Password-based DRM has a dim future

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

True, when we're talking about DRM being used for the purpose of restricting consumer rights. But that's really only one purpose of DRM. The blog and most of Steven's posts are talking about DRM in terms of preventing piracy. In that scenario, the encryption/lock is useless. It's exactly the "guarding your furniture from theft by your renters" example.

My point is there is no such thing as piracy prevention DRM. All DRM is about locking down consumers and is only about locking down consumers. Piracy is a problem to which DRM has never been a solution. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, but that's the point I'm making.

The drm-removal tech doesn't have anything to do with the lock though.

If you have one type of DRM for an extended period of time, the tools to unlock it become less and less like python scripts and more and more like plug and play DVD ripping GUIs that anyone's grandma can use. The more often the DRM is upgraded and strengthened, the longer the tools to break it remain in a more esoteric and less accessible quasi command line interface stage of existence, scaring off the mass market user. Yes, the accessibility of the drm removal tech DOES have something to do with the lock.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

My point is there is no such thing as piracy prevention DRM. All DRM is about locking down consumers and is only about locking down consumers. Piracy is a problem to which DRM has never been a solution. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, but that's the point I'm making.

This is an interesting point -- I like it. Obviously, DRM locks in customers who are willing/able to break DRM, but DRM does nothing to stop piracy because all piracy needs is ONE person breaking the DRM and there is always at least ONE person who can and will do that and then load it up online.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

This is an interesting point -- I like it. Obviously, DRM locks in customers who are willing/able to break DRM, but DRM does nothing to stop piracy because all piracy needs is ONE person breaking the DRM and there is always at least ONE person who can and will do that and then load it up online.

Not always, but I assume you're really meaning "popular" books. There's no organised "0-day" release group for books, or at least none that I am aware of. So a lot of books by less well-known writers get overlooked.

DRM for ebooks is more of a loose tether between consumer, device and retail website. If you have a Sony reader you CAN buy from Amazon instead of Sony and liberate/convert it to Sony format. But the DRM puts an extra obstacle in the way that makes people less likely to bother.

But ... if Amazon's new publisher imprint starts to take off there will be a lot more Kindle exclusives, maybe even some from well known established writers. Amazon won't want Sony users reading them, they will want Sony users buying Kindles.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

The more often the DRM is upgraded and strengthened, the longer the tools to break it remain in a more esoteric and less accessible quasi command line interface stage of existence, scaring off the mass market user. Yes, the accessibility of the drm removal tech DOES have something to do with the lock.

DRM removal does not work by breaking the encryption. The lock is opened using the key that the Publisher gave you, so the strength of the lock is irrelevant. DRM removal works by doing things with the data after the lock has already been opened.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

If you have one type of DRM for an extended period of time, the tools to unlock it become less and less like python scripts and more and more like plug and play DVD ripping GUIs that anyone's grandma can use. The more often the DRM is upgraded and strengthened, the longer the tools to break it (EDIT for clarity: "it" is the scheme, not the encryption) remain in a more esoteric and less accessible quasi command line interface stage of existence, scaring off the mass market user. Yes, the accessibility of the drm removal tech DOES have something to do with the lock.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

DRM removal does not work by breaking the encryption.

Apparently I shouldn't have used the verb "break" above, which was a reference to the scheme itself, not particular mechanisms therein. Hopefully the edit above provides clarity.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Apparently I shouldn't have used the verb "break" above, which was a reference to the scheme itself, not particular mechanisms therein. Hopefully the edit above provides clarity.

Yes, that's exactly the point. Steven and others on here keep talking about coming up with stronger encryption methods as the solution to preventing the DRM from being "broken", apparently without much understanding of how it actually works.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, that's exactly the point. Steven and others on here keep talking about coming up with stronger encryption methods as the solution to preventing the DRM from being "broken", apparently without much understanding of how it actually works.

I'm not sure there is much point in reciting my opinion on why new DRM does in fact help lock down customers since the same point flew by unnoticed the past couple of times, but just for the sake of other readers, I assure everyone the above is not my point. My point is that Steven and others are correct that new DRM schemes do help, but for reasons other than the ones they state.

I've argued with people over whose point was better before, but I've never spent quite this much space trying to explain that I did indeed have a point of my own. I'm willing to concede this as a failing of my own communication skills, but looking back, I don't really see a way to clarify.

I'm happy to leave this at us disagreeing, I just want to be clear that we do disagree.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I'm happy to leave this at us disagreeing, I just want to be clear that we do disagree.

Funny, I thought I was mostly agreeing with you

You're right in that continually changing the scheme itself will prevent widespread distribution of a simple workaround, but it's really just a cat and mouse game. It also arguably causes more problems than it solves. Anyway, that wasn't the main point I was addressing which is why I didn't really comment on it.

I also agree that preventing piracy with DRM is silly, and not the real purpose of DRM. However the Publishers keep claiming that it's their purpose, and many authors keep believing them.

Did you read his blog on biometrics? It seems obvious to me based on reading it that he 1) thinks DRMs purpose is to prevent piracy, 2) thinks DRM is currently defeated by breaking the encryption and 3) thinks that stronger encryption will somehow help. All of those show a fundamental misunderstanding of how DRM removal works. That's what I was responding to.

I think we do mostly agree, but we're talking about different things.

[Marseille]

We are talking about different things at times. It happens.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, that's exactly the point. Steven and others on here keep talking about coming up with stronger encryption methods as the solution to preventing the DRM from being "broken", apparently without much understanding of how it actually works.

Steven would probably approve of concentration camps for pirates if he thought that it would increase his sales

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Steven would probably approve of concentration camps for pirates if he thought that it would increase his sales

NO: Steven would approve of honest consumers who discouraged piracy by their peers, avoided illicit sites and didn't whine about paying a writer for their hundreds of hours of work.

But that's me.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

NO: Steven would approve of honest consumers who discouraged piracy by their peers, avoided illicit sites and didn't whine about paying a writer for their hundreds of hours of work.

But that's me.

Huh. Didn't see anyone in this thread saying that they didn't want to pay an author for their work.

Eh, I know better than to feed the trolls, yet here I am doing it anyway. Unsubscribe.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

You subscribed to this?!?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

NO: Steven would approve of honest consumers who discouraged piracy by their peers, avoided illicit sites and didn't whine about paying a writer for their hundreds of hours of work.

If such people still exist, maybe it would be a good idea not to treat them like criminals? It seems to me they would be the sort of people to hold onto, not force over to the "dark side" out of frustration by imposing even more limitations on what they can do with content they have paid for.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

NO: Steven would approve of honest consumers who discouraged piracy by their peers, avoided illicit sites and didn't whine about paying a writer for their hundreds of hours of work.

But that's me.

I see, Steven is against straw men

Nonetheless, I remember you saying that "Since individuals won't police themselves (because someone knows who's pirating all that media), there's no one left but the police to police them." Clearly you think the government should go after file sharers as if they were terrorists.

And you also seem to think the only reason you're not making a ton of money out of your work is because people keep sharing your books.