Slashdot Mirror


OS X Conference DRM Panel Video Available Online

gnat writes "Tucked away on the O'Reilly Mac OS X Conference presentations page are links to Quicktime video and mp3 audio recordings of the Digital Rights Management panel featuring Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News, Cory Doctorow of the EFF, and others. (My apologies for the sometimes shaky video--three Cokes for breakfast is the anti-steadicam)"

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. MP3s by Ledora · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MP3s are free to download about DRM something is amiss :P hehe

  2. not just Mac OS X by g4dget · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mac OS X is becoming, whether by design or by accident, a Digital Rights Management operating system where the rights in question are the user's rights

    So far, most operating systems other than Microsoft Windows are giving DRM a cold shoulder. Windows is the exception, not the rule.

    In fact, it's hard to see how DRM could work if there were a lively, competitive market in operating systems, media software, and hardware. In some way, DRM can only work if Microsoft keeps 95%+ of the market, which is kind of scary, because it means that Hollywood is going to do what they can to support Microsoft's monopoly.

    1. Re:not just Mac OS X by iomud · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The problem is that Windows is the defacto standard operating system thus becoming the rule. Until I can get something other than Windows pre-installed by a major hardware vendor it makes no difference that Linux or *BSD has no builtin nazi DRM scheme. Since there is no one to include those alternatives to Windows there is no real competition in the market that Windows exists in.

      I made a decision to no longer use Windows a while ago not because of DRM but its certainly another reason for me not to.

  3. Anti-steadycam? How about an antidote. by asparagus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's sorta OT, but here's a great link for DYI steadycams/dollies/whatnot. I'm pretty sure the /. crowd will appreciate what these people are up to.

    http://homebuiltstabilizers.com/

    -Brett

  4. Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Apple received an award at the Grammy's, Steve Jobs said, ""If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own." (More info here) So as far as we are concerned, Apple has publicly stated that people have the right to manipulate data, be it music, movies, or whatnot, that they own the rights to.

  5. And you can expect it on a Linux distro near you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..Because there are people out there who agree that producers of content have certain rights over it.

    That, and the fact that they may wish to be able to view five seasons of Babylon 5 (Or insert yer favorite show here), on DVD, in X.

    (Hmm, hope I don't die when I eventually go for a five season marathon. ;) "Sheridan *died* trying to watch five seasons in a row. No one who does that comes out alive!")

    Err, right. Sorry, I'm just all excited over the fact that they're finally putting B5 on DVD. 'bout bloody time. (Where's my Slashdot story about that? Huh?!) Erm, right, back to DRM.

    There are programmers out there who would make Linux work with DRM, simply because they a) wish to continue viewing content, and b) wish to continue viewing content legally.

    Think it won't be illegal to view DRM content on non-DRM hardware/software? Hmm, does DeCSS ring a bell?

    As for me, I'm all against the idea of DRM, but if it comes, I'm not going to be dressing up (down?) in woad and screaming, "They'll never take mah freedoooooooooooom!"

    I'm all for supporting independent artists, but you know, without the resources of MPAA-related companies, films like Fellowship of the Rings would never be made. (Of course, some of you may consider that a *good* thing..) There's a lot of good indie films out there, but there's far more 'Evil Empire' funded ones.

    Indie music is a bit different - it's a lot easier to find good bands whose labels aren't in step with the RIAA. Still, if I found an RIAA-supported band I liked, I'd buy their discs.

    Face it - if you're an indie nut and so anti-*AA, the few discs of any sort you stop buying won't even make a dent in their cash flow. Indeed, they'll just write it off as piracy and attempt more draconian legislation.

    In any event, their business models will eventually fail, and we'll get what we all want anyway. It'll just take time. All change takes time, save for that which is brought by the barrel of the gun and the point of the sword.

    And frankly, I don't think an extra bit of annoyance in terms of music and movies is worth spilling blood over.

  6. Re:The iPod *does* have DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Begin quote:
    It doesn't just play MP3s you copy to it. Instead, to get a song to play back, it has to be renamed to some 4-digit number, and the ID3 tag info is read from the file and stored in a binary database on the iPod, the "iTunesDB." Any song not registered in the iTunesDB won't play back. Sure, you can copy the MP3 named "2493.mp3" off the iPod any time you want, it's just annoying when you want to do it a lot and you don't have all the information laid out nicely. Also, you get used to the Artist/Album/Track/Genre info being accurate. It's much smoother to rip a CD you own than to put random tracks from the 'net on there.
    End Quote.

    While there are a few OK points in the parent, the majority of it is serious nonsense and unreasonably dismissive of one particulary strong argument against the use of DRM (or, perhaps in this context, product crippling). I guess this is somewhat understandable because you have the Jobs cult who supports all of Apple's ideals and actions, including the utterly inane ones. He even goes so far as to "thank" Apple for the lesser of several evils; good grief.

    Crippling a product is crippling a product, make no mistake. I can think of a variety of different scenarios in which I might not be able to register something in Apple's proprietary software and thus have a difficult time with music playback -- ie. files spread out on various PCs and CDs I don't have the time to register. No other portable MP3 player has this intentionally placed shortcoming with the playback of MP3's; why should Apple's, one of the more expensive MP3 players on the market? Myself, I would be pretty irate if I found out a product I had spent a lot of money for had a limitation that was placed in the interests of a business that reeps grossly excessive amounts of profit.

    Ultimately, any measure intended to punish those who attempt to play "pirated" music is not without consequence to those who are playing legally owned music lacking a signature for whatever reason. Hell, even if people are playing back MP3's they didn't buy it's their business -- not that of the device or the manufacturer. It's totally uncalled for, no matter how strong the argument may be, since the customer should have unencumbered use of a device if they paid for it.

  7. Re:Considering it's a OS X conference... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And at the same time, Apple implements a form of DRM by crippling the iPod - you can copy songs onto it, but you can't copy them off. I'm an Apple fan, but this kind of BS undermines my faith in them.

    What is the purpose of an mp3 player? To transfer mp3s to it so that they can be played back later. The purpose of an mp3 (at least for legal uses) is not to take mp3s from one machine and move them to another machine. You mistake Apple's decision to not make piracy easy for a decision to implement unfair DRM against owners manipulating the music they legally own.

    Besides, if you want, there are many ways you can transfer songs from your iPod to another computer. There are hacks that allow you to do this. I know they have some for OS X; I'm not sure about the Windows version though.

  8. you're wrong by g4dget · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What you describe leaves open the analog hole. Hollywood and the RIAA don't want that to happen, and Microsoft has given every indication that they intend to cooperate.

    Most likely, what will happen is that Windows will continue to be able to play non-DRM content, but it will refuse to create non-DRM content unless you buy very expensive "professional" versions of the software and hardware you use, software and hardware that puts your signature on everything you create. Windows may also simply start putting non-DRM content under DRM without even telling you.