Microsoft's Janus DRM Software Officially Unveiled 570
hype7 writes "News.com.com is reporting the official unveiling of Microsoft's new DRM system, internally dubbed 'Janus'. Interestingly enough, a wide variety of companies including AOL, Dell, Disney, Napster and Freescale, a subsidiary of Motorola, have all signed on to the technology. Whilst some content providers and producers are keen, it remains to be seen what consumers will think - 'the new digital rights management tools include features that would protect content that is streamed around a home network, or even block data pathways potentially deemed 'unsafe,' such as the traditional analog outputs on a high-definition TV set. That's a feature that has been sought by movie studios in advance of the move to digital television.' I love the quotes from the MS rep - 'This release of technology really enables all kinds of new scenarios that are emerging now,' said Jason Reindorp, a group manager in Microsoft's Windows digital media unit. 'We're taking quite a holistic view.' It's good to see Microsoft taking a holistic view of preventing the consumer doing what they want with their paid for content, and protecting us from unsafe data pathways."
Janus (Score:5, Interesting)
Janus [pantheon.org] looks in two directions, not many; thus the pejorative usage indicating that the abusee is "two-faced". And quite appropriate; the face MS Janus presents to the music
commercialisation industry is of security and protection, while one of restriction and control gazes down on the unwashed masses.
Notably, Janus is the god of gates and doors but not windows; what can this mean for Microsoft's next operating system release? Certainly it will be more opaque than current offerings. Perhaps we also have a clue as to the MS Doors Startup Sound - "Waiting for the Sun"? But Microsoft's wait is over. Perhaps it's really "The End"?
Such opportunity for dismal wordplay!
Great quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Greed is one of the 'seven deadly sins' (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also of course one of the founding principles of capitalism - to harness an individuals greed (or, more politely, desire for improved returns). The thing is that here we have a conflict of greed. One the one hand, we have the **AA and their cohorts trying to control the distribution and use of their material, on the other we have the consumers trying to maximise how they can use the material that they feel they own (irrespective of licencing agreements) because they've paid for it.
There was an article in New Scientist a while back about how even a very young child can appreciate fair play - if the child repeatedly gets given back only 4 sweets when they hand over 5 to the researcher, they quickly feel hard-done-by. Even lower primates have the same sense of 'fair play'. When we purchase a DVD or CD, we expect to be able to use it however we want, make coasters out of DVD's if that's what floats our boat. We resist limits on what we can do with something when we consider it 'ours' by right of payment. This is obviously a very basic and primitive response, but by that very nature will be very hard to eradicate...
The upshot of all this of course will be that the OSS scene will become more and more 'free' in the sense that arbitrary limits on what you can do with data (DVD, CD, whatever) are far less likely than in the controlled (mainly MS, but others too) closed-source environments.
Thank [insert random deity] for Linux and GNU, a tradition that has brought us to the point where we at least *have* a choice on what to do. Consider the alternative - without the rallying cry of the GPL and Linux, we'd be choosing between a fragmented unix market (and only Irix can really do justice to multimedia, IMHO), Apple or Windows. 99% of people would be using Windows and bemoaning that they had no real alternative. I guess we dodged that one, at least presupposing that there will be ways around the DRM imposed on the unfortunate windows users. We do have a far larger pool of talent to pull ideas from than the manufacturers though, so there is yet hope.
Simon
JUST RELEASED, AND ALREADY HACKED!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I will say I'm rather surprised at the laundry list of those onboard, including AOL, Dell, and Napster.
At the risk of sounding lame, I'm in favor of anything that brings me music and movies in the medium of my choice - instead of having to wait for mail, drive to store, whathaveyou. If it means a lame DRM implementation, so it goes. It won't remain unhacked for long - if for no other reason that Microsoft is behind it, and people would love to show it vulnerable.
And there are people who buy into this, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Many such must exist in screenland.
Backwards compatible outputs have to go? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm (Score:1, Interesting)
Forgive me, but I'm not going to run around crying "The end of computing! The end of computing!" There's this thing called a free market, and if people don't like not being able to do certain things, they'll just not purchase the product and move onto something else. It's in the best interests of these companies to please customers. The DRM is just to prevent illegal casual copying. If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem? And if you don't like not being able to make a backup of something, don't buy the product, or go to a competitor who lets you, or bitch publically, or whatever.
It's not the "end of computing" where we'll need the permission of "conglomerates" to use anything. Lay off the post-apocalyptic RPGs.
Retroriggers (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the *end* of everything is when the old stuff is forbidden -- when the government decides to take Jack Valenti's advice (he hasn't given it yet, but he will -- before he retires) and ban all computer equipment made before 2004. Then the only people left are the retroriggers.
Money speaks volumes (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I check every CD I want to buy by asking the clerk if it has 'protection' on it. If they cannot answer I ask to see the manager and so on. As a consumer you have a right to information and to know. If they cannot tell you, ask follow up and an answer. If they choose not to, let them know you will be filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau in your area. Let them know that you will be filing a complaint with the exact companies that sell them the CDs to state that the distributor is not informing customers appropriately. Be the person who disturbs the ant-hill.
Change happens when it becomes unprofitable to do something (and someone can't blame a hacker or a pirate).
Re:Janus (Score:3, Interesting)
When I first read that I thought he said holocaustic view. That would explain all this nazism of controlling in how we view content.
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote appropriately for this situation: Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.
I will not give up my freedoms. Those media corporations can go to hell. I've got almost all the media I'd ever want right now anyway.
Sure, there might be some DVDs I want later. That's what Hollywood Video/Blockbuster is for.
And, whoever said media was all there was to computing? I'm not going to go to DRM bios just so those media corporations can feel secure in the knowledge that I'm not copying DVDs or distributing their copyrighted content. I don't do that anyway.
So, screw you Media Giants, I don't need you and your stinkin' DRM!
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
All they care about is whether or not Survivor goes to season 12 and if the Bachelor/ette decide to get married for real on live TV.
But that's of no issue. Just because THEY don't care and don't understand the issues doesn't mean that I don't. It doesn't mean that I am not happy to educate anyone and everyone no matter how paranoid they believe me to be.
It will never make sense to many but if I can get just a few people to understand perhaps the world will not blow up before our eyes.
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the latest and greatest ATI or nVidia card might require DRM-BIOS to work, but somebody somewhere will keep making non-DRM hardware... and somebody somewhere will keep supplying the content for that. By making content that can only be played on DRMed systems, companies are going to be betting their whole empire on the publuc accepting it... I doubt they'll be that dumb.
"Unbreakable" DRM will always be for niche applications. I don't even consider the present music services DRM as unbreakable because they all let you make at least one analog CD through the front door. Once you do that, the music is yours to fold, spindle, and mutliate with no further restrictions.
Re:With Microsoft, wait for 2.0, with DRM, wait lo (Score:3, Interesting)
You're forgetting one simple word, apathy. Consumers as a whole will take what they are given, not what they need or want (I'm talking on a particular market, the US market, it is different in other places). Slap Microsoft's sticker on it and say it's secure, and an awful lot of people will flock to it. If that fails, well, every new cheap Dell PC you buy will be "more secure for the web" or some other gibberish like that. People not in the know WILL scoop that up and will prove market demand, irregardless of the fact that Dell will be selling only DRM enabled systems. Once one distributor gets some money in from it, everyone will be doing it. The question is, who's going to give the option of enabling and disabling said features? I think you can disable the features in the new Phoenix BIOSes but I could be mistaken. Wonder if the likes of Dell, HP, Gateway, or IBM will do the same? I can definately see a time when the cheap consumer PC will be fully locked down with DRM while the hobbiest or professional that needs to get something done will have to buy relatively high-end parts to get anything done. Then again, there is always MRBIOS (if they're still around). Anyways, enough ranting. I've got to get some work done today. :)
CliffH
Re:Janus (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't stop copying... (Score:3, Interesting)
After I don't know how many times I've thought, "That's ridiculous, that would only work if they ([Got Congress to outlaw software that broke DRM]|[Got congress to mandate all A/D converters respect watermarks]|[Got Congress to outlaw general purpose computers]), only to see a member of Congress propose the very same thing a few months later, I'm convinced that it still will never work, but that our lives could sure become screwy as a consequence...
HD downcoverts to 480i blocked? Puhleeze (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you even bother blocking downconverts via DRM? They look just "OK", you almost never get access to a 5.1 sound track you can do much with besides listen to (some complicated HTPC setups excluded).
Besides, it seems to be a nod to fairness to allow the next level "below" as an allowed copying medium if they're going to get persnickety with the "best" current medium.
taxation (control) without representation (Score:5, Interesting)
I just looked over the Copyright laws (www.copyright.gov) and I cannot find any laws that permit the copyright holder to impose their own controls on the actual product. All I could find are laws that allow the Producer the rights to either reproduce, distribute, perform the work publicly or make derivative works.
There is no basis for the ability to control how the works should be viewed, heard, etc. It only covers who has the right of redistribution, etc. In fact copyright laws actually give certain rights of redistribution to the purchasers of copyrighted material, such as fair use.
Also, fair use is only applied if you want to redistribute the work (part of the work) or make a derivative work to the object in question. What you do with the content you purchased in your own home, as long as you do not redistribute or make a derivative work that you plan to distribute, is perfectly legal (or was anyway).
To put technological limits on how I use works that I purchase is beyond the scope of Copyright and is therefore (or should be) outlawed.
Am I way off base with my thinking in this matter ??
What happens when copyright expires? (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be at direct odds with DRM. Is there any consideration of expiration of copyrights for this in the usage restriction laws?
Good way to create new illegal downloaders (Score:5, Interesting)
Lately, I found the copy protection on especially games gives troubles when playing the game on my computer. When that happens, I download a cracked version that works fine. For the next game that comes along which I want to play, especially from a company which gave me problems before, chances are I'll go for the cracked version immediately.
The region encoding for DVDs doesn't give me any problems now. I have two DVD players, both of which are region free. I have heard, though, that there is a new region encoding which will cause DVDs not to work on my players. But what the hell, I have broadband and it is easy to download them, so I'll do just that.
Music never gave me problems. But now this DRM thingy is coming along. That seems to mean I can't play CDs anymore on my computer, right? Tough. I'll have to stop buying CDs. And if the cracked version works, I know where to get it.
It seems that I am the ideal customer of the entertainment industry. I am willing to buy everything, and I buy a lot. So the question is: what are they gaining by driving me to get stuff illegally?
DRM only lines the pockets of AOLDisneyTimeWarner (Score:2, Interesting)
Capitalism VS Democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Free market is a neat thing, but when it makes corporation more powerful than the governement, it look like a bad thing.
Why do you americans think the free of free market is the meaning of real liberty?
Why not reconsider what should be sold and what not? The internet and the digital medias now makes the distribution of them an all differant thing.
Do we want the corporations to become richer, or we want the population having a real liberty in their own country?
Cash earned for working make people happy. Accumulation of this cash makes everyone but you, less happy.
There is no more good arguments to support capitalism when we see what is happening now.
Its not paranoia, when you consider that this is the beginning of what corporation can do with the technologies.
Re:I for one don't welcome our new DRM overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of your next words.
People need to learn
Most people DON'T learn. Here on
Because of the mainstream media "mp3" == "stealing music" to most people.
Tell them that there is a way to prevent this, and they will say "Good!", and they will buy it, because "it stops stealing". Give it a name, such as "DRM" and that gives them an easily identifiable label to look for.
Later, when they want to time-shift a show, or save it for later viewing, THAT is when they will find out. But too late.
Bingo. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really have issues with people posting older music, but if we would practice what we preach we could get a lot more attention for "good" artists rather than continuing to post and share mainstream pop releases. And look at the other discussion here recently on "gaming engines" - "machinima" is destined to become more realistic, the day when we have "klans" competing through releases of original movies on usenet and irc is coming... and their move into "popular culture" will surely not be far behind.
Re:taxation (control) without representation (Score:3, Interesting)
It does mean that they can not restrict usage! The whole idea of copyright is that the consumer has all rights to the product, except for what the copyright law has given the producer (i.e. redistribution) What the major Corporations have done is that they changed the scope of Copyright in that they believe that all the rights are theirs (not the consumers) EXCEPT what is written in the Copyright Laws.
Copyright was established to promote the science and arts by giving certain rights to the authors for a limited time to sell their works. No provision was given for physical limits on works, thus the law should be defaulted on the side of the PUBLIC, not the creator.
Also the Rolls Royce analagy is a straw-dog argument. I am not justifying anyone to go out and steal intellectual property. I am however saying it is wrong for any Industry to bypass the Current laws in order to control the public, such as adding encrypted keys to a DVD just to view said works.
Copyright is for a limited time (for now anyway) and the creation of DRM nullifies Copyright in its current form.
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can speak from experience here. I work at a small 4 year University. We have Microsoft's open license here. Every full-time employee has the opportunity to get a free copy of anything in the Microsoft catalog for their home use. This deal has our IT head so blinded against anything beside Microsoft that we have started a program for computer security with no classes offered in Linux or Unix. Even modest attempts to get applications like Dreamweaver taught for basic web design courses are met with open hostility bordering on outright hatred. Every attempt I've done to open the administrations eyes to a more inclusive software policy has been shut down. Even when faced with facts (like web browser polls from Netcraft), they maintain their myopic position. I guess its what one should expect when even non-technical people can see (and mention) that our IT head is hopelessly out of his depth.
AOL isn't really interested... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at the facts. AOL is a partner in MusicNet with Real Networks and EMI, but AOL prefers Apple's iTunes, not only because it is the most popular online music distribution system, but also because it isn't Microsoft.
AOL signed an agreement with Microsoft back in the late 90s that AOL email could be downloaded to Microsoft Outlook. It never materialized.
AOL paid lip-service to instant messaging interoperability but has not made AIM or ICQ directly able to send and receive to MSN Messenger. At the same time, AOL partnered with Apple to ensure that iChat was based upon the AIM client.
AOL is still interested in Netscape although they have no full-time employees working on Mozilla. That was a Time Warner executive decision to cut the development team to "save" monies earmarked for salaries. If Time Warner loses interest and sells AOL back to Steve Case, this will be reversed.
On the Time Warner side of the business, they have no interest in Janus for music purposes since Time Warner sold off Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman's group. Perhaps they still have a minority stake (as does all historical sales done by Warner Communications, like the Atari Inc. divestiture of 1984) but that's about it. Bronfman will make any type of decision independently of what AOL or Time Warner proper wishes.
The bottom line is that AOL may be included in the press release, but for the most part, this is round-file material. It is only a survival option if Microsoft gets the upper hand in media.
Re:It's sad it has to be this way... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never ever heard anyone talk about fair use outside of Slashdot, period. For most people it just isn't a big deal.
Making a DRM system that works with fair use but still protects artists is really hard, probably impossible. Apples DRM sort of gets there by being weak and easily exploited, but I'm not sure that's really an answer. It's a solution by being half-arsed.
It makes me wonder if the whole system of copyright is rather broken, to be frank. But I don't know of a better way, so I can't really criticize too much.
Re:What a comical spin by the marketing department (Score:5, Interesting)
But all is not lost. We will continue to find holes. We will develop the tools we need to get the information we want access to. They will not beable to stop us, because in the end, if they can read it, we can read it too. you are not owned. fight on brothers!
no more mookie stank, ughm-kay?
also, what will the peope do when they have no were else to look? look at the list of companies that are in on this thing!
What about backups? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if there was a service where I could return my damaged disk to be replaced with a new (undamaged) disk, our 'backup' arguement would go out the window. I would still be copying media to my PC because it's so much easier to select all CDs by my favourite artist or load up a playlist than playing track one by one and changing disks in between. Not to mention transferring media between different PCs in different rooms of the house.
Re:The right to read *what,* exactly? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure that there are some /. posters who think they have some absolute right to use content any way they want, but I'm not one of them.
Where my concern comes is that DRM can be made very invasive and there exists a non-null probability that DRM will become so restrictive that no material that lacks DRM signatures will be able to be used. And I can just see the argument for making equipment without DRM illegal. It follows the slippery slope we're going down now.I don't download music, I don't RIP CD's and share them with friends, I don't copy software. But I'll be damned if I will put up with DRM monitoring/control of everything I do.
So long as I can legally buy non-DRM equipment, and play non-DRM content, no problem. But I fear the day is coming when THAT will be illegal.Re:Microsoft hedges bets in Movie industry (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Toss out the DMCA in it's entirity, this law made quite a few legitimate things illegal, everything illegitimate which is covered under the DMCA was illegal under existing copyright or other laws.
2. Give those filing for copyright a choice, either they can file and hold copyright, thus giving them protection under the law OR they can choose not to go the copyright route and go the default route. That route being your work is immediately in the public domain. If they go the default route then they can impose vigilante technical measures all day long.
However they MAY NOT use vigilante tatics if they wish to hold a copyright and any attempt to protect a copyrighted work outside the legal system results in the work immediately becoming part of the public domain.
This is good for a number of reasons, not the least of which is reminding everyone of the spirit in which copyright was first created and that the default is not copyright, but everything in the public domain. Those who first wrote the laws didn't think they needed to put this in there, it was self evident at the time.
Re:Any surprise here? (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, weren't they, for the longest time, advocating the end-user security benefits of Palladium, when in fact, they were referring to the security of those wanting to restrict and otherwise impede the fair use of their intellectual property?
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM could be analogous to the old fairy tale of killing the goose that laid golden eggs. Basically DRM chokes off distibution networks for media product, especially when it gets legally mandated into consumer electronics. And even more so when it gets legally mandated at different levels for different types of media product. After a few times of getting burned by disks that don't play or appear not to work correctly due to hidden DRM, people will be less willing to rent or buy media product.
DRM can be seen as a way of artifically saturating a media channel. Which isn't good because the media channels are already saturated. The only one that isn't is the latest media channel: P2P. And it's already illegal.
I read recently (I think it was Variety or Premier magazine) that there will be 60, yes 60, block buster movies released this summer (from early May to late August) that cost over 100 million dollars each in production costs. Add to this another 20 million in advertising and promotion costs per movie and we are looking at a seriously saturated marketplace. Even at present the movie business just breaks even on worldwide box office and only makes profit on DVD sales and rentals (roughly about 30% of box office) and ancilliary distibution (TV, airlines, VCR sales, hotel rentals, ect...). Check the numbers on Box Office Mojo. [boxofficemojo.com] At least half of the movies don't make their production costs back in box office. Plus we all know that something like 80% of the records released don't make any money for the 'artist' or the record company. The RIAA companies use this as an excuse to charge the same price for every record regardless of the quality or demand.
Anyway, there is a GLUT of media product now. The media companies should be researching an 'anti-DRM' instead of DRM. They should be trying to come up with new ways to get people to copy and share media product on their PCs instead of trying to stop people from doing this.
Since all the media product is owned by only four or five corporations anyway, it doesn't matter if any individual product is generating a pay-per-view or listen income stream. They're getting all the money from all the product anyway. So it is in their best interests to get more and more people to just consume more and more media product. DRM is counter-productive because it is shutting down the last multimedia channel that isn't saturated, that is, the internet PC, before it has a chance to fully develop its income-generating potential.
Greenhills displays their ignorance (Score:3, Interesting)
Way wrong. The Titanic was compartmentalized, however the long gash in the hull flooded too many compartments.
I wonder how much of the rest of their web site is pure BS?
Re:Discussion Rules (Score:2, Interesting)
MOST PARANOID RESPONSE POSSIBLE: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a better way of looking at this. This hasn't been fully released yet, and it has already been "hacked", in the sense that the NSA already has gotten their plants and bugs inside Microsoft* to steal and relay to them all of the plans for how this system will be used and implemented as well as all the keys that make it work.
(Clarification: That's the neat thing about "trusted computing" from their perspective-- it would mean every system in the world would be "trustable", but that trust would have a single point of failure: Microsoft's guarded private cryptographic keys for Janus/Palladium. So all you have to get a copy of those keys and you can do anything you want...)
* Further clarification: I base my belief in the existence on said plants on the simple observation that if the NSA doesn't have plants inside Microsoft, then they're completely incompetent.
How to legally copy any music, regardless of DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
At that point, all you need do is record to your tape deck or computer the captured broadcast signal. I may take a little longer and the quality may not be exactly the same (but then again, neither are MP3s), but that's a small price to pay.
Now some may argue (incorrectly) that you don't have the right to broadcast the music without a license, but the FCC says you can on low power devices. So you have the FCC saying you can broadcast and the courts saying you can record the broadcast. Case closed.
Re:What a comical spin by the marketing department (Score:3, Interesting)
Songs, Movies, Television - all of it is going to be distributed on computer in the future, and if it uses the current crop of DRM technology, then it will be a world where nothing open-source is allowed to participate, because open-source tools are not legally compatable with the way DRM works, and DRM invades ALL levels of the technology, from hardware up to end-user-tool - so the option to just give in and use a closed app for the media, but still use open-source for everything else, won't really be an option either.
The media cartels love it because it means nobody else can learn the technology but them, which keeps new competition from cropping up. and Microsoft loves it because it will become another thing they can lie about claiming open source is incapable of (as opposed to the truth that it's being legally dissallowed from) doing. - and the evidence will make it look like they're right to the average non-techie person.
What mess? (Score:2, Interesting)
How exactly did Apple's DRM cause "a mess" if "so few" players support it? Wouldn't that very fact render their DRM irrelevant? Apple has produced another "whole widget" with the iTunes Music Store and iPod which works flawlessly. How is this a mess?
I would assert that you preceive the situation to be a mess because a vocal minority snivels about "overpriced" Apple hardware, and that it isn't fair that the iTMS won't work with their $74.00 Lucky Best MP3 player.
Yes, Microsoft is famous for letting "content-providers" and developers pretty much write their own ticket. No strings attached there. No sir. Not that Apple should be trusted completely either (Newton).
Re:New powers (Score:2, Interesting)
It's more complicated than that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the history of Microsoft doublespeak. It's no secret that Microsoft has been the single largest beneficiary of software "piracy" in history. This kind of doublespeak is core to Microsoft's business.
Now consider this, Microsoft Corporation has distanced itself from media investments. If they were so sure they were going to secure digital media, wouldn't they be buying movie studios and record labels? They could afford to buy some of the biggest in cash.
Certainly that strategy has some problems though, not the least of them is anti-trust. Well, now imagine you were in that situation. You can't join them, so what should you do? Beat them.
How to beat them? Easy, same ol' doublespeak game. Say you're going to fight "piracy," but actually enable the hell out of it by simple incompetence. You guarantee all your media partners that you've got the unbeatable secret solution just like you did with all your softwre partners before. Of course they believe you because they're greedy.
So you roll it out and presto, there's holes in it and suddenly these huge media collections you've given the public access to are owned. The public cheers again and your competitors in media, ie Sony, Time Warner etc take a hard, hard hit.
It's the same ol' game. And nobody is going to complain because why should they?
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
for example distributing binaries without source
This was RMS way of using the same laws that he hated, to do something that he wanted. And that was for all software to be free. I don't personally agree with RMS. My favorite license is the LGPL. I don't care if the code you write is free or not, but the code that I give you should keep all the modifications open. I don't even care if you add an API to your close source, but if you fix a bug in my code, I would like that given to all those you give my code to as well.
Now, for this DRM crap! I've been in Germany for several months and have bought several DVDs in German so that I can practice the language (X-Men2, Matrix, Der Herr der Ringe, etc). I went home for a week (USA) and was very disappointed that I couldn't watch these on my DVD player. Now I have to order a DVD player from Japan or something to get a region free player. I've spent over 20 Euros ($24) on some of these DVDs and I can't watch them on my own DVD player. Luckly, Linux can, so for now, I have the ability to watch these. Funny thing too, is that an acquaintance of mine told me that if I were to get a Pirated version of those movies, I would be able to play them on my machine. So, this is what the DRM gives us, legal copies can't be played, but if I were to buy an illegal copy, that would work. This is like those laws that only hurt the ones that obey them, but the criminals still do what they want.