DRM is Evil?

Digital Rights Management (DRM) Is Evil?

Is DRM Evil? – Digital Rights Management, is merely a method of protecting content from piracy…or is it? Is DRM used by Apple, Microsoft, Sony really protecting their software/products from piracy or is it a way of control?

The word ‘evil’ in the title suggests something of a sinister nature However, in reality Digital Rights Management, is merely a method of protecting content from piracy…or so we are led to believe.
In this essay I will discuss how DRM is evil, or whether it is just a misuse of the word ‘evil’ or if DRM is beneficial. To do this I will look at evidence from various readings, and also personal research. This essay will define what DRM is and how it is part of our culture. Additionally I will discuss the word ‘evil’ in reference to DRM. Finally, a considered conclusion why we should agree or disagree that DRM is evil.
According to the BBC website, “Digital Rights Management, or DRM, is a class of technologies that allow rights owners to set and enforce terms by which people use their intellectual property.” (2007). I believe that artists and software developers etc should be able to protect their work from being copied. This is why there are the various laws regarding copyright. On the other hand DRM provides little or no protection from piracy. We know this is true because many of the DRM protection systems have been broken. For example the copy protection for DVDs was ‘cracked’ by a 16 year old from Norway. There have also been various reports of Apple’s and Microsoft’s’ DRM technologies being ‘cracked’.

DRM relies on trust, whereby the user will not attempt to remove the copy protection. Kevin Mitnick, a convicted hacker, states “there is no technology in the world that can prevent a social engineering attack” (2003, 245). Mitnick is referring to humans being the weakest link in digital security; we can see a parallel with DRM, because there is always someone wanting to break the copy protection, no matter what technologies companies use to prevent piracy. Eventually the copy protection is broken.
The downside to this is that all consumers are regarded as potential criminals because when they purchase music with DRM, the consumer is given guidelines, or rules, on what they can and cannot do with the music. An example of a guideline: “Copy your music to three computers.” (Napster, 2007) This implies that the track you (the consumer) purchased can only be downloaded 3 times. This can also cause a problem. For instance a person has 2 computers, and they have the track on both computers, then one of the hard drives fails, they re-download that track, and the limit to download that track has been reached. Nevertheless, if anything else goes wrong, the consumer cannot download it anymore times, without purchasing it again. Dan Glickman, Motion Picture Association of America states that “Content owners use DRMs because it provides casual, honest users with guidelines for using and consuming content based on the usage rights that were acquired” But why give the consumer guidelines? This implies that the companies think consumers are all out to break the copy protection, when in reality; the average user would not commit piracy, even if there were no DRM on the media.

In Lawrence Lessig’s, The Future of Ideas, Lessig introduces some interesting ideas, for example “Think about the ads from Apple Computer urging that “consumers” do more than simply consume: Rip, mix, burn Apple instructs. After all, it’s your music” (2001, p.9). Lessig suggests that Apple claims the consumer has control over the music, allowing them to be creative, however, if the music contains DRM that would be against the guidelines, to rip, let alone mix the music, even though they have purchased it! In my view, you cannot just copy music and then sell it off as your own, that is wrong, and it is not creative. One of the Free Software Foundation Blogs supports this by saying “The Point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of data they have; I can’t imagine what’s good about that” (Brett, 2006). DRM restricts creativeness, thus it is evil; denying the opportunity to creative new ideas.

In Lessig’s other book, Free culture, he refers protecting intellectual property (something that someone has created) so much, that they are loosing the value of creativeness: “intellectual property is an instrument. It sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this turned around. We have become so concerned with protecting the instrument that we are losing sight of the value.” (Lessig, 2004, 19). This demonstrates that some people think their product is so valuable, that they will do anything to protect it, by using DRM, but it has the potential to be even more valuable if it was not protected by DRM.

How do we define ‘evil’ in the context of this essay according to Wikipedia “evil refers to the morally or ethically objectionable behaviour or thought; behaviour or thought which is hateful, cruel, excessively sexual, or violent, devoid of conscience” (Wikipedia, 2006). So to what extent can this be definition be applied to DRM. In view of the fact that DRM is essentially code, how can code be described as evil? Code is essentially words that a programmer has entered into the computer, which the computer interprets into something that the computer can understand. How can it be something that is in words be evil? Take a piece of paper; it can be evil…by what is written on it. The same goes for code: for example it could be said that not only how it is written, such as viruses are created to destroy data, which can be in effect be evil, but also how the code is used. DRM can be used in an evil way, as discussed earlier by restricting creativity, but also in other ways.

DRM is a contrived way of locking us consumers into various products, especially more so in the music download industry. This in turn making DRM evil by forcing people to continue purchasing music from their stores: just because their music player plays music from that company’s store. A good example of this is Apple and its’ iTunes music store. Only Apple iPods can play music from the iTunes. No other MP3 player from another manufacturer can play them. Steve Jobs, of Apple Computers supports this “Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods” (Jobs, 2007).

However, in the same article ‘Apple- Thoughts on Music’ he seems to imply that users are not locked into iTunes :
“3% of the music on the average iPod is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.” (Jobs, 2007)
The point Steve Jobs misses, is that he says “iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future” (2007) but the music they purchased from the iTunes store would not be playable on another player again, unless the customer bought music again, from another place, therefore they have to have to purchase iPods. Also, jobs from what job’s says, they are only estimates, and iPods range in various memory capacities. This supports the idea that DRM is evil, because you are in effect locked into a particular company or store.

Recently, Apple iTunes store announced it would sell DRM free music, but at a higher cost. We are going to give iTunes customers a choice—the current versions of our songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free versions of the same songs with even higher audio quality and the security of interoperability for just 30 cents more,” (Jobs , 2007) It is interesting too see that Apple are offering higher quality music, without DRM. Wouldn’t it of been better to offer the DRM free music at a lower quality than that off the DRM music? It would seem so, but selling DRM free music for a 30 cents more is a method of selling ‘freedom’ of lock-in to Apple’s iTunes. However Apple tries to disguise this by offering a higher bit rate, which in effect is evil! Additionally, offering DRM free would encourage more people to buy from iTunes, when in reality, they are essentially being locked into iTunes, because they are ‘DRM-Free’.
Apple is not the only major company which uses DRM to ‘lock’ consumers into its product. Another notorious company is Microsoft. In Microsoft’s latest operating system, Windows Vista, Microsoft has implemented a DRM that:

“unless you have a display device that is equipped with specific technology intended to foil recording, the operating system will degrade the image quality so bit for bit copies cannot be made… considering that almost NO monitors are currently shipping with this technology, it means that if you want to view a movie off a HD-DVD as it is encoded, or stream HD content from a Blue-Ray disk to a display, the operating system will kill the video outputs and give you nothing.” (Carver, 2005)

Therefore, you have to have specific hardware to view DRM video. Additionally, we could say from this that their maybe an underlying reason for Microsoft’s implementation of the DRM. Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager for Microsoft claims that they had to implement this because of the Film Industry. To view the content, new hardware (as stated previously) is required, with the hardware, Windows requires drivers, and these company’s that produce the drivers have to be ‘approved’ by Microsoft, however Dave Marsh claims, in response to accusations that the DRM and its specialist drivers would affect performance of Windows: “that if anything they will have the opposite effect, for example because they will lead to better driver quality control” (Marsh, 2007) However, this statement is weak because Microsoft have overall control because it ‘approves’ which developers can write drivers for Windows.

According Bruce Schneier , a security technologist, “ Microsoft could have easily told the entertainment industry that it was not going to deliberately cripple its operating system…With 95% of the operating system market, where else would Hollywood go?…in the end Microsoft is going to end up locking the movie companies into selling content in its proprietary formats.” Thus re-enforcing that companies use DRM for locking others into their products, which is evil. We could say companies use DRM as a tool to have world domination: “what’s in it for Microsoft and Apple? The answer here is very simple – world domination. Computer companies like Apple and Microsoft try to control the software that forms the basis for everything people do. They do not want open standards they want their stuff to be the de-facto standard and then maybe they will license it or portions of it.” (Mediaholic, 2006) We could say that the use of DRM that is not for its intended purpose (protecting artists and developers work) is evil and just an excuse to block competitors in an underhand way…by ‘protecting’ content with DRM.

Lessig further supports this idea “Control, however is precisely Hollywood’s and the recording label’s objective…the industry has been very clear…aims to distribute content unless that start-up has the approval of the recording industry.” (Lessig, 2004, 200).
This returns to the concept of control in DRM. As discussed earlier it was outlined that when a customer purchases a track, they are limited to how they can use their music or video. These restrictions include only being able to played on various devices, the number of times it can be downloaded etc. Why should we be limited to something that we have purchased legally?

I find it frustrating that I cannot play music on one device but not another even though I purchased it legally. Lessig supports this argument saying that “Copyright protection systems [DRM] can limit the fair use…” (Lessig, 2004, 256). Limiting the consumer is evil, if the music was DRM it could be played fine, so having DRM brings control on the consumer.
Another example is users who have PSP and wish to view DVD videos that they have purchased on their PSP, they have to purchase the DVD in the PSP, it would be illegal to put the DVD on their PSP, this is a method of control, and gaining money, which is unnecessary. DRM should enable us to make copies of our legally purchased DVDs saving us having to re-purchase the same thing.

DRM has been tried, although unsuccessfully on CDs in an attempt to stop users from ripping music to their pc. One of the most renowned examples is when Sony attempted to include DRM to some of its CDs. This caused some problems because the CDs would not play in normal CD players, and also the DRM could be bypassed by simply holding down the shift key on the keyboard. However, this was not the main problem; it installed software without the user’s permission. Not only installed the software without users permission, but this software was a toolkit: “toot kit, which is a set of tools commonly used to make certain files and processes undetectable, and they’re the favored tool of crackers” (Wood, M, 2005) This software is a form of a backdoor, enabling to creator of the tool kit to have access to your computer without your knowledge let alone your permission.

However, this from of DRM was very clever, if you tried disabling the software, it would retaliate by disabling your CD drive! “You buy a CD. You put the CD into your PC in order to enjoy your music. Sony grabs this opportunity to sneak into your house like a virus and set up camp, and it leaves the backdoor open so that Sony or any other enterprising intruder can follow and have the run of the place. If you try to kick Sony out, it trashes the place.” (Wood, M, 2005)
This shows that DRM can also be used as a method of gaining access to computers, and if it you attempt to stop it, it will ‘bite you back’ which is companies have no right to do so. Also this proves a major security risk because if the DRM had a flaw in it, and it vulnerability was discovered, it has the potential to be disastrous because every computer with that DRM can be exploited in whichever way the attacker see’s fit. To make matters worse, in Sony’s End User Licence Agreement included with the DRM, it states according to Wood, “If you lose the original CD or it’s stolen, you lose the right to any digital copies you’ve made.” (2005)

We can also look at this from another angle, can DRM benefit us…despite its reputation for being ‘evil’. Digital Rights Management is a method of protecting the original authors’ work from being copied by other people; that has to be an advantage of DRM. Members of the Federal Trade Commission state that “DRM (digital rights management) technology may actually be good for consumers because it could give them more choices for downloading or buying copyrighted content” (Gross,2006)

This is true to some degree because there are a wide variety of sites that offer digital music with DRM protection, however there are also music stores that sell CDs without DRM and sometimes these prices can be cheaper than those bought digitally, which in away is also a good thing because its introducing competition, which in turn is good for consumers, a price war.

Gross considers another advantage of DRM: “DRM, which allows copyright holders to control how customers access content, could lead to new pricing models favourable to consumers, said James DeLong, … For example, instead of paying $30 for a new book, consumers may soon be able to pay $3 for a digital copy that lets them read it once…” (Gross, 2006) If the consumer is only going to view it once it makes sense for the consumer to ‘pay per view’, rather than pay for the whole book and read it once, for 10% of the cost of the full book the consumer is able to read the book.
However, it has its downside, that if the consumer wants to read the book again for any reason, then they have to pay a further $3 each time they want to view it, and depending how many times it is view, it could be potentially more than the cost of the book.

We could also say that the introduction to DRM has helped the copyright law. In Gross’s article he mentions Deirdre Mulligan, director of the Law, Technology University of California Berkeley Law School states that “DRM is creating a “permission culture” where consumers have to ask the copyright owner’s permission to play a piece of music on a both home computer and a car stereo…there was a lot of breathing space in copyright law,” (Gross, 2006) This aids the copyright owner because this reduces the chance of their work being copied (the purpose of DRM).

The question that remains is; do we need Digital Rights Management. The answer is, yes we do need some sort of protection. The developers, artist, authors etc have the right for their work to be protected from copying.

However, the consumer must not be as limited as they currently are, such as being limited to number of re-download or number of devices they are able to be played on. On the other hand, it also should be limited so that it cannot be copied, and finding a balance between them is going to be difficult, because not everybody would be happy. It is also worth noting that Don Mcdonald of Intel states that “make content easier to buy than it is to pirate” (Mediaholic, 2006a). It is logical to assume this because if the content was easier to buy not just in the sense it was easy to get from the online store, but also that the consumer has a little more rights, then the consumer would be more likely to purchase, rather than acquire pirate copies of things.
From the issues raised in this essay, a considered conclusion would be that we should agree that DRM is evil. The technology of DRM its self is not evil, its how the DRM is applied. From the examples demonstrated in this essay we can see that DRM is used in an evil way to lock consumers into various products, thus creating a monopoly with an intention of ‘world domination’.

References
Mitnick, K., & Simon, W. (2003). The Art of Deception, Indiana: Wiley Publishing Inc.
Lessig, L (2004). The Future of Ideas, USA: Vintage Books.
Lessig, L (2004a). Free culture, USA: Penguin
BBC (2007) Q&A: What is DRM? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6337781.stm (accessed 14/05/07)
Napster (2007) ‘What can I do with music I buy on Napster?’ http://www.napster.com/quickhelp.html#music_I_buy (accessed 14/05/07)
Dan Glickman {quote of Glickman by BBC} (2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4691232.stm#7 (accessed 14/05/07)
Brett , ‘Yes, DRM is inherently evil’, http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/drm-evil accessed 14/05/07
Jobs, S (2007) “Apple – Thoughts on music” http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html (accessed 17/05/07)
Jobs, S (2007a) “Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store” http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html (accessed 17/05/07)
Carver, B (2005) “Microsoft Vista creates DRM insanity” http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25124 (accessed 17/05/07)
Marsh, D (2007) “Windows Vista Content Protection” http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx (accessed 17/05/07)
Mediaholic (2006) “DRM is a lie” http://mediaholic.tv/2006/01/drm-is-lie.html (accessed 17/05/07)
Mediaholic (2006a) “Why is DRM Evil” http://mediaholic.tv/2006/03/why-is-drm-evil.html (accessed 17/05/07)
Gross, G (2006) “Is DRM good or bad for consumers?” http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=security&articleId=9004909&taxonomyId=17&intsrc=kc_top (accessed 17/05/07)
Wood, M (2005) “DRM This Sony” http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6376177-1.html (accessed 17/05/07)