Okay, this is funny.

Back in 2004, Michael Gartenberg chastised Cory Doctorow for a speech Doctorow gave to Microsoft about DRM. In his speech, Doctorow asserted that,

1. That DRM systems don’t work

2. That DRM systems are bad for society

3. That DRM systems are bad for business

4. That DRM systems are bad for artists

5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT

Gartenberg said none of this was true, posting in June 2004 on his blog that,

DRM does work and it can be good for business and acceptable to consumers. While most folks might prefer no DRM, that’s just not viable in today’s world and most consumers will accept DRM solutions. That’s not just my assertion, data driven research backs it up. That’s a difference between opinion and analysis.

One year later, Gartenberg’s being screwed over by the crappy DRM that Microsoft uses for the .LIT files that MS Reader uses. Apparently he had problems moving his files from an old computer to another. So what does Mr. DRM do? He turns to a tool that rips out the DRM and converts the .LIT files to another format,

While I’m still waiting for MSFT support to help me get back into the content I purchased for MS Reader (so far two emails and a rather fun 45 minute session with MS Tech support by phone, which is totally clueless about Reader. I was sent to Office support, Windows Activation and even though I kept telling them that there’s no product activation code for Windows, my words fell on deaf ears). I finally took matters into my own hands. With a little help from a lovely free program called Amber LIT conversion, I was able to take all my MSFT .lit files and convert them to unprotected .PDF files for Tablet viewing and Word files that converted easily to eReader format. Took about a minute for each book. The program works with protected .LIT files but needs to be run on a machine with an activated and valid MS Reader. Since my old computer did have Reader on it, the process was a snap. This doesn’t excuse MSFT. While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions.

Gartenberg doesn’t say how MS should have implemented the MS Reader DRM. Actually, as far as DRM schemes go, MS Reader’s isn’t that all that bad. But its still a DRM scheme, so it sucks, making it difficult — as Gartenberg found out — to easily move e-books to other computers, etc.

Contrary to Gartenberg’s claims, DRM is caught in a Catch-22. If its light enough to allow easy moving of files, its even easier to hack and strip the DRM. If it is more hardcore and makes each of those steps difficult — requiring activation, de-activation, authentication, etc. — then it create pain-in-the-ass situations like this and it still gets hacked.

DRM — just say no.