Details of DRM support built into Vista

[Bob Russell]

Bill Gates has made it abundantly clear that he believes that support for DRM is very important. It's actually a part of their Trustworthy Computing initiative. Microsoft management has spoken about how DRM should be a good experience for the consumer, and that it is necessary in order to entice content owners to make their content available. Microsoft wants to produce the primary platform for content distribution, and would love to provide the platform that everyone turns to for content delivery in the home.

So what is Microsoft doing about DRM and content protection in the next version of the Windows OS - Vista? According to DRM Blog, there is quite a bit of DRM support built into Vista through what Microsoft calls "Output Protection Management (OPM)". This is actually a category of technologies which includes:

* PVP – Protected Video Path
* PAP – Protected Audio Path
* PVP-UAB – PVP User-Accessible Bus
* SAP – Secure Audio Path
* PUMA – Protected User Mode Audio

According to DRM Blog, "If you want your new Vista PC to partake in 'premium content' then you must have a video card and driver combination that is PVP-OPM and PVP-UAB certified. At the 2005 WinHCE Microsoft handed out an interesting document that describes OPM in all its incarnations and what a video card vendor must do to be certified.

To get a certificate, a graphics card or GPU manufacturer will first have to sign a legal document (read contract) that specifies that the hardware or driver in question meets all of the specifications laid out in the 'Compliance Rules' document... and that certification can only be given to manufacturers who meet ['Content Industry Agreement'] rules."

Microsoft goes so far as to hold graphics chip manufacturers responsible for not selling chips to hackers, and encourages them to do encryption inside the chip.

The conclusion? In response to Microsoft's Trusted Computing intiative and all the DRM implmentations that it includes, DRM Blog says that "The only trust taking place here is between very large companies that want to sell you content, hardware, and software that violates your privacy, artificially inflates prices, and makes it illegal for you to tinker with." Some pretty strong words!

Contrary to popular belief, I would say that this is guaranteed to be an enabling technology. Yes, really. It's just that I'm not yet sure if Vista is enabling a pleasant multimedia experience for consumers, or a much more rapid and successful growthline for Linux as an alternative consumer OS. Time will tell.

Read the full article at Output Content Protection (DRM) and Windows Vista.

[Adam]

This can only be called a nightmare. The only way i can see that it will not kill a lot of intrest in buying the drm'd is if you can convert from one drm format to another. The new optical drives are a case in point. The blue-ray and the HD DVD will read regular DVD's but will they read cd's? This would require the drive to have at least 3 different lasers. Even if they put the capability in the drives this time around, what about the next? I want to be able to convert the cd's into dvd's and so forth so I wont be upgraded into loosing a lot of my software. Its ok if its non-transferable to anther person but I still want to be able to upgrade to better formats. I will probably be getting Vista in the future since it has a lot of features I like but im keeping my old comp that will not kill my fair use peragative.

[Chaos]

This should worry non-Windows users much more than Windows users. Fairly soon Linux, BSD, OSX, any other OS (including mobile OSes, like PalmOS), and old version users (isn't Win2k said to be the best for most business applications?) may be shut out from watching, listening to, or reading much 'mainstream' content, producing yet another monopoly for Microsoft... Unless they want to become 'outlaws', and break the DRM themselves (with the help of that vast resource that is the internet ) just to read a book.

It's either this or corporations will smarten up, and actually think about how many people still buy things (DVDs, CDs, etc.) legally, even when they could grab them off the internet as easily as Googling for a torrent. DRM will always be eventually broken, people who want to pirate things will always pirate things, and people who buy good content will still buy good content.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

Contrary to popular belief, I would say that this is guaranteed to be an enabling technology. Yes, really. It's just that I'm not yet sure if Vista is enabling a pleasant multimedia experience for consumers, or a much more rapid and successful growthline for Linux as an alternative consumer OS. Time will tell.

The reason I haven't used a Microsoft product at home in 5 years is because I believe that *I* own my PC, not Microsoft. *I* decide what software gets installed and run, not Microsoft. *I* decide what my PC will/will not do, not Microsoft.

No one will *buy* a Vista computer system. You will lease it at Microsoft's sufferance - because you will have to ask Microsoft's permission to run Vista, and be able to install only hardware and software that Microsoft has "approved" (isn't that a violation of their anti-trust agreement?).

Note that this is all still under the guise of "more secure computing". So the only way that Windows can become secure is to eliminate all owner rights?

[quux]

The first thing DRM haters should get through their heads is this: DRM is not Microsoft's idea. The next realization you should be having is that, if you're directing all your anti-DRM ire at MS ... you're playing right into the hands of the real DRM mavens, by shooting at the wrong target!

Are you mad at Panasonic, Yamaha, Samsung or other companies who make DVD players because of the region coding their players enforce as an elementary form of DRM? You shouldn't be: region coding was forced on the Panasonics and Yamahas of the world by the Hollywood studios who want to protect their revenue stream.

...still with me? Now consider that Vista's DRM 'features' are just the next wave of DRM technologies conceived by the movie and music industries - again to protect their revenue stream, not Microsofts. As this excellent Kuro5hin article explains, MS's primary interest here is to be able to to play the next wave of DRM-encoded content. Otherwise Microsoft gets locked out as a player of content.

Your real enemy here isn't Microsoft, who are just the first to implement the DRM technologies required by the content distributors. No, your real enemy is the content producers who are mandating DRM: the RIAA/MPAA consortium made up of companies like Sony, 20th Century Fox, Polygram, RCA, Paramount, Warner Brothers, and so on. These are the people who push DRM schemes in the first place, and dictate to the Panasonics/Yamahas/Microsofts of the world that they better damn well enforce that DRM.

OK. That said, my own opinion about DRM is mixed. Personally, I'll stop being bothered as soon as some of the current problems are worked out. I can see a world where DRM means I still own my music/movies/whatever even if I lose the CD/DVD. Even if CD/DVD tech goes out of style and some new thing comes into style; my DRM certificate should allow me to easily download a new copy of the content I bought 15 years ago and play it in my whizbang new-tech device. That's the promise of DRM. If it doesn't fulfill that promise, I don't want it.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by quux

OK. That said, my own opinion about DRM is mixed. Personally, I'll stop being bothered as soon as some of the current problems are worked out. I can see a world where DRM means I still own my music/movies/whatever even if I lose the CD/DVD. Even if CD/DVD tech goes out of style and some new thing comes into style; my DRM certificate should allow me to easily download a new copy of the content I bought 15 years ago and play it in my whizbang new-tech device. That's the promise of DRM. If it doesn't fulfill that promise, I don't want it.

Actually, that's not the promise of DRM and it never will be.

DRM means that you don't own your content - you lease it and that lease can be terminated for any reason, at any time and you have no say in the matter (or any compensation, for that matter).
DRM means that if the player it uses goes out of style, you must repurchase your content for the new player.
DRM's philosophy is that you, the customer, are the attacker and you must be stopped.
DRM's reason for existance is to lock the customer into a product/service and, in the long term, to force customers to repurchase content every time they want to do something different with it.
DRM means that the Public Domain is endangered.

DRM is a technical restriction placed on us - not a legal restriction. That's the main issue. Right now, if I took a DVD a made copies of it to sell, I'm in violation of the law. If I took that same DVD and ripped the movie from it to put on my PVP, I am not in violation of the law.

But to the Content Cartel, that's exactly what they don't want. They want me to pay, yet again, for the privildge of playing it on, not my PVP, but their special, locked down, controlled PVP that prevents me from viewing the content in the way I want to view it.

DRM is nothing more than the Content Cartel's method for making changes to the law without having to actually buy anyone in Congress.

You are right in that there is no "The Enemy" in DRM. The Content Cartel is one enemy. Another is Microsoft, because they have the power to tell the Content Cartel to stuff it - but they won't because DRM is part of Microsoft's monopoly plans.

Yes, the makers of DVD players play along in order to sell product, but remember that the Content Cartel also requires players or their products are useless.

BTW: I don't use Microsoft products. I don't use iTunes. My DVR is something that I built that has no DRM. Both my DVD players are region free. I vote and I write my congress-critters.

But I am one man and I can only do so much.

[quux]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

But to the Content Cartel, that's exactly what they don't want. They want me to pay, yet again, for the privildge of playing it on, not my PVP, but their special, locked down, controlled PVP that prevents me from viewing the content in the way I want to view it.

Sez you! Can you quote where the 'Content Cartel' has said this?

DRM is an evolving response to a very real change in the technology landscape. It's not set in stone! If we start demanding the DRM we want, rather than covering our ears, pointing to 'The Enemy', and shouting 'lalalalalalala!', we can make the changes we all need, for a happy co-existence.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by quux

Sez you! Can you quote where the 'Content Cartel' has said this?

DRM is an evolving response to a very real change in the technology landscape. It's not set in stone! If we start demanding the DRM we want, rather than covering our ears, pointing to 'The Enemy', and shouting 'lalalalalalala!', we can make the changes we all need, for a happy co-existence.

Lets see. Many times recently.

We are calling for the DRM that we want. But the Content Cartel isn't listening. Apple, for example, in France is threatening legal action when we demand open DRM.

But the basic premise of DRM is flawed and cannot be reconciled with our current rights.

[quux]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Lets see. Many times recently.

We are calling for the DRM that we want. But the Content Cartel isn't listening. Apple, for example, in France is threatening legal action when we demand open DRM.

But the basic premise of DRM is flawed and cannot be reconciled with our current rights.

I've not heard many people 'call for the DRM we want'. All I ever hear is people calling for the end of DRM! Nor have I seen a single quote from 'the content cartel' saying they want people paying over and over and over for the same thing. You seem pretty happy to put words in other people's mouths ... can you link any of this?

Don't get me wrong. I am not on the side of anyone who wants me to pay for the same content over and over again. But I see this as the same old 'requirements problem' we find so often in IT and software development projects. For lack of good requirements, crappy software gets written over and over again.

Write now only the 'content cartel' is writing requirements for tomorrow's DRM. Real people need to start letting them know what they *really* want ... and let's face it, 'no DRM at all' just ain't gonna fly unless you can guarantee every 14-year-old kid in the world will suddenly become honest and stop going nuts on the p2p networks!

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by quux

I've not heard many people 'call for the DRM we want'. All I ever hear is people calling for the end of DRM! Nor have I seen a single quote from 'the content cartel' saying they want people paying over and over and over for the same thing. You seem pretty happy to put words in other people's mouths ... can you link any of this?

Sorry, but it's simply not feasable for me to give you 5 years of information in one message. Just Google for DRM or use the wikipedia and you'll get plenty of information on this topic.

Originally Posted by quux

Don't get me wrong. I am not on the side of anyone who wants me to pay for the same content over and over again. But I see this as the same old 'requirements problem' we find so often in IT and software development projects. For lack of good requirements, crappy software gets written over and over again.

I work in IT and I can assure you that this is not a "requirements" issue.

DRM means the customer gets less. That means a product with DRM has less value.

The simple fact that the big DRM companies are using terms like "Plays for Sure" and "FairPlay" to name their DRM schemes demonstrates that they know exactly what their DRM does (or doesn't do) for consumers.

Originally Posted by quux

Write now only the 'content cartel' is writing requirements for tomorrow's DRM. Real people need to start letting them know what they *really* want ... and let's face it, 'no DRM at all' just ain't gonna fly unless you can guarantee every 14-year-old kid in the world will suddenly become honest and stop going nuts on the p2p networks!

You have fallen into the same trap that most new people do when they hear about DRM. DRM is not, nor has it ever been, about piracy. Pirates see DRM as only a speed bump to getting what they want and DRM does not deter pirates. As a piracy-prevention mechanism DRM has failed miserably.

DRM is about control over content. Control above and beyond what is permitted by law and by the copyright agreement.

[quux]

rlauzon:

Let me try this a different way. Can you enumerate the rights a person should have when he/she:

• buys a music CD
• pays for 5 songs via iTunes or similar
• buys a movie DVD
• rents a movie DVD
• buys a physical book
• buys an e-book

Be specific! And when you're done, can you explain why DRM cannot deliver those rights?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by quux

rlauzon:

Let me try this a different way. Can you enumerate the rights a person should have when he/she:

• buys a music CD
• pays for 5 songs via iTunes or similar
• buys a movie DVD
• rents a movie DVD
• buys a physical book
• buys an e-book

Be specific! And when you're done, can you explain why DRM cannot deliver those rights?

When I buy any media, I have
1. The right to re-sell it when I am done with it.
2. The right to use it whenever I want, however I want, wherever I want, for any reason I want (With 2 exceptions: I cannot make copies to give to someone else, and I cannot exhibit the work for a fee - i.e. be a movie theatre).

When I buy a music CD I can:
+ Listen to it in my PC, my car's CD player, listen to it in my stereo.
+ Rip the tracks to MP3s to listen on my MP3 player.
+ Sell the CD to someone else.
+ Listen to it in any country.

Since iTunes locks the music to the iPod, I cannot play it on an standard MP3 player without having to use their software to burn the song on to a CD and re-rip it (i.e. remove their DRM).

When I buy a DVD I can
+ Watch it in my DVD player (maybe).
+ Sell the DVD to someone else.

Legally that's all I can do. I cannot, without downloading "illegal" software (according to the DMCA):
+ Rip the movie to play on my PVP.
+ View it in another country.

DRM prohibits me from playing the movie on another device and prevents me from viewing my legally purchased region 3 DVDs on my legal DVD player.

When I rent a movie DVD I have far fewer rights anyway. I can watch it and then return it. Any other use is a violation of copyright. DRM really doesn't have much of any impact here.

When I buy a physical book, I can:
+ Read it anywhere at any time.
+ Scan the pages to read it on current eBook reading device.
+ Sell the book to someone else when I am done with it.

When I buy a DRMed e-book, I can
+ Read it only with the approved viewer that I have the book registered for.

I cannot view it on any other device. If the device that I registered the book on fails, I may not be able to view that eBook anywhere else - especially if the company is out of business.
I cannot sell that eBook to someone else when I am done with it.

Any other questions?

[quux]

An excellent list.

You say 'DRM prohibits', but I think you really mean 'CURRENT DRM prohibits'.

Suppose instead of calling for DRM to be removed from everything entirely, we were all calling for a DRM system that preserved Rights #1 and #2 as you enumerated them?

I envision a system that lets me register all my content at some central server. Anytime I want to experience that content from a new device, I login to the central server and transfer the music to that new device. In so doing, that content is removed from whatever previous device it was stored on. So at any one time, my copy of the content can only exist on one player device.

Also, I would be able to transfer my ownership of any one peice of content to someone else. As part of the transfer, my existing device copy would be removed.

So, with the above system I would be able to have rights #1 and #2 as you laid them out. Some things that may not be immediately obvious in this system:

• I would have the ability to loan my content to someone else for any amount of time.
• After loaning to someone else, I would always have the ability to get my content back!
• It could even be possible to get content back if a media player were destroyed (suppose I accidentally drop my iPod into the river).
• It works for rentals too.
• This service doesn't have to be provided by any part of the Content Cartel. Any third party could go into this business today!

Two things would need to be carefully protected as part of this:

1. nobody else should ever be able to audit that central server to find out where and when I was using my content, or even what content I own.
2. that 'central server' should actually be replicated to several locations, so that integrity of the database is preserved against disaster.

[Liviu_5]

Hi,

What about a warrant from say a FISA court? Who owns the server? Microsoft, UN, Google (the bad company, the corrupt organization, the good company )? Or maybe the chinese government; this last option is the best since at least you know what you get Whom would you trust with your personal listening/viewing/reading habits?

I personally trust no one, so I buy from Amazon but also from Abe, Half, Fictionwise, Borders, B@N, I pay with credit, PayPal, but with cash also when I can, and while I agree that anyone motivated and with enough resources could track whatever I do, why should they invest the resources? Have a central server, well... People with power (whether governments, businesses...) want to control, that is an empirical/historical fact, why make it easy for them?


I agree that there should be fair compensation to musicians, writers and so on, and that this will become trickier and trickier once our devices get better and better; I also agree that the lure of "free" is hard to resist, and right now music/books/movies digital models are simply not profitable enough, so they piggyback on the physical models, like the credit card users that pay their balances on time piggyback on the ones that pay those exorbitant interest rates, and that is most likely not sustainable in the long run. But the long run can be long.

Personally I hope that we will have many business models that are profitable, that they will be taylored to the specific content that is sold (in publishing for example I think that children books, college manuals and fiction have very different requirements in terms of display, timing, so you could imagine very different ways to sell them...), and that drm will become a four letter word.

Liviu

Originally Posted by quux

1. nobody else should ever be able to audit that central server to find out where and when I was using my content, or even what content I own.
2. that 'central server' should actually be replicated to several locations, so that integrity of the database is preserved against disaster.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by quux

You say 'DRM prohibits', but I think you really mean 'CURRENT DRM prohibits'.

No. I mean "DRM Prohibits".

Today, DRM really doesn't have anything to do with any of what we are discussing. DRM exists to:
1. Eliminate competition (by locking users into a particular device).
2. Allow the content cartel to make law without paying the politians.

The whole idea behind DRM is to prohibit users from exercising their rights.

Originally Posted by quux

Suppose instead of calling for DRM to be removed from everything entirely, we were all calling for a DRM system that preserved Rights #1 and #2 as you enumerated them?

This sounds good. But when you dig a little beyond the surface, it gets bad fast.

Originally Posted by quux

I envision a system that lets me register all my content at some central server. Anytime I want to experience that content from a new device, I login to the central server and transfer the music to that new device. In so doing, that content is removed from whatever previous device it was stored on. So at any one time, my copy of the content can only exist on one player device.

And when (not if) the server dies or the company goes out of business, your content is locked to the last device.

The "Central Server" is nothing but Big Brother in your devices, controlling (and keeping track of) what is there. What happens when (not if) someone messes up and deletes the information saying that you own your content?

What happens when someone in the Central Server decided to keep a record of who has read what?

What happens when the Central Server decides that they will only support certain devices? Or if the Central Server is by a 3rd party, how will new devices be supported? Will they have to pay Central Server Inc. a fee?

What happens when the Central Server decides that they don't want to support that version of your content and make you pay for it again to get access to it?

The Central Server idea doesn't solve any problems. I am still leasing content at the sufferage of the content owner - or in this case Central Server.

Originally Posted by quux

So, with the above system I would be able to have rights #1 and #2 as you laid them out.

The above system is based on the idea that we can have an unbiased (and unbribable) 3rd party to manage content licenses.

That system cannot exist today because:
1. There exists no 3rd party that is acceptable to both the content cartel and the content users.
2. The content cartel's desire to make content users pay every time they want to use the content.

Now, the gov't can step in and force the issue like they did with radio:
The radio stations can play whatever they want paying a flat fee that goes to the content owners. The owners get paid and radio gets content for a reasonable fee. But we still have issues with Big Brother controlling all your devices.

One solution that I had thought of worked like this:
1. Author creates the work and uploads it to a "distribution" site.
2. User downloads the work from the site - which encrypts it with the user's public key - for the device selected. At this point the content is locked to the user/device.
3. The distribution sites send a record of the count the number of times the works were downloaded. All users pay the gov't a "content tax" over the course of the year. The gov't collects the money and distributes it back to the authors based on the number of downloads.

This system is much simpler than yours. No need for Big Brother to be in all devices. No need really for a central server either. The content all costs a "throwaway" price, so people don't mind the short term use restriction. The author whose work is downloaded 1,000 times gets compensated 1,000 times more than the author who is downloaded only once - so authors are compensated by how good their work is.