iTunes (5) & DRM: really secure?
One of today's MacRumors stories got me thinking about the reality, or even necessity, of digital media security technology. Of course, the watermark concept (Verance, Sarnoff, etc.) is not new, and long before the digital video industry embraced it, pre-digital companies were phase-shifting VHS frames to avoid unauthorized duplication (something that was also quickly breached, now even legally by Go Video et al. under the "legal home-use copy" law). It seems that media security technology is both developed and breached in parallel.
Once something enters the digital domain, even a book now, it's open season. Even IBM's efforts years ago had little effect. But the interesting thing is that DRM technology, at least in theory, is there to guard against only those who would obtain an unauthorized copy. "Law-abiders" aren't an issue, much as a magnetic strip hidden in a paper book doesn't apply to you if you're not planning to shoplift. Yet it's this unauthorized consumer subset that can and would crack security in the first place. Catch-22? Pundits seem to think so.
Perhaps a benefit of DRM technology is to coax record companies and artists to publish digitally, expanding the variety of released digital content (although this would seem under a false sense of security). Also, and I'm thinking on the fly here, maybe digital security might push those in the moral "grey zone" into buying rather than copying if it were relatively transparent (who wants to enter a decryption password every time a song is played?). This is obviously not a new debate, but Apple and others, as current rumors still suggest, are still pursuing that golden nugget. Perhaps DRM is like treating herpes; you can't win, but at least you can partially control the problem.
Sorry for the long post. It's an interesting issue, though, and I only know a little about it. Any thoughts? Is transparent but secure DRM technology a possiblity?
Once something enters the digital domain, even a book now, it's open season. Even IBM's efforts years ago had little effect. But the interesting thing is that DRM technology, at least in theory, is there to guard against only those who would obtain an unauthorized copy. "Law-abiders" aren't an issue, much as a magnetic strip hidden in a paper book doesn't apply to you if you're not planning to shoplift. Yet it's this unauthorized consumer subset that can and would crack security in the first place. Catch-22? Pundits seem to think so.
Perhaps a benefit of DRM technology is to coax record companies and artists to publish digitally, expanding the variety of released digital content (although this would seem under a false sense of security). Also, and I'm thinking on the fly here, maybe digital security might push those in the moral "grey zone" into buying rather than copying if it were relatively transparent (who wants to enter a decryption password every time a song is played?). This is obviously not a new debate, but Apple and others, as current rumors still suggest, are still pursuing that golden nugget. Perhaps DRM is like treating herpes; you can't win, but at least you can partially control the problem.
Sorry for the long post. It's an interesting issue, though, and I only know a little about it. Any thoughts? Is transparent but secure DRM technology a possiblity?
Comments
I think that NGSCB(Palladium) is going way too far it the wrong direction. DRM is great when it doesn't harm the consumer. It should harm the pirate, but balancing the two is incredibly difficult.
Correct me if I got that wrong. At any rate, security measures should not be tied to the OS, restricting the pirate, not the average consumer.
Originally posted by CubeDude
DRM is great when it doesn't harm the consumer.
DRM is NEVER great. It's always bad. Wake up.
That said, some DRM (like iTunes) is not as bad as others (Palladium)
Barto
Originally posted by Kabeyun
Perhaps a benefit of DRM technology is to coax record companies and artists to publish digitally, expanding the variety of released digital content (although this would seem under a false sense of security).
I think this is what Apple may be doing; they're paying lip service to the labels by using DRM, but they don't expect it to actually work.
Originally posted by Kabeyun
If I understand it correctly, Palladium is basically a bunch of "trusted" NCAs running on top of a kernel; the "secure" side of Windoze. Anyone who wants to utilize Palladium's security fratures will have to call the NGSCB's API's.
For an extensive (anti)Palladium documentation, see here
Perhaps Apple was forced to rethink its DRM for iTunes due to the process of creating an iTunes for WinXP (a process that is probably much more difficult than people imagine). Or... The music industry demanded more security for the WinXP iTunes.
It would be very funny if Mac users got to keep their relaxed and effortless DRM, but Wintel trash had to accept much more draconian measures!
Of course, like most of Apple's plans, I think that we probably won't know what they're really doing until they introduce some killer application / hardware.
Originally posted by Barto
DRM is NEVER great. It's always bad. Wake up.
That said, some DRM (like iTunes) is not as bad as others (Palladium)
Barto
If you are a pirate(I'm not saying you are), and DRM stops you from pirating music/movies/etc., than that DRM is doing its job. If you are a consumer trying to, say, move the latest *insert band here* CD to an iPod, and DRM gets in your way, than it has gone too far.
See where I'm going with this?
Originally posted by dws
It would be very funny if Mac users got to keep their relaxed and effortless DRM, but Wintel trash had to accept much more draconian measures!
Draconian is right! (Thanks for the link, PB.) I didn't realize that part of Micros**t's plan is for vendors apps to be able to secretly communicate to vendors (beyon so-called "spyware") and for YOUR DIRECTORY to be scanned and altered if necessary. Windoze is already pretty Big Brother when it comes to (re-)installs, but this is downright scary. Does the sacrosanct presumption of privacy apply here? As CubeDude said, can't harm the average consumer.
Originally posted by CubeDude
See where I'm going with this?
NO, I don't.
You might enjoy being ****ed up the ass by 1850s style corporatism, but I don't.
DRM is a power grab, and consumers are forced to do what the "intellectual property holders" want them to do with products. This ****s over completely modern economics, and reduces our standard of living.
Barto
If you're concerned about pirates getting screwed by DRM, than I am against you. Pirating is wrong, no matter what the RIAA does. No matter how expensive CD's are getting.
Anything that restricts the actions of the consumer hurts our SoL. As does the massive reduction in competition resulting from a "piracy is wrong" attitude to intellectual property.
Barto
It's just like stealing from Barnes & Noble. While I don't agree with what the RIAA is doing to counter piracy, piracy is still wrong. It's theft. Sure, they ripped us off for years with price increases, which they are guilty of, but Apple has brought the price of music back to a resonable level. I understand that you are in Australia, so you can't access the iTMS.
Your second point, that anything that screws the consumer hurts our SoL, is correct. But not all DRM does that. I know I sound like an Apple-ite(and I am), but FairPlay is a balanced system. It isn't restrictive to the average consumer, who probably has, at most, two computers. Most people who post at this board proabaly aren't average consumers. We don't just walk into a store and buy what the sales person tells us. We look into what is the best.
Most consumers aren't tech-savvy, so they have no reason to get even two computers. To them, FairPlay will not do anything to restrict them. Burn to virtually unlimited CD's, transfer to unlimited iPod's, transfer to up to three computers. If the average consumer has 1 computer, than FairPlay can do nothing to harm them.
I realize that if the consumer has, say, a Rio, which prevents them from playing iTMS songs on it, that AAC has gotten in their way, but that is not FairPlay's fault.
Originally posted by Barto
DRM is a power grab, and consumers are forced to do what the "intellectual property holders" want them to do with products. This ****s over completely modern economics, and reduces our standard of living.
That's a pretty severe view, but I see your point. MacRumors posted a story a while back referencing a good bit of reporting on CDbaby.net. Unfortunately the story's gone now, but the gist was that Apple had really tried to enable artists, especially smaller independent ones, and give them not only $cash but a fair shake. In a way, this actually augments competition. A power grab? Perhaps, but I think I prefer Apple's style over UberGates.
I think a common view is that, while DRM is still quite flawed, Apple's move is an OK first step. So far, I haven't seen iTunes corrupt the young, cause outbreaks of plague, or reduce the SoL. Yet. If you were a struggling artist who'd finally released a hit single that was being raped for free over the internet, what would you suggest? I mean, I don't mind paying for someone's work & creativity, but, like you, I WON'T be told how many times or places I may enjoy it, and I ABSOLUTELY won't be spied on to find out what I've got.
Originally posted by Kabeyun
Yet. If you were a struggling artist who'd finally released a hit single that was being raped for free over the internet, what would you suggest?
To make money from music, you essentially need two things (in order).
1) Exposure to your product. Most effective is having consumer using your product somehow. Traditionally, this has been done (in music) through radio. Now, the vast majority of exposure takes place over P2P.
2) Consumers able and willing to buy your product. The problem with music at the moment is the lack of this. You have exposure through P2P, but no income. This reduces the incentive to create music from zero under the studio system, to zero under P2P.
iTunes Music Store goes a long way to providing #2.
iTunes 4 DRM is very mild, and not corrupting generations of youth (except CubeDude). It's not good, but it's not the evil hellspawn Palladium is.
CubeDude, you are lost in a wilderness of youthful ignorance and assumption. "Piracy" is not theft. At all. "Piracy" has been applied to copyright violation for centuaries, but if your attitude of "copyright violation is theft" was how the world operated, the world simply wouldn't operate. No-one would make money because virtually everything infringes on some intellectual property, and no exposure would be gained of a particular product.
Not to mention a world devoid of culture. Try reading your constitution some time, and see what it has to say about intellectual "property".
Barto
Origianally posted by Kabeyun:
I think a common view is that, while DRM is still quite flawed, Apple's move is an OK first step. So far, I haven't seen iTunes corrupt the young, cause outbreaks of plague, or reduce the SoL. Yet. If you were a struggling artist who'd finally released a hit single that was being raped for free over the internet, what would you suggest? I mean, I don't mind paying for someone's work & creativity, but, like you, I WON'T be told how many times or places I may enjoy it, and I ABSOLUTELY won't be spied on to find out what I've got.
I too don't want to be told how to listen to my music. Only fools do. I pay for all my music, wether it is at iTMS or retail, and I am glad that the artist gets what they deserve. I don't care if the label gets their cut, but the artist deserves a large cut of profits.
OT:Frankly, I wish Apple would become their own mini-label, where Apple takes $0.29 and the artist got $0.70. It would be great for small garage bands who have no chance of getting a contract with the Big 5. Their music would go right up to iTMS, and get almost as much coverage as hugely popular artists like Smash Mouth and Eminem.
Originally posted by CubeDude
Tell me how DRM is corrupting me. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't pirate music from artists who have worked to get to where they are. If you get right down to it, depriving artists of money they work to get is the same as stealing.
I'm being deprived of money because people don't send me money for every little thing I do which helps them in some way! YOU are stealing from me by not sending me money right now!
By shutting down piracy, you would probably be depriving artists of money by reducing their exposure.
Barto