Daniel Hardy » Is DRM doomed?

May 1st, 2007

Is DRM doomed?

Right now as I write this I am watching an interesting fire storm occur on one of my favorite sites, Digg.com. It appears that the DRM protected HD-DVD has been cracked and users are generously sharing the key. These users are posting all over the internet, and in an attempt in hiding their coveted protection (which was supposed to be virtually unbreakable) they are being taken down at the request of the manufacturer.

One user who had a blog post with the numbers was dugg to the front page only to have digg.com permanently bury the post and the user. Others have sprouted up in an attempt to fight the system.

In a matter of a few seconds you can watch things come up only to vanish as they are buried by digg.com. It seems for everyone that gets buried three more show up. Perhaps this will be a key piece to ending DRM, perhaps not.

Either way I think that it is a strong demonstration of how the public is getting pretty sick of being told what they can and can’t do with things that they are supposed to own. I can only hope that it will be the start of the end for DRM. Unfortunately only time will tell.

No Responses to “Is DRM doomed?”

Bill Brown says:

May 1, 2007 at 11:48 pm

First off, I’m typing this comment into a form field with a dark gray background and black text. Ain’t you a usability guy?!

Second, I’m sure that the public is “getting sick of being told what they can and can’t do with things that they are supposed to own.” That’s because “the public” seems to think that they can do whatever they want, damn the consequences.

Let me put it to you this way. When you buy a DRM-protected track from iTunes, you are accepting that you will get a track with limitations in exchange for your 99¢. It’s called a condition of the sale. If you don’t like it, you can choose not to pay for it.

What you can’t do, properly speaking, is agree to the terms of the contract and then renege on the terms and do whatever you want. But that is precisely what people are doing when they crack a DVD so they can store an archival copy on their hard drive (best case) or so they can put the file up on some file service (worst case). That is an unauthorized use of the file and you have no right to make that decision.

The seller has the right to set the terms of the sale and they buyer must then make a decision about whether to accept them or renegotiate. That is the bottom line, and whether or not someone needs the item being sold or is just going to break the terms a little bit or will break the terms in such a way that the seller won’t go bankrupt is wholly irrelevant.

Reply
Jon Reily says:

May 2, 2007 at 10:53 am

I agree with you in the fact that one cannot agree to a contract and then break it. That is a clear-cut case of wrongdoing. However, I feel that the overall point here is not whether or not I can agree to a contract and then violate it at a later date because my interests or opinions on the subject have changed. I think really the objection to DRM is the presence of the contracts in the first place.

If you were to develop a technology that would only allow you to use a book you had purchased in one room of your home, crazy glue for instance, that would restrictive. It would be akin to placing new restrictions onto an existing medium in order to squeeze more profit from it (which likely is not being returned to the artist that is responsible for the art’s presence in this world to begin with). So, Random House starts placing contracts on shrink-wrapped books saying that once I open the book, it will attach itself to whatever surface it is near upon opening, and removing it to enjoy it in another venue is a crime punishable by prison and fines. If I wish to enjoy this book I purchased in the park, I need to purchase it again in the “park edition”. If I wish to read it in the bathtub, I need the “water feature”. It just goes on and on.

The real issue here is whether or not the same item can be reproduced over and over again by one to make money, but not by another to be used as they see fit.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not condoning the copying of material for free distribution. That isn’t right. If I like a piece of music and want to share it with someone, they should have to purchase it in order to enjoy it themselves while not with me. But to make me purchase it three times to enjoy it in three different places is skewed thinking.

Reply
dhardy says:

May 2, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Bill… I know the fields are annoying aren’t they? There is a long story that goes with why I choose black and orange, but in short it was retaliation over a friendly debate. Fear not as I am planning on correcting it in the semi-near future. In case you really enjoy it I did create it and will be more than happy to give you the Word Press theme ;)

I agree with what Jon said. I don’t condone copying of material for free distribution if the manufacture of said material doesn’t condone it. I also agree that people do buy into DRM by supporting things like iTunes, with that in mind I don’t… I don’t use iTune and for that matter I use very little closed source software. I don’t like people telling me what I can and can’t do with something I own. The HD-DVD is interesting because I can still share it just not duplicate it. In other words I could lend it to you or Jon and not break the law. Yet if I want to ensure that I will have a copy for ever (which I paid for) by backing it up I am not allowed to do so. That just doesn’t make sense. With this in mind I don’t buy DVD’s or CD’s unless I know I can back them up.

Again thank you both for the comments… It makes the whole blogging thing more interesting.

Reply
Bill Brown says:

May 2, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Yours is a view that I am most at peace with. You have accepted that you can’t remove DRM post-purchase and so you avoid things that have DRM. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, that is not the way it is. Most people rationalize violating the DRM or doing an end-run around the agreement by saying that the seller has made enough profit already (as if it was their place to determine that) or that it isn’t fair (you have no right to that which you haven’t earned or compensated those who have earned it).

Regarding the HD-DVD specifically, I was under the impression that you were allowed to back up media under fair use, which was established through precedent. The DMCA would hinder such an action since it would prevent the reverse-engineering necessary to back up the media, but I would guess that that use would not hold up in court.

But if that’s not the case, then realistically you can’t restore a book that you dropped in the bath or threw in the trash. Why should you have that right with other objects? (As I said, I think this has been established as a fair use–rightly so, in my opinion.)

Reply