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?"
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
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
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...
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!
"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.
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
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!"
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.
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.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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
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?
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)
"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.
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
"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.