1. Microsoft Research DRM talk/* With background and annotations in indented comments. */
/* It occurred to me (firstname.lastname@example.org) reading this that this was the more dense and refined version of the cory-talk. it is the result of much evolution. so much so that while it was a rich, loamy earth for those of us that had been at this for while, it might be too much of a crash course for the less initiated. so here goes- some annotation and background for this talk. if you have more to add, add it! in the wiki! */
June 17, 2004
This text is dedicated to the public domain, using a Creative Commons public domain dedication
Greetings fellow pirates! Arrrrr!
I'm here today to talk to you about copyright, technology and DRM, I work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation on copyright stuff (mostly), and I live in London. I'm not a lawyer -- I'm a kind of mouthpiece/activist type, though occasionally they shave me and stuff me into my Bar Mitzvah suit and send me to a standards body or the UN to stir up trouble. I spend about three weeks a month on the road doing completely weird stuff like going to Microsoft to talk about DRM.
I lead a double life: I'm also a science fiction writer. That means I've got a dog in this fight, because I've been dreaming of making my living from writing since I was 12 years old. Admittedly, my IP-based biz isn't as big as yours, but I guarantee you that it's every bit as important to me as yours is to you.
Here's what I'm here to convince you of:
It's a big brief, this talk. Microsoft has sunk a lot of capital into DRM systems, and spent a lot of time sending folks like Martha and Brian and Peter around to various smoke-filled rooms to make sure that Microsoft DRM finds a hospitable home in the future world. Companies like Microsoft steer like old Buicks, and this issue has a lot of forward momentum that will be hard to soak up without driving the engine block back into the driver's compartment. At best I think that Microsoft might convert some of that momentum on DRM into angular momentum, and in so doing, save all our asses.
Let's dive into it.
/* This whole section could use better annotation. Cryptonauts, fire away! */
1. DRM systems don't work
This bit breaks down into two parts:
A quick refresher course in crypto theory
Applying that to DRM
Cryptography -- secret writing -- is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sen der, a receiver and an attacker (actually, there can be more attackers, senders and recipients, but le t's keep this simple). We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol.
Let's say we're in the days of the Caesar, the Gallic War. You need to send messages back and forth to your generals, and you'd prefer that the enemy doesn't get hold of them. You can rely on the idea tha t anyone who intercepts your message is probably illiterate, but that's a tough bet to stake your empi re on. You can put your messages into the hands of reliable messengers who'll chew them up and swallow them if captured -- but that doesn't help you if Brad Pitt and his men in skirts skewer him with an a rrow before he knows what's hit him.
So you encipher your message with something like ROT-13, where every character is rotated halfway thro ugh the alphabet. They used to do this with non-worksafe material on Usenet, back when anyone on Usene t cared about work-safe-ness -- A would become N, B is O, C is P, and so forth. To decipher, you just add 13 more, so N goes to A, O to B yadda yadda./* Try out ROT-13 at http://www.rot13.com/ */
Well, this is pretty lame: as soon as anyone figures out your algorithm, your secret is g0nez0red.
So if you're Caesar, you spend a lot of time worrying about keeping the existence of your messengers a nd their payloads secret. Get that? You're Augustus and you need to send a message to Brad without Cac eous (a word I'm reliably informed means "cheese-like, or pertaining to cheese") getting his hands on it. You give the message to Diatomaceous, the fleetest runner in the empire, and you encipher it with ROT-13 and send him out of the garrison in the pitchest hour of the night, making sure no one knows th at you've sent it out. Caceous has spies everywhere, in the garrison and staked out on the road, and i f one of them puts an arrow through Diatomaceous, they'll have their hands on the message, and then if they figure out the cipher, you're b0rked. So the existence of the message is a secret. The cipher is a secret. The ciphertext is a secret. That's a lot of secrets, and the more secrets you've got, the l ess secure you are, especially if any of those secrets are shared. Shared secrets aren't really all th at secret any longer.
Time passes, stuff happens, and then Tesla invents the radio and Marconi takes credit for it. This is both good news and bad news for crypto: on the one hand, your messages can get to anywhere with a rece iver and an antenna, which is great for the brave fifth columnists working behind the enemy lines. On the other hand, anyone with an antenna can listen in on the message, which means that it's no longer p ractical to keep the existence of the message a secret. Any time Adolf sends a message to Berlin, he c an assume Churchill overhears it.
Which is OK, because now we have computers -- big, bulky primitive mechanical computers, but computers still. Computers are machines for rearranging numbers, and so scientists on both sides engage in a fi endish competition to invent the most cleverest method they can for rearranging numerically represente d text so that the other side can't unscramble it. The existence of the message isn't a secret anymore , but the cipher is.
But this is still too many secrets. If Bobby intercepts one of Adolf's Enigma machines, he can give Ch urchill all kinds of intelligence. I mean, this was good news for Churchill and us, but bad news for A dolf. And at the end of the day, it's bad news for anyone who wants to keep a secret.
Enter keys: a cipher that uses a key is still more secure. Even if the cipher is disclosed, even if th e ciphertext is intercepted, without the key (or a break), the message is secret. Post-war, this is do ubly important as we begin to realize what I think of as Schneier's Law: "any person can invent a secu rity system so clever that she or he can't think of how to break it." This means that the only experim ental methodology for discovering if you've made mistakes in your cipher is to tell all the smart peop le you can about it and ask them to think of ways to break it. Without this critical step, you'll even tually end up living in a fool's paradise, where your attacker has broken your cipher ages ago and is quietly decrypting all her intercepts of your messages, snickering at you.
Best of all, there's only one secret: the key. And with dual-key crypto it becomes a lot easier for Al ice and Bob to keep their keys secret from Carol, even if they've never met. So long as Alice and Bob can keep their keys secret, they can assume that Carol won't gain access to their cleartext messages, even though she has access to the cipher and the ciphertext. Conveniently enough, the keys are the sho rtest and simplest of the secrets, too: hence even easier to keep away from Carol. Hooray for Bob and Alice.
Now, let's apply this to DRM.
In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bo b. Alice sells Bob a DVD. She sells Bob a DVD player. The DVD has a movie on it -- say, Pirates of the Caribbean -- and it's enciphered with an algorithm called CSS -- Content Scrambling System. The DVD p layer has a CSS un-scrambler.
Now, let's take stock of what's a secret here: the cipher is well-known. The ciphertext is most assure dly in enemy hands, arrr. So what? As long as the key is secret from the attacker, we're golden.
But there's the rub. Alice wants Bob to buy Pirates of the Caribbean from her. Bob will only buy Pirat es of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. O therwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attac ker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.
DRM systems are broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who thi nk them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they pr ovide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key. At this point, the secret isn't a secre t anymore.
-> DRM systems are bad for society
2. DRM systems are bad for society
Raise your hand if you're thinking something like, "But DRM doesn't have to be proof against smart att ackers, only average individuals! It's like a speedbump!"
Put your hand down.
This is a fallacy for two reasons: one technical, and one social. They're both bad for society, though .
Here's the technical reason: I don't need to be a cracker to break your DRM. I only need to know how t o search Google, or Kazaa, or any of the other general-purpose search tools for the cleartext that som eone smarter than me has extracted.
Raise your hand if you're thinking something like, "But NGSCB can solve this problem: we'll lock the secrets up on the logic board and goop it all up with epoxy."
Put your hand down.
Raise your hand if you're a co-author of TheDarknetPaper [ http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:L_ZH_mj6-5AJ:crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet 5.doc+DarkNet+Paper&hl=en "html" ].
Everyone in the first group, meet the co-authors of the Darknet paper. This is a paper that says, among other things, that DRM will fail for this very reason. Put your hands down, guys.
Here's the social reason that DRM fails: keeping an honest user honest is like keeping a tall user tall. DRM vendors tell us that their technology is meant to be proof against average users, not organized criminal gangs like the Ukranian pirates who stamp out millions of high-quality counterfeits. It's not meant to be proof against sophisticated college kids. It's not meant to be proof against anyone who knows how to edit her registry, or hold down the shift key at the right moment, or use a search engine. At the end of the day, the user DRM is meant to defend against is the most unsophisticated and least capable among us.
Here's a true story about a user I know who was stopped by DRM. She's smart, college educated, and knows nothing about electronics. She has three kids. She has a DVD in the living room and an old VHS deck in the kids' playroom. One day, she brought home the Toy Story DVD for the kids. That's a substantial investment, and given the generally jam-smeared character of everything the kids get their paws on, she decided to tape the DVD off to VHS and give that to the kids -- that way she could make a fresh VHS copy when the first one went south. She cabled her DVD into her VHS and pressed play on the DVD and record on the VCR and waited.
Before I go farther, I want us all to stop a moment and marvel at this. Here is someone who is practically technophobic, but who was able to construct a mental model of sufficient accuracy that she figured out that she could connect her cables in the right order and dub her digital disc off to analog tape. I imagine that everyone in this room is the front-line tech support for someone in her or his family: would it be great if all our non-geek friends and relatives were this clever and imaginative?
I also want to point out that this is the proverbial honest user. She's not making a copy for the next door neighbors. She's not making a copy and selling it on a blanket on Canal Street. She's not ripping it to her hard-drive, DivX encoding it and putting it in her Kazaa sharepoint. She's doing something *honest* -- moving it from one format to another. She's home taping.
Except she fails. There's a DRM system called Macrovision embedded -- by law -- in every DVD player and VHS that messes with the vertical blanking interval in the signal and causes any tape made in this fashion to fail. Macrovision can be defeated for about $10 with a gadget readily available on eBay. But our infringer doesn't know that. She's "honest." Technically unsophisticated. Not stupid, mind you -- just naive./* http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=294&item=5705239365&rd=1 admittedly, this one is over $61 as of this posting. */
The Darknet paper addresses this possibility: it even predicts what this person will do in the long run: she'll find out about Kazaa and the next time she wants to get a movie for the kids, she'll download it from the net and burn it for them.
In order to delay that day for as long as possible, our lawmakers and big rightsholder interests have come up with a disastrous policy called anticircumvention.
Here's how anticircumvention works: if you put a lock -- an access control -- around a copyrighted work, it is illegal to break that lock. It's illegal to make a tool that breaks that lock. It's illegal to tell someone how to make that tool. It's illegal to tell someone where she can find out how to make that tool.
Remember Schneier's Law? Anyone can come up with a security system so clever that he can't see its flaws. The only way to find the flaws in security is to disclose the system's workings and invite public feedback. But now we live in a world where any cipher used to fence off a copyrighted work is off-limits to that kind of feedback. That's something that a Princeton engineering prof named Ed Felten discovered when he submitted a paper to an academic conference on the failings in the Secure Digital Music Initiative, a watermarking scheme proposed by the recording industry. The RIAA responded by threatening to sue his ass if he tried it. We fought them because Ed is the kind of client that impact litigators love: unimpeachable and clean-cut and the RIAA folded. Lucky Ed. Maybe the next guy isn't so lucky.
Matter of fact, the next guy wasn't. Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian programmer who gave a talk at a hacker con in Vegas on the failings in Adobe's e-book locks. The FBI threw him in the slam for 30 days. He copped a plea, went home to Russia, and the Russian equivalent of the State Department issued a blanket warning to its researchers to stay away from American conferences, since we'd apparently turned into the kind of country where certain equations are illegal.
Anticircumvention is a powerful tool for people who want to exclude competitors. If you claim that your car engine firmware is a "copyrighted work," you can sue anyone who makes a tool for interfacing with it. That's not just bad news for mechanics -- think of the hotrodders who want to chip their cars to tweak the performance settings. We have companies like Lexmark claiming that their printer cartridges contain copyrighted works -- software that trips an "I am empty" flag when the toner runs out, and have sued a competitor who made a remanufactured cartridge that reset the flag. Even garage-door opener companies have gotten in on the act, claiming that their receivers' firmware are copyrighted works. Copyrighted cars, print carts and garage-door openers: what's next, copyrighted light-fixtures?
Even in the context of legitimate -- excuse me, "traditional" -- copyrighted works like movies on DVDs, anticircumvention is bad news. Copyright is a delicate balance. It gives creators and their assignees some rights, but it also reserves some rights to the public. For example, an author has no right to prohibit anyone from transcoding his books into assistive formats for the blind. More importantly, though, a creator has a very limited say over what you can do once you lawfully acquire her works. If I buy your book, your painting, or your DVD, it belongs to me. It's my property. Not my "intellectual property" -- a whacky kind of pseudo-property that's swiss-cheesed with exceptions, easements and limitations -- but real, no-fooling, actual tangible *property* -- the kind of thing that courts have been managing through tort law for centuries./* An example: bookshare.org, a filesharing service for braille books, (sort of like a "napster for the blind", but for books and completely legal) has to scan in paper books because circumventing copy protection is illegal, even for them, withan exemption to copyright specifically for the blind.. they have a right to the content, but they have to retranscribe it into digital form. */
But anticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest in your physical property to their favor. Region-coded DVDs are an example of this: there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them. I can buy a book and throw it in my bag and take it anywhere from Toronto to Timbuktu, and read it wherever I am: I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price. When I'm done with it, I can sell it on or give it away in the UK. Copyright lawyers call this "First Sale," but it may be simpler to think of it as "Capitalism."
The keys to decrypt a DVD are controlled by an org called DVD-CCA, and they have a bunch of licensing requirements for anyone who gets a key from them. Among these is something called region-coding: if you buy a DVD in France, it'll have a flag set that says, "I am a French DVD." Bring that DVD to America and your DVD player will compare the flag to its list of permitted regions, and if they don't match, it will tell you that it's not allowed to play your disc.
Remember: there is no copyright that says that an author gets to do this. When we wrote the copyright statutes and granted authors the right to control display, performance, duplication, derivative works, and so forth, we didn't leave out "geography" by accident. That was on-purpose.
So when your French DVD won't play in America, that's not because it'd be illegal to do so: it's because the studios have invented a business-model and then invented a copyright law to prop it up. The DVD is your property and so is the DVD player, but if you break the region-coding on your disc, you're going to run afoul of anticircumvention.
That's what happened to Jon Johansen, a Norweigan teenager who wanted to watch French DVDs on his Norweigan DVD player. He and some pals wrote some code to break the CSS so that he could do so. He's a wanted man here in America; in Norway the studios put the local fuzz up to bringing him up on charges of *unlawfully trespassing upon a computer system.* When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
His no-fooling, real and physical property has been expropriated by the weird, notional, metaphorical intellectual property on his DVD: DRM only works if your record player becomes the property of whomever's records you're playing.
-> DRM systems are bad for business
3. DRM systems are bad for biz
This is the worst of all the ideas embodied by DRM: that people who make record-players should be able to spec whose records you can listen to, and that people who make records should have a veto over the design of record-players.
We've never had this principle: in fact, we've always had just the reverse. Think about all the things that can be plugged into a parallel or serial interface, which were never envisioned by their inventors. Our strong economy and rapid innovation are byproducts of the ability of anyone to make anything that plugs into anything else: from the Flo-bee electric razor that snaps onto the end of your vacuum-hose to the octopus spilling out of your car's dashboard lighter socket, standard interfaces that anyone can build for are what makes billionaires out of nerds./* flowbee: not usable with your roomba. */ /* that octopus thing plugged into your cigarette lighter: Don't leave one of these plugged in when you aren't using it. i came back from a week trip to a car with a big lead acid paperweight where the battery used to be. */
The courts affirm this again and again. It used to be illegal to plug anything that didn't come from AT&T into your phone-jack. They claimed that this was for the safety of the network, but really it was about propping up this little penny-ante racket that AT&T had in charging you a rental fee for your phone until you'd paid for it a thousand times over.
When that ban was struck down, it created the market for third-party phone equipment, from talking novelty phones to answering machines to cordless handsets to headsets -- billions of dollars of economic activity that had been supressed by the closed interface. Note that AT&T was one of the big beneficiaries of this: they *also* got into the business of making phone-kit.
DRM is the software equivalent of these closed hardware interfaces. Robert Scoble is a Softie who has an excellent blog, where he wrote an essay about the best way to protect your investment in the digital music you buy. Should you buy Apple iTunes music, or Microsoft DRM music? Scoble argued that Microsoft's music was a sounder investment, because Microsoft would have more downstream licensees for its proprietary format and therefore you'd have a richer ecosystem of devices to choose from when you were shopping for gizmos to play your virtual records on.
What a weird idea: that we should evaluate our record-purchases on the basis of which recording company will allow the greatest diversity of record-players to play its discs! That's like telling someone to buy the Betamax instead of the Edison Kinetoscope because Thomas Edison is a crank about licensing his patents; all the while ignoring the world's relentless march to the more open VHS format.
It's a bad business. DVD is a format where the guy who makes the records gets to design the record players. Ask yourself: how much innovation has there been over the past decade of DVD players? They've gotten cheaper and smaller, but where are the weird and amazing new markets for DVD that were opened up by the VCR? There's a company that's manufacturing the world's first HDD-based DVD jukebox, a thing that holds 30 movies, and they're charging *$30,000* for this thing. We're talking about a $300 hard drive and a $300 PC -- all that other cost is the cost of anticompetition./* http://boingboing.net/20 03/09/18/we_all_pay_hollywood.html cory's original post on the $30k home theater, plus you can fin d your local distributor: http://www.ka leidescape.com/integrators/locator.html none of them quote prices online for anything. if you have to ask... */
-> DRM systems are bad for artists
4. DRM systems are bad for artists
But what of the artist? The hardworking filmmaker, the ink-stained scribbler, the heroin-cured leather y rock-star? We poor slobs of the creative class are everyone's favorite poster-children here: the RIA A and MPAA hold us up and say, "Won't someone please think of the children?" File-sharers say, "Yeah, we're thinking about the artists, but the labels are The Man, who cares what happens to you?"
To understand what DRM does to artists, you need to understand how copyright and technology interact. Copyright is inherently technological, since the things it addresses -- copying, transmitting, and so on -- are inherently technological.
The piano roll was the first system for cheaply copying music. It was invented at a time when the domi nant form of entertainment in America was getting a talented pianist to come into your living room and pound out some tunes while you sang along. The music industry consisted mostly of sheet-music publish ers./* History of the piano roll: piano rolls are kind of the punch cards of music. */
The player piano was a digital recording and playback system. Piano-roll companies bought sheet music and ripped the notes printed on it into 0s and 1s on a long roll of computer tape, which they sold by the thousands -- the hundreds of thousands -- the millions. They did this without a penny's compensati on to the publishers. They were digital music pirates. Arrrr!
Predictably, the composers and music publishers went nutso. Sousa showed up in Congress to say that:These talking machines are going to ruin the
artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.
The publishers asked Congress to ban the piano roll and to create a law that said that any new system for reproducing music should be subject to a veto from their industry association. Lucky for us, Congr ess realized what side of their bread had butter on it and decided not to criminalize the dominant for m of entertainment in America.
But there was the problem of paying artists. The Constitution sets out the purpose of American copyrig ht: to promote the useful arts and sciences. The composers had a credible story that they'd do less co mposing if they weren't paid for it, so Congress needed a fix. Here's what they came up with: anyone w ho paid a music publisher two cents would have the right to make one piano roll of any song that publi sher published. The publisher couldn't say no, and no one had to hire a lawyer at $200 an hour to argu e about whether the payment should be two cents or a nickel./* Copyright Royalty Rates - 1909-2006. */
This compulsory license is still in place today: when Joe Cocker sings "With a Little Help from My Friends," he pays a fixed fee to the Beatles' publisher and away he goes -- even if Ringo hates the idea. If yo u ever wondered how Sid Vicious talked Anka into letting him get a crack at "My Way," well, now you know./* How to Legally Sell Downloads of Cover Songs. */
That compulsory license created a world where a thousand times more money was made by a thousand times more creators who made a thousand times more music that reached a thousand times more people.
This story repeats itself throughout the technological century, every ten or fifteen years. Radio was enabled by a voluntary blanket license -- the music companies got together and asked for an antitrust exemption so that they could offer all their music for a flat fee. Cable TV took a compulsory: the onl y way cable operators could get their hands on broadcasts was to pirate them and shove them down the w ire, and Congress saw fit to legalize this practice rather than screw around with their constituents' TVs./* Where this is going - The EFF's compulsory licensing ideas. */
Sometimes, the courts and Congress decided to simply take away a copyright -- that's what happened wit h the VCR. When Sony brought out the VCR in 1976, the studios had already decided what the experience of watching a movie in your living room would look like: they'd licensed out their programming for use on a machine called a Discovision, which played big LP-sized discs that disintegrated after a few pla ys. Proto-DRM./* In-depth history of Discovision */
The copyright scholars of the day didn't give the VCR very good odds. Sony argued that their box allow ed for a fair use, which is defined as a use that a court rules is a defense against infringement base d on four factors: whether the use transforms the work into something new, like a collage; whether it uses all or some of the work; whether the work is artistic or mainly factual; and whether the use unde rcuts the creator's business-model.
The Betamax failed on all four fronts: when you time-shifted or duplicated a Hollywood movie off the a ir, you made a non-transformative use of 100 percent of a creative work in a way that directly undercu t the Discovision licensing stream./* History of the Betamax case */
Jack Valenti, the mouthpiece for the motion-picture industry, told Congress in 1982 that the VCR was t o the American film industry "as the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone."/* The testimony - Surprisingly entertaining reading. * /
But the Supreme Court ruled against Hollywood in 1984, when it determined that any device capable of a substantial non-infringing use was legal. In other words, "We don't buy this Boston Strangler busines s: if your business model can't survive the emergence of this general-purpose tool, it's time to get a nother business-model or go broke."
Hollywood found another business model, as the broadcasters had, as the Vaudeville artists had, as the music publishers had, and they made more art that paid more artists and reached a wider audience.
There's one thing that every new art business-model had in common: it embraced the medium it lived in.
This is the overweening characteristic of every single successful new medium: it is true to itself. Th e Gutenberg Bible didn't succeed on the axes that made a hand-copied monk Bible valuable: they were ug ly, they weren't in Church Latin, they weren't read aloud by someone who could interpret it for his la y audience, they didn't represent years of devoted-with-a-capital-D labor by someone who had given his life over to God. The thing that made the Gutenberg Bible a success was its scalability: it was more popular because it was more proliferate: all success factors for a new medium pale beside its profliga cy. The most successful organisms on earth are those that reproduce the most: bugs and bacteria, nemat odes and virii. Reproduction is the best of all survival strategies./* To understand the comment about the Gutenberg Bible, in depth, see Cory's ebook talk from Emerging Tech */
Piano rolls didn't sound as good as the music of a skilled pianist: but they *scaled better*. Radio la cked the social elements of live performance, but more people could build a crystal set and get it aim ed correctly than could pack into even the largest Vaudeville house. MP3s don't come with liner notes, they aren't sold to you by a hipper-than-thou record store clerk who can help you make your choice, b ad rips and truncated files abound: I once downloaded a twelve-second copy of "Hey Jude" from the orig inal Napster. Yet MP3 is outcompeting the CD. I don't know what to do with CDs anymore: I get them, an d they're like the especially garment bag they give you at the fancy suit shop: it's nice and you feel like a goof for throwing it out, but Christ, how many of these things can you usefully own? I can put ten thousand songs on my laptop, but a comparable pile of discs, with liner notes and so forth -- tha t's a liability: it's a piece of my monthly storage-locker costs.
Here are the two most important things to know about computers and the Internet:
A computer is a machine for rearranging bits
The Internet is a machine for moving bits from one place to another very cheaply and quickly
Any new medium that takes hold on the Internet and with computers will embrace these two facts, not re gret them. A newspaper press is a machine for spitting out cheap and smeary newsprint at speed: if you try to make it output fine art lithos, you'll get junk. If you try to make it output newspapers, you' ll get the basis for a free society.
And so it is with the Internet. At the heyday of Napster, record execs used to show up at conferences and tell everyone that Napster was doomed because no one wanted lossily compressed MP3s with no liner notes and truncated files and misspelled metadata.
Today we hear ebook publishers tell each other and anyone who'll listen that the barrier to ebooks is screen resolution. It's bollocks, and so is the whole sermonette about how nice a book looks on your b ookcase and how nice it smells and how easy it is to slip into the tub. These are obvious and untrue t hings, like the idea that radio will catch on once they figure out how to sell you hotdogs during the intermission, or that movies will really hit their stride when we can figure out how to bring the acto rs out for an encore when the film's run out. Or that what the Protestant Reformation really needs is Gutenberg Bibles with facsimile illumination in the margin and a rent-a-priest to read aloud from your personal Word of God./* Once again, the ebooks talk is required reading for this talk! */
New media don't succeed because they're like the old media, only better: they succeed because they're worse than the old media at the stuff the old media is good at, and better at the stuff the old media are bad at. Books are good at being paperwhite, high-resolution, low-infrastructure, cheap and disposa ble. Ebooks are good at being everywhere in the world at the same time for free in a form that is so m alleable that you can just pastebomb it into your IM session or turn it into a page-a-day mailing list .
The only really successful epublishing -- I mean, hundreds of thousands, millions of copies distribute d and read -- is the bookwarez scene, where scanned-and-OCR'd books are distributed on the darknet. Th e only legit publishers with any success at epublishing are the ones whose books cross the Internet wi thout technological fetter: publishers like Baen Books and my own, Tor, who are making some or all of their catalogs available in ASCII and HTML and PDF.
The hardware-dependent ebooks, the DRM use-and-copy-restricted ebooks, they're cratering. Sales measur ed in the tens, sometimes the hundreds. Science fiction is a niche business, but when you're selling c opies by the ten, that's not even a business, it's a hobby./* This seems t o contradict cory, and show a growth in sales. however, it's interesting to note that in the comparabl e period of 2003, cory's total ebook downloads on his first novel totaled over a 3rd of all the ebook sales reported for all authors. so those numbers may be somewhat unimpressive, or Cory is the most pop ular author of all time, beating out God. */
Every one of you has been riding a curve where you read more and more words off of more and more scree ns every day through most of your professional careers. It's zero-sum: you've also been reading fewer words off of fewer pages as time went by: the dinosauric executive who prints his email and dictates a reply to his secretary is info-roadkill.
Today, at this very second, people read words off of screens for every hour that they can find. Your k ids stare at their Game Boys until their eyes fall out. Euroteens ring doorbells with their hypertroph ied, SMS-twitching thumbs instead of their index fingers./* While general use of texting is around 8 wpm, experts can get up to 46! */
Paper books are the packaging that books come in. Cheap printer-binderies like the Internet Bookmobile that can produce a full bleed, four color, glossy cover, printed spine, perfect-bound book in ten minutes for a dollar are the future of paper books: wh en you need an instance of a paper book, you generate one, or part of one, and pitch it out when you'r e done. I landed at SEA-TAC on Monday and burned a couple CDs from my music collection to listen to in the rental car. When I drop the car off, I'll leave them behind. Who needs 'em?
Whenever a new technology has disrupted copyright, we've changed copyright. Copyright isn't an ethical proposition, it's a utlititarian one. There's nothing *moral* about paying a composer tuppence for th e piano-roll rights, there's nothing *immoral* about not paying Hollywood for the right to videotape a movie off your TV. They're just the best way of balancing out so that people's physical property righ ts in their VCRs and phonographs are respected and so that creators get enough of a dangling carrot to go on making shows and music and books and paintings./* Moral rights are much bigger in europe and australia than they are in the USA http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/D4718204-9904-42DF-8A5C84A64827173D/alpha/M given that copyright is intended to promote the useful arts and sciences, we have no legal concept of the moral rights of authors. More about moral rights arond the world. */
Technology that disrupts copyright does so because it simplifies and cheapens creation, reproduction a nd distribution. The existing copyright businesses exploit inefficiencies in the old production, repro duction and distribution system, and they'll be weakened by the new technology. But new technology alw ays gives us more art with a wider reach: that's what tech is *for*.
Tech gives us bigger pies that more artists can get a bite out of. That's been tacitly acknowledged at every stage of the copyfight since the piano roll. When copyright and technology collide, it's copyri ght that changes.
Which means that today's copyright -- the thing that DRM nominally props up -- didn't come down off th e mountain on two stone tablets. It was created in living memory to accommodate the technical reality created by the inventors of the previous generation. To abandon invention now robs tomorrow's artists of the new businesses and new reach and new audiences that the Internet and the PC can give them.
Another important progentor speech of this piece, especially this point, is Lawrence Lessig's copyright keynote from 2002.
The flash is an even easier way to consume it: http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/ */
-> DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT
5. DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT
When Sony brought out the VCR, it made a record player that could play Hollywood's records, even if Ho llywood didn't like the idea. The industries that grew up on the back of the VCR -- movie rentals, hom e taping, camcorders, even Bar Mitzvah videographers -- made billions for Sony and its cohort.
That was good business -- even if Sony lost the Betamax-VHS format wars, the money on the world-with-V CRs table was enough to make up for it.
But then Sony acquired a relatively tiny entertainment company and it started to massively screw up. W hen MP3 rolled around and Sony's walkman customers were clamoring for a solid-state MP3 player, Sony l et its music business-unit run its show: instead of making a high-capacity MP3 walkman, Sony shipped i ts Music Clips, low-capacity devices that played brain-damaged DRM formats like Real and OpenAG. They spent good money engineering "features" into these devices that kept their customers from freely movin g their music back and forth between their devices. Customers stayed away in droves.
Today, Sony is dead in the water when it comes to walkmen. The market leaders are poky Singaporean out fits like Creative Labs -- the kind of company that Sony used to crush like a bug, back before it got borged by its entertainment unit -- and PC companies like Apple.
That's because Sony shipped a product that there was no market demand for. No Sony customer woke up on e morning and said, "Damn, I wish Sony would devote some expensive engineering effort in order that I may do less with my music." Presented with an alternative, Sony's customers enthusiastically jumped sh ip./* More of Sony's not-clue. */
The same thing happened to a lot of people I know who used to rip their CDs to WMA. You guys sold them software that produced smaller, better-sounding rips that the MP3 rippers, but you also fixed it so t hat the songs you ripped were device-locked to their PCs. What that meant is that when they backed up their music to another hard-drive and reinstalled their OS (something that the spyware and malware war s has made more common than ever), they discovered that after they restored their music that they coul d no longer play it. The player saw the new OS as a different machine, and locked them out of their own music.
There is no market demand for this "feature." None of your customers want you to make expensive modifi cations to your products that make backing up and restoring even harder. And there is no moment when y our customers will be less forgiving than the moment that they are recovering from catastrophic techno logy failures.
I speak from experience. Because I buy a new Powerbook every ten months, and because I always order th e new models the day they're announced, I get a lot of lemons from Apple. That means that I hit Apple' s three-iTunes-authorized-computers limit pretty early on/* iTunes limit is now five computers, but it used to be three. */
and found myself unable to play the hundreds of dollars' worth of iTunes songs I'd bought because one of my authorized machines was a lemon that Apple had broken up for parts, one was in the shop getting fixed by Apple, and one was my mom's computer, 3,000 miles away in Toronto./* To deauthorize a computer you no longer have access to, you can fill out a web form at http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/authorization.html */
If I had been a less good customer for Apple's hardware, I would have been fine. If I had been a less enthusiastic evangelist for Apple's products -- if I hadn't shown my mom how iTunes Music Store worked -- I would have been fine. If I hadn't bought so much iTunes music that burning it to CD and re-rippi ng it and re-keying all my metadata was too daunting a task to consider, I would have been fine.
As it was Apple rewarded my trust, evangelism and out-of-control spending by treating me like a crook and locking me out of my own music, at a time when my Powerbook was in the shop -- i.e., at a time whe n I was hardly disposed to feel charitable to Apple.
/* here's his original post, plus DMCA violatin' fix.
and he's not the only one: http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/03/28/hitting_the_itunes_drm_speedbump.html */
I'm an edge case here, but I'm a *leading edge* case. If Apple succeeds in its business plans, it will only be a matter of time until even average customers have upgraded enough hardware and bought enough music to end up where I am.
You know what I would totally buy? A record player that let me play everybody's records. Right now, th e closest I can come to that is an open source app called VLC, but it's clunky and buggy and it didn't come pre-installed on my computer.
Sony didn't make a Betamax that only played the movies that Hollywood was willing to permit -- Hollywo od asked them to do it, they proposed an early, analog broadcast flag that VCRs could hunt for and res pond to by disabling recording. Sony ignored them and made the product they thought their customers wa nted.
I'm a Microsoft customer. Like millions of other Microsoft customers, I want a player that plays anyth ing I throw at it, and I think that you are just the company to give it to me.
Yes, this would violate copyright law as it stands, but Microsoft has been making tools of piracy that change copyright law for decades now. Outlook, Exchange and MSN are tools that abet widescale digital infringement.
More significantly, IIS and your caching proxies all make and serve copies of documents without their authors' consent, something that, if it is legal today, is only legal because companies like Microsoft went ahead and did it and dared lawmakers to prosecute.
Microsoft stood up for its customers and for progress, and won so decisively that most people never ev en realized that there was a fight.
Do it again! This is a company that looks the world's roughest, toughest anti-trust regulators in the eye and laughs. Compared to anti-trust people, copyright lawmakers are pantywaists. You can take them with your arm behind your back./* The judgement. */
In Siva Vaidhyanathan's book The Anarchist in the Library, he talks about why the studios are so blind to their customers' desires. It's because people like you and me spent the 80s and the 90s telling them bad science fiction stories about impossible DRM technology that would let them charge a small sum of money every time someone looked at a movie -- want to fast-forward? That feature costs another penny. Pausing is two cents an hour. The mute button will cost you a quarter.
When Mako Analysis issued their report last month advising phone companies to stop supporting Symbian phones, they were just writing the latest installment in this story. Mako says that phones like my P90 0, which can play MP3s as ringtones, are bad for the cellphone economy, because it'll put the extortio nate ringtone sellers out of business. What Mako is saying is that just because you bought the CD does n't mean that you should expect to have the ability to listen to it on your MP3 player, and just becau se it plays on your MP3 player is no reason to expect it to run as a ringtone. I wonder how they feel about alarm clocks that will play a CD to wake you up in the morning? Is that strangling the nascent " alarm tone" market?/* More about mako analysis's report. */
The phone companies' customers want Symbian phones and for now, at least, the phone companies understa nd that if they don't sell them, someone else will.
The market opportunity for a truly capable devices is enormous. There's a company out there charging * $30,000* for a $600 DVD jukebox -- go and eat their lunch! Steve Jobs isn't going to do it: he's off a t the D conference telling studio execs not to release hi-def movies until they're sure no one will ma ke a hi-def DVD burner that works with a PC.
Maybe they won't buy into his BS, but they're also not much interested in what you have to sell. At th e Broadcast Protection Discussion Group meetings where the Broadcast Flag was hammered out, the studio s' position was, "We'll take anyone's DRM except Microsoft's and Philips'." When I met with UK broadca st wonks about the European version of the Broadcast Flag underway at the Digital Video Broadcasters' forum, they told me, "Well, it's different in Europe: mostly they're worried that some American compan y like Microsoft will get their claws into European television."
American film studios didn't want the Japanese electronics companies to get a piece of the movie pie, so they fought the VCR. Today, everyone who makes movies agrees that they don't want to let you guys g et between them and their customers.
Sony didn't get permission. Neither should you. Go build the record player that can play everyone's records.
Because if you don't do it, someone else will.
The person or persons who have associated their work with this document (the "Dedicator") hereby ded icate the entire copyright in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public dom ain.
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of Dedic ator's heirs and successors. Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, dist ributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented o r conceived.
/* ha ha! here we are, taking advantage of the public domain! */