I noticed an oddly big two-page ad in Rolling Stone for the DVD release of 21, the Kevin Spacey movie from earlier this year. (Metacritic rating: 48, ouch.) The copy of the ad, in big letters, advertises this:

2-Disc DVD includes a bonus digital copy of the film. Unlock it in just minutes and play it on your computer or PSP!

Now, is that really a powerful sales pitch? Who wants to buy something and “unlock” it? Who wants to buy something and then unlock it in a process that takes (”just”) “minutes”? And wait, the movie’s on a disc, right? Can’t I already play it on my computer like any other DVD?

Hmmm; I guess it means that in addition to just watching the disc on my computer, I can save it as a digital copy on my computer to watch when I want. But wait—isn’t that what all that “DRM” stuff is about? I can’t just save it to my computer. That’s, like, a federal crime!

Or something.

Wait, that must be what the second disc is for!

So, let me get this straight. The company has a video file (i.e., a movie) it wants me to buy in physical form, on a disc. But it doesn’t want me to save it to my computer, so it spends money developing and implementing a digital rights management system I don’t want, which it attaches to the video file before it sells it to me on that disc.

Then, even though it completely contradicts the thinking that went into selling me the disc, it then comes up with a scheme that will allow me to save it to my computer, but only by spending more money to put that on a separate disc, and charging me more for that, too.

Now, I’m tempted to say, can I just buy the second disc and not the first one? But I assume that the second one doesn’t work as a normal DVD.  So now, instead of selling me one simple product that might do what a normal, sentient person might want, it is selling me a complex, two-part product that does contradictory things, and on top of that takes out crazy ads featuring jargon that just confuses potential customers further.

And this is all before I get the thing home, allowing me to watch all the FBI warnings, in multiple languages, of course, in peace.

You know those sci-fi movies about robots or androids, where a human is talking to an android, and it’s not clear yet whether the android is in fact alive or not, and then, in little increments, the android displays some flaw—a quick short circuit, or a metal lapse—and the line between human robot suddenly becomes clear?

(The classic one is one of the the opening sequences of Blade Runner.)

That’s the weird feeling I get when I read about the latest manifestation of secret DRM controls. You think you have comfortable, helpful appliances in your home. But it turns out they are something else—beings whose allegiance isn’t to us.

There’s talk on the tech sites about how some people who tried to record American Gladator on their computers the other night found that they couldn’t. Tivo owners were fine; it turns out that if you were using your Windows Vista machine as a TV recorder (which they are designed to do), the show didn’t record, and users got a message saying the broadcaster had prohibited the recording.

It seems as though NBC had activated a hidden digital switch in the signal that doesn’t allow the show to be recorded, though that’s not 100 percent clear:

The question of whether NBC Universal issued a flag for American Gladiator has yet to be answered. The network said last week that it needed time to look into the matter. Microsoft’s spokeswoman did not offer any information on whether NBC Universal activated a flag. The software company did, however, inform us that accidents do happen.

“In some cases content may be incorrectly flagged in the actual broadcast, which may affect the consumer’s TV experience,” Microsoft’s spokeswoman wrote.

My emphasis. Note how the borg spokeswoman talks like a robot, too. In this case, “affect the consumer’s TV experience” is being used instead of the human phrase “make our product not work the way we said it would.”

We can see here Microsoft being more concerned with its corporate partners than its customers. We can also see how Big Media’s senseless war on piracy hurts customers most of all. People who still want to see American Gladiators will just get it off the torrent networks. (Indeed, since they couldn’t get it the legitimate way, they will in effect be pressured into learning how to get it the illegal way. In this sense, the war on piracy is becoming another one of those wars the prosecution of which in itself creates new enemies.)

Discussion on Slashdot here.
Ars Technica story here.
Extensive consumer discussion here.

The Ars story has the best detailing of how insane this minor but telling incident is:

Both American Gladiators and Medium were affected, and Microsoft admitted to CNET that Windows does adhere to some sort of broadcast flag that is based on FCC rules. The problem with Microsoft’s explanation is that those “rules” were actually disarmed and then ignominiously butchered by the scissores of the DC Court of Appeals back in 2005, owing to the FCC’s lack of jurisdiction over the way that consumer electronics devices are manufactured. Various attempts of reviving the idea by passing it into law in Congress came to nothing over the years (does anyone but the National Association of Broadcasters really want the government defining feature lists for TV sets?) and mandatory enforcement of the idea has largely died the death it deserves.

It’s hard to write about “DRM,” or “digital rights management,” because just the name—you have your choice of an acronym or mind-numbing phrase—puts one to sleep.

So, imagine this: You’re reading a book—or listening to a CD. Suddenly, the words evaporate off the page, or the music goes silent. You investigate, and find out that there’s a guy somewhere with a magic wand able to make that happen.

That’s basically the state of affairs in the digital age: Many of the things we buy are magically connected to a company that has the power to do that. DRM is the wand.

Certain Microsoft customers will be finding out about this in coming year, as the company announced this week it was ending its MSN Store, which sold DRM-encased songs. The music isn’t going silent right away, but it will, as people move on to new computers; in Microsoftspeak*, folks will not be able to “authorize” the songs on new computers after August of this year. Over time, restrictions in the DRM will mean the customers can no longer hear them. Says Ars Technica:

The news will likely upset a number of Microsoft’s customers, who bought music from MSN Music before the company launched the Zune Marketplace and decided to ditch the old store. Microsoft’s decision to turn off the MSN Music authorization servers serves as a painful reminder that DRM ultimately severely limits your rights. Companies that control various DRM schemes, as well as the content providers themselves, can yank your ability to play the content which you lawfully purchased (and now, videos) at any moment—no matter what your expectation was when you bought it.

Emphasis added. Microsoft has tens of billions of cash on hand, so as a matter of principle it could easily shell out the small amount of resources it would take to keep “authorizing” the songs, or just turn them into mp3s; it could do that to make it clear that the company’s commitment was to its customers; that DRM is there just to stop piracy, not to stiff users.

But then, it wouldn’t be Microsoft.

*Possibly the most enraging word in the digital lexicon, incidentally, is “support.” The email from Microsoft said:

As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers.

Support in the IT sense is directly synonymous with “trouble our sorry asses to bother to make this work for you so you can use the product we sold you/do your job.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with IT folks to get my staff iTunes, or RealPlayers, or IM programs on their computers, only to be told blandly, “We don’t support that.” You can always get around it, but it typically involves a long educational process with higher-ups, who initially allow the phrase an entirely unwarranted talismanic force.

“DRM,” as we know, means “digital rights management,” which is the typically polysyllabic way Big Content talks about trying to control the stuff you buy from them. I say “trying,” because as we know the process is impossible and fruitless, leaving in its wake failed technology, consumer confusion, a debilitating war on its customers in the file-sharing legal imbroglio, and a lot of other annoyances.

Here’s one of the basic ones we forget: Along with being useless, DRM is expensive. Here’s a quote from a geeky but interesting story in the NYT today about those new-fangled HDMI inputs we have on the back of flat-screen TVs. As the world of HDMI connections grow (it will soon be typical for a family to need three, for cable, video-game player and Blu-ray), it turns out cost will become a factor:

“The cost of a single additional HDMI connection can be significant,” said Dan McCarron, a display product manager for JVC. Mr. McCarron said that unlike other types of connections, HDMI required a special set of microchips to enable its built-in copy protection. “In addition, there’s an HDMI licensing fee that’s paid on a per input basis,” he said.

Emphasis added! How much does a “special set of microchips” run? Hard to say:

A result is that HDTVs with the most ports are also the most expensive. Although there are a number of other factors in determining the price of a TV, it is clear that HDMI’s have an impact. A 52-inch Vizio liquid-crystal display that has four HDMI ports sells for about $2,500, equal to the price of a 47-inch JVC, a better-known brand, with only two ports.

Ouch! There’s nothing we as consumers can do about that, but the article helpfully dispenses valuable consumer advice when it comes to the cables themselves. They often don’t come with the components, and your local Best Buy staffer, if you can ever find one, will steer you away from a $20 cable to a Monster one selling for $150:

Monster Cable, the leading maker of the high-end cables, argues that the cables are worth every penny. “As HDTV displays get larger, people are positioning their flat-screens further and further away from source devices, and screen resolution and color depth can be degraded by using long lengths of low-quality HDMI cables,” said Noel Lee, the company’s founder whose title is head monster.

True? “Monster would say yes,” CNet [exec editor David] Carnoy said. “We say no.”

Mr. Conroy said there might be a “tiny difference” with $30,000 digital TV projectors or high-end receivers and speakers. “But for anything you’d buy in Best Buy, it’s definitely not worth it.”