Slashdot Mirror
Intertrust Plans Universal DRM System
Rushmore and others wrote in with news that Intertrust, which has a large DRM patent portfolio, is planning a universal DRM scheme for consumer electronics.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
That's good, I was worried that this fancy-pants DRM thing wasn't going to take off.
Trolling is a art,
For those interested:
Intertrust holds alot of United States patents. Those are listed at the USPTO office
They also have a patent litigation against Microsoft covered by Slashodot earlier
...I pay $50 a month for satellite and I cant even record any TV. Thats bullshit.
Anyone know any more details than are in the article? As much as the idea of DRM makes me cringe, I know it's here to stay and therefore a unified standard would be a good thing ( iTunes on my MD player?). But the article has exactly zero info on the "RM" part of the DRM, specifically the most important question of how many copies can be made (i.e., one onto your computer, one to archive, and one to your media player?).
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
...just say "DRM" and "Open Standard" in the same sentence?
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
Err.... Last time I checked, sales were more dependant on the consumer than the peddler. I'd hope it's more important to convince consumers their right to use what they are investing in isn't in jeopardy.
DRM is bad. Although it is effective at stopping pirates, it also hurts the people who want to legally use what they pay for. Everytime any attempt has been made to stop pirates, it has done nothing but hurt those who paided for it. Take iTunes: You can't take your music to platforms where iTunes doesn't exist. Take the bogus CD track on some music CDs: Couldn't play them in your PC, some CD players, some car CD players, etc.
Although DRM will stop pirates, it stops legit users too.
Fortress of Insanity
They say they hope to replace a "confusing array of proprietary systems", but they don't say what they're going to do to get people to use their system. It's not a "global DRM" system if they don't even have any large media companies on board.
Does anyone else get the feeling the horse has left the stable, walked down the street, gone in to an electronics store, bought an IPOD and got the hell out of town already?
The problem is that there are perfectly good alternatives without DRM technology. Why would anyone by something new that restricts their existing options? Even worse, why would a consumer pay the extra $x for their media player to buy the rights from a DRM patents company?
Perhaps it's time companies stopped chasing after the music DRM market, let it go, and simply learned their lessons for the still [largely] unfought movie market?
I overlooked the fact that Sony is in itself a large media company. But I still don't see why other media companies would choose this over anything else.
...than to get the patent lawyers involved.
The ______ Agenda
Copy protection did not work for computer software. A sufficiently determined individual can always defeat such a system. And distribute the results. Yes, they can be prosecuted using the DMCA, but that will not stop it.
In this case, it is more instructive to look to the profit motive. When they implement a new DRM system, they can sell us new CD and DVD players, and new CDs of all the old music that we've bought (twice, maybe) already. The "replace your old LPs" profit center was a huge one, until it was knocked down by (1) DVDs and (2) saturation. Now, they are hoping to recreate it through technical means.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
For the company, doesn't diversity in standards actually help them protect their materials? It seems that having only one standard would just concentrate everyone's efforts on breaking it and therefore would get cracked faster.
I say it will be, but there will always be alternative means that although may be illegal, will be as easily obtainable. An example are the DirecTV dishes in Canada. Although the RCMP has begun doing raids to stop people from "stealing signals", it won't be long before they realize their time on that is a waste of resources.
Remember 3 years ago when it was said that we'd all have harddrives with built in DRM by now? Where are they?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This is fine with me. One standard will just make it easier to defeat. And it will be defeated.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
The benefit of a universal system is that it only needs to be cracked once.
Right now, we have to crack every new Joe DRM system on the block.
So, let's hurry this up and get it over with so we can put all of this behind us now.
Does anybody else think it would be a good idea if the life of a patent were shortened by a specific amount every time the rights changed hands? The idea would be to discourage companies that exist only to acquire rights to things without actually creating anything.
After all, the original purpose of the patents and trademarks system was, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (United States Constitution, Section 8)."
It doesn't say anything about promoting or supporting a "rights market" for clever business people.
...as DVD country codes and the various "disposible" digital cameras whose contents have been analysed and the results posted here on a regular basis, right?
How many times did we hear rumours of pay-per-run services being the wave of the future in the last 10 years? But the best way to keep this from being adopted, is for us as the consumers to boycott such products in the stores and for us as the voters to remember what democratically elected individual supported the adoption of the DMCA-like laws required to back it up.
F-IW...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Linux - DRM-apathetic since 1991! Seriously, Linux is going to be around for some time, and with the source for most stuff all over it CAN'T go back in the bottle. Just keep noncompliant software around and DRM worries will be a nonissue. Remember, content can be either viewable or completely secure, not both, and there's always sneakernetting.
-insert a witty something-
This means we'll only have one format to crack, instead of four hundred! :)
...if all media that MOST people want to listen to is DRM-only. Of course, since a DRM-free market will sell more shit than a DRM-crippled media market, manufacturers WANT you to have as much freedom as possible, as it's good for their profits.
The only problem with that is that some of the major hardware manufacterers are owned by companies that reside in the same corporate parent as a large media company (example: Sony and Columbia). So don't expect Sony to lead the anti-DRM charge.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Hmmm, reasonable terms. Another company looking to get everyone established as a revenue stream for them. One more person in my wallet everytime I turn around. Reasonable until they need to meet the street's expectations, then "reasonable" changes. I know, it's not inherently bad, and it's not. It's just not inherently good either and today's benevolent manager will eventually be replaced by tomorrow's pointy-haired boss who has numbers to meet for the year. I'm not against capitalism, I'm just suspicious that this is another attempt to put an armlock on a popular service and then apply their leverage.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added.
.com boom?
So let me get this straight:
1. Companies encrypt their data
2.
3. Digital sales of media are "boosted"
They're leaving out the entire... well... consumer and adoption step that I think is a bit important. Just because they build it, it doesn not mean that people will come. Didn't they learn anything during the
unf.
Unless the given DRM technology is truly unbreakable (probably not), having one standard widely implemented will probably be worse protection for content owners. It is similiar to genetic diversity in a population. The benefit of having many different content protection schemes is that if any one is broken, the others will most likely be unaffected. Thus by adopting one imperfect DRM standard, they may in fact be greatly lessening the ability to protect their content.
Time for me to rent a few Public Storage lockers and start buying up cheap, DRM-free consumer electronics.
I'll wait a few years, and then once you can't watch a movie on TBS without Jack Valenti's say-so, I'll eBay everything at tremendous profits.
Go right ahead, Intertust (i.e. Philips/Sony). Make sure your DRM stickers on your equipment are bright, cheery and clearly identifiable so I can find which stuff to NOT buy.
"Consumers want an open system, and the electronics industry wants it too," Ruud Peters, chief executive of Philips's intellectual property and standards unit, told Reuters.
That's the finest example of "two different meanings for the same phrase" that I've seen all year. Consumers have most of the "open system" they want right now.
Wankers.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
To quote a line from Shrek (just happen to be making a copy now):
"Really?"
"Really, really."
This might last about 20 minutes after it hits the market
...if consumers had not illegally copied IP belonging to producers. It was so easy, simply buy the item. But no, you had to abuse this trust that benevolent companies such as Sony, Time-Warner, had placed in you. So now we get this.
Don't bitch, this was entirely preventable.
The article includes a quote of what has been accepted wisdom, accepted unchallengingly by regulators (see the commentary to the FCC regulations concerning the so-called Broadcast Flag, for example, which accepts at face value that DRM will boost sales, without in any manner examining that assumption):
"DRM is an accelerator which will boost digital sales of media, because it will convince media companies their content is protected. It should not be a competitive weapon," he added."
This quote is simply wrong. DRM has already damaged sales of hardware and content. I predict that increased DRM will not be an accelerator but will continue instead to be a de-accelerator and drain on the economy which will reduce digital sales of media.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow
With "kill" above in the subject and below in the sig, I thought you were suggesting killing patent lawyers.
That's always a good idea.
From TFA:
... I would much rather see a DRM standard that is vendor-neutral from a computer platform perspective, instead of Palladium Everywhere (also known as "Dystopia" to us Linux folks).
"The electronics industry recognizes that Microsoft is a formidable player, but consumer electronics makers do not want to become dependent on Microsoft. They need an interoperable and independent system," Peters said.
DRM sucks, DRM is evil, DRM is the tool of terrorists, robber barons, and Republicans. That having been said, though
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see no DRM at all, and I intend to vote with my wallet as much as possible. But if DRM does happen anyway, I would have a very strong preference for Intertrust instead of Palladium. At least with Intertrust there's the possibility that some vendor will offer a Linux version of the protected player.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
That's like when I'm NOT ALLOWED to press the fucking STOP button on my DVD player during the first several seconds of the the DVD.
And while I'm ranting off topic, FUCK YOU to the anti-fair-use people who won't let me skip previews on DVDs. I paid for use of the movie I bought. There should be no limitations placed on me with respect to previews and my ability to NOT watch them.
Who are these people who create these rules?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I'll have to trust you on that, or wait until someone else confirms or denies, because it just so happens that my hard drive repair clean room is out of order at the moment.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
...if I release my own personal creations with DRM? Would you rather I have my work copied freely without potential recompense (note that I don't automatically assume I will be successful in selling such work), after I have followed the rules of U.S. law and payed fees and taxes for being in business?
iPod, iTunes, SD cards, Texas Instruments graphing calculators, game consoles, and so forth all have DRM. The items that don't forcefully use DRM are the ones that sell.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
More stuff to crack! Never a boring day, is there?
Really though, if it weren't for all this cat and mouse shit, all these parasite companies wouldn't exist and all the crackers would have to get a real life...
At least for a while...
They spend millions to create technology to hinder people from doing what they would like with what they paid for, in that process they increase the price to help pay for this technology.
Increased prices lead to decreased sales. DRM get's cracked, sales increase and companies yell that they are losing money to piracy. To offset this potential loss of money, they increase prices.
They spend millions more to create new DRM to hinder people from doing what they would like with what they had paid for. Increase the cost to offset this spending.
It just continues.
anyone catch the following in the article?
"'Consumers want an open system, and the electronics industry wants it too,'"
[very next paragraph]
"Microsoft, for instance, has opened music stores on the Internet that sell music encoded in such a way that they can only be played back with a Windows Media Player."
how is this good for the consumer or even open for that matter?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
How do they plan on enforcing how the inhabitants of the planet Zorkif use their machines?
Intertrust can suck my cock
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
the only purpose of DRM (or at least the only purpose that is likely to work) to restrict the rights of users over the works they "purchase" and the machines they "own". Professional-grade copiers will crack DRMd works and sell them - preventing that from occurring is likely impossible. DRM is here to take users' fair use rights and give them (mostly) back to them, charging them for the privilege. That way, companies can make money while providing less of a product - the dream of corrupt, evil industries or regimes everywhere. No wonder they keep pushing it.
Fuck DRM.
Fuck Intertrust.
Fuck Microsoft.
I REFUSE to be a prisoner to my own computer. If I want to copy something, so help me god, I will do so. I will not have my activities censored by others.
-Robert
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
According to their own statements it is VAPORWARE and should be considered nothing more than SDMI2.
6 months will go by, it will be delayed, then hacked, than thrown in the garbage.
That is until the building burned down. Now I'm at Pennitrode. Michael is trying to get me to join him at Innitech though.
If i really feel i need MY digital rights managed, I will do it myself
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Maybe, just maybe he's going on vacation and wants to record the next episode of [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE SHOW HERE], so he won't miss it?
That, my friend, is time-shifting, a legal fair use, as defined under the Betamax desision.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Perhaps it's time to redefine DRM. I suggest Defective Recording Media. You can probably come up with something better. Digital rights management has about as much to do with my rights as the Patriot Act has to do with patriotism.
The FBI stopped by to see me earlier this morning.
Apparently, they found an unlicensed compiler on one of my student's computers. Copyright central has visited the campus on more than one occasion, so I expected this to be fairly routine. Far from it - for the better part of the morning, they questioned me about this kid's activities. Being a college professor, I couldn't tell them much. This was probably the first time that a student was glad his professor didn't pay more attention to him.
I don't think he's been charged yet, but I was able to discover the nature of what he'll be charged with. The unlicensed compiler is problematic, though not technically illegal since it can't sign object code (illegally). Instead, he was found with a great deal of original material - some dating back 10 years or more - that was never registered with the copyright office. Some was on paper, but most of it was on disk. At a dollar per kB, he's looking at close to a million dollars in fines, not to mention a felony conviction.
But I think that's the least of his worries. About 15 years ago, unlicensed media formats became illegal. In order to record music or video today, you must use one of the state-approved formats which incorporate DRM, and you have to digitally sign the file. Given that the encoders are patented and held by private companies, it's not surprising to learn that leasing a music encoder (just the softare!) costs about $50,000 per year. And after you are finished recording, a general distribution license costs another $50,000 per year. Writing your own encoder would land you in jail for creating a "circumvention device". Which is why anyone who owns a compiler is viewed with suspicion, even though such ownership is not strictly illegal.
Apparently, this kid had a few mp3 files (illegal format), a few mp3 encoders (illegal tools - a felony), and a plethora of original content which hadn't been registered with Copyright Central. He's probably looking at about ten to fifteen years in jail, plus some pretty hefty fines.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
From the corporate point of view DRM is good precisely because many clever kids will find their way around it. This teaches a disrespect for law and ethics that creates a good crop for the mega-businesses to recruit their next generation of executives from. Success in tomorrow's economy requires both practice in cheating, and deftness in not getting caught. A wide array of breakable, but challenging laws pertaining to things young people care about assures our corporate citizens the cleverness and teeth necessary to preserve their freedom. No patriot should oppose this.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You're pissed off! I don't blame you. It
For what it's worth... first comes anger, then despair, then resignation, then acceptance of bullshit as the natural order of things.
I can suggest a slightly different path after steps two or three in the list above.
Get a DVD-ROM or DVD writer for your PC. The DVD-ROMs are about $27 on Pricewatch.com. Download from the web the program 'DVDdecrypter'. With each new DVD run DVDdecrypter and copy the VOB files of the movie to your hard drive. Now you can use PowerDVD (or the movie-viewing program that comes with the DVD-ROM) to watch the movie without all the FBI warnings, moronic previews, commercials, and other dimwit distractions.
The trade-off is that you are watching on your PC monitor instead of big-screen TV and DVDdecoder doesn't handle subtitles (or, more precisely, I can't figure out how to get any existing subtitle function in the program to work).
There are ways and programs available to get your movie from the DVD to your TV without the irritating corporate bullshit. Unfortunately the people who know how to do this don't have the ability to explain it clearly to those who are not so finely focused on this complex technical speciality.
But we do have DVDdecrypter, so give thanks for small graces.
Thank you,
SOUND LIKE ANTITRUST!
Perhaps it's time for a last-ditch attempt to get a law on the statute books that would effectively ban DRM. Make it so that when any product is sold to a consumer, then nothing about that product is a secret from its rightful owner. In other words, the owner of a DVD should have a legitimate right to view the content recorded on it by virtue of owning the disc. {Of course this has wider implications beyond DVDs .....} Then, consumers would be protected from manufacturers' excesses of authority, as they could not legally lock you out of playing a disc you own.
If this isn't already law, we should be campaigning to get someone to try to make it law. No secrets from lawful owners of property -- it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It would effectively make the worst kinds of DRM unenforceable. Could we even get one of ourselves elected?
I cannot, however, in all honesty see how anyone can expect these encumbrances to work. It takes only one copy to be made by analogue transfer, and then it is possible to make an indefinite number of digital copies no worse than the original. And there are people who would go to the lengths to crack anything they can try. As long as there are fences, there will be someone with the urge to climb over them.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I worked briefly for a now defunct DRM company that was going to compete against Intertrust (we also considered using Intertrust technology under ours where there where patent issues). It seemed like it was going to be easy to compete (and it would have been if the VC wasn't so scarce at the time), because most DRM solutions are designed only to help the copyright holder not the customer. Are designs we focused on a balanced approach.
DRM wouldn't have quite such a bad name if it would provide users with benefits. Intertrust technology has the ability to do this it seems but since consumers are not their clients, so easily integrated features are ignored. We designed a system with the end user in mind. From the point of view of how would we want to use the electronic media we buy.
Important user features should include:
Free trial, and fare use of content, while right management is still in effect.
Merging of artistic works into new works with automatic (pass through) licensing fees.
License to the user not to the computer so I can listen to MY music at home or office or at a friend's house.
Easy distribution from user to user with no penalty to either user in the transaction (i.e. napster 1.0 can work because each file is self managing).
User selected automatic billing from incremental use (such as paying a per hour fee to use very expensive, but rarely used software, PPV etc.) to outright purchase.
From a security point of view our philosophy was not to make an unbeatable DRM solution, but rather to make the cost of circumventing the DRM higher then the value of the content. This came about automatically when you allow people to use $30,000 software packages for $5 an hour or whatever. It just becomes too easy to work with the DRM then not. We also had the ability to pass the billing for the software use (plus any "cost plus" amount) to a user's client, so mom and pop shops had equal access to high end software that big companies had only pay for what you need.
I'd love to see the open source community pick up where we left off. Current DRM solutions need a user-focused competitor. Perhaps, I'll start a project. What do you guy think? Is it worth it?
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - If you want to talk to me about it.
You know, like DVDs with region encoding (+ CSS to enforce that). Won't take off, dead in the water, right? At which point someone will probably mention
a) All the reasons it was better than VHS
b) that DivX (no, not the codec) lost and so the lesser evil won.
So will the latest DRM be too. Your AMD Athlon 64 or Intel Prescott whatever with the latest "Trusted computing"-mobo and other certified components. So will those HD-DVDs etc. as well. They'll be a lot cooler, and with less DRM than a really draconian alternative. (WMP DRM vs iTunes DRM anyone? Now think about iTunes vs CD... ok not much DRM, but a little)
Then, soon it'll be a standard. At which point you'll have to either tag along with the rest of society or become a real luddite. It's here to stay for the remaining 99,9% of the world even when you exclude it from your own.
I fear that DRM will be a raging success, and that afterwards you simply won't find what you take for granted today, in a non-DRM format. It's not just the "coolest new toys", but it's also about taking away your old ones. Unless you want to only listen to pre-DRM music, watch pre-DRM movies, and in general live in the past, not just with past (pre-DRM) equipment.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What's the use of protecting it if I don't want it? I haven't bought anything involving DRM or copy protection (DVDs, copy protected CDs, e-books, software) for over a year and don't intend to start again in the future. Yay for freedom of choice!
Surely all that DRM will do is allow the really good pirates (those who are willing to go to whatever lengths are necessary to bypass the DRM) to make much higher profits?
Hell, if DRM stops end-users from backing up their music or whatever, surely they'll just ignore the geniune offerings andy by a pirated copy without the DRM.
I predict that the only people a universal DRM system will hurt are the law-abiding customers who should, thanks to their ethics, actually be rewarded, not penalized.
Meanwhile, those who make a living out of selling $1 per CD copies of popular music and movies will see their profits soar.
Is that *really* what the RIAA and MPAA want?
Quack, quack.
...in the same way that the Patriot Act is accurate. The PA wants you to be a patriot by destroying the purpose of your patriotism (to exercise freedom). DRM wants you to use your digital "rights" by giving them all to big business and government (who will have the money to implement them) and letting them tell you when you can exercise them...for a fee, of course. Thus your "rights" aren't yours but privileges granted by others that can be taken without recourse, and you "preserve" your digital rights by destroying your capability to exercise them.
at this point, decoding the purpose of a policy or law is easy - look at the name, figure out what the policy claims to preserve or defend, and assume that the policy's real purpose is to destroy it. The more glowing or discreet the code phrase used as a title, the more likely the law is to negate the values it claims to uphold.
"This quote is simply wrong."
Apple has already shown that DRM can boost sales. Remember, there would be no iTMS unless Apple had been able to provide DRM-encoded tracks for the benefit of nervous rightsholders. It's highly unlikely that Apple could have gotten permission from so many of the rightsholders if iTMS were distributing unprotected MP3s.
And, we know what happened next: Apple just sold its 25 millionth song. These are 25 million sales that Apple and the record company would not have enjoyed if iTMS were not a reality, and it's DRM that made iTMS possible.
"I predict that increased DRM will not be an accelerator but will continue instead to be a de-accelerator and drain on the economy which will reduce digital sales of media."
Unfortunately the legal download services which use DRM (that is, virtually all of them) have a lot of momentum going for them. The first step that would have to happen in order for your prediction to be realized would be for a legitimate download service to spring up that offered all the content of iTMS or Napster, but in unprotected format. But, that's a very large first step.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
- Install Orwellian Memory Holes (tm) in billions of convenient locations worldwide, so that every media--including paper, magnetic, plastic, etc.--can be vaporized upon creation.
- Poke everybody's eyes out to prevent them from seeing something copyrighted, because doing so places a copy in their head, which is a violation of copyright.
- Pop everybody's ear drums to prevent them from hearing something copyrighted, because doing so places a copy in their head, which is a violation of copyright.
- Cut everyone's vocal chords to prevent them from saying something copyrighted, because doing so creates a copy of valuable intellectual property, which is a violation of copyright.
- In fact, cut off everyone's arms and legs, to prevent sign language from being used to violate copyrights.
- Finally, kill everyone to prevent any other form of body language from being used to violate copyrights.
By following these simple steps, we can ensure that nobody's copyright can be violated. This will benefit all of humanity, as piracy will become impossible.Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention... Bill Gates and Darl McBride are exempt from the above, because they are the Creators of copyrighted valuable intellectual property.
Yeah, it sounds really happening, better mark this idea for recycling.
DRM with unidirectional traffic is fundamentally very poor.
... DRM with an online component is of a fundamentally different nature than that of the old systems such as DVDs.
With bidirectional traffic it is possible to design systems which can only be broken by the analog hole (which obviously doesnt work for software) or chip-level reverse engineering, assuming the encryption isnt broken.
Divx was a sign of the future, but came around too soon
Intertrust will do much more than just protect your IP.
We go out and find the pirates stealing your IP, then we hold them in specially designed cells to cause the most physical distress possible.
After interrogating the pirates and finding out where all your IP has gone we burn down their houses and businesses and then investigate their friends and families.
When you want more than the run of the mill IP protection call Intertrust - we'll do more than just get your IP protected.
(Blatently ripped off from SNL Interbank commercial)
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
And all the new hardware has watermark detection which will refuse to pass through the data until it dials home to the MPAA/FBI to check up on you if a watermark is detected? All network connections will be mandated to be routed through the DRM circuitry of course ... so no avoiding it legally.
That is completely outlandish, but since the MPAA wants to be watermark detection in every A/D convertor it is clearly not beyond them to lobby for it. Do you trust your government (and the wisdown of our fellow sheep) enough to believe it is impossible for them to succeed?
I laugh at your pantywaisted silly little tantrums. I fart in your general direction. I blow my nose at you. I spit on your dirty silly bald heads!
bite me.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees (Catch-22)
When I hear or read about a new book I think might be of interest I just add it to my wishlist. Then once a month I review my list and see what the Used / Almost New price has dropped to. Just Got Digital Biology published in Jan 2001 for $3 rather than the original $25.
Help fight continental drift.
now there will be just one predominant set of DRM code that we have to figure out how to hack.
whew.
So where on the net is the listing of DRMed music, movies, etc? I have heard of a few albums - but is anyone out there tracking it??
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Aside from all the (endless, redundant) DRM IS BAD commentary, I still find that these companies are fundamentally missing the point.
I would not mind (so much) them wanting to enforce their rights to sell music, to earn money from it, and to stamp out piracy. Except that each and every deployment of Rights Management/Copyright Enforcement has always put me in a position where I (ie The Customer) would be purchasing a lesser product for as much if not more money.
For Example:
- A new Australian service where you purchase licenses to tracks for (essentially) $2 Australian
- A whole album of tracks would cost more than the CD
- AND if you want physical copy, you provide the CDR yourself
- Only it's WMA (ie lossy encoding)
- And it's 128Kbps (ie not lossless and/or very-high-quality encoding of the original CD bitstream)
- CopyProtection systems on CDs
- which refuse to play on some CD players
- or which flat-out BREAK other CD players
- which take up data space ie you're getting less music
- iTunes and its ILK, which only work on [insert-one-specific-media-player-here]
- I already have XYZ hardware, now I have to buy NEW hardware to listen to music
- What's stopping them next year producing new and incompatible formats, requiring not just higher license fees but MORE HARDWARE
A Smart Consumer wants value for money. In an existing market (ie music), a new product needs to give the customer more value (for some definition of 'value') in order to succeed.So far your (ahem) "solutions" give me
- less music
- playable in less devices
- with lower quality
- and less convenience
- at the same or higher (total) cost to me
After all this you're surprised to find that Smart Consumers aren't interested in DRM'd music?????Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
assuming they want the same level of protection DVDs gave...
keep it in the hardware, make it as platform/os independant as possible. for example, as a cd drive can output directly to the sound card, let a dvd output to the framebuffer and sound to the card. in this example the driver would need little more than a transformation matrix, position in stream(s) and some settins. theoretically, it could be built so the OS doesnt even see the image.
- easier development, less driver/intergration issues
- less software dependance give hardware makers some much needed leverage microsoft
- better PR, for example you wont have the ill will of collage professors or the ACM
possible issuesMS and mpaa/riaa and similar organizations wouldnt like it because they would only the control what theyre supposed to and couldnt use this to create an artificial barrier of entry(2). but thats better for the hardware makers, probably sony (3), and the users. and they wouldnt be able to use thier copying excuse(4)
(1) time to market is, of course, the other, and possibly bigger factor
(2) lock out competition
(3) i suspect sony makes more money from technology than entertainment. either way would be interesting to know
(4) they could complain about it being easy to crack, but given thier past, thats a pretty pathetic. of course the legal people they complain to/buy off wouldnt know or care...
i was going to trace this to drm is not a good idea, but will have to save that for later
They are releasing a new DRM scheme? Ok...I am holding the shift key down...let me know when they are done!
I can't afford a sig!
Now convince the consumers that it provides them ANY benefit or advantage...Granted the manufacturers will get to lie and misrepresent the facts on national television and printed media but still every person I've EVER explained the concept to has come away WHAT ?!?! NO WAY, be they a computer literate person or just someone buying lots of music or dvd's. Break it down to a basic level and compare to every day examples, and they 'so-called' consumer advantages DRY UP AND BLOW away and all you are left with is a system to squeeze blood from a failing market, DIVX didn't fly and it was consumer friendly and simple compared to the implications of DRM and the long term hidden effects.....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
They could perfectly well make a DRM scheme and them make it open so that anyone could implement it. Open Standard just means that anyone can use it, the implication often being with low or non extant licensing fees. Doesn't mean the product has to be designed to make things open though.
That way you only need one method of bypassing it, rather than let each corporation make a diff version.
I share your hope that some iTunes-alike will convince the RIAA to allow unencumbered distribution. Wouldn't it be great if there were real competition, so a clueful content owner could step in and win by giving people what they want?
Litigious bastards
I will tell you right now, and I SWEAR this is true, that I would have bought many songs from the Apple Music Store if they were MP3 and thus I could transfer them to my desktop machine and play them (I would also put them on an Ipod I own and on the Ibook I used to download them). So for me at least, the DRM has stopped me from making purchases from their site.
Instead I am using the Ibook to rip CD's. For some reason it turns *those* into MP3 files and I can play them anywhere. But isn't this just as much as a possible piracy problem as downloading them?
Actually ripping the CD's has made me remember some old stuff, and I actually went out to buy another album from one of the groups (Carter USM) so in this case the fact that it made MP3's actually *increased* sales.
There is lots of shrill anti-RIAA hysteria here, but even a calm analysis shows that they are wrong, and DRM is only hurting them.
PS: I do believe the RIAA has every right to use any legal means they want to go after people purposely violating their copyright by making copies available on the internet. This is complelety different than annoying paying customers with DRM, and it is totally logical to be in favor of one and against another, though the trolls here will try to say that people must be entirely on one side or the other.
Whether you hate DRM or not, this is how it must be done if it is really going to work. Hardware manufacturers have to get together and design sealed and tamper-proof hardware that does this, and stop listening to Mr Gates saying it will all be done by Palladium. They are being taken for a ride so that Gates can screw the entire rest of the computer industry and put them out of business, and possibly also extract a nasty licensing fee from every content producer.
If you are a content provider and you want DRM that works, you should insist on a sealed hardware device where the manufacturer has published all the specs and enough information that a Linux driver can be written. Not because of the trivial amount of extra business by Linux, but because this is a guarantee that the DRM cannot be broken. The hardware device will have an ID in it (which is going to drive privacy advocates nuts, but what kind of horrors do you think Microsoft's DRM will have?) so that you can download content that will only play on your device.
If anybody is still too dense to get it: the API is similar to the remote control on your DVD player. Yep, you can push those buttons in any order you want, but you are not going to get it to do anything other than play that DVD on your TV.
Microsoft is going to fight this with everything they got, because they will lose the ability to lock-in media playback to their software. They will LIE about how their software will prevent cracks. Listen to your own engineers, and do not believe crap from Microsoft!
If you buy DRM products, then you have no right to complain. Sure, DRM is here to stay, because the sheep are hungry. But those of us who are informed, simply don't buy. Tell your neighbors and family not to buy. Tell your dog, don't buy. If you are able, promote those 'after market modifications'. Then you can complain if it's still around.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
It would appear that Sony and Phillips just stood up and showed Microsoft their middle digits.
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!" --Albert Einstein
Thanks to DRM nobody wanted to buy DAT tapes for music.
There are many people and small research companies that invent things but can't, or are not interested in, exploiting the patents themselves. Universities are a good example; they invent tons of stuff, and most are not legally allowed to directly own for-profit industries, so they sell the rights or spin off a separate legal entity to exploit the invention.
Your proposal steals directly from the people who are doing the inventing by reducing the value of the goods they have to sell without compensating them in any way. It does not discourage the buyers from buying, it simply lowers the sale price.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Intertrust of Intertrust Docbox, the PDF encryption scheme using state of the art encryption... uh, heh... and was famously trivially broken by Dmitry Sklyarov of Elcomsoft, a feat which earnt him the title of first person arrested under the DMCA.
I wouldn't worry about this guys, seriously; the hardware foundation underlying it has already been cracked. I'm holding one of the production models right now, it's even passed the prototype stage. (At the moment it may be more widespread than actual motherboards supporting the TCPA.) I won't tell you exactly what the crack is as that would spoil the surprise and glee when you find out how easy it is, not to mention the distaste when you realise you have had to illegally crack your own PC so you once again become its true owner.
It'll take about three minutes to chip (or, if you prefer, de-chip) your TCPA-compliant PC, giving you access - as in, printing the hexdump -to the symmetric and asymmetric secret keys in the root, as well as optionally flashing your bios with a stealth patch. It doesn't even require any permanent hardware modification if you don't want to flash the bios - once you have the keys, they are truly yours.
You'll go after the people with the broken keys? I don't think they understand what's going to happen to the p2p world in the next few months that will, in conjunction with existing release group best practices, make that feat rather amusingly futile, not to mention that new keys are going to be rather cheap to acquire - after all, all you have to do is replace the motherboard to get a new one. Hell, you don't even have to USE that motherboard - no reason you can't emulate the hardware if you have keys for it.
Did you really think no-one was going to fight this crap?
I've been gunning for these guys for a while, ever since Sklyarov. And when it's cracked for them, I'd just like to find this using the keywords silent jaded xenomorph, tell them that I told you so, and point to this little post, and smile.
I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Posted anonymously via a proxy chain more than 10 hops long. Greets to: Dmitry Sklyarov, Jon Johannsen, Beale Screamer, Team RoR, DAMN, what's left of Lockless, The Blue List, the Lady, and everyone else who still gives a damn.
You can't put DRM on the Universe!
That's where I download all my stuff from!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
For me, when I purchase content, the ability to make copies of that content is a large part of the content's value. I'm paying not just for the content, but for the copying ability.
One advantage which DRM supporters cite in support of DRM is that DRM will make new business models possible, such as selling content which is copy-able at a higher price than content which is not copy-able. (For an excellent report of the various perspectives in support and in opposition to DRM, including this perspective by the pro-DRM camp, see the "Implications of the Broadcast Flag: A Public Interest Primer (version 2.0) - A Report of the Center for Democracy and Technology - December 2003, at
www.cdt.org/copyright/031216broadcastflag.pdf).
But isn't this just a money-grab? If I can currently buy at X-price and make copies, then nothing changes with DRM installed except the price at which I can continue to do what I am doing now.