Study: DRM makes pirates of us all

We here at CNET get all of our movies and music the old-fashioned way: through hard work, grit, and elbow grease. We roll up our sleeves, suck it up, and put in the hard work. (Sorry, I was going for the record of most cliches in one paragraph there. I can't confirm what I just wrote is actually true.)

So, yes, CNET does it the hard way (I think), but not everyone does. In University of Cambridge professor Patricia Akester's report titled "Technological accommodation of conflicts between freedom of expression and DRM: the first empirical assessment,"--which, no, I didn't read, because it's like 200 pages long--she lays out the effect DRM (digital rights management) restrictions really have.

Feel free to dive into that report if you have the time, otherwise I suggest you check out her much shorter summary here.

In the report she notes that when people who are legally attempting to access DRM content (like film lecturers putting together clips from movies for educational purposes) and they hit a DRM restriction, they are driven to instead download DRM-free, illegal copies of the content to get the job done.

Not the most surprising news, and it's another win for those who believe the way DRM is currently implemented hurts more than helps. Now we have a study that says because of DRM restrictions, people are driven to download illegally. I think that's the definition of backfire.

Also, she notes that while the Information Society Directive puts the onus on the content owner to voluntarily allow DRM-free access to said content in these cases, not all content owners do so until regulatory authorities step in.

The good news now is that I finally have an excuse to download all the movies and music I want for free!! Woot! Thank you, Professor Akester. Thank you for letting us laugh at DRM, again.

[russkeller]

This is exactly why I'm not getting a kindle (or similar book reader) until they make the material DRM free. If I feel like reading a book on a different viewer, I paid for it I own it I'm not renting it, I'm reading it on what ever the hell I want.

[darkxeno]

I agree with you on the i paid for it im going to read it when i want and where.
I have bought a Sony PRS-505 reader and I like it due to it works very nicely with PDF files.
But still it has DRM built in and is a pain.

[umbrae]

The newer Kindle (the big one) will allow you to view non-DRM PDF. Buying them from Amazon will still probably have DRM, but you will be able to view non-DRM PDFs on it as well.

[jaxstephens]

I agree on the DRM aspect and will also add to that the proprietary nature of Amazon.com e-books. A real book has no "format" to worry about. Why do I want to buy a DRM-ed ebook in a proprietary format locked to a certain reader? It's like taking a piece of information, like books, that has been open to anyone for hundreds of years now, and locking the information back up. I don't want and will not pay for a book that is worthless outside of one company's device architecture. Where will those books be in 10, 20, or 30 years? Books are meant to stand the test of time, like the countless volumes I still have from my childhood years.

[MadLyb]

DMCA and DRM fly completely in the face of Fair Use and I will continue to vote with my wallet for products that use these draconian methods.

[markdoiron]

Fair use is certainly an issue, but, unfortunately, it's not bound by specific law. However, fair use isn't the real bone of contention vis-a-vis the DMCA and DRM. Rather, these are being used to restrict use of a legally purchased product. That's a much different beast than "fair use," which is more about using something for which one hasn't paid, or in a manner in which one hasn't paid. DMCA and DRM are being used to artificially limit the usable time period for a product, the devices on which that product can be used, etc. It's important that the RIAA and the MPAA and the BSA understand that just because technology can be created that restricts use of a sold product to enhance profit margins, that doesn't mean that it's smart to do so. --mark d.

[umbrae]

DRM is bad. Most people a criminals and not even aware of it. Even ripping songs from a CD to MP3 is illegal (the RIAA has taken a relaxed stance of this, but it is technically illegal).

I have older equipment and newer CSS/DRM causes problems with me watching DVDs over my analog connection on my ancient generation 1 HDTV. I have to copy everything to watch it whether I own it or rent it. My only other choice is to replace my entire system which would be close to $5000. Personally, I hate HDMI, so I am not sure this would help unless I made that jump, but all my equipment works fine and I have no desire to replace it until it dies.

But yes, I have to be a criminal and bypass DRM just to watch movies. This is because of artificial restrictions that try to limit the resolution I view movies over an analog connection that actually makes thing unwatchable. Without this restriction or DRM, I would have no need to copy anything.

[efranklin]

umbrae, I'm curious. Why such hate for HDMI? What do you use currently as a connection?

[markdoiron]

Ripping songs from a CD to an MP3 for personal use (not redistribution) is NOT ILLEGAL in the United States. Period. --mark d.

[SIGHUP]

@efranklin

I cannot speak for umbrae, but the reason I hate it is because it carries DVD Regions to the TV. I use it, but I had to buy a special DVD player in order to convert different region DVDs to my region.

[thelemurking]

HDMI is not the problem. It's HDCP that causes all the issues. The sad thing is that HDMI 1.4 is going to be worse than current versions, as it will have rated cables to do different things. So basically the new version of HDMI will have a cheap basic cable that will do the bare minimum, a medium cable and a high-end cable. This is going to create a lot of confusion for the consumer and a lot of profit for people like Monster Cables.

HDMI as it stands is a very nice thing to have... one cable that does both audio and video! What's not to love? It's when HDCP comes in and does all the copyright BS that causes problems for older HD TVs or upconverting DVD players that do not support HDCP. This is another reason why Intel is EVIL as Intel is directly behind HDCP and gets a little bit of change on the sale of any product that supports HDCP which pretty much now is standard!

I thought maybe you could trick it on older sets with an HDMI to DVI cable and hoping that the broadcast flag would just sort of vanish, but on my old TV, it just refuses to upconvert and sits right there at 480p. I move my DVD player to my newer TV and 1080p pops up.

So HDMI is good... HDCP is bad!

[markdoiron]

My understanding of the new HDMI 1.4 cables is there are two types: High speed and low speed. So maybe you get three by counting the baseline HDMI cable. As far as Monster Cables (or any other brand sold by your local stores): Consumers are consistently proving how ignorant they are because they don't order cheap cables from the Internet. It's been that way forever, and is likely to stay that way. The best you can do is guide your friends and family when making their purchasing decisions--because maybe they trust you when you tell them, "Yes, you really can buy a good quality, 25-foot HDMI cable for less than $10 from Amazon.com."

As for your older TV that wouldn't play at full rez a movie because of HDCP problems: Supposedly the studios chosen to NOT implement that part of the spec. So that should not happen. Or have the studios changed their position and I'm wrong (apologies if so)? --mark d.

[tsi26]

When content providers stop treating me like a criminal maybe I'll start buying their stuff again. Until then they can go pound sand. I refuse to pirate or purchase...they can kiss my ***.

[El_Segfaulto]

I'll drink to that. I'll be damned if the providers tell me what I can and cannot do with discs that I have bought. I backup my DVDs and Wii games as soon as I buy them, play the backups and archive the originals. DVD protection means nothing to me, like the tag on your mattress that says "Do not remove under penalty of law".

[biffhenerson]

Lock everything down. More DRM. Stronger DRM. No copying. No personal copying. No backups. Nothing. Period. If you want 3 copies then buy 3 copies. Stop being so cheap. Stop being a pirate. Stimulate the economy.

[Dalkorian]

That comment was obviously brought to you and paid for by the RIAA, MPAA and BSA. And Hitler. Oh, and I think Darth Vader had his hands in it too. Can't you hear the Imperial March?

[pentest]

I don't think there has even been more idiocy(or hopefully sarcasm), in such a short comment.

Whether it is sarcasm or you are actually serious, well done!