Slashdot Mirror
Report from the ACM DRM Workshop
Anonymous Coward writes "There's open skepticism from researchers about the ability of DRM to solve Hollywood's copy protection problems. Read Edward Felten's review here... Papers from the workshop are available online as well."
There's open skepticism from researchers about the ability of DRM to solve Hollywood's copy protection problems
In May I attended a meeting on amending Canada's copyright laws to include DRM protection.. one of the guys there owns a company that does encryption research.. his statement basically said "the application of encryption technology to prevent copying is fundamentally flawed"
Indeed, someone who makes his living doing what the entertainment industry wants, and he says it can't be done.
I'm glad that researchers are finally speaking up about this.
As long as we can get the encoded version (on the disc) and decoded version (out the speaker or monitor) of media (music, movies) then copy protection is doomed.
You misunderstand. RIAA doesn't need to make copying impossible--they just need to raise sufficient barriers so that an equal-copy version is harder to get than walking to the store and buying one.
They don't even have to worry about price right now--they just need to make the most convenient method of getting a copy of re-listenable (as opposed to broadcast) music to get it from them.
(Yeah, and online delivery would be the best way to get it--but that sorta requires DRM at the moment...)
I think the real problem with DRM as Hollywood types are trying to implement it is that they're so unimaginative they can't envision a scenario in which online offerings are accessed with anything besides a general-purpose computer. Basically, it's the same old Hollywood problem all over again: they can't picture anything new themselves, so they keep rehashing existing things ad nauseum.
Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed? Doing this would let them implement DRM in any way they chose without interfering with anyone's work, it would give them a new product to sell, and it would probably leave everyone happy. Not just happy; probably delighted.
Some other benefits of such a product would be that they could control what connectors are installed, they could play with the way the screen is painted so it wouldn't appear well on videotape (remember how old CRTs wouldn't show up well on videotape because of how the scan lines were generated?) and they could build in a temporary storage function which would let you time-shift or do any other thing you wanted.
Think about it: this would give them everything they want. They could put A/V content on the web in a proprietary encrypted format, so they wouldn't have to worry about all us Linux guys downloading their precious files, people would have access to the content as part of their cable service, they'd get either a cheapo low-end model free or buy the premium system (the cell phone model)... And, everyone is happy. I can browse the non-DRM web with my Red Hat box, or turn on my content system when I want to do something requiring DRM. It's totally win-win.
Sometimes I think the MPAA and RIAA are asleep at the switch. None of these legal maneuverings are necessary! Build the little custom media system, stop producing videotapes, switch over to encrypted online streams and DVDs, and freakin' relax. Drop the idea that everything has to run on a PC, for Christ's sake.
Of course, this is just my opinion and they're not going to listen. But, wouldn't it be nice if they did?
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Consumers in both Europe and Japan currently purchase such content with minimal complaint
What are you talking about? What copy protected content do European consumers purchase? DVDs maybe but I heard they were available in the US too.
America will actually desire the copy protection if they are told it will lead to better sound and picture quality
So everyone will believe what they are told? Clearly there is no technical relation between better sound and picture quality and DRM.
Granted, he was working within the industry
And you believed what you were told.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
Digital copy protection schemes are usesless because it only take a good capture of the presentation of the material to defeat. Examples:
analog recording of stereo audio output from a
CD player; video camera in the movie theater. So long as the capture device can reproduce good enough quality of the presentation, it's a moot
point trying to protect the source.
The solution is not to lock up the source, but to
produce new content with quality that far outpaces the ability of capture devices to reproduce/re-transmit it.
Come on! Bring out the HDTV, HD-DVD, SACD, and holographic video and change people's definition
of "good-enough". It's still gonna be years before
the bandwidth is there to mass re-distribute contents of such high quality. If people are accustomed to watching color TV, would they revert to swapping tapes of black and white? The music/movie industries need to invest in their next big thing, and give consumer a reason to spend their money on something of extra value. Their old chicken that lays golden eggs is dead.
Eventually, there will come a point where technology would outpace human's ability to perceive any increase in quality. (Who needs
128bit color depth, when 32bit is more than quite
sufficient?). But it'll be a long time before the average joe gets a holodeck it his livingroom.
So what you're saying is:
.gov agents buying their bus tickets and carrying their buckets of water...
1. Hollywood wants DRM and wants the US.gov to add some laws to make it mandatory.
2. MS is saying that for DRM to work, everyone needs to have the latest version of Windows.
3. DoJ (a subsidary of US.gov) has proved in a court of law that MS is a monopoly and that is a no-no.
Conclusion: The US.gov has said that MS is not allowed to be a monopoly, yet is being paid by Hollywood to make sure that it becomes even more of a monopoly.
I can see the
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem