Tim O'Reilly Interview

DRM viability by Anonymous+Cowdog · 2003-07-28 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

He thinks the experience of software protection in the 1980's shows DRM will fail.

Not so. In the 80's, software publishers were attempting to do DRM on open systems. Not open in the sense of open source, but open in the sense of being hackable.

The work underway now is to make systems closed, so that DRM *will* be technically doable. It doesn't have to resist every attach Bruce Schnier can conceive of. It just has to be good enough to keep consumer behavior in check.

If DRM fails, it will be because of consumer rejection, not for technical reasons.

Re:DRM viability by *weasel · 2003-07-28 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

the data that gets sent to a drm system will be saved, cracked and distributed to open systems.
it's not an if. one could fairly easily save packets into a file stream on a modified proxy and then work on cracking the encryption; and even barring that, technical reasons have yet to bridge the analog gap (if its presented on a tube or piped to a speaker - it will be captured and reencoded.)

copy protected data -will- fail, unless the prices fall, or the features rise (or a combination) to the point that customers will look past it. (dvd's are vastly more copy-protected than vhs, and they were adopted - for very good reasons).

and even then - data will continue to be pirated. but most people won't bother, because pirating lowers the features, and increases the time, effort and hassle to the point that just buying it is a better solution.

palladium's only hope for adoption, is in possible restrictions on running unsigned code.

but ms is busier cozy-ing up to the media companies than worrying about what the customer wants.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:DRM viability by rgmoore · 2003-07-28 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The work underway now is to make systems closed, so that DRM *will* be technically doable. It doesn't have to resist every attach Bruce Schnier can conceive of. It just has to be good enough to keep consumer behavior in check.

OTOH, the software protection schemes of the 1980's were dealing with comparatively primitive approaches to distributing the deprotected software. Today it's not enough to prevent most people from being able to bypass the DRM. You have to do that and make the system so that the few people who can bypass the DRM can't pass it out to the rest of the world using a system like Napster. That means either locking down systems to the point that they can't run anything that isn't signed (which kills backward compatibility among other problems) or playing whack-a-mole with file "sharing" systems. The first is unlikely to happen because of consumer resistence, and the second is technically very, very difficult.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:DRM viability by RevMike · 2003-07-28 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

If DRM fails, it will be because of consumer rejection, not for technical reasons.
Don't you remember having to keep a box next to each PC with the disks for that PC's copy of Lotus 1-2-3, since if the software needed to be updated, you couldn't use any copy, but the actual disk that was used to install it?
Consumers will reject excessively onerous DRM.
Re:DRM viability by ithicine · 2003-07-28 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

palladium's only hope for adoption, is in possible restrictions on running unsigned code.

Even if palladium restricted unsigned code, it should be very easy to slip hidden code intended to break DRM into a seemingly valid package waiting to get signed. The only way to prevent this is to inspect the source code, but obviously, this approach would never work. Anyone who's traced program execution knows this is time consuming work; to exhaustively audit all software packages is simply impossible. It's like airport security; MS makes everyone go through a security check to get into the airport. The longer the check, the greater the security, and the more frustrated everyone gets with the wait. But it all goes for naught when someone does get past the security. Okay, it's oversimplified, but you get the idea. That doesn't even include the fact that the security people have a conflict of interest; they'll be keeping anyone they want from "catching their flight", so to speak.

How in the world do you go about deciding whether to sign code or not? I don't see any practical way to achieve this kind of security.

the truth by radiumhahn · 2003-07-28 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

the worst thing they could do to microsoft is make it a regulated public utility. Of course that would cause so much fear in the business world we would have an even worse economy.

Tim O'Reily for President by _Sambo · 2003-07-28 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Reading that article was like going to the oracle and partaking of pure knowledge. Tim O'Reilly has the brains to shape the future. I'd vote for him for just about any public office. He has a global-centric, practical approach to business, economics and his words make a lot of sense.
I'm suprised that he's not on the Microsoft board of directors to help them see what's coming down the pike.
He mentions SETI-like applications that do not depend on a single piece of hardware, but do depend on connectivity to other devices. The idea of an Internet OS is very interesting. In a few years we won't be booting up to an os, we'll be booting up to Slashdot to get the posting fix.

Huzzah!

Free Software eats the foundations of DRM by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-07-28 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

DRM will fail eventually, it's up to the Big vendors to get it in quickly so that anti-DRM groups won't have time to involve the consumers.

We can counter DRM by lobbying our governments, but we also deaden it's affect when we decide that we will only use software when we can:
0. look into it's workings
1. recompile it to make sure we're being shown the real code
2. alter it if we don't like what it does, and
3. distribute altered versions so that these freedoms benefit everyone, not just programmers.

We must behave as a community. We will win, but the sooner we start working on it, the less we'll have to fight.

Ciaran O'Riordan

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Tim O'Reilly: H-1Bs Create American Jobs! by Baldrson · 2003-07-28 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

An article from Tim O'Reilly's IT Career Center quotes the CATO Institute as saying:

H-1B workers create jobs for Americans by enabling the creation of new products and spurring innovation. High-tech industry executives estimate that a new H-1B engineer will typically create demand for an additional 3 to 5 American workers.

So, Tim, when will we be getting paid enough to buy our own Segways?

--
Seastead this.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: H-1Bs Create American Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-28 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

H1B is better than paying some schmuck in India -- but only because the H1B needs to buy goods and services in the US, pay taxes, etc. so at most 25% of H1B's salary might get shipped back to his thrid world.
When outsourced to a service center, most of the money leaves our economy for good.
Re:Tim O'Reilly: H-1Bs Create American Jobs! by isoga · 2003-07-28 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't understand the lash against H1-B visa holders (I'm one myself) - The argument I keep hearing is that they are cheaper than US workers and thus drive down the wage for US tech workers. In my experience this just isnt the case.
Here in the NY / NJ area I know about 20 H1-B visa holders and we're are all paid very well. It's definitely not cheaper to hire us than to hire US workers. We're hired because we have great skills that are difficult to find in the US. (Try foreign language skills and international experience)
On top of that, we have to lead a precarious life, whereby if we lose our jobs, our lives are then transplanted half way across the World with little warning.
dave
Re:Tim O'Reilly: H-1Bs Create American Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-28 08:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

On top of that, we have to lead a precarious life, whereby if we lose our jobs, our lives are then transplanted half way across the World with little warning. ...and isn't that the point? You guys are owned! There'll be no talk of unions from you! and no wage increases to match new skills! what, you won't work mandatory OT? Back to India with ya!

So don't buy closed systems. by sulli · 2003-07-28 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

And fanboys, listen up: quit buying XBoxes to put Linux on them! You know that's just your excuse to /. so you can feel ok about subscribing to XBox Live.

Stick with the PC and it will all be good in the 'hood. Help the marketplace decide by not investing in stupid-ass closed architectures.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Microsoft "not a monopoly" by doinky · 2003-07-28 07:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft has many advantages, but far from a lock on the future. The days of their operating system monopoly are over. They've been saying this, and working furiously to enter new markets, but no one but them seems to realize that this isn't just legal posturing but an accurate representation of the new world we're all facing.

What a load of crap. Try walking into any big company and suggesting that you should be able to run linux on your desk.

I work at a company which is extraordinarily pro-linux for a commercial enterprise; and yet all of our developers (100%) run Windows at their desk; because it's fundamentally impossible (STILL) to run a business any other way. Not even the most linux-loving among us can practically use it for his desktop O/S.

We use linux on the servers every chance we get; but there is No Reasonable Alternative To Windows On The Desktop.

Look outside the echo chamber, and Microsoft is still very much a monopoly.

Re:Microsoft "not a monopoly" by bogie · 2003-07-28 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

"because it's fundamentally impossible (STILL) to run a business any other way"

Why? Because your developers are 100% Windows users and can't live without it? How does that prove anything?

According to you, your company represents every single company in the world and no other possibility exists. How is that possible?

Linux has been a viable desktop for years now. It all depends on what your using it for. But then since your company doesn't use it as a desktop nobody else possibly can. What strange logic.

"but there is No Reasonable Alternative To Windows On The Desktop"

Again with the proclamations. You know saying something over and over doesn't mean its going to come true right? Well since its already been proven that some companies do in fact run linux I'd say you don't really have a leg to stand on here. The point is that your not wrong when you say most companies use windows, but your dead wrong to suggest that it's not possible to survive without it.

Also btw in case you hadn't heard there is a little thing called OSX.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Microsoft "not a monopoly" by div_2n · 2003-07-28 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

It might not be but it smells like a troll. Nonetheless I will take a bite.

I run Linux at home all day long every single day for both work and play. The biggest problems I run into are some web pages that do active content written specifically for IE. Not such a big deal really.

It absolutely IS an alternative on the desktop to Windows. I think what you are trying to say is that for many users it can't operate as a replacement because software XYZ can't run on Linux and the user HAS to have that for whatever reason.

I like to think of this as a percentage of people capable of switching to Linux. I firmly believe that there exists a certain percentage of people that could move to Linux and not be lacking functionality at all. While that percentage is NOT 100% or possibly even 10% it is definitely growing.

Besides, you would be surprised at the reactions of people when I tell them about Linux. "It is free??? I can't run most games or Microsoft software? Big deal as long as there is something I can use instead. There is? THAT'S FREE TOO??? How do I get it?"

I actually wrote down some websites for this woman to read about Linux and a few for downloading. She wouldn't know the difference between Firewire and USB but she understood free loud and clear.
Re:Microsoft "not a monopoly" by Jim+Hall · 2003-07-28 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

What a load of crap. Try walking into any big company and suggesting that you should be able to run linux on your desk.
The fact that I work at a big-10 university has something to do with this, I'm sure, but I'm running RH9 on my laptop right now. Why is that important to you? Because I'm a manager, not a programmer. And I find RH9 to be very productive and useful for me. Granted, I manage the staff who admin our UNIX servers (Linux, AIX, Solaris) but no one manages my laptop for me.
On top of that, I gave a presentation just last week to our CIO, our Deputy CIOs, and several Directors about letting departments roll out Linux on the desktop. And no one choked up a lung or anything. We run Windows and Mac here ... allowing a University-acceptable distro (Red Hat) into our environment is just managing your diversity.
Companies and organizations don't have to have 100% the same desktop for every user to keep costs down .. it's all about managing the diversity on the desktop.
Mod parent down as trolling, please.
-jh

Re:Microsoft shouldn't have been broken up. by Tumbleweed · 2003-07-28 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only real solution to the MS monopoly is to force them to completely open their APIs and, especially, their file formats. Then anyone who wants to compete truly can, and the end user isn't stuck with their data held hostage in a proprietary format.

Too simple a fix for the legal geniuses to figure out, I guess.

Re:DRM will effect the common users regardless by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-28 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

These are the same people that cant stop the VCR from flashing 12:00

If you offered them a vhs tape which when inserted set the clock, then their vcr wouldn't flash 12:00. Can't be done with vhs tapes, but can with software.

If script kiddies have taught us anything, it is that a bunch of technically clueless people can wield technically savvy tools.

Re:Microsoft shouldn't have been broken up. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-28 07:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

What about my right to go to the store and buy whatever I want?

BTW, I never bought the whole "windows mindshare monopoly" bullshit anyways. People have always had a choice, and it happens to have been MSFT.

Re:DRM won't fail completely by kwerle · 2003-07-28 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

We haven't seen them yet, but I bet pretty soon we'll see PC's for sale that can only run Windows (this will be enforced by hardware) - don't know how that will affect the music business, but I am sure this is a card that Microsoft is waiting to play at the right time to make even more money.

Wakey, wakey.

They're called XBoxes, and "only" run a modified windows.

Now they run linux (and various other stuff) as well, though M$ wishes they didn't.

It must resist all attachs, and then some by Pac · 2003-07-28 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

It doesn't have to resist every attach Bruce Schnier can conceive of

But it does, or else it won't keep consumer behavior in check. It is enough for one Chinese hacker or one Bulgarian hobbist to break the protection once, the networks do the rest: in the wonderful digital world we live in, once broken, forever broken, everywhere. I can't replicate a shoplifting, but I can program a code-breaking software that will break a given protection everytime.The whole point is that Joe Clueless Consumer does not have to be a crypto expert, just a Web amateur capable o downloading the "codec" that will play everything again. And Joe C. Consumer will...

Re:iTunes vs Rhapsody by stratjakt · 2003-07-28 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why did people treat the iPod as something new when more capable devices (like Creative's Nomad) had been out for a year or more?

It's the same reason people in the fashion world act like Calvin Klein invented underpants - it's a trendy brand name.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Simple economics by sulli · 2003-07-28 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the cost of goods is greater than the retail price (negative gross margin for XBox), then you're correct. However, if the fully loaded cost including R&D is greater than the retail price but the gross margin is positive, then you're incorrect, and MS is better off selling it even as a doorstop.

It's not at all clear which is the case in the case of XBox. Can you point to evidence showing that the direct hardware cost to Microsoft (not the equivalent retail price of white box parts!) is greater than the wholesale price?

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Every time you buy an XBox... by groomed · 2003-07-28 11:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sigh. It's not true. What do you think loses Microsoft more money: an X-Box that doesn't get sold or an X-Box that does get sold?

It _might_ be possible that Microsoft loses money on the X-Box, but I'd wager that only a tiny part of that is on hardware costs. The rest is to amortize R&D, marketing, administrative support, etc.

25 of 366 comments (clear)