DRM an economic negative?

[atmuscarella]

Found this article on PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133231-c,researchreports/article.html) basically says that DRM is bad for economic growth and counties that have it will end up at an economic disadvantage.

Personally I have always thought DRM sucks and will never do anything to stop organized theft of intellectual property. You would think that the video and music industries would learn a simple lesson: If you piss off your costumers to the point where they refuse to buy a product they actually want or worse yet just decide to steal it no body wins. Their delusional belief that they can control how consumers use video/music through DRM will do nothing but erode their bottom lines.

Thanks,

[HDTiVo]

I generally agree.

[ZeoTiVo]

DRM is just like locks on car doors. The ygive you a sense of security, are sometimes annoying when it works against you and in the end Cars will still be stolen by the pros who do it for money no matter what

[Justin Thyme]

Uh huh. We had globalized our product sufficiently for a large number of languages, and we were considering the challenges of bi directional text and the challenges. (EG. morphing that arabic has to do (previous characters change their rendering after subsequent characters are added)

The cost benefit wasn't there because the marketing weasel admitted it would be wildly popular in Egypt, but said we will only sell one copy.

That's why it's good to have smart weasels on your side. They point out stuff that the technotwits realize is self evident (of course, only after they have it pointed out to them).

[bicker]

Lots of wishful thinking going on here. "Hmm... I don't like DRM, therefore it must be bad." :rolleyes:

[MikeMar]

The cost benefit wasn't there because the marketing weasel admitted it would be wildly popular in Egypt, but said we will only sell one copy.

That's why it's good to have smart weasels on your side. They point out stuff that the technotwits realize is self evident (of course, only after they have it pointed out to them).

yup, I was in Ukraine a few years ago and was at a "flea market" kinda area, and basically there were copies of Windows and Office as far as the eye could see, and I mean COPIES. It was literally an acre or two of bootlegged dvds/video games/music/software

[ZeoTiVo]

yup, I was in Ukraine a few years ago and was at a "flea market" kinda area, and basically there were copies of Windows and Office as far as the eye could see, and I mean COPIES. It was literally an acre or two of bootlegged dvds/video games/music/software
read an article where a guy had gone to a Moscow bazzar and some place in china as well. You walk up they have a piece of paper with software titles on it. Pick out some for 10bucks US and they send a runner to go get the burned CDs.


I am not against DRM per se, because I am all for content providers making money off their investments. I like that Peter jackson got 300 million to make Lord of The Rings. If they thought DVD sales were not a money maker then the investors might not have taken such a risk. I just wish they would add in some fair use for people lke Justin Thyme who wants to put all his DVDs into an easy to use archive without having to spend megabucks on a 1000 DVD changer.

[atmuscarella]

Originally Posted by bicker
Lots of wishful thinking going on here. "Hmm... I don't like DRM, therefore it must be bad." No DRM is bad because:


It does nothing to protect intellectual property
Does nothing to inhibit thieves and primarily just pisses of legitimate costumers.
Will eventually result in reduced profits for those providing the content
Will deducing invocation and increase costs industry wide resulting in reduced economic prosperity for everyone.
Thanks,

[bicker]

Of course, you're right and they're wrong. :rolleyes:

You WISH that it t does nothing to protect intellectual property; you WISH that it doesn't inhibit theft of copyright content; you WISH that it will eventually result in reduced profits; you WISH that it will reduce innovation -- you WISH that your enmity towards it was justified.

[MikeMar]

read an article where a guy had gone to a Moscow bazzar and some place in china as well. You walk up they have a piece of paper with software titles on it. Pick out some for 10bucks US and they send a runner to go get the burned CDs.

$10? that' expensive :D It was $5 tops for anything there, some people had a desktop there and burnt stuff on the spot :)

I have a copy of Halo for the pc, can't really play it since I don't speak Russian, got it as a novelty.

[HDTiVo]

$10? that' expensive :D It was $5 tops for anything there, some people had a desktop there and burnt stuff on the spot :)

Grammatically I got the impression Zeo got multiple titles for $10. :D

[classicsat]

No DRM is bad because:


It does nothing to protect intellectual property

From hardcore or "commercial" pirates. It inhibits some casual piracy.

Does nothing to inhibit thieves and primarily just pisses of legitimate costumers.

Not the majority of legitimate customers that elect to play by the "studios" rules. At most, it might mildly annoy them.

Will eventually result in reduced profits for those providing the content

But likely not as fast if they didn't protect their content.

Will deducing invocation and increase costs industry wide resulting in reduced economic prosperity for everyone.
Thanks,
The costs of using DRM is minimal, compared to the value of the content it is protecting.

[ZeoTiVo]

$10? that' expensive :D It was $5 tops for anything there, some people had a desktop there and burnt stuff on the spot :)

I have a copy of Halo for the pc, can't really play it since I don't speak Russian, got it as a novelty.

"Pick out some for 10 bucks US " The article had some specific number but I do not recall what it was. And this was not games only but 400 or 500$ at retail software as well. The point is that breaking DRM has a financial motivation for a few and that financial consideration being in play will keep DRM cracking in play.

DRM itself will never stop the for profit pirates, so who is DRM aimed at?

[Justin Thyme]

DRM itself will never stop the for profit pirates, so who is DRM aimed at?This will be an interesting thing to watch. Right now, anyone can buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player modded to output Hidef data in the raw via SDI. Costs you $750 US on top of the price of the player.

There are studio SDI recorders that support Hidef data rates for something like 15K.

Obviously, not what a consumer would pay. But they don't have to. Those two purchases have to be made just once.

After compression back to MPEG, guess what you will find in the bazaars of the world. The thing holding these bazaar operators back is not DRM, but the fact that

not a lot of customers have HD-DVD players
HD-DVD recorders still too expensive
HD-DVD media cost would put the price of the copy too close that of the original.


As we know from DVD recorders, those last two factors will plummet and we will see 25 cent disks and $100 recorders.

Repression? Can't shut down the pros from distributing to each other world wide, so the bazaars will be full. Can't show customs how to keep the stuff from crossing the border- how do they know what is in an encrypted file on a hard drive. Can't keep them off of P2P networks.

They are screwed, so the only way is to co-opt the development of such a consumer pattern. Make it so convenient and cheap to buy a legitimate copy that no one will go to the bother of buying a copy, and thereby monetizing a global piracy network.

Hollywood- it's your choice. Offhand, I'd pick the one that delivers more profit. The music industry chose wrong. Now it's your turn.

[MickeS]

Lots of wishful thinking going on here. "Hmm... I don't like DRM, therefore it must be bad." :rolleyes:
Well, it's a legitimate reflection, with the topic at hand. If you went into a store and they were selling regular CDs for the same price as they are selling some DRM CDs that can only be played in a maximum of, say, 3 players, which would you choose? Which would sell better? Which would be more profitable?

Now, translate that to the online market. If a store is selling regular MP3s for the same price that they are selling DRM files, that can only be played on a maximum of, say, 3 computer or players, which would you choose? Which would sell better? Which would be more profitable?

Is DRM a hindrance for sale in those situations, or is it a benefit?

IMO, the only way it can be used is if there is no DRM free alternative. So it seems to me that, all other things being equal, DRM has a negative impact on both sales and on the "bottom line".

[bicker]

You positing a set of options when such options don't necessarily exist. Yes, if you had that choice, then you'd choose X. The issue is if not given that choice (because the owners generally conclude that protection fosters their bottom-line) would you buy or not buy. That's the options you would have to choose from, not between DRM and not-DRM. It all comes down to whether the owners draw to a consensus one way or the other.

Understand that the "right answer" in the end might be less money to be made, lower quality to be had -- all because the revenue stream couldn't be adequately protected. So given THAT choice, high quality or low quality, which would you purchase?

[puckettcg]

Its not DRM per se that I don't like; but its the fact that there are, to my knowledge, at least four different incompatible formats and they don't work very well. If I have a iPod but decide I'd rather have a Zune, the songs I bought can't be played unless I burn them to a CD and rip them back. Same if I switch to MS Plays For Sure format. Plus, the licenses get corrupted and you have to go through customer service to fix them. And, several on-line stores require you to "check-in" once a month to revalidate a license. As long as its not corrupted, it works okay, but its slow and interrupts the listening while it validating the license. I now routinely burn to CD's all my purchased music and immediately rip it back unprotected, because I'm tired of the issues related to DRM.

[ZeoTiVo]

Is DRM a hindrance for sale in those situations, or is it a benefit?

IMO, the only way it can be used is if there is no DRM free alternative. So it seems to me that, all other things being equal, DRM has a negative impact on both sales and on the "bottom line".
and point in case when it was anounced that iTunes was getting some DRM free music, that music was going to saell for more than its exact same DRM counterpart

[Jazhuis]

and point in case when it was anounced that iTunes was getting some DRM free music, that music was going to saell for more than its exact same DRM counterpartNot the exact same; all the EMI non-DRM'd files were being sold as 256k AAC files, rather than the standard 128k DRM'd AAC files. More expensive, but a higher bitrate (as well as not being shackled).

At last report (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=18342), EMI was saying that the new non-DRM'd files were boosting sales.

[ZeoTiVo]

oh and this is DRM being annoying
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9025466&source=NLT_PM&nlid=8
you have to sign up to bypass the DRM;) to read thisso here is a part of it

June 22, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Conspiracy theorists may link Microsoft Corp.'s abrupt decision late Tuesday not to remove restrictions on consumers virtualizing its Vista operating system to a Department of Justice agreement announced the same day or to a desire to jerk Intel Mac users around.

But the actual reason may be found in three little letters: DRM.

Vista's new digital rights management features enable movies or music files to be password-protected or made accessible only to authorized users for opening, viewing or changing.

Whether most users would call DRM a feature, however, is questionable. A close cousin to DRM technology, known as Windows Rights Management Services (which in turn is part of a larger category of technologies called Enterprise Digital Rights Management, or ERM), can help business users password-protect key documents and files, or assign the ability to open them only to trusted co-workers. But DRM's main purpose seems to be to help the Warner Bros. and Sony Musics of the world keep consumers from sharing movies and music. The entertainment industry claims that almost all blocked sharing is illegal; digital rights watchdogs argue that legitimate consumer uses are also blocked by such technology.

DRM is capable of blocking both overt piracy -- distributing movies via BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer networks -- as well as other common scenarios that most consumers do not consider piracy, such as moving legally acquired music files from their desktop PCs to their notebook computers.

"It's like when you batten down the hatches on a ship in a storm," said Aram Sinnreich, an analyst at Radar Research in Los Angeles. "Vista wants to batten down every software or multimedia bit so that they don't go somewhere the creator doesn't want it to go."

[atmuscarella]

Items originally posted by classicsat It inhibits some casual piracy.I disagree it is my opinion that DRM infected content has caused more than a few people to go over to the dark side and download illegal content. For better or worse illegal entertainment content actually allows people to enjoy the product unlike DRM infected content.
But likely not as fast if they didn't protect their content.Lets be real - illegal content is just as available as legal content.
The costs of using DRM is minimal, compared to the value of the content it is protecting.DRM is not protecting anything and the cost are not minimal on the hardware/development side of this problem.
Not the majority of legitimate customers that elect to play by the "studios" rules. At most, it might mildly annoy them.Right and this work so well for the music industry - a large number of their former customers told them to take there "rules" and shove them up their a**.

DRM infected content has done nothing but cost me time and money. The purpose of buying an entertainment product is to be entertained not to be made miserable or pissed off. I used to buy 10-15 albums a year now I buy none and I also will not purchase DVDs. The studios have lost my business because of DRM and will not buy into HD DVDs for the same reason. I am a one person household and have no desire to make copies of anything I purchase for someone else but I do desire to decide when, where, and how to watch/listen to something that is supposed to provide me with entertainment and based on all the complaints people have and what has gone on in the world I am not alone.

Thanks,

[bicker]

I disagree it is my opinion that DRM infected content has caused more than a few people to go over to the dark side and download illegal content. That's silly. For people who, as you put it, "go over to the dark side", they were transgressive by nature and would have found some other excuse to attempt to justify their bad behavior, if not for DRM.

For better or worse illegal entertainment content actually allows people to enjoy the product unlike DRM infected content. No. There is no legitimate justification for transgressive behavior -- enjoyment justifies full compliance with the content owner's wishes, without reservation. Otherwise, leave it be.

Lets be real - illegal content is just as available as legal content. DRM is not protecting anything and the cost are not minimal on the hardware/development side of this problem. Let's be real. That's your opinion and the people who actually have lots to lose -- content owners -- disagree with you.

Right and this work so well for the music industry - a large number of their former customers told them to take there "rules" and shove them up their a**. All the more reason to make sure there aren't any loophole or open doors with video.

DRM infected content has done nothing but cost me time and money.Which is just about the only legitimate assertion I can accept in your message. You don't like DRM because it costs you time and money. We all want good stuff cheap.

[MickeS]

You positing a set of options when such options don't necessarily exist. Yes, if you had that choice, then you'd choose X. The issue is if not given that choice (because the owners generally conclude that protection fosters their bottom-line) would you buy or not buy. That's the options you would have to choose from, not between DRM and not-DRM. It all comes down to whether the owners draw to a consensus one way or the other.

Understand that the "right answer" in the end might be less money to be made, lower quality to be had -- all because the revenue stream couldn't be adequately protected. So given THAT choice, high quality or low quality, which would you purchase?

Read my last paragraph again. I was arguing the merits of DRM vs non-DRM, not the merits of DRM vs no alternative. If you look at DRM as a "feature" by itself, that would be the only way to determine if that is a "feature" that contributes to the profits.

Yes, if there is no alternative, some users will opt to suck it up and buy the DRM version, but then you're no longer able to determine what factor DRM played in the decision. But I would argue that fewer would buy it, than would buy a non-DRM version. I would think we agree on that.

I honestly don't think that these decisions are made based on pure economics. They are made for lots of different reasons, and I think the number one reason is simply "because we want to see if we can". I think we'll have to wait a while to evaluate the real economic impact the DRM has had.

[bicker]

DRM as a "feature"? I think that's the source of your confusion. DRM isn't provided for the customer's enjoyment. It is provided to protect the content owner's asset. DRM vs. non-DRM is like "have to pay" vs. "don't have to pay".

[atmuscarella]

Originally Posted by bicker All the more reason to make sure there aren't any loophole or open doors with video.They have already lost, anyone can easily record (steal) everything being broadcast including HD with the DRM infection removed.
Let's be real. That's your opinion and the people who actually have lots to lose -- content owners -- disagree with you.Right thats why the music industries revenues are down and they are moving into DRM free content sales.
Which is just about the only legitimate assertion I can accept in your message. You don't like DRM because it costs you time and money. We all want good stuff cheap.Sure cheap is nice but I never said the cost of the DRM infected content was the problem - the problem has always been getting the DRM infected content to work/play after buying it - that has been what cost me additional time and money.
That's silly. For people who, as you put it, "go over to the dark side", they were transgressive by nature and would have found some other excuse to attempt to justify their bad behavior, if not for DRM.I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
No. There is no legitimate justification for transgressive behavior -- enjoyment justifies full compliance with the content owner's wishes, without reservation. Otherwise, leave it be.Sorry I live in the real world "transgressive behavior" is normal and anyone who doesn't expect it is a fool. The music industry executives decided to role the dice and see if they could force people to continue to buy high priced CDs, when what many people wanted was downloadable electronic copies of just the songs they liked and that they could easily move around to their various music playing devices. Didn't work out so well for the music industry so they decided to try digital music infected with DRM, still not what people wanted still not working out so well for the music industry. So now they are finally starting to actually give people what they want (DRM free digital downloads) hopefully it works out very well for them.

The real problem with DRM is people actually think it's about protecting intellectual property. I believe it is a wrong headed attempt at protecting/increasing profits (which I support). Given the current state of affairs no one is going to get me to believe that DRM has resulted in any increase sales or profits and I can assure you it has resulted in some loss of sales and profits.

So now we are back to the beginning of this thread is DRM a net negative or positive - well the person being quoted in the article thinks its a net negative and I agree.

Thanks,

[Justin Thyme]

OK- so what I was observing was that the second life guy is not really exposed to IP theft because his product is server based. Naturally, because physical media type products like desktop software, Music and video are exposed so they look for some way not to get ripped off so much.

So what does this imply for Video? My crackpot idea of the day is that releasing HD on on physical media is brain damaged from the point of view of Studio interests. What are all those 100 spool CD packs you can buy at Costco being used for? What are all these CD players playing? Similarly, aren't all these bluray or HD DVD players destined to be used the majority of the time for playing copies of HD movies? So why participate in creating of an infrastructure for piracy?

What instead? Instead- the user never gets a physical copy. They buy an electronic copy, and they can download to their handheld, to their DVR, to their laptop etc etc.

In perpetuity. This is what unbox is sort of doing now.

Customer buys the Empire Strikes back once, and most of the time it's not taking up space on the consumer's hard drive but can be downloaded at any time to your current and future devices- in the codec and resolution that generates the best picture for the device.

No- we are not talking Tivo and Unbox only. This model could be used by Cable and Satco's- AppleTv-iTunes could do it this way, MS's could do it by simply extending their XBox Live service. The only thing standing in the way is the Studios. Maybe they wake up and realize that this is the only practical solution to date that has a realistic chance of retaining the long term value of their libraries. The strategy is to use pricing and incentives early on to divert market forces that would otherwise drive consumers to the end result least favorable to the studios where the consumers must assume total control of their libraries stored on their own hard drives.

Say there is some generous limit- maybe a max of 50 or 100 titles on your personal devices. That's a heck of a lot of movies to watch while on vacation. The remainder of your movies remain waiting in your Unbox/ XBLive/ iTunes library.

Consumers like it because it is super convenient- they never have to worry about codec conversions, maintaining 24/7 servers with massive hard drive arrays that can fail, monkeying around with applications like PyTivo, not having to go through the hassle of Torrenting or ripping a movie, checking it for quality, organizing it into the library so you can search by actor, director etc....

Studios like it because there is leverage on the consumer- if any of the Consumer's watermarked movies show up on Torrent, or known pirated copies are played on their devices, they risk losing access to their entire library. There is revocation- future downloads will not be made to compromised devices- turning hackers into vandals to be scorned rather than treatment as heroic liberators. The future pirate infrastructure built around HD-DVD and bluray players is denied, and they become a short lived 8 track tape format. Studios curtail release. HD players remain expensive, media stays expensive because there is no volume of production... Life becomes hard for the bazaar distributors.

Legitimate online distributors like it because it tends to lock customers into their service and enjoys a snowball effect. Since most of the consumer's library is in one place, they tend to want to put it all there, so long as the prices are competitive.

Oh, and my grandson doesn't get a copy of everything, assuming he is too dumb to convince Amazon that his Grandfather JT really really is still alive after 121 years and lives in his basement still posting his crackpot ideas on TCF.

[bicker]

They have already lostThey disagree, and its their stuff.

Sure cheap is nice but I never said the cost of the DRM infected content was the problem - the problem has always been getting the DRM infected content to work/play after buying itI'm not that much smarter than the average Joe, and I NEVER have had a problem using DRM-protected video. Never. You should be asking yourself what you are doing wrong.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. Indeed.

Sorry I live in the real world "transgressive behavior" is normal and anyone who doesn't expect it is a fool.Expecting it is not the issue. Accepting it is unconscionable. You're trying to assert that violating DRM is righteous. That's a despicable perspective IMHO.

[steve614]

...it is my opinion that DRM infected content has caused more than a few people to go over to the dark side and download illegal content. For better or worse illegal entertainment content actually allows people to enjoy the product unlike DRM infected content.

Exactly.

See this thread. (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=356288)

:)

[MickeS]

DRM as a "feature"? I think that's the source of your confusion. DRM isn't provided for the customer's enjoyment. It is provided to protect the content owner's asset. DRM vs. non-DRM is like "have to pay" vs. "don't have to pay".
I put the word in quotes for a reason.

[classicsat]

They have already lost, anyone can easily record (steal) everything being broadcast including HD with the DRM infection removed.
The thing is though, not every body wants to, knows they can, or is just as happy going an buying the DVD set anyway, or in the case of a DVD, a proper DVD player.

DRM costing you is the exception, not the norm. DRM doesn't cost me, becasue I, like most people have have:

A: A Windows PC, that can play nearly any DRMed file I am entitled to play.

B: An iPod. I uses ripped and recorded trancks on that.

C: The TiVo (its DRM is easy to get around, same for DVDs)

D: A couple of real (although budget Chinese) DVD players. I don't watch movies enough to be inconveninced by getting up and physically dealing with discs.

[atmuscarella]

Originally Posted by bicker
Expecting it is not the issue. Accepting it is unconscionable. You're trying to assert that violating DRM is righteous. That's a despicable perspective IMHO.bicker please disagree with my opinions all you want - however please refrain from saying I said something unless I actually did or saying what I am trying to assert/insinuate. If you think I am trying to assert/insinuate something without actually saying it ask and I will tell you. For the record I have not thought much about promoting violating DRM as a righteous act - my solution has been to stop purchasing DRM infected content and promote the same to other people. And again for the record I think DRM as it is being currently deployed in the music and video industries is bad for the consumers and bad for the providers. I think it will do more damage to these industries than good. Just ask the people over at Intuit how well it went form them.

Thanks,

[atmuscarella]

Originally Posted by bickerThey disagree, and its their stuff.Originally Posted by classicsat The thing is though, not every body wants to, knows they can, or is just as happy going an buying the DVD set anyway, or in the case of a DVD, a proper DVD player.The above 2 posts where in response to one of my posts where I state the video industry has lost the current battle to the pirates. bicker all I can say is they have and agree with the way classicsat avoided giving much information about it and will also not provide any more information in an open forum. It is however a joke given the current state of affairs that TiVo has been unable to allow Series 3 to Series 3 video transfers because of DRM.

Thanks,

[atmuscarella]

To bicker and classicsat

As you can see from steve614's post (#28) more than a few people have had
DRM make it difficult to actually use DRM infected content, consider yourselves lucky it has not effected you. I will now outline several times it has bitten me (for amusement purposes only and yes I understand that most of the problems are due to my stupidly thinking that entertainment should actually be fun, easy, and entertaining instead of a pain in the a**).

The first time I was bitten hard was when I purchased by first DVD player ($350). I actually went to a small stereo shop in Rochester (40 miles) to buy it. Brought it home and went and rented 2 moves (have to go 10 miles to rent moves). They both looked terrible the color was bad and they were not worth watching took them back to get my money back or another DVD and the shop but them in their play and they both worked great lost my money and didn't get to see the moves. Next I thought the player must be bad - took it back and they gave me another one. Purchased a Shania Twain music DVD and rented another DVD again both of them were not watchable. Lost my rental fee again and took the DVD player back again this time with the Shania DVD. They hooked it up to one of their TVs everything worked great took everything home again nothing worked. Well after about a month of this I finally found out what the problem was - I had/have a TV with only a coaxial input so I was running the DVD player through my VCR to my TV - guess what for many DVDs you can't do this because of DMR. Of course I had told the person at the stereo shop how I had connected everything and he didn't mention the problem end result I had to purchase a composite to coaxial converter ($20) to use the DVD player.

My next example is with music - I had been purchasing and downloading wma music from Walmart at work to listen to on my work computer. They were going to swap out the computer so I purchased an MP3 player that said it could also play wma files. Guess what I could not play the files on the MPs player and could not play the files on my new computer. Someone told me to get the old computer and burn the files to a CD - IT wasn't happy but they helped me burn a few CDs I only lost about half my music. After burning the CDs you could actually rip them to MP3 and use the files on my MP3 player so it wasn't a total loss and after about 6 months their was a firmware upgrade so the player could play protected wma files which are of course not the same as regular wma files.

The last one I will mention (there have been others) happened this Christmas - my sister bought me a Sheryl Crow music DVD as a gift (she knows I won't buy them anymore but do still like them). I like watching/listening to music DVDs in my bedroom - I have a computer, 19 inch monitor and a nice stero receiver and speaker system setup. Of course this is one of those DVDs that refuses to play on my computer because of some hardware/software that its DRM doesn't like. The DVD does work on my DVD player so I guess DRM just doesn't want me to watch the DVD in my bedroom.

Thanks,

[bicker]

bicker please disagree with my opinions all you want - however please refrain from saying I said something unless I actually did or saying what I am trying to assert/insinuate. If you think I am trying to assert/insinuate something without actually saying it ask and I will tell you. Okay, I'll accept your word on that. Please understand how many folks here use innuendo and other covert means to avoid accountability for saying such things, though.

[classicsat]

atmuscarella:
You simply don't know what you are doing, mostly.

You simply had to use the right connections for the DVD in the first place.

You had to back up the WMA files and the licenses.

You had to use a DVD player app.

It didn't have to cost you, you simply let it.

Since I don't purchase online music I can't say about backing those and licenses up.

But for my DVD player(s), I disabled Macrovision with hacks on the hardware players, and have the DVD app that came with the PC drive, and they all work fine.