Why I hate Music DRM
This is probably more of a rant than anything else is but ill attempt to justify why DRM is the Devil. I hate DRM because you cannot burn it to a CD! The music industry does not really want to embrace the fact that the internet can deliver the music to customers. Instead, they are still claiming that it cost so much for them to make the CD. I will have to agree but disagree. The fact is the actual CD and manufacturing cost is little to nothing when looking at the big picture. The real cost are from the making of the CD, like the cost of studio time and recording time. However, with the amount of artist using these studios and CD labels produced I am sure it has paid for itself. In my mind, the studio is thinking to itself “We are losing money by only selling the top hits to a CD”. They are “banking” on the fact that the whole CD is sold. I mean typically the way a track goes to market is they plan for one big radio hit. Sometimes when a great CD is released, the exposure makes it have multiple hits. I’ll give a perfect example Justin Timberlake’s new CD started with Sexy Back and well it evolved. Moving on, the music industry feeds the radio stations money to promote the song so it gets massive amounts of attention. Some of you will beg to differ and say that the music studio can’t pay for air time. While this is true, there are ways around this. Let’s refocus on the issue at hand. Now my theory is simple the music industry loves DRM and will keep it for as long as they most possibly can. They figure that DRM helps them sell CDs. People will download the song and put it on an IPod, Zune or just keep it on their PC. Well how does one get it to play on their home stereo or in their Car? They have to go buy the CD or get a cheap radio transmitter that really sounds like crap. In the end the music industry wins. All I can say is Boycott.
Why I Hate Movie DRM
I hate DRM for HD-DVD or BluRay movies because now you need HDCP compatible equipment! Who wants to go out and spend a fortune getting this stuff? I mean guarantee my PC cannot play 1080p content but let us just say that in 1 year I buy a PC that CAN play the content. Now one year later I have a sweet new rig but no HDCP monitor. Why do I need to update my monitor there is nothing wrong with it. I have a Dell 2405 Wide Screen and I love it but it is not HDCP. Bottom line is I still cannot watch HD-DVD movies because my monitor unfortunately does not support HDCP. Call me crazy but DRM you suck!
It is often supposed by writers that “digital is better”. While I agree with this, I however do not think it is accurate.
The argument often made for DVI or HDMI signal formats is that it is a “pure digital” signal. Taking a digital recording, such as a DVD or a digital satellite signal, and rendering it straight into digital form such as DVI or HDMI signal, and then delivering that digital signal straight to the display is pure goodness. You are talking about a no-loss-and-no-alteration-of-information signal chain. Playback of video always has conversions going on, and these conversions aren’t always easy going. “Digital to digital” conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than “digital to analog,” and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it is better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved. Why else would someone claim they get a better picture from component cables then a DVI connection? As a general rule with consumer equipment, test every combination, one simply doesn’t know how signals are processed, and one doesn’t know how that processing varies by input. Every set or brand might perform different under certain circumstances. It’s fair to say, in general, that even in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal processing and scaling is quite variable.
When DRM is introduced into the equation things change. Now you have a digital signal that is encrypted. That means more chance for error can occur and more processing has to take place. What do you think is harder to playback in a PC. A 1080P content that is not DRM protected or a DRM protected content that must be decrypted on the fly. My point is DRM actually cost us the consumer more. It makes the system have to do double the processing of un-encrypting and then reading.