Microsoft and DRM

[Wilbert]

For all Microsoft fans :) Blight (developer of Zoom Player) is writing the following in the avsforum:


A cry for help! Microsoft, DRM and WMV

Several users have contacted me saying WMV playback is not working with several new titles and web downloads.

For a week I've been trying to figure out what is wrong and with the help of one of their content developers we come to the conclusion that the DRM library I originally licensed from microsoft doesn't give my application (Zoom Player) the Application Security level required to play this new content.

So I mail Microsoft's "Microsoft Windows Digital Media Division" asking what I need to do to get a high Application Security level so that my player could support their format.

The first reply was that they are not tech-support. I insisted that I wasn't asking for tech support but rather desired an updated library with higher security so that all WMV content could be played.

Here is the reply I received:

"Hello Yaron,

We do have a new Format SDK 9.0/9.5 license agreement that does offer a higher level DRM Stub.lib file. However in order to obtain this stub.lib file you will need to do the following:

1. You will need to execute a new Format SDK 9.0/9.5 license agreement with us.
2. In order to obtain the 2000 level stub.lib file, we will be assessing a fee of $10,000 per stub.lib

For your reference, I have attached the New Format SDK 9.0/9.5 license agreement. Please feel free to review this agreement and inquire us about any questions or concerns you may have."

What am I to do here? We are a small software developer?

I know some Microsoft personal invovled in WMV are reading these pages... Is this the new microsoft standing on PC-based WMV playback?

(...)

I'm not actually sure there are any security changes involved...

From what I can tell, the only difference is that the original DRM library we authors received had a security level of 1000 (or maybe even security level 100, it's unclear as I don't think the application security level was mentioned in the original license I signed). And now (by default?), the windows media encoder encodes at security level 2000. Most content creators aren't even aware of this as anything encoded plays for them in Windows Media Player just fine.

Now to get the 2000 security level, you need to pay $10,000 and have microsoft inspect your application.

To get the original code, I had to get two digital security certificates, which required me to get a lot of paperwork from our accountant and other company info so microsoft can be assured that we are not some fly by night operation.

Now, what scares me is, even if we paid the $10,000, tomorrow microsoft can released a new version of their encoder and set the default security level to 3000 and once more all new content won't be accessible and most content creators won't know any different.

I'm not trying to raise the DRM discussion, it's been done before in a lot of details. All I want is to get it to work...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479607

[dragongodz]

Now, what scares me is, even if we paid the $10,000, tomorrow microsoft can released a new version of their encoder and set the default security level to 3000 and once more all new content won't be accessible and most content creators won't know any different.
a very real concern because when you think about it MS need to keep generating new revenew and how else are they going to do it with anyone supporting DRM'ed WMV ?

[mpucoder]

This is typical of Microsoft. Not only do you have to pay them, but by enabling the viewing of their DRM'd material you actually help them establish a larger market. Without a means to view the material the content providers would not use it (I wonder what their fee is?). Microsoft seems to have learned their marketing from arms dealers - sell to both sides.
If I were you I would not pay the fee, or enable the viewing of level whatever. It doesn't matter to me, and thousands like me, who don't watch DRM'd material.

[Cyberman]

A great method they´re using - infinite money with no risk.

Another reason not to use WMV files. Aside from streaming, what good are they for anyway?

[Neo Neko]

I had a feeling something like this was going to happen with Microsoft. Fine fine. I have lots of feelings about Microsoft of that nature. But it is still interesting to see it actually happening. There is no place for the little guys in Microsoft's world. Eventually blight and friends will probably get more than they can take and come to the same conclusion.

Then again Microsoft could suprise us all. But no one should hold their breath.

might have to keep an eye on the thread.

[bond]

Originally posted by mpucoder
This is typical of Microsoft. Not only do you have to pay them, but by enabling the viewing of their DRM'd material you actually help them establish a larger market.indeed, and once you have established a broad enough user space for your drm (or, not to forget, your codecs!), you can charge whatever you want.
it seems as if m$ thinks that this is already the case...

[Mug Funky]

gah! WTF is this?

is this a new marketing technique we're seeing? several companies are doing it:

- become a very large, powerful and influential company with a formidible reputation
- develop an inferior product
- push it on the market using sheer inertia gained from the above reputation

i see Sony doing this as well, plus the 4-letter organizations we're all familiar with. this business model may be working now, but an idiot can see that it's not sustainable without massive and ever increasing litigation costs - these will hopefully outweigh the profits from their proprietary, closed and heavily restricted formats.

a company can only trade on reputation for so long until people realise they actually make crap. this is beginning to happen, so MS beware - linux will eat what soul you have left.

a year or two ago, people would have said "xiph will save us from this", but i see it losing momentum. pity. there's enough good stuff going on in the opensource world to pretty well take over from the likes of MS, but they've all got to unite under one banner. also they need the backing of the marketing power of some benevolent corporations (Sun maybe?).

[Emp3r0r]

This whole DRM thing makes me shutter. I think content providers would make alot more money if they avoided DRM and just sold their products at reasonal prices.

Lets hope DRM will keep getting a bad rap and consumers will be so frustrated with it that all solutions involving DRM will be avoided at all cost. The funny thing is, many people will avoid it at no cost, by finding it online with no restrictions.

It seems DRM will end up having the exact opposite intended effect.

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by Emp3r0r
This whole DRM thing makes me shutter. I think content providers would make alot more money if they avoided DRM and just sold their products at reasonal prices.

Maybe you meant shudder? ;) :D

Lets hope DRM will keep getting a bad rap and consumers will be so frustrated with it that all solutions involving DRM will be avoided at all cost. The funny thing is, many people will avoid it at no cost, by finding it online with no restrictions.

It seems DRM will end up having the exact opposite intended effect.

Yep. It's certainly that way with me. I try to buy the stuff I like, but I'm just so fed up with paying close to $20 for a CD with copy-protection that won't let me play it in the car and only has one good track on it in the first place. ESPECIALLY when I can get a DVD with a thousand times more content for the same price.

I'd maybe pay $20 for a music disc if it came with music videos for all tracks, a behind the scenes in the studio recording the album, interviews with the musicians, some alternate cuts, and ESPECIALLY more than one good track on the damn album! :mad:

[Soulhunter]

Well, just put it on the "1k reasons to hate M$" list... :devil:


Bye

[shevegen]

Lets make it simple:

DRM sucks.
WMV sucks.
MS sucks.


I cant find better words to express it, but then
again I sort of live in a world
without wmv around me (okok not entirely
true, one exception, from acrobatic dance groups that
are very nice to watch and decide they need to only
record in .wmv )

[dragongodz]

is this a new marketing technique we're seeing?
no, nothing new about it. its just that this type of thing has mostly been used for big business and enterprise agreements etc until now. expect it to get worse though since MS need to keep income coming in, especially with the amount of money its lost propping up the XBox and the long delay longhorn is suffering(even when its released it wont have several parts MS touted such as the new filesystem).

i even remember some time ago talk of MS making version of office mostly online and then you had to pay each year to keep using it. also heard the same type of thing with windows, yearly fees etc. online product activation is only 1 step short of that. of course i think that would really be a stupid thing for MS to do and have not heard any more about it for some time. so hopefully MS has dropped such plans.

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by dragongodz
i even remember some time ago talk of MS making version of office mostly online and then you had to pay each year to keep using it. also heard the same type of thing with windows, yearly fees etc. online product activation is only 1 step short of that. of course i think that would really be a stupid thing for MS to do and have not heard any more about it for some time. so hopefully MS has dropped such plans.

Well, there are companies using this method already - the idea is that you can access to patches and updates that way.

Maybe the constant stream of patches for Windows is another step towards that goal? Making Windows unusable when unpatched would ensure regular fees...