Slashdot Mirror


Real DRM

Cinematique writes "C|Net is reporting that RealNetworks has released a format-independent Digital Rights Management software called Helix DRM. Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper. And this is groundbreaking how? More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?"

290 comments

  1. Obnoxious by Ponty · · Score: 4, Troll

    Real has been moving toward this sort of thing for a long time. I don't know why anone sticks with them: their player is crap, they're just an obnoxious company, and they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

    1. Re:Obnoxious by march · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I don't know why the parent got modded down.

      The poster is actually correct. Real has been ticking off everyone I know for quite some time now (go ahead - try and find the free player on their site - it's hard!). The player rarely works, and when it does, it stutters. Firewalls? Forget about it...

      For one of the premire streaming media tools of the past (and the only one for linux back then), they have really gone down hill.

      As much as I would love to support them, it is becoming harder and harder. For them to put DRM restrictions on their player, well, that kind of put them over the edge for me...

    2. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to say it but all the tests I have done regarding quality of video delivery over the lower bandwidths show that the real codec shits over everything (QT-Sorenson/WMP).

    3. Re:Obnoxious by march · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but who doesn't have broadband these days? :-)

      Seriously though, maybe they do have a better low bandwidth codec, but it's like putting a Ferrari engine in a motorhome - you just can't appreciate the engine with all the other crap around it.

    4. Re:Obnoxious by Ponty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the most annoying thing they do is make the link to the free player a tiny, light grey string at the top of the page with the ad for the $40 (or whatever) player takes up the rest of the page. I've had to explain to two very smart people that there _is_, in fact, a free Real player.

      And I say that as someone who used their software back in '98, '99 to run a very popular, linux-based streaming audio app. It was great then, and I still appreciate what they made available for free. I understand that they need to make money, but it's possible to make money without being awful about it.

    5. Re:Obnoxious by march · · Score: 2

      Heh... actually, they remind me more and more of the X10 site... If you've been there, you know what I mean. :-)

    6. Re:Obnoxious by lseltzer · · Score: 2

      I agree, Real obviously works hard to make their player as intrusive and pushy as possible. RealOne periodically reminds you if you have made associations to a different media player, asks you if you want to switch them to RealOne and makes it very difficult to say no. If it weren't for Major League Baseball games I wouldn't have it on my computer. Windows Media Player is far more pleasant to use.

    7. Re:Obnoxious by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've had no such problems with RealOne and I've had it installed for probably 6+ months, of course the first thing I did was go in and turn off all annoying features like that and disabled startcenter, or whatever they called it in this release. RealPlayer has always been somewhat annoying by default, but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

      Yeah, and it's a pain in the ass to get rid of once it has been installed.

      I can always tell when my brother's friends have touched my laptop. Real Player has been installed, and there's a pr0n website for the IE homepage.

      c:\>format c:

    9. Re:Obnoxious by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Offtopic
      Troll=4, Insightful=1, Informative=2, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=3, Total=12.

      What a fantastic collection of mods!!! You must be very proud.

      For those of you who appear not to know. This post is 'offtopic'. The parent was not a troll, although it wasn't very polite. And this is not a flamebait, jerkass!!!! Ok, now it is, but it wasn't until then.

      Why can't you people mod up instead of down??

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    10. Re:Obnoxious by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's all true. Their software is an obnoxious piece of crap and I'm for one won't take it anymore -- I'm uninstalling it as we speak. The only thing I ever used it for is listening to Cartalk on NPR.com. If some site you like uses it, tell them you won't be returning until they get rid of realplayer for something else like streaming mp3.

      --
      I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
    11. Re:Obnoxious by banzai51 · · Score: 2

      The parent post most certainly is NOT a troll and is dead on. Let us not forget this is the same company that got caught installing spyware with their product even AFTER they claimed they had removed it. This company and their product is crap.

    12. Re:Obnoxious by Ponty · · Score: 2

      I agreee with you, but I would also point out that their Mac OS X client isn't all that bad. None of the "take over your system" traits as on the Windows side. And i still need it to get my C-SPAN fix; it's either that or Windows Media. Talk about rock and hard place.

    13. Re:Obnoxious by Snodgrass · · Score: 1

      Heh, I think that's the first (Score:5, Troll) I've ever seen.

    14. Re:Obnoxious by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      I'm most annoyed by RealOne Player automatically registering the MIME type of a file I opened with it to itself, even after setting the option not to "periodically check for file associations" for me. The only thing that keeps me from blinding hatred for Real is that they release their code a version after it's obsolete, keeping my complaint down to a low grumble.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    15. Re:Obnoxious by Eccles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Real has been moving toward this sort of thing for a long time. I don't know why anone sticks with them: their player is crap, they're just an obnoxious company, and they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

      But what about their open source initiative? Can one make a more tolerable player with that? (I tried sourceforge, but they're too busy for a search at the moment.)

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    16. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why does everyone bitch about MS or Real when they add DRM to their player.. The ability to do DRM in the player doesn't do anything on its own; it's the content providers that are placing restrictions on their media. For all the flack MS Media Player 9 has gotten, I'm still able to rip non-DRMd WMA files if I choose. If Real didn't enable DRM, every content provider would just switch to using MS for everything. Blame the content industry...Real and MS are just playing along with what the media companies want.

    17. Re:Obnoxious by bugnuts · · Score: 2

      lol, if I were modding I'd hit it with flamebait, offtopic, and a few more underrated to get it back up to Troll:5.

    18. Re:Obnoxious by GabrielStrange · · Score: 1
      I was actually really really happy when RealOne player came out, because it was the first RealVideo player for Linux that had the ability to go full screen. Before it came out, I'd have to change the monitor's resolution and then try to scroll the screen around until most of it was covered by the video I was watching.

      Of course I very quickly discovered that RealOne player's fullscreen mode messes up pretty badly when you're running Xinerama. Now if I click the fullscreen option, it tries to display the video centered across my entire Xinerama display, and for some reason the part that's supposed to show up on the right monitor doesn't show up at all. So what I get is the left half of the video displayed on the right half of my left monitor and the right monitor is effectively rendered useless.

      And I guess expecting them to add LIRC support so I can control it with my remote control is *utterly* ridiculous.

      --
      Please God, let me find my blue hat with the red trim. (Frances Farmer)
    19. Re:Obnoxious by shepd · · Score: 5, Funny

      >but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).

      So, you went through these steps then?

      - Tell it you don't want to register
      - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
      - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
      - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
      - Stop the automatic stuff from playing
      - Tell it not to play the automatic stuff again
      - Tell it you don't want start center enabled
      - Tell it you really wanted to do the above
      - Tell it you don't want the "latest" version
      - Tell it you don't want to register
      - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
      - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
      - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
      - Tell it you don't want to register
      - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
      - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
      - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real

      Yup, that's right, you have to redo a lot of the steps if you want to keep your realplayer private.

      Anyways, I'm sorry, but I get paid too much per hour to go through that trouble again. And on one job I'm only a dollar an hour away from minimum wage! They can keep their trash.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    20. Re:Obnoxious by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      all the flack MS Media Player 9 has gotten, I'm still able to rip non-DRMd WMA files if I choose

      But the default is to include DRM, no? Seeing how nearly all of the WMA files I have found on KazaaLite have DRM enabled, I find it hard to believe otherwise. And since most of what I download is non-copyrighted, this indicates that the people doing the ripping probably don't even know what DRM is; they just leave it turned on because it's the default.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    21. Re:Obnoxious by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      True.

      Does anyone know if the free version still contains spyware?

    22. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, it is on by default. Surprisingly, though, it didn't turn itself back on when I updated to MP9; it stayed off.

      Most of what you look for is non-copyrigted? Yeah, right...wink wink. Sounds like the biggest pain that everyone sees with DRM is that they can't play the music they find on Kazaa...

    23. Re:Obnoxious by Chris+Canfield · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget how Real takes over your desktop. There is a taskbar icon / program, a quicklaunch icon, a start menu icon, a desktop icon... It launches your MP3's, Audio CD's, DVD's, MPEGS, MusicNet... And while things have gotten better with RealOne (real used to crash if it started without the taskbar program running), it is still a RealBigPain.

      RealDRM means that I would be forced to use that nasty player instead of WinAMP, and that is never a good thing. At least WinAMP doesn't put in a Startup Screen, change your casebadge, put bumperstickers on your car...

      --
      This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
    24. Re:Obnoxious by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but who doesn't have broadband these days? :-)

      Ooh! Me! Right here!
      I don't have high speed.
      I work for an internet provider, and I connect at 33.6
      Damn stupid east bumfuck town!

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    25. Re:Obnoxious by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Let's also no forget that the software is so poorly written that running it on a Windows 9x machine is the kiss of death for your uptime.

      Yes, yes, the OS should never let one single errant program take down the whole machine. That's true, but that does not take away from the fact that Real is that one errant program that can bring your machine to a halt.

      I pride myself on my stable Windows boxen. My FreeBSD box getting months of uptime isn't impressive, because FreeBSD is very stable. But Windows when properly set up can be stable, too. One of the ways I keep all of my Windows machines stable is by simply NOT running software that I have noticed serious problems with.

      If you run Real on a Windows machine there is a very good chance you will require a reset within a day. Probably within the hour or sooner. I've seen it over and over again, recreated the situation, and proven it to enough people that I have single handedly turned dozens of people away from Real forever.

      Now they pull this shit. I hope they die a quick and painful death soon. Worse. I hope Microsoft buys them.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    26. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and after trying to download the free player (you are right, it is damn hard to find and most of the time they try to stear you away to the premium), I ended up at a download page for - windows! Damn, my browser even sends in "Linux" as the userid...

      And then real.com, www.real.com and realguide.real.com want to set cookies..very annoying.

      I have an old real player for linux (no ads I can see so far) because my prefered radio station (practically the only one) only delivers 44 kbit real (which sounds quite good) or 32 kbit mp3, which sounds like crap, especially when someone does speak.

      *sigh*

    27. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't be an issue if someone would get busy and reverse engineer the (shitty) codec.

    28. Re:Obnoxious by cyberformer · · Score: 2

      This is so stupid. I thought the business model was to sell the server, and give away the client for free. They're actually hurting themselves in the long run: If there isn't a free player that doesn't run unobtrusively, people will move to WMA, Ogg, MP3, etc.

    29. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a fellow CMU student and I personally completely missed the free thing for a while until my roommated poitned to the gray bar. Pricks.

    30. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they already reverse engineered it and that you could get the codec for winamp/XMMS. Try to find it...

    31. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a few problems here, and they are all with the grey areas. DRM is about more than stopping free music distribution, its about tracking, new distribution models and giving some contols / rights to manage the rights of those that work - skilfully - to create the content. It's as much about giving rights to people, as taking them away. If I compose music, i want the rights to stop others stealing it...whatever MY definition of stealing might be. If i'm to be famous and make money, i know i have to be commercial and provide a product people will want: good content worth paying for...and which people would want to steal. There are problems with big music companies being v short sighted and trying to keep all the money to themselves. They are slow, and tend to be reactionary instead of proactive. Let's face it, if i DRM an MP3...very few people will have a player compatible to play it back. I can't make a business out of that: poor user experience. REAL's solution looks poor compared with M$'s, which is one of their best products.

    32. Re:Obnoxious by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      I have an old real player for linux (no ads I can see so far) because my prefered radio station (practically the only one) only delivers 44 kbit real (which sounds quite good) or 32 kbit mp3, which sounds like crap, especially when someone does speak.

      Well the good news is that, with the Internet Broadcasting bill soon to come into full effect, you won't be needing to worry about that dilemma for much longer!

    33. Re:Obnoxious by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
      Worse. I hope Microsoft buys them.

      Ye gods, I hope not. Microsoft doesn't need to buy any help to make Windows less stable.

      Or perhaps this would be a double negative, and the new combined Windows would never crash again?

      BTW, I can take a fresh install of Win98 with nothing else installed and have it run for months if I don't touch it. That really isn't my definition of "stable", however. :-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    34. Re:Obnoxious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Firewalls? Forget about it...
      Everyone uses firewalls as a scapegoat these days. They are full of it.

      My ISP told me my email *stopped* (keyword stopped) working because of my firewall, which was there before my ISP was. Since email/firewall worked for a year, then all of a sudden it stops, I doubt the problem is in the firewall.

      -----end rant-----

      Firewalls cause little latency. I have seen Real streams that work great. Most don't. It is up to the content provider to make sure the server and network are not overutilized, and the files are built right. Real just makes the bloated inefficient server and client.

      l8,
      AC

    35. Re:Obnoxious by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      That's one way to make it stable, another is to avoid software that has serious problems.

      Any program can crash. Others can often fail to do what they're supposed to. But it takes something REALLY fucked up to bring a system down, and RealPlayer has demonstrated that they can do this better than anyone. Even better than Microsoft themselves. Spooky.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  2. parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper." Candy-bars have wrappers too, and they are typically removed, then the candy-bar is consumed.

    1. Re:parallel concept by medscaper · · Score: 5, Funny
      Candy-bars have wrappers too, and they are typically removed, then the candy-bar is consumed.

      Yeah, but most of the time when I unwrap a candy bar, I expect (and usually get) some _real_ content. In this case, it's just more Real(tm) crap.

      --
      Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
    2. Re:parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The music industry has rappers, and they end up getting shot by other rappers.

    3. Re:parallel concept by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Which just goes to prove, not even other rappers like rap.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ok, everyone, pregame briefing:

      if someone is poking around and accidentally cracks RealMedia's DRM, do not, i repeat, do not post it to slashdot, do not brag about in in IRC, and, for chrissake, do not incorporate into mplayer.

      let it look secure for a year or two so they can get corporate buy-in, and maybe base an internet movie rental service on it... ...then crack it.

    5. Re:parallel concept by lfourrier · · Score: 2

      I think than in a few year, you will find some EULA of the wrapper:
      By unwrapping the present wrapper, you agree to be bound to the following agrement:
      This product come with no health garanties.
      You agree to not sue us for bad touth or obesity.
      In the case where you put the candy in your mouth without first removing the wrapper, or employ other such derivative mesures to access the content without unwrapping it first, you must be warned that our candy contains bacteria encoding digital informations. This make you a DMCA violator, and you will be prosecuted to the full extend permitted by the law of our choosing.

    6. Re:parallel concept by Kooglebot · · Score: 1

      ``...I expect (and usually get) some _real_ content. In this case, it's just more Real(tm) crap.''

      Unfortunately, much useful, relevant (to me) and `non-crap' content is /only/ available in Real format. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. ``Wrapper'' in this context is just a euphemism for ``prison.''

    7. Re:parallel concept by Bobzibub · · Score: 2

      more like those cellophane wrappers that cds come in. They are soo annoying. Fingernails, teeth, pens--scratch up the case by the time you get in there. Great idea Real. ; )

      -b

    8. Re:parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War has soldiers, and they end up getting shot by other soldiers, which proves: not even soldiers like war.

      Hmm, nope, I don't think your logic is correct.
      About the best you can hope to prove from that is that some rappers don't like other rappers. Profound indeed!

    9. Re:parallel concept by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      you think soldiers like war...... Maybe a couple of fucked up ones.

      Yeh Man, good Buz, my mate got killed, bits everywhere, I whish I had my camera.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    10. Re:parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think soldiers like war...... Maybe a couple of fucked up ones.

      Heh... that's not what I said... It's almost certainly true that most soldiers don't like war (exactly why I picked the example, even), but you can't deduce that fact from the two points I gave at the start.

    11. Re:parallel concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can, umm... I'm gonig to shoot at you, do you like it, no. well maybe yes if you like that,but probably no.

      Anyhow it was a somebody shoot the DJ joke.

  3. Real... by mschoolbus · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Does anyone else have the feeling that Real has really gone downhill over the years? I mean, the Linux client seems unstable at best... But the Windows client, now I have sworn that thing was a virus of some sort at times, your system just doesn't seem right after you install it. Yes, they had a great idea, but I feel other formats have surpassed Real's 'quality'.

    This whole idea is completely unnecessary, I am sure it is just another way for you to send them your email address many more times than you already do for Real One...

    1. Re:Real... by Moloch666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When Real first came around I remember it being revolutionary. Being able to listen to streaming sound on a 56k modem. Even with video it was possible. Although, you couldn't actually see anything. Seems like they never improved anything sense then, their player just got worse.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    2. Re:Real... by MeanMF · · Score: 2

      Does anyone else have the feeling that Real has really gone downhill over the years?

      From what I've seen of their software, it hasn't gone downhill at all - it has always sucked. At least they don't verify that the email address that they make you fill in is real. :)

    3. Re:Real... by TheReckoning · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least they don't verify that the email address that they make you fill in is real. :)

      Hee hee hee...

      I always use "Bob@bob.com" for my emails when I have to enter an address and I'm pretty sure I won't actually need to receive important email about it. I feel sorry for that poor guy if he exists, because I suspect he gets a LOT of my SPAM. Sorry, Bob.

    4. Re:Real... by isorox · · Score: 1

      I always use "Bob@bob.com" for my emails when I have to enter an address

      I always use fuck@you.com :)

      You have to feel sorry for the people with short domain names like bob.com, me.com, you.com, spam.com etc.

    5. Re:Real... by steelframe · · Score: 1

      I agree with the virulent part. Has anybody else had the axcitement of waking up their desktop to see a field of blue REALPLAYER icons scattered around,or found that your media file extensions had been mysteriously changed to ".RP" even though you carefully avoided the default installation. Whenever I'm faced with having to re-install this product I get the feeling I'm about to drive into the used car department at a large dealershp and I slowly back away.

    6. Re:Real... by gooofy · · Score: 2, Informative

      For GNU/Linux there is a solution now: xine does pnm and rtsp real streaming. however, most codecs are available on x86 only. See the xine faq for details.

      I wonder how this will be affected if their drm crap really catches on among content providers :-/

      --
      time is a funny concept
    7. Re:Real... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Bah, why spam Bob when there are much better targets? I register stuff to bill.gates@microsoft.com and president@whitehouse.gov sounds like a nice target too. Wonder if the white house hunts spammers.

    8. Re:Real... by PyroPunk · · Score: 1

      Anytime I have to fill in an email address on a web site to download something I use administrator@domain.com. Let them spam themselves.

    9. Re:Real... by GlassUser · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always use support@ or postmaster@ the domain in the URI asking for my info, unless they have another one conveniently displayed on the page, then I might make use of that.

    10. Re:Real... by sporty · · Score: 2

      Geee, tnx. Remind me to mod you down forever.

      -bob@bob.com

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    11. Re:Real... by duren686 · · Score: 2
      At least they don't verify that the email address that they make you fill in is real. :)

      I always use "Bob@bob.com" for my emails ...

      I much prefer admin@real.com

      --
      Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
    12. Re:Real... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 2

      A lot of you out there like to use BillG@fuckmicrosoft.com when giving an email address to people like Real, or especially Microsoft. I'd like for you to stop. Please. That *is* a real address.

      Thank you.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    13. Re:Real... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Go here for info on what files and how and where to put Real codecs on a Windows machine - presumably Xine docs can tell you where to put them for Xine...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  4. Real and my PC by TheReckoning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've successfully kept any and all Real software of my machine for two years now, and not felt the least bit sad about it.

    At least on Windows machines, installing their software means you've installed a LOT of registry keys everywhere, plus you get several programs that default to starting with Windows.

    Even uninstalling it leaves crap everywhere. And their ad-ridden players are massively annoying.

    Quicktime is getting worse in the same way, but I'm more likely to download a Quicktime video than a Real one anyday.

    So do whatever you want, Real. I'll be happily counting the days until your extinction.

    1. Re:Real and my PC by Mark+(ph'x) · · Score: 1

      Quicktime is just horrible. Theres a key that starts up its tray icon in my hkeyallusers/.../Run registry key... and part of its plugin for IE restores that key everytime I use my browser. This really annoys me.

      In fact just having a brainwave, im going to use Norton to put the little tray icon thingo into quarantine. Take that! HAH!

      Ive never really liked Real*... it has that visual bloat that comes with ICQ, Gamespy and other advert laden programs.

      As far as DRM goes, there is still nothing stopping me from using VAC (Virtual Audio Cables)... a driver that gives me a few virtual soundcards that act as cables. I can play any content through 'VAC #1 In' and record 'VAC #1 Out' with say CoolEdit Pro streaming plain non-DRM content to disk. Perfect digital copy too.

      Unfortunately DRM will always be broken by people that try hard enough... just like the warez scene works. Hardware dongles have bit the dust with dongle emulators, nothing seems to protect data. All DRM does is annoy users with a legitimate reason to access data. Its a big annoying pain in the arse. I habitually crack all my legit games so I dont have to go through the motions of putting in the CD when I want to play them. Its annoying... and doesnt seem to stop illicit use.

      Anyway I can allways hear your DRM-Super-Mega-Zero-Alpha-Mp3 music... and sing it back to you (badly, im afraid)... would you like to come and attempt to put a DRM chip in my head? *brandishes axe* ;)

      --
      those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
    2. Re:Real and my PC by forgoil · · Score: 2

      Amen to this!

      Mpeg-4 is more useful (real's codec is too bad to be useful) and more standardised. And not only that, I want to choose my player, and then play whatever format I want in it. I don't care a dime about anything real player makes, because I will rather live without the content than use their worthless software.

    3. Re:Real and my PC by pmz · · Score: 2

      Even uninstalling it leaves crap everywhere. And their ad-ridden players are massively annoying.

      Spyware...you forgot to mention that RealPlayer is spyware (unless every configurable option is scrutinized and disabled appropriately).

      It's amazing how many programs try to peek in on what people are doing. PkZip did it for a while, Windows XP & Media Player, RealPlayer, Netscape Download Manager, websites that use cookies--all of you marketeers just need to mind your own business!

    4. Re:Real and my PC by NexusTw1n · · Score: 3, Informative
      in fact just having a brainwave, im going to use Norton to put the little tray icon thingo into quarantine. Take that! HAH!

      Or you could simply uncheck the box in Quicktime preferences that says load into system tray at startup...
      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Real and my PC by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not a Linux user. Until Apple change their minds and release Quicktime for *nix, RealPlayer is all you've got for movie trailers and streaming content. Yes, I hate Real's website, the way they bury the free player under a ton of advertising and the irritating default options (StartCenter sucks), but at least they're supporting an alternative platform.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    6. Re:Real and my PC by billatq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mplayer works quite well for quicktime, as does the crossover plugin..I don't see any reason to bother installing the real crap to try to view movie trailers now.

    7. Re:Real and my PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.. you're using Norton to "quarantine" the try icon? moron..

      1. Right-click the QT icon
      2. click "QuickTime Preferences"
      3. Deselect "QuickTime system tray icon"

      There was probably an option during installation to turn this on or off.

      That was a warped brainwave.. Mabye the monitor frequencies interfered?

    8. Re:Real and my PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... no, im using the Quarantine to hold the qttask.exe which is responsible for the tray icon.

      Quicktime control panel has no option for system tray icons. This is quicktime 5 pro i think... maybe there was a option at install, but i doubt it. Anyways i shouldnt have to reinstall crap to change preferences like that :/

      I liked the brainwave! it worked well... though maybe i couldve just flipped off the execute permission, but its not as fun ;)

  5. This Just Goes to Show... by Zech+Harvey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    It's not about what's good for the customer -- It's about what is good for the competitor. Something like: "Who cares if the little guy wants this or not, Microsoft will make their DRM work and we need to have something even more DRM-ish to compete!"

    --
    Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
  6. Consumer demand ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, does this respond to any consumer demand ? Or does RealNetworks' Marketting department just runs a net bot that crawls on the front page of slashdot ?

    1. Re:Consumer demand ? by gzur · · Score: 2, Funny

      Real grasping for straws I guess, no wonder either, I haven't let any thing Real get within 2 meters of my system for the last two years either. I mean, their windows and Linux clients sucks(AnnoyWareOfDeath) and their compression standards suck, no wonder they're trying to jump onto the DRM bandwagon, I would too, and barring that I'd become a plumper. :P

      --
      [sig]It's a secret to everybody[/sig]
  7. Real's business model. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    1. give out free player and charge for server
    2. lose market share to every other game in town
    3. come up with proprietary protection that no one will use.
    4. ???
    5. no profit
    6. bankruptcy!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Real's business model. by MeanMF · · Score: 4, Informative

      You forgot:
      3a. Sue people who complain that your software stealthily collects data from your computer
      3b. Sue people who create software that lets you convert RealMedia files to standard formats like mp3
      3c. Whine to the Justice Department about Microsoft

    2. Re:Real's business model. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK so it's a joke but here is what I really think their thought process was....

      1. give out free player and charge for the server and better player software
      2. get exclusive content deals (that's what the DRM is for)
      3. profit

      Really their only problems are
      A) Most have trouble finding the free player so they never see the content and as such are losing marketshare
      B) Adding a great deal of features that most users will not use or want and putting them into the free player
      C) Continous bolting on new features to a dead horse and entering it into the derby

      Simple situation to fix, just improve your customer relations and the software you provide. All things that should be part of their core goals and competancies.

      pm

    3. Re:Real's business model. by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      Well, I believe they make money from AOL since any install of AOL also installs RealPlayer, without letting the user know.

  8. Free handcuffs for everyone!!.. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool!.. if you are into S/M.. ;)

  9. As much as I hate DRM.. by stephenisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least this is being made by a company with a history of providing some linux clients. If their DRM tools are more popular than Microsofts stuff we might be able to actually buy online media with anyones OS of choice. I do realize that Microsoft is making efforts in that field, but I don't like there stuff on my box. Just a personal rule.

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    1. Re:As much as I hate DRM.. by oliverthered · · Score: 2

      You can do that today if you want.
      besonic
      Some of the music makes a point of being 'free'

      Now if only someone started that for films......

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:As much as I hate DRM.. by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "At least this is being made by a company with a history of providing some linux clients."

      Here we see the difference between Linux and GNU. Just because it runs on a free operating system does not make RealPlayer any less vile. Infact, one of the things I most dislike about Mandrake 8.1 is the inclusion of such software.

      Does free software matter not in the new linus cult of "Let's take all the proprietry crap we can find and run it on linux"? You may as well run windows (from a stability viewpoint, as much as a freedom one, if you have RealPlayer installed) -- what's the use of GNU/Linux, if you're just going to run it as MS/Real/Linux?

    3. Re:As much as I hate DRM.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPEG4IP has a broadcaster and client that are compatible with the QuickTime streaming servers. The open source QTSS, "Darwin Streaming Server", runs on linux and is FREE.

      Why should Apple worry itself with porting the QT client to linux when MPEG4IP, as well as the CrossOver QuickTime plugin, already work?

    4. Re:As much as I hate DRM.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, yeah, I can't wait for the Linux version of DRM to come out. It'll be faster, stabler, and twice as restrictive!

  10. baksjdljksa by hfastedge · · Score: 1

    More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?

    At some point, it will begin.

    --

    -- -- --

    Help my mini cause: My journal

    1. Re:baksjdljksa by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 2

      More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?

      Yes. Why else would they release it?

  11. And next year they release... by MosesJones · · Score: 2


    Helix 2 or "Double Helix" as it becomes known.

    The year after they patent "double helix" as a term in the scientific community. Then the sue everyone who dares to publish double helix material.

    Twelve months on they go bust.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  12. Real's Great Idea... by medscaper · · Score: 2
    Yes, they had a great idea,

    Real had a great idea? Why didn't they do a press release or something?

    Damn! Why do I always miss on on these things that everyone else seems to know?

    --
    Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
  13. Analysts usually manage to miss the point... by altgrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That this can support MP3 and MPEG-4 is significant because up until now you haven't seen adoption of these formats by major content providers because they lacked digital rights management,"

    It's not significant in the slightest. The reason MP3 and such formats are popular is because they're open. Just because Real are adopting open standards and making them closed doesn't mean that consumers will benefit from it.

    However, the PHBs will love it, because it contains both MP3 (popular with consumers, but see above) and DRM (popular with the accounts department).

    (I know that MP3 isn't totally open as there are patent issues, but I think my point remains.)

    --


    Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
    1. Re:Analysts usually manage to miss the point... by Drakonian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmmm. I'd say MP3 is popular because it's ubiquitous and can easily be had free-as-in-beer, not because it's open.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    2. Re:Analysts usually manage to miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mp3, open? i thought it was owner by some german people... i could be wrong, but if my memory serves me right there was a story on slashdot about this a few months ago.

    3. Re:Analysts usually manage to miss the point... by Delos · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a brilliant insight.

      Why do you suppose it's ubiquitous? Why do you suppose there's so much free-as-in-beer content? Could it have anything to do with the umpteen players and encoders available? Any might there be so many because the specs are available? (I wouldn't say "open" given the patent situation.)

  14. Real keeps trying... by Ogrez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To push anything that will get all producers and all consumers using their product, its a desperate grasp to finally get market share. After you download the most recent real player, you have to download a pre-release patch to view the DRM demo, Im sure that to use the DRM, the content producers will have to use Real producer, forcing the consumers to (for now) at very least use the free player...

    If Real can convince enough content producers to switch to protect their interests (people stealing their content), they will force consumers to switch, and then they have both sides paying whatever ransom they want.. and when someone trys to make another player that supports the format, they run screaming DMCA! DMCA!... its garbage...

    --


    Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
    1. Re:Real keeps trying... by nmg · · Score: 1

      they will force consumers to switch

      How, exactly, can they do this again?

    2. Re:Real keeps trying... by Ogrez · · Score: 1

      consumers go where the pron is... if they only way the masses can get their streaming fun is via realplayer, they will download the "Free" player.

      --


      Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
  15. But OGG is GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    How can they do this to OGG? I'm sure the GPL will then force them to disclose any information about whatever wrapping they do, which will leave them open so all other formats can be 'unwrapped'. I can't see them doing this, but maybe we should be a bit quiet about it, let it happen, then make them uncover everything.

    1. Re:But OGG is GPL by og_sh0x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GPL affects source code, not output files. If they use an existing OGG file and then encrypt it and slap on a header they've "wrapped" the file without touching the source code.

    2. Re:But OGG is GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ogg isnt gpl thats why

    3. Re:But OGG is GPL by logic7 · · Score: 1

      On the other side, if real just implemented an encryption wrapper that would allow for "stealing" the original file after unwrapping, calling this DRM would be really cheap. not worth mentioning or even throwing out a press release.

    4. Re:But OGG is GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ogg Vorbis libraries aren't GPL licenced. They use a BSD-like one.

    5. Re:But OGG is GPL by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      I'm sure the GPL will then force them to disclose any information about whatever wrapping they do

      again... people that do not understand the GPL making statments that are very untrue and is helping to spread Microsoft lies as to how VIRAL the GPL is.

      the GPL doesnt care if I stick an OGG file into a blender.. Hell I can write a CLOSED SOURCE ogg player, I only have to profide the sourcecode to what is playing the OGG file... my frontend and GUI can be 100% closed source code that has a "I can come to your house and kill you for no reason" clause in it.

      the GPL applies to the code it is protecting.. if my code talks to the OGG player or the OGG plugin for winamp it doesnt magically require everything to be open source!!!!!

      Gpl protects the content of the files it is protecting... it does NOT viciousally attack everything around it.

      stop spreading lies about the GPL... please.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Personal Views & MP9 DRM by FrankConners · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is my personal opinion that Real Network doesnt choose to listen what the consumers want in a media client. This is why they are loosing in the market. Personally, I gave up using Real Player during 7.0 and it was tedious using their client back then. Now they have added DRM to their bloated clients. Real Media is heading in the opposite direction, if they intend to grab some of their market share back. I hope this aint going off topic, but I read on Reuters that Microsoft intends to release their DRM software on the Linux Platform, providing the Linux Community does steal the code for their own benefits. Would this mean just the DRM component or will we see Media Player 9 for Linux Distributions? Time will only tell..... Nevertheless I am really enjoying using Mplayer, since it can play any formats imaginable.

    --


    -----

    "I cant teach..... Im a Professor!"
  17. The main benefit... by mmoncur · · Score: 2, Informative

    The main benefit of this (if DRM can have a benefit) appears to be that it would simplify things for hardware makers who want to support multiple formats.

    Of course, consumers don't seem to want anything but the MP3 format, and they don't want DRM at all... it's just a press release. If there was any real consumer demand for it we'd be hearing about it from its supporters before the official press release...

    For what it's worth, here's Real's Technical Details about Helix DRM. It's a bit light on the specifics, though.

    --

    It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
    1. Re:The main benefit... by debrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no end-consumer demand for digital rights, per se, but there is certainly content producer demand for digital rights. I suppose content producers are consumers as well; as such, they want to protect their content, and in turn create demand for digital content restrictions.

      There may be indirect demand for DRM insofar as it procures an environment conducive to content that consumers demand. In other words, without DRM there there may be less digital content produced under high demand.

      We will see, I guess.

  18. More like... by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fake DRM.

    There's a reason Apple Computers has yet to enter the DRM market on a serious level, and it's because their CEO knows a bit about programming and realizes that, aside from NP complete-type problems, there's nothing a computer can't solve in a short amount of time with enough hardware thrown at it.

    Apple knows that DRM is futile, so they don't waste billions of dollars making some half-assed version of content management. Yet they still continue to profit.

    I advise M$ and Real to both "get real" and stop trying to convince the content makers that there actually is DRM code that works.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:More like... by isorox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They did get real. They know that any "protection" they put on their "content" will be no more complex then ROT13. However they have the DMCA - doesnt matter if the DRM stuff is any good, as long as it's illegal to own or distribute a tool that can be used to break it. 90% of people that currently nab mp3's and divx's off edonkey wont when they have to go to the trouble of installing a non-DRM signed program-to-break-drm onto their computers. Especially when any efforts to do this will be reported to the FBI, department of religious purity, department of homeland security and Microsoft Marketting.

    2. Re:More like... by nochops · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular opinion, Microsoft and Real et al are not in business to make products that work well, weather they're marketing those products to consumers like us, or media providers (in this case).

      These companies are in business to make money, and that little thing we like to call "the truth" means very little to them. They have no qualms about telling bald face lies to anyone who is potentially a customer, as does any advertising firm.

      I know it's just semantics, but I think it's important for people to remember that these companies are not in business to make anything other than money for themselves.

      --
      "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    3. Re:More like... by Baki · · Score: 2

      We can only hope that the content providers are stupid enough to believe in this (or any other) fake DRM. Then they release their contents, and if the "hackers" can restrain themselves long enough, it can all be copied anyway.

    4. Re:More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I advise M$ and Real to both "get real" and stop trying to convince the content makers that there actually is DRM code that works.
      M$ did "get real." They realized that implementing DRM would require some extreme and brutal measures that nobody wants. But they are very good (the best in history?) experts at dealing with the "nobody wants" issue, so that didn't scare them. They got to work on the "brutal" part, and it's called Palladium. Some of the ideas are being tested in the real world right now, in the XBox.
    5. Re:More like... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2
      Honestly, I think between the DMCA and Palladium, DRM is going to be forced down our throats whether we like it or not.

      It's just a matter of time.

      --

      Liberty.

    6. Re:More like... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Apple knows that DRM is futile, so they don't waste billions of dollars making some half-assed version of content management. Yet they still continue to profit.--

      Not trolling but Apple in fact has been loosing money lately. Check out this link.

      http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/oct/16earni ng s.html

  19. DRM - Digital rights monopoly by !Squalus · · Score: 5, Informative

    DRM is only meant to maintain the rights of the RIAA and MPAA and nothing else. The digital formats for music have been under attack simply because the mguls had not figured out any way to successfully squeeze every dollar out of the digital scene. DRM is a non-starter, but unless we stop governance by the body corporate, we may have no other choice to obtain music other than enlightened artists who want to reach a different auidence.

    Make a difference - support EFF, or write your Congress jerk. Ask them to stand up for the rights of citizens over the rights of the corporations for a change.

    DRM and corporate greed. It's all about selling out to tell you what entertainment should be. This announcement brought to you by the good folks at the RIAA who remind you that you don't own music when you buy a CD - didn't you read your EULA.

    Where can you listen tomorrow?

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
    1. Re:DRM - Digital rights monopoly by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      we may have no other choice to obtain music other than enlightened artists who want to reach a different auidence.


      here you go

      turn off your radio, and get away from your CD's and kazaa..

      sit down for 1 week and listen only to IUMA music and you will find that with a little bit of effort you can get completely away from RIAA music and listen to some really cool and good music.

      you can do the same with the MPAA... watch only indie films. there are some really good producers and film-makers out there that are not in it to make a bajillion dollars. and yes the special effects are cheezy, but it's entertainment, if you are entertained, then it was successful :-)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:DRM - Digital rights monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      DRM is only meant to maintain the rights of the RIAA and MPAA and nothing else.
      Maintain the rights? No. It is meant to increase the power of those organization, by taking rights away from others. It is an aggressive move, not a defensive one.
    3. Re:DRM - Digital rights monopoly by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "DRM is only meant to maintain the rights of the RIAA and MPAA and nothing else"

      Let's not keep hitting the RIAA decoy target. DRM is there to screw the customers of Virgin records, who represent Massive Attack

    4. Re:DRM - Digital rights monopoly by F1D094 · · Score: 0

      Dear Corporate America,

      Want to lose me as a customer? Try and market to (abuse) me while you have me as a "captive audience". This is what I think of you and your "products":

      1. Television - No more. Obvious reasons.
      2. Movie Theatres - Harkins, AMC, other sell-outs? No thank you. If I want to *pay* to be shown commercials...well, see #1. Thankfully I live in the vicinity of a Madstone Theatre! http://www.madstonetheatres.com (No commercials, *real* food, wine, beer, and quality flicks!)
      3. Phone service - QWest? Sorry guys, the RJ-11 in my home lies dead because the money I paid you for service wasn't enough. You felt it was necessary to sell my info to telemarketers and then turn around and push "caller-id" up my arse.
      4. Pop-up ads - How rude...wallpaper your site with banners if you wish, but why would you want to piss-off someone you are trying to sell to? Mad props to the folks who make things like http://www.proxomitron.org and http://www.mozilla.org happen!
      5. AdWare/SpyWare - One question for you folks "Where do you buy your crack?"


      6. And last but not least:

      7. ArseWare(Demo-versions that install/uninstall poorly or not at all, try and sneak a proprietary format into the mainstream and/or come along with heavy handed EULA's) - As the name implies, you know where to put it.
      I must say, its amazing. Real Networks wins the ArseWare Prize time and again and yet they're still in business. How? They're products are bloated, slow, expensive and entirely proprietary. Who is using this crap and keeping them afloat?

      I'm not trying to troll...really. I'd like to know who actually finds they're products worthwhile. (Any of them, not DRM wrapper specific) I'd also like to know of any content that you can't get in an alternative format? Apparently I'm surfing in the wrong waters.

      $0.02 please.
      --
      Advice is like cooking. You should try it before feeding it to others.
  20. I'm all for it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't you?

    It means we'll be able to pay twice the amount for the same old shit :)

  21. well, something tells me that by frenetic3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    it'll easy for them to enforce their DRM, since they've made a couple million computers their bitches after having installed RealPlayer...

    i guess we now know what those 94 "helper" processes that Real products always run on startup were, and what all those hidden registry keys were for :P

    and you figure that they've collected your e-mail address at least 66 times on installation.

    i wish they'd at least be honest with me and change their tray icon to a picture of Satan ramming me in the ass.

    (AND NO, I DON'T WANT TO AUTOMATICALLY FUCKING CHECK FOR UPDATES! CHRIST!) :P

    -fren

    --
    "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    1. Re:well, something tells me that by Alric · · Score: 2

      Holy fuck. That's too funny.

    2. Re:well, something tells me that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you figure that they've collected your e-mail address at least 66 times on installation.

      The only e-mail address they ever get from me is a@a.a :)

      although, it just occurs to me, I should tick all the boxes and sign up as something like sales@real.com.

    3. Re:well, something tells me that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the funniest thing I have read online in months. Hats off to you.

      Not only did it describe my feeling exactly, but the visual is just too much.

      Three cheers for you! I wish I could mod this up.

  22. AOL Requires Real by TheReckoning · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I finished building a Windows machine for my brother the other day, and he uses AOL. So I installed the AOL 8.0 CD (you can imagine how hard it was for me to run that setup program deliberately), and to my surprise, one of the hundred Real pieces of software were installed (Real Player? Real One? I don't remember).

    So I uninstalled it ASAFP, and then AOL bitched that it wasn't present so I reinstalled it.

    That along with the MANY directories full of shite sofware AOL put on the machine (without my permission), makes me hate AOL all the more.

    And now they've screwed up Winamp, by releasing the 3.0 bloatware version that takes a good 5 seconds to load on a 933MHz PIII. That's inexcusable. They've screwed up everything they've touched.

    1. Re:AOL Requires Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That along with the MANY directories full of shite sofware AOL put on the machine (without my permission), makes me hate AOL all the more.

      Welll... You did give your permission. But installing the disk...

      And now they've screwed up Winamp, by releasing the 3.0 bloatware version that takes a good 5 seconds to load on a 933MHz PIII. That's inexcusable.

      Oh my Lord! 5 seconds! Good gosh! It's the end of the world, you can't listen to music you ripped off instently! Jesus, I know this is going to get modded to Flame / Troll, but get a grip!

  23. Even Ogg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I admit I'm no expert on Open Source licensing but can't DRM be restricted on the OGG format. I mean this format is *ours. Can't the licence be used to enusre DRM is not used on the format. I know this may turn away many content providers but who cares, those that stay will have proved themselves.

    1. Re:Even Ogg? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2

      If it's a wrapper, then it's not changing the format. It's kinda like archiving it with a password. The format hasn't changed, but there is a middleware delivery system.

      Incidentally, this is the same approach that MS took with their media OS. They wrap an MPEG2 file in a WMA wrapper, then store it on the hard disk. This makes it easy to add DRM in, as you only have to set up DRM for one format (This is probably also why they chose to support only full-hardware mpeg capture, to reduce overhead. But that's another story).

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  24. Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by TerryAtWork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it's licence supposed to keep it wide open?

    Or is it so liberal that it lets anyone do anything they want with it?

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      OGG is a BSD-like license, IIRC, so I'd say no - you'd be free to not only modify the code any way you see fit, but surely the output of the program.

      But say it was GPL, do the terms of the GPL apply to the output of a program?! That's ludicrous. Would a graphic artist who uses Gimp have to give has work away for free? Does your tax return belong to Intuit because you used TurboTax?

      I don't think anything you do to an applications output has anything to do with the applications license.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by rthille · · Score: 2

      So, it's illegal for me to record one of my songs in OGG, then encrypt it so I can put it on my website and still only have my friends listen to it? Wow, that's some license...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    3. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by vjzuylen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The codecs and the file format itself are open, true, but anyone (including RealWhatsitsface) can do whatever they like with the files once those have been created. So it's perfectly legal to compress, wrap, distribute or even sell the files themselves. However, Vorbis-encoded files with a DRM wrapper probably can't retain the OGG format extension, as this would cause unnecessary confusion and player incompatibilities.

      --

      Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
    4. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      GPL is not free as in free to rip me off it's free as in you must release me.

      If you don't like not being able to restrict the freedom of something that you recorded in OGG then your not repecting OGG and shouldn't be using it.

      OK OGG SFAK is BSD (please rip me off) license, so your free to rip them off if you want to.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Ummnh... did you see the story earlier this week about Intuit's new licensing (an protection) scheme? I think Intuit believes that your tax return *does* belong to them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by rthille · · Score: 2

      You missed my point. If the OGG license restricts how it can be wrapped, then would it be possible to enforce a lincense which says that you can distribute the content, but not wrapped in TCP packets?
      Real doesn't have to modify the OGG format, nor use any existing software (and be bound by that license). So why shouldn't Real be able to take an open file format (OGG), and encrypt it any wrapper they like? How would a license which restricts that be enforcable? You can't copyright file formats...

      But if the OGG license restricts the content represented by that format I'd be surprised.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I believe thats the difference between GPL and LGPL.

      The point of open formats (apart from the evil commie thing) is that
      1: 20 years from now you'll still be able to access your data.
      2: You can access you data without relying on a third party. (they may start charging for reading content).

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  25. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And this is groundbreaking how?"

    So you submitted this why?

  26. Groundbreaking? by nochops · · Score: 1

    "And this is groundbreaking how?"

    And this is "Stuff that matters" how? If you're saying yourself that's it's pretty much not important, then why are you posting it?

    --
    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
  27. Next please by tbmaddux · · Score: 2
    1. Unwrap the DRM wrapper.
    2. Copy the DRM-free digital media.
    3. ...
    4. PROFIT!!!
    --
    Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    1. Re:Next please by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      1 Unwrap the DRM wrapper.
      2 Copy the DRM-free digital media.
      3 ...
      4 PROFIT!!!

      5. Get arrested for violating DMCA
      6. Flip the RIAA, MPAA, and a federal judge "The Bird"
      7. Spend 25 to life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    2. Re:Next please by jorgen · · Score: 1
      1 Unwrap the DRM wrapper.
      2 Copy the DRM-free digital media.
      ...
      7. Spend 25 to life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

      0 1 - just my two bits

      Actually, 1..7 requires three bits. :)

  28. Re:DRM adoption by eXtro · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you had any faith in humanity you would feel offended that DRM was being foisted upon us. I'm not against DRM any more than I am against copy protection on software. I just think the concept itself has always been fundamentally flawed. Content producers spend millions on developing the next generation of software to stop people from accessing information they aren't entitled to while hundreds of hackers go to work on defeating the technology. Your millions of dollars in development buy you a few weeks or months of protection.


    For software maybe this is adequate, after a few months most packages are relegated to the bargain shelves, but for audio or video it really accomplishes nothing. People routinely watch movies or listen to music that are decades old.


    A better investment would be to spend some time determining how to get the most people to pay for their product. This might be reducing the costs and charging less per piece (good old economics: supply and demand) or just admitting that a certain number of people will not pay for it, but hey, we're still wildly profitable.

  29. MOD PARENT UP. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 2

    This isn't a great post but it is NOT trolling.

    The player is CRAP. I use on my windows xp box an older version of Real Player because I got tired of the RealONE player hijacking my system. You turn the fscking thing off and reboot and back it came asking to FIX my associated files.

    And the free player is buried about 4 to 5 webpages deep. Real pain in the butt to find for a install on a new system.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  30. stone age license serving by D0wnsp0ut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you check out Helix DRM's Specs, you find this gem:

    "We recommend that you upgrade to the latest stable Linux 2.2.x kernel, which is available at kernel.org. We do not recommend using any Linux 2.3 or 2.4 kernels, because RealNetworks License Server has not been thoroughly tested with these newer kernels."

    So we can expect 2.4 support around the time 2.8 comes out?

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
    1. Re:stone age license serving by nolife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is this from the server software for serving clients? IMHO it is not a bad idea to have a server dedicated to serving these streams and the use of an older kernel is not that bad for a single purpose machine if it truely is more stable. Now if this server is your all in wonder box answering for a majority of your /etc/services and used for local X sessions it may not be a stable stream provider regardless of what kernel you have.

      Just a thought..

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    2. Re:stone age license serving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So we can expect 2.4 support around the time 2.8 comes out?"

      Bet that the quote from Helix was at a time when Linus was (unintentionally) giving us rotten turkey for the thanksgiving release and let us not forget the VM switcharoo and numerous kernal patches that some are still using under the 2.4 kernels. I would give Helix a break when they recommend a stable kernel that has a proven track record for mission critical apps. Yes if you serve content for a living it is mission critical.

  31. Problems from a consumers point of view by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Supports multiple usage rights -- Content owners have the ability to issue licenses for playback of a specific duration, playback during a specific window of time, and to limit the number of plays for each media file distributed.

    Supports multiple ways to screw the consumer, how many times will companies try Divx before they realize this IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. People like unlimited use almost as much as free stuff, if you give them a decent product at an even somewhat fair price with unlimited use they like it, but even hint that they will lose their ability to enjoy something they bought and they quickly become unhappy. Think of the ISP market in the US, many many people could get by on one of the lower cost X hour/month plans but almost no one uses them because it's easier to budget for a somewhat larger amount than to pay for a smaller more reasonable piece and pay for overflow once in a while.

    Helix DRM enables a wide range of Consumer Electronics (CE) devices to support multiple secure formats by offering two models for integration: native support or transfer to secure memory.

    You either need a device that already has some DRM built in that Real blesses as secure or you need a new player probably with an expensive "works with Real" liscense. Got an iPod? Too bad go away you can't view our content, mp3 cd player, too bad, etc.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  32. They can do it to ogg'y! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few posters seem confused about the ogg format with this DRM...

    The DRM is a wrapper, much like .zip is a compression wrapper. The original format is not changed once de-compressed/de-crypted, so yes, they can do it to ogg files :(

  33. The conversation by Ogrez · · Score: 3, Funny

    Real salesman: Okay, we are going to sell you the software to produce secure content using our digital rights management for 2 hoojillion dollars, BUT!, you will make 3 hoojillion dollars more knowing that nobodoy is pirating your content. AND! We will provide the consumers with a free player to make things easier for you.

    Content Producer: But what happens when all the consumers give you the finger and nobody looks at my content..what happens when you try to sell me "patches" and "upgrades" to realproducer once im stuck using the format..what happens when people get tired of your crappy "client"...

    --


    Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
    1. Re:The conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real salesman: Ok, if your customers don't like the player you can write one for yourself or try one of the base-case open players on helixcommunity.org.
      As for the realproducer you don't have to worry about us changing things, the code is free/open for the producer so you never have to take any patches from us and you can develop new features/fixes on your own if you really don't want ours.
      As for getting stuck with a certain format... if you're really worried about that feel free to use Vorbis formats for everything, the Real producer+server+player+drm all support vorbis.

  34. Questions about Helix DRM by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Helix only intended for use with RealPlayer? I've been avoiding their content and cleitn like the plague anyway these past few years....... why would anybody opt to use RealPlayer to play MP3 and OGG to play music, when there are plenty of other unfettered options out there to use?

    Just look at Winamp -- support for multiple OS's, native support for OGG and MP3, and now with support for video. I've even dumped Windows Media Player for it....... Winamp may not be as robust yet (3.0 does have some bugs, lacks some features), but it definitely isn't saddled with as much DRM baggage, either.

    1. Re:Questions about Helix DRM by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 2

      actually, winamp's had the ability to play video for awhile now. with a mass array of plugins for winamp and it's support for the modding crowd, it's probably the most flexible media player available. however, winamp is owned by AOL-time warner. I wonder if AOL will simply leave it be or if they'll eventually jump on the DRM bandwagon and fuck winamp up.

  35. Goodbye Liquid by Stonehead · · Score: 2

    This is exactly what Liquid Audio always has been: some stupid closed-source wrapper around AAC files. Has anyone seen Liquid innovating on top of that? But they are supported by the content industry. As a result, they have even more cash than they'll ever make themselves! If I were Real, I would be stupid if I didn't want to compete with them this way - money is always welcome...

  36. Abba made a song about this.. by Mabidex · · Score: 1

    Money, money Monaey!!!

    Currently MS has their DRM solution for providers, and the major records and film producers. Why Money of course...

    Open DRM would be a less costly solution to them, but the fact that it's "Open" probably doesn't make them a real contender for business... no Money

    Real is looking at the long term, and is producing software to compete in a new video/audio world where folks will want to rent movies or whatever over the line (cable/dsl)
    It's a good thing to Real's investors to see that they are not left behind in the dust by MS, and would like the fact that they are competeing for the same Entertainment dollars now... 'mo Money!

    Remember money makes the world go around, otherwise we would lose our sense of reality...

    Mabidex

  37. I'd accept DRM. by haeger · · Score: 2
    Provided I could keep my rights as a consumer.

    I'd like to be able to copy my cd's, make mp3 (or ogg) out of them, give a cd of good songs to my father and stuff like that.

    If DRM can let me keep those rights and still be accepted by the media companies, I'd accept it too.
    Atleast if the other option is that I lose all these rights through legislation and copy protected cd's that won't let me make mp3 or copy them.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:I'd accept DRM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      give a cd of good songs to my father and stuff like that

      That's already illegal! That's not a right of yours!

    2. Re:I'd accept DRM. by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Guess what? Giving a CD of good songs to your father is not one of your rights under copyright.

      Making a mix cd for yourself is one, as is changing the format, but distribution of one or more than one is prohibited.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    3. Re:I'd accept DRM. by haeger · · Score: 2
      Guess what? Giving a CD of good songs to your father is not one of your rights under copyright.

      Actually it is. Where I live we still have the right to give away copies of our CD's to our "closest friends". The same goes for movies. Doing it with software is illegal however.

      What "relatives and closest friends" are is up to the court to decide if someone thinks you have too many friends (ie spread your files too much).

      Wanna know the country?

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    4. Re:I'd accept DRM. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Guess what? Giving a CD of good songs to your father is not one of your rights under copyright.

      In the United States, it effectively is. That is, although it would violate section 106 of the Copyright Act, section 1008 says that the copyright owners can't sue him for it.

      If something is against the law, but the law specifically says that there can be no punishment for it, is it really against the law?

  38. maybe it's just me, but, by frenetic3 · · Score: 1

    every time a story involving Real comes up, i can't help but visualize jesus in the big lebowski:

    "laughable, man - haha! i was gonna fuck you in the ass saturday. i fuck you in the ass next wednesday instead. wooo! you got a date wednesday, baby!"

    --
    "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    1. Re:maybe it's just me, but, by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      8-year olds, dude.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  39. Sure they do by porkface · · Score: 1
    So now michael is trolling in the posts?

    Of course Real expects people to adopt this or they wouldn't have developed it. We should all just be happy that there's finally an alternative to the Microsoft DRM.

    1. Re:Sure they do by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      That bit in italics (ie the entire summary) is written by the poster. Unless michael is putting words into the mouth of the submitter, no, he isn't trolling.

      (The submitter of the story is, of course, but that's a different matter, and of course, the editors get to choose which of the doubtless several submissions actually get published...)

    2. Re:Sure they do by porkface · · Score: 1
      Now I feel like a simp. I'm used to the last sentance or so being from the editor. Thanks for making me check my work.

      I should save attacking michael's excessive zeal for when he's actually guilty. ;-)

  40. Well now this just makes it Real easy! by ahknight · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think about it: one DRM for a ton of formats (indeed, this sounds like any file). Tons of people putting this on MP3, Real, WMA, AC3, etc.

    This is a GOOD THING.

    Break one scheme and get tons of formats for free! ;)

  41. michael sets the precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for modding down. He circles over his own stories like some kind of hypocritical badger-vulture, modding down anything that seems vaguely trollish or critical of him.

    That seems very hypocritical of a person who talks so much about how bad censorship is, doesn't it?

    read more .

  42. Ogg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad the GPL doesn't say something like to prevent wrapping, since wrapping does not change the format REAL can get away with it. Of course then I guess you couldn't archive it either.

    Maybe the GPL should have a provision that anything wrapping the content should also be open.

    1. Re:Ogg by m1chael · · Score: 1

      no. ogg is just a compression technique / format, so unless they change the format they can do whatever they want. i dont see what all the fuss is about. where is palladium anyway?... pow! pow! pow! (XcP)=|-- ..... .. .. .

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  43. Re:DRM adoption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weeks? Months? More like minutes or hours - most PC games using things like Safedisk (which costs $$$$ to the publisher, but most have to use it for insurance purposes) are cracked and No-Cd patches made available before the game has even hit the shelves.

    All copy protection and DRM are is a pointless waste of time and effort.

    That's why the penpushers *love* them.

  44. Can DRM ever work? by SniffleBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I must agree with your opinion that wrappers are easy to remove. I am amazed that companies continue to attempt to do this. It seems to me that for media to be usable, at some point is must be in a format that my sound card or graphics card can process. At this time I can grab the bit stream and the DRM wrapper is violated. For something like DRM to really work, you would need to go in and make custom hardware so that users are unable to pull information that is headed in its direction. But this would be a bit of an engineering feat, and hard to sell to the public. So why do this companies keep trying?

    1. Re:Can DRM ever work? by Ponty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hush, you.

      Everyone knows that the only safe media is media that can't be played or watched. And eventually the Companies who know what's Best for us will find a way to make that an appealing thing to purchase. And we'll all be Happy.

    2. Re:Can DRM ever work? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      For something like DRM to really work, you would need to go in and make custom hardware so that users are unable to pull information that is headed in its direction.

      Ahem, all you need is an operating system that won't let you "grab the bit stream". Then, require that operating system to play the file. Intel and Microsoft are headed in that direction.

    3. Re:Can DRM ever work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except for the fact software is easier to bypass than hardware, and with microsoft's history; it will be a piece of cake.

    4. Re:Can DRM ever work? by apweiler · · Score: 1

      make custom hardware

      Ever heard of TCPA?

    5. Re:Can DRM ever work? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No offense but that's the way it USED to work.

      Now we have Microsoft's Palladium. Both Intel and AMD are supporting it in their upcomming chips. It will take control of your computer and completely prevent you from grabbing the stream in any of the unencrypted digital forms.

      And you thought you owned your computer? uh huh.

      Now if you want to copy the audio, you will have to do it analog. But wait, when you upgrade your computer once more, who's to say Palladium2 won't require speakers with Palladium2 in them. Then you won't even be able to capture an analog stream. You will be forced to play it through the speakers, and record it on a microphone. At which point they have won.

      --

      Liberty.

    6. Re:Can DRM ever work? by sjgman9 · · Score: 1

      DRM will not work. One, customers have to buy it, and know they are buying it. I wasn't happy to find out that DVDs were encrypted and locked down regionally. Dont the movie studios want the money of consumers, regardless of where they live and what they use to watch movies? DVD's are the best invention yet, and I buy at least 2 a month.

      Watching DVDs on Linux is a pain in the ass. I have to install all this "illegal" stuff because they didnt want their CSS broken. Tough. Its a math equation, and if a group of computer programmers are smart enough to make an OS, breaking DVD encryption must be trivially easy. It only helped when XING left one of the keys lying around. What is the movie industry going to do, use the DMCA to preemptively shut down math departments on fear that their students will be learning skills to make circumvention programs?

      Also, DRM leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How many people like Martha Stewart after her alleged stock manipulation incident? She may or may not have done anything wrong (shes guilty, go redecorate your prison cell) but no one likes her.

      The record companies are souring on their customers too. I want a pure cd, not a hobbled one. When I run the risk of ruining computer hardware with a disc getting stuck, how does that encourage me to buy more CDs?

      Also, whether the cartels like it or not, once anything is on my computer, by common sense it is MINE to do with as I wish. You dont want me to do something against your interests, put a gun to my head as I use it.

      Granted this is scary for the companies because they arent used to losing control. Its a new millenium and this is simply darwinism:ADAPT OR DIE. The internet is on and never getting shut off.

      Lastly, they are correct when they call the idiots who resell copied cds and dvds as pirates. They cause you to lose money. Since online services do not serve the customer the way the customer wants, you arent losing any money.
      Keep your customers happy with good products priced reasonably (DVD's at 20, cds at 10 or less and dropping, leave off the Digital RESTRICTIONS Management), and they will keep you happy with money.

    7. Re:Can DRM ever work? by rseuhs · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Now we have Microsoft's Palladium. Both Intel and AMD are supporting it in their upcomming chips.

      Such as?

      I mean, yes Intel is "commited", AMD is "commited", but did they actually release a TCPA-product? No. Has Intel or AMD actually announced a chip with TCPA-functionality? No. Is TCPA showing on their roadmaps? I didn't see it.

      Recently, it has become so quiet around TCPA (well it has been quiet around the TCPA-group, the anti-TCPA groups are loud and active) that I don't expect it to become a reality anytime soon if at all.

      Let's face it: People love to pirate software/videos/music and will not buy anything that will try to prevent them doing that. Seems like Intel/AMD have realized that.

    8. Re:Can DRM ever work? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2
      i don't know about this. There have been several story in past months about palladium here. Some of them about Microsoft's marketing of it etc. It would be a big thing for intel/amd to suddenly remove palladium from their chips in the space of a few months. I hope you're right about their change of direction though.

      As far as no annoucement/being on the roadmap, they never did that before and i never thought they would do that anyway. I thought the whole point about palladium tech in chips was to introduce it as quietly as possible and slip it under the consumer radar.

      --

      Liberty.

    9. Re:Can DRM ever work? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/09/166251 &mode=thread&tid=99

      --

      Liberty.

    10. Re:Can DRM ever work? by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that it wouldn't be too terribly onerous to use a DRM system based on digital signatures.

      You download a piece of content (let's call it an MP3, for argument's sake) from a paid service. It's both encrypted and signed using your public key. Maybe the file has also been watermarked using your digital signature, so that even when you decrypt the wrapper, the digital content itself still has a trace.

      The point? The consumer could install the same private key in a variety of playback devices: a computer, a stereo, a portable player, whatever. Each player could play back all the content the user has downloaded. Other peoples' players could not. Simple.

      What's more, with the watermarking, even if you did decrypt the file, there's still the chance that it would go out with your digital signature on it -- in other words, it would be kind of like warezing a copy of Photoshop and including your own, authentic, purchased serial number in on the deal. It probably won't be worth it for Adobe to go through the expense to prove that it was really you who posted your copy of Photoshop to the Internet. But they can certainly invalidate your serial number for being such a dummy, and you'd be stuck having to spend $995 for the next upgrade.

      Yes, you could circumvent this kind of DRM. But for most average consumers, assuming they were willing to pay the fee for the content to begin with, they're not going to bother to find a way to strip all of that DRM out of the file when it works just fine *for them*. Why bother? They're set.

      Same thing as with tapes now -- I suppose I *could* make a cassette tape of every new CD I buy for each one of my friends to play in their car tape deck ... but why would I bother? Let 'em get their own.

      I don't think anyone is really expecting to turn up a "completely foolproof" form of DRM. I think what the companies want is some kind of system that will reduce the incentive and add to the inconvenience of copying digital media.

      The main problem, so far, has been the companies' greed. Once they think they've come up with a way to control media, they're not content just to make it hard for you to copy it to all your friends (or to the Internet-at-large). Instead, they want to add all kinds of other restrictions, too. They want MORE than they've ever had before. They want to make it so that your files stop working as soon as your subscription to the serivice expires. They want you to pay for media that you can only view ONCE. This kind of thing. It's that stuff that gets people really pissed off at DRM, and that's the stuff that isn't going to fly.

      The other part, just some kind of technology to make copying harder -- I think that stuff is inevitable, and I don't think too many people are going to be all that bothered by it, in the long run.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    11. Re:Can DRM ever work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The consumer could install the same private key in a variety of playback devices: a computer, a stereo, a portable player, whatever"

      I already own a stereo, portable player, and whatever.last i checked none of them have places to upload or install keys. I have no intention of replacing them so Jumbo-Corp can NOT let me play their crappy Brittney shit on them.
      Dear Music/Movie industry,
      BITE ME.

    12. Re:Can DRM ever work? by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1

      "DRM will not work. One, customers have to buy it, and know they are buying it. "

      You seem to forget that the average Joe Consumer does not really know that much about DRM, and will probably buy a DRM enabled piece of hardware/software and either not know the difference, or know the difference but think that there is something he is doing wrong or that there is nothing he can do about it. Or on a very rare occation he could find out from someone who does know about it, but then they are usually too lazy to change what they already have.

      At least that's in my (limited) experience with observing people on such topics. Modders be kind plz.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    13. Re:Can DRM ever work? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      Its a math equation, and if a group of computer programmers are smart enough to make an OS, breaking DVD encryption must be trivially easy.

      If the DVD-CCA haddn't fucked up and used wank-ass keys (to get around crypto export restrictions), and Xing haddn't fucked up and left their key unencrypted, DVD encryption never would have been broken.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    14. Re:Can DRM ever work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all you need is an operating system that won't let you "grab the bit stream"

      There's no such beastie, and there won't be until they invent a computer that won't let you grab the bitstream, tinker with the insides, or add new hardware.

      Humans can't watch encrypted data (well, not for entertainment... unless they're one of THOSE people), therefore the computer must store it decrypted SOMEWHERE.

    15. Re:Can DRM ever work? by sjgman9 · · Score: 1

      Thats why it is up to us knowledgeable people to tell our friends what is going on and pressure congressman to have them enact laws requiring labels similar to "Smoking Cigarettes Might Cause Cancer" ala "DRM Enabled". (Ideally. Realistically, I dont think that would happen. People deserve to be told the truth. Its bad enough that the cartel negotiates for this stuff without public scrutiny. Heck, the NAB kicked out the press on the broadcast flag negotiation. Assholes)

      If we are going to be sold a hobbled product, have the balls to tell us it's crippled. May market forces prevail. I am wary about buying an HDTV because I dont want to buy an obsolete tv that wont record digitally.

    16. Re:Can DRM ever work? by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

      "DRM Enabled" is exactly the kind of terminology they would want. After all, DRM is a good thing! It protects you from viruses and stuff... somehow... right? That's what they want the public to believe.

      A more accurate label would be "Disabled by DRM".

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    17. Re:Can DRM ever work? by mpe · · Score: 2

      For something like DRM to really work, you would need to go in and make custom hardware so that users are unable to pull information that is headed in its direction.

      Which wouldn't work either, since in order for the content to be any use at all it must eventually end up as a signal usable by human sense organs.

    18. Re:Can DRM ever work? by mpe · · Score: 2

      I wasn't happy to find out that DVDs were encrypted and locked down regionally. Dont the movie studios want the money of consumers, regardless of where they live and what they use to watch movies?

      Partly it's an attempt to emulate the characteristics of film and video tape, partly they think they can make more money by chopping up the market in whatever way they see fit.

    19. Re:Can DRM ever work? by sjgman9 · · Score: 1

      That palladium stuff will be good for the military and maybe really important enterprise stuff. Viruses only happen because MS has a security model of swiss fucking cheese. How many viruses has linux/unix had in the past 5 years? A hell of a lot less than what popped up for Windows last month!

      Im not buying that bullshit and we should instruct everyone else not to either. Enlightened customers are only a good thing.

  45. Licensing summary by volsung · · Score: 4, Informative
    • The Ogg and Vorbis specifications (different than the code) are totally open for reimplementation in whatever license you want to whatever degree of compatability you want. (i.e. you can create the new Vorbis-over-Pigeon format if that suits your fancy. There is no requirement that you implement the spec completely or exactly as I've seen on some other formats. In fact, since there are no patents involved and the spec is public, I'm pretty sure there is no legal way to enforce limitations on how you use the spec, thankfully.)

    • The reference encoder and decoder libraries for both Ogg and Vorbis are licensed under a BSD license.

    • The reference tools are released under a GPL license. (Those who don't like these terms can easily write their own using the BSD-licensed reference libraries.)

    • There are no limitations placed on the output of any of these programs. Do what you want with your data. :)
    1. Re:Licensing summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPEG-4 encoder/decoder per copy: 50 cents
      Microsoft encoder/decoder per copy: 25 cents
      Ogg Vorbis encoder/decoder per copy: priceless!

  46. The answer to your question by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
    More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?

    Yes.

    Otherwise they wouldn't have invested the time, effort and money into producing such a thing.

    (Come on, you don't need an MBA to figure this one out)

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  47. Consumer point of view. by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    <sarcasm>

    WOW! A wrapper that adds no value for me, and limits what I can do with the content. Gee sign me up!

    </sarcasm>

    -ted

  48. A better address to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about michael@slashdot.org ?

  49. Sklyarov's PhD thesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you guys know what it is about? It proves that DRM (encryption of a communication channel whereby one of the partners is NOT interested in keeping the secret) is impossible under a set of reasonable assumptions. As a demonstration, he broke eBook protection (in a very systematic way!), and the rest is history.

    Dima Sklyarov will haunt the info-monopolists until the end of their days!

  50. Quite the detailed 'technical description' by krb · · Score: 2

    By which i mean to say, not a technical description at all. Anyone else click those links? Read like marketing materials -- can't imagine why. God forbit they should expose the slightest bit of their architechture.

    Maybe i'm missing something but using the phrases 'secure container technology' and 'encryption algorithms' doesn't seem like a tech doc to me.

    Really, fuck Real anyway. It's been a long time since i used their product and even then it was mostly for wasting time with humor clips.

    I'll change my mind (maybe) when i see some details.

    --
  51. Real DRM by The+Gline · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...as opposed to that nasty fake artificial DRM.

    --
    Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
    1. Re:Real DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the Real jokes got stale back in 96. Just give up now.

  52. is... by m1chael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this the one place where its good not to have a standard? drm fragmentation is good.

    --
    I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    1. Re:is... by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      No, DRM fragmentation is not good.

      DRM is coming, whether we like it or not, and when it comes, it will be beneficial for all (consumers) concerned if there is a single standard. That way, you can buy any media and any media player, and be sure that the two will work together. For the more nefarious amongst us, that will also give a single DRM standard to (try to) break.

      If there are a number of different, incompatible implementations, then you'll have to be careful about what player you buy - will it work with the songs that your favourite artist releases? Will you pick the wrong one, that uses a DRM scheme that dies out like consumer-grade Betamax did? That will render all your media useless when your player finally breaks, unless the company provides a way to change the scheme used.

    2. Re:is... by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1
      If there are a number of different, incompatible implementations, then you'll have to be careful about what player you buy

      No, if there are numbr of different, incompatible implementations, none of them will sell. This is a good thing.

    3. Re:is... by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      DRM may be coming, but there won't be a standard. It is impossible for there ever to be a DRM standard, because one of the basic requirements of all DRM is that it can't be free to implement. If it is free to implement, then there's nothing to stop anyone from implementing a player that ignores the restrictions.

      The only way to "buy .. any media player" and still have it be able to play the content, is if the content lacks DRM.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  53. Dont Care. by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Real Has been dead to me since they released Realplayer G2. Realplayer 5 was reliable, simple, small, and unintrusive. Since they released G2, it's been a downward spiral of overbloat, Adware and Spyware.

    1. Re:Dont Care. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Real Has been dead to me since they released Realplayer G2. Realplayer 5 was reliable, simple, small, and unintrusive. Since they released G2, it's been a downward spiral of overbloat, Adware and Spyware

      Does anyone have an actual list of all the (current and historical) DLLs for all the Real codecs?

      I'd like to have a complete list of what codecs are out there, or a way to figure out what codec is required by a specific .RM file.

      I'm pretty sure you can just shovel new codecs into the appropriate subirectories of C:\Program Files\Common File\Real\ and continue to use Realplayer 5.

      Problem with this approach is that every few months, they make their encoder require a new codec. No real quality improvements that I've seen, but any files created with the encoder produce the lovely "I need to 0wn0r j00r b0x0r to play this file" message that doesn't even tell you what codec it wants. (Upgrade? No frickin' way, just gimme the damn DLL!)

      The larger problem is that the encoder comes from people who've drunk RealKoolAid. So of course they "upgrade", and as a result, everyone else has to follow along. *sigh*

      (I suppose I could just install 'doze and Real on an expendable drive, but that's a lot of work if someone reading this already has a complete list of codecs ;-)

  54. Behind the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > and they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

    "RealNetworks, we put the real in really hard to download the free player!"

  55. Why are we stuck on #4?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been waiting patiently for Real to die for so long now. I absolutely HATE them, and desperately want to dance and spit on their grave. Why are we waiting? Who are these IDIOTS that continue to install RealPlayer/RealOne and engage discussions like this one by defending Real. Who are these FOOLS that continue to stream content via Real from their sites. Ever heard of Quicktime Streaming Server? It's free, FOOLS! ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!

    1. Re:Why are we stuck on #4?! by Stonehead · · Score: 1

      Quicktime does not exist for Linux. RealPlayer/RealOne does. Am I an idiot for just using what's available? Until a few weeks ago I didn't even know that MPlayer now supports RealAudio/Video 9 natively.

    2. Re:Why are we stuck on #4?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heartily agree!!! When Real kicks the bucket I won't shed a tear... If anything I will shout with glee.

      I will use anything over the disgusting trash that is Real... Whether it be Quicktime, Windows Media, or free solutions.

      Its rather sad they have to trash about so much before accepting fate. Just give up already REAL, you are destined for bankruptcy!

    3. Re:Why are we stuck on #4?! by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

      Ummm... It's not "native" support. Just hooks into the respective windows dlls. Same for QT.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    4. Re:Why are we stuck on #4?! by Stonehead · · Score: 1

      I see.. Pity. It plays RealAudio using my Linux RealPlayer8 .so's.

  56. The GPL is the weakest spot in Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The GPL has "thurbage," the hassle factor. Hyperkinetic 40 year-olds still stuck on campus with ultra-left ideas.

    I use open source despite the GPL. The BSD license makes the most sense, it says, "do what you want."

    If any little GPL weasel came by and told me what to do, I'd beat him up.

  57. Wrapper? I think not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    more like a strap-on. Bend over.

  58. /dev/dsp emulation by koinu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how long it takes until someone gets the idea of grabbing the sound and storing it again without any restrictions.

  59. Awesome! (not) by whereiswaldo · · Score: 3, Informative


    This is just what consumers have been waiting for. DRM is going to take off like hotcakes now!

    Now, how are they going to distribute DRM'd media? Oh, that's still a problem.. then why not figure that part out first?!

  60. They were "progressive" once. by Irvu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember reading about them in "Architects of the Web". They were originally founded as Progressive Networks, and their stated mission was to be good citizens first and then good businessmen. They moved - proudly - into a low-rent neighborhood with the goal of helping to clean it up, and sought to provide useful tools with interesting applications. Then they had an IPO.

    According to their website they still donate five percent of their income to charity. Rob Glaser is still their CEO (he founded it in 1994). But the President and Cheif Operating Officer is Larry Jacobson former President and COO of Ticketmaster (see here).

    Personally I think that they have a right to develop the technology in the same way that we have a right to avoid it like the plague that it is. I'm curious to see how long it takes before they invoke the DMCA.

    Whether they do or not, it seems that things have changed since they had that IPO.

  61. The architecture. by Kickasso · · Score: 1
    • Encrypt content (possibly with rot-n)
    • Upon user's request to play content, ask license server for decryption key
    • Upon arrival of decryption key, decrypt and play content
    • Sue everybody who tries to mess with the scheme
  62. Is "Content Ownership" Backed by Law? by rdmiller3 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did anyone else notice how in the very beginning of the PDF describing this "Digital Rights Management" product they take for granted that there can be such a thing as a "content owner"?

    A DRM is supposed to manage copy-rights. Precedent has established that those rights (to copy the stuff) can be owned, but not the content itself.

    That's why we have fair use; because when you buy a copy of a book, CD, or video, you own that copy. You can enjoy it as many times as you wish. You can lend it to whomever you wish, as many times as you wish, as long as you don't ask for money in return. You can sell it too, if you delete or destroy any fair-use copies you may have... because you own it.

    Is this idea of "content ownership" a DMCA thing?

    I'd like to see them explain to us why we should not be allowed to loan out our favorite music CD or play a recorded Simpsons episode during a party.

    And how does "content ownership" apply to broadcast media like TV and radio, whose audience doesn't pay and isn't accountable to the broadcaster in any way? I expect these DRM supporters will be trying to plug that hole real soon now.

    -Rick

    1. Re:Is "Content Ownership" Backed by Law? by k98sven · · Score: 2

      A DRM is supposed to manage copy-rights. Precedent has established that those rights (to copy the stuff) can be owned, but not the content itself.

      Good point!

      Another thing that tends to get lost in the debate is that copyright is not a right
      in the "inalienable moral axiom" sense of the word,
      but rather a provision created by society to encourage creativity through giving the
      creator the opportunity to monetary return on his works during a limited time.

      Listening to the MPAA et al. today, one would easily be lead to believe that copyright
      was on par with freedom of speech and religion.

  63. Vorbis ISN'T GPL by delta407 · · Score: 2
    I'm sure the GPL will then force them to disclose any information about whatever wrapping they do...
    Well, maybe, but probably not. You can GPL software as much as you like and modify the output files in whatever way you want to without violating a license. Furthermore, from the Ogg Vorbis project home:
    Xiph.org's Vorbis software libraries (libvorbis and vorbisfile) are distributed under a BSD-like license; these libraries may be used by any application, open or proprietary, linked or incorporated in whole, so long as acknowldgement is made to Xiph.org Foundation when using our codec source in whole or in derived works. See the file 'COPYING' in the source for all the details.
    Anyway, everything else is LGPL, and given the fact that they can wrap the file however they like without violating any licenses, I'm sure it's not a problem.
  64. Actually... by griblik · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...the free player is the blue link in the middle of the page saying "Free RealOne Player".

    Fair enough, it's not the most obvious thing on the page, but it's not exactly hard to find, and you can't blame them for pushing the pay version.

    --
    Warning: May contain nuts
    1. Re:Actually... by Ponty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check out the US version. The big orange link in the middle tells you that its free, but its a link to the 14 day trial (as listed below.) That would make me (as the person who's never been exposed to the company or their software before) think that, while it is free, it's limited to a 14 day trial. The link to the actual free player is off on the side, and is half off the page (as displayed on my reasonably-sized browser.)

    2. Re:Actually... by jandrese · · Score: 2

      It gets even better. Click on that link and it brings you to a page with a "Download Now" button on it...which is a link to the $20 version. YOu have to hunt out the real link on the bottom of the page.

      I made the mistake of installing RealOne once before, it took a reinstall to get all of the spyware off of my system (the uninstaller certainly didn't do it because my firewall alerted me every 30 minutes when it would try to call home). Combine that with the fact that it appears to follow no UI guidelines whatsoever and it should be obvious why I stick with mplayer and Windows Media Player 6.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Actually... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Funny. On my browser (IE6), directly below the orange 'download' button is a blue link which says 'Free RealOne Player', directing you to the page from which to download the truly free RealOne Player.

  65. Re:As much as I hate DRM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I hate Real more. So what if they were less neglectful of Linux than MS? Are you seriously arguing that Real is something other than the lesser of two evils?

  66. 2 simple answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No and no.
    Real annoying practices made me uninstall their player ages ago. Whatever product will come from them I will refuse to use it.

  67. Doesn't work by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

    I went to Real's DRM page and click the button for the demo. It asked me to download the latest player and provided this link which I clicked, and Galeon asked me if I wanted to save it or open it with something. I copied and paster the URL into my RealPlayer and it said it was loading. Absolutely nothing happens. If this is the quality I've to expect from them, I don't think I'll be bothering to try their new products. I'll stick with Real Player (Unix) 8.0.

    1. Re:Doesn't work by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

      Haha and they have the cheek to call it a "Universal Demo"!

  68. I don't understand you people. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Do you people think DRM is inherently a bad thing - artists and companies can't manage how their property is used?? You seem to automatically knock any type of DRM.

    You all just like your free stuff, huh? Microsoft can't sell their own software the way they like, but you all can copy your porn and MP3's with impunity. What hypocrits.

    And no, Virginia, you don't have a God-given right to "fair-use" as defined "anything I want to do", though DRM isn't mutually exclusive with the concept. DRM schemes that would allow a single backup are possible (e.g. a counter that says how removed this copy of something is from the parent copy, and when it hits 0 you can't copy).

    So quit your crybabying.

    1. Re:I don't understand you people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Do you people think DRM is inherently a bad thing - artists and companies can't manage how their property is used?? You seem to automatically knock any type of DRM.

      Yes and Yes.

      >You all just like your free stuff, huh? Microsoft can't sell their own software the way they like, but you all can copy your porn and MP3's with impunity. What hypocrits.

      Microsoft does sell their software they way they like, with components designed to make things difficult to impossible for competing products. They also charge me alot of money only to give me limited or no control over what I execute on my hardware. And yes, I copy songs from CDs I have purchased into MP3 format with impunity. I do not know to which hypocrits you are refering either, so don't ask me.

      >And no, Virginia, you don't have a God-given right to "fair-use" as defined "anything I want to do", though DRM isn't mutually exclusive with the concept. DRM schemes that would allow a single backup are possible (e.g. a counter that says how removed this copy of something is from the parent copy, and when it hits 0 you can't copy).

      Actually, I have a Constitution-given right to make as many "fair-use" copies as I please, and DRM is mutually exclusive with THIS right. Limiting my backups infringes upon my fair-use right to copy. Suppose I format-shift a song to MP3 to play on my portable MP3 device and that device is later destroyed when accidently drop it. When I buy another one I'll need another fair-use copy of the song I purchased. DRM with 1 backup permitted wouldn't permit it and therefore infringe upon my fair-use right. If I attempted to circumvent the DRM I would be within my fair use rights, but a felon under the DMCA. This is why the DMCA needs to be reformed to agree with fair-use rights.

      >So quit your crybabying.

      Change never happens untill someone complains. I suppose all those people that complained about taxation without representation and participated in the Boston Tea Party were just crybabies too...

      The only rights or interests that need to be managed on MY computer's hardware are my own. ..Phoenix

    2. Re:I don't understand you people. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have a Constitution-given right to make as many "fair-use" copies as I please...

      Wow, with this stunning baldfaced statement of complete non-fact, you've ended any real conversation. You're simply wrong. You have no such right. End of story.

    3. Re:I don't understand you people. by Brummund · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you people think DRM is inherently a bad thing - artists and companies can't manage how their property is used??


      "Their property is used?" I thought there was a sale involved? If they don't want me to own what I buy, then they should just should stop trying to SELL it to me.


      God, how hard can it be? The sad thing is how the entertainment business is trying to create special laws regarding their products. Why do their products need so many special regulations? Can't they cope like any other fscking business on earth? Why should the movie and TV industry (who brought you important entertainment like Baywatch, The Hansen Brothers and <insert-current-season's-stallone-movie>) dictate how we use our computers?


      Why should one of mankinds greatest innovations be filled to the brim with DRM hardware and software which sole aim is to limit the users ability to use the hardware and software to their own liking?


      Stealing is stealing, no matter how it is done, be it physically or electronically. Isn't the law that applies to anybody else good enough for the entertainment industry?


      I got about 5000 mp3-files on my workstation. Of those, ~4950 are from albums I own. 49 tracks are bootlegs, and I got a pirated copy of Sigue Sigue Sputnik's Love Missile. JAIL ME NOW.


      Sorry, just had to get it off my chest. :-)

    4. Re:I don't understand you people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can I encode my original content so it will only play on non-DRM hardware? Because that's what my license terms are.

      A content producer who embraces DRM is a crook. They don't intend to honor the bargain they've made with society by claiming copyright.

  69. Victor Shear and InterTrust by f8xmulder · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fortune magazine has an article in their most recent issue covering Vincent Shear, InterTrust, and the recent DRM patents lawsuits with Microsoft. I wonder if RealNetworks' DRM suite relies on similar technology...

  70. Apple = Hardware Company by asv108 · · Score: 2
    Apple knows that DRM is futile, so they don't waste billions of dollars making some half-assed version of content management. Yet they still continue to profit.

    Apple doesn't abide by this policy because they are nice people, Apple is a hardware company. The #1 job of a hardware company is to sell hardware. All those cool OS innovations, easy to use applications, and over-dramatized keynotes have one purpose, to sell hardware. Putting DRM in to your OS and/or hardware will not sell.

    1. Re:Apple = Hardware Company by bedouin · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that since a lot of musicians and artists use Macs, the ability to import content and manipulate it is pretty important -- something that DRM would prevent.

  71. Re:DRM adoption by johnpur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree with this 100%. The answer for "content owners" is to adopt an economic model which folks accept and go along with. This doesn't mean I get everything for free (proponents are not dealing with reality)... however the process of aquisition and use of "content" needs to be reasonable.

    My wife just paid $18 for a CD soundtrack for one song (she likes Paul Simon, not the rest of the disk including P.Diddy and Bow Wow). This is outrageous and has the consumer subsidizing crap for the opportunity to listen to what they enjoy.

    When I pointed out she could have dl'd just the one song her response was that this would deprive PS from his share of the royalties as well. I think most folks are like her, willing to compensate the artists they choose but upset at providing welfare for the rest of the dross.

    Being an optimist I believe that eventually "DRM" will evolve into a system which allows folks to be fairly compensated for the work they do. The situation now is that there is a huge incentive for the middlemen to do anything to protect their margins.

    jrp

  72. New version of Real(TM) DRM is available! by mccrew · · Score: 2
    If it's like the usual drek that come out of Real, this is the popup you can expect every single time you try and access the content:

    • New version of Real(TM) DRM is available!!!
    • Click here to download!!!

    :-)

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
  73. Importance of Rights by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

    The simple problem with DRM and all the related topics is "Who's rights are more important?" Obviously, someone's has to be slightly decreased in order for anothers to be allowed to roam free. Consumers can't have free riegn of fair-use without copyright holders dealing with some losses. Likewise, copyright holders can't protect all their rights without causing the consumers to throw away or severely limit many of their own rights.

    Can we and should we find a balence, or simple a winner? Where are we headed right now?

    1. Re:Importance of Rights by CodeShark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is the $1,000,000 question right on the head.

      US Copyright law in effect is a restriction on "consumer" and/or "competitor" unlimited usage rights, on the one hand. At the same time, however, the "fair use" restrictions in the copyright laws are supposed to balance the public (i.e. consumer) interest by allowing usage of part of the copyrighted materials without the copyright owners permission.

      The problem with the DMCA and most of the planned DRM implementations is that insuring the availability of "fair use" via reverse engineered technology became a federal offense.

      So in effect a content producer can say "you have no rights to any of my digitally protected content which I do not explicitly grant, otherwise I sick the government prosecutors on you...", as opposed to "you only have the right to fair use, and I as a copyright holder have legal recourse if I believe you have gone beyond a reasonable level."

      This is one aspect of the DMCA that should cause the US Congress to through the whole thing out and start over -- the DMCA has public attorneys (prosecutors) treating a potential copyright infringement as a crime, rather than a civil matter where the MPAA, RIAA, etc. company laywers have to do the work and charge their own industry for their services.

      The state should only step in where the copyright violations extend to "fraud" and other large scale enterprises that most of us would agree have criminal intent.

      --
      ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
    2. Re:Importance of Rights by Cyno · · Score: 2

      This is one aspect of the DMCA that should cause the US Congress to through the whole thing out and start over

      One would think so, but Congress has successfully proven without a shadow of a doubt that they are NOT on the people's side by passing many highly contriversial laws like this with a voice vote. Our representatives are not representing the will of the people. Instead they are helping organizations like the MPAA and member companies gain a monopoly on the Movie industry. Just like the RIAA did with the music industry. All these companies act the same way, sell their products for the same price ranges (with an easy 10,000% markup over cost), and promote the same legislation, because they are monopolies. I reallize that there are 7 competitors of the MPAA, but have you ever seen them compete? You'd think they all worked for the same corporation, when you go to the store and see a bunch of DVD and CDs, but ALL of them come from the MPAA or RIAA, NONE from independant sources. That's what a monopoly is. And that's what Americans and capitalists support and call good business. Am I the only one who disagrees with this way of life?

      When I was a child I learned to share. The concept really isn't that difficult.

  74. Easy way to get non-RealOne realplayer by BurKaZoiD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't download the player from real anymore, I just let netscape install the one that ships with it. IIRC, when I installed Netscape 7.01 the other day, it installed a non-RealOne version of their player. I do agree with the grandPARENT though: Real is getting annoying as hell. Plus, I just love when it goes out on it's own to the web. I just re-installed my system a couple weeks ago and this morning both real and google toolbar got busted by ZoneAlarm for looking for a net connection. At least WMP has the decency to only do it when it's running...

  75. Just because you tolerate that garbage... by SPYvSPY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...doesn't mean it isn't obnoxious to nearly everyone else. I like how you said you have had no such problems, and then went on to describe the hassle of reconfiguring Real's default install. I don't care how patient you are (or how much of an apologist you are), there is NO DOUBT that Real employs tactics that treat their users like idiots. The fact that you are willing (and happy) to be treated in that manner is something you really have to wonder about.

    1. Re:Just because you tolerate that garbage... by afidel · · Score: 2

      If you fail to reconfigure just about any software then you are part of the problem. Windows gets such a bad rap for security mostly because it is so easy to do the wrong thing that many lazy people don't put in the effort to do it right. I am an MCSE and will soon be an RHCE and I can tell you that both systems take a lot of time and effort to configure correctly, if you aren't willing to put in the effort to do so then no matter what kind of system you use you will not be secure and as far as I am concerned you get what you deserve.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Just because you tolerate that garbage... by Lordfly · · Score: 1

      Let's use a car as an analogy. The consumer doesn't need to rip out the engine and rebuild it to guarantee that it won't violently explode on I-75 next week. It works "out of the box", so to speak, with the right features enabled/included.

      The point is that Realplayer is an annoyance, a hefty memory hog that does nothing but cause problems. I personally refuse to install Real technologies on my system, because they're a friggin hassle to a) setup and b) remove.

      If a site wants me to use Realplayer, I just close the site. Everyone else should too.

      --
      hookers and grits.
    3. Re:Just because you tolerate that garbage... by lvdrproject · · Score: 2
      I hate RealPlayer myself; i quit using it just a little before RealPlayer Plus 8 (or whatever it's called) came out. However, i have to agree with you. Anyone that can't take the time to configure their programs doesn't have the right to complain about them (unless of course the problem in question can't be solved by configuration). Linux/BSD/whatever zealots should be able to confirm this. Just because they don't like Windows, some of them treat it like it's somehow inherently different from UNIX. For example, there is NO WAY you're going to get a GUI to your liking with BSD/Linux unless you do some heavy modification (or unless you don't care at all about the GUI). People who don't use Windows gripe about how Luna is so ugly and cartoony, and when someone who actually does use Windows points out that they can make the UI look like anything they want, the Linux/BSD people complain about how that takes so much effort. I can't even get mouse acceleration to work in Linux without fucking with it for an hour, and sometimes not even then. The default KDE themes are hideous, and the font anti-aliasing blows. Of course, that doesn't mean KDE sucks. That just means you have to WORK AT IT to get it the way you want it. Eh, i'll stop there with the GUI analogy.

      Anyway, the point is, very rarely are you going to find software that just -POOF!- installs with all your favourite settings right out of the box. I can't think of any program i've EVER used that i didn't have to change the configurations for. Windows, Linux, KDE, GNOME, Internet Explorer, Mozilla, AIM, Winamp, XMMS, Photoshop, mIRC, Mac OS, iTunes... really, there are no programs or operating systems that i have never had to modify slightly to my liking.

      As for whether or not Real treats their users like idiots... DUH. I don't appreciate it when Linux gives me warnings about being root either. I don't appreciate it when Quicktime tells me it's had its file associations screwed with. I don't appreciate it when mIRC asks me if i really want to close it, because there are channels open. I don't appreciate it when AIM tells me that clicking the close button will actually send it to the tray instead of closing it. Almost all Windows and Mac programs do this, and a good portion of Linux ones do as well. RealPlayer isn't exactly known for the being the hardcore hacker's tool of choice. So no shit, it treats you like an idiot.

  76. Its not a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of if it will ruin our lives but its a question of will anyone adopt it. A lot of people know that Real is crap, and a lot of musicians depend on freely downloadable music for maybe getting a contract. Since Real is such crap people will obviously know that any product they make can be hacked, cracked and removed.

  77. Emulation? by Dthoma · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you just do

    $ cat /dev/dsp > my_non_drm_media.wav

    ?

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:Emulation? by koinu · · Score: 1
      $ cat /dev/dsp > my_non_drm_media.wav

      No. That's sound _input_. What You need is to grab the output by emulating /dev/dsp and pretending to be a real sound device.

  78. DRM won't work because it _is_ the major flaw by alpharoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows Media was the first DRM format to really catch on. It comes along with Windows and it's the default media format for anything produced by Microsoft software. (Ever try digital ripping through Media Player? Only wma, not even wave output!)

    Anyone wonder why, after years of pressure and usually successful MS pushing of their formats, it still loses to good old MP3 by a ridiculously large margin in user preference? Three letters: DRM.

    When you download a DRM-enabled wma file, it's far from obvious to the regular user. So when the file expires or the user upgrades his computer and tries to listen to his files burned onto an old CD-R, that'll be his last experience with the format. And voilá, another wma hater.

    Not to mention wmv's and their 'features', such as popping up web links embedded into the media file. Irritating, to say the least!

    And that's what DRM is all about. Even if Big Media backs it up, and even if it'll be the only way to get 'hot new content' (whatever that is), users will always revert to the best free media alternative when they have a choice.

  79. Why would I want some DRM to tell me what to do? by sniperindisguise · · Score: 1

    Why the heck would I want some Digital Rights Management "wrapper" to tell me what I can do with my data? It's my data, leave it alone!

    --
    5i9|\|3d, 5|\|ip3ri|\|di59ui53
  80. DRM in OGG???? by coupland · · Score: 3, Funny

    >Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper.

    Filthy, tricksy hobbitses!

  81. Anyone use this on linux? by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that all the people complaining must be windows users.

    I've used RealPlayer on Linux, and aside from asking me to register, it doesn't do anything obnoxious. It plays BBC News, streaming, and the quality is great and I don't get any dropouts.

    Maybe the problems related to the windows version has to do with the "windows" in there. Doesn't Media Player 8/9 do all sorts of obnoxious stuff. As someone who uses an XP laptop at work, I know WMP does all sorts of annoying things. Come to think of it, so does that horrible Winamp3. Ashampoo (or whatever that other semi-popular media player is) also does these things.

    You're screaming at real because they do what all the other applications do. Maybe you need to scream about changing the rules that govern the way apps play together on windows.

  82. Not with the GPL... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    I don't think anything you do to an applications output has anything to do with the applications license.

    ...but I seem to remember Microsoft adding some rather obnoxious terms about not being able to create GPL or LGPL programs using their software, which is the output.

    And I'm sure there's limitations on any content you create on Windows Media Center too. Just check page 39, paragragh 61, subsection 2 under item 46 of the licence. Legalese to English translators is only $$$/hr, and I'm sure you'll have hundred "translators" from Microsoft disagreeing with your one.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  83. Consumer gullbility by Skevin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this? It's amazing what your average consumer will do. I can't even begin to count the number of machines I've seen with BonziBuddy(tm), Gator(tm), and any number of other spyware/spamming packages... all because the user clicked "yes" when asked if he wanted to install such-and-such. The beautiful (and ugly) thing about the browser plug-in market is the Field Of Dreams approach: "If you write it, they will install." Real only needs to release a "new version" of their player to suddenly make a bunch of users switch over. Hey, it's been working for Microsoft for years now. On the content provider side, it takes a little more incentive to make the switch. As programmer for a web development firm, I can attest to unreasonable licensing schemes on Real's part.

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  84. Re:Ogg -- is not vorbis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, boyz, ogg is a stream format. The compression is vorbis, or one of their others. Tremor, at least, is BSD-style, so it completely without any restrictions, unlike GPL which is very heavily restricted on use.

  85. Why DRM is usefull by Deadplant · · Score: 0

    Suppose I'm a big business and I have people all over the world. I want to distribute training videos to my employees. These videos are TOP-SECRET because they show how to build widgets in this awesome new way I invented.
    My new widget manufacturing technique is going to let me sell my widgets for half what the competition charges. If this video gets out on the net I'm going to lose millions.

    DRM wrappers would allow me to authorize certain employees to access the videos AND I'll be able to revoke access if they quit.

    I realize no encryption scheme is going to be perfect so I want something that's pretty good and has open source so I can be sure that Micro$oft/Real/GWBush dont' have magic universal keys.

    1. Re:Why DRM is usefull by KjetilK · · Score: 2
      Then it is not DRM, it is normal use of encryption. DRM is about trying to keep a secret between you and someone who has no interest in keeping the secret. That's obviously flawed.

      Using encryption to share data between people who have an interest in keeping the secret between them is perfectly legitimite and a different matter alltogether.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    2. Re:Why DRM is usefull by Deadplant · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Then it is not DRM, it is normal use of encryption. DRM is about trying to keep a secret between you and someone who has no interest in keeping the secret.

      uhh, no.
      It IS DRM, and has to be because the key feature is the ability to revoke access even after the viewer has the video file. (presumably for when an employee who DID have access decides to quit/is fired)

  86. Link to Free Players by asscroft · · Score: 1

    http://forms.real.com/real/player/blackjack.html

    Download version 7, or version 8, but stop at 8.
    Don't download G2, or RealOne or anything that isn't a number.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  87. DRM is not an evil technology! by davevr · · Score: 0, Troll

    People here always focus on the use of DRM by companies to prevent you from sharing/stealing/borrowing/whatever their copyrighted media. But that is just one small application area.

    A significant use of DRM in the future is going to be in controlling the access and distribution of personal media (such as family photos that are on a public web site). DRM can prevent people from going to Yahoo! and grabbing those pictures of your kids in the bathtub and adding them to their "naked pictures of children" web site/CD/etc. These scenarios are much more important than those around protecting major media content. If the big media companies want to pay for this stuff to be developed, that is fine by me.

    1. Re:DRM is not an evil technology! by spitzak · · Score: 2

      You are talking about a "password". That has absolutely nothing to do with these DRM schemes.

    2. Re:DRM is not an evil technology! by davevr · · Score: 2

      No, a password in the traditional sense does not provide appropriate control. If a password was sufficient, then the large media companies would just give you a password when you buy/download a CD. I won't bother to list all of the reasons why a password is too primitive - I am sure anyone can figure this out.

      The point is that I should be able to decide exactly what you can and cannot do with my images. You can look at them, but not print them. You can look at them, but you cannot copy them to a CD for your porn group. I can host them on PhotoFoo.com, but PhotoFoo.com employees cannot see them, and if PhotoFoo.com goes under, then the people who buy PhotoFoo.com cannot see them either, etc.

      Also, you have to think beyond the primitive level of sharing that is being done today... Yahoo Pictures! is not the end-all of photo/media sharing...

    3. Re:DRM is not an evil technology! by spitzak · · Score: 2
      No, if you assumme "anybody can look at them" then nothing stops the porn site from saying "do this to see naked children" and they will see the pictures.

      If you assumme anything other than "anybody can look at them" then you are talking about an approved list of users. This can be trivially solved with a password (or SSL key or whatever you want to call it).

  88. How will an MP3 DRM be compatible? by Chris+Canfield · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Analysts say that the development is particularly positive for content owners who want to publish to devices that support industry standards but have long been afraid of digital theft.

    "That this can support MP3 and MPEG-4 is significant because up until now you haven't seen adoption of these formats by major content providers because they lacked digital rights management," said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Jupiter Research.

    Ok... How can MP3's be played back in industry standard devices (such as the Archos Jukebox), and yet remain protected? Am I missing something large, or isn't the point of wrapping an MP3 in such a layer to prevent it from being understood?

    --
    This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
  89. Better than MS-WMA lockdown.. by amsr · · Score: 1

    If we have to go to DRM (and unfortunately it looks as if we are heading that way) wouldn't you rather have Real make a DRM that can wrap any media file instead of being locked into an MS DRM that only works on Windows and with WMA files?

  90. Real Business by DeComposer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a content producer, I cannot understand why anyone would choose to use a Real codec to distribute work. The quality is so poor that studio-produced material ends up looking like the work of half a dozen chimpanzees after a ten-day heroin binge. Thank you, no.

    Just as important: if I'm producing content for distribution, my client has to be able to view it, which means they need a player, right? Burying the free version of the Real player in some obscure corner of a badly-designed web page has to be the most astonishingly suicidal move I've ever seen a company make. Whether Real chooses to believe it or not, Real Player is competing for the same market segment as Windows Media Player, and WMP is both effectively free and transparently available as far as Windows users are concerned.

    Encasing poorly-encoded media in a DRM wrapper is just one more significant barrier between users and their ability to view content.

    That just doesn't make much business sense to me.

    --


    Karma
  91. Winamp with Real(audio) support by henni16 · · Score: 1

    3b. Sue people who create software that lets you convert RealMedia files to standard formats like mp3

    Well, if I'm using my "Gameloader98-GUI from Redmond" this way it works for me with Realaudio and Winamp(2.8):
    1. Use the Tara Audio/Video Plugin to play the Real stream.
    2. Write it to disk using your favorite output plugin.
    I can also recommend Dietmar's Output stacker to use several output plugins at the same time, i.e. to listen to the stream and write it to HD.

    Works pretty well for audio, but I have never tested whether playing videos works also, because I only use this setup to save some streamed audio to disc.

  92. It's called "Shareholder Value" by goingincirclez · · Score: 1

    Back then capaital was king and we all know the sad tales of many dot-bombs who couldn't raise enough or bought one too many ping-pong tables. So one level, I'm glad that the realmedia format hung around, is for no other reason than to keep MS mildly "honest" (ha). But it took gobs and gobs of money to do that.

    So now, what RealNetworks must answer to and the price we all must pay, is creating enough "value" for all those speculators who sunk their money into what was then a risky venture. I truly wish it wasn't the case, but "Shareholder value" does not consist of hawking the free player as obviously as before. It does however involve signing as many "exclusive content distribution rights" as possible. That's just the way capitalism works sometimes, heinously ugly tho it may be.

    (For the record, I'm not a shareholder in RN or any other company)

    --
    ~~~
    "The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
  93. Oh but there is... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    In fact, since there are no patents involved and the spec is public, I'm pretty sure there is no legal way to enforce limitations on how you use the spec, thankfully.

    I'm pretty sure Ogg and the related words would be considered trademarks (not sure if they're registered tho). It's like with Linux, noone can stop MS from making their own embrace-and-crippled version of it (still GPL'd though), but Linus would probably refuse to let them call it Linux.

    Likewise, the company behind Ogg could probably keep them from calling it Ogg. But as long as they pick some other name, they can do whatever they want.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  94. Re:DRM adoption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Being an optimist I believe that eventually "DRM" will evolve into a system which allows folks to be fairly compensated for the work they do.
    Why would it ever evolve? If they're going for the jugular now, and they ever succeed, what would ever cause them to want to release their stranglehold?
  95. *sigh* by robla · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I guess I had hoped we would receive a little bit of credit where credit is due, but I guess not.

    I'll take off my RealNetworks hat for a sec. I'm not a big fan of DRM solutions. I've seen the days of hardware dongles and other silly solutions that don't seem to go anywhere, and have not had a personal interest in being involved in that sort of thing. Many DRM systems are intrusive, and as I sit here on my Linux box without the ability to play back our DRM content, I understand why the community gets frustrated.

    That said, you'll notice that I still work at RealNetworks. I feel that, as a whole, the company wants to do the right thing, and I'm hoping I can enlist the community's help in that.

    As for the criticism of "ooo, DRM is bad bad bad, and anything associated with it is bad bad bad", here's my response to that:

    • I think what RealNetworks is doing with open source in the Helix Community could really change the landscape for the better.
    • As for DRM; I'm not personally involved in our DRM efforts, and don't plan to be, but I see it as a necessary evil. To really be in our business these day, one has to provide a solution (mind you, our business is not only software production, but content distribution through our RealOne SuperPass service). And I don't see it as immoral (as some do), just silly.
    • As for the legislative efforts relative to DRM, I'm told we are on record as opposing the broadcast flag provisions (still investigating). At any rate, I think we've been pretty good citizens when it comes to our positions on legislation.
    • This is a win for open formats. Transcoding is an ugly process, and DRM systems need to get their content from somewhere. If the input (and output) of a DRM system is an open format (e.g. Ogg Vorbis), then content providers can decide to go with that format, confident that should they ever need to protect that content with a DRM system down the road, there's a solution for them.
    As for the other criticisms here, see my earlier posts. We realize we're not perfect, but we're hoping the community will still give us a shot.

    Rob Lanphier
    Helix Community Coordinator

  96. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At which point they have won.

    They have? I still have my free music in your scenario. People download amateur recordings of live shows all the time - this wouldn't be any different.

    I still download my music without paying, so they are still "losing" and I still win.

  97. No we won't by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

    All we have to do is not buy any new hardware and use pre-drm technology and Linux. For a breif moment in history we will be slowed down but can stop DRM in it tracks.

  98. The thing about wrappers by Multiple+Sanchez · · Score: 2

    is that you can take them off real easy, but if you don't pay for the candy bar first, the store manager gets extraordinarily argumentative.

  99. Do you hear what I hear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can hear it, you can copy it. End of story.

    The RIAA can do what ever they want, but if it runs down cables to a set of headphones, it can be copied, and copied well.

  100. Rights for Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a few problems here, and they are all with the grey areas. DRM is about more than stopping free music distribution, its about tracking, new distribution models and giving some contols / rights to manage the rights of those that work - skilfully - to create the content. It's as much about giving rights to people, as taking them away. If I compose music, i want the rights to stop others stealing it...whatever MY definition of stealing might be. If i'm to be famous and make money, i know i have to be commercial and provide a product people will want: good content worth paying for...and which people would want to steal. There are problems with big music companies being v short sighted and trying to keep all the money to themselves. They are slow, and tend to be reactionary instead of proactive. Let's face it, if i DRM an MP3...very few people will have a player compatible to play it back. I can't make a business out of that: poor user experience. REAL's solution looks poor compared with M$'s, which is one of their best products.

    1. Re:Rights for Everyone by mpe · · Score: 2

      There's a few problems here, and they are all with the grey areas. DRM is about more than stopping free music distribution, its about tracking, new distribution models

      In practice the aim appears more to enforce current distribution models.

      and giving some contols / rights to manage the rights of those that work - skilfully - to create the content.

      If that were the case then musicans would be calling for DRM, to use on demo tapes, etc.

  101. One of the most annoying things about realplayer.. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Is the fact that, if your running windows, it inserts itself into the windows registry under /Software/Windows/CurrentVersion/Run, so that it starts up whenever you start your computer.

    And not just when it installs, but every time you run the player. I mean, I don't need this start-center crap, and every time I want to view a realplayer stream, I need to open up the registry and remove the damn key.
    br. Thank god regedit remembers the your place in the registry...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  102. Download links by bedessen · · Score: 3, Informative

    FYI, here is the link to real.com's site where you can download any previous version. I recommend using RealPlayer (v8), it was the last one before RealOne. Yes, you have to disable some things during the install and in the settings dialog. But it's not that hard and once you've done that, it will not take over any file associations, nor will it load any helpers at startup. Most of the complaints that I've seen about Real's crap is related to RealOne player. If you must use their junk, use RealPlayer. Heck, you could even download RealPlayer v4 if you wanted a pre-evil version.

  103. The problem is by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Once one person figures out how to strip out the DRM, they can release a tool like DeCSS and anyone can go and decrypt their stuff (maybe just to play on an older player/linux box..)

    It's probably annoying ot set up and FServ, too, but people still do it.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  104. Re:I always thought is was in P by crlf · · Score: 2

    ln -sf /tmp/foo.au /dev/dsp

  105. Re:DRM adoption by johnpur · · Score: 1

    Why would it ever evolve? If they're going for the jugular now, and they ever succeed, what would ever cause them to want to release their stranglehold?

    Ultimately they won't succeed. They have created an atmosphere whereby there is huge incentives to crack the DRM schemes and provide alternate (quasi-legal) distribution of copyrighted content. This has the effect of an arms escalation between the RIAA (or whoever) and the "hackers" with a no win situation for the copyright holders.

    Currently this makes a lot of people into "criminals" who would be happier to have a reliable method of obtaining content for a reasonable cost. The trick is to find out the threshold below which people will click through Paypal to obtain a high quality MP3.

    For the current middlemen, they need to add value to the process by brokering deals so that the users are presented with an aggregated view of possible choices (such as PPV does for movies). It is a non-starter to have single studio or company offerings; again, this provides incentive for "Napster" type systems to step in and provide the aggregated view.

    jrp

  106. Fox found 100% effecient way to protect Firefly! by Snaller · · Score: 2

    They stopped broadcasting it!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  107. STOP SAYING... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "Federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison"!

    Say "STATE-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison"!

    Jeez.... How many times do I hafta tell ya it don't happen like that in the Feds! (Unless you're a pretty boy /. geek (which is an oxymoron - although the moron part does fit most /.'ers...)

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re: STOP SAYING... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      It's a movie quote. It doesn't have to be factually correct, it just has to be what was in the script.

      Watch "Office Space". Become enlightened.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  108. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Thus spake the master programmer:
    "Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to
    be maintained."
    -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...