Mediaholic

Yes, it is an interesting discussion and I agree with most of your argument. But wait a second, I thought that WMA9 DRM codecs and the like were virtually uncrackable? If this were true, how are these songs finding their way onto P2P networks in a matter of minutes?

Any why no mention of a platform independent codec with hassle-less DRM? If the hardware makers could be convinced to allow these codecs on their devices and the distribution channel could sell hassle-free DRM music then isn't that a non-evil compromise for all parties? Google, if you're listening -- show us how not evil you are!

The Ansari X Prize was the first incentivized prize to jumpstart the personal spaceflight industry. Perhaps a prize could be created to create such a non-evil scenario for DRM? :)

Dave

Assume you owned a nice car and parked it in a crime-ridden neighborhood. Would you then lock your car? If so, why? Are you alleging the people in this neighborhood of guilt?

It could be suggested that the internet is such a neighborhood and the content creators are the owner of the vehicle.

This is why I think a platform- indepenent codec with hassle-less DRM is a proper solution.

Dave

WMDRM is VERY crackable, in fact every DRM system is, because the key for decoding the media resides on one's computer and can be acquired by any piece of software that attempts to get it. Even if this key was encrypted, then the key used to decrypt the key would need to reside on the computer and so on and so forth. The point is that from computer science point of view DRM is broken by definition since the system has no secret other than its inner making and there isn't a single known system in the world that remained secure just because its inner making was hidden.

Now, regarding a platform independent DRM, it is pointless because of the above reason and because it won't be adopted by anyone due to the fact that companies use DRM to block their competition not to secure anything so platform independence is a drawback not an advantage.

Regarding the analogy of a car in a bad neighborhood, let's take a more relevant analogy since we are talking here about shoppers in a store. If a store is located in a bad neighborhood does it makes sense to require all shoppers to come in with handcuffs just to make sure they won't steal anything? Or maybe instead you use more security guards and more surveillance cameras? Same thing should be done here, violators should be traceable and prosecuted through a watermarking system, but no provisions to make the music non playable to beging with, are acceptable! The alternative to DRM should be something that can trace the compyright violators and bring them to justice while leaving the honset people to freely do the kind of things that they have been allowed to do so far without breaking copyright law.

Of-course one needs to keep in mind that content owners wanted to make the VHS ilegal also, so even the definition of what is legaly allowed to do without breaking copyright law is a moving target. Clearly sharing a copyrighted file in P2P networks is a crime so the person that makes it available for sharing is a criminal and need to be found and brought to justice - this is more or less a consensus. That would be a good start for any solution that attempts to truly cope with piracy and help srtists instead of serving the interests of large monopolies...

If cracking WMDRM is so easy to crack, how come I haven't been able to find a way to do it through casual surfing?

Your house is your personal property. Music is the property of the license-holder until it is bought. Only when purchased do you have X rights to the music as stated in the license. Just as you own your house (let's say you're not renting), so does the license holder own the music. You don't want your house stolen and neither does the creator or license-holder of the music.

Regarding the handcuff analogy... The handcuffs aren't applied when one walks in the store; only when the purchase is made. Therefore, if you don't like DRM, don't purchase DRM material. The ZDnet executive editor calling DRM, "CRAP", said the same thing. The problem is, most mainstream electronic media is full of "CRAP" and there is no other legal way to obtain the media over the internet. That's why they are evil...

The watermarking or traceability scheme seems interesting. Could it be accomplished without the privacy folks going nutso? If so, convince the RIAA and MPAA that this scheme is ok and to let DRM fall by the wayside. If they could automate policing and allow for some flexibility, I'm down with it.

This is really nothing new as I remember the issue being spoken of regarding cassette tapes, vhs, etc... It's only because the internet breaks the paradigm shift and makes replication of materials so quick and easy does the MPAA and RIAA react so vehemently.

Intels' Don Mcdonald has said few things that to me summarize this whole issue and the best solution.

He said:
"it's wrong to assume that all consumers are criminals".

and

"make content easier to buy than it is to pirate".

So the first sentence explains why DRM is evial and the second provides the real solution to the problem! The only thing I would add is put more emphasis on educating people and especially children about the wrong doing in piracy.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/pcs/0,39029439,40061064,00.htm

I agree completely, Ronen!