Decryption and Internet Anarchy

I've never seen such a mass rebellion against DRM. The decryption code for high definition DVDs (HD DVD & Blu-Ray) is everywhere. It's not something you have to seek out for any period of time. It's almost difficult to avoid. In fact, some guy on YouTube posted a video of himself singing the code. While I can't see the film industry thriving if there was a mass movement of DVD copying, this is more of an issue of Freedom of Speech. The Internet generation has proved that ubiquitous censorship of anything is impossible. And it's waste of time, energy, and money, unless the U.S. government forces individuals to obtain licenses to create websites, totally restructuring the medium. That'll never happen, so why try and fight the publication of information? Like I've said before, if you're going to fight anything, fight the creation of this information. It's not ideal, but it's more in line with democracy and law.

I think it's amazing to see how the Internet has truly overpowered the powers that be. It's become a sort of organized anarchy (kind of an oxymoron, I know), and there's beauty in its consequences.

Digg and DRM

"The website [Digg] was one of several that received 'cease and desist' letters from Athe ACS Licensing Authority, which administers the DRM used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs. At the letter's urging, Digg removed a link to a Web page that revealed the encryption key that could enable content on HD DVD discs to be copied, circumventing the DRM."

Soon after a flood of user comments denouncing Digg's decision to comply, site founder, Kevin Rose, had this to say:

"But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear, you'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.'

Although I'm not necessarily wholeheartedly against DVD DRM (see a few posts below), I'm glad to see Rose not bow down to these contemptible companies and stand up for the people that made his website so popular. That's the problem with a great deal of these entertainment companies and third-party companies: they alienate their consumers in order to appease the higher powers and often to make an extra buck. Like Apple, Digg was not prepared to put their consumers second to pressures from above.

Also, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to persecute a site for allowing the publication of information. This, to me, violates the First Amendment. Granted, this situation walks the fine line, but I wouldn't like to live in a society where the messenger is not valued, but, well, shot. First of all, they didn't come up with the DRM crack, and second of all, they only re-published the information. It wasn't information they picked up themselves and reported on, it was really just submitted by an outside party. As long as the Anarchist Cookbook can be published, so should a benign piece of information like this. Apparently the law is more concerned about copyright protection than the building of explosives. What I'm saying is: it should all be permitted. In the worst case, the only one to be persecuted is the mastermind. And instead of gunning down people who circumvent the DRM technology or publish the code, maybe improve the technology itself. It's their fault that people find loopholes in their ineffective technology. And I say all of this, not in support of DRM, but rather in condemning this breach of the First Amendment.

Hi-Fi, Goodbye

I typically upload my music at 192 kb/s in the mp3 format. The quality isn't incredible, but it's more than listenable and it doesn't eat away hard drive space. I consider myself much more than a casual listener, yet I'm willing to sacrifice some quality for a great deal of quantity. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's bad. But either way, we're witnessing the gradual demise of hi-fi.

Now, I wasn't around at the time, but I know that high quality sound performance hit its popularity in the '70s. Hi-Fi this and Hi-Fi that. At the time, you had nowhere to go in terms of convenient listening experiences, so they had to market quality. Vinyl's sound quality is warm and vivid, but it's cumbersome and delicate, so the market of the 70s and 80s was unconsciously dying for an improvement.

There was the fruitless introductions of 8-track and audio cassette, but what caught on was the compact disc (CD) in the 80s. The quality was crystalline, but it sacrificed the warmth and intimacy of a record, which was a physicaly representation of music. CD quality is almost saccharine and it loses the colored silence of a recording and the haunting character that could be physically developed on a record. But now, people could listen to a clear sound on the go and without worrying about quality deterioration. And now there is the MP3, which retains the the digital luster and permanence of a CD, but the sound leaves a bit to be desired and can even damage your hearing. For instance, bass response is weak, and because of it, listeners tend to increase the volume to get that kick. They often over-compensate. The high-end's volume level survives the format, so it becomes, often unnoticeably, blistering and therefore, harmful to hearing. And this occurs more commonly with those white, Apple earbuds. I'm no audiophile, but I can't stand those little guys. The quality is tinny, rusty, and has hardly any bass. But walk down a street in Manhattan and you'll see every other person wearing them. I'm willing to give up some quality in the MP3, but not quite that much. And I'm sure when they listen at home they're using a 2-piece speaker set that came with their computer. Tons of people listen to music over the MySpace stream, too. And that's why we won't see an upgrade from the digital music format in a very long time. It's not about quality. We don't need Hi-Fi. Even casual music listeners are listening to more music groups. It might be our shortening attention spans, or maybe it's our propensity to that, "I found it first" or "I know more music than you do" sentiment. For me, I listen to tons of music, mostly albums in full, but I think that I retain all of these characteristics. But it's also because I love music so much, and I finally have the means of listening to so much more--because good music doesn't have to be limited to the radio legends anymore. And in this, I sacrifice the hi-fi quality of music. If there was a popular format that had better quality and didn't take up much space on my computer, I'd love it, but I think our standards for sound have become so low that the future of hi-fi is dismal.

In all of this though, I don't feel like I'm losing much. Although I listen to vinyl, because I didn't grow up with it, I don't expect that quality of sound. I expect CD quality. There is the occassional file that is unlistenable, but for me, it's rare that I even notice this supposed poor quality. My roommate is a music technology major, and after performing a blind test on him, he was unable to tell the difference between a song encoded as an mp3 at 128 kb/s and the same song encoded as a CD wav file. Now, I'm not saying he's a true audiophile--a hi-fi fanatic--but he has to be more conditioned to notice differences in sound quality than the most of us. So do I think there will be a hi-fi revival? I doubt it. What was cool in the 70s is what is inconvenient now. And covenience, flashy devices, and earbuds that don't mess your hair is what's cool. Trends change, but sometimes trends become staples.

MySpace Disappoints

As other industry heads in the music industry are gradually detaching themselves from DRM, Warner Music can't let go. We know this, but they're making big, DRM-supportive statements almost in a spiteful reaction to this moving away. Warner announced they'll be the first company to offer music through MySpace's music store, and what do you know? It'll be DRM-embedded. To me, this is a big middle finger, after Steve Jobs and EMI announced they'd be offering music DRM-free. Even if it's a result of the pressure from the European distaste for the technology, Jobs is listening to his customers. Warner Music just doesn't give a damn.
MySpace has always been a haven for independent musicians to get their music heard. The music sector of the website is inherently designed with a marketing system for otherwise unheard of musicians. It was founded upon free music, so we'll see how MySpace users feel about costly music without the ability to make copies. MySpace should have went with EMI. It would have been a smoother transition from free music temple to yet another MP3 music store (yes, you'll still be able to stream free music from the site), had they went with the more progressive label. Instead of promoting music from a company that's willing to grow, they shed their (whether intentional or not) customer-friendly and DIY roots for a customer-alienating skin. I guess it doesn't matter, because I don't see a bright future for the MySpace music store, even with an indie label and EMI catalog.

I'm So Unpredictable. DRM and the MPAA

In the most logical pro-DRM statement made coming from a position of power, MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman commented on DRM for the first time since taking over, two years ago. He's called on all high-level leaders in the entertainment industry to put their heads together to come up with an effective DRM solution. He even said that he's in full support of "managed copying," meaning that he'd like to find a way to allow consumers to make authorized copies of the "content they purchase." It's their right, he said. This is near the center of the DRM controversy: when you purchase a CD or a DVD, do you own the physical copy or the content. Most industry heads would argue that they own just the physical copy. It's an abstract concept, so it's a difficult argument. It's not the same as passing the content off as your own creation, nor could you use the music in a movie without the rights. Now, clearly we cannot allow people to take credit for other people's art, but licensing is a profit-generator. Also, most artists are very conscious of their image, and perhaps they wouldn't want to be associated with particular domains (specific advertisements or films, for instance), so by removing those restrictions it would be anarchy in the world of music. But what harm is done to most artists who would never make it on the Billboard 200 when fans buy their music and share it with their fans? They lose the little money they make on CD sales and gain thousands more from ticket sales. Though, Glickman's word choice might be a bit misleading, he does say that consumers own more than just the physical copy. But that's just semantics.

Where I think Glickman's argument fails is that the music and film industry are very different animals, and they could never find an all encompassing solution. While free digital downloading often helps the musicians, it can only hurt those who have a stake in a film. Money is to be made in a live show, but there's no equivalent in the film industry. They rely on DVD sales and theater tickets. There's not a play attached to every film. And there's not much gained from an expensive theater experience. So, I respect Glickman in that sense. For the film industry to remain intact--to actually produce a film, money needs to be made, and the only way to look ahead is to develop a DRM solution that does not alienate the consumer (allows them to make copies for themselves and allows for interoperability) but is still effective in keeping the free consumption of movies to an absolute minimum. Whereas a record company is coming close to losing its purpose in producing an album, studios will always be necessary, mostly because of the huge amounts of cash it takes to film. So, while musicians can still make money, the players in film absolutely cannot if there is no income from sales. The whole purpose is entertainment--to spread the experience of art. We lose sight of that sometimes. Music will survive the free digital download revolution, but film cannot, and that is why, for once and probably only once, will I say: "DRM? Go for it." I can't justify that urge to download free movies, because if it continues there won't be any movies to download.

Blu-Ray Making DRM More of A Headache

Before I begin. Can we just bathe in the glory of that picture to the right. It's so...I don't know, adorable?

Blu-Ray and HD DVD have not been happy about hackers cracking their DRM technologies, called Advanced Access Content System (AACS) Advanced Access Content System (AACS) . Poor kids. Anyway the Blu-Ray Disc Association is developing a technology that is apparently more advanced than AACS, called BD+. The technology will provide a unique key for each disc, so that one crack won't work for another. That's funny, though. I can only imagine the kind of bugs and loopholes that technology will contain. I can already see them recalling a bunch of DVDs because they only play on certain devices. Also, they're underestimating the will of hackers. Somehow they'll find the common strain in these DVDs and exploit it. Maybe finding a film on the Internet will be a bit more difficult, but there'll be hackers cracking their own DVDs and spreading them. The only problem is we've got to hope we have the same taste as these people. To me, when there's a will, there's a way. And hackers are pretty relentless when it comes to this sort of thing.

"Once BD+ is available it will add between seven to 28 days per title to production time."
Which means more money to be spent on what is probably a futile venture. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. Maybe this is the break these companies have been waiting for, but I can't envision it. Let's see if Blu-Ray even survives, first. I'm sure if the technology is successful, it'll be integrated all over the place. I don't know about this higher quality DVD, anyway. But that's a whole other story.

Warner Music and DRM Are So Cute Together

Kind of old news, but after Jobs' open letter about DRM and digital music, Warner Music chief, Edgar Bronfman responded in defense of DRM saying:

"DRM and interoperability are not the same thing. Warner Music believes very strongly in interoperability. Consumers want it and consumers should have it."

"But there cannot be so much protection that you create a poor consumer experience, and we need to find a better balance than exists today."

He's right. DRM is different from interoperability. You can embed copyright protection software without preventing these digital music files from being played on devices other than one company's. Seems like Jobs avoiding that little piece of information. Bronfman has a point. In a perfect world there'd be some protection from the copying of intellectual property. But again, I've outlined reasons in previous posts about the benefit for the artists. You still have holes in your argument, Bronfman. For every DRM technology there is a crack, so instead of flushing away money on these technologies, come up with something more effective, and profitable. And he sees that in mobile devices, which he commends Jobs for realizing in the iPhone. By making the process of downloading music on a cell easier, they think there's a new, profitable market that could open up. I think they're correct in a sense. People might have a more powerful inclination to pay for music if they're on the run and are attracted to a new technology. But how long will that last? For me, I don't think I'd be any more swayed to purchase than I am already now. They'll sure make a profit from the devices themselves, but after awhile people will treat it as they would their own computer.

Anyway, it doesn't look like Warner Music is any closer to ditching DRM than they were before the EMI situation.

Sony Learns Nothing! Let's Hear It For 'Em!

And after all this? You still don't get it, kids?

The film industry is well aware of their vulnerability to digital downloading and piracy. It's only a matter of time before it sinks to the same pit as the music industry. Haven't they been taking notes? Apparently not.

"It appears that Sony's (NYSE: SNE) zeal to prevent pirates from copying its media products has backfired again. Consumers are now up in arms because copyright protection included on the discs prevents several of the company's DVDs from working in some players.

According to techie sites like Wired, Engadget, and ZDNet, DVDs of the movies Casino Royale and Stranger Than Fiction -- which utilize ArccOs DRM (digital rights management) technology -- won't play in some DVD players from RCA, Toshiba, Phillips, Harman Kardon and, you guessed it, Sony. Worse, some reports claim that the discs lock up the affected players and jam them shut. According to Wired's blog, Sony has shrugged over this, blaming the manufacturers for not updating their firmware."

Their own DVD players? Come on, Sony. First of all don't blame it on the manufacturers if your DVD players can't even manage this DRM technology. Wonderful business model: get both manufacturers and your customers pissed. Basically what your saying is consumers should get new DVD players every time you apply a new, ineffective DRM technology. You alienate the purchasers who are willing to spend the money on your DVDs and have no intention of pirating. The others who buy the DVDs to copy and spread are, at this point, are uncommon but keep updated on DRM cracks. There hasn't been DRM that hasn't been cracked yet, and it's doubtful it'll happen anytime soon.

Film industry, learn from the music industry. Come up with something else, because you're continuously throwing away money and betraying the loyalty of your consumers. I understand it's not the easiest thing in the world, but think long-term. Save it while it's still salvageable.

Also, does this mean Sony is further from getting rid of DRM on their music than we thought after the whole EMI thing? Stupid.

Microsoft is Totally Hip

But not really. Soon after Apple announced they'd be teaming up with EMI to offer DRM-free digital music downloads, Microsoft said they'd be doing the same. In about two months the mammoth corporation went from passionate supporters of anti-piracy technology to being so concerned about their consumers. Yeah, okay.

In February Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division told Forbes:

"We've been very focused on producing a DRM system. We're willing to license it across the board...We think DRM is important."

A couple of months later, Microsoft Zune spokeswoman Katy Asher said:

"Consumers have made it clear that unprotected music is something they want. We plan on offering it to them as soon as our label partners are comfortable with it."

Is it me or does it seem as if Microsoft is encircled by an air of laziness. 'Eh, everyone's a Microsoft user anyway. Let's just release glitchy, backwards-thinking versions of Windows. Let's just bow down to powers that be.' Did they ever consider that they have the power? Without these music vendors, the music industry would be in a deeper pit than it already is. Instead, they maintain this system that exploits their consumers' blind eye to their disinterest in their customers and their primary concern for the dollar. Now, of course the dollar does always come first in a corporate setting, but maybe this consideration of the consumer is why Apple sales have been creeping up at the expense of Microsoft's. It was until it was thrown in their faces that Microsoft was like, "well, okay. Fine." You're as transparent as a window. Or something.

Whatever, though. I'm not complaining. The less DRM in this world, the better. Thanks be ta God!

Finally.

Fellow critics of DRM? Our prayers have been answered...in part. CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs' thoughts on DRM has finally come to life. EMI Music has teamed up with iTunes to offer DRM-free music encoded at a much higher bitrate (256 kb/s). While the cost will be increased from $.99 to $1.29 per song, it's still a beautiful thing. This has to be the biggest move towards an intelligent compromise between the record companies and music fans. It's no longer download for free or pay for lower quality, DRM-laced music. We finally have a choice. We'll see how it pans out, but I hope it becomes a successful model that the rest of the big 5 record companies will look to and adopt. They can only make more money off of this venture. Those who want the better download will give more money to the companies, but it won't deter the downloaders who don't want to fork over the extra cash either. They still have that option. And for the rest of us who illegally download? Well, some of us might spend some money for the convenience and the higher quality, and the rest will continue what they're doing. It can only mean more money. It's doubtful that these iTunes downloads will spread to the point where iTunes users will ditch the idea of purchasing their music. These people aren't of the breed to stop. They are the people who appreciate the convenience and who want to avoid prosecution.

Jobs is a brilliant businessman. And with another step towards a more progressive enterprise, he's now avoiding the alienation of audiophiles looking to go digital and DRM-haters. It can only mean an increase in cash flow. Hell, all those die-hard DRM-haters might be more apt to buy other Apple products. Support the pioneering businesses, right?

April Showers (hopefully) Bring Annulment

"This week, APRIL (l'Association pour la Promotion et la Recherche en Informatique Libre) has brought a case before the French Supreme court requesting an annulment of a decree that 'introduces a maximum €750 fine for possession and use of DRM circumvention technologies'."

I wouldn't be surprised if the decree is annulled, especially considering it's France, who, as a European country, isn't as hardheaded about the DRM subject. I'm torn, though. You know me well by now, and you can predict that I'm not supportive of laws like this one, but should I expect them to get repealed when copyright laws are still intact. It's like legalizing security decoders while home theft is still outlawed. Granted, home theft should be outlawed, but you get my point. Most things having to do with pro-DRM, I'm not exactly down with, so it's all the same to me. I guess it's a good stepping stone to getting DRM off the market.

This particular law, though, is an example of attacking an accidental victim.
"APRIL's argument is that being fined for merely possessing an anti-DRM device/program 'imposes an unfair and disproportionate threat on users of open source software and the whole movement of open source software.'"

David Byrne Attacks DRM

David Byrne, eccentric and shrewd ex-member of the Talking Heads, recently spoke out against DRM in a presentation called "Record Companies: Who Needs Them?" at the SXSW festival in Austin, TX.

"...First, [Byrne] said, labels will have to remove their digital rights management (DRM) copyright-control technology. He said he buys most of his music online via eMusic, or obtains it illegally, due to the file constraints on files sold on iTunes. Byrne predicated that once DRM is removed, iTunes will no longer "have a monopoly," and labels will be better prepared to deal with Web sales."

The presentation was focused on the cost-efficiency of digital music sales, and how digital music will take control of the industry by 2012. This allows a label to focus on marketing and distribution, especially when manufacturing costs will be nearly non-existent. But Byrne brings up an interesting point. Labels and artists can find greater success once DRM isn't clouding the possibilities of digital albums. iTunes music store is limiting the format in a quality and creative sense. I don't want my MP3s downloaded at a 128 kbps bit rate, but they force that inferior quality on me, especially when, in certain rare cases, iTunes is my only option for a download. Also, couldn't we explore the possibility of digital liner notes? or other endeavors that I can't even conceive of now? Aren't there more possibilities in making money off of digital sales? There are, but iTunes store and DRM is preventing that sort of growth.

Anyway, I like David Byrne much better as an anti-DRM spokesperson than Jessica Simpson. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather side with David Byrne than Metallica. Metallica are oddly much bigger pansies (see Metallica: Some Kind of Monster) than hipster geek, David Byrne.

YAY! More DRM Technology!

"Thomson, the French-owned electronics company, has announced two new implementations of its NexGuard DRM technology that will encode digital content with the specific identity of the device to which it is downloaded."

Basically, this technology is a digital 'fingerprinting' system that can track which unique device is bearing the downloaded media and/or the unauthorized copy of that media, and therefore, at times, the person. This isn't exactly a preventive measure, but another method for the companies and political organizations with an interest in finding these 'fervent and malicious pirates,' and prosecuting them.

With the RIAA prosecuting college students, the ones pumping in mammoth amounts of money into the industry through merchandise and concert tickets, they continue to alienate themselves from music fans. This sort of technology will be obsolete in only a few years. While Thomson has other products to sell, it's a waste of precious funds. The RIAA and soon the MPAA are realizing that DRM isn't exactly the best avenue. Since Steve Jobs' published thoughts on the industry, record companies are considering ditching DRM technologies, and the RIAA will have to find better ways to adapt to the changing industry landscape. DRM technology is rarely cost-efficient and companies who invest this much time, effort, and money into it will soon find themselves at a loss when the industry eventually adapts. For me, left-brain companies dedicated to preventing the exposure of art is just as despicable as someone walking into a record store and stealing an album right off the shelf. But opinions aside, most of these companies will evaporate and I'll be laughing. Yes, I'll be laughing.

Library, meet DRM.

We're so busy worrying about iPods and YouTube, that we've forgotten about someone. Someone really obvious. Someone on our side.

Libraries.

The British Library told the BBC that excessive use of DRM could cause problems for the age-old establishment.

"For one, without legal exceptions for libraries, some DRM restrictions can limit their ability to lend digital media to users. Libraries currently have privileges that allow them to copy and distribute copyrighted items. But unless publishers produce unrestricted versions of digital material for libraries, they won't be able to exercise those privileges. Another concern is that, as technology advances and various software formats eventually become obsolete, copyrighted works can be lost if the technology is rendered useless before art moves into the public domain" (news.com).

The British Library plans to fully embrace digital media in the future. So on one hand, libraries should have full access to all copyrighted material without the DRM headache in order to continue what they've always been doing and still have a face in the world of the Internet. On the other hand, like Netflix, maybe they should use DRM to prevent users from obtaining a library's digital catalog and dispensing it everywhere. Users will not be purchasing this media, and therefore owning it. They are renting it. By using DRM themselves and preventing DRM from disrupting their catalog, they can prevent themselves from becoming obsolete. It's great to see libraries realizing that there is no need for them unless they jump on the digital bandwagon, especially before books become more accessible on the Internet. In the end, though, will libraries ride the wave? Or will private companies beat the libraries in the Internet race before a librarian can even utter the words, iNovel (or something clever and more general).

Netflix Streaming Video (with DRM)

When you get into Video DRM territory, things get a little sticky, especially when you delve into online rentals.

Netflix announced in January of 2007, that they plan to offer their unique system of online video rentals by June. No doubt, Blockbuster's new rental service will adopt this online streaming video rentals, as well. These two will fight to the death, and as a Netflix subscriber, I love the service, but they've got to offer Apple downloads. I will be quick to ditch my subscription, for the ability to stream my rentals. I'd prefer the Netflix service, which allows the $5.99 users to view six hours of online moving watching per month, and the $17.99 users to watch up to 18 hours online hours. It's a great concept, that seemed to be inevitable when streaming video hit the scene.

You must be thinking to yourself, here comes the DRM bashing. Yet again. But this is the only instance where I feel it's justified. Sure my animal urge wants all movies, all the time, but in this case free downloads aren't necessarily the best marketing tool yet, as it is with music. Also, until there is a free service that would work as well as an organized system like Netflix' I'm willing to accept DRM in this case. If I'm buying a DVD, it is mine to do whatever I want with it. But in the case of Netflix, I'm not buying the video, so I don't own the content on that disc. I'm accepting of the Netflix DRM as a tool for renting, not for purchasing. I'd be spending the same amount, but now I have to be hassled by going to the video store and sending out my rentals (yeah, it's not much of a pain, but the internet makes it instant and without any effort). Downloading a video can be a bitch. Often crappy quality mixed with day-long downloads just isn't practical. So, Netflix, do whatever you can now before your paid service will not stand up to the free ones. Netflix, Blockbuster: they will all be obsolete within the next ten years, but for now they provide great services and I'm willing to pay for it.

The Fall of YouTube

Google joins the ranks of forward-thinking companies falling into the DRM trap. Devising a system that protects copyrighted material from being uploaded, they're violating the copyright law that allows people who have purchased a video to loan it and/or use it in other works. Google is probably regretting the YouTube purchase, finding it difficult to make money from the site, and getting cornered by companies looking to protect their product. By implementing this technology, Google is alienating their users, the ones who have always felt they came first in the eyes of the company. They're also weakening the foundation of the video site. We all like to see people singing along to silly songs, and other various home videos, but there's a limit. People want content that is usually copyrighted, and once they can't get it, someone else will provide it for them. Google has effectively taken on the Hollywood role, having to monitor and prevent their audiences from downloading their product for free, and falling victim to Hollywood's power to withhold content from online purveyors who aren't willing to encrypt.

Will YouTube become another Napster? Maybe. There's only so much people are willing to take before they abandon the site, finding another one, and making the once one-stop-shop, irrelevant. I'm not saying it will disappear, but I wouldn't be shocked if it becomes one of many video sites competing for your visits. Like I've said before, you can't give people what they want when they want it and expect to take it away from them. It's just not how it works.

Will EMI Cave?

Some sources say EMI might move to the other side of the DRM issue, offering purchased downloads without that pesty anti-piracy software. Though, this is just a rumor, and the date of announcement is uncertain, if there will be an announcement at all. If it happens, the others will feel the strain and buckle, as well. If any of them are going to scrub off DRM, EMI will certainly be the first, considering the Europeans seem much less tolerant of these restraints. Also, they've already been experimenting with MP3 releases that have resulted in nothing but pleasantry. I would think EMI is racing to the drawing boards to devise some kind of compromise. Hopefully, by crunching the numbers, they'll see that in the long run, they're better off surfing the wave than trying to terminate it. Science says it's impossible, so better adapt. I'd like to see concert ticket sales go up once it happens, just so people can tell them, I told you so. I guess that doesn't help the record companies much, but at least it will keep the rare resistant musician hushed, and the labels' artists happy.

The End of the Internet. Hah!

Kind of old news, but definitely something to think about.
Have you heard? The Internet might be switched off?


"November 29, 2006 A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government." (Click Title)


Maybe a little melodramatic, but hey, is it really out of the realm of possibility? I mean, kind of. The government's a powerful beast, but give me a break. If anti-file sharing laws were ever enforced to the degree the RIAA and the MPAA hope that they'd be there would be rioting in the streets. It's like alcohol and prohibition. Those laws only served a small group of Americans and it was repealed because of it. In fact, file sharing harms an even smaller group. At least prohibition had the Christian right behind them, now it's only record execs with big pockets. But what about the business execs with big pockets who have a stake in the Internet? What'll you tell them?


Hell, even most of the people generating the content support file sharing as a free marketing tool. Government will get second-degree burned by its citizenry if they just decided to 'shut down the internet.' Give people a taste of the greatest technological advancement in the past ninety or so years, and take it away from them? I think not. So, yes, while this case is critical, we have to take a step back and realize what we're saying. Let's make the biggest stink in history if possible, but let's do it calmly and intelligently. For as long as we stay alive and for every generation that comes after, we will have our internet and be able to file-share, too. Hey, there's a black market in the real-world, imagine it on the internet. Let's seem them try and stop it. As long as there are drug dealers, there will be file sharers. The losing war on drugs = the losing war on file sharing. Have fun, RIAA.

Jobs 'Aint So Bad After All

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers, published a statement (Click the title) on Tuesday that settled a few things. He was getting a lot of heat for the DRM that infects the iTunes music store files, and it was in his best interest to clarify his position and play victim. Without plainly stating it, he made it clear that he's just as much DRM prey as the people who download from his largely successful service. By removing the software, he'd be effectively jeopardizing the whole enterprise. He's caught in between the record companies and his consumers. Based on his somewhat forward thinking business model, it's not inconceivable that he'd dispose of DRM if the record companies that supply most of the music in his store allowed for it. The skeptical bloggers and writers have thoroughly analyzed the statement, deeming his attitude a "bluff" and using clever rhetoric, but it's just idiotic to me. Sure, maybe DRM keeps Apple's sales high, but you can't get around the fact that if Jobs decided to press his middle finger against the windows of the corporate music skyscrapers, his iTunes music store would fail, losing the music that keeps it alive now. What would you do? So, while I believe that Jobs would, in fact, relinquish the DRM scheme to please his customers, that's inconsequential. The fact is: all he could do right now is speak out against DRM and get record companies to think about their industry differently. Perhaps, he's in a power position to say, 'Hey, suit! You can't use my customers' business? Well, let's see how far you get without them." But in all likelihood, if Jobs isn't willing to keep DRM on his files, another company will surely spring up and take the business and satisfy the hungry music executives. So, yeah, I've bitched and moaned about Jobs' unwillingness to get rid of DRM, but I think we all need to aim our vengeful guns at the record companies and the RIAA, instead of the vendors who feel the heat of corporate fire-pokers, waiting for the vendor to slip up or point the middle finger.
I do believe Jobs is in a power position to convince record companies to allow him to sell DRM-encrypted files that would be open to devices other than the iPod. The technology to limit the amount of devices and computers that could bear each song, while still allowing interoperability, seems rather feasible. Until that software is developed and Jobs becomes more outspoken about the issue, maybe you can put a little blame on him.

Blu-ray's DRM Cracked

"The copy protection technology used by Blu-ray discs has been cracked by the same hacker who broke the DRM technology of rival HD DVD discs last month. The coder known as muslix64 used much the same plain text attack in both cases. By reading a key held in memory by a player playing a HD DVD disc he was able to decrypt the movie been played and render it as an MPEG 2 file."
-www.theregister.co.uk

Shocked? Not really, but this doesn't mean anyone can do it. The hacker posted a tool to help crack the DRM, but every disc is different, and you have to crack each disc's unique key. Apparently this new DRM on high definition discs is going to be a much bigger problem than the MP3 DRM, and I don't see the rival companies (Blu-ray and HD DVD) ever giving up on their anti-piracy software. Perhaps, because pirating films is a bit less common that pirating music and people aren't going to be making a big stink about it. The only question now is, which company will win the battle, if any will win at all. It's one thing to crossover from VHS to DVD, but its another to crossover from DVD to a higher quality DVD. I haven't seen Blu-ray or HD DVD in action, yet, but it's got to be a drastic difference for it to be widespread. My opinion? Wait for these companies to fight it out, until one dominates. Then I'll worry about the DRM.
In other news, Apple has committed to join the Blu-ray Association, and opted to hold a seat on the main board. Which means the DRM will sure as hell never get lifted from the discs anytime soon. This union will surely make HD DVD the underdog contender, even while having the much more sensible name. Anyway, the DRM situation is going to be a difficult battle to win in this case. It's going to be a difficult task to get people to rally against it. Only time will tell, I suppose.

iTunes' DRM Illegal Somewhere!

"Following the Norwegian consumer ombudsman's ruling last week that Apple iTune's lack of inter operability with devices other than its own iPod is illegal, Germany's federal consumer protection association, the VZBV, and the Dutch consumer protection agency, along with Finland and France, have joined a continent-wide move to get Apple to change its coding restrictions."
-MSNBC

You know, I hate to say it. I really do, because I love Apple. I have a PowerMac. I have an iPod. How is it that one company can be so technologically progressive, and still concern themselves with dying DRM. Enough is enough. Even EMI has begun to release MP3s as opposed to the DRM encrypted file. Listen, Apple does kind of have a point. Let the consumers decide. You know, that whole competitive business breeds innovation thing. But oppressive innovation is not what people are after. So long as people aren't harming others, they should be able to do what they please with what they purchase. There's also an inherent problem in Apple's outlook, because by not allowing consumers to use iTunes files on other devices, they're therefore limiting competition. It's not like there is a flashing message that pops from the iTunes store page, warning the purchaser that the files cannot operate on anything but an iPod. So, most may not even realize what they're getting into. So sure, iTunes store might be the optimum choice now, but what happens when another, better mp3 player comes out and these people find that those files are useless and their money was burned before them (discounting the crafty, more computer-savvy downloaders). Maybe they could gain a few more downloaders if they got rid of these encryptions. I'm sure it has something to do with the sale of iPods, obviously a huge revenue generator. But you know what, Apple? Let the consumers decide. Competition's good for business, right? So, let go and keep the consumers coming back because of the quality of your product. I know I will. That iPhone is lookin' damn sexy.

Also, why do you think the Europeans are more up on this stuff than us? Are we that blind as consumers? Post it!
Check out defectivebydesign.org who provided the pretty picture.

Am I imagining this? Jessica Simpson's latest single, DRM-Free!

Last Wednesday, Yahoo announced that Jessica Simpson's latest single, A Public Affair, will be sold in the MP3 format. Like iTunes music store and Rhapsody, Yahoo typically sells DRM-encoded MP3 files, but A Public Affair has oddly dodged the DRM bullet. Why? Where is this coming from? No one seems to know. We do know that in February, general manager of Yahoo, Dave Goldberg spoke at a Music 2.0 conference in Los Angeles and decried DRM technologies, "DRM is not a consumer value proposition, it's a consumer cost. It creates a nice barrier of entry for the tech companies, rather than something that's beneficial to labels, artists or consumers."

Even so, I'd like to think Simpson's people had something to do with all of this. A bit hopeful, maybe, but still very possible. The incentive to buy her single? Your name somehow gets incorporated into the song. Silly, perhaps, but instead of trying to fight the powers that be (in this case, the downloaders), maybe it's best to work within the system to get the green.

There are plenty of musicians who hold the anti-DRM flag high, but what the movement needs are the artists topping the charts. You can only get so far when the crusaders are made up of the ones who benefit the most from the MP3 revolution. Who are the independent musicians to deny any exposure they can get? They weren't really making anything from record sales, anyway. What we need is someone like Simpson to take a stand--show how it's possible to avoid the implementation of pricey DRM-technologies, while still being able to pay the bills and have some luxury dollars left over. Apparently, it's possible to remove the DRM by burning a CD and re-importing it into your computer system, anyway. Companies should be using their time and money on finding ways to profit within this system.

Check out eMusic--A download service that sells unprotected MP3s. They do it. Why can't the rest of 'em?

DRM Overview

Digital Rights Management

It's not like I had a cell phone as soon as I made my way out of the womb. I didn't get my first cell until I was in high school, yet since then, I can't imagine my life without one. Forgetting my cell phone at my apartment for a day kind of feels like forgetting my glasses for a day. I didn't grow up downloading music for free either, but I know living without free downloads would produce a similar affect. And somehow I doubt I'm the only one. If the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has it their way, I couldn't imagine breathing coming as naturally as it does now.

With digital rights management (DRM) creeping up on us otherwise law-abiding citizens, our lives as media pirates are under threat. Sure, it's doubtful that the free mp3 will ever dissolve completely, but publishers and copyright owners using DRM technologies could very well make finding your favorite artists' new album for nothing very difficult. How long will it take for most copyrighted files to be equipped with DRM technology? It's uncertain, but it might be creeping up quicker than we think, especially considering it has international legal backing.

We've already been exposed to some of these technologies. One of its earliest forms made VHS duplication almost impossible with Macrovision. And the conception of the compressed music file, mp3, came with its own anti-piracy counterpart. The most perceptible manifestation of mp3 anti-piracy is the protected AAC iTunes music store audio file, making their files incapable of being copied.

While bands like Metallica were fighting on the side of the RIAA, most of the public has unconsciously grouped together to demand free music. And others, are more consciously assembling to battle DRM.

You can't simply support free music and video with only "the I can't live without it" defense in your arsenal. So, in the next few months I will examine why we should and how we can keep the 'free' revolution alive. I'm Ryan Piccirillo and this is the Cutting Edge: DRM Blog. So let the blogging begin.

Welcome.