Posts published during March, 2009

2 comments

March 4, 2009 — Patrick D

Circumventing Anti-Circumvention: A Beginner’s Guide

Image courtesy of http://blog.groundswellcollective.com

Image courtesy of http://blog.groundswellcollective.com

“Digital Rights Management” — that pesky three-word phrase protecting digital music, video, text, and software from the overactive imaginations (and underactive wallets) of its end users.  Often not-so-affectionately referred to by digital media consumers as “DRM,” this technology has stood in recent years as one of the premier (albeit easily surmountable) roadblocks to file-sharers worldwide, preventing both the copying and the editing of purchased music and video.  Recently, Apple announced that “The Big Four” in music production had at last decided to permit Apple to distribute their music via iTunes free from restrictions imposed by Apple’s house brand DRM system, FairPlay, breeding a new species of Apple music known as iTunes Plus.  In an effort to stir up greater competition in the digital music market, the Big Four had already offered DRM-free contracts to distributers like Amazon.com MP3, whose unprotected digital music, until the inception of iTunes Plus, was on average cheaper ($0.89/song) and of a higher quality (256 kps) than its main competitor.

Despite this viable alternative, however, iTunes managed to remain on top as a distributor of digital music, likely because of its ease of use and shnazzy interface.  Apple’s application of the FairPlay system—per its old contract with the Big Four—however, has remained a major thorn in the side of digital music consumers who desire more maneuverability (distributability?) out of their music files.   The natural response from cyberspace has been the swift, and ever-improving, development of an array of techniques for circumventing Apple’s DRM system.  Take a look at some of the most accessible:

“The Go-To.”  Perhaps the most common practice in the world of “DRM stripping”—popular due to the fact that it is relatively idiot-proof thanks to the iTunes playlist interface—is the burning of a CD full of DRM-protected music, and then the reimporting of those tracks from the disc back into your music library.  The reformatting of the music files necessary for burning effectively removes the DRM protections, rendering the tracks manipulable.  One major drawback: transferring the tracks to CD results in an unrecoverable loss of sound quality that is unacceptable to some listeners.  Still, the method offers unprotected music a la mix-tape-style technology—a Valentine’s Day gift for your significant other now comes with DRM-free kickbacks.

“Google, Rapidshare, and Source Code.”  If you are behind the 8-ball enough to have not yet upgraded your iTunes to version 8.0.2, then a program known as “Requiem” might be your next best bet.  PC and Mac compatible, Requiem is designed specifically for removing DRM protections from both iTunes music and video.  Interestingly, Requiem and Apple have been in a back-and-forth programming battle of wits and source code since the infringing program’s open-source introduction to cyberspace in February of 2008 (on the previously-linked Wikipedia page, scroll down to section 4.4, entitled “Requiem”).  In an attempt to put a final nail in the Requiem coffin, Apple has recently issued a cease-and-desist order to web pages offering a link to Requiem downloads.  True to form, however, dedicated surfers can still access a Rapidshare copy of the install file through popular search engines.  Requiem claims to be almost completely lossless — a fact that can neither be confirmed nor denied by this particular 8.0.2 user.

“I’m Desperate and REALLY Like Computers.”  A method whose ins and outs are far too long and complex to be worth outlining here, this technique involves iMovie HD and a lot of free time.  Suffice it to say, there are many steps, though like the last, it claims to result in a DRM-free copy of your music without the quality loss.  If it has come down to this, then I suggest you get digging.

It should be noted now that though extant, all three of the above methods are, in fact, illegal.  Seriously.  Section 1201 of the DMCA, known more broadly as the “Anti-Circumvention” portion of the Act, states pretty clearly that “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”  DRM happens to be one such “technological measure.”  And the techniques above?  “Circumvention.”  In light of this, I would suggest that the wary reader seriously consider one final option…

“The Legal Option.”  As mentioned, the iTunes Store now offers DRM-free music that you can purchase legally.  So does Amazon.com MP3, Napster, Limewire, among others.  Unique to iTunes, however, is the option to upgrade your previously-purchased, DRM-protected music to iTunes Plus, at a cost of $0.30/song.  Though the library of “upgradable” songs is by no means all-encompassing, it is, at least, a legitimate start.

I would like, however, to pose a final question to the audience:  Is this $0.30 upgrade fee fair?  A not-at-all-hypothetical to chew on:

Let’s suppose that on October 15, 2008 at 6:48 PM I purchased a DRM-protected digital copy of Jimi Hendrix’ “The Star Spangled Banner (Live at Woodstock)” (The Hendrix Experience: The Best of Jimi Hendrix, Track 20) from the iTunes music store for $0.99.  Just shy of 3 months later, Apple announces that (finally) the Big Four have permitted them to distribute DRM-free music.  Consequently, a digital copy of Jimi Hendrix’ “The Star Spangled Banner (Live at Woodstock)” (The Hendrix Experience: The Best of Jimi Hendrix, Track 20) is now available DRM-free for exactly the same price of $0.99.  I, however, being the loyal customer that I am, and having purchased the song months ago, must now pay an additional $0.30—bringing my grand total to $1.29—to, essentially, obtain exactly the same copy that another consumer can now purchase for $0.99.

Again, is this fair?  And beyond fairness, does this not encourage consumers to hesitate to purchase any protected digital media in hopes that an unprotected (i.e. more versatile) version will emerge at a price cheaper than that of the protected version + an upgrade?  Perhaps I should return my shiny new digi video copy of Forgetting Sarah Marshall (purchased protected for $9.99) and instead wait until the DRM-free version comes out.

Presumably, I will have saved myself 30%.

0 comments

March 2, 2009 — Carter S

DRM and Interactive Media

I’m sure many of you have seen these comics. The first presents an economic incentives case for why DRM is bad for the consumer as well as being a reference to scenarios such as when Microsoft initiated the process of shutting down the license servers for iteration of a music service before it rolled out the Zune player. The second presents a nice caricature of some individuals on the techie end of the personality continuum. But there is a very important point in the DRM space that is completely missed. GAMES!

You may have heard of cute game called spore? It’s DRM was so problematic that people who purchased copies of it would also get  the pirated version! On the other hand, there are reports that piracy rates for a cute game called World of Goo, are 82-90%!

This is a very different situation than with music piracy in its implications. With music, there is the argument that piracy reduces the marginal cost of discovering new bands whose future work and concerts one may choose to attend. With computer games, there is already a standard convention of having a free demo version available which contains enough of the games actual content to determine if the entirety is worth purchasing. Moreover, there isn’t any way but through sales of that software by which the developer may recoup the cost of the software creation or make a profit! This gets somewhat more complicated and in some ways invalid as you move from games to productivity software like microsoft office or mathematica.

An interesting element of DRM with console games is that for many of the systems, the game can only be played if the media is in the device. This provides a simple way of ensuring that there isn’t casual piracy by way of circulating a single copy of a game. This of course naturally leads to a market for “carts”, which are devices both for storing backups of games you own or executing your own  homebrew software. These are the classical instances of multimedia fair use that fall under a grey or black area because the same technologies that make these reasonable actions possible also violate the system’s DRM mechanism (as well as making piracy much easier).

There is a long and storied history of technically inclined consumers either directly modifying a game (with the consquences ranging from team fortress to hot coffee) or alternatively making noncommercial remakes of games no longer playable on modern computers (which also occupy a funny place in the fair use) continua, despite typically not being of commercial nature.

Where does fair use etc come into play with software in those and other instances? Too much seems to rely on the EULA (a questionable contract) and on the fact that one party in any given dispute is either outnumbered or outlawyered.

Newer Entries »