OVER THE EDGE = January 26, 2007

On the Digital Front

tre rs, Not Pir

JEREMY JOHNSON

COLUMNIST

This is an issue which I felt
needed addressing since I’m
starting to see this idea floating
around. I’ve always believed
that DRM serves little more
then harm everything that

touches it — and that goes-for -

the companies that issue it.

So what does DRM con-
trol? Not piracy or file-shar-
ing. Why is this? Ever notice
that everything is available
online for free download? I
mean everything. Madagas-
car was a movie on DVD with
added DRM (overtop of CSS
— Content Scrambling System)
known as “Ripguard”. [’m
willing to bet you could find

a perfectly good copy of that
DVD on a number of file-shar-
ing networks. This isn’t the
only instance... in fact, this in-
stance is the norm for all DRM
schemes the companies throw
at us. It proves the theory that
all DRM schemes are flawed
and destined to fail because
any code that can be unscram-
bled in an authorized manner
can be unscrambled in an un-
authorized manner. There’s
been studies (I’m quite sure)
by Big Champagne which
suggested that whether or not
content was protected made no
difference as to how well it was
shared on file-sharing (and it’s
probably the same case with
bootlegging)

A Rare Apology

Mircu Grant
StArFE WRITER

Many of you may have read
an article I wrote back in Octo-
ber; where I reviewed an Ace’s
High performance.

While Ace’s High per-
formed above and beyond,
mirroring that of a real Iron
Maiden concert, their opening
act, Ceremony, as I said, had
all the “energy and charisma
on the stage as a pair of dueling
tortoises” [Aces High Rock,
Pg 12, Arts and Culture, Over
the Edge, November 8, 2006].
However being a photographer,
and living in residence, means
that I am close at hand when
our masters, I mean editors,
need shots at the last minute.
So down I came on the night of
the Battle of the Bands, snap-
ping away performance after
performance. 2

I can inform you now that
when I was told Ceremony
was to perform, and saw their
“signature” pink boa,.I was a
little less then excited. As the
night wore on, however, I was

surprised at the quality of all of

the bands, having been to more
than my share of battles most
of which contained people I
wouldn’t qualify as a musician
let alone see if given a second,
chance, this line up measured
high above my expectations.
And as the last act lined up, I
remember making comments
to my Iron Maiden convert
who went through the experi-
ence of Ceremony and Aces
High with me all those months
ago, on whether we should
leave early and take as many
people with us as we could to
save them the pain of dealing
with Ceremony.

And thus where my apology
comes in, while skeptic even
as they started, I was quickly
impressed with the improve-
ment of their performance, and
so, while still skeptical of their
overall continued consistency,
I will be more then happy to
interview, take photos of, and
listen to Ceremony. at next
year’s Back Yard Barbeque.

1 in g Ci SL

My question is this - if
DRM is suppose to stop people
from re-distributing content,
why are companies still invest-
ing in something that has, to
date, never worked in the first
place? Surely the companies
are aware that DRM doesn’t
work against this sort of activ-
ity given that-they. have filed
tens of thousands of lawsuits
against American consumers.

So what does DRM. work
against? I argue that DRM
works against the honest user.
If I Google for information
on circumventing DRM (bi-
passing it or stripping it away
entirely), or if I download the
latest Hollywood “blockbust-
er”, or if I track down some

bootleggers and buy a burned
copy of a movie or album out
of a trunk, or if [held down the
Shift key at the rightmoment, or
if I am so desperate and record
a movie from the local movie
house, I wouldn’t be affected
by DRM. If I was that much
more honest, I would have a
Sony Rootkit installed on my
hard drive, or have music that
I can only play on my iPod and
not in my MP3 player, or have
a DVD that I cannot watch on
my Linux/Apple computer. If
I am honest, I get shafted in
this instance. Therefore, DRM
worked. I guess it’s true what
they say, only pirates get to be
truly free.

Fortunately, it’s currently

still legal in Canada to circum-
vent DRM. So being honest
and savvy at the same time, I
could break the locks and ex-
pand the uses of what I pay for:
Unfortunately, the current gov-
ernment is rumoured to have
tabled a copyright reform bill
very soon (as of this writing)
The hope is, something not so
one-sided will be tabled un-
like the last copyright reform —
bill. Sadly, many project that —
the bill will be just as bad as
the first one. If it is, I can see
more bad response then the
comments left by users in the
Globe and Mail Theatrical PR
article entitled ‘Pirates of the
Canadian’ (Online Version)

aere SA thought

HAAKON SULLIVAN

STAFF WRITER.

Remember the TV show
“Let’s Make a Deal’? In this
show, the show host allowed a
contestant to choose from one
of three doors with one of the
doors having a grand prize and
the other two doors having a
goat each. When the contestant
makes the selection, the host
would then immediately open

a door revealing a goat behind.

it and gives you a choice to
switch your choice to the other
unopened door. The question is
this: What are your odds with
the two doors remaining? Does
it matter if you switch or not?

Think for a second before you

read on.

The answer is yes, it does
matter which door you choose.
The common misconception
is. that the odds go from one
in three (when you choose the
one prize out of three choices)
to one-half (when you choose
one prize out of the two choices
remaining). In truth however,
the odds of winning the prize

is not one-half when after the _
host reveals the goat but is in=-

stead one-third if you stay with

your choice and two-thirds if
you change your pick to the
other door. ~

To help explain this reason-
ing, it helps to break this down
into steps. Your first choice in-
volves choosing one of three
doors: Door A, Door B, and
Door C. Door A has the prize
while doors B and C have the
goats. As you make your first
choice, you have three possibil-
ities: You choose Door A with
the grand prize, you choose
Door B with a goat, or you
choose Door C with the other
goat. With this said the chance
of getting the goat instead of
the car is two in three.

So, after you make your
selection, the host reveals a
goat behind one of the doors
and offers the chance for you
to change your door selection.
The door you picked still has
the same odds (66% Goat,
33% Prize) but the odds of
winning with the other door
have changed. A rule of math-

ematical probability is that the

probability of events must add
to 1 (or 100% in this case). So

if the door you initially chose

has a 33% chance of winning,
then the other door has a 66%

chance of winning because
you’re down to two doors. This
means that it is in your best
interest to switch your door
choice.

This problem is called the
“Monty Hall Problem” named
after the host of the “Let’s
Make a Deal” TV show and
this question was brought up
by Craig F. Whitaker in 1990.
It illustrates a problem with
most people’s line of thinking
that all cases of probability is
not dependent on the last ac-
tion taken. Things like slot
machines and dice rolling are
not dependant on the last event
but in situations like above, the
past does matter.

Try this for yourself by hav-
ing three small pieces of paper
with one piece of paper having
a mark on it. Place all three
pieces of paper on a table with
the mark face down and have a
friend rearrange them for you. —
Choose a piece of paper and
then have a friend flip one of
the pieces without a mark on it.
If you switch your choice, you
should win approximately two
times out of three.