Chris Lanier's Blog

Content protection is very tricky. One thing you mention. "...the source code is there for everyone, which means putting protected code in the OS is pointless..."

At a micro level the source code is always there for everyone. If you don't control the hardware you can't control the execution of software on the hardware. Open source makes it easier since you are able to download the source and build your own version, but the same is possible on closed source systems. It just takes the community longer to find and replace the funky bits.

I personally think the industry would fair better if it didn't view it's customers as thiefs and pirates. Instead, focus on making good content and give the users a good way to pay to keep that content on the air. Just look at the money raised to save Star Trek Enterprise. Those were fans that were willing to pay to keep the show on the air. That's because most of us understand how capitalism works and are willing to pay to keep the content coming.

Microsoft DRM runs on Linux clients as well as PCs.The fact that the O/s is open doesn't mean that an application or piece of hardware couldn't be used to display protected content.
It would be hard to keep the content on a standard graphics card from being captured out of the screen buffer but hardware based decryption and decoding (Mpeg2 or 4 etc) would only allow uncompressed video and if that was fed to a DHCP enabled monitor it would stay protected all the way to the monitor.

Well, everything will get cracked sooner or later so I think that the companies should go after the big pirates (those who print and sell cd/dvd copies in stores) rather than those who download a copy. 1 out of 3 cd records are counterfeit (according to IFPI). How much doesn't the record companies lose on that? And they keep blaming internet users for everything.
People and companies see the cd/dvd as two different things. People see it as theirs to do what ever they want. Burn it up in the microwave, play it or make a copy just in case the house burns down. Companies see the music/movie as theirs and that we only license the content. I think the first move is to make sure everyone is on the same page before you add more restrictions or less restrictions.
Personally I think, as it is now, that everyone can shove it up their behinds. I do whatever I do with that I buy. If its illegal then sue me but don't make me out to be a criminal BEFORE I have done something illegal. Remember, 1 out of 3 records sold (keyword is sold as in stores, not downloaded) is a copy

And despite DeCSS, DVD's are still sold and the companies are doing quite fine so why add more DRM?

I've blogged about what Matt said before. Content providers would prefer to have it both ways. They license the content to you, so you can't make copies of the content, however if the physical storage medium for the content is destroyed, you need to buy a new physical copy. I would prefer that they stick to either physical owenrship or content licensing so that if my content gets destroyed that I can get a replacement physical copy (like how software works).

Gary Owen: Thanks for the feedback Gary. What exactly do you mean by "micro level"? I know Microsoft is very protective of it's source in their Shared Source Program, not allowing the source out of any of their big technologies. Of course, someone out in the market has seen it, but it's not up for free download to everyone.

It would be great if the industry would stop viewing all of us as pirates, however when you can search Google and download their content seconds after searching, they might have a point.

dvrman: Which version of Microsoft's DRM runs on Linux? Do you have a link to this, I’ve never heard of it before. An old version runs on the Mac, but it isn't new enough that any content is protected with it.

Matt: Good feedback also. I think that the content owners want to try and stop that with copy protection. It has the chance to stop the mass-scale pirate who does it for the money, and to stop the kid at home from making 10 copies for all of his friends, and to stop people from uploading it to the web.

My lack of connectivity last week kept me out of the latest round of the DRM debate. Chris Lanier started it with a very sensible post here. He makes the point that DRM is already a major part of the digital media ecosystem, and in fact most of it is practically...

"I think that the content owners want to try and stop that with copy protection. It has the chance to stop the mass-scale pirate who does it for the money, and to stop the kid at home from making 10 copies for all of his friends, and to stop people from uploading it to the web."

Chris, buddy, are you smokin' the crack? Seriously, it's okay, you can tell us. The first step is admitting you have a problem. ;-)

Since when has any copy protection, DRM, or other technology stopped piracy in any form? According to one statistic I heard, iTunes exclusives (content that was embedded with DRM from the start) was available on the P2P networks after four minutes of premiering on iTunes. The kid at home that knows how to make ten copies for his friends is likely to be able to find the crack just as easily, especially considering that the young are very savvy (or at least that's what the crazy kids tell me). And as for the mass-scale pirates? HA! There's a joke and a half.

Remember the old rule of thumb: "If it can be seen or heard, it can be copied."

As for open platforms, it appears a lack of positive support for Linux users in regard to content has lead to cracking, hacks, and all kinds of workarounds. CSS was, itself, hacked because the kid who broke it wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux comp (IIRC).

I might be happy with all this, Chris, if only the <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr1201">Digital Media Consumer’s Rights Act</a> would pass, then my scenario would be assuaged.

In fact, Chris, I offer you this situation. If you can come up with a solution to it, I'll be impressed (as I've yet to see a realistic one presented):

Let’s say Fox News puts DRM (in some form or another) on all its broadcasts. Currently, this is impossible, but let’s say they do, just for the hell of it.

Now, let’s say someone wanted to come along and do a documentary like Outfoxed. So they spend hours recording the channel to DVDs trying to find whatever perceived bias they can discover. But when they go to rip those recordings to a format to edit in, they find it’s DRM’d.

Now, putting aside the fair use arguments (I think Outfoxed was clearly fair use, for the record), and putting aside the politics of the movie, what is this documentary team to do?

Let’s say there exists a rip for it, and they can disable the DRM, and they edit and release the movie. Ignoring the bad PR they’d get from it, Fox News sues the filmmakers.

For what? Copyright infringement? No, not that. They know they’d likely lose to a fair use argument in court, which would set a bad precedent. Instead, they sue under the DMCA, saying the filmmakers couldn’t possibly have edited the footage without cracking their DRM, and thus are in violation of anti-circumvention aspects of the law. Fox News could lose in court, under the (damn near nonexistant) fair use clause of the DMCA, but the fact that documentarians would have to jump through that hoop is unacceptable.

Anyone got something? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

John: You might want to put down your crack pipe, read my post, and at least make a reply that relates to the post. ;-)

The content owner’s idea with DRM is surely lacking, just as you say it generally doesn't work. Does this matter for playing the content that will be protected anyway on your PC? Nope.

As I have said, all this content is already protected and to enable playback on a PC a "secure" system must be built that will abide by the rules set by the organizations that make the protection systems. You’re focusing on the reform of DRM, which needs to happen as I have said many times in many different decisions. That doesn't bring this protected content to your PC though nor did you even read or apply the questions asked in this posting.

There is nothing stopping Fox News from enabling "DRM" (copy protection) on it's broadcasts right now, it's called CGMS-A and is enabled on several analog broadcasts today.

Instead of trying to reform DRM, which isn't going to happen for any current media (or media in the near future) I focus on the ability to actually play what I spend my money on.

john, are you trying to say that drm can't be a method to try and top all piracy? we know it's not going to work, but its not going to make the studios just give up! fight the content owners, not ms. i do want to be able to play what i pay for, if this is need then i fine with it. everyon keeps saying that it takes away my rights, but what right is it taking away? its not!

if anyone needs to stop with the crack its the content owners and you john for not reading or applying what is happening to the situation.

***mark

"You might want to put down your crack pipe, read my post, and at least make a reply that relates to the post. ;-)"

Well, I thought it would be strange to post a reply to your comment in another post. Now that really would violate etiquette. Heh.

"There is nothing stopping Fox News from enabling 'DRM' (copy protection) on it's broadcasts right now, it's called CGMS-A and is enabled on several analog broadcasts today.

"Instead of trying to reform DRM, which isn't going to happen for any current media (or media in the near future) I focus on the ability to actually play what I spend my money on."

Yes, but, Chris, you can't pull apart the two, as they are inextricably linked to each other. Your position is "We might as well," my position is, "We ought not." One cannot provide meaningful reform to a system they are helping to create, which makes your position untenable, I feel.

Next up, mark:

"john, are you trying to say that drm can't be a method to try and top all piracy? we know it's not going to work, but its not going to make the studios just give up! fight the content owners, not ms."

I do, in fact, speak with content owners. In fact, if you follow the link on my name, you'll eventually get to the CM blog, where you'll be able to see my fun back-and-forth with Dan Myrick (co-creator of The Blair Witch Project) about his using DRM on a recent internet venture, and how I've been trying to convince him otherwise (I even go so far in one post as to go around the WM DRM to prove how simple it is to remove it). It's been like pulling teeth, but I think I'm making small dents.

But the army is not just the men, but the tools they use, and Microsoft is helping provide those tools through their great influence and integration with the vast majority of modern PCs.

Let me ask you this though: So you pay for your content, but for how long? DRM servers, systems, implementations, and the whole lot are very fluid. I have a lot of old LPs, and I love 'em to death (there's this Beethoven Symphony that sounds just perfect), but if everything was copy-protected back then, AND the designers could implement DRM into the phonographs themselves (such that it would require an outside source to operate, as works with MS's system, and most others), I am not at all confident in such a system working today. "Sorry, can't authenticate," and then that's it.

Is the system workable? Sure, for the time being. I do think that there's a tremendous lack of forward-thinking in both content and technology industries, sometimes to its benefit, sometimes to its detriment, but an important part of learning is listening to people who complain, and taking them seriously.

If I had a little more influence, I'd organize a "I didn't buy that DRM'd thing" campaign where people, who would have otherwise bought a CD or MP3, but wouldn't, all because of the protection. It would be a great way to show just how much is being lost through their markets cause of it.

But I'm getting sidetracked.

The point is that you can't leave just one person responsible for their actions while not criticizing the makers of the tools and technologies they use as well for their leading them with it.

So...yep.

Sure you can pull the two part. The fact is that the content is protected and will continue to be for years. Unless your one of the people who are just going to "stop buying the content", then you might as well look to ways to actually use what you purchase. The mass of market has the same attitude, we are not going to stop buying content or stop using Windows because of this. Will you have a few? Yes. Enough to make a difference? No.

Read: http://msmvps.com/chrisl/archive/2005/07/29/59908.aspx

"The fact is that the content is protected and will continue to be for years. Unless your one of the people who are just going to 'stop buying the content', then you might as well look to ways to actually use what you purchase."

Yes, in fact, I will be one of the people who will stop buying it, if for no other reason than I can't be guaranteed my ability to watch, listen, play, or otherwise use it in five, ten, or twenty years hence. DVDs, though protected (if you consider completely broken and useless "protected"), will work between now and doomsday. Same with VHS tapes. The technological issues with internet-based distribution and DRM are completely dependent on something that MAY be around later, but I think that is perhaps the biggest and most perilous hurdle, if you're asking me as a consumer and lover of entertainment.

Not to mention the issues of third parties being able to intrude on my system with "trusted computing." Yes, I realize there's a tremendous amount of benefits to it, but there's also the cost to me and the sanctity of my system. If there was an "owner's override" (as has been tossed around and asked for) to such third party knowledge, then I'd be much more comfortable with it.

And yours is a very defeatist attitude, as well. "Well, it's going to happen anyway, so the hell with it." I've heard this a lot with other policies, especially government policies. But to not complain about it and tell people what they're getting into, it assumes a position of acceptance and compliance, which I'm certainly not willing to do, easy though it may be.

You have clearly lost the grounds of which you were trying to argue, bring up Internet distribution and trusted computing. Neither of which apply directly to any statement I have made or to this topic (or any that had been spawned from it, until now).

To apply some more content on the new issues you brought up, much of what Internet based systems can bring is when the content falls out of mass production; an unlimited license could be distributed. The rules can change, at the click of a mouse. The Internet isn’t going to disappear anything soon, you heard it here first. ;) Will this work great? Maybe and maybe not. If a real content protection system (or mass content distribution) used a dial-up form for anything, it would likely be in the license for the system how long or when such an event would happen. Using my main system as an example, the AACS for HD-DVD doesn’t need Internet connectivity to work.

“Trusted computing” almost seems good in theory, depending on who you are and from which angle you look at it. Having said that, I’m not exactly looking forward to is and we have not yet seen a successful implementation of it nor will we for at least another 3 years.

As I have said, I concentrate more on what I can actually do with what I’m going to purchase in the near future. DRM and content protection isn’t going to vanish on the face of the earth, and unlike you (and the majority of consumers) I’m not going to stop buying it just to try and prove point about DRM. If there were enough people that would actually do this, we would be getting somewhere and I would likely join. Problem is, there aren’t.

Okay, so I jump around a lot. Forgive my impertinence. ;-)

"The rules can change, at the click of a mouse. The Internet isn’t going to disappear anything soon, you heard it here first. ;)"

The internet? No. The people who were running license servers? Oh, I'm quite certain they won't be around forever. More than that, there are individuals running content servers for their own products. How long will they be around?

Never is this more important than when dealing with music, which tends to have much more sustainability and permanence to people than videos (at least on computers).

That having been said, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this. You seem to have given up on trying to change anyone's mind, but I think this is, in fact, the perfect opportunity to get people to talk about DRM and copy protection. Before, it really was beneath the surface of notice. I mean, how many people really knew about the copy protection on the VCR? Not many. But now there is a tremendous discussion about it, especially in light of increasing technologies. So, I suppose Microsoft should be thanked in that regard, since it gives people a focal point on this (though that's more of a good thing from my position, and obviously not yours ;-).

"If there were enough people that would actually do this, we would be getting somewhere and I would likely join. Problem is, there aren’t."

Well, now, if everyone thought that way, there never would be, would there? ;-)

One quick criticism:

"To apply some more content on the new issues you brought up, much of what Internet based systems can bring is when the content falls out of mass production; an unlimited license could be distributed."

If it's an unlimited license (I assume that means unlimited copying and transfer to devices), then what would the point of the DRM actually be in that regard?

As I said, an unlimited license could be issued. So, if there was a point and time were the people running the servers went down, it could be passed to another server to issue a new license or the current servers could start passing the new license, etc. As I also said, for any big system this would be in the license that the content owners must agree to. They developers of the content protection system are unlikely to say it only needs to be playable for 2 years.

I'm not "giving up on trying to change peoples minds", that's there own issue. I have stated what's likely to happen with content protection in the next few years, I have never said that I agree with all of it. Most of my readers b***h about DRM, but they also b***h about Microsoft holding back the platform. They have to hold it back because the content is already protected. As I have said, content protection in Windows brings us new rights that they have not had in the past.

There never will be, trust me. ;-)

No, unlimited can mean anything. Unlimited plats without contacting the license server would be the big one.

"I have stated what's likely to happen with content protection in the next few years, I have never said that I agree with all of it."

Well, I think I'll remain eternally vigilant on this matter. ;-)

To each his own, I suppose.


"Most of my readers b***h about DRM, but they also b***h about Microsoft holding back the platform. They have to hold it back because the content is already protected."

So, will Microsoft be offering an option by which there will be none of those features there, with full knowledge that, though you gain better access and control over your own computer and its workings, protected content won't be able to play?

Doubtful. Why would they not? It would confuse the consumer, and an edition of which feature were mising would not sale to the point where it's logical to keep it in production.

Now, what Microsoft should do is introduce a single version of Windows that's module. If at some point if someone tried to play protected content and didn't have "PVP-OPM" (or protection system "x") installed Windows would prompt the user asking if they would like to install it or not. Install leads to playing content, not installing leads to not playing the content.

Sounds great, right? Those who want the feature get it, those who could care less can live without it. Problem with this is the everything in Windows is woven to tightly together. So, it won't happen.

So, in the end, it seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation." Heh.

Oh well, there's always Linux. ;-)

Right, And now your back to what this post *is actually about*, to play protected content on Linux you have to come up with a system that can be properly implement on such as open OS.

Why is it that the people who don't understand the consumer side of drm always lose in battles with those who do? I think it means that people like John should spend more time thinking about it before making a stupid posting on his blog when it turns out he loses whatever the hell he was trying to prove! lol

steve:

The "consumer side" of DRM breaks down to this:

Content providers use it for no apparent purpose, reason, or cause. I find worthless technologies just that: worthless. I find them also DANGEROUS when they are protected under criminal law codes.

I have not, by any means, lost. My point was that DRM is fruitless and dangerous, and that Microsoft shouldn't be participating in such things, and that I don't want those things on my system. Ergo, Microsoft loses me as a customer come Vista time. It's not complicated, steve-o.

As for Linux, the community that uses open source programs would never put up with a DRM system on that platform, making it unfeasible, even in discussions of technology.

Also, I should add:

I find the argument from the consumeristic standpoint valid from the angle of acceptance, but invalid from a principled view (which is where I am arguing from, since I consider my principles more important than whether I get to watch Batman Begins on my laptop). I am taking a principled stand here, and airing my concerns and complaints. Will it have an effect? Likely not. But I don't just roll over because something feels or seems unattainable, as that would be dismissing my principles. If that seems strange or incomprehensible to you, steve, then there's really nothing I could say to disuade you from that viewpoint.

In any case, I think we've carried this back and forth long enough. Thank you for the interesting discussion, Chris!