Response to a press-release announcing a new DRM system jointly produced by Matsushita, Philips, Sony and Samsung (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4194047.stm). A BBC reporter sent it to me and asked if I had any comment; the text below is my full response Cory Doctorow cory@eff.org 1/21/05 -- From the first paragraph, this is nonsense: > The world's four biggest consumer electronics companies have > agreed to start using a common method This makes it sound like Sony, Philips, et al will not use *any other* DRM; that is, that they have perfected DRM and will now use solely this system. The reality is that Sony, Philips, Samsung and Matsushita have made agreements *just like this one* on dozens, if not hundreds of occasions. They have all "agreed" to use DVD-CSS to restrict the use of DVDs. They have all "agreed" to follow the Broadcast Flag regulation. At one time or another, they have all "agreed" to take licenses from the 4C and 5C entity, and they are all in negotiations to "agree" over systems like the Digital Video Broadcaster's Forum Copy Protection Content Management System (DVB-CPCM), a DRM that is intended to be mandated for use across Europe, and Australia and parts of Asia and Latin America. The key take-away from this is that this agreement isn't much of an agreement. None of these companies' consumer electronics divisions would be voluntarily signing up to let the Hollywood studios' hysteria over downloading dictate that they must include expensive, unreliable use-restriction technologies into their devices, especially given that no customer will ever view these systems as selling-points. "Right this way sir, we have a brand new TV that lets you do even less with your favorite programs!" Moreover, the fact that they've agreed to use yet another DRM doesn't mean that if you buy devices that comply with this system that you can expect them to interoperate with all other systems. Despite the claims of vendors, the *point* of DRM is to *reduce* interoperability, to see to it that only approved devices can handle, store and replay media. Interoperability efforts, REAL interoperability efforts, focus on making it easy for anyone to build a device or system that plugs into another device. Think of WiFi or USB or even the cigarette lighter in your car: they are standard interfaces and anyone can make anything and plug it into them. The point of a system like this is to limit the interoperability to those entities who will play by a set of secret rules set out by a cartel. > common method to protect digital music and video against piracy > and illegal copying, they said on Thursday. Not one of these systems has ever prevented piracy or illegal copying. When pressed, these entities will surely admit that this technology is not meant to be proof against a skilled attacker, but rather it is meant as a "speed bump" that works on "average users" to "keep honest users honest." If they are particularly disrespectful of 52 percent of the world's population, they might even tell you that this is the kind of thing that their mothers can't defeat. But counterfeiting gangs who engage in "illegal copying" and "piracy" -- that is, the sophisticated criminal enterprises that operate in the former USSR and elsewhere to stamp out billions of fake CDs and DVDs -- are unfazed by these systems, because they are, in fact, sophisticated attackers. They are, in fact, not average users. This commercial piracy is the only activity that clearly displaces sales to the studios and the labels, and it is precisely this kind of piracy that DRM cannot prevent. As to average users engaged in file-sharing, they, too, won't be foiled by this. Rather, they will be able to avail themselves of songs, movies and other media that have had their DRM removed by sophisticated users. They need not know how to hack the DRM wrappers off their music, they merely need to know how to search Google for copies where this has already happened. And that is exactly what they will do: they will bring home lawfully purchased CDs and DVDs and try to do something normal, like watch it on their laptop, or move the music to their iPod, and they will discover that the media that they have bought has DRM systems in place to prevent exactly this sort of activity, because the studios and labels perceive an opportunity to sell you your media again and again -- the iPod version, the auto version, the American and UK version, the ringtone version, und zo weiter. Customers who try to buy legitimate media rather than downloading the unfettered DRM-free versions will be punished for their commitment to enriching the entertainment companies. That commitment will falter as a consequence. Finally, these systems are *never* limited to "illegal copying and piracy" -- rather, they contain measures to enforce non-copyright restrictions like region-coding (movies bought in the US can't be watched on UK DVD players) and restrictions on backup and format-shifting. These activities are *not* illegal or piracy, but they are just as readily restricted by these systems as indiscriminate file-sharing.