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."

25 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
    1. Re:Disney has something to teach RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Subject: FW:Disney has something to teach RIAA
      To: everyone@riaa.org

      *Error*
      This message was not approved to be forwarded.

      *ODRL v1.1*

    2. Re:Disney has something to teach RIAA by robbyjo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only with timely manner, but also with an affordable price. That's the most important part for the music industry to learn.

      --

      --
      Error 500: Internal sig error
  2. Hey, disney supports it! by lily+alairia · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Disney supports it, you better believe that I will. It must be secure and built with the customer's best interest at heart.I'm sure it will be ultra secure, and not rely on things like the DMCA to protect a poor security model, and support all conceivable forms of fair use.

  3. forward by coreyb · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one would be glad if forwarding were harder. I really could do without getting pseudo-religious right-wing pro-bomb-the-hell-out-of-country-X email from my grandparents that's more header than text.

  4. Actually... by ELCarlsson · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Imagine if you could only forward email once" Then I wouldn't have to deal with all those damn annoying chain e-mails.

    1. Re:Actually... by Pyrosophy · · Score: 5, Funny



      I don't know, think of all the money Microsoft would save not having to send checks to everyone who has forwarded their email.

    2. 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']
  5. 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.

  6. Take it a step further by eap · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wish someone would offer a mobile phone package that had no messaging capability at all. Imagine how great it would be to not get bothered constantly. I would pay extra for such a service.

  7. 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?

  8. imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Imagine if you could only forward email once, or not at all


    I don't have to imagine it -- I've used Lotus Notes. They've had that feature at least 2 versions ~6 years. It's an important feature in the corporate world. get over it.

  9. 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 kien · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      I agree. But they could also be abused and, honestly, do _WE_ really need them?

      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.

      This is one scenario where laws and DRM are not needed. If you send a snapshot to a friend and ask them not to forward it to anyone and they do it anyway...that's not a bloody friend and you would be wise to avoid sending them anything sensitive again. :) Now, if you just sent the snap to your mate without any request to keep it close, I think by most laws you would have no expectation of privacy and if they sent that photo on to an enemy or anyone else you'd be up a creek but (of course) IANAL so YMMV. :)

      So DRM within this domain is more of a basic privacy tool than an Orwellian move to own your cell phone.

      In a perfect world, I'd be thrilled to agree. But in the world I live in, large bodies of people whose job it is to make money have a nasty habit of adopting an "embrace and extend" attitude towards technologies that could potentially benefit most of us. Maybe I'm overly cynical or paranoid or maybe I just read /. too much.....or maybe there really are deep-pocketed interests in the world that want to control every aspect of your life.

      I hope I didn't come off sarcastic because I don't mean to be. You make a great argument for the legitimacy of this technology and I agree with it. I just worry about the potential vectors for abuse by those who don't have the best interests of their customers in mind.

      --K.
      --
      Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
    2. Re:This could be a Good Thing by mosch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
      I've got a really good solution to this problem. It's called 'trust your goddamned friends'.
  10. 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...

  11. I can see it now... by nickgrieve · · Score: 4, Funny

    Alice receives a memo from Bob, tries to forward it to Charles and the phone denies her. Alice then calls Charles and tells him she just got a memo form Bob at head office, tried to send it on but her phone would not let her, she then relays the contents verbally. Alice then calls Bob and tells him to get on to the communications guy, these new phones are a pain in the arse, can she have her old one back please.

    1. Re:I can see it now... by Whyaduck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Alice receives a note from Bob skewering Charles' new toupee. Alice is a two faced shit, so she tries to forward it to Charles. Bob had set rights on the email so that it can't be forwarded, and it can only be read once. Alice can't send the email, doesn't realize that she can only read it once, but tells Charles about the message anyway. When Alice tries to show Charles the email when they're both in the office the next day she looks like an idiot because she can't show it to him. Charles fires Alice and gives Bob her job. Voila, digital rights management has benefits for content consumers (who are also, on occasion, content producers).

      --
      Hello, I must be going. I'm here to say I cannot stay, I must be going.
    2. Re:I can see it now... by nickgrieve · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alice gives Charles a blow job, gets promoted over Bobs head. :-)

  12. GET THE NAME RIGHT! by arvindn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry for shouting, but its Digital restrictions management. ODRL is Orwellian Digital Restrictions Language. Please. If we don't get the name right, who will?

  13. Great idea!!! by Wench · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cuts out all the chain letters and those lame jokes you get 17 times over; the ones with the >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> markings...

    (Yah, so there might be some teeny weeny unwanted side effects. Whatever.)

    --
    No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
  14. What a phone is designed and good for by tyrione · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TALKING. All the rest is mental masturbation. Give me a Wireless phone that doesn't drop connections is all I ask. The companies should fix their backbones before they release pointless WOW factors that only 'sort of work' as billed.

  15. Re:Hello...? by colinmeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The important distinction between what is legal and what is possible... As a musician, I can undertand the appeal of a DRM language that would allow me to specify, for instance, that a recording can be forwarded arbitrarily, but only listened to once at each site.

    As an engineer, I understand that methods for enforcing this kind of contract are either overly intrusive or ineffective. Suggestions are welcome, except from the "we-listen-and-decide-how-much-it's-worth" crowd, since this crowd seems to decide - conveniently enough - that a recording is worth listening to only if it's free (the whole "I-wouldn't-buy-the-album-anyways" argument).

    I am intentionally playing devil's advocate here. Please offer me reassurance that the honor system can work in cyberspace, as it does at (for instance) traffic lights...

  16. 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.

  17. 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.