Ken Fisher at Ars Technica thinks something smells fishy about Steve Jobs's claims that
licensing a DRM system will lead to its defeat. By comparing the security track records of iTunes's FairPlay and Microsoft's rival and heavily-licensed PlaysForSure, Ken might also have a good point. As history goes, FairPlay has been cracked four times (including
Real's own hack for their store), while PlaysForSure has suffered only one true crack in its time. Perhaps more significant than either of these numbers, however, is that none of these DRM breaches were the result of secrets being shared from the inside; they apparently were all spearheaded by creatives from the community who might not hold digital rights management in the highest of regards.
Of course, the issue isn't nearly this cut and dry. The iTunes Store's 800-pound gorilla-like popularity can help explain its greater number of breaches (however: wouldn't one be more interested in cracking the store that offers unlimited music via subscription?). In the end, Ken settles on revisiting the possibility of licensing DRM. Since Jobs already let the 'get rid of DRM' cat out of the bag, however, I'm thinking the public isn't going to put the idea to rest anytime soon.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Eric said 11:46AM on 2-09-2007
Steve Jobs wasn't just saying it was more likely to be cracked. He was also saying that it would be more difficult to patch. If a patch required store changes as well as player changes, then it would have to be coordinated with multiple parties. He implied that their current contracts with the big four are too restrictive in the time lines to allow them to guarantee that they can fix things in the allowed time.
Also, maybe not with this person so much... but it seems like a lot of people are arguing with Jobs just for the sake of contradicting him. Maybe he is wrong on his second option, but the third is still the best for consumers. (Also, I find it funny that DVD Jon - a man who cracked DVD DRM - is now arguing for it. Of course, he has a vested interest now in Apple keeping DRM... ironic, isn't it?)
Reply
RamJaw said 12:27PM on 2-09-2007
The argument Mr. Fisher offers is ridiculous. Why would anyone hack a subscription based DRM (which is probably the only reason most people use alternatives to iTunes). With subscription based services, you don't own tracks and therefore, if you were to crack the DRM (and make it public) it might endanger the future viability of you taking advantage of the exploit (since they would close up shop if you can get your tunes for free).
I suspect most people don't bother with getting rid of DRM for PlaysForSure because if they make a recording of what is playing as it plays, they can have a copy of any song they like.
It's a different model with iTunes. You rightfully own the license to the music. Why should you be restricted in ways you are not on other media. That is why it is cracked plain and simple.
Reply
Bill I said 12:27PM on 2-09-2007
Here's the relevant quote from Jobs regarding fixing holes in FairPlay:
"An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak."
I don't think that licensing FairPlay would necessarily mean it's easier to crack (even though he did say that), but rather that the more vendors who use it, the harder it is to patch.
Using this quote as evidence: "However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store" -- licensing FairPlay would make holding up that end of the bargain markedly difficult.
I think that is the real reason he refuses to license it. His other reason is Apple's standard "Control the entire experience" thing on top of their desire to hold onto the market share the iPod currently enjoys.
Reply
GadgetGav said 12:11PM on 2-09-2007
He wasn't saying that FairPlay only used by Apple was unbreakable, he was saying that FairPlay licensed to many would be more likely to be broken. That doesn't seem an unreasonable conclusion.
You can't just reverse his argument and still have a valid point: bananas are yellow, but not everything that's yellow is a banana...
Reply
detwiljp said 12:21PM on 2-09-2007
I think that this is just an example of Jobs marketing Apple. I think that he's trying to get in good with all the anti-DRMers out there. I mean seriously, most people in this world hate DRM whether your very vocal about it or not. Jobs knows this and is therefore trying to appeal to everyone by positioning Apple as the company that hates DRM too and only deals with it cause they have to. Meanwhile M$ is being retarded as usual by responding in a way that makes them look like they like DRM.
Reply
Alex said 8:04PM on 2-09-2007
Well, I guess it's a similar logic to the "Mac OS seems more secure because it's not targeted as much due to its much smaller market share" argument.
Since the iTunes Store and FairPlay has the lion's share of the online digital music market, perhaps that's why it's more targeted.
Also, isn't FairPlay less "tight" than PlayForSure? i.e., less stringent, therefore easier to break?
I suppose one argument is as good as most others. It's all speculation anyway, and we do seem to favour the more convoluted scenarios. :)
Reply
Steven Noble said 4:53PM on 2-09-2007
Question for the commenters: does FairUse4WM still work? If it does that's a pretty big deal and probably a sign that it is hard to repair a licensed drm.
@GadgetGav Yeah he didn't say that unlicensable fairplay was unbreakable. He did say that fairplay would be more breakable if it became licensable. So it is completely fair to compare it to a similar drm scheme that is already licensable.
@RamJaw Why would someone be tempted to crack the drm on a subscription service? Seriously?! If you could crack the drm then you could spend $15 or $20 for one months service, download all the music you like, and then listen to it as much as you like without having to pay more. Not at all tempting?
Reply
William said 1:32PM on 2-09-2007
The real issue isn't how many times its been broken, but how long it took it to get fixed after it was broken.
Reply
Jon H said 2:33PM on 2-09-2007
If you want to see the result of shared ubiquitous DRM, just take a look at DVDs.
Reply
Stitch said 11:57PM on 2-09-2007
If someone's really going to come up against Jobs' "shared security is weak security" argument and point our how it's flawed, it should be an industry group that heavily uses DRM in their primary distribution channel, like the MPAA.
As I recall, the line for HDDVD and bluray encryption is "It's not a failure of the encryption, the problem is it's not properly used by some licensees"
But that would tend to fortify Jobs' point, so why bring attention to it?
Reply