Slashdot Mirror
Digital Restrictions Management for P2P Systems
Anonymous Coward writes "Digital restrictions management for an open-source peer-to-peer network. Researchers at the Georgia Tech Information Security Center have created a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella. The paper argues that DRM is beneficial to everyone including independent musicians and end-users."
I'm always getting my digital rights all messed up. Especially when stealing movies on LimeWire, my time shifting tends to get tangled in my fair use, and since information wants to be free I end up with data all over the floor. This plugin will help me manage my digital rights, so I can finally focus on what matters: ripping off starving artists.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Why would anyone want to do that ?
If you havn't installed the plugin, or any DRM plugins, you must be a thief!
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why don't you install it?
(Maybe now all the people that made that idiotic argument in the past in regards to every sapping of our rights will wake up a little)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
On one condition: as long as the protocols for implementing the restrictions remain *OPEN*, *DOCUMENTED*, and *WELL DEFINED*.
...
So, what? It's not easy to do it and still actually engineer a restriction plan? Yeah?
Bugger it, who said it has to be easy to do this properly, and not end up with the complete social nightmare like what the good ol' U$ofA is currently happily building?
As an independent musician, as a technology freak (I work for Access Music, I make synthesizers for a living, and I use Linux extensively), and as a renegade from the New World Odor, I think it's good to have a system like this that works so that *ANYONE* - any musician, signed or not, represented by RIAA or not - can actually make their work available and get rewarded for doing so.
But it's gotta stay open, folks. Secrecy behind a corporate stigma is not the way this is going to be done
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
This type of DRM doesn't so much restrict you as it adds extra abilities. Basically an "artist" releases a song with DRM controls (proprietary encrypted format) so if you just have plain old limewire, sure you can trade the file. But its going to do you no good (of course someone can convert the file to mp3 and start trading that, but it takes a bit of work) While if you have DRM you can listen to this file, under certain restrictions. The advantage of hooking it straight into limewire is that limewire will now be able to read the headers from the file, and possibily even as as a registration/buying carrier. So you can use limewire to pay to open up the songs. DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right. Its the attempts at mandating DRM and having players that won't play songs that other non DRM players will play.
Censorship is never beneficial. I warned that the DMCA could be used to prohibit access to free material (i.e. Adobe published Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven" in a DRM format. Project Gutenberg is now violating the circumvention clause regardless of who came first. See the Analog section of the DMCA for details.) This is the second step in the progression to a new dark age... My suggestion is fight fire with fire. Use an encryption format on the next P2P application then, in the EULA state that you cannot use the software unless you are a Non-Corporate, Non-Government agency. If a company uses the app to spy the contents, they are in voliation of the EULA and you sue. If the hack the client they violate the DMCA by circumventing the encryption.
My 2 cents
(I spell crappy... I know... Shashdot needs a spell checker... ispell plugin anyone?)
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Maybe I'm young and naive, but it seems to me that the entire notion of "content" is offensive. Like the music or pr0n videos or what have you was simply items in a box, with no regard for what's inside.
Though I suppose you could fairly call Britney Spheres, Backdoor Boys, and We'Stync to be nothing more than worthless coporate content, I cannot equally call the 405 short, Mudhens, Indigo Girls, or a great number of other independant, thoughtful works "content."
It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.
The notion of content is what allows them to call copyright infringement "piracy", what makes them want to license every listening. The music/videos/whatever are cheap, taiwan-made products to be whored around as much as possible for the greatest profit.
What they're really exchanging is ideas, peoples feelings, and as Jefferson once said (paraphrasing) 'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'
I'm not saying anything about the entire legality of it, or what I think of this paper (Gee, I didn't know academics were whoring themselves to the entertainment industry lately) but this talk of 'content' is cheapening to the work serious musicians, directors, and artists perform.
Just venting. thank you for yer time.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
>DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right.
Sorry, can you explain to me what exactly the rights of artists are? And why those rights are relevant to the artist given that 98% of the copyright in the western world is owned by corperations?
The artist is obligated to ensure that, upon claiming protection via copyright, his work is freely accessible 20 years after his death. Should he DRM-ize all his songs to expire after 6 months, and never publish them again, it is the artist that is breaking copyright law (by not making his work available to the commons after his copyright protection has expired.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
Go ahead, argue all you like. White is still white, black is still black, two and two still make four.
"We argue that the lack of content protection is currently hindering the introduction of richer content systems." Yeah, right... and here I thought the INTRODUCTION of Napster and AudioGalaxy had been VERY successful.
"Content owners will not make content available in the variety, quantity, and format that users want until adequate protection measures are in place." Bullpuckey. I own a Rocket eBook (= REB1100) which has hardware-based DRM locked to a serial number in the device. When I go on a trip I like to load it up with nice easy-reading current mainstream books. And, you know what? They're mostly not available. Never have been, even before the whole eBook scene died. I recently did a check--of about 44 titles on Oprah's book club, which I think is a good test since they're good books, widely distributed, have been out long enough to give plenty of time for conversion, etc.
In eBook format, with good DRM, about 6 titles are available.
In audiobook (cassette tape) format--with no DRM, and a much more expensive production process, about 35 titles are available.
So don't tell me that DRM will increase the choices available to me. It exists, and it doesn't.
Indeed, one of the whole premises behind the Rocket eBook/REB1100 was good hardware-based DRM. Why did it fail? It was (and is) a pretty good device from a techical, UI, and product point of view. The screen is a lot more pleasant to read than a Palm; it's a lot more portable than a laptop; I can settle in and have a fine "immersive" reading experience with it.
It failed BECAUSE of a) lack of content--I have more choice in the average airport bookstore than I do in the online "bookstore" for my device; b) overpriced content; and, c) BECAUSE of DRM.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."
They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction.
Company Website
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
First, let me say that what I'm about to show might be entirely common among colleges, not just the Georgia Institute of Technology. But whenever I see some academic group pushing something that is inexorably linked to commercial interests, I start looking for a money trail.
EPICS, Georgia Tech Receives Software Grant to Improve Retention For Minority Students (2000)
This year, they'll have even more to celebrate, as Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announces a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented students over the next two years.
EPICS, Microsoft Partnership Donates Software to Hands On Atlanta (date unknown)
"Thanks to the partnership of the nationally based Engineering Projects In Community Service (EPICS) and Microsoft Corporation, a generous software gift was recently donated to HOA. This software, Microsoft Project 2000, will allow the organization to implement a system to improve its special events planning. "
Microsoft Exec to Address Georgia Tech Grads (1999)
Deborah Willingham, vice president of Microsoft Corporation's Business and Enterprise Division Marketing, will address Georgia Institute of Technology's 205th Commencement ceremony on Saturday, December 18.
Microsoft grant gives OMED another reason to celebrate at Tower Awards(date unknown)
This year, adding to the excitement, Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announced a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented [Georgia Tech] students over the next two years.
This was just a quick check on Google.
Again, there might not be a cookie jar that Microsoft doesn't have their fist in, but it might be nice to know.
My
Limekiller
Theft is theft. It deprives you of your natural right to use your property, by depriving you of possession of your property.
Copyright violation is not theft. It arguably deprives you of your ability to collect revenues from your property (or reduces your potential revenues), but it does not deprive you of the actual property, which you can still use since you still possess it.
The rhetoric of "copyright violation *is* theft" is simply wrong, and ignores the fact that the score-keeper here is not revenues generated from a given property, but the property itself.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits