digital rights management (DRM)

By default, once information is digitized it is simply a pat-tern of bits that can be easily copied within the same or a different medium, using a variety of software or the built-in facilities of the operating system. Of course the develop-ment of tape-recording technology in the mid-20th century already made it possible to copy audio recordings, and the later development of videotape and the VCR did the same for video. However, while analog copying techniques lose some accuracy (or fidelity) with each generation of copying, digi-tal files can be copied exactly each time. It is equally easy to e-mail, upload, or otherwise distribute audio or video files.

Legally, the creator of an original work can assert copy-right—literally, the “right to copy” or to control when and how the work is distributed. Digital rights management (DRM) refers to a variety of technologies that can be used to enforce this right by making it at least difficult for the purchaser of one copy of a work to copy and distribute it in turn. (Similar technologies have also been used to prevent copying of software, which is, after all, just another pattern of bits—see copy protection and software piracy and counterfeiting.)

DRM for Film and Video

In the mid-1990s, movies on DVD were protected using the Content Scrambling System (CSS). This proprietary format was licensed only for certain hardware and operating sys-tems, but in 1999 an activist programmer released DeCSS, a program that could decode protected discs and allow them to be played on operating systems such as Linux, which had not been licensed. A similar story unfolded in 2007 when hackers broke the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) that was used to protect the new high-definition HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs.

Protecting Music

DRM has also been used on many audio CDs. Many consum-ers complained that their CD players (particularly when used with Windows PCs) were not compatible with the protected discs. A bigger controversy arose in 2005 when Sony began to use DRM technology that (without notification) installed a rootkit (a kind of “back door” to the operating system) that potentially left systems open to attack. Facing public outcry and several lawsuits, Sony withdrew the DRM, which, ironi-cally, was rather ineffective at preventing copying. By 2007 music CD producers had concluded that DRM had more costs than benefits, and such protection is no longer found on audio CDs.

Music distributed online is often protected by DRM. However, some services such as Apple iTunes now offer the option of buying DRM-free music at a higher price. (Apple’s Steve Jobs has called upon the online music industry to completely eliminate DRM.)

Legal and Other Issues

Generally, the argument for DRM has been straightforward: If people can get something for free, they will not buy it. Content creators and publishers would go out of business. Organizations such as the Recording Institute Association of America (RIAA) have aggressively sued college students and others accused of sharing copyrighted music or video online and successfully forced the best known file-sharing service, Napster, to become a licensed music service (see file-sharing and p2p networks).

The principal legal means for enforcing DRM is the Digi-tal Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed in 1998. The law prohibits the production or dissemination of technology (software or hardware) that allows users to circumvent DRM. However, it has been difficult in practice to prevent the rapid dissemination of “cracks” for DRM over the Internet.

There are also a number of legal arguments against DRM. One is that it prevents certain actions allowed to con-sumers under copyright law, such as making a backup copy of media that one has purchased (see intellectual prop-erty and computing). Also, because many DRM schemes work only with Windows or Macintosh machines, users of other operating systems (notably Linux) must “crack” DRM in order to be able to use the protected media. (Under the law, such action to promote “interoperability” is allowed, though not if the purpose is to facilitate illegal copying. But like most matters of intent, this can be hard to determine.)

There have also been First Amendment issues. Although the DMCA includes a “scholarly research” exception, some cryptography researchers have said that they have been inhibited from publishing analysis of DRM for fear of legal prosecution.

A number of activists and groups have opposed DRM, including open-source advocate Richard Stallman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (see cyberspace advocacy groups). One of their efforts has been promotion of the Free Software Foundation’s General Public License (GPL3), which prohibits the use of DRM in products distributed under that open-source license.