Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3G phones: Send Anywhere, But Not Anything

Posted by timothy on from the euphemism-nation dept.

glengyron writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the success of an Australian company in developing Digital Rights Management for the next generation of mobile phones. Imagine if you could only forward email once, or not at all: these are the kind of restrictions being built into the next generaion of mobile phones. Read the article here. ODRL? Orwellian Digital Rights Language."

15 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Disney has something to teach RIAA by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    "If we don't provide consumers with our product in a timely manner, pirates will," Eisner said.

    This after Eisner was quoted as saying Disney will not let "the threat of piracy keep it from aggressively pursuing business strategies based on new digital technologies, even if that meant rethinking its current business models."

    Someone should forward this to our friends in the music industry.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  2. proper definition of "DRM" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we please stop defining it DRM as digital rights management, and start referring to it under the more proper name of digital restriction(s) management?

    I got this new definition from Robert Thompson.

  3. Holy crap! by Flamerule · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Did anyone else notice this?
    PR's four engineers built the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) language in about two years before version 1 was commercially adopted by Nokia and others in preference to Microsoft's XrML standard, in part due to political reasons, says chief scientist Renato Iannella. [emphasis added]
    A (semi-)major news outlet ran a story with DRM defined as Digital Restrictions Management, with "Restrictions" replacing the original "Rights". That is extremely fucking cool.

    At least, I've never seen this before. Is it just me?

  4. This could be a Good Thing by Xeger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The introduction of cameras and multimedia SMS in the 3G market has given rise to privacy concerns, as we have seen in recent Slashdot coverage.

    Consider for a moment that when people could be taking pictures of you with their cell phones at any time and at any place, some basic rights management within this very limited domain of cell phones and messaging might be extremely beneficial.

    Let's say I take a quick snap of myself and my new girlfriend, and send it off to my pal across town so he can see how much fun we're having. Do I want that image to reach my parents? Do I want my ex girlfriend to see it? How about my co-workers and enemies? I'd rather not, thanks.

    By giving the sender some basic control over where the content goes once it leaves his phone, we would be enhancing the sender's privacy. And, of course, all such "DRM" technologies must be taken with a grain of salt, because you and I and any other techie worth his weight in 3.5" floppies knows that any copy-protection scheme is breakable. The DRM technologies introduced to date have been far from confidence-inspiring. So DRM within this domain is more of a basic privacy tool than an Orwellian move to own your cell phone.

    As for my preferred intepretation of the DRM moniker -- I've always been fond of "Digital Rights Removal Mechanism."

    1. Re:This could be a Good Thing by Xeger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish I could make a blanket reply to all of these posts, because many of them make a good case against my argument. I've chosen to respond to yours because it has the most addressable points, the most coherency and the highest score (leading more people to read it, hopefully).

      The most vocal rebuttal thus far has been If your friend is willing to forward private material, then he's no friend at all. Along the same lines is If you don't want your friend to forward private photos, then tell him as much. In a black-and-white world, both of these statements would be perfectly valid. But even my best friends have been known to suffer momentary lapses of judgement. And there are numerous other cases where I might send something to my friend, and it would be unclear to him whether he's allowed to forward it or not. I only raised the spectre of the ex-girlfriend because it seemed to be a case where I most unambiguously did not my content forwarded. And I'd rather have a way to concretely enforce that restriction with a moderate level of confidence, than rely on my friend's reading and obeying whatever written instructions I attached to the photo. If I had truly sensitive information, you wouldn't catch me sending it via such an insecure medium in the first place. Without end-to-end encryption, I'm disinclined to put any of my secrets on the wire: spoken, written or otherwise.

      Also -- the truth of the matter is that I'm a homosexual. If someone sent a picture of me and my boyfriend to my ex-girlfriend I'd probably be relieved, because it might send her the message she seems so dense about receiving. But that's neither here nor there; I just felt like injecting some reality into an otherwise hypothetical discussion.

      Regarding the potential negative impact of ODRL: going from previous experience, we can be sure than the deep-pocketed acolytes of the embrace-and-extend god will use their multiply hyphenated power to turn this technology against us. They don't want to control every aspect of our lives; for the most part they're just after our money, and they want control over any aspect of our lives where money is involved.

      But let's take a step back and examine the domain once again. We buy cell phones that speak to only one network provider and use trivial encryption; we have no guarantee of privacy to begin with. Those of us unfortunate enough to be living in the United States of Ashcroft know with absolute certainty that everything we say, write or do with our cell phones is recorded and scanned for keywords as a matter of course.

      The scant content that is available to those of us lucky enough to have a 3G phone is either already heavily protected or it's utter tripe that isn't worth stealing in the first place. Network connectivity and a central authority are both inherent to the platform, and we can be reasonably certain that any content made available to us will take advantage of that fact, and strictly enforce the licensing terms. Our cell phones are not a free or open platform to begin with.

      This point was driven home when I called my provider (Verizon) to enquire about becoming a BREW developer -- BREW is a sort of cut-rate alternative to Java for cell phones -- and was told that the entry fee into the program was US$3,000 not including development tools or software licenses, and that all software must be digitally signed by Verizon before it would run on any phone.

      By standardizing DRM description language, we at least are guaranteed a few sanity checks: if I want to give my ringtone to my friend who's using Cingular because I don't want it anymore, at least both of our networks speak the same DRM language. And if I do want to download some premium content, I will find that more is available to me because producers have greater confidence in the system. And if the same DRM technology enhances my control over my own content, then it's all the better.

    2. Re:This could be a Good Thing by kien · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A most insightful reply, and informative as well. I believe that we agree on most of these issues on an ideological level, but I think you're more pragmatic than I am...which is fine. And maybe our social backgrounds and/or beliefs are different...which is probably even better.

      But even my best friends have been known to suffer momentary lapses of judgement. And there are numerous other cases where I might send something to my friend, and it would be unclear to him whether he's allowed to forward it or not. I only raised the spectre of the ex-girlfriend because it seemed to be a case where I most unambiguously did not my content forwarded. And I'd rather have a way to concretely enforce that restriction with a moderate level of confidence, than rely on my friend's reading and obeying whatever written instructions I attached to the photo.

      The real issue surrounding DRM is control and I think you make that point very clearly with these statements. The "battle lines" seem to be drawn around trust versus control. I believe that those are the two sides of the balance when it comes to online justice. As an idealist, I favor trust and as a pragmatist you favor control (although I think you favor a balanced control...not utter control). Finding the balance between these two extremes is probably the best thing we can do for the future. (Of course, it doesn't help the debate when Intel's definition of DRM is described as "Trusted Computing".)

      Also -- the truth of the matter is that I'm a homosexual.

      I'm a heterosexual Christian with a Southern Baptist upbringing and yet here we are having an intelligent, civil discussion about technology. I fear we might be creating a Slashdot Paradox. :)

      We buy cell phones that speak to only one network provider and use trivial encryption; we have no guarantee of privacy to begin with. Those of us unfortunate enough to be living in the United States of Ashcroft know with absolute certainty that everything we say, write or do with our cell phones is recorded and scanned for keywords as a matter of course.

      "United States of Ashcroft"...ROFL! How appropriate given today's environment. I happen to work for a large telecom company and I can tell you that your privacy is equally violated with wireline phones. I have the ability to listen to every call placed in the USAshcroft. I also have a documented procedure to allow governmental agencies to listen to your calls. I don't have the time, interest, or ethical deficiency to listen to calls for fun and neither do my coworkers. And I have not been asked to perform an emergency call trace for the government in over 4 years.

      So yes, of course you are correct that the centralized nature of cell phone service today obliviates any expectation of privacy.

      Network connectivity and a central authority are both inherent to the platform, and we can be reasonably certain that any content made available to us will take advantage of that fact, and strictly enforce the licensing terms. Our cell phones are not a free or open platform to begin with.

      And again, I totally agree with only one qualification...that's the case TODAY. At one time, only IBM offered the PC and customers were locked into them. At one time, mainframe vendors were incompatible. History tends to favor the end-to-end philosophy (the PC, the Web, GNU/Linux) where the control is decentralized.

      By standardizing DRM description language, we at least are guaranteed a few sanity checks: if I want to give my ringtone to my friend who's using Cingular because I don't want it anymore, at least both of our networks speak the same DRM language. And if I do want to download some premium content, I will find that more is available to me because producers have greater confidence in the system. And if the same

      --
      Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
  5. restrictions != legal permission to forward by redcane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >Iannella says users of devices such as Nokia's >3650 multimedia messaging service mobile phone >benefit by having explicit rights to forward >media once it has been consumed. Actually no, they might be able to have a copyright notice saying "You may forward this to one person" But they haven't given us that "right". They've restricted us to that right, even though it used to be at our discretion. Now you can't use the material for "fair use" in any way even though you should be able to! >"The advantage is that the terms and conditions >that they acquired the content under can be >managed by the handset. They need not worry >about an infringement that may occur. Therefore >they will legally be allowed to forward content >on. Of course you don't need to worry about an infringment occuring, because you no longer have that option. REstricting us from copying stuff doesn't legally allow us to forward content on, we must have already been legally allowed to, just now they're making sure we only forward it their way.... In fact even if we're legally allowed to forward it, we might not be able to now.... I *really* wish they'd stop pretending that DRM has *any* advantages for a content consumer...

  6. Re:Actually... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I RTFA correctly, they are using ORDL instead of the MS XrML standard because they only have so much bandwith available. I can imagine that aggressively preventing ad inifinitum forwarding would be almost necessary in that situation. I'd hate to not be able to call or check my email because Bubba wanted to forward that cool 1k email (with 15k of headers) to all 50 of his friends so they can get their check from Microsoft.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  7. DRM is a good idea for this usage by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Think about the following scenario.

    Girlfriend/wife/significant other sends you a 'hot' voice/video message for your eyes only.

    If her parents / colleagues / friends / family got a forwarded copy (possibly by accident) it could ruin her reputation, cause her to lose her job, etc.

    DRM would be effective in this scenario.

    1. Re:DRM is a good idea for this usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What about just erasing the fscking things you don't want others to see/hear/whatever?

      Want your things safe? Put it into a safe!

      I don't see why I must drop my rights to protect your lazyness!!

  8. Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: by freeweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interestingly enough, until this year I never found the need to use spam filtering. The couple every week or 2 wasn't a big deal.

    However, I at one point was getting several dozen a day of the usual chain letter/joke/picture Fwd:Fwd:Fwd (ad naseum). Putting a filter to delete anything with more than one Fwd: in it cut my junkmail down to virtually nothing. I used to complain that users were worse than spammers - some 'friends' were in the habit of sending me a dozen of these 'gems' at a time.

    Of course, in the past 12 months this has all changed. I'm now the lucky recipient of at least a dozen spam a day, and it's getting worse every week. 40% my ass, more like 80% in my case.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  9. Re:imagine by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    And when that restriction annoyed me I just hit 'Print Screen' and pasted it into a new message. There is NO point in this type of restriction.

    I can forsee the day when we will all be running a monitoring program which detects when a time/forwarding/other stupidly restricted deocument is being displayed and automatically snaps the image to a proof database.

    Even if palladium etc stops such an app running on the pc, a digital cam (or better, analog!) will still suffice.

  10. Bad move by CowardNeal · · Score: 1, Interesting
    My first concern would be to grow the 3G market. Internet usage proliferated cos we could all copy stuff and it was free.

    I don't know how 3G is going to be taken up in great numbers if they don't let it proliferate with free and adult content.

  11. Re:I won't buy a DRM enabled phone. by joaer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is just crazy. I'll never buy, or use a DRM enabled phone. This is part of reason I won't get a Verizon phone, they won't allow you to download any applications to the phone unless its through them, and you pay a subscription for it.


    Unfortunately, in that case I believe you won't be able to buy or use a phone at all, at least not a 3G phone. Currently working for a major mobile phone vendor, I can assure you that DRM is a cruical part of the platform.

    When it comes to downloading applications, there is more to it than just DRM. Restrictions is set up to not allowing users to include them, foremost for safety reasons (at least from the vendor's point of view, operators might probably include some business aspects there as well). Imagine a trojan running wild calling expensive toll numbers without your knowledge. We are not just talking major embarrassment here, we are talking major phone bills, and potential network crash. Therefore, only apps checked and approved by the operator are allowed to be downloaded. One exception is java apps, since the virtual machine can be set up to restrict hazardous safety behavior.
  12. ODRL - Rights expression language by cesther · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ODRL is a XML based rights expression language. So it will allow you to express a license of rights that could be considered Orwellian.

    It could also be used in many positive and creative ways (an exercise left for the reader).

    But it is not an access control technology (DRM) in of itself.

    There is another XML based rights expression language being pushed by DRM vendor ContentGuard called XrML - which they own but 'freely' licence.

    The real question is: Can a rights expression language express unregulated uses?
    What should the defacto position on which an instance of expressed rights (in ORML or XrML) be?
    Can a rights expression language express that the content is no longer covered by copyright in the EU?

    Larry Lessig's Free Culture discusses the unregulated side of this issue.