Home > Online & Digital Media Issues, Technology > Why DRM is currently a bad thing

Why DRM is currently a bad thing

What is DRM? Well, DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It’s a way controlling the way media (music, tv, movies, books etc) is used online. There are many and varied implementations of DRM. So, there is no one DRM. Rather DRM is a concept and is implemented differently by different groups.

For example, DVDs have a DRM implementation named CSS, which is used to prevent illegal copying and unauthorised international distribution. Music purchased on the iTunes Music Store has a DRM implementation named FairPlay which limits the uses of music purchased. You’re already starting to see why some have coined DRM, Digital Restrictions Management.

I feel strongly that DRM, in many of it’s current implementations is ultimately bad for the consumer and hence, in principle, I am opposed to these implementations.

I believe that the market place drives the industry, that the customer drives demand and therefore can have things the way they want them.

The issue I see though, is this – many consumers are not informed when it comes to purchasing online media. They are not aware of many of the limitations which they face and will face in the future.

My intention here is to set out clearly what the limitations of some of these implementations are.

Reasons why DRM is currently a bad thing:

  • It restricts your usage of media that you purchase electronically.
  • You can’t sell music bought on iTunes Music Store (iTMS). So, unlike a CD there is no ability to sell music once you don’t want it anymore.
  • You can’t lend DRM’ed media to your friends.
  • Media distributors have the ability to track what you watch. For example, you must be logged into Google to use Google Video.
  • You can be restricted in your ability to play purchased media on multiple devices. For example, music bought on iTMS can only be activated on 5 devices at the same time. For some this is acceptable. But for some it isn’t, me for example, I have 1 x iPod, 1 x desktop computer, 1 x laptop, 1 x media centre pc, 1 x computer at work. Done, limit reached. What if I want to buy another iPod for the car or for my wife, I can’t legally (or technically) play that music in these devices.
  • It’s illegal to bypass DRM systems. In doing so, many innocent users who just want to use their media in a way they’ve been accustomed to, are breaking the law.
  • It restricts your ability to consume media as you would expect in this digital age. Eg ripping CSS encoded DVDs (ie all commercial DVDs) pr moving media purchased on iTMS to a media centre.
  • It limits choice as consumers are tied to specific software and hardware in order to use the media they have purchased. So, for example, music bought on iTMS can not be played on anything other than the iTunes software and an iPod. Similarly, music purchased under a Microsoft PlayForSure scheme can only be played on PlayForSure accredited devices (eg not an iPod).
  • DRM systems are potentially very harmful to your system. A recent example of this is Sony’s copy protection which came on some Sony music releases. After buying the CD, taking it home and inserting it into your computer, the CD self installed a piece of software which made your computer vulnerable to malicious attacks. Sony was targeted in a class action lawsuit, Sony effectively lost and had to offer consumers compensation. More details here.

Some thoughts on DRM:

  • No matter how sophisticated the implementation, it’s always going to be cracked. Some high profile examples;
    * CSS, the protection scheme used on DVDs was cracked fairly quickly (by a Norwegian teenager none the less).
    * Apple FairPlay was cracked and is easily bypassed using JHymm.
    * Microsoft’s PlayForSure has also been cracked as is every subsequent update of it.
  • People who want to pirate music, movies etc will do so and always find a way to do so. Consumers who want to contribute to the online media economy should be treated with respect and be presented offerings which are fair.
  • In my view, DRM can be successful if used to facilitate a viable business model, as long as it does not violate existing liberties. So, CBS using it to allow visitors rent survivor for a 24 hour time frame, is, in my opinion, expensive but none the less a new kind of offering which may or may not work.
  • Content is king, and the biggest content owners on the world already exist in traditional markets. TV: FOX, ABC, CBS etc, Movies: Sony Pictures, Universal etc, Music: SonyBMG, Warner Bros etc, Books: Random House, HarperCollins, Penguin etc. These groups want to protect their investment and more importantly, have an “old world” mindset. In order for them to play ball in the online space they, they need some assurance that their content is protected. DRM is the closest the technology industry has come to giving them this.

For further reading have a peek over at:

If anyone feels that there should be something added to the “reasons why DRM is currently a bad thing” list, please comment.

-dg

  1. March 21st, 2006 at 19:38 | #1

    Nothing to add, just a comment.

    Thanks for a good explanation of what DRM is, essentially copy protection in various forms. The details provided are good illustrations of the limitations of DRM.

    thanks.

    Vincenze.

  2. Kmac198
    October 4th, 2009 at 06:17 | #2

    few days ago i downloaded WMP11 thinking it would be cool but now i really know that it’s the worst edition of WMP ever but it’s also very bad for an economy like this which depends so much on being able to download free music and the RIAA is actually breaking the law itself wheen it invades people’s privacy. by invading people’s privacy for breaking a recently passed law it’s going against the Constitution which is the center of our government that was passed over 200 years ago

  3. Kmac198
    October 4th, 2009 at 06:18 | #3

    so that means the RIAA is unConstitutional

  1. March 23rd, 2006 at 23:23 | #1
  2. April 20th, 2006 at 10:26 | #2
  3. May 4th, 2006 at 18:12 | #3
  4. April 2nd, 2007 at 23:11 | #4