Long time readers are well aware of this column's aversion to the prevalence of Digital Right's Management (DRM) schemes in many of today's consumer electronics. Far from being a tool only to prevent unlawful copying, DRM has been used by companies to stifle competition, prevent innovation, and protect monopolistic behavior. Until recently, a consumer's best protection against most DRM'd products has been to simply "vote with their wallets" and not to buy a particular item. Unfortunately, the biggest threat to your digital freedom is now coming from a behemoth of technology that can hardly be ignored: Microsoft. The new Vista operating system that will soon be standard issue on the millions of PC's sold worldwide is virtually crippled by content protection and DRM.

In the wake of peer to peer file sharing programs in the late 1990's, the major media companies have gone on a crusade to incorporate tighter copy protection and what is euphemistically called "Digital Rights Management (DRM)" into virtually any technology that uses digital media. From the media company's perspective DRM is a gift that keeps on giving. Not only does it prevent media consumers from sharing content with one another, it also forces them to buy and re-buy media over and over again for each digital device that introduces a new format to the marketplace. Short on cash? No problem, simply release the same old content in a new format and consumers will have to buy it all over again!

The New York Times recently published an Op-Ed, Ga dgets as Tyrants, in which the author related the question of a 12 year old attending CES (the consumer electronics show in Vegas) who wondered "why do I have to buy my favorite game five times?" Anyone with the wildly popular Apple iPod knows that songs they buy from iTunes won't play on any non-Apple device. In fact, Apple has made so much money from this scheme that they are planning on extending it to their recently announced "iPhone," to which the New York Times responded: "Want an iPhone? Beware the iHandcuffs" Are you unlucky enough to have bought a Microsoft Zune? Songs you purchase for that device won't play anywhere else either, nor will music you purchased for your previous Microsoft devices play on Zune. More and more, technology companies are tying their gadgets to proprietary media formats that are useless anywhere else, forcing the consumer to buy and re-buy their favorite media.

Unfortunately for consumers, these "digital shackles" placed on them by an alliance of technology and media companies not only prevent the use of purchased content on competitors' gadgets, they also prevent a person from enjoying the full potential of the media they purchase. Sony, and other music companies have crippled many of their new CD releases to the point that they won't play in most automobile CD players. There are signs, however that consumers might be fighting back and simply not buying content that makes their lives more difficult. EMI recently announced that they are "reviewing" their DRM policy and are currently producing discs with no DRM.

The movie industry, however, has taken the opposite approach. With the CSS "protection" on DVD's long cracked, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has fought diligently to impose much stronger protection on the new high definition formats that are set to debut in 2007 including Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. Viewed as successors to the DVD, these high definition formats will be replete with new DRM schemes aimed to ensure that the discs are used only in the ways the studios explicitly allow. The studios were not content with protection only on the disc itself however and worked with Microsoft to ensure that your PC could not be used for nefarious purpose either.

The new Microsoft Operating System, known as Windows Vista, comes with numerous DRM "protections" built right in. Consumers, however, may find some of these protections troubling. For instance, Vista literally cripples your computer by disabling access to certain interfaces whenever "protected content" is being placed. Such common devices as S/PDIF (a digital audio transfer mechanism), and YPbPr (a high end component video interface) are literally turned off by Vista when "protected content" is played because those interfaces predate the new operating system and don't contain any copy protection mechanisms. Vista also actively degrades some video and audio quality. According to Chris Mellor of Techworld magazine, Vista is crippled by content protection:

"Vista has another playback quality reduction measure. It requires that 'any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality.' If this happens with a medical imaging application then artifacts introduced by the constrictor can 'cause mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening.'"

In other words, installing Windows Vista on your computer can literally cripple your computer and significantly degrade the software and hardware you use. The problem is, that unlike choosing not to buy a Microsoft Zune or Apple iPod, consumers can hardly choose not to buy Vista as it will be installed automatically (and priced into) virtually every new PC sold after January 30, 2007. Vista is likely to become the defacto operating system standard whether you like it or not.

Through intensive lobbying, media companies have gotten legislation passed that supports much of their restrictive behavior. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCRM) restricts a consumer's ability to circumvent copy protection, even for the purpose of making legal backups of their own purchased products. The proposed FCC broadcast flag aims to create restrictions on how consumers can view and record broadcast television. Even legislation passed to protect user rights has been attacked by media companies. The 1996 Telecom act required cable companies to make available "cable cards" to consumers who do not wish to use the restrictive set top boxes that are now so ubiquitous. While legally mandated, many cable companies either do not make them available, or make cable cards very difficult to acquire.

All of these restrictive practices and DRM schemes are threatening to stifle the very innovation that encouraged the gadgets they are now used on. If Sony had its way in the famous Betamax Case, devices such as the VCR and Tivo might never have gotten off the ground. Creative use of technology has been a hallmark of innovation in the United States. Consumers free to use their legally purchased items as they wish, rather than how the content owner's wish have repeatedly created new markets and new companies that have led to unprecedented growth in technology markets. The current restrictions being imposed on us by media companies, hardware designers, and software giants have gone too far.

It's time to push for legislation that reestablishes the principles of "Fair Use" for consumers and to prevent media companies from shoving DRM down our unwilling throats. For too long congress has bent to the lobbying of the media companies to the detriment of consumers. Curbing the trend towards DRM will not only encourage new innovations in technology, it can also seriously reduce the cost of many consumer electronics by making unnecessary the huge expenditures in new forms of protection being developed by media companies. Of course copyright laws need to be protected and copyright owners have every right to profit from the content they create. They do not have the right, however, to cripple our computers and tell us how, when, and where to use the media we purchase.

In perhaps the latest in the "what were they thinking?" department, Microsoft released its new "Zune" player this week to compete with Apple's remarkably successful iPod. Let's hope it fails miserably.

Once upon a time, product designers started with the question "What would potential customers want?" and built products that were likely to meet as many consumer desires and needs as possible. The Zune seems to have been designed with the initial question "How can we satisfy the recording industry enough to compete with Apple?" This key difference in approach seemingly dooms the nascent Zune to failure.

Both the Zune and the iPod are music player versions of "closed systems," in that they support formats that are proprietary and will not work on other devices. Apple calls their Digital Rights Management (DRM) system, "Fairplay," while Microsoft's DRM used to be known as "Plays for Sure." Both companies clearly went out of their way to name something that consumers don't want in ways that sound positive. If you've actually purchased any music with Apple's "Fairplay," from the iTunes store, you know that it will only play on an Apple device or within iTunes, and no where else. Microsoft's "Plays for Sure" will only play for sure in Mediaplayer and a handful of compatible music players and no where else. As it turns out, anyone unlucky enough to believe the hype and buy a "Plays for Sure" tune from Napster 2.0, Yahoo, MSN or other Microsoft compatible music site will soon find out that it surely won't play on the Zune.

Anyone wanting to buy a Zune will have to start over entirely and build a new collection from the Zune store. Of course, who's to say anyone will stick with that format and that your tunes won't be simply unplayable in the near future? In fact, Zune DRM'd songs won't play in Microsoft's Media Player either.

Confused yet? You should be, all of this proprietary DRM is meant to ensure that music you purchase can only play in one place under the full control of whoever sold it to you. Contrast this with the almost universal appeal of Mp3, a file format free of DRM, that will play anywhere and on any device including most recent home stereos, DVD players, your car, etc...

So why are all of these companies moving away from Mp3 and imposing their DRM'd music on unsuspecting consumers? The answer lies chiefly with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) who after shutting down the wildly popular Napster in 2001, have been banging the drums of DRM ever since. Desperate to do anything possible to prevent the sharing (copying) of music files, the RIAA has ensured that any music available for legitimate purchase would carry protections so that sharing would be strictly prohibited. The problem with prohibiting sharing is that you are also prohibited from sharing music you bought with yourself! Want to play that great new song you just bought on your home stereo? Sorry, it's DRM'd. Move the song from one music player to another? You better have stuck with the same brand otherwise it's not possible, it's DRM'd. Want to back up your music on your computer in case your player device dies? You had better buy another of the same player otherwise your music is useless, it's DRM'd!

Unhappy with being forced into purchasing things they do not want, many people have chosen to do away with DRM altogether. If you have a CD, you can use many free programs out there to rip tracks into Mp3 which doesn't support DRM and works on all players. If you purchase songs from iTunes you can burn them onto a CD and then rip them back onto Mp3 and also remove the restrictive DRM. Once free of DRM you can enjoy your music any way you want to, anywhere you want to, and anytime you want to.

So why buy a Zune? Perhaps the most innovative new feature is that the Zune is WiFi enabled and as such can communicate with other WiFi devices. Actually, that's not true. In a further move to restrict how you use your music, Zune's WiFi will only connect to other Zune's. In fact, if you try to send another Zune any music it will wrap that in DRM as well, even if you started with a non-DRM'd Mp3 file. Record your own music in your garage? Create your own podcast? Want to share your own musical talent with a friend? If you own a Zune, Microsoft will actually DRM your music for you so that your friend doesn't have to be troubled to delete your files within 3 days. Microsoft will do it for him automatically. That's right, any music transferred to another Zune auto-deletes after 3 plays or 3 days (whichever comes first). The Zune even recognizes what you sent and to whom so that you can never send it to the same person again. Now that's progress.

Why would anyone want this device? The key difference between Apple's closed iPod and Microsoft's closed Zune is that Apple got there first. There are plenty of ways around Apple's DRM and wonderful third party programs such as PodPlus allow you to transfer your own music back from an iPod if you so wish. The RIAA's control over our music has gone too far and Microsoft's caving into them has likely doomed their multimillion dollar investment in Zune to failure. As Forbes recently headlined: "Microsoft Zune stinks."

The sooner companies realize that consumers don't want DRM and all of the restrictions it imposes the better it will be for all of us. Stay away from DRM, stay away from Zune.

If you watch television, or listen to radio, you constantly hear that "digital" is good. Cable TV is going digital, Cell phones are going digital, even music is going digital. The marketers want you to believe that digital means "crystal clear clarity," and that you associate "digital" with "superior." It's true that most of our media and communications are going digital, but is this a good thing?

Many might wonder what exactly is so new about "digital" anyway? Put simply, digital is a way of representing -- well, anything -- with a code of 1's and 0's. This binary language is the language of computers. Before digital, many things were represented in "analog" or wave forms that could be read as audio or video. There are, of course, many advantages to digital. The Western world has developed enormous infrastructure for the transmission of digital information. Ostensibly for computer networking, this vast infrastructure of fiber optic and copper cabling can easily transfer anything that can be encoded digitally into those handy 1's and 0's. Furthermore, algorithms for efficient compression and encryption of digital data have been developed over the years for computers and can again be used for anything digital. In this way, once something "goes digital" it can then be encrypted for security, compressed for speed, and in many instances controlled by its originator. Herein lies the problem with many things digital.

Take for example that wonderful digital cable or satellite that most Americans now have in our homes. Remember when you could simply put up a pair of "Rabbit ears" and watch TV? Not anymore. Television stations found it difficult to extend broadcasting to America's ever expanding suburbs. Increasingly wealthy middle class suburbians demanded a better way to watch TV, and the cable industry was born. Promising a wealth of channels hereto-for unavailable, companies across the US started stringing across expensive coaxial cabling into your home. These wonderful cables held the promise of carrying a hundred channels or more for your TV. America switched to cable in droves. After a few short decades, the broadcasting stations gave up trying to boost their signals and cable became de rigueur. America got used to paying for commercial television.

Early cable TV was all analog, as was over-the-air broadcasting. Once the cable into your home was turned on, you could splice it, split it, and watch it from anywhere in your house. Cable companies soon realized that they could seriously increase their revenue by transforming their customers to digital. Digital promised the ability to compress programming so that the same cable that used to carry 100-200 channels, could now carry 10 times that, or more. More importantly, once the programming stream became digital it could be controlled by the cable companies. Lured in, once again, by the promise of more channels and more choices, Americans signed up for fancy new "digital cable boxes." Now suddenly, instead of being able to plug the cable directly into your TV, or VCR, you now had to go first through the cable company's box. This box "decodes" the digital stream, along the way deciding what you have access to, and often tracks what it is that you are watching. This box also allows a whole bunch of other revenue enhancing services such as pay-per-view, TV shopping, recently even Digital Video Recording or DVR.

So what's wrong with all this? Isn't this just progress? Well, yes, and no. Along with the nifty new services being offered to you through digital is an increasing loss of control that you have over the media coming into your home. Once upon a time you were free to do most anything you wanted with the signal coming into your home. This sparked an innovative marketplace of devices meant to work with your cable. Now, the control being exercised by the media companies over digital is having the opposite effect and starving innovation. The latest trend of progress in television is high definition (HD). HD offers vastly superior picture over the previous NTSC television. If you are an early adopter and have HD in your home, have you ever tried recording that HD? For the most part, you can't. The reason for this is not technical, it's political. Cable companies, who control digital programming and the associated boxes, are unwilling currently to provide decoders to companies that develop consumer friendly products. Why should they? The cable companies can make much more money if they force you to only buy their products. The government has stepped in to force them to do so, in the form of "cable cards," but these have proven extremely slow to market and the lack of standardization has made it difficult for third parties to design products around them.

The same trend towards proprietary formats and more control over digital media is all around us. Do you use one of Apple's bestselling iPod's? Have you noticed that it will only play two music formats: .mp3 and AAC (.mp4)? The reason for this is that .mp3's became ubiquitous in the marketplace leaving Apple with no choice, however they vastly prefer their own AAC format which is in use on iTunes. With AAC Apple could DRM your music and thereby control how you use it. Unlike many music players, the leading iPod's don't allow you to take music back off your device and on to your computer. Apple claims that since you put it on, you should already have it, but in reality this is just another copy protection mechanism. Microsoft is attempting to do much the same thing with its own proprietary formats and is hoping to enshrine these in their newest version of Windows (Vista).

Are you noticing a trend here? The cable companies control where you watch "their" cable through the use of digital boxes. Apple controls how you listen to "their" music through the use of DRM. Microsoft is trying to control how use software through Windows.

Digital technologies have brought about many improvements to the way we consume media. Unfortunately, these technologies have enabled companies to exercise unprecedented control over how we use, where we use, and when we use that media. Consumers should be aware that there has always been a "give and take" between media owners (copyrights) and media consumers (fair use). New technologies have always blurred the boundaries between them, and media companies will always try to push for extended control. This does not mean that consumers can't fight back through their elected representatives. America leads the world in innovation precisely because of the free flow of information and the free market. Digital is not good or bad; that determination depends on how it is used. We can not allow American innovation to be stifled by media companies trying to monopolize sources of information.

Suppose you opened a file on your computer that caused all your friends to receive a prank e-mail from you that in turn caused their computers to do the same. Now suppose you played your latest favorite CD and from that moment your computer started to run slower and stopped you from using some of your software. Would you be upset if either of these things happened to you? For that matter, which do you consider worse? According to the law in the United States, only one of these is considered a crime.

In 1999 a man by the name of David L. Smith in New Jersey wrote a "worm," or program that unknowingly sits on your computer and causes your software to do things that you do not intend. This worm quickly spread across the Internet causing service interruptions world-wide and become known as "Melissa." Mr. Smith was eventually caught, fined, and sentenced to prison for writing and spreading the Melissa virus. Anti-virus companies quickly came out with software that could find this worm on your computer and remove the "mal-ware" (short for malicious software).

Recently, in 2005 another mal-ware program began being identified for hiding itself deep within your computer and wreaking havoc. Specifically, interrupting the proper operation of certain software you may be running, taking up your memory resources, even sending electronic information back to its home server about things you may be doing on your computer. You might think that the author of this software would similarly be hunted, caught, and sent to prison. You'd be wrong. The author of this latest "mal-ware" is none other than Sony.

Why is the home entertainment company and consumer electronics powerhouse now making viruses instead of Walk-men? The answer lies in the industry's anti-piracy efforts and the push towards Digital Rights Management or DRM. Sony does not only produce electronic players and gadgets, it also owns a huge music label and library as well as its own movie studio. The company is understandably interested in protecting its substantial investments in content creation and would like to discourage the unauthorized copying of that content.

The post-industrial modern American economy is largely based on the creativity -- or knowledge -- of its highly educated work force. It is this knowledge economy that gives us an edge over developing countries that can use cheap labor to produce goods. Protecting knowledge products, whether they are films, music, or microchips is therefore essential for our economy to operate. Though Sony is a Japanese company, any "high-tech" organization will find itself with similar problems. To deal with this, modern economies have laws to protect copyrights, trademarks, and inventions through patents.

So why are content producers now targeting viruses at their consumers? In 1984, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. was decided by the US Supreme Court in a landmark ruling that became known as the "Betamax case." Universal sued Sony claiming that the invention of its Betamax VCR, which allowed users to copy content from television at will, infringed its copyright of that content. The court ruled that consumers have a right to "fair use" of content (as long as it was not being reused for commercial gain) and can make copies for personal use. Ironically, it is the same Sony corporation that is now trying to stop fair use and make it impossible for users to make personal copies. Could it be that now that Sony is in the studio business itself, it no longer likes the same rules that allowed it to innovate new products in the 1980's?

In the 20 years since "Betamax" there has been something of a tug-o-war between innovative new technology companies and content producers. Products such as the CD and DVD burner have been challenged, as have Peer to Peer technologies and MP3 players. Few would argue that these technologies have not proven beneficial to consumers; however they have also made it easier to copy and disseminate copyrighted content. The content industry's answer to this increasingly takes the form of DRM. Digital Rights Management is now a part of much of the software we use. It can allow Apple to restrict how you copy and play your iTunes music. It can also cause your Windows operating system to stop working when you change a part in your computer.

So where does one draw the line between legitimate copyright enforcement and fair-use? The problem with many DRM software packages is that they not only decide who can play what, they often also decide on what machine you can play it. They can allow you to play music you purchased on your PC, but stop you from playing it on your laptop. No longer can you back up your favorite game so that you can still play after your 2 year old chews on the CD.

Fair use vs. copyright has always swung like a pendulum, back and forth between the rights of consumers and the needs of corporations. Just like unfettered copying would be detrimental to our modern knowledge economy, so too would excessive rights management stifle innovation. Perhaps the pendulum has now swung back too far towards copyright holders if research and development is producing new viruses rather than new walk-men?