MSFT: Our DRM licensing is there to eliminate hobbyists and little guys

[sh0dan]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/msft_our_drm_licensi.html

I'm sure Amir Majidimehr (http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=17680) would want to elaborate on this "misunderstanding".

[arch_angel16]

It's not a misunderstanding: hobbyists don't have the resources required to create a successful commercial software or hardware product that incorporates Microsoft-based DRM technology. Hobbyists DO have the resources required to create a "driver" to use the Microsoft-based DRM technology to do things that DRM was created to disallow ;) It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to lock out troublesome developers.

[DigitAl56K]

Hobbyists DO have the resources required to create a "driver" to use the Microsoft-based DRM technology to do things that DRM was created to disallow ;)

DRM has it's pros and cons. Most people look upon it purely from the perspective that it restricts their rights, but you have to also remember that without DRM many of the sources we look to for "high-quality" material wouldn't be comfortable releasing it into a particular system. For example, no major label with a highly popular artist catalog is going to turn around tomorrow and say "Hey guys! Come and buy CDs in our online store - it's all FLAC format with no DRM!". Let's be honest: They couldn't do that if they wanted to. Why not? Because 99% of the people who bitched about DRM in the first place would be the first to turn around and screw them over trading the files on P2P networks.

Where am I going with this? Don't instantly dismiss every DRM model out there. DRM can be a good thing at least in the sense that in the short term it's one of the few technologies that are likely to see studios opening the doors to legal distribution of content over the Internet.

However, the characteristics of the DRM model, and the character of the people behind it are critically important factors. If the DRM is there to "eliminate hobbyists and little guys", it's probably not the kind of DRM you want to be using ;)

[dragongodz]

i think the important part was this
According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with.

I was pretty surprised to hear an executive from Microsoft describe his company's strategy as intentionally anti-competitive and intended solely to freeze out certain classes of operators rather than maximizing its profits through producing a better product and charging a fair price for it.

Isn't that why the Justice Department and the EU went after Redmond in the first place?

as for
Why not? Because 99% of the people who bitched about DRM in the first place would be the first to turn around and screw them over trading the files on P2P networks.
now thats a big statement if i ever saw one. love to see where you got this figure from. :)

[Lil' Jer]

Isn't this the same thing Sony did to kill off their BetaMax format?

[Lil' Jer]

DRM has it's pros and cons. Most people look upon it purely from the perspective that it restricts their rights, but you have to also remember that without DRM many of the sources we look to for "high-quality" material wouldn't be comfortable releasing it into a particular system. For example, no major label with a highly popular artist catalog is going to turn around tomorrow and say "Hey guys! Come and buy CDs in our online store - it's all FLAC format with no DRM!". Let's be honest: They couldn't do that if they wanted to. Why not? Because 99% of the people who bitched about DRM in the first place would be the first to turn around and screw them over trading the files on P2P networks.

Where am I going with this? Don't instantly dismiss every DRM model out there. DRM can be a good thing at least in the sense that in the short term it's one of the few technologies that are likely to see studios opening the doors to legal distribution of content over the Internet.

However, the characteristics of the DRM model, and the character of the people behind it are critically important factors. If the DRM is there to "eliminate hobbyists and little guys", it's probably not the kind of DRM you want to be using ;)

And yet DRM has done actually nothing to stop pirate groups from releasing music, movies, etc. on P2P networks and in the end have screwed over legtimate users from making backup copies of their legally purchased music, movies, etc. It's quite an odd system DRM is that it has little to no effect on piracy and yet screws over the people actually spending money on the content...

[DigitAl56K]

now thats a big statement if i ever saw one. love to see where you got this figure from. :)
Guestimation +/- 10% :) You know it's true!

[DigitAl56K]

And yet DRM has done actually nothing to stop pirate groups from releasing music, movies, etc. on P2P networks and in the end have screwed over legtimate users from making backup copies of their legally purchased music, movies, etc. It's quite an odd system DRM is that it has little to no effect on piracy and yet screws over the people actually spending money on the content...

That might be true, and it's unlikely that any technology is ever going to stop piracy altogether, but the difference is whether the minority of the people or the majority of the people will pirate. There's always a threshold of effort, time, cost, or fear of legal recourse where the majority of people are going to say "heck, this just isn't worth it". Of course, with better/less restrictive DRM models the threshold goes up drastically. I don't think anyone is delusional to the point of thinking that DRM = no piracy.

Always weigh in "what does DRM model x enable for me" versus what it prevents. If I can download the latest Hollywood movies shortly after their cinema debut and watch them for up to a week for just a few dollars legally then personally I'm going to be a happy person with little inclination to resort to P2P or trying to break the DRM myself. It would be like Netflix - cheap, fast, and easy. Maybe the DRM prevents me from saving a copy that can be played forever. Big deal. Assuming I've rented a DVD from Netflix I can't legally do that anyway. This is an example of where good DRM can enable good things for people.

On the other hand, if I pay $10 for a download around the same time the movie came out on DVD, I can only watch it on one computer, and I can't back it up easily then yes, I'd be pretty angry.

Eventually I hope that after we go through the "DRM phase" of media and the Internet two things will have happened: 1. Studios, technology providers, and the government alike will have learned that placing over-intrusive and unnecessary restrictions on peoples rights is not good for anyone, and 2. A culture will be established where people become familiar with and accept good, fair, legal business models for Internet distribution leading to less inclination to pirate, reducing the need for over-restrictive DRM models, and making more content accessible to everyone everywhere.

Where I really draw the line is all of the crazy new copy protections used on retail CDs and DVDs these days - that's complete BS and it ought to be illegal.

[Lil' Jer]

That might be true, and it's unlikely that any technology is ever going to stop piracy altogether, but the difference is whether the minority of the people or the majority of the people will pirate. There's always a threshold of effort, time, cost, or fear of legal recourse where the majority of people are going to say "heck, this just isn't worth it". Of course, with better/less restrictive DRM models the threshold goes up drastically. I don't think anyone is delusional to the point of thinking that DRM = no piracy.

Like I said, it has no effect whatsoever on the piracy groups and prevents legitimate consumers from exercising their fair use rights.

Always weigh in "what does DRM model x enable for me" versus what it prevents.

Orwellian doublespeak at its finest...

If I can download the latest Hollywood movies shortly after their cinema debut and watch them for up to a week for just a few dollars legally then personally I'm going to be a happy person with little inclination to resort to P2P or trying to break the DRM myself. It would be like Netflix - cheap, fast, and easy. Maybe the DRM prevents me from saving a copy that can be played forever. Big deal. Assuming I've rented a DVD from Netflix I can't legally do that anyway. This is an example of where good DRM can enable good things for people.

I'm glad you would enjoy crippled content, many of us don't.

On the other hand, if I pay $10 for a download around the same time the movie came out on DVD, I can only watch it on one computer, and I can't back it up easily then yes, I'd be pretty angry.

And yet that's exactly what most DRM schemes do...

Eventually I hope that after we go through the "DRM phase" of media and the Internet two things will have happened: 1. Studios, technology providers, and the government alike will have learned that placing over-intrusive and unnecessary restrictions on peoples rights is not good for anyone, and 2. A culture will be established where people become familiar with and accept good, fair, legal business models for Internet distribution leading to less inclination to pirate, reducing the need for over-restrictive DRM models, and making more content accessible to everyone everywhere.

Except that will never happen. Why respect consumer's rights when there's profits to make?

Where I really draw the line is all of the crazy new copy protections used on retail CDs and DVDs these days - that's complete BS and it ought to be illegal.

Now that's something we can agree on.

[DigitAl56K]

Lil' Jer,

Your post is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the way most people look at DRM. You say DRM doesn't stop piracy. I agree. You say it hinders fair use rights - I don't dispute that in certain circumstances it can.

But you refuse to recognize that, based on the world we live in and the way that the content owners are obsessed with controlling the distribution of their media, there are also benefits to be had from DRM for all of us, when it's done right.

Anyway, I've said my piece.

Back on topic: Boo Microsoft! Go little guy! :)

[Lil' Jer]

Your post is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the way most people look at DRM. You say DRM doesn't stop piracy. I agree. You say it hinders fair use rights - I don't dispute that in certain circumstances it can.

What circumstances does DRM not hinder fair use rights? The whole point of DRM IS to hinder fair use.

But you refuse to recognize that, based on the world we live in and the way that the content owners are obsessed with controlling the distribution of their media

I don't refuse to recognize that content owners are obsessed with controlling their content. That's just a fact.

there are also benefits to be had from DRM for all of us, when it's done right.

I'm sorry, but losing fair use rights far outweights any supposed benefits you can claim that DRM provides the consumer. You can pile on the doublespeak all you want, but it won't fly with me.

[DigitAl56K]

What circumstances does DRM not hinder fair use rights?

Take the rental (Netflix-like) case I made above as an example. Where is your fair use right hindered?


But you refuse to recognize that, based on the world we live in and the way that the content owners are obsessed with controlling the distribution of their media, there are also benefits to be had from DRM for all of us, when it's done right.

I don't refuse to recognize that content owners are obsessed with controlling their content.

Point proven.

Let's face it: It's unlikely that the studios are going to put any hit movie up for download with no DRM, so maybe it's better to try to shape the world of DRM to be something with positive benefits for the consumer rather than trying to pretend that there are absolutely no benefits at all, which is what you're doing. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I'm not listening" never helped anyone.

Part of shaping the world of DRM, of course, is to avoid models where only the big guys can play...

.. and with that, I'm going to bed. Flame away ;)

[Doom9]

I don't dispute that in certain circumstances it can.Actually, it's an absolute. Fair use means no restrictions.. you can make a 100 copies as long as they stay under the same roof. No DRM allows that. You can make a copy for the living room, one for the bedroom, one for your discman, one for your minidiscman, one for your walkman, one for your ipod, one for your iriver player, one for your car, one for your wife's car, etc.
Give me any label that decides not to use DRM for online distribution.. if they release music I like (and I'm afraid I don't have a mainstream taste) and I'll be the first to buy something.
there are also benefits to be had from DRM for all of us, when it's done right.Which are? I'm sorry but the "we don't make content available unless it's protected" just doesn't cut it. If the consumer got off his collective fat ass and said, "not with us", they'd have no choice. The only reason they can pull this crap is because people still buy it. I have an iPod of my own, I even found a list of albums I'd probably get.. the day they release it without DRM. Until then, it's streamripper for me (which they want to outlaw as well of course).

[Doom9]

Where is your fair use right hindered?Well.. before the enactment of the German flavor of the DMCA, it was legal to make copies from rented movies.. unfortunately now I need to find another example. However, it's doubtful that such a DRM would just rely on a timestamp that tells the player when to stop playing.. instead they'd connect to the internet each time when you want to play it.. and that's info that's really none of their business. If you rent a movie in a rental place, they don't know when and for how long you watch it either. If they want to know that.. cut the price in half (actually.. cut it by 75% because 50% should be cut since they don't need to hold any physical stock.. and then another 50% for tracking my viewing habits) and we can talk about it.

[Lil' Jer]

Take the rental (Netflix-like) case I made above as an example. Where is your fair use right hindered?

That's something completely different. I'm talking about for content one buys, not rents. In fact, every new DRM scheme though up for people purchasing content has had no other point than to restrict people's fair use.

Let's face it: It's unlikely that the studios are going to put any hit movie up for download with no DRM, so maybe it's better to try to shape the world of DRM to be something with positive benefits for the consumer rather than trying to pretend that there are absolutely no benefits at all, which is what you're doing. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I'm not listening" never helped anyone.

Well, then they are just going to have to lose my business. It's for this same reason that I'm not buying Blu-Ray or HD-DVD formats, which are nothing more than a reincarnation of the old DIVX system IMO. I'm sorry, but getting some content is in no way worth giving up my fair use rights.

Part of shaping the world of DRM, of course, is to avoid models where only the big guys can play...

Which would mean that DRM would have to be eliminated. The whole point of DRM is to keep everyone else out and only letting the big guys play.

.. and with that, I'm going to bed. Flame away ;)

I'm not flaming you.

[Audionut]

Album realeased. Someone get's a hold it somehow (doesn't really matter how) (read on).
Said person, copy's and compresses it, uploads it.
Downloader's, download it. There all happy.

Legitimate user, Pay's a stupid amount of money for a song, that has no materials or packaging, and then can't do diddly ****ing squat with it, cause it's DRM'd.

Hence, ALL copywrite mechanisms, screw the legitimate buyer. Period.
The (pirates) couldn't give a shit, cause it simply gives them something new to crack.

You could say that the way copywrite mechanisims are currently implimented, is that legitimate users are simply copywrite mechanisim testers.

[foxyshadis]

Itunes is hardly the best DRM model, imo, but it's been wildly successful nonetheless, obviously people are willing to live with restricted content even if they know it's going to be a hassle to move to another computer. It lets you burn mix cds, it lets you listen anywhere on ipod, it lets you stream over the local network. (With some limitations I agree are too strict.) People like it because apple's done a lot to bring fairness back to DRM, even if they approach it just as monopolistically as microsoft, refusing to license other players.

Oh, audionut, I've seen services where you buy an album online, and you get all of the covers and liner notes and stuff, which can be printed, and even the opportunity to burn a real cd and print off the art to put on that. Maybe itunes has something like that by now?

I don't support DRM everywhere; viral marketing is a long-proven strategy that a lot of execs seem deathly afraid of. Treating customers with respect is something studio execs haven't had to do in decades. Preventing home entertainment scenarios is just shooting themselves in the foot, in the end.

Personally I like customizing everything, I like keeping everything in one format and transcoding stuff, so DRM is right out unless I can crack it. So I still buy cds and dvds. That's fine, I'm not the target audience.

[sysKin]

I'm sorry but the "we don't make content available unless it's protected" just doesn't cut it.

100% true. Culture existed long before huge profits were made out of it. People wrote books, sang and acted millenia before revenue was counted in gazzilions of dollars.

In fact, in many countries, this is still completely true - actors are acting at their best even if they hardly make a living out of it.

There was never any magic revenue threshold at which hollywood became profitable.

[CruNcher]

i absolutely agree, DRM is much much more then we are able to understand @ the moment, how will it change our way of living in the coming centuries ?, we don't know that yet.
All those discussions about the Ethical Point of Cloning also apply to DRM and they should be threated the same way and the funny thing is we weren't asked if we wan't it or not, just a few people enforce it on the whole population without asking, is that democracy as we the people vote it year after year ? or might be the question "is democracy really existing ?"
We research in alot of different directions to enhance our way of living see Fussion Energy for example it's one of the most important things to come in our lifes, we will have plenty of energy if it's a success (and they dont create a big wormhole that sucks us all up before, wouldn't be bad either anyways ;) ) but they allready think about how to use that commercialy. Why the hell when enough Energy for us all will be available for decades think about how to use it commercialy ?
And i asure you even if we had the technology to create unlimited resources from matter, some would try to force restrictions on that too and try to find ways how to use it commercialy even if it makes no real sense at all for us :P
Even some of those guys working on implementing DRM stuff aren't happy with it, because they feel it's not right and "ofcourse acidentialy" create holes in them that later get exploited. Such things by the way should also be stoped in the future by code writting machines wich gonna replace the human soul factor.

[dragongodz]

DigitAl56K - i understand what you are saying by a DRM for rental but the simple fact is that its never just used for rental. the current thinking is DRM the lot and let god sort them out. ;)

i still think this is way off the topic though. the article wasnt about the pros and cons of DRM but i think can be summed up with this quote from it
I was pretty surprised to hear an executive from Microsoft describe his company's strategy as intentionally anti-competitive and intended solely to freeze out certain classes of operators rather than maximizing its profits through producing a better product and charging a fair price for it.

Isn't that why the Justice Department and the EU went after Redmond in the first place?

[Neo Neko]

My 2 cents. DRM on a rental is fine.

But putting DRM on anything other than rental material is false advertising. And I will not stand for it. Anything I can't completely bypass I won't buy.

I don't do iTunes or any other similar service. But if I did I would be looking for possible ways to enact class action lawsuits against such shops. Paying for a purchase when all you get is at best a rental. Unfortunatly most if not all of the customers gave up their right to do so by agreeing to use the store. But still someone aught to do something "for" consumer rights because they really do have rights. IIRC it would be an ex-parte motion or some such where an external unrelated group intervienes on behalf of a party.

[mg262]

Hmmm... if anyone reading this thread who is suitably qualified has a good idea of what the legal ramifications are likely to be, I'd really like to know (and I think most of the readers would)...

[Neo Neko]

@mg262
The MSFT thing or the DRM thing?

When it comes to the MSFT thing the possibillities are all over the map. It all comes down to what the DOJ supervisory panel and other groups interpret this "hobyist" thing to mean. And whether or not it is important to them. If they view it to represent Linux and opensource projects that are empowering everyone including big business then things could go badly for MSFT. That would be unfair and anti-competitive business practices. If they however view "hobyist" to be any tom, dick, or harry, futzing around at home on the weekend then they will probably hardly bat an eyelash.

[mg262]

@Neo Neko,

I meant the original topic. I suppose it's very difficult to pin this one as we don't actually have the original text of the speech...

[Stampede]

I see quite a few problems with DRM - enough I feel that laws should be passed banning certain types of DRM so as to protect the consumer.

One problem with DRM is that it locks out technology innovation. Take Itunes for example. I think someone has to be downright ignorant if they feel Ipods a year from now, and 5 years from now, and 10 years from now are always going to be better than any competing music players. So if I purchase 10 of my favorite songs every month for a couple years, and my player quits, and I want to buy the latest technology but I can't because it's non-Apple and it won't play my music because Apple refused to license out the DRM.

Another big issue is that DRM vendors refuse to provide the end user any type of support or assistance with their technology. Let's say I purchase music from AOL's music service that's a WMA file locked to the hardware ID of my computer. Later I do some upgrades to that computer and the license key can no longer validate but I want to get all my songs to work again. But neither AOL nor Microsoft will help with this! Basically the consumer gets screwed. How do they expect consumers to accept DRM when it's all BUYER BEWARE?

Another problem is that people don't inherantly see value in some types of DRM. For example if I buy a DVD I'm ok because I can always resell it easy and there are a lot of people willing to buy used movies. But if I buy content via an online download that is protected by DRM I'm pretty much screwed.

And there are a lot of other things I can think of too. In the end the big companies and corporations are raping the public and getting completely out of hand. There are too many restrictions on their products and they try to lock you in too. For example if all your purchased music is DRM WMA and you want to stop using Windows and switch to linux good luck with that. Plus they're using the legal system to prosecute innocent people too. I've heard of a case where an artist was sharing his own music via bittorrent and RIAA tried to sue even though he was the sole copywrite holder.

The cops don't trust you much with purchased downloads either. If you have a CD in your car that you burned from Itunes (you are allowed up to 5 burns), and a cop sees it when you get pulled over for speeding, you pretty much need to have a purchase record to protect yourself even though the music was legit!!!