The future of DRM
If ever a technology was introduced prematurely, it was digital rights management (DRM). From the DVD Content Scramble System (CSS) to the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) in HD DVD and Blu-ray systems, millions of dollars have been invested in failed attempts to prevent piracy of digital content.
Security is difficult to do right. CSS failed because virtually every element of the system was poorly designed. It used weak 40-bit encryption and was vulnerable to break-once, break-everywhere attacks. CSS continues to be used because it's better than nothing, but it isn't much better than nothing.
AACS solved many of the problems of CSS, but was quickly compromised because the AACS administrators allowed AACS to be implemented in purely software-based systems for PCs. Without hardware security, there was no way to stop ordinary software-debugging tools from extracting the cryptographic key values used to decrypt AACS-protected movies.
But the weaknesses of these systems shouldn't be taken to mean that effective DRM is impossible, as some have claimed.
There's a closely related claim that I can agree with: perfect DRM is impossible. It's inherently impossible to plug the "analog hole," for example. Anything a person can hear or see, a microphone or camera can record.
Nevertheless, DRM can be effective in the commercial sense--protecting the commercial distribution of copyrighted works against unfair and illegal competition from pirates. The full details of an effective DRM solution are beyond the scope of a single blog post, but making DRM work requires at least four factors that aren't present in current systems--and probably aren't even practical right now.
1. The DRM system must use secure hardware components integrated into the playback devices (e.g., displays and speakers) so there is no accessible digital pathway carrying decrypted data. Playback devices must be able to communicate with an authentication server the first time it sees each protected work.
2. Playback devices must not be able to play full-quality unprotected content.
3. All copies of a given work must not be identical. When practical--with downloaded content, especially--each copy should be separately encrypted. When this can't be done--as with pre-recorded optical media--critical portions of the content should be distributed separately at the time of authentication. Even then, the number of copies sharing the same decryption keys should be limited as much as possible.
4. The authentication process must use a secure communication channel between the DRM hardware and the authentication server, and transfer only the information necessary to play that specific copy of the work on that specific presentation device.
With all of these requirements in place, even the most sophisticated pirate attack can only compromise one copy at a time. That's plenty bad, but without access to the authentication servers, the pirates can't create a new version that can be played on the protected players.
This point brings us to the key difference between perfect DRM and commercially practical DRM--a commercial solution merely requires that pirated content is clearly distinguishable from authorized content by ordinary users. Although many people are willing to play pirated content, most aren't.
But none of these technical requirements address the social drawbacks of DRM. No matter how well implemented, DRM will always annoy some people, and will always present one more potential source of problems. I think we'll find that some--and perhaps most--kinds of digital content can be profitable even without effective DRM. Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's necessary...but if DRM is necessary, at least it's possible.
Peter N. Glaskowsky is a technology analyst for The Envisioneering Group. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.





Cable and Satellite companies have been hashing through this
for years. Even with full control of hardware and software,
anyone who wants unfettered access to TV channels w/o paying
through the nose usually can find 'that guy' who modifies boxes
and/or smart cards to allow you to take in as many channels as
you desire, all w/o paying for it.
DRM in computer tech fares little better... for every new
algorithm, there is a swift crack for it if there is any consumer
demand (which works a lot like illicit drugs, come to think of
it...) You just have to know where to look.
Even full-control setups like the XBox are routinely cracked (or
"modded").
IMHO, I see DRM as a failure. It fails to even slow down the ones
who want the content illicitly, while at the same time becoming
an inconvenience and a bother to those of us who get their
content legitimately.
Perhaps it's time to look for a more holistic means of protecting
content?
/P
"Playback devices must be able to communicate with an authentication server the first time it sees each protected work."
It scares me and sounds a bit big brother-ish. Why should a commercial entity receive a callback when I use their product for the first time, or anytime for that matter? If I buy anything, including protected work I'd like the relationship with the entity I am buying it from to be restricted to the purchase. I gave them money, they gave me a product we both should be happy. Why should their product call home when I used it and from where I use it?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that all companies are trustworthy angels and all that stored information will not be tracked, leaked and won't come back biting me in the rear...
1. Consumers will have to buy all new equipment that has the hardware-locking capability built-in. You can't just buy a new television, a new tuner, a new set of speakers, etc., EVERYTHING must be new.
2. Worse, EVERYTHING must be proprietary. As we've seen with the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD war, Apple vs. everyone else war, and so on, getting companies to agree on a standard for something as simple as a format is impossible. Trying to get companies to agree on some hardware device to use for DRM would be even harder than impossible.
3. Even worse, consumers would have to operate under the assumption that if they buy some media content such as a television show, it will ONLY be viewable in one place. No more transferring shows to your iPod without paying for it again. No more taking it on a trip to watch on the player in your car without paying for it again.
4. For all this money, consumers are getting absolutely nothing in return. In fact, it's less than nothing that they're getting, they're actually LOSING functionality that they would and should otherwise have. That makes it a very, very tough sell.
5. Consumers MUST have a connection to an authentication server--i.e. access to the Internet--for what you're talking about. While market penetration is high, believe it or not, it's not ubiquitous yet. And, of course, this totally neglects portable devices such as players in minivans and such. If a consumer buys a movie while on vacation, would they really be willing to wait until they get back home and can register it before being able to watch it?
6. You say, "With all of these requirements in place, even the most sophisticated pirate attack can only compromise one copy at a time." I know this may be shocking, but one copy is all that a sophisticated pirate needs. Once it's ripped, it will be unencrypted and converted into a format that is playable on any device. I know you're proposing that basically all devices being locked so that they won't play unencrypted media, but that's not really practical. It totally ignores that there are things out there that people will WANT to be unencrypted, such as little Timmy's soccer game or cousin Bob's wedding video.
7. Every media that is even remotely popular, without exception, has been cracked by pirates. Seriously. You say, "millions of dollars have been invested in failed attempts to prevent piracy of digital content," and you're right. The fact that the industries have tried so hard for so many years to lock media down and failed so utterly miserably says to me that it's not a technology that's premature, and it's not a technology that's broken. It's a technology that has something fundamentally wrong with it on a level that transcends mere hardware and software and that strikes right at the core of the whole idea of DRM. We are an ownership society. We want to watch our movies how, where, and when we want to. We don't like the idea of someone else having control over our stuff after we pay the cashier and carry it out of the store. Until that changes, I don't see DRM going very far.
8. Speaking of millions of dollars, the real shame in it is that after all that money and all these years, the ONLY thing DRM has accomplished is keeping legitimate customers from enjoying the media they paid for in legitimate ways. The pirates have not been slowed down one iota. Zip. Zilch. Imagine how much better the media industries' relationship with its customers would be if they had spent all of that time and money on researching new, better, and innovative ways to provide a better customer experience instead of ways to prevent pirates, who again, have not been slowed down one iota by its efforts, from having some freebie copies of movies? In other words, imagine where we would be today if media companies had invested money into making consumers WANT to buy their stuff instead of making everyone so frustrated and mad?
I could go on. Believe me, I could. There is no reason whatsoever I shouldn't be able to buy a copy of (insert your favorite movie title here), transfer it to my iPod, burn a copy to watch in my minivan, (gasp!) share a copy with a friend, who might want to go buy his own copy for the stuff that comes with it and to support the movie with sales revenue, extract a clip for a school assignment video report, copy it to my hard drive so that if my disc gets lost I'm not SOL, copy it to my media server so that I can watch it with a few button pushes and keep the disc in storage, etc. Technologically, its easy, and THAT is what media companies need to be working on instead of yet another future DRM implementation failure.
what you describe already exists for the entertainment industry.
It's called a movie theater.
think about it, the patrons pay for the one time experience only
and the theater controls all of the media presentation
technology.
The problem is the industry is trying to compete for marketshare
in a end user driven economy, which, like myself, revolts at the
prospect of the clamped down media experience you describe.
I want the creative souls responsible for the content I enjoy to
be well paid, but I balk at what I see as the overlord mentality
of the middle men and distributors infecting my technology and
reducing my choices.
One company seems to be doing a very good job of balancing
the responsibility to the artist and to the audience. Apple and
the ITMS seem to actually have a clue to how real people enjoy
entertainment. I pay for what I play, and I don't generally feel
any 'big Brotherish' hands on my shoulder as I do.
No, it's not perfect, but it beats the hell out of your DMR infused
crippled technology/server solution.
Remember the point:
If you want us to buy your wares outside of the theater,
you'd better make the experience damned attractive.
jrl
If DRM is built INTO everything - that means you could NEVER play it at all - since your premise is that ALL hardware cannot play non DRM controlled media! That means you have to THEN buy a 'NON' DRM enbabled version to show that the version is non DRM'd!
Do you think manufactures will send to everyone who had bought a DRM enbabled version a DRM free one at THEIR cost when the copyright expires?
When "Steamboat Willie" becomes public domain in 2016 will Disney send everyone a copy at their expense who has a version now on DVD?
Trying to force a technological solution onto a SOCIAL problem - stealing - will NEVER work.
Tom Philo
www.taphilo.com
This point alone makes such a DRM system commercially useless. Such an implementation would disallow all user created "full-quality" content (eg. home videos of the kids). People aren't about to waste their money on a "full-quality" video camera if they can't play it back at "full-quality". Likewise, people won't buy a separate kit just to play their home video and another for crippled video.
DRM just hurts the honest folk.
Your post on DRM advances the wrong premise: that somehow, DRM technologies can be
made to work in spite of the overwhelming evidence that curious minds and determined
reverse engineers will do whatever it takes to break them. Perfect DRM isn't possible, mostly
because it assumes that miracles will happen. Those miracles include making sure that every
hardware and software technology that produces, processes, or emits what movie studios and
record labels blithely call "content" use some hypothetical, unbreakable system that is
simultaneously waterproof yet not so noxious that consumers and businesses refuse to use it.
Even the ultimate DRM would be bypassed soon enough. (A modest proposal: why not forcibly
implant crypto chips in every infant's retinas and eardrums at birth, and combine it with a
micropayment system that remits money to Disney whenever some toddler thinks "Mickey
Mouse"?)
That's not to say that all aspects of content control are impractical. For example, the satellite
TV industry has shown that by using appropriate hardware, good security design and lots of
crypto you can make gaining free access to movies or satellite channels hard enough that
most people won't try. Solving the "conditional access problem" -- making it very hard to
obtain content unless you pay for it -- is feasible but not cheap, especially on systems where
one vendor controls the whole stack from top to bottom. But controlling what consumers can
do with that content AFTER they get it -- that is the part that is impossible. It is "impossible"
in the sense that it is totally incompatible with media portability. It is guaranteed to **** off
customers who want to take their entertainment with them, on whatever device and in
whatever format they choose.
At Yankee Group, two colleagues (Mike Goodman and Josh Martin) and I wrote a research
report called "Kill DRM, Vol. I: EMI's Move Underscores the Power of the Anywhere Consumer."
In it, we talk about why DRM is fatally flawed, and how it alienates customers. We suggest
ways of re-thinking business models so that they don't assume watertight control over
content. I highly recommend that you read it. Naturally, the report is available for free and
without DRM restrictions of any kind.
(http://yankeegroup.com/research/downloads/KillDRMVol1.pdf)
Let's stop pretending that DRM can ever work; not even the "commercially effective" kind you
propose. Consumers don't want it, and any victories will be Pyrrhic and short-lived.
Andrew Jaquith
Senior Analyst
Yankee Group
Requirement (1) is completely incompatible with any sort of open-source development model and I would argue is an unconstiutional abridgement of free speech. Requirement (2) sounds like a recipe for turning expensive equipment into a paperweight whenever any sort of glitch occurs in the network.
An effective DRM regime is a pipe dream, and a poisonous one at that. You'd be well-advised to drop it.
- Keeping up appearances
-
by midfingr
September 15, 2007 11:12 AM PDT
- I think it's a 'where money is involved situation'. What I mean is that if a particular DRM is no longer feasible, then a company will drop the encryption and leave the end users to fend for themselves. That appears to be the trend--the investors don't care how you sell a product, they just want to see a profit.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 35 Comments >>As a consumer, I feel like a test lab rat in that DRM is beta tested on me, be it from Microsoft's WGA or Sony's implementation of XCP software. To have a universal DRM would involve so many factors, that it would surely fall apart. There's different countries, government at multiple levels, consumer activist groups, stockmarkets, investors, insurance companies, litigation considerations, and so on.
I remember when TV was free, and by some accounts at it's best. Yes, we had lawyers back then, but the difference was that movie houses, recording, and TV studios were owned by the originating companies. Now, they've all been bought out by soda, sportsware, and other maximum profit corporations. In other words, whatever they can sell for a quick profit/turnover is in their best interests, not the audience or consumer. There's no investment in the actual art of entertainment anymore, just companies out to make a quick buck.
Protect what? The garbage being turned out by today's media? If so, then help yourself to happiness. I could careless about reality TV shows, or some whinny brat's movie/music/dance production.