Almost exactly five years ago, Steve Jobs wrote "Thoughts on Music," a short essay arguing against DRM-encumbered music sales. "DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy," said Jobs, promising that Apple would embrace DRM-free music sales "in a heartbeat." The argument worked: iTunes began selling DRM-free music from EMI just a few months later and went completely DRM-free in 2009. Since that time, iTunes has become the biggest music store in the world, and every other major music retailer now sells DRM-free music for download. The success of DRM-free music sales would seemingly prove that a thriving digital economy does not require technological limitations on consumer behavior.
But a quick scan of the market reveals DRM is making a startling comeback as the media industry turns to new cloud-based distribution models. Scores of modernized DRM systems are behind some of the most successful media services on the market: Spotify, Rdio, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple all still use proprietary and incompatible DRM for music, movies, books, and apps, and the movie industry is pressing ahead with UltraViolet, the most ambitious and wide-ranging DRM system ever devised. DRM has become a foundational element of the consumer media experience, especially when it comes to streaming services; Apple's success in removing it from sales of downloaded music appears to have blinded the industry to its continued and growing use nearly everywhere else.
But as DRM becomes more and more pervasive, it paradoxically becomes less and less restrictive: iTunes makes it trivially easy to share apps, books, and movies between devices registered with Home Sharing, Netflix will now happily authorize 50 devices per user account even as it wraps each movie stream in Microsoft PlayReady DRM, and Spotify and Rdio users likely never consider the layer of DRM managing the music files they've synced for offline playback. (Spotify is particularly ironic: it delivers music in the open-source Ogg Vorbis format, but then wraps synced files in proprietary DRM that expires after 30 days unless the user re-connects to Spotify.) In fact, DRM has become so invisible to the user that one wonders why it's being used at all: as Jobs predicted, the use of DRM hasn't made even the slightest dent in media piracy, and it seems a silly waste of time and money to continue building DRM systems so advanced they appear to not exist in the first place. Modern DRM is invisible to the user and ignored by the thief.
Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than with UltraViolet, the universal DRM system and rights locker platform being pushed by a consortium of Hollywood studios and tech companies. A consumer who purchases an UltraViolet video receives a centralized rights token that enables any other UltraViolet-compatible app or service to play or stream that video, theoretically enabling direct price competition between retailers and broad compatibility between apps and devices that support UltraViolet. Along the way, no fewer than five different DRM systems are potentially engaged — UltraViolet isn't itself a new DRM system, but rather a coordinating service that links existing DRM systems together. This coordinating layer will indeed make it easier for consumers to shop for videos from a wider variety of retailers, and the idea of accessing video purchased from any service in a single location is a nice one, but UltraViolet's Mark Teitell admits the system won't stop determined pirates. "There are always going to be people who have time to mess around with BitTorrent."
So why even bother trying to coordinate DRM systems when dropping them altogether would be even simpler? Why did the movie industry spend several years and millions of dollars building a system no more effective at stopping theft and less flexible for consumers than no system at all? Teitell told us that without DRM, "the business of producing compelling video content couldn't pay for itself over time," and said that the "big guiding belief" behind UltraViolet is not stopping piracy, but rather presenting "a truly compelling legitimate alternative for those consumers that weren't fixated on stealing — they want freedom and flexibility, and we're giving that to them."
Asked why movie industry needs DRM while the music industry is doing fine without it, Teitell didn't have an answer — he simply said that while music and movies are similar in many ways, they're also different in many others. Instead, he encouraged us to focus on the things UltraViolet allows consumers to do, rather than the restrictions; remember, he said, "the R is for rights — people like rights. We have the Bill of Rights." Unfortunately, it would seem that the media industry has been busy imposing its own Bill of Rights Management.

There are 107 Comments. Add yours.
I don’t think companies will ever understand that they will never be able to stop piracy. Alot of these DRM methods just end up hurting the paying consumer.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:08 PM EST reply Recommend (26) Flag actions
Which then turns the paying consumer into a pirate.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:15 PM EST reply Recommend (51) Flag actions
Exactly, this stuff is obvious to us but apparently the people in charge of this stuff at companies just dont care.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:56 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That’s because the people heading these companies, by and large, are relics of a bygone era, when they had all the control.
Most of these people making decisions barely understand the new technology that they use to distribute their content, let alone the tools that the end-user uses to consume, remix, reuse, store and manipulate this content. I vividly remember when Dick Morris, former head guy at Universal said that he hated digital content and that he wanted to keep pressing CDs, as if that would reduce ‘piracy.’
Telling them that “hey, REMOVING things that allegedly ‘stop piracy’ from the content will actually make it sell more” is complete balderdash to these people.
Universal truths: you can’t teach a old dog, new tricks and you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. And you can add DRM to everything and it won’t stop ‘piracy.’
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 1:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, that is sort of what they’re trying to minimize, i.e. make the DRM not hurt the paying consumer. Nilay is right though – if you’re making a DRM that’s invisible to consumer why not remove it, after all the pirates will still find a way to pirate it.
I think ultimately they approach it from the wrong angle. They shouldn’t be making legitimate copies of movies (or music, or books) more restrictive, instead they should be making it more compelling to get the legitimate copies. Take UltraViolet for example – I imagine it will require UV compatible devices, meaning I might not even be able to play it on a bluray player I bought 4 years ago. On the other hand if I download a torrent I can play on any device. That’s what they need to concentrate on – figure out a way to allow me to pay for a movie and be able to watch on any screen I have in my possession, be it a smartphone, a TV, a computer or a tablet – that takes away the hassle of copying a torrented file. Make sure it serves a device optimized file at the highest possible quality – that takes away the pain of converting files for various devices. Attach this digital version to a physical copy if such exists – this gives extra incentive to those that still like to have physical media. For movies, remove all those stupid FBI warnings from movies and don’t disable the menu button until you’re done showing your logos – I want to hit play and start watching a movie not 3 minutes of warnings. Maybe some social integration (like after a movie present an optional dialog where you can rate it and review and send it to facebook/twitter/googleplus/etc.).
Point is, make me want to give you money for the convenience of having a legitimate copy of the media, instead of punishing me for it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:47 PM EST reply Recommend (20) Flag actions
I’m picturing this awesome product that you speak of (that will probably never exist) as some kind of central media server, hidden away in the basement but serving content to everything with a consistent interface. That would be awesome, something like Jarvis from Iron man (not as sophisticated in the AI realm for the time being obviously) So you could just say
“Jarvis play Iron Man 2 in the living room”
"Iron Man 2 is available from Amazon Streaming Video for $10.00 would you like to purchase and begin streaming? "
“Yes, thank you Jarvis”
…Le Streaming but not watching whole movie…
“Jarvis download that to the server for later”
“Very good sir”
…Le on lunch break…
“Jarvis resume playing Iron Man 2”
“Streaming from home server”
I know it probably won’t happen but consider for a second the lack of an actual limiting technology. Sure Siri is far from this level but everything else could easily be done with properly implemented interoperability.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I have that today (albeit with no voice control) in the form of an iMac hooked up to a Drobo that streams all of my movies/tvshows/music to any room in my house by way of an appletv being in every room.
The other thing I don’t have yet is a centralized search. If I want Iron Man 2 I need to look in each movie store and then ensure that said movie store delivers an iTunes compatible file. But if the Movie in question is available within iTunes (which most are) it actually behaves just as you described, streaming at first and downloads to the movie server for later all automatically.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Good Job .
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Fantastically put Ilia. I rarely buy DVDs because I don’t really have the room. And I try to avoid anything with DRM because you never know when you’ll want to change platforms (yes, I may ditch you one day Apple!).
If I start seeing DRM free movies and TV shows on amazon and iTunes I’ll be off to buy a big hard drive and some apple TVs, and I’ll be splashing out on films and shows galore.
Similar with audiobooks. I cannot be bothered to rip 15 CDs for the sake of one audiobook, so I don’t buy any.
Give me a reason to get my wallet out! And that reason is DRM free content! I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this.
As an aside, DRM could work for libraries. An eReader to borrow books on that auto delete after 2 weeks.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:27 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Spotify/Rdio/Netflix… are not download services but streaming services.
You’re not supposed to have any file. So no file => no file w/ DRM.
The fact that they protect their streaming with DRM-like technologies doesn’t really matter.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:18 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Well they do let you sync (download) but they do not let you purchase.
I don’t know how you enforce a subscription or rental download market without DRM and I’m ok with it there. But when PURCHASING content I deiagree with DRM and think it should be abolished.
I HATE that ther is DRM on the “digital copy” I BUY with with a blu ray or DVD.
If you own it you own it and it’s too way to rip dRM content so don’t bother paying the D licensing fee, Lower the price and make it dem free so you can always play it regardless of whether or not the company that owns your key goes belly up.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:01 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sorry about the typos. Proofreadz
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:02 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
You can even get around DRM for unlimited music subscriptions. Look at SoundTaxi software. Open the player it plays in (Rhapsody, Napster, etc), put it in SouindTaxi choose quality and wait and it’s now DRM free after the process. I think it plays the file and records it at your specified quality and format in the CPU somehow.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 7:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, at least for rdio, when you sync a song, a file is downloaded to your device. If you have an android device, on your SD card should be and rdio folder filled with DRM protected files.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
On contrary everybody understands that. It doesn’t mean they are willing to admit that. Especially majors. For services like Spotify piracy is less important because what they offer is not hurt by piracy so much. When you buy a subscription service you value is the access to the enormous music catalogue anywhere, anytime. No need to search or download, just listen. So, torrents simply don’t give you that flexibility.
With RIAA, contrary, pirated music is better alternative even in the terms of service, thanks to the stupid DRM restrictions they apply. But they need to vocalize the piracy threat as loud as they can as this is the cover that helps them to push all the crazy laws that help them to sustain their otherwise non-sustainable business model.
Do you really think they do not know they cannot win this fight? Of cause they do and this is for the best as they are using this as a lever to push in more and more crazy bills.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Aw so cute. You have an alot!
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:01 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Ha! You beat me to it. Long live the alot.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
actually i think they do understand that. the ultraviolet guy even said it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
R is for Restricting, not Rights. DRM will always present issues to the consumer.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:13 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Why? If you have access to your cloud books, musics and videos from anywhere on any devices, how is this an issue to the consumer?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apples DRM on music, FairPlay, was never a hinderence to me. But it is indeed nice to know its gone should I ever want to switch platforms.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:47 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I’m trying to think what platform you’re on that couldn’t play music from the iTunes Store (and can play music from other stores), but I can’t come up with one.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not anymore, no. This was more of an issue back when iTunes files did have DRM. Nowadays, lacking iTunes MP4 support could be a legitimate dealbreaker.
Obviously, this wasn’t always the case. Personally, I didn’t consider iTunes a real alternative to CDs until they dropped the DRM and upped the bitrates to 256k.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
My trusty 3Gs has finally bitten the bullet, and I’m looking to upgrade to the Galaxy Nexus for a change. My concern is I have a fair number of Audiobooks purchased from ITunes and have a bad feeling they’re not going to work on Android, can anyone confirm they’ll work, if Apple’s DRM prohibts this, I’m annoyed.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Burn ‘em to disc, rip again. That’s probably your only recourse.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Their stuff is DRM free, just try it first, then like below said, burning and ripping doesn’t sound too bad but try to get a converter first. dBpoweramp is a good one, and SoundTaxi works on DRM’d stuff. Not sure about audiobooks
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
danswain: iTunes audiobooks are from Audible, aren’t they? The Audible Android app is great.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Likewise. I had a total of three FairPlay-encumbered tracks back in the day. I don’t want to think about how many tracks I’ve gotten since Apple went DRM-free,
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“was” means past tense. When music was encumbered with FairPlay DRM, it would play on nothing but Apple devices.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because it restricts people to only using the content with certain applications that are able to work within the imposed restrictions.
If you have an unsupported platform, or want a local copy of content to use with an open source player, or you want to edit or transcode the content, etc., then you are out of luck.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:50 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It becomes an issue when company X, who you have paid good money to to purchase your media, goes out of business or elects to stop supporting your platform, and all of your purchases become useless.
Let’s see where pricing goes when people will only buy from HUGE players because every video file phones home for permission to play, and people are afraid to purchase from small players because they can’t be sure it will even exist in six months. That, I think, is where big media companies want the market to go. FUD around any media provision that doesn’t come through Amazon, Apple or the MPAA/RIAA.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, the R is for Rights, but they only restrict the rights. So maybe DRR would be more accurate.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I get what you’re saying, but you misunderstand DRM. It’s not for you; the consumer in this case is the owner of the property being copied. It’s the label’s “rights” that are being managed, not yours.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Spotify has to do that otherwise you could just browse its cache and you’d have the songs in Ogg format.
Ultraviolet on the other hand is the rebirth of satan.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:15 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Exactly. The fact that it caches local files is a huge plus in my opinion, and it doesn’t really matter if they’re encrypted. It saves bandwidth because you don’t have to stream each song every time you play it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yep. Rolling Spotify, Rdio, Netflix, and Amazon into this whole DRM argument is asinine. These four are offering subscription services, and they obviously have to police that somehow.
The DRM argument we have been talking about in the past was regarding the selling of media (read MP3 in case of music).
Ultraviolet can fall into the same category. The rest? Not so much.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I can — and have — bought a season of a TV show from Amazon streaming. It gives you the option to download the video through a desktop application. However, it’s wrapped in Windows-specific DRM. I’d say Amazon can also apply to that category.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The songs are still wrapped in DRM that expires if you don’t login for 30 days or do you mean it actually removes the arm in the cache?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Cloud services don’t really have DRMs because they don’t let you download any files but only stream them.
No one is downloading music from Spotify or movies from Netflix…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s absurd. Of course people are downloading them. If the streams came through in any raw format, someone could simply write a client that reassembles the raw stream into a standard video file.
Not that I would have a problem with that. I think if people could choose to buy any movie for about $4 (maybe up to $9 or so for new releases), and then either stream it or download it without any restrictions…the movie industry would be able to turn a decent profit.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s basically exactly what UltraViolet is supposed to do, you know.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, not at all.
I want to be able to have a local copy of the movie and play it on any player of my choice, including MPC-HC.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And assuming MPC-HC is updated to support the UV API, you’ll be able to do that.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think Apple will ever support UV. So there is another restriction…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
…because it would take business away from them. (at least from their point of view)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
More likely for the same reason they don’t support blue ray. There are technical implications of such support that encumber the hardware and the os based on it. There is no real benefit for them supporting something like that.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But in two years, when UV is obsolete, it won’t matter. People want unprotected media, because you can do whatever you want with it. Media companies hate unprotected media, because people can do whatever they want with it. That’s why piracy is so prevalent.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:39 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You assume too much. I can guarantee you most open source players will never support UV.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
In fact, I’d be surprised if any open sourced players are even ALLOWED to support UV. It would be simple enough to circumvent any restrictions if it was open source.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Nice sentiment, but its not going to happen is it? Especially for older devices or abandoned platforms like Harmattan/Meego.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
VLC Media Player for iPhone?
Whoops.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The sad thing is that all this is going to do is delay the inevitable, which is that artists will more and more turn to independant, DRM-free services because those will invariably be the (A) most popular and (B) most personally profitable. The music industry as a whole is on a downward slope because they failed to realize this, and now the film industry will follow.
The future of film and music is a world completely without major studios or labels. We won’t need them, and musicians and filmakers will make more money by avoiding them (and their ridiculously lopsided contracts) and finding ways to access music and film fans more directly. This will affect music almost not-at-all, as pretty much anyone with a macintosh and a decent microphone can produce studio-quality tracks nowadays. For film, it will mean the death of multi-million dollar affairs like The Lord of the Rings films, but the film industry, looking back, will ultimately only have itself to blame. I daresay the public will be better off for it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Been hearing basically the exact argument for over a decade now, hasn’t really happened yet, not really convinced that it will.
For starters, people want multimillion dollar affairs like Lord of the Rings, Transformers 3….ec. and they want extravagant arena rock shows like U2 or Lady Gaga, or Kanye West put on. Meanwhile, they don’t want “Band Spam” and sifting through tens of thousands of independent, probably crappy, “check out my band”, “Check out my song” collections of music.
If you remember, Myspace was heralded as being exactly the model you are describing. A place for independent bands to be heard and bypass the major label system by tapping into crowd sourced appeal. This is Pre-News Corp involvement even. It didn’t take long before the concept of “Band Spam” became one of the most despised acts on the site and they added automatic tools for filtering it out.
Don’t get me wrong, the Internet absolutely has that potential and there are more than a few success stories, from Arcade Fire to Justin Bieber, of people who used the internet to support their success. There are stories of guys like Louis CK, Radiohead, NIN, famously ‘going indie’ to great success, though it’s a little different when already established acts do it, it’s still an example of what is possible. There are communities all over the net dedicated to distributing, publishing and promoting independent music(and to a lesser degree, movies). But, for the most part, most of the time, most people just aren’t that interested, save for the occasional “Viral” sensation, and as best as I can tell, we’re not moving towards this any faster today than we were post-Napster when these arguments first started to show up.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well argued.
So is DRM what we have to look forward to? Are we destined never to truly own what we purchase? To in essence become a rental economy?
Makes me grumble, but perhaps it’s time to come to grips with it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Who knows. I think it is case-by-case. Different entertainment is similar in some respects, but usage is different as well. The massive amount of replay that your average song/album gets when you like it, I think, created a lot of pressure to remove DRM. Movies/games/books don’t necessarily have that same level of replay on average so there is, maybe, less pressure to remove DRM. Movies have a long history of being rented and no one minds that model for movies, so it stands to reason that will continue to develop, but digital rentals, at the moment, don’t really compare to physical discs from a quality standpoint.
Games, no one really minds DRM so long as it is steam-like and generally unobtrusive.
and Books, well… no one reads books anymore so who knows how that will pan out.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This will not happen. One of the things that is important to remember is these blockbusters also fund smaller films that don’t do as well. Their model is similar to the publishing industry. You rely on a small number of huge hits to bankroll you so that you can take the risk on smaller, more risky films. The music industry used to be the same way but they’ve seem to have decided to try and make every artists a quick hit now.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Spotify keeps an off-line cache of files to reduce bandwidth requirements. The location of this cache (and the size of it) is available and changeable in the settings. Without DRM, you could simply browse to the cache location and grab the files. Some files ARE local. The mobile app also offers off-line listening by downloading files to the local cache.
Not that I think they should be DRM’d, but this is why they are. Yet it doesn’t make a lot of sense because if you already have Spotify, you already have access to the music they are DRM’ing. But I suppose someone could begin a subscription, copy a bunch of files out, and then cancel. But this sort of trouble is no more difficult than using a stream recorder, which DRM doesn’t prevent. It’s all silly.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Gah, this was in response to gpmoo7, but someone replied while I was writing it so it lost the reply relationship.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Any way to reduce the size of Spotify’s cache on an iPhone? It’s been growing the more I use it, and I don’t have one of the huge storage iPhones.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I won’t buy digital movies with DRM. Bottom line. I’ll rent it (Netflix), but I won’t buy it. Your move, people that want my money.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:40 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
As long as a DRM system is as unobtrusive as and adds value like Steam, I won’t mind. I just want to use my content where ever I want and not have to repurchase it if something goes awry.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But that never happens. If you got the same game with no DRM (largely impossible, I know) you could install it wherever you wanted, as many times as you wanted. DRM always adds restrictions.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ah, but with Steam, I can redownload my games where ever to several different computers. Hard drive crash? You still have your games (and your game saves, depending on the game). There are restrictions, but I feel they are outweighed by the extra value provided by the platform.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The DRM itself doesn’t add anything to the platform though. Installs on any computer you want, saved games in the cloud and a good store front can happen without DRM.
STeam isn’t a great platform because it has DRM. It’s a great platform that happens to have DRM. The DRM itself doesn’t add any value.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I consider these things are actually part of the DRM (which isn’t necessarily the same as copy protection).
Steam knows who you are and knows you bought some content. Therefore when you want to redownload it, Steam knows you have the proper rights to get the content. In this way, DRM is actually what people love about Steam.
If you aren’t checking who is downloading and if they have rights to download, aren’t you basically Megaupload?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Checking if someone has the rights to download something is easy. You make them log in, check what titles that user has the rights to and make those files available to download. You don’t have to add any DRM software to the file itself.
With respect to copy protection, you’re right that DRM isn’t the same. Copy protection is only one aspect of DRM and it’s always there, but it’s ture intent is not to stop piracy, but shape how people willing to pay for your product use it. For example, locking you into their platform. By definition, DRM is designed to LIMIT the how the file can be used after it is purchased.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes. But in the case of Steam you can install it effectively everwhere, effectively as many times as you want.
AND you get automatic updates, Roaming save games and the community.
Biggest downsides I see are that you can’t really choose your language (on many titles anyway) and what happens if ever Steam goes down. Also their pricing…
I don’t like DRM. But if the restrictions are loose enough that I don’t run into them, I don’t mind.
Of course I’d always prefer non-DRM.
Just saying…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Steam’s biggest (only?) drawback is that it is a single platform. You are locked in.
What if there was a platform out there that aggregated various platforms into a single collection? If third parties could tap into that platform at will, providing different services and interfaces that use a common source?
That’s what I would like to see happen.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Never happen. If you abstract out the underlying service providers then why bother with them? They become dumb pipes essentially. Steam while a single service is on multiple platforms and even lets you, in many cases, install the same game on Windows and OS X. Steam handles DRM in a proper manner, the streaming service imho handle it as well. I am not paying to own the music in these cases.
As long as I have the option to use both types of services I am happy. If my only recourse was a streaming service I’d be unhappy. Some music I want to own, some I just want to hear now and then.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is the first I’ve heard of UltraViolet and it feels weird to admit that it sounds alright. Provided there are enough UltraViolet clients that it becomes as ubiquitous as something like Netflix, I’d be cool with this. It reminds me of Steam but for movies, which is something we all have wanted to see for a while. Here’s hoping it doesn’t come with the kind of crazy availability restrictions that affect Hulu and Netflix constantly.
Speaking of DRM and the cloud, reading this reminded me of this article from TechCrunch (RIP) about how DRM-less MP3 files being sold from places like iTunes are actually still being tagged with user-specific metadata, perhaps in preparation for some larger DRM enforcement scheme that we’d all be snagged in down the line:
Perhaps it’s a little tinfoil-hatty, but since reading that article I’ve only purchased MP3’s from Amazon. The music and recording industries can be embarrassingly desperate sometimes so I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt on this one
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Weird, I inserted the link but it didn’t show up in the post. Here’s the TechCrunch article:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/how-dirty-mp3-files-are-a-back-door-into-cloud-drm/
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I buy my blu rays usually 3 or 4 at a time from Amazon. I try to buy only the ones that offer the Blu-Ray, DVD, Digital Copy set. This is so I can load a decent quality copy into iTunes for streaming. One movie I didn’t buy was Green Lantern. Specifically and soley because it has a UV copy instead of an iTunes or WMP compatible digital copy. UV is the worst idea I’ve ever heard.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:58 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree with Nilay, as long as the major device platforms support UV (which is why they need itunes), the DRM sstem will be practically invisible to the end users. However, I don’t agree with his opinion that it doesn’t hinder piracy efforts. I think that a majority of users are just pirating because it simply the only way to get the content (low quality) they want to watch on all of the devices they have. If the UV system supported all the major platforms, I think it would go a long way for consumers to have their high quality content on all of their devices.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 1:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
At the same time, you can’t expect content producers to invest millions without having some security in their investment, weather effective today or not. DRM innovations/improvements will always run parallel to digital distribution.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, I absolutely agree. Just a waste of money: the pirates will pirate, and the rest of us will pay and use services that are convenient. But movies are not really suffering because of this, the interesting place for DRM is IMO books. Books are a place where DRM is still disastrously hindering competition. Strip DRM from books and Amazon’s monopoly goes away, for instance, because devices become interoperable with multiple different stores. That’s where I think there’s a real question of why, because DRM isn’t just an unnecessary expense, but a huge detriment to an industry, and yet, it remains.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:15 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
It is very odd that this is allowed. It’s like if Amazon sold books that are only compatible with proprietary Amazon Bookcases.
In the case of software, this type of restriction is a natural property of differing programming languages, the variety of which promotes competition. In the case of books however, the exclusivity is artificially induced to prevent competition, “locking in” consumers into a fixed eco-system.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, it is analogous in a lot of ways to what we saw in the music industry, with Apple’s DRM only working with iPods, Microsoft certifying devices for a wider ecosystem that never really took off. The only difference with books is that there are a couple of other, smaller sandboxed ecosystems to consider, Nook and Sony (and Kobo?). But that’s not a long term solution, and the sooner publishers realize that the better.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You mean how kindle books only work on kindles? It’s more that there is no agreed to format for handling ebooks. It’s still too new a technology I think and while epub is a standard it moves slowly and offers no reason for a big player to take part fully.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
DRM = Digital Restrictions Management – evil
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 2:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can have the greatest DRM system in the world, but all it takes is a laptop with an audio out port and a microphone port. Take a 3.5 millimeter to 3.5 millimeter cable and plug it in to each port, hit record in any recording software and hit play.
I don’t think that people should use this method but it still works.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That only shows that if someone wants to pirate, they can. Real piracy fighting efforts are to prevent one-clock access to pirated content. If you have to jump through 12 hoops, most people won’t bother and will just pay anyway or move onto something else.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:44 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Wouldn’t you be violating SOPA right now?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And I guarantee that most people would rather just download the song and be happy. The only way to combat piracy is to make the DRM transparent and the user experience simply and rock solid.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed. DRM is the wrong way to go about it.
What publishers need to implement is a system that is more flexible, more efficient and more enjoyable than pirating. This really isn’t too difficult to implement:
1. Flexibility – Enable playback of media purchased from any service. A purchase provides access to a work, not a proprietary format.
2. Efficiency – Enable instant playback of content, with ability to store local copy
3. Enjoyable – How many media management software exist out there? Make the system open for third parties to implement competing interfaces that access the same information. My Xbox should be able to enter the same media collection as my iPad or my PC.
Such a system also has the distinct advantage for the user of necessitating far less storage space, since an entire media collection can be safely stored in the cloud.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Considering music is already DRM-free, it demonstrates that the problem with your third point isn’t the studios, but consumer electronic companies have their own interests to promote their own businesses.
Why doesn’t Apple let Microsoft access music from iCloud? Because its not in Apple’s best interest to do so.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:46 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Netflix, Pandora, and Spotify are DRM done right. They are so easy to use that I will often turn to them because firing them up and finding the content I want is quicker on them than even iTunes. If there are restrictions I never really notice them. You just open them on whatever computer, mobile device, or consumer electronics gear you have in front of you and start watching or listening.
But this seamless experience could not happen without the DRM layer. Subscription services are just like going to a buffet. It’s all you can eat… as long as you are in the restaurant and they are open for business. It’s not all you can eat in the restaurant plus all you care to take home to store in your freezer to eat later. Without DRM a significant number of people would load up their plates and take all that content home and stop paying the monthly fee. eMusic tried something like this in its very early days and it was a disaster. For 10 bucks a month you could literally copy all the music you wanted and then end your subscription having made out like a bandit. They quickly had to transition to a subscription/limited download hybrid model which served them well for 5 or 6 years.
I hate DRM on purchased music and movies as much as the next guy, but DRM is what makes streaming based subscription services possible. It’s an evil I am more than willing to live with because I never even notice it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
DRM is accepted when its packaged with a service that has evolved with the times. Unlimited music, video, and audio books per month for 1 flat rate? Thats ok.
My issue is with corporations who still want to sell us media like it was 1999. That was a time when I had to carefully choose what I wanted to watch, because media wasn’t as available to me. Media consumption is at an all time high, I can burn through a season of Sports Night in a weekend and then move on to the next show I want to catch up on. I can’t afford to pay $40 per season, so if its not on Netflix or Hulu, then I unfortunately resort to piracy.
I want to give people my money for the content they create. Just meet me halfway, offer me your content for a monthly price and I will stream the heck out of it. Until then, I’m not spending $160 dollars just to catch up on The Big Bang Theory.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Bill of Rights Management” – Gold! Seems like that’s what the US government does these days too. Party doesn’t matter. Just about everyone voted for the Patriot act, the NDAA bill with indefinite detention of US citizens, SOPA, the Sedition Act, etc.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the big difference between first generation DRM and current DRM systems is the concept of licensed device vs. licensed user. First generation DRM locked media to a specific device – one media player, one PC, etc. Apple started the shift and current cloud-based solutions have furthered the trend that a USER purchases the right to consume the media (not a device), and therefore should be able to consume that media on any device or multiple devices.
I think the concept of “ownership” has also changed. We went from a time when you owned the physical media for your music, movies, books, etc. With services like NetFlix, Spotify, etc. there is no preconceived notion of ownership – you’re not buying the music, you’re buying access to the music service.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Wow an amazing article or should I say post. I believe the number one reason people Pirate anything is because its easy. I can get it on my computer and assortment of devices with ease. DRM and other methods used make it very difficult or nearly impossible to play or an assortment of devices. As consumers buy more and more gadgets that can play video they want options. The music industry finally learned that. I download an album from itunes and i can navigate to the folder and play that music on any device that’s not a iDevice. Hopefully the movie industry learns that quick,
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Steam – While the unlimited downloads are really good, I don’t like that I can’t share the files. Both me and a friend bought a game, we were going to play co-op. I am fortunate enough to have a decent Internet connection at home. The game was a 7GB download, I was able to download it over night, and install it. My friend lives in another city, the only ‘broadband’ he cant get at his place is a wireless connection, he can download around 3GB a month. So I backed-up my copy of the game and burned it to a couple of DVDs and posted them to him.
He got the DVDs and started the restore using steam. But while he owned the game in Steam, he wasn’t able to load the game from my backup. There was DRM on the backup linking it to my account. It didn’t matter that he had purchased the exact same game. We tried getting around it by starting the download so Steam prepared the local files, then tried restoring for the backup. In the end, I gave him my account, he logged on as myself, and installed the game from the backups. Logged out of the Steam and logged back on with his own account. Steam recognised he owned the game and allowed him to play it.
If both of us had had pirated the game we wouldn’t have had to do this little song and dance of accounts and authentication to Steam. But really this isn’t so bad.
Where DRM gets insidious is in things like Blu-rays and DVDs. The incredibly simple, yet infuriating act of stopping people from skipping the Copyright warnings and promotional content at the start of a Blu-ray you have purchased makes no sense. It penalises the people who have paid for the content, those that pirate the content don’t get the rude interruption. Even worse is when the Blu-ray downloads a preview from the Internet using a finite resource that costs money, without asking, and without the ability to skip.
Ultraviolet is just the next PlaysForSure. A ‘universal’ DRM system that will work ‘anywhere’ and be so transparent that users won’t be inhibited by it. All of which have proven to be untrue before, and there is no reason why this will be any different now. Like PlaysForSure it is only a matter of time till the servers are turned off, and the licenses expire. Licenses people have spent money on in the belief they will work indefinitely.
DRM is evil. It limits fair use, inhibits the people who purchase content while not affecting those who pirate the content, and does nothing limit piracy at all.
If anything like SOPA or PIPA ever get up as laws, can we get a law going that bans the use of all DRM?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you sure that isn’t because Steam backs up your saves so it is tied to your user?
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The movie industry is swimming against the current. They should facilitate distribution and availability of their content and bring us new experiences (like being able to stream new releases at home). Piracy is not the enemy. The Movie industry’s unwillingness to change is the problem.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except Ultraviolet SUCKS! They have a dumb Adobe Air app that doesn’t even work, the stream is slow and the download is slower, and the only way I’ve figured out how to get it on my TV is iPad Mirroring, which looks terrible. Not to mention that you have to set up 3 or so accounts to get it to work.
I had to get it to work on my copy of Deathly Hallows Part 2. I will never buy UV content again.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Since when is “m4a” encoding not seen as DRM ?
They made that codec for their devices, i don’t see how saying “ohw yeah, we don’t have DRM, but only for our devices” counts as selling DRM-Free Music.
Although you could say this is DRM’less since almost anyone in the 1’st world has an apple music player.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My Android phone plays m4a just fine. Since iTunes moved to no DRM I have actually started buying songs from them, as they do play on most of the devices (Only a Cowon I have that doesn’t support m4a / acc).
FairPlay was the DRM of choice for Apple, and while it played on an authorized device, it wouldn’t play on anything like a Logitech Squeezebox or Android phone.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
m4a is AAC which is standardized format based on mpeg-4(i think.) The DRM from Apple is called FairPlay but was removed for music downloads a number of years ago. The DRM’d file was mp4 IIRC.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As long as I can watch what I want when I want where I want from the device I want the world over, online or cached for later viewing, I’m happy to pay. But not happy having this service and that service then another service and yet another service to get that content which I’d be fine with if I could simply link all those services into one framework like Xbox 360 and WinPho etc then just go to music for music and movies for movies all with the same interface hiding the underlying services. In essence, the future is hubs with tied in services of my choice be they all you can eat or ale cart. I don’t care where it comes from and currently the easiest solution to the above is magnet links…..argh me hearties!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What an absurd article. Apple sells music WITHOUT DRM. They are in the completely open standard AAC format.
In fact, if you join iTunes’s new icloud service, you can get your entire music collection upgraded to the open standard AAC format.
AAC can be read by any sound editor, like Amadeus, on the Mac and on PCs. It can even be played by Adobe Flash.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah I didn’t quite get that – how can you say Apple is selling music with DRM? Also pretty much any device made in the last 10 years can playback m4a, which is the standard container for audio mpeg4 AAC — Nero’s AAC uses it as well.
Since iTunes upped the quality and went completely DRM-free, they’re probably the best store out there. The ease of use, quality and metadata (digital booklets, iTunes LP, cover art quality) all put it up there.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 9:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m perfectly fine with DRM as long as it is invisible to the legitimate user. Paying customers should not have to deal with the side effects of DRM, it should target illegitimate uses of the content alone.
The paying customer should be prioritised in this matter, if it means you can’t have more restricted (and perhaps effective) DRM, then so be it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t have much of an issue with this new type of “cloud DRM.” Like other people have said, as long as the provider lets me access the content on any device/app I want, then I couldn’t care less. Perfect examples of this are netflix and kindle.
My only issue is when you subscribe to these services or purchase this content and then can’t access it where you want. For example, I’m a wp7 owner with a zune pass. I can stream/download any song I want on my phone and my PC. I can technically stream any song from zune.net on my mac, but there is no Zune player for the mac so I can’t download music to it. In addition, there is no way to either stream/download/use my zune pass on my Xoom or iPad. I can’t transfer my downloaded songs and use a service like google music or icloud for those devices either because all zune pass songs do have DRM.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
IMO something similer to steam would be good. and drm and copy protechtion typicaly just annoy me, like you cant playback a bluray with a vga connected monitor :|. And that hasnt worked at ALL to stop piracy
So have a central server, which has all the films (in a variety of formats/quality and resolutions), then every purchase you make gives you a cd key, and depending on the package give you access to DVD, mobile, HD, etc. could offer a “lifetime” package so your content will get updated to 4k etc in future.
the system would need a way where you can enter username/password/etc so it can just be forced to play on some device or software. Biggest issue with DRM of the past being it just refusing to playback.
The film companies would also need to do a ton of value add stuff to films and other content, which is what steam does for games. the bought version needs tobe better than pirate version
oh and on the steam thing, i often download from a different pc, and you can just copy the game files from \steamapps\common\ to another pc then do download/verify game files and it should be fine :).
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 2:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think DRM has really changed must recently and like others have said, I don’t mind DRM at all on the “cloud” services. MOG, Rdio and Spotify all need to use it since they are just renting the music, but they all make every effort to have that music available to you on all your devices. Same thing with Netflix.
But the movie industry is just clueless with buying, which is how it has been since they started selling movies digitally. I really respect what Louis CK did with his recent video release — cheap, no DRM, good quality and can be played anywhere! And see how much money he made? Take note movie industry, take note. What he did is exactly what we need to see to some degree.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 9:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ll try to help the UV chap: music has a strong ‘ownership’ perceptual and ‘library building’ properties to it, hence most folks feel OK about pay-to-own, and DRM gets in the way of that perception. TV and movies have a watch-and-forget relationship with consumers, which makes’em more prone to piracy. And that’s why a light-touch DRM is perceived as necessary in the video space. DRM is about ‘keeping the honest folks honest’ :-)
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The Movie and TV industries don’t seem to understand the biggest motivation for piracy. Access to the content. Example – Sherlock Holmes. If I want to watch this in the US my option is either wait until May for it to come to the US or download a torrent of the series. Same problem with many japanese anime. They do things like this because of money, they think they can make more by making people wait or doing region restrictions. What they don’t realize is if they gave equal access to the content which is easy enough to do today they’d make a metric buttload of money.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 12:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am a technical consultant at File Secure Pro, a drm vendor. IP protection of PDF ebooks is our core business. I saw a comment in response to this article that claimed no one reads books anymore. If Apple thought that, why is the Ipad selling so well? Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook speculates iPads may shake up the PC industry. People read and people pirate. So what can be done? ReDigi, a file-sharing technology company, developed a perfect answer to the old hard copy economy. ReDigi creates a secondary market for digital copy owners. However, Capitol Records is suing ReDigi for copyright infringement. I think Capitol is missing a golden opportunity. ReDigi’s cloud model is a good answer to piracy. If ReDigi negotiates a residual royalties system with IP stakeholders, it would satisfy the middlemen and give the end user something beyond the right to experience the IP. Digital media will fetch more revenue for the same IP than the traditional print in the long term. The best consequence of ReDigi’s service is that it works against the Kim Dotcoms who profiteered stolen IP. Nonetheless, the best way to understand why IP creators want drm is to take the financial risk and time investment to create a compelling digital product only to learn you pampered a thief at the cost of your commercial success.
Posted on Feb 18, 2012 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.