DRM - What Does it Stand For? What Should it Stand For?
A lot of people I’ve talked to recently are unaware of what DRM is, so I’ll try to fill you all in with what it stands for officially, my definition of the term, and do a basic discussion of the reasons for it’s existence, and the problems with it.
- DRM
-
- Digital Rights Management
- A term used to describe any form of technology which is designed to restrict the use, access, or alteration of any form of data or content. This technology is desired primarily by those who create content, and wish to control how that content is used even after they sell a copy of said content. For example, a system of DVD or CD encryption designed to prevent people from ripping their DVD or CD, and then listening to the music they bought on an MP3 player, or watch it on their computer.
DRM is a response to “piracy”, AKA theft, of digital content. This response was headed by various people and organizations that create content, especially the music, movie, and software industries. Many people know such pirates. These are people that download music, movies, books, and other content from the internet, and use them without paying for this content, and those who make this content available. There is currently no standard term used for people who download content in order to review it, and then buy what they like. This is similar to people who listen to music in a music store, or actually open a book and skim a few pages before reading it.
In order for companies to compensate for revenues lost to people who would otherwise have purchased their product, they charge those who actually purchase the project additional funds to compensate. Consumers, and the content creators are both completely sick of this happening. Because of this, various methods of DRM have been instituted.
One of the primary forms of DMR is copy prevention. In other words, any given file can be copied a limited number of times, or downloaded into a specific number of devices. It is also designed to prevent conversion into formats that can be copied as many times as a person wants.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with this form of DMR.
One of these is that the copy prevention measures are defeated more quickly than the companies that come up with these measures can fix the security holes, and any file downloaded with an old form of copy prevention can continually be decrypted. When a copy prevention scheme is updated, rather than abandoned, the periods of time during which there is a ’secure’ version of the protection are usually far shorter than the periods of time where any version is useless.
Another is that these digital formats are proprietary, and by their vary nature, the specs on the security must be kept relatively secret, or they will not work. As an example, many electronic audio devices (such as most MP3 players) cannot read these proprietary formats. You also cannot burn this music to a CD that can be read in a normal CD player. This severely limits the normal use of music files with copy prevention.
This creates frustration in end users who have purchased a copy of the music. Wishing to put their purchase to it’s intended use, these users defeat the DRM. Knowing others in similar circumstances, they provide instructions to circumvent the copy prevention. This is one of the primary motivations behind defeating DRM, and in my opinion is a very reasonable one. Others do it based on principles, or simply to vandalize the ’security’ infrastructure.
As you can imagine, those who put the copy prevention in place are none to pleased when their measures are defeated, no mater what the reason. Because of this they have gone to the government. The government has listened to the desires of this special interest group, and have made the removal of copy prevention, or the circumvention of any other DRM technology illegal, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. But I digress. I’ll discuss that and related laws more in a subsequent post.
The concept of DRM is based on a four basic concepts.
- A file constitutes a “copy” of copyrighted media.
- Unlike the traditional concept of media (records, books, etc), when you buy a copy of a song, a CD, or other medium with DRM in place, you aren’t actually buying a copy of the music, but buying a license to use the content.
- Because you don’t own your copy of the music, but rather only a license to use it, the content creator has the
- legal right
- That the content provider has the ability to restrict how you use the files.
to restrict how you use it. - Thus the name the media industry uses. Digital Rights Management.
If you pay for a copy of something, and there is no license agreement specifically stating that you don’t own that copy, but rather are licensing it, you own that copy. Therefore, the content provider has no inherent right to dictate what you can do with that object through DRM, including stripping the copy prevention so that I can actually use said product, any more than the producer of a magazine has any right to tell me that I can’t strip the covers from the magazines I bought off the shelf. The fact that the federal government has supported this effort is evidence of a case of the government listening to special interest groups because not enough individuals care enough to vote them out of office over it.
So perhaps the acronym should read as:
- DRM
-
- Digital Restriction Management
July 25th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Let them spend billions on it so hobbiest can break it for pennies. What all that money should be spent on is educating the consumer about theft and research into what consumers actually want. Organizations like the RIAA thinking they have more rights to content then the consumer or original maker enough so that they sue both over it time and time again make me sick.
This is something that the government is continuing to take away rights of the consumer when it the is the consumer that drives the market and makes these companies and organizations possible. So Just like Josh talk to rep in congress and make sure they know that if they don’t turn this around on all fronts they won’t be getting your votes. It’s the only thing that congress understands especially about technology is “VOTES”. Unfortunately these same people have to make the choices for the rest of us in what we see and how we can do a great many things. From internet radio to simply playing a cd/dvd on the computer.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Hey Auly.
First of all, no, don’t let them spend billions of dollars to let hobiests break it for pennies. That billion dollar experiment is something we have to pay for because not only is there the cost of research going into it, there is also the cost of implementation on each individual unit.
If we don’t buy things that have DRM built in, then maybe the industries will get the hint. Heck, I haven’t bought a single piece of music in years.
Recently my folks had trouble with two older DVD players trying to hook into a brand new LCD TV. One of the component high definition signals wasn’t accepted at all by the TV, the other one only displayed in black and white. I’m not sure, but this may have been caused by the fact that it was an HD signal going into a box that has DHCP built in.
I’ll bring that up more in a subsequent post relating directly to DHCP.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Your right the answer is to hurt them in their bottom line so they know that the consumer won’t stand for it anymore. It’s also important to break their existing DRM because companies do see that and even if they try to fight it once they see they are on the losing side many get the picture. At least that is the idea.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
The big thing that drives people to piracy is the desire to avoid DRM hell. I have a couple of legally purchased ebooks that I haven’t been able to read in years — believe me if I knew how to crack them open I would.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Breaking encryption isn’t piracy though.
Generally speaking, I think that the biggest thing that drives people to piracy is wanting a product without having to pay for it.
Then again, people sometimes pirate things that just aren’t available for purchase yet. Technically speaking, fan subbed Anime is piracy.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The answer is pi.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:03 am
A deeper question is this: To what extent does the artist retain control over his creation? While this is a moot question for works such as the Mona Lisa or Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, it’s far more relevant for modern expressions. Further, there’s the issue of individual vs. collective art - a movie is no more the work of a single individual anymore than a building is built by one man in most cases. Whether individual or corporate, how far does “ownership” of the work extend? I’m fairly sure the courts have wrestled with this question before, but it will likely be a long time before an acceptable solution is hammered out and agreed to, even if reluctantly.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Technology, for a multitude of reasons, has advanced to the point where copying media is as trivial as using it — only concrete, solid objects truly have value anymore. Legality needs to catch up with reality, and the entertainment industry will change, hopefully for the better.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Mmmmm, enlightened discussion *droools*. DerImpresario: There is a school of thought called “Free Culture”, it teaches that the works of today are based on the works of the past, the works of the future are going to be based on the works of today, and to allow the works of the future to come into existence, the works of today must be free to be used. That said, my take on it is as such: I can listen to something on the radio, I can tape it, transfer it to a CD, to a HDD, and it’s legal. There are laws protecting that, same as there are laws that allow you to record live TV for personal playback. It’s also legal for you to give that tape, or a copy of it, to a friend, if I’m not mistaken. But, from what the current legislation is telling me, I cannot take that copy of a song, stick it on my computer and send it to a friend of mine. That then is piracy. What has happened is a convolution and perversion of what is owned and where the public domain starts. My view, once again: Once a work is out there, it’s public domain, it’s there for the public to hear, enjoy, copy, and show. What cannot be done is the republishing of the work under a different name. It’s healthy, that way. Thing is, the generation that grew up through the revolution of the 60’s has, to a large extent, been infected with a selfishness that destroys most common sense. They want all the money, all the power over their music, and they want things to go their way, no matter what their audience thinks. Sonny Bono is a prime example. He stated that copyright should last forever minus a day (taking into account the constitutional requrement for a limit on copyright). I refer you more to a movement called Free Culture “www.free-culture.cc”, check out the book, it’s free to download, copy, translate (just don’t republish it, yo). It details the argument better than I could.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:56 am
[…] DCMA makes it illegal to produce, sell, or distribute any device designed to defeat any form of Digital Rights Management. It also makes it illegal to defeat any such protection designed to prevent access to that material […]
July 31st, 2007 at 5:06 am
[…] form of DRM invented by Digital Content protection LLC, a subsidiary of […]
July 31st, 2007 at 6:34 pm
[…] previously defined what DRM is, but why does big business want DRM at […]
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
[…] adopted HDCP, and has whole heartedly embraced DRM as a whole. In fact, the operating system treats it’s self as being a HDCP compliant device, […]