Wikipedia has a fairly extensive page on what DRM is. Essentially (for those of you too lazy to read the wiki page) DRM is a way to limit the uses of digital media to certain programs or hardware. For example, if I purchase a song from the internet, I may only be allowed to play that song through the software I purchased it from. DRM is the bane of all things digital. It is bloat, it is overhead, it is the digital shackles that constrains the content you and I have legally purchased to be used in limited settings and in awkward ways.

Content providers will claim that DRM empowers the users, such as noted by Microsoft itself. The claim is that DRM enables the user by making it easier to access and play content. Boing boing notes a very interesting article that discusses a letter from a DRM maker. I urge you to read this article as it highlights the common arguments that are presented by DRM providers as well as pointing out the flaws in it.

Highlighting a few of the flaws with DRM: first is the concept of the “analog hole“. When you store the file on your computer, it is in digital format. In this format it can be locked down by DRM. However, as soon as you start to play the music or video, it must be transferred to analog at some point (i.e. what you hear or what you see). The problem with DRM is that in this analog state it can be easily recorded and redistributed.

Second, think of DRM as a lock and key. The DRM is the lock. You, as the user, must provide a key to use this software. This is true as well for DVDs. For a side rant, I purchased a computer DVD player. I purchased a DVD. I should now be able to legally play that DVD on that DVD player, should I not? The actual answer is NO. I shouldn’t. I also need to have software that has paid to legally “unlock” the content on the DVD. This is only available through software that you have to pay for (or software that is free, yes, free, but is illegal here in the United States. Curse you DMCA, curse you).

But back to the lock and key concept. For the user to legally play the locked content, the DRM providers must give the user the key at some level. Do you see the flaw here? They try their best to hide the key. The problem is that by providing the key to the end user (which you must do to allow the user to play the content), you’ve essentially given them the ability to unlock any of that content. They only need to look for the key hard enough (which happens all of the time!).

Content providers have gone too far with DRM. If you don’t believe me, have you heard of Sony’s rootkit fiasco? If not, look here, here, here, here, here, or Google for “Sony Rootkit”. Use of such dangerous software tracking techniques shows an almost complete disdain, distrust and contempt for their users. This is a prime example of how DRM use is tied to the assumption that you, as the user, will pirate their digital goods.

MLB had a major problem with this as well. They changed their servers in 2007 from the 2006 servers, effectively making all of the pre-2007 DRM-laden videos unusable. Then, they tried to tell many customers that they would have to repurchase the previously downloaded content. Since the problem may not be readily obvious, allow me to explain. If you need to connect to a remote computer every single time that you want to view the content that you legally purchased, your viewing ability is contingent upon that computer being online at the time. In other words, if you bought video A from company B, and company B goes under, your DRM-laden video A that requires you to verify with company B is now useless. Think of it as a DVD that you bought in a store. You try to play it one day only to find that it can’t play because the store that you bought it at went out of business, and as such your content is no longer valid.

The issue with DRM is this: it assumes that you will be a thief and either steal the content, or distribute the content. It does nothing to empower the end user. It cripples the content, cripples access to the content, makes the end user jump through countless hoops just to use the content, and adds extra overhead. Plus, as DRM is constantly being cracked by hackers, the companies have to continually develop new DRM schemes. I have no data to look at, but I wonder how much money they would save if they removed DRM in the first place.

DRM is intended to stop pirates and hackers. The problem is that pirates and hackers know how to get around DRM. Instead, DRM ultimately ends up punishing legitimate users who only want to play their content that they legally bought and own when they want, where they want, and how they want. Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to think that you couldn’t play a DVD on any DVD player you wanted, in any house, at any time? If that seems ridiculous to you, why would you want to have a video or song that you can only play on x number of computers if y conditions are met?