paid_for_senator.

    At least there's a chance we'll do something that isn't terrible.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    I think the usual answer is that by providing a DRM platform, people belive that MS is encouraging content to be protected. People don't want that. They want to be able to play their music that they buy on CDs on their iPod. Especially with the whole trusted computing thing, MS seems to be aiding the content providers in locking people out of doing what they want to do with the media they buy.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    My beef with DRM has more to do with its current limitations. I have somewhat limited experience with it since I try to avoid DRM'd content like the plague ;) So on to my beef, I do NOT like being told on what I can listen to/view my legally obtained content. Case in point, I have downloaded a number of songs off of MSN music onto my laptop. I went to transfer them to my MP3 player the other day, since I listen to them on the bus on the way to school. No go, they are DRM'd and thus I can't transfer them, they are forever stuck on my laptop, woo hoo because when I think of relaxing and listening to some music I like I sure do think of lugging my laptop all around with me, as opposed to ohh I don't know my mp3 player which is the size of a pack of gum. As far as my opinions on it being included in Windows? I don't really care, as long as it is an opt in type thing. Like you said you currently can choose to DRM things or not, as long as it doesn't turn into a situation where everything is DRM'd by default. I recognize there is always a trade off between security and usability, and a constant battle between content producers and consumers. I just want to make sure that both sides are being represented, and all decisions aren't being forced by unethical, corrupt organizations (cough cough RIAA/MPAA cough cough)

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    I asked the same thing. People told me two things:

    1. There is no DRM standard, so there is lock in ( We know how much we hate locking ;))
    2. People still seem to think that we are convicted monopolists or something and don't feel easy with use pushing the DRM solutions.

    Anyhoo.
    It will all just be fine.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Microsoft provided a DRM platform with a lot of flexibility. Tracks and be played {W} many times or until {X} date. They can be copied to {Y} devices and burnt to CD {Z} many times etc.

    The content publishers then set up their own stored base on that platform and all of them seemed to choose to use the Maximum restrictions. So we got sold files that could only be played on one computer, for a week without relicensing, could not be copied to devices or burnt to a CD at all.

    It was only after the iTunes store was set up with far more leniant restrictions that the other providers started to loosen up a bit. This situation created the impression that Microsofts DRM was far more "evil" than the competition.

    Perhaps there should have been more guidence regarding what were reasonable restrictions to impose on consumers, rather than letting them lock everything down so tight.

    I really think there should be just one DRM standard though. I have tracks that only play on iTunes and iPods, tracks that only play with WMP10. I have a WMA capable device, but that can't play Janus etc. It just gets annoying that these artificial restrictions have been created.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "end-users don't want DRM"

    That remains to be seen, after all, iTMS has been pretty successful. Microsoft is only in the position of supplying demand. If customers actually stopped buying content with DRM, then the content producers would not demand such technologies be incorporated.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    >But why is it evil to put the ability to use DRM into the product?

    That's not the issue, from what I've seen. Some people think DRM, any DRM, is evil, no matter who writes it or where it's located in the system.
    Matt makes a good point that the alternative is scary: lawmakers (many of whom are old men with no clue about computers) trying to make laws going only on the input of music industry lobbyists. shiver

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Have to agree with the earlier comments - DRM is a band-aid to patch up a broken business model. Until the content providers learn that hurting their customers is entirely counterproductive then DRM will be an issue. MS will (quite properly) have an interest in providing DRM technology until the content providers desire for DRM abates.

    Something else that I've not noticed much comment about in the DRM debates is that copyrights expire. Far too much content gets locked up forever, extending control over content that exceeds copyright limitations (and exercise of fair use rights).

    And that's before you even get started on the anti-trust implications...

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "iTMS has been pretty successful"

    I'd say its because people are so in love with their iPods and are more willing to drink the Apple Kool-aid. I'd also venture to say because the iTunes DRM is fairly lax and you don't notice it in general use. Most people don't care if when they burn the m4p file to CD and rerip to mp3 it is technically degraded in quality, they can't hear it.

    Oh, and all those easy to find utilities to remove the iTMS DRM probably doesn't hurt, either.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    I bought my first CD ten years ago, perhaps longer. Several years later I ripped it into MP3 format and could stick it in a playlist with other songs I liked. A few years after that I re-ripped it into Ogg Vorbis format, because there's nothing out there that can soundly beat it without having other restrictions.

    Tell me, if I bought a song from a Windows Media store today, could I play it on the equipment I'll be buying ten years from now? If not, can I be sure I'll be able to convert it to a format my new-fangled portable can play without being chucked in jail for longer than somebody who committed ABH?

    What about when the copyright on a work runs out and it's now public domain? Will I be able to break the DRM then? No? Hmm...

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    <p>I don't think that most (sane) users believe that the option of DRM is inherently evil. I do think that most users, myself included, are afraid of Microsoft's DRM because it doesn't make any provisions (that I'm aware of) toward what I see as fair uses of content I've paid money to use. In this context it seems that Microsoft is siding with content producers <em>against</em> other users, rather than positioning its platform as an impartial intermediary that both groups can trust.</p>

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "My personal opinion is that DRM is a tool for content producers. Content Producers are customers, just like everyone else that uses our product is a customer."

    To me this sounds more like they are your partners. I guess that a partner is a kind of customer, but they are not the same kind of customer that my mom is.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Darren,
    You're putting forward an argument that DRM from the producer is bad.
    That's not what I'm asking about, I'm asking about DRM in the PLATFORM.

    There's a big difference. Also, OGG and WMA are comparable (I think WMA is a bit better, but it fundamentally doesn't matter - OGG and WMA are both good codecs). Both support non DRM'ed playback.

    Or are you really saying that because the WMA content has the POTENTIAL to be DRM'ed it is inherently flawed? I don't follow that argument.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "Have to agree with the earlier comments - DRM is a band-aid to patch up a broken business model"

    Ditto. The media producing industry has a long history of stupid policies towards copy protection. Jack Valenti has even gone on record saying (years ago) that the videotape would destroy the movie industry. 25 years later, videotape and successor formats are at the very heart of the movie industry's business model. DRM is as much an attempt to prolong an existing (flawed) business model as was an attempt to ban videotape.

    The other 'evilness' to DRM has to do with the fact that it can be a powerful lever to use against open source. If software needs to be signed to run on a piece of hardware, that's a pretty good way to exclude an open source OS. If software needs to be signed to run on a particular OS, that's a good way to exclude an open source media player. Taken to the extreme, it would make a computer work kind of like a cell phone running J2ME, where third party developers are limited to using a severe subset of the platform's capability.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    One more thing: the origins of the personal computer are in personal freedom. People developed and used PC's (not just IBM's) so they could get away from centrally run, centrally controled machines. DRM represents a loss of personal freedoms, even if it's mostly symbolic, that runs counter to this tradition.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The other thing that caused a lot of problems was that at least WMP8 that came with Windows XP, and I think some other versions, was set to use DRM on all the tracks people ripped from their own CDs.
    Of course when reinstalling their systems, or suffering a hard disc problem even when they thought they had backed up, a load of people couldn't access their own tracks any more. Theres nothing like the frustration when you find that the 1000 or so tracks you have painstakingly ripped and catagorised are now useless to you.

    I think the default has now been changed to not use DRM, but honestly why would anyone ever have wanted to use it in the first place?

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    I really do not have a problem with it right now. I use MSN Music. At least I did for one albulm. I may or may not use it again. So I do not think it is Evil in any way I just do not think it is well thought out and well Beta so to speak. So why is so rejected that Microsoft is implementing. Windows 95 crashes and bugs will haunt MS I think forever. You know me I am a pretty die hard MS FAN. DRM is beta and not well thought out I think that before MS Implements it needs to really be defined better.

    It is not that I do not like it or do not like the idea of it, it is just that I do not know how it is going to pan out. For Example the number one thing I have music traded is Out of Print stuff. Stuff I had on Tape or Yes 33 speed Albums that is no longer in print. So the one albulm I bought from msn music that is DRM protected. What happens if it goes out of print and then later loose my hard drive and say I never got it backed up. Am I now out of luck? I can no longer listen to music I enjoy. There is a vast ammount of music that is out of print that I still listen to this day and was very very happy when I was able to get it again from Napster in its hey day. So what now happens when something goes out of print. Can the DRM guys just disable it on my computer? Like I say there is a log of it undefined. Beta

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Edward,
    You may be right on that one, and you're right, it does seem like a silly default. I'll ask the player team to see if I can find out why..

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "You're putting forward an argument that DRM from the producer is bad."
    No, I'm arguing that DRM is bad full stop. How do any of my arguments change in light of the fact that Microsoft may change the format? That portable music players may drop support for old versions of WMA? When the authentication server is down, how do I get a renewed license? What if some uber-format comes out that has a five or ten times better compression ratio than existing formats? Would I be able to convert my DRM'd tracks?

    "Also, OGG and WMA are comparable"
    Really? http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html . BTW, Ogg is a container format, Vorbis is the codec.

    "Both support non DRM'ed playback."
    I don't care. Tell me, how much does a WMA encoder cost me?

    "Or are you really saying that because the WMA content has the POTENTIAL to be DRM'ed it is inherently flawed? I don't follow that argument."
    Nope, I'm saying that I can use/implement Ogg Vorbis on whatever I want without fear of being sued by Microsoft.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Darren,

    "How much does a WMA encoder cost me?" Nothing (check the license to be sure). Go to: http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wmform95/htm/introducingwindowsmediaformat.asp

    for the format SDK. Now if you want to implement the format yourself on a non Windows platform, that's another story, for that, you go to:
    For the ASF Format, it's free: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/asfspec.aspx

    For the WMA/WMF format, the license costs are:
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx#royalties_3


    You're right, Vobis and WMA is the pedantically correct comparison (as is Ogg and ASF).

    Was that listening test conducted with a single or double blind methodology? If it wasn't, then it's not a fair test. The only real way to conduct a listening test that's fair is to invite the user into a room and have them listen to the content.

    For example: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1561918,00.asp

    They've got a somewhat different set of results than the listening test you quoted.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    [Sorry this got long; just read the numbered points for an executive summary]

    There's nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing, insofar as it is just reacting to the market - content producers won't sell their content via Microsoft if Microsoft doesn't provide DRM.

    The problems I have with DRM are philosophical, not business-related:

    1) DRM Changes The Default.

    Whereas without DRM, works are available unencumbered by default and are freely exploitable upon copyright termination, with DRM, a creator must go out of his/her way to make content usable after the termination of copyright. That is a Very Long Time (www.eldred.cc), so you're not likely to find the former owner to ask for the keys. Besides, why would they give you the keys anyway? Who cares about copyright/fair use/public domain/etc if you have good locks on your work?

    Before, everything became free eventually. With DRM, this is an exception case. We're systems people here; we should understand the danger of changing a default like this, or at least be highly suspicious.

    2) DRM Renders Irrelevant Common Law And History.

    Copyright has always admitted the Doctrine of First Sale - if you buy a book, you can re-sell that book to a used book store, give it to a friend, burn it at a book burning party (we have a lot of those here in Kansas...), etc., and all without asking permission from or paying the original creator. This doctrine has its limits, but it has been a part of our common law system since, well, at least as long as Copyright has existed (1704ish), and theoretically long before.

    There is no way to exercise any rights you may have under this doctrine if the content is locked up.

    3) DRM Prevents Fair Use.

    We are guaranteed fair use rights by statutory law and by common law. These rights include the ability to take a short snippet of a work and use it in certain ways, the right to reproduce parts of a work in an academic setting, and more. With the lock in place, you cannot exercise these rights, unless you can talk the creator into un-locking the content.

    4) Exceptions Are Impractical.

    If you aren't very resourceful or very wealthy (a special case of resourceful, I guess), you can't do anything about getting any of your lost rights back. It costs too much to get your lawyer to write a letter to their lawyer, notwithstanding the license fee.

    Anyway, the solution is NOT to get mad at Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else, unless perhaps under a theory of "doing the right thing." That's not really valid either, in the sense that our system doesn't incent corporations to do this particular right thing. Apple's shareholders would all sue Jobs if he decided it was "wrong" to use DRM. Don't blame Microsoft for following the "rules".

    No, this is one of those "tragedy of the commons" issues like environmentalism or anti-trust or child labor - it can only be effectively addressed by public policy.

    Check out Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture for a much more eloquent and thorough discussion of some of these arguments.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Larry,

    Take a look at this. It's one of the best articles on DRM and guess what... it was given at Microsoft! :)

    http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

    David

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    Nothing wrong with it IN the platform, but obviously some people have issues with DRM itself rather than the fact that Microsoft have provided for it.

    And if it is <A href="http://news.com.com/Linux+founder+opens+door+to+DRM/2100-1016_3-998292.html">good enough for Linus</A> ...

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    "'How much does a WMA encoder cost me?'" Nothing."
    That's not quite true, is it? After all, "included in the cost of a copy of Windows" is not "nothing."

    "Was that listening test conducted with a single or double blind methodology?"
    Yes. In fact, you can still take the test yourself, if you care to check.

    [ExtremeTech tests]
    "They've got a somewhat different set of results than the listening test you quoted."
    I may know why that is. The stock Vorbis encoder had been stagnant for some time, unfortunately. The guy behind the listening test I quoted used the aoTuV encoder, which is now used in the Vorbis 1.1 encoder:
    http://www.geocities.jp/aoyoume/aotuv/
    I believe it was shown to have considerably better than Vorbis 1.0 while retaining full backwards compatibility. That's one of the great things about Free Software, other people can take over if the original authors get slack.

  • Anonymous
    April 28, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 29, 2005
    One additional wrinkle with DRM is that content can't currently be licensed to a unique person; the closest you can get is a unique person's particular piece of content-playing hardware, or a unique person's user account under Windows, or something like that. The technology just doesn't exist to do it the right way.

    By this, I mean that if Joe Hacker downloads something from WinMedia, it should be licensed to Joe Hacker, not Joe's WinContentPlayer, or Joe's "jhacker" user account. You want to guarantee that, no matter how the content is being played, Joe is the only one playing it. Unfortunately, you can't attach a license to Joe's biometric signature.

  • Anonymous
    April 29, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 29, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 01, 2005
    As I see it, most posters are against Microsoft implementing DRM because DRM is bad (well duh). But that assumes the choices are A) Microsoft DRM and B) no DRM. But that's not the case. The actual choice is more like A) Microsoft/Apple DRM vs. B) MPAA/RIAA/Congress DRM.

    No amount of rationalizing or whining is going to convince the major media companies that they won't lose their collective shirts if they release digital content without DRM.

  • Anonymous
    May 01, 2005
    Oh and I totally agree with the point about expiration. I am curious to know if Microsoft's or anyone else's DRM scheme includes an expiration date as part of the DRM meta-info.

    Incidentally, I know a university teacher who needs to use excerpts from DVD filmsin his class. I recommended he buy a TBC (an expensive broadcast video device which happens to defeat Macrovision copy-prevention on analog video signals). He did, and it's the only way he could get decent quality excerpts from the films.

  • Anonymous
    May 02, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 03, 2005
    I don't see really DRM as a problem. I would never dream of buying music with copying restrictions anyway. I am somewhat surprised to see how many people actually use ITunes,MSN Music et al.

    Of course, what we really want, is some provider/publisher/whatever that offer us a perpertual (ok, even lifetime is ok) licence to any piece of copyright material. Then we can store our personal media rights online, have access to it anywhere and play it on any device.

    Guess what would happen to sluggish music sales if they dared?

  • Anonymous
    May 07, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 09, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 30, 2005
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 01, 2009
    PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=8063

  • Anonymous
    June 07, 2009
    PingBack from http://besteyecreamsite.info/story.php?id=431

  • Anonymous
    June 08, 2009
    PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=2472

  • Anonymous
    June 13, 2009
    PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=3856

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009
    PingBack from http://mydebtconsolidator.info/story.php?id=18462

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009
    PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=7095

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009
    PingBack from http://workfromhomecareer.info/story.php?id=20561

  • Anonymous
    June 18, 2009
    PingBack from http://fancyporchswing.info/story.php?id=2296