the air

This post is a continuation of my previous post, DRM Is For Suckers

These days companies, such as Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, and many more, tout digital rights management, DRM for short, as the next evolution in software design and approach. DRM is positioned as a platform to license users to access and use intellectual products and circumvent piracy and prevent unauthorized users. However, DRM is simply not just a tool to protect the intellectual works of a company or individual. Rather, it is also, surreptitiously, designed to limit the choices of software or hardware that you may or may not use.

In the coming days, Microsoft will allow the public to finally purchase a license to use the next generation of Windows. However, few people seem to grasp the limitations Vista will have in place to prevent you from using your hardware and applications with ease. The following is a passage from a post I happen to come across:

• If you have recently bought a high-end sound card you may be surprised, since in Windows Vista you won’t be able to play any “protected content” due to the incompatibility of interfaces (S/PDIF).
• Significant loss of quality of the audio may be common due to the need to test every bit of streaming media for the use of “protected content”
• The idea of open-source drivers will be abandoned since the whole DRM thing is based on the fact that the content decrypting takes place in a “black box” and only a few selected corporations may have a look at it. Security through obscurity, that’s what it’s called. Open source stands in complete opposition to this concept.
• Removing any standards from the hardware world is one of the Microsoft goals. According to the Microsoft theory, each device will need to communicate with the operating system in a unique way in order for DRM work as required. This will enforce the incompatibility of the devices, killing the existing interface standards.
• Denial of Service attacks will be a common place. The new era of DoS attacks will be more harmful than ever before. This is connected with the tilt bits introduced in Windows Vista. The malicious code will be able to use the DRM restrictions in any suitable way and the detection of this activity will be almost impossible if not illegal (sic!) thanks to the infamous DMCA act that prohibits the use of any reverse engineering techniques used to either understand or break DRM.
• The stability of the devices will be decreased due to the fact that the devices will not only have to do their job but also “protect” (who? obviously not the user…) against the illegal use of the audio and video streams. This “protection” requires a lot of additional processing power and of course a lot of programmers man days. Who’s gonna pay for that? Of course us — the customers.
• Issuing the specification by Microsoft seems to be the first case in the history when the software producer dictates the hardware producers how their hardware should be designed and work. Seems dangerous, especially when we all realize the intentions of Microsoft.

I cannot seem to understand why Microsoft and other companies would move from a system that allows consumers to freely use their products and services to a system that locks the consumer into only choosing from a select few options. I feel that companies are punishing the consumer out of paranoia. Although piracy is rampant and millions of people have engaged in piracy, there is absolutely no strong positive correlation that suggests that due to piracy, any “affected” industry cannot survive due to the financial losses. In fact, Microsoft seems to pushing this DRM agenda to further force its customers to choose Microsoft products over other alternatives. Granted that many of Microsoft products are the de facto standard all across the globe, there are simply too many reasons why people may prefer to use other products. Rather than encouraging users to choose between functionality and value, Microsoft is intentionally forcing customers to select products and services that are not always cost justified.

Since my experience with Linux, I have become a strong supporter of free and open-source software (OOS). I feel that OOS allows the user to determine what is in his/her best interests while using their computing resources. I also understand that companies want to protect their intellectual products and services. As such, why would they not want to ensure that they can offer the same product or service across the entire board. In other words, if DRM is thought to be effective, why not make it available to users of Windows, MacOS, Linux, and other operating systems? Many of these companies view Linux as a “hacker’s paradise” and deem it to be unfit for DRM. What do you think happens then? People find ways around it and simply use other products. Wouldn’t it make sense for Apple to ensure that their FairPlay technology (the DRM scheme behind iTunes Media Store) is compatible with all operating systems? The dilemma that I ask is, why can’t the operating system be independent of the actual product or services? Why should DRM be tied down to just Windows and Mac?

I’m not advocating the use or non-use of DRM. What I am advocating is to give the user the freedom to choose what he/she wants to do. Why should the user be locked into using a product that is not suitable for them? As a college student, how can I afford to pay almost $200 for Windows when I can barely afford to eat? The pricing that these companies have is so ridiculous that I prefer open-source and free software above all. Although DRM is to reduce piracy, piracy is NOT tied to illicit users. Piracy is due to the high prices, some which are unfair, that companies are charging for their products. Microsoft has designed a system in which you cannot function without Windows. Yet, you are expected to pay high prices just to have permission to use the software. How is that fair?

In the end, DRM is here to stay. Companies will find more attractive ways of using DRM and DRM will eventually become non-intrusive. However, the price the consumer has to pay is for total lack of convenience. My only suggestion is to stick with open-source software as much as possible. Why? With open-source software, you will get functionality and value without breaking the bank. You won’t have access to phone support or, in some cases, even email support, but you do have the support of the entire open-source community. Open source software requires patience and sometimes even some technical knowledge, but it can be a viable alternative to DRM-infected software. And let’s face it, DRM supported software is not always good. Just take a look at how bloated many of the anti-virus applications are, or how “insecure” Windows is. However, never forget, that you have no rights once DRM assimilates you.

Source: DRM, Vista and your rights

No Comments » | Random Post