Basic Technology Makes DRM Almost Useless
But there are other factors at work that not only will save history
(literally) but will invalidate the whole DRM movement and make it uneconomic
for industry to continue to pursue it (but we might be saddled with it anyway
due to legislation - but that's for another section.)
No matter what DRM technology is used to protect the digital media you
might receive your documents, music or video on, at some point the information
contained in "the box" must come out and present itself in a way that you as a
human, flesh and blood receiver must have. Until technology can bypass your
eyes and ears and put things directly from digital storage into your brain,
there must be a translation of the information into something that not only
you can see and hear, but so can a microphone and video camera or scanner.
There are already downloadable Internet files containing for example copies
of the Lord of the Rings Two Towers film, even though it has not yet been
released on DVD. They are very obviously digitized from home video recorders
smuggled into a normal theatre; fuzzy sound, popcorn munching background
noise, people talking in the theatre and the backs of people's heads in front
of the movie. This is just one example of getting around the availability of
copyable material regardless of the level of security surrounding the film,
DVD original or whatever; and obviously some people willingly put up with such
low quality.
Similarly, re-recording an audio work by putting a microphone in front of
the speakers you might otherwise listen via creates a recording that is more
than reasonable. Not only do most people not notice the difference unless
compared side by side, but most people who listen to music in anything but a
quiet room (i.e. while jogging or driving or as background music while doing
other things) can't tell the difference at all due to things like blood
pounding in the ears and other noises. The human ear is an extremely forgiving
input device, able to pull pleasurable experience from sound that might
actually be tremendously distorted compared to the original. In some cases,
the brain simply uses the sound to recall a better experience from a previous,
remembered listening experience (maybe the last time the work was heard on the
radio.) The visual experience of a distorted video is a bit more problematic,
but even there it is incredible what a person will put up with and still get
entertainment out; snow, wavy lines, low resolution, visual and audio
distraction, etc.
The point is that there are not only straight-forward methods of making
"almost as good" copies from digital originals, there are lots of people who
will either not notice the difference, or will put up with the lower quality
simply because they refuse to pay for the original for whatever reason, DRM's
restrictions being one that the industry must take into consideration.
Technology Advances Make DRM Useless
CPU Horsepower
While there are other ways of defeating DRM, the one most people are
familiar with is brute-force cracking. While it is certainly possible to
encrypt a work with a system that theoretically cannot be broken with today's
technology in a time measured in lifetimes of the galaxy, technology is not
standing still. In addition to this, there are reasons why encryption
technologies that the recording industries choose might be cracked with less
than theoretical effort that are dealt with in the section on
encryption technologies.
CPU/processing horsepower increases are not showing any signs of slowing
down. While Moore's Law (doubling of CPU power every 18 months) is still being
fairly closely followed by silicon technologies, there are other factors that
threaten to make Moore a pessimist. Things like molecular technologies and
quantum computing will make the traditional "Von Neuman" machine architecture
(single data path from memory to CPU) faster for years to come. In addition,
the parallel computing environments, from loose and tight clusters to
optical/holographic and other even more esoteric technologies will put
incredible amounts of computing power at the fingers of virtually anyone who
needs or wants it.
Even the fact that there are millions of sometimes idle PCs connected via
the Internet is allowing both legitimate and illegitimate users access to
staggering amounts of CPU horsepower. Consider the possibility of the next
major worm attack on the Internet not trying to crack or destroy the infected
computer but simply making the PCs' spare CPU cycles
available to the attacker to use to crack some cyber lock.
The changes in DRM key sizes and management infrastructure necessary to
keep up with the advances outlined above will make keeping up a major cost of
doing business in the near future. In addition, this whole pissing match will
cause other problems such as market push-back by consumers when new media
won't play on their perfectly good recent technology; not to mention the
problems archeologists of the future will face in trying to find a "Rosetta
Stone" for the media they find buried in the rubble of our current
civilization.
The Internet, Network bandwidth and Peer to Peer
The Internet has changed the rules for the distribution of content/products
that can be digitized. These distribution channels affected include:
newspapers, radio, TV, background music, retail music, retail multi-media,
retail games, betting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the traditional
channels are dead by any means; just that the channels are affected whether
they like it or not.
The problem is that many of these channels are big business, and big
business doesn't like change; certainly not within the short time that it has
taken for the Internet to rise from a curiosity to the world-dominating force
it has become. Big business can and will fight back, and DRM is just one of
the bullets in its gun. The question is, should the fight be sanctioned and
backed by legislation to the extent it has been or to the extent that big
business wants it to be, or should the free market determine who will live and
who will die; and big business will either adapt or die?
|
If government were placed in the position of
similar lobbying at the turn of last century, the buggy-whip manufacturers
might have been able to make the case that all "horseless carriages" should
be equipped with a buggy whip as standard equipment, regardless of the fact
that the buggy whip was only useful when there was a horse involved.
Similarly, the union for those unfortunate
individuals who were charged with walking in front of the automobile
ringing a bell to warn horses in some jurisdictions might have lobbied to
have legislation introduced requiring all auto owners to pay for someone
for the whole time the car was in motion, regardless of the fact that there
no longer was either a need for the person or the possibility that the
person could walk (run) fast enough to stay in front of the car. |
Typical network bandwidth available to users of the Internet ranges from
about 14400 bits per second (14,400bps - typical medium speed dial modem) to
in excess of 6,000,000 (6Mbps highest speed of ADSL.)
At the low end, text and block graphics with some
relatively low resolution pictures work best; such as might otherwise
be read in a newspaper or via the reader bar on a news TV channel.
At anything from about 50,000 bps (50Kbps) on up, it is possible to listen
to reasonable quality streaming audio. This means from roughly the top end of
the dial modem speed range (56Kbps) on up, it is possible for the Internet to
do what has been done with radio in the past. At speeds from about 100Kbps on
up, it is possible to see motion video, albeit not at sizes or frame rates
comparable to broadcast TV; that takes something closer to 1Mbps or more.
But just listening or watching in real time is not the only thing the
Internet is all about - it is also about transferring files from place to
place while the user does something else. This is not new. In the early 1980s
our company, Wimsey, ran a service that allowed our users to request files
from other computers around the world using what was called "batch ftp".
Knowing the name of a file and the computer it resided on, the user could ask
the system to transfer it overnight or over however long it took (the 'Net was
a lot slower then) - and return later to find the file in their home
directory.
Today, a user can browse the contents of thousands of computers' shared
files and select which ones to bring to their own computer; there to either
use, copy to other media, and maybe even to publish via their own shared
directory in this time of peer to peer file sharing.
|
With one of today's higher speed lines,
files of music works and even full resolution video files such as found on
DVDs can be received faster than one could travel to a store to purchase a
copy; and this, as much as the fact that the copies received typically
don't cost anything close to retail, is what it is all about;
convenience! |
So we have a network that hits many consumers at home, with a facility that
compares to print, radio and now even video. It can lower the time it takes
for a consumer to acquire digital products and may even lower the cost of
delivery of that product (the jury is still out when it comes to digital
video.) This facility has changed the map of retail distribution of text,
audio and video (and other things, but that's a different story.)
Peer to Peer networking on the Internet has thrown a curve into the mix
though. The fact is that the Internet is a two-way medium. It is not just from
the holders of "content" that can push things out; the Internet is a
two-way medium - the recipients of something can turn around and send it
back out, becoming distributors in their own right. This is compounded by the
fact that digitized content is infinitely reproducible with neither
degradation nor more than incidental cost. The one saving grace for the
copyright owners is that the typical recipient with a high speed incoming line
is limited with regards to outgoing; cable modem and xDSL lines are usually
limited on outbound packets to a fraction of the incoming bandwidth, typically
only a 1-500kbps. On the other hand, there are far more private network
connections than there are commercial ones so the bandwidth total adds up to
quite a bit in total. This is the problem the copyright holders see -
competition in the distribution pipe; competition they cannot control.
Hand in hand with increased CPU horsepower and network bandwidth goes the
use of encryption technologies in the transfer of files and data from peer to
peer. The fact is that the technologies that DRM relies upon are also
available to the purveyors of cracked content in the distribution of it once
cracked. There is nothing (and I mean nothing) that anyone involved in
the use or regulation of the Internet can do about the use of encryption.
While most encryption technologies are obvious in their use, even if
encryption were either regulated or outlawed there are other technologies that
are devious and next to impossible to detect. Given the facts of high (and
growing) bandwidth and incredible CPU horsepower, transferring files
surreptitiously is a given. It might not happen at quite the pace that it
seems to be happening now, but it will still happen. The genie cannot be put
back in the bottle and Pandora's box will never have its contents put back.
|
The US government attempted to enforce a
"back-door" in the primary encryption engine that was to become the
standard for Virtual Private Networks (VPN) using the "clipper" chip and
key escrow (a "trusted" agency holds an extra key that can unlock anything
clipper encrypts - you trust the government don't you?) Today, the question
is whether or not Microsoft has bowed to pressure to include such a back
door in anything that Microsoft puts out in the way of an operating system
or office product.
Of course that was before the average home's
PC had several times the power of that time's (only a couple of years ago)
dedicated hardware encryption engine. There's a lesson there somewhere. |
Coupled with both cracking and re-recording (see below), the fact is that
there is little that can be done about individuals engaging in redistribution
of copyright materials over the Internet if the public decides to do it.
Storage Size - Especially Portable
While it is likely that the media of any of the various digital works sold
at retail will always be fairly substantial due to the consumer's expectations
($25 for this little piece of plastic - you've got to be kidding!) once
something has been hacked, cracked or re-recorded, the size of the medium it
can be stored on is shrinking all the time. A key-fob sized flash RAM device
can store many MP3 works today. Tomorrow's technologies such as IBM's
Millipede
micromechanical storage chips and others of even higher density will make
the storage of significant amounts of copied works a pocket commodity.
If, as I suspect will happen, the populace gets into a mood to actively
thwart DRM efforts, it will be all but impossible to track the private copying
and distribution of them. This is not the same as the wholesale pirating of
pseudo-legitimate originals which is a whole other problem for the copyright
owners. This is more along the lines of the same thing I can do today with my
Palm PDA where I meet a friend in a social setting and am offered (and accept)
a copy of something my friend has on his PDA via the built-in infrared or
wireless capabilities. Today, my friend might have a copy of a few music works
or a program or two. Tomorrow he might have one or more full-resolution video
works, all in a package smaller than a pack of cigarettes.
If people want to pass copies of cracked or re-recorded digital works, even
without the Internet, they can and will do it.
As time goes on
October 10, 2003 - Music publishers are starting to get
the message. Here in Canada the retail price of CDs has been reduced 30% or
more in the past month or so. Hit titles are selling for as little as CDN$9.99
in stores in Vancouver - quite a change from the $20+ of not that long ago.
There is also an
article in Reuters about the decline of the E-book (DRM for the printed
word). The article notes that this is not just about DRM but is about the
consumer's love of "traditional" books.
richard
