Is Interoperable DRM Really Less Secure?

Crouch and hold writes "Are closed DRM schemes like FairPlay more secure than interoperable ones? Based on the number of cracks, it doesn't look like it. 'When it comes to DRM, what history actually teaches us is that one approach is no more secure than the other in practice, as they relate to the keeping of secrets. Windows Media DRM has had fewer security breaches than Apple's FairPlay, yet WM DRM is licensed out the wazoo: there are more than a dozen companies with WM DRM licenses.'"

Red Herring

[soft_guy]

Not licensing Fair Play has nothing to do with making it more secure. It has to do with being able to roll out fixes to counter security breaches in a timely manner.

Re:+5 informative

[Mr2001]

It's not a question of licensees choosing WM DRM because they trust it more than FairPlay - Apple doesn't license FairPlay at all, so Windows Media is the only choice for a third party.

Re:Fewer security breaches?

[solitu]

Time you checked again. It doesn't work anymore.

Hang on, get your terms right

[Senjutsu]

The interoperability that Jobs said was less secure, the interoperability that Norway wants, isn't offered by Microsoft's WMV either. Norway is demanding that Apple allow fairplay encrypted files to be converted into files DRM'd under Microsoft's PlaysForSure(OrNot) DRM model or anyone else's, not that they start licensing FairPlay.

No, no no!...

[karot]

...Don't encourage them by implying that DRM can be licensed and is a legitimate option.

DRM is bad bad bad, and is broken whether licensed or not. Don't use it, that's the answer :)

Re:What a silly question

[ajs318]

The only way DRM can work is if every consumer is forced to have a special DRM chip in their head and it would be interesting or horrifying to see if the consumer would accept this blindly or fight against it.

Under Thatcher, nobody would ever have stood for such a thing. There would have been rioting in the streets, people burning effigies, punk rock benefit gigs and all sorts. People who had the brain chips fitted would be on the receiving end of flying bricks crudely scratched with "SCAB". We'd be out marching with placards, chanting "Maggie Thatcher's GOT one, [name of major Brain Chip proponent] IS one". Decrepit coaches would be brought out of retirement to ferry Flying Pickets around, and enterprising kids would be hard at it poking holes in old oil drums to make braziers to flog to the striking workers.

Under Blair, there would just be a bit of polite tutting and moaning, followed by total passive acceptance. The Working Classes (who mostly think they aren't working class anymore just because [1] they have mobile phones and DVD players and [2] a whole new social class has grown up beneath Working) would even be saying things like "Well, it's probably a good thing. I mean, I've been looking for ages for a reason to cut down the amount of media I copy, or even give it up altogether; so I mean, this chip-in-the brain thing is a good idea really."

Talk about licking your arse and calling it chocolate .....

Re:+5 informative

[Eustace Tilley]

You have been answered twice already, but I cannot resist telling you again.

Cryptography is used so that a message from A can be read by B but not by C. With DRM, B and C are the same person.

The message from A (the publisher) must be readable by B (the consumer) but not by C (the consumer).

I hope you understand now why DRM is a concept flawed in its fundament.

DRM would be useful. So would a perpetual motion machine. It is wishful thinking to believe that the sheer utility of a function means it is capable of being produced.

I'm Tired of the DRM Articles

[Luscious868]

DRM is a huge pain in the ass for consumers and digital distribution of media that uses it is never likely to take off in the same fashion as it's physical medium counterparts unless it's easy to use and not very restrictive like Apple's FairPlay. Part of what makes FairPlay acceptable to me is the ability to burn purchased content to a CD that I can then take with me and listen to in any CD player that I wish. If FairPlay didn't have this ability I wouldn't use it. Likewise I'll never buy a "digital download" version of a movie or TV show unless I have the ability to burn that movie or show to a DVD. IMHO anything with DRM that doesn't let you burn to some kind of physical media that can then be played back on other devices (players, portables or other PC's) is essentially a rental and isn't worth it. I think most consumers agree which is why I'm tired of these DRM articles. A huge factor in any media format leap is convenience. Does anyone here really think that either CD's or DVD's would have taken off as they did if they didn't involve huge leaps in convenience for consumers? Quality played a part sure, but I'd argue it was the convenience of CD's and DVD's that really caused them to take off. Being able to leap back and forward between tracks instantly and not having to flip back and forth between sides was a huge factor in moving from tapes to CD's. Likewise the ability to skip back and forth easily through movies (and not having to rewind tapes to watch them) was a huge factor in the move from VHS tapes to DVD's. Not to mention never having to worry about a bad tape or VHS player destroying your music or movie. A poster on Slashdot said something a while back that I completely agree with. Everyone is looking at HD-DVD and Blue-Ray, freaking out about the DRM, and wondering which will be the next big thing in video and I think they are off the mark. All that HD-DVD and Blue-Ray offer over their DVD counterparts is more space and HD content. Newsflash, most consumers don't have an HD TV and won't anytime soon. Even when there's an HD TV in every home, HD TV's are expensive and most homes have more than one TV anyway so most consumers would then probably have one HD set in the living room and regular TV's elsewhere. I think some kind of hybrid DVR / Apple iTV kind type of box with a price point of around $200 bucks would be poised to be the next big thing in video. Consumers want a leap in convenience more than they want a leap in quality because at this point the leap in quality requires a large investment in expensive new hardware to pay real dividends. Why pay thousands of dollars for one brand new large HD TV in the living room and a bunch of HD-DVD's and/or Blue Ray discs (when you probably already own the content on DVD) who's improvements in quality can only be seen on that one expensive large TV in the house when you can spend between $600 and $700 dollars and have set top box hooked up to each TV in the house that lets you record, share with the other boxes and play back content recoded by the DVR and/or download, share with the other boxes and playback movies and TV shows that you've downloaded from the Internet. IMHO that latter option makes a lot more sense than shelling out all that money for a new HD TV set and bunch of content in HD that I've already paid for just to get better picture quality. My point is that convenience sells. DRM that isn't convenient won't sell and DRM that is convenient will. The box that I spoke of above could be DRM'd to the hill as long as I could share the content with the other boxes, have a backup system or the ability to re-download content that I paid for if I lost it and as long as it had a simple interface and "just worked" it would be a hit much like the iPod / iTMS combination. The RIAA and MPAA are to stupid to get it that and I have no doubt they'll DRM consumers to death and turn them off to digital distribution completely if they are left to their own devices. All they have to do is look at Napster. Napster didn't offer higher quality. Napster offered the con