The History of Hacking DRM 197
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica writer Nate Anderson has penned an in-depth look into past DRM-crackings and what the future looks like for people who are vehemently anti-DRM: 'Like a creeping fog, DRM smothers more and more media in its clammy embrace, but the sun still shines down on isolated patches of the landscape. This isn't always due to the decisions of corporate executives; often it's the work of hackers who devote considerable skill to cracking the digital locks that guard everything from DVDs to e-books. Their reasons are complicated and range from the philosophical to the criminal, but their goals are the same: no more DRM.'"
Anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way DRM will ever be plausable will be if they produce a DRM'd codec that plays on anything. People are sick of buying CD's on itunes and not being able to play them on their other players...as well as other music services trying to play on itunes.
DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of DRM though? If you did that, people could buy songs from one place but a player from another. The whole point of DRM is to stop that happening.
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point of DRM is to prevent supply from being infinite, because a market in which there is infinite supply is a failed market.
The fact that Apple and Microsoft can't resist abusing it to promote sales of iPods/Windows is unrelated and not inherant to DRM.
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:3, Insightful)
The content production companies, such as the music and movie companies, want DRM to prevent the unlimited distribution of entertainment or information.
The content distribution companies, like Apple, want DRM to lock people into their other products, like the iPod.
Not So (Score:2)
If its goal is to limit supply, DRM is a failed technology concept:
Thah would be much like an attempt to make dry water.
You cannot show someone something without them being able to see it.
You cannot tell someone a secret without allowing them to know it.
So why would they push such a flawed technology: the true goals are likely much more insidious.
I believe they are more along the lines of controlling what you are allo
Re:Not So (Score:2)
Yes but as the RIAA discovered actually using the courts of law to enforce copyright is a losing proposition. Too many violators and court time is too expensive. So DRM makes sense for copyright owners because it cuts the number of violators in a cost effective fashion.
Obviously, I can circumvent DRM by simply humming the tune to myself. Copyright
Re:Not So (Score:2)
Suing individual downloaders for contributory infringement is not efficient or cheap.
But its not cheap for those who get sued either, and they generally end up forced to pay
an outlandish settlement to a party they have caused no measurable dam
Re:Not So (Score:2)
Low prices are the mark of an efficient, not inefficient, market. A market where you can get anything you want for free is 100% efficient and a complete success.
Copyright is a legalized monopoly, where only a certain person is entitled to produce something. It is not a hack to make the market work, it is a hack to keep the market from wo
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
'failed'? or did you mean 'unprofitable'?
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Failed market" is an economic term. Informally it means a market where the usual workings have broken down for some reason so it's no longer operating efficiently.
For instance operating systems are a failed market because network effects make it economically unviable to break the Windows monopoly.
In the absence of copyright (and a way to practically enforce it - DRM), creative works would be a failed market because supply is infinite, therefore pushing prices down to zero. The creator of the creative work gets nothing in return for production of that good so, the market has failed.
Failed markets are very common. A market is quite a fragile thing, which is why we have lots of regulation designed to protect it and bracket it (like anti-trust law). I would say many of the more stupid errors of the 20th century were due to inappropriate application of a market, which then failed .... the UK rail privatisation is a good example of that.
Failed markets aren't necessarily unprofitable. In the case of failed DRM then the 'failed market' becomes unprofitable in the classical sense because nobody makes any money. In the case of operating systems it's obviously very profitable for the dominant monopoly.
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
there is the ultra-liberal position that art will continue to be made when all economical incentive is removed.. not one i wholeheartedly share, but it's interesting at any rate. i think software qualifies.. i suppose helpful widgets always have.
What are you alking about? (Score:2)
* The DRM is so strong that you have to remove the DRM before putting it on a P2P network.
or:
* The DRM is so weak that you don't have to remove it before putting it on a P2P network.
In either case the DRM does *nothing* to prevent illegal copying. The only thing it prevents is legal use.
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
Convenience is the same. Between DivX/XviD-ready DVD players, Media Center PCs, and modded game consoles, there's no loss. Hell, a MCE box or Xbox running XBMC is more convenient, because you don't have to deal with discs EVER. Grab remote, click, watch. All from a hard drive or server machine which could hold hundreds or thousands of movies.
Price obviously there's no
Re:DRM that plays on anything? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know several people who are pro-drm. They are also the least technically literate people I know, have next to no experiance with any digital music players or services, and they generally assume that because someone is accused of something by a company or the government, they are automatically guilty.
In other words, they are joe consumer incarnate. They don't follow the issues, they are unaware that their is even any type of debate over this subject, and and they are unlikely to ever encounter any issues with DRM because they all use Windows and are the type to be highly loyal to a brand, so probably wouldn't ever buy a music player from another company.
While I myself am vehemently anti-DRM, your post assumes two things;
A: Everyone is aware that there is even an issue, and will become frustrated by DRM
B: Even if someone becomes aware and frustrated, they would attempt to use other channels unconcerned with industry FUD and would know what those other options are or where to find out about them
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
If you think that you dont understand how economics works. The price that is set for a particular goods or service is not at ALL based on the price of making it. The price that something is sold at is based on the highest price someone can get and still sell the most of the commodity.
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Aren't the RIAA (member companies) getting sued by artists because the cut they (the company's) take of iTunes sales includes production/manufacturing costs?
This might be the lawsuit I'm thinking of [medialoper.com], but I'm not 100% sure of that.
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I am a technical proponent of DRM.
Do I like it? Fuck no. It gets in my way. Its annoying. I occasionally lose data.
And who do I blame?
The Fucking Information Wants To Be Free internet-fuckwad cabal.
I don't blame the companies. I have a well known name in the type of software I put out and I've generally put out my works at l
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Well, I think that hardly anyone outside of this circle is aware there is an issue, but I am almost certain that almost everyone will eventually be frustrated by it - whether it's the inability to put purchased music on the iPod they received for Christmas, or the inability to rip a DVD, or the automatic deletion of a movie on their DVR, or a DVD recording of a HD show being downcast to low def without their knowledge, or..
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
These scenarios may not play out as you expect:
Assuming the ICT is invoked, a "degraded" recording will still output the original digital sound track and significantly higher resolution video than an american standard DVD.
Thar's not the end of the
DRM is a ghost in the machine ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, too bad when you bought the product it's sometimes haunting you like a ghost; like the Beastie Boys cd crippled my PC into tiny lil shreds of void rendering it useless for +1 week for invoicing/serious use because the CD drive and the ne
DRM circumvents copyright limits (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright law is already about 100 years longer than what most people would consider a reasonable "limited time". DRM attempts to remove the monopoly limit entirely.
Re:DRM circumvents copyright limits (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright lasts as long as Disney does. Not 10 years, not 100 years, not 1000 years. It gets extended each time Mickey Mouse comes close to falling to public domain. Face it: copyright term is infinite.
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
After working there, I think DRM is a great solution for rentals. I think its a load of garbage if they are selling permanent access to content at the same price as physical merchandise. It's not reliable
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
I also don't like restricted PDF documents. I wanted to quote a paragraph from a PDF that I have and send it to a friend of mine, but whoever published the docume
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:2)
Then what?
Re:Anti-DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, what happens if/when Apple goes belly-up or is forced by the music mafia (RIAA) to shut down iTunes and quit the music business? Good-bye music collection, so sad, too bad. You'll be pissing and moaning over DRM then.
Granted those are hypothetical scenarios, but much like Divx, it can definitely happen, only this time around everyone with a clue will be continually saying "told ya so" like a bunch of nine-year-olds.
Re:A question (Score:2)
Economics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Economics (Score:2)
No, this is a losing game for the consumers. The (pro-DRM) Industry spends billions on Congressional "contributions" to make sure the laws are pro-DRM. The (anti-DRM) consumers are misinformed, disorganized, and apathetic. Since EFF alone just cannot outspend the DRM lobbyists, and since the voters cannot outvote the corruption (both political parties take bribes; both support DRM),
economical terrorists? (Score:2)
Or did you mean economic terrorists?
No, no... grammar nazis are so yesterday's news (Score:2)
Re:Economics (Score:2)
---or nothing.
Seriously. How many people do you suppose have evver given a second thought to DRM? Compared to say the number that buy or rent home videos? Subscribe to cable or satteliite TV, XM or Sirius radio?
The Geek tends to forget that personal media collections ---
Re:Economics (Score:2)
-uso.
DRM is not evil (Score:3, Insightful)
The big issue I have with the entire DRM debate is that EVERY side forgets where the evil comes into play with DRM: the State. I have many "trade" secrets in the businesses I own and run. In order to keep others from learning the secrets, I perform the actions in private -- away from prying eyes. I'll often mask the output in order to make it not time-effective for my customers to learn the secrest -- and they do continue to hire me so it means they're generally happy with my prices. If they weren't happy, they wouldn't hire me again.
The State, though, removes the market of competition from DRM. If one of my customers took the time to disassemble my services or products, they should be free to use their hands and their tools to mimic the same product or service. The same is true of any DRM -- once you have an item you bought, you should be free to learn to reproduce it at will, regardless of what that item or service is. But the State has created laws preventing us from using our labor in the way we deem best for our needs.
DRM is perfect for many markets -- business can use just the right amount of DRM to deter reverse engineering or disassembly, just long enough until they release their next product to their market. Some industries just need 6 months in order to bring the newer product to market -- if the competition or the customer base wants to waste their time taking something apart rather than buy the original, they should be free to.
Let us look at the real evil in the DRM market -- the one group that wants to prevent us from using our hands and tools in the way we want to. Companies should be free to use any tools (including DRM) to protect their trade secrets; consumers and competition should be free to use their tools to discover how to reproduce a product or service themselves. The State has no right to regulate, require or subsidize either party.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confused. DRM is about you keeping customers away from their data, not you keeping customers away from your data.
If I buy an accounting and compliance package, and it timebombs six months into full use, I should be able to buy another one, and transfer my data. I should be able to pay someone else to transfer that data because I feel the first vendor was untrustworthy.
DRM means I must pay the first vendor, or go out of business (compliance laws). Never mind what happens if they go out of business- I have no options anymore.
Now, you might think the government has no business protecting people from incompetent companies, what if the vendor did this on purpose? What if that company deliberately set up their accounting package to explode so that they could underbid the competition and recoup the costs later? Isn't that tantamount to extortion?
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:3, Insightful)
We offer all our customers non-proprietary services as well, but for significantly more money (150% costlier, actually). Our rates on our proprietary services are about 40% cheaper than the competition and we've proven our reliability by being in business for 16 years without a loss in that time frame.
If I buy an accounting and compliance package, and it timebombs six months into full use
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple' [apple.com]
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
With your wallet!
If you don't like the terms, don't do the deal. Period, end of story.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
So your solution for me, would be to go and steal one? The problem is, there ARE alternatives, you just don't like them. There are ALWAYS alternatives.
GO call the WAAAAAAAAMBULANCE.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:4, Insightful)
So, according to you, it's absolutely fine to take advantage of people who lack business sense, are distracted (eg. single parent), or are just stupid? Is that your general attitude to life?
And really.. would you truely read an entire agreement everytime you purchase a song (remember, the contract could be changed between purchases)? Would you be in a position to negotiate with Apple, if you didn't agree? I mean, c'mon.. this is crazy!
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
This happens more often than you'd think, even with large and successful companies. Before there was a name for DRM I used to work for a vendor of complete turnkey solutions (accounting, payroll, inventory, etc.) for car dealerships. All of the customer's data was encrypted, and the customer didn't have the key (at least, not without more technical comptetance that the customer had available).
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Reading the contract is good advice, especially when dealing with persons like yourself.
If you're buying services or items without a contract, I would consider that an "as-i
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
That's just crazy.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
So what? You're the good guy?
Even if I accept that, there are far more WAL*MARTs, Microsofts, and Enrons than you.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
No.. DMCA means you must pay first vendor (Score:2, Insightful)
No.. without the presence of the DMCA there would be a huge sector of our economy right now devoted to producing DRM cracks, one of which would be for your program.
OP is right, it is state regulation.. the technology mandate known as usc section 1201 (DMCA anticircumvention provision), which is keeping you locked in, not the DRM itself.
I'm all for regulations which make sense, but the solution here is not the further regulation of the market by preventing sellers from s
Re:No.. DMCA means you must pay first vendor (Score:2)
I'm all for returning to pre-DMCA laws...
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it may be, but you're still missing Grand Parents point.
If you believe in the free market, then DRM doesn't matter. Just as companies should be allowed to do whatever they want to stuff before you sell it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it after you bought it.
What's making DRM so potentially crippling now, is possibly patents, certainly copyrights and trade-secr
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
But I don't believe in a free market, and no sane economist does. Free Markets produce monopolies that are harmful to their customers. Free Markets produce more Enrons, Wal*Marts, and Microsofts than they do good.
I believe in an
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:3, Insightful)
There are laws against piracy, but they are weak in practice due to Fair Use and similar conventions. The state can't easily punish piracy because it's difficult to catch and difficult to prove.
DRM because is a market-oriented solution to piracy. Instead of relying on laws t
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2, Insightful)
there are more differences than that grasshoppah.
this one is also completely unaccountable. It has no judicial oversight, oversight which has always been necessary to check the unreasonable assertions of copyright cartels on the producer side, and in
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
I would reply to this by saying - that's by design. The whole point of how the United States government (in particular; you may not be in the US) was designed was to put the burden of proof and force on the government - to protect the rights of the populace. Our government and the rich and powerful forgot those ideas a very long time ago.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
You mean a player that likely won't decrypt the latest discs? Don't forget the discs *are* encrypted.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
The thing is - free markets does not work. I would like a non drm mp3 music download service where I can buy both songs that are popular and Indie artists. I am willing to pay for it, as are others. Jet no one has tried to make such a service.
Laws are needed to prevent companies from
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
But the state doesn't need to prosecute; the RIAAA et all can make civil suits, demanding huge cash payouts, under current law. And they rarely have to prove anything as the victims usually settle before trial.
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
Right, the movie companies want me to NOT look at their movie. My suggestion is that instead of wasting our time with DRM, they should just stop making movies completely. That would be OK with me. I think that would stop people from pirating movies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM is not evil (Score:2)
The Sony root-kit is one example. Of course, we also have other negative terms for such software like "malware", "spyware" and even "adware".
Of course, the point that much of DRM is not evil without the legal elements is well taken. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Technological Protection Measures, by themselves, are not necessarily evil.
That's interesting, if extreme, libertarianism (Score:2)
But do you seriously propose a world in which books and movies would be released with zero copyright protection, and "pirates" could legally reproduce and sell anything they physically could copy? That certainly would drive the pro
Wow (Score:2)
Carefully disguised pro hollywood puff piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
I did however find carefully slipped in hollywood propaganda, like this little nugget:
"The force of law (and the risk of lawsuits) combined with the obscurity of most cracking tools means that even DRM solutions which are easily cracked can be effective at preventing casual piracy"
This devious little term, causal piracy, actually refers to what should be our legally protected rights to fair use, and our rights under the AHRA for reproduction on recording devices.
Then there's self serving drek:
DRM's not going away anytime soon, and newer techniques such as BD+ promise to make future technologies even more difficult to hack for long periods of time.
hollywood to hackers..."naa naa-na-naa naa".
Not to mention it goes against every point made in the "if you can't use the door, find an open window" argument that cracking the cypher is not necessarily necessary.
Re:Carefully disguised pro hollywood puff piece. (Score:5, Insightful)
In between are the people uploading movies and music to the alt.binaries.* hierarchy and p2p systems like BitTorrent. Frankly, as much as I'm sure the big publishing firms would like for this to stop, the (admittedly modest) technical knowledge needed to take advantage of this kind of mid-range amateur piracy are beyond the average user, and the effort involved is sufficiently great that most people would rather just buy the damn movie at the store. The publishers may or may not understand this, hence the occasional wave of egregious lawsuits, but I suspect they do, if only because crushing Usenet binaries and p2p networks would neither legally nor technically all that challenging.
The goal of big media is to make most people afraid to pirate their products. The huffing and puffing over the technical fringe is just a publicity stunt.
The only really disturbing aspect of DRM is the legislative component, which tramples all over fair use and other elements of free expression. That is something to worry about for sure.
As for BD+, I don't think it will stick around long after the first time some discs are distributed with buggy flash code that cripples the players they are inserted into.
Re:Carefully disguised pro hollywood puff piece. (Score:2)
The question of whether the piracy DRM prevents is worth more than the sales it discourages is another matter altogether. Right now, it's a matter of speculation, frankly. And given that most of the market is sewn up by a cartel of price-fixing corporate titans, the market is unlikely to sort things out, either.
For the r
what (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had been reading Ars Technica for any length of time, you would be aware of its incessant and strident criticism of DRM and **AA stupidity. This article is no exception, although perhaps it's not anti-hollywood enough for your tastes.
"casual piracy" (Score:2)
Which is (AFAIK - IANAL) perfectly legal (at least here in Austria), unless the music has been sprayed with magical uncopyable bits
Re:Carefully disguised pro hollywood puff piece. (Score:2)
Now, the more interesting point that need to be made again and again is that DRM is not a computer security issue. It's a consumer convienence issue. This means that, unlike a server or encrypted file where if the security is breached once it's consid
Complicated reasons?? Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about the people specifically referred to in this article but most reasoning behind dislike of DRM is quite simple in nature. For example, being able to listen to a song on more than one brand of audio-playing device, or being able to watch a movie on more than one brand of device. There are also the cases where it's simply a matter of being able to burn a copy of a piece of software, or a movie.
WMA DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes it hard to crack WMA? How did Microsoft get this one right?
Re:WMA DRM (Score:3, Informative)
or the soundcard loop method, or the virtual soundcard method... etc etc..
they didnt crack the algorithm because they didnt need to.
Re:WMA DRM (Score:2)
That doesn't work.
WinAmp cannot strip DRM. Soundcard loops are disabled by the driver when playing back secure audio. Virtual soundcards require drivers that are not signed.
The only way to strip Windows Media DRM at present is to use the analog hole with a separate recording device.
Re:WMA DRM (Score:2)
Re:WMA DRM (Score:2)
Attacking and defending DRM is like the martial arts. As a defender, you might win, or you might end up on your back.
In most cases, there are only a few defenders and many attackers - so it's like being mobbed. You are unlikely to win such a match.
But losing is not guaranteed. Can a Ninja Master fight off ten students at once? Yes, because they are good enough at what they do that it's possible. This is what has happened with Windows Media DRM - a lot of very smart computer programmers have built a syst
side note - interesting logic question (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how many people who agree with this statement also support gun control.
Why nobody has said this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't buy music or software that is copywritten in this way. There are open alternatives. Show the entertainment industry what you think with your dollar. Why spend money on recordings of movies or music anymore when you cannot even utilize them the way you would like without becoming a criminal?
Hollywood and Washington are taking a big fat dump on the entire point of copyright and anti-trust laws - protecting
Re:Why nobody has said this.. (Score:2)
Boycotts very seldom happen en masse. Generally, they're so small as to pass completely under the radar of the people responsible for looking at sales figures.
No need to hack DRM (Score:2)
Support your local hacker. (Score:2, Interesting)
The history of our civilization over the ages teaches us that media stored in one or only a few repositories will most likely be lost - prime examples being the great libraries of Alexandria and Constantinople. But while these libraries flourishe
If we're talking about current cultural produce... (Score:2)
'cause, really, do you really want future generations to see the crap being churned out today in the guise of "art"? Kinda makes me glad CDs only have about 100-year lifetime expectancy...
DRM legality? (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
The difference is...when you buy a DRM'd music file...you own it...but they still restrict you.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
If you buy a copy of a copyrigthed work, you own that single copy. Plain and simple. You also own the physical media that it is stored on.
Even though it is your property, there are certain things you may not do with it, these things are listed in copyrigth-law and elsewhere. For example, you may not make and distribute copies of a book you own, nor may you use a book you own to whack a policeman over the head.
But you may do anything with your property not specifically prohibited by law. You require no "permission" or "licence" from the copyrigth-holder for this. You can read a book. You can listen to a piece of music. You can give away, or sell, a book you're tired of. You can microwave a CD. You can use Ann Coulter writings to wipe your ass. You can do all of these things, regardless of what the copyrigth-holder thinks about them. Copyrigth is (DUH!) mainly about the rigth to make copies. (what a concept!) and a few other things (public performance is covered for example).
In no way shape or form does copyrigth prevent you from owning books, cds or other copyrigthed works that you have legally aquired.
There's a difference between owning the copyrigth to a work (which you don't, unless you created the work or you bugth the copyrigth from the person who did) and owning a single copy of a work. (which you do if you legally bougth a copy of the work.)
Re:DRM is like gun control (Score:2)
Re:DRM is like gun control (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit - What About unDRM (Score:2)
Re:DRM is not evil, is not bad, and has it place. (Score:2)
If the information is stored on a private network which is locked down tight so it can only be accessed by "approved" PCs, and the "approved" corporate PCs are also locked down tight, then yes, DRM will work just fine (though it won't protect much against someone retyping a "protected" document onto another, non-corporate owned machine).
However, if we're talking about the information being made a