AACS Pro-DRM Group Vows To Fight DRM Busters

DRM, or digital rights management, has been relegated to the status of agitator and unwanted by the majority of media consumers around the world, yet its proponents continue to take consumers to be unknowledgeable; that guys behind DRM in fact know better than the people they market to.

And after Net-based hoodlums took it upon themselves to plaster an HD-DVD encryption-breaking code across many, many domains, most notably Digg.com, the folks intent on seeing DRM take root and flourish have told the mass of hooligans that make up the core of the DRM-hating population that they “crossed the line” and that the proliferation of the precious 32-character key wouldn’t be allowed to continue without a fight.

The AACS, or Advanced Access Content System copy protection body, has vowed to use all “legal and technical tools” to get back at those that did wrong, and will almost certainly disallow the key from being successfully used to circumvent the blocks placed on HD-DVDs sealed with AACS-approved DRM from now on. It’s safe to assume that the people responsible for the DRM will void the key to block its use in “ripping” any future DRM-laden HD-DVDs manufactured.

Michael Ayers, the chair of the group, claimed that despite the widespread publication of the code (BBC News stated last week that about 700,000 pages have had it published in some form or another), he believes the AACS will be successful in maintaining devices that ensure most anti-copy-protection schemes remain insignificant.

It looks like the AACS is choosing to learn the game the hard way. Too bad. All that cash to be spent catching up to the work of the malfeasants could be spent securing (in a good, free-from-DRM kind of way) a bright future for HD-DVD. Of course, that would mean that the AACS would have no future itself, but who are they really helping? Consumers? Not quite. The studios? Negative press about troublesome new products doesn’t exactly spell “Lotsa sales!” The sole party left is the AACS. So what should happen to a middleman whose presence doesn’t benefit either end of a deal? Bye-bye.

If only it were so simple. Copy protection has been around for decades, and there’ll always be those who prefer locks to good faith. The difference now is that many, many more people can say “yes” or “no” to a scheme in no time at all, so it either requires great understanding of firewalls and their holes in order to successfully keep everyone out (we’ve yet to see such perfect mind enter the security field), or the acceptance that the people want what the people want.

Option two sounds like a much smoother road to travel, don’t you think?