Slashdot Mirror
3G phones: Send Anywhere, But Not Anything
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."
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
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.
"Imagine if you could only forward email once" Then I wouldn't have to deal with all those damn annoying chain e-mails.
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.
At least, I've never seen this before. Is it just me?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.