Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management By Charlie Demerjian: Sunday 24 October 2004, 12:53 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19246
A FEW MONTHS AGO, ironically on July 4th, I ranted a bit about Sony (See here), and how it was shooting themselves in the foot with the ATRAC garbage it was trying to foist off on unsuspecting consumers. I got a bunch of letters from a bunch of different sources, from burned consumers to a member of the Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) a consortium of 'over 160 member companies, with more being added daily'. Before I get too deep into this, let me start out with a letter I got in the middle of June. It was the catalyst for all of this, both the Sony rant, this one and the ones that will inevitably follow. Nothing has been edited, only the names have been removed. Read your review about AnyDVD. Sounds great, but here's my problem: I purchased a $2,000 Gateway Media Center PC a few months ago for the express purpose of 1) recording my favorite HBO shows (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc.) and burning DVD's for my private collection; and 2) converting my home videos to DVD. All has been going fine, until 2 nights ago. I recorded Six Feet Under and then opened up Sonic MyDVD, as usual, to import the video, edit out the beginning and ending junk, and burn a DVD for my personal use. I got a message saying it couldn't be done because the file was copy protected! Huh? Turns out that a couple of days ago, HBO started encrypting all of its programs with CGMS-A. They allow you to "copy" a program that you record from their signal once. The trouble is that they consider that one-time copy to be recording the program onto your hard drive, not taking it from the hard drive to a DVD. THAT SUCKS OUT LOUD and I am extremely angry, as you can imagine. The files are HUGE and, even though I have a 200 gb hard drive, I can't keep them there forever. MediaCenter records tv shows with a dvr.ms extension. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY SOFTWARE THAT WOULD GET AROUND THE CGMS-A so that the programs can be burned onto a DVD from the hard drive?? I just want to burn copies for my own use. I don't loan them out, I don't sell them. I think HBO's scheme is a total rip-off and if I weren't so addicted to The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, I would tell them to put their service in a location where the sun would never find it. THANKS in advance for any info. you might be able to share. This got me thinking, and reading, and the more I researched, the more I realised that the record companies, and all content providers for that matter, are greedy, arrogant and stupid. They don't care about anything other than squeezing the most money they can possibly get out of you, everything else be damned. If your rights have to be trampled through the use of large bribes (called political contributions nowadays) to get laws changed in their favor, so be it. The DHWG is trying to be a mediator here, making the walled gardens of the content providers interoperable. It is for your benefit, really, and what is worse, they will tell you that with a straight face. Needless to say, they are wrong, and all they are doing is window dressing. None of the '160+' companies have anything resembling a spine, balls, or guts. They are caving in, screwing you, and pretending to be on your side. I think I prefer the naked greed. One very important thing to note, nothing in the above letter mentions piracy, selling, depriving the precious content providers of money, or anything else that is not completely legal under fair use laws. If the letter writer attempts to get around the copy protection to burn the things he recorded to his own DVDs for his own personal use, under the DMCA, he is a criminal. So, HBO in one fell swoop pissed off its customers by screwing them, potentially made them criminals, and saved themselves nothing. Brilliant plan, eh? So, what is this person to do? I told him about Overnet/EDonkey, and now the P2P service has another happy customer, and he has his shows, burned to his personal DVDs for his personal use. This may fall under fair use, it may be a criminal act, and with insanity like the INDUCE act moving forward, it sure as hell will be criminal to so much as think about it in the near future. If this person had done exactly the same thing on a VCR without Microsoft's , Gateway and Sonic's tender attentions, it would have worked, and HBO would most likely have one more customer. Now it is borderline criminal. Any reasonable person would tell you that it is completely OK to do this, legal or not. RIAA and MPAA lawyers however would love to crush you under their heel and dance about on the bloody stain that you become. Which outcome embodies freedom and democracy again? Which outcome involves bags of cash and campaign managers? Which do you think will win? Enter the digital music rights companies of the world. Not only do these weasels want to screw you with the 'protection' schemes they are hatching, they want to use them to control all other content providers. That is why I kept going back to the walled gardens theme, Sony is trying to build them, as is Apple, Real, MS and everyone else. If you put any execs from these, and many other companies in a closed room, and get them talking about user screwing, err, content protection schemes, they stand a fair chance of drowning in their own drool thinking of the money. The world would win that one, but they are smarter than that, but not wiser. Enter the DHWG, or the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) (here) as they are now known. They are composed of the biggest companies in the industry, everyone is there, and a presentation I was sent came from one of the 'big boys' of the bunch. While it was meant to help me understand their point of view, all it did was scare the hell out of me, and convince me that they are collectively doomed to failure. The sad thing is that you and I will pay the price for it while they flail their way into the grave. I will not name this company, mainly because it is nothing it is doing in particular. It is simply promoting the spineless, myopic 'vision' of the consortium in a sheeplike fashion. The whole group is either actively evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. There is nothing that they are doing that will benefit you and I, but just about everything will hurt us. The DLNA does not understand the fundamental problem, and how it directly conflicts with capitalism and consumer interests. What they are doing is making a single content protection standard that will be compatible across all members. You plug in your DVR to your TV and it works and that can stream to your wireless laptop in the bathroom just as easily. Everyone is happy, and the consumer benefits while the rights of the content providers are preserved. No one can argue with that right? I mean the poor multi-billion dollar consortia are only out to keep from getting ripped off so they can line the pockets of their execs and coked out talentless dancers that masquerade as stars nowadays. Really, what they are doing is trying to take the same old walled gardens, and make them into one walled garden that only the current members can play in. Instead of screwing you and each other, they have started to realise that they will only be able to screw you if they want to get away with anything at all. For them, this is 'fair'. The fundamental question is simply this. Why would a consumer want to buy something that has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current solutions? I have asked this question to junior members of the companies to the very top CxOs, and from people on the street to fellow journalists. No-one can give me an answer. The only answer is greed. They don't give a rat's ass about you, what you think, care or do, as long as they get your money. If you don't want to give them your money, they will take it, and make resistance a crime. Several execs used me as a sounding board, some because they knew I was an asshole and would give the answers they didn't want to hear, and others because they were oblivious. I would always ask them the question, and none would give me an answer. No one of them could give me a single reason why DRM was a benefit to the consumer. Think about this. You have 160+ companies all sitting in a room discussing you like you are dumb sheep. The sad thing is that they probably have the consumer sized up perfectly. They can't answer the benefit part because there is no benefit. Some execs tried valiantly and used excuses like 'well, interoperability is better than many different incompatible DRM schemes'. Nice try, but answer the question. The execs either have the proverbial clue-proof coating applied way too thick, or they don't get the idea. I don't know which frightens me more, but I do know at least one electronics exec I talked to is clue-proof, and the other is in the rapacious greed category. Let's just assume it depends on the mustelid involved. Hands up everyone who thinks the RIAA threatening to sue 12 year old girls and octogenarians made them buy more records? Hmm, I see no hands out there. OK, here's an easier one for you. Hands up everyone who feels the poor underpaid RIAA members would starve to death peddling $18 CDs laden with crap if they couldn't trample your rights? Nope, no hands there either. Now, how about this one. Hands up everyone who would buy more CDs if they actually worked in your car without having to use illegal programs to rip them? Wow, lots of hands there. How about if they were forced to put out good music you wanted rather than what they want you to buy? Wow, more hands. Think it means something? If you are a record exec, or a DLNA member, it means the thieves are barking at your door. Call the lawyers, start the lawsuits If the foisted, crippling, unwanted, unloved DRM isn't bad enough, it gets worse. One of the key bullet points in an industry presentation I was given said 'IP must be licensed under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms'. On the surface that is a fair sounding proposal because everyone get the same things at the same price. The world is a happy, controlled, interoperable walled garden. The execs get their money, and drive around in large cars. What more could you want? Well, if you run Linux, the ability to play the DVD you just bought might be useful. The terms reasonable and non-discriminatory are the same ones Microsoft used to shut Linux out of several other markets. Now the entire consumer electronics industry, hardware, software and content providers, are all getting together and slamming the door on Linux, and probably anyone else who dares fly the banner of the consumer. They can and will shut you down, and if they can't do it legally, they can spend you into the ground in court. That brings us back to the whole question of what the DLNA does for you. The short answer is nothing that would be considered good by anyone who does not actively talk to their shoes and to an occasional wall. It does allow DLNA members to control what you do, how you do it, and how you will pay them for the privilege. Comforting thoughts, don't you think? Let me put a personal spin on this. I have not bought a CD since 1998. When the record companies sued Napster, I sat back and said 'this is wrong'. I thought I would wait it out, and not give them my money until a decision was reached. If the record companies prevailed, I would never buy another CD or give any RIAA member my money. If Napster won, I would go back to buying more than the CD or two I bought every week. Fast forward. The RIAA won and lost. They spent Napster into the ground, and while I think the fight is far from over, Napster is gone. Sticking to my morals, I have not bought a CD since then, and I have the dubious honor of being able to say the last CD I ever bought was Kid Rock's Devil Without a Cause. The sad part is that I downloaded most of the album from Napster before I bought it, and said 'hey, this isn't bad'. I then bought the album. God, I need to bathe. Overall, with the new wave of DRM infected consumer electronics breaking over us, you stand to lose what few rights you have that are not currently criminalised. The problem is a simple one. The DLNA will not allow itself to admit that the only thing that matters is giving consumers more for their money. Charging them more so you can screw them harder does not work under capitalism, so they are attempting to change the system. Until they can answer the question, they are doomed to failure. Can anyone in the DLNA answer it? Here it is again: "Why would a consumer want to buy something that has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current solutions?" I just wish one of you spineless but very rich companies had the balls to stand up and do the right thing for the consumer. Fat chance, but I thought I'd ask. � You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
