Chronicling the Failures of DRM 206
Barence takes us to PCPro for a look at the failures of DRM and a discussion of its impending death. Quoting:
"Luckily, DRM is dying, at least in the download sphere. Napster's Dan Nash believes that DRM-free is 'the general way things are going.' In his opinion, record companies 'have no choice but to adapt;' those that 'stick to DRM on a pay-per-download basis will not remain competitive.' In the US, Napster has joined Amazon in selling DRM-free content in MP3 format from all the major labels. ... Going DRM-free makes sense not just for consumers, but for the industry. Deutche Telekom says three out of four technical support calls its Musicload service had to deal with were the result of DRM. And when it offered a DRM-free option to artists they saw a 40% increase in sales."
Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:4, Interesting)
DRM was just a means to an end (Score:0, Interesting)
The MPAA/RIAA want you to pay every time you watch or listen to their media. They feel that people don't pay often enough to hear the same old crap.
What's wrong here? (Score:1, Interesting)
In the US, Napster has joined Amazon in selling DRM-free content in MP3 format from all the major labels.
A percentage of iTunes tracks are DRM-free, but certainly not all.
The big question is: why won't the labels allow iTunes to sell all of their tracks DRM-free?
Obviously the labels would love to eliminate the iTunes policy of 99-cent only pricing, but there must be something more than that.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't expect the mainstream music industry to listen. Based on what they try to pass off as product, they are quite clearly stone deaf.
It's not about paying... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's about the cost. Most people would pay for legitimate music. But then again, when you have to pay for gas, rent, food, etc..., entertainment is way low in one's list of priorities.
If music was made more affordable and/or reasonable, it wouldn't be much of an issue, most people would pay, I'm sure of that.
The problem started off as "Music was too expensive" CDs where like up to 30$ a CD at one time during the peek years.
When the internet kicked in and the MP3 format was created, eventually download sites and peer-to-peer was the way to go for cheap (and free) music, so, obviously, the music industry lost revenues.
Instead of understanding and adapting their price model, they used DRM, and it made things worse.
So, it's coming full circle, they don't have much choice anyways. If they want to have a music industry, they have to work with the system and they need to adapt their pricing.
Basically, this is what's I've always understood about protection schemes in computing: It's made by man, it can be broken by man.
Copy protection and DRM will never work in the long run, there is always someone out there who can figure out how it is done and break it.
BD+ (Score:4, Interesting)
Why didn't they learn from copy protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing I find most galling about DRM is that we've already been through the same thing, in the early 1980s, with the software "copy protection" wars.
Vendors of copy protection systems would sell their snake oil to software companies, the new uncrackable copy protection would get cracked within months of release, everyone who wanted warez could get copies, but the idealistic suckers who paid for theirs clogged support lines with problems, when the not-quite-standard disk formats turned out to be not-quite-compatible with many diskette drives.
On August 19, 1986, The New York Times reported that "At best, copy protection does nothing good for legitimate users and only annoys software pirates. At worst, it makes it difficult to install software onto a hard disk and to make backup copies that are vital if the original is lost or destroyed. It slows the performance of some programs and causes snarls in others. It can be a pain for networks of PC's hooked together to share data and peripherals. And, worst of all, there have been reports that some ''killer'' protection schemes have destroyed hard disk files, inadvertently or otherwise.... Software makers who have abandoned copy protection this year seem to be avoiding bankruptcy, and they have certainly gained goodwill. When the goodwill comes from big corporate buyers (including the Federal Government, which has refused to buy copy-protected software), it is likely that the losses from pirated software can be offset."
By the end of 1986, all major software publishers had abandoned copy protection, including the longest holdout, Lotus... but not before the failure of Lotus Jazz, a Mac program, which, according to John Dvorak, failed in part because its copy protection was too hard to break.
Why do we need to go through all this again? As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
MP3 is hardly open (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with that statement is MP3 has never been an open format. It too requires a license to use. The difference is that the spec is public, so anyone can license the technology.
For an actual open format with freely available source code, check out ogg [vorbis.com].
Re:Audible will never accept this (Score:4, Interesting)
I "own" one or two audible audiobooks. Or used to anyway, I doubt I am still able to listen to them.
They lost me as customer. I will never buy from them again, unless they offer a DRM free option.
They _are_ losing business. There _will_ be other outlets that start in the audiobooks marked, and the DRM strategy will allow those other outlets to squeeze in where Audible otherwise hold the marked.
Add microsoft windows to products damaged by DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Most problems with MS windows are amplified by DRM. I have had system crashes at multiple occasions, and when trying to reinstall XP on a new HDD I run into issues like this:
- The version of XP you have is upgrade only, and can not be used on a clean HDD.
When trying to recover by installing from CD:
- The version of XP you are trying to install is older than what is on the PC (upgraded with service packs). This is for upgrade only.
I also have a test machine with multiple languages and test with different HW configurations. After using it for a few years, now, every time XP is reinstalled, I have to call MS to get the license key.
I agree with TFA: DRM'ed products will fail.
What a breeze to install Ubuntu.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe iTunes is proof that people will accept DRM so long as it does not interfere with what most would deem "fair-use". I guess I'm a sell out because I'm willing to pay $.99 a song, iTunes is easy to use, works well, and I can burn all the music I buy to CD to listen in my car, stream to other PC's in my house, listen on up to 5 computers, etc..
I know people on /. will then say, "What about Ogg or Flac", and my response is I don't care. I'm not an audiophile nor is the vast majority of people who listen to music. Ask most people what format iTunes music store uses and they'll just say MP3. MP3 = a digital music file in most people's vocabulary. They don't know the difference between MP3 vs. AAC vs. M4a etc.. Nor do they want to know. All they want is the ability to easily purchase music at a reasonable price and then put on their ipod, CD player or stereo with the least amount of fuss.
iTunes does exactly that. It works and works well for most people. Is it perfect? Not really. And I'm sure as more and more allow DRM free music, you'll see that more and more on iTunes as well.
I will say kudos to Apple because they actually got it right in that balance between what the studios wanted and what people could do with their music. Maybe that's why they've been the most successful online music retailer to date.
Re:Newsflash: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity, since you mentioned rentals, how would a song rental market work without DRM (such as Rhapsody)? From what I understand, you pay $15 a month to get unlimited music, but it is only playable as long as you keep up your subscription. If you wanted that particular model as an option (i.e., you normally get tired of songs a few months after purchasing them), how can a company sell you that model without DRM?
Re:All I can say......... (Score:5, Interesting)
in addition, despite the 'death' of HD-dvd format, people simply aren't willing to go to Blu-Ray format, because you have to god forbid pay someone $80 for software(thanks slysoft for breaking BD+) to remove protection from the discs, so you can skip the 16 minutes of unskippable adverts they think you need when you just paid $30-40 for a stupid HD movie. maybe if there were easy to use tools, like a BD shrink, or maybe if BD players could play content without having to put it back in BD+ format... (currently you have to convert to h264, and watch on a ps3 or xbox 360)
dvd decryption software starts at 'free' and moves on up to $50, and dvd shrink is hugely popular even though it hasn't been developed in 2+ years (just check it on softpedia!)
yeah content 'owners' just don't get it, every insanely encumbered digital technology has failed, with the exception of DVD-roms, which have minimal, weak protection, that was easily cracked. Divx failed, HD dvd lost the support of studios when it's protection was cracked, but consumers didn't switch to blu-ray, and BD+ was cracked months later... and people still aren't switching (imo partially from the fact that BD+ while cracked, doesn't give end users a 'single click' method of burning it to a BD-r.)
people do pirate content, yeah it really happens,
it's been spiraling out of control since the 70's, when copyright became possible without 'submitting' the material to the library of congress. just as prohibition created the mafia, copyright extension created the 'modern pirate.'
the media companies have created multi-billion dollar industries distributing ideas, and they're complaining, because what people once got for nothing, they now steal because they have no money to pay for it.
you can't simply print wealth on a piece of paper, and give it out to everyone, if you try, you wind up with the situation that Zimbabwe is in now with 'hyper inflation.'
Re:Audible will never accept this (Score:3, Interesting)
They pretty much own the audiobook download market
Talk about a market where DRM is going to be the least effective. The analog hole kind of sucks for music, because there is some amount of quality degradation which requires either hi-quality equipment to reduce, or haxor tools to strip the DRM digitally.
But for the spoken word? Anyone can crack the DRM on an audiobook and get satisfactory results, even a cheap-ass microphone sitting in front of a cheap-ass PC speaker will do fine.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a bit of a problem with believing the concept that 'your vote counts' when votes = money.
If I stop buying, say, Sony albums, what does that tell Sony? What does it tell them of my reasons? Money doesn't leave any clues, and it's not as if they can spot an extra twenty dollars spent on, say, tomatoes and say that that's where my money has gone.
Anything could have happened to make them 'lose' my twenty dollars. I could have died. I could have bought a different album by another company. I could have... you get the idea. Anything could have happened, and they have no way of knowing if it was because of their DRM or something other reason.
Voting with your wallet doesn't work as well as you would think because it is never accompanied with reason or explanation. If it is, then yes, I can agree. Otherwise, it could mean anything.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:5, Interesting)
What Apple has really done is they have killed DRM. Because they hold such a command on portable players (i.e., ipods) and they are the only ones that can provide legal music for their players, the record labels are forced to negotiate with Apple in order to have online sales. But with Apple it is their way or the highway - the labels don't like this. So in order to undermine Apple, the labels now offer DRM free music to other providers. The hope is that with multiple providers they will not have to worry about Apple forcing upon them term that they don't like.
It is because of DRM (or more specifically, DRM that they did not control) that the labels were forced to do this. You can bet that if they could do it all over again they would still use DRM, but it would be licensed for use with multiple retailers and devices.
It's funny - they force Apple to use DRM and now Apple has put them into a position where they have to allow non-DRM sales. Imagine if Microsoft won the format wars with their "plays for sure" format? We would all be stuck with it forever as it allowed for multiple different device manufacturers and music retailers.
Re:Recently... (Score:3, Interesting)
How long does customer data typically sit in your store's boneyard?
DRM Isn't dean, it's just brain-dead (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and No (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, it's been cracked. But there's no code out there that most of us can use. I think some commercial outfit made their own interpreter (BD+ relies on some embedded code, IIRC) and many of the details are still secret.
So it's cracked, but I don't know that you can play it on Linux.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't know about it. I guess Apple really did a good job of marketing the iPod and iTunes. Linux support on amazon's mp3 service is flaky, but here [ubuntuforums.org] is a howto for linux users that explains how to get past some of the hassles.
Re:Wow, if only someone will listen... (Score:4, Interesting)
What if Apple understood what the customer wanted well enough to make their DRM unobtrusive enough to be successful enough (compare, say, to PlaysForSure) that the music industry feared them enough that the execs decided they needed to regain their freedom from DRM.
It's not very often that you see poetic justice like this. Pause for a sec and appreciate the irony: music executives hate Apple DRM because it prevents them from doing something they love. Specifically it prevents them from bilking customers by raising prices on popular tracks while lowering prices on tracks nobody buys.
And Apple says, no way. Customers don't want complicated variable pricing. And the music execs have to accept Apple's DRM or reduce their sales in the only rapid growth sector to nil (see PlaysForSure).
If that wasn't ironic enough, the only other option an iPod supports is unencrypted. Yes, it allows a user to move their songs to other players, but the music execs don't want that either! They want to charge once for your PC, once for your iPod, and once each for your Rio, your Nokia, and your next male child.
Apple didn't kill DRM -- the music execs are so apoplectic that they can't even spit straight -- and customers are killing DRM while the music industry impotently foams at the mouth.
Or, when is the last time you listened to Napster?
Re:Why didn't they learn from copy protection? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, you thought it stopped with Lotus Jazz? Ever try to install Microsoft Office without the license key? How about getting updates for a recent version of Office or Windows without activation?
Have you played PC game titles recently? Last I checked, they have been using DRM copy deterrent schemes like Starforce and SecuROM as recently as this year. It's gotten to the point where if you don't crack the game, you have to buy a new disc/license if the key disc used in authenticating your install is damaged beyond repair/readability.
(Caution: Depart from the lawn if you detest rants by old-school gamers)
Whatever happened to the simple password mechanism authenticating the game? Back when games fit on floppies, the designers went all-out with creative ways to make sure that some people at least thought highly enough of their work to buy a copy.
The best ones were those that made you feel like a part of the game. Silent Service had a WW2-esque test for the "tour of duty" mission where you had to identify Japanese warships. Sure, they were blocky approximations which would be pathetic even as a Flash game, but it was a step up from the "13th word in the 3rd paragraph on page 91" method. Ultima VI's "consult thy Compendium" method wasn't too bad, even though some of the details since V were different. These are probably two of the worst examples; I played a lot of games, but I haven't played nearly as many old games as I would have liked.
Even better, perhaps, those trivial methods are definitely a lot more fun because the people who made the game put them in place, and they enjoy playing games just as much as we do. In those days, gaming was a lot more about getting more people to play your game, rather than turning it into a glorified state lottery. This is what the corporate mindset ruined, by letting businessmen determine that they know better than the game developers how to get more sales, and this same mindset applies to music and movie quality as well. The reason they're losing sales isn't because people download cracked versions of their product online, it's because they tried to establish a business model of producing a series of functionally identical but consistent products in a market where innovation is at a premium and excellence is a baseline expectation. At the same time, they try to keep their promises of perpetual growth/wealth to their shareholders in such a competitive industry. By making consistent stuff (look at sports games in this decade for a great example), they become as boring as the software security company CEO, and that is deadly to a PC game's success.