Slashdot Mirror
Digital Rights Managment Year in Review
zjango writes "DRM Watch is a great source for the ongoing monitoring of Digital Rights Management issues and news. They've put out a useful 2003 year in review for DRM across several categories that Slashdot readers will likely find of interest. It is a
look back at the year's significant trends in DRM technology, along with some predictions for 2004 and beyond."
It looks Linus one *week* to write an application to archive his email?
.NET and C#, Outlook 2003, and SQL Server 2000.
I could do the same thing in a couple hours using
I guess that is a pretty big statement about the power of Linux, and the talent of the people who made it...?
20 years from Sony vs. Universal, fair use is going the way of the dodo.
DRM will increasingly cause problems for normal users. For those who copy the content nothing will change. Normal users will then begin to copy a lot more content.
... er.. corporations realise DRM isn't working to keep there high prices.
A few nasty laws will undoubtably be made when the govern
Digital Rights Managment Year in Review
/. invented its own hacked spelling. Fight the power!
Apparently, someone has patented proper spelling of the word "management", so
RW
How could they possibly discuss online music and DRM in 2003 and not mention Apple and the ITMS? This may be the most significant product in the growth of legal online music yet released. It's far more popular than any of its competitors, and much more friendly to its users, and yet the online music scene is "dominated by Microsoft". I can't decide if they deliberately left it off because they hate Apple or if they're just stupid/uninformed.
I'm all for DRM in '04 maturing into say... half a dozen vendors such as Apple and even Microsoft, all with relatively different filetypes for distribution and end-user benefits
I am worried about Microsoft though *No, not flaming*
Windows Media is a robust system for music and video quality, being a Mac user myself, I use it regularly alongside AAC but the fact Microsoft in the last few months have used the Windows format as basically an excuse to try and monopolize on key aspects of the up and coming DRM race is distressing, Apple were the first company to introduce a fair play DRM, the first to provide a quality end user service, Microsoft for one are pushing vendors into Windows Media Format, making it integral to Longhorn and beyond, this not only encompasses the OS but any app ran on it, for me... I excuse that I'm not the most privvy to reading up more closely on DRM, but I do feel Microsoft are up their old tricks again regarding DRM
Well, it seems like this issue is definitely not going away, despite what many might wish. Naturally, it will be implemented and at first some people will whine about the annoyances, but nobody will actually do anything to stop the widespread adoption of DRM (who could possibly succeed?).
Looks like Sony and Philips will bring the noise with their InterTrust acquisition. What technology was InterTrust developing? How might it be implemented in electronics? Are we going to see some sort of digital signature type of authentication or encryption occuring between devices (e.g., a DVD player and a computer)? Or between a HDTV and a DVD recorder or PVR?
------- "One of the joys of travel is visiting new towns and meeting new people." -- G. KHAN
DRM is impossible. And stop wasting millions on chasing a rainbow that is mathematically, computationally, logically _impossible_ . There will never be a working copy protection system. News about stupid companies failed (or doomed) attempts to do this are just getting sad.
2003 was a terrible year for copy protection for physical media. DVD piracy abounded, thanks to the selection of the weak CSS copy protection scheme, whose primary advantage seems to be low unit cost for the DVD player makers who designed it. Attempts to foment copy protection schemes for audio CDs were mostly laughable.
People break these things because ordinary folks don't want them! I think the music industry should take a hint from their consumers, stop throwing millions of dollars at R&D for Digital "Rights" Management and instead try to work out a sustainable digital media strategy (i.e. ITunes and high-quality downloads etc.). How long (and how much wasted money) before they figure this just isn't going to work out?
The Welkin: Online Music Reviews
I don't like the name DRM, it's misleading. If all it involved was proper management of rights, no problem. However, it's a little one-sided.
I think the name Capability Removal by the Author of Media Products, or CRAMP is much more accurate. Want to CRAMP your PC? I didn't think so.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
DRM is Digital Restrictions Management, and we should always refer to it as such, especially when writing OpEd pieces or online articles about it. Perhaps we'll have better luck than the casinos and "gaming".
Oh, Lord, what should I do?
Keep gaming.
What?
It means gambling... keep gambling.
Oh! Righty-O!
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it. However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing. If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.) The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative. That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
What's negative about this ? I think this was the best part of last year.
In related news, P2P file sharing seems to have picked up again ...
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Go back to your den of filth, troll.
My Palm Tungsten has a SD/MMC slot, MultiMedia cards are becoming unavailable, SD cards are all over the place, and there are *no* open-source drivers for the restricted SD media.
Naturally, I would *welcome* being wrong. does anyone in the community know of a way to use SD media in a Linux or other open-source OS context? I know the SD protocol seems to be available only under NDA and with some sort of fee structure, but it's possible that a driver exists somewhere.
They are VERY pro-DRM. If you subscribe to their newsletter, you can look forward to getting regularly spammed by them (they seem to ignore unsubscribe requests).
./.
But props to them for sleazing a mention of themselves on
Fortunately, current intellectual property law remedies digital infringement allowing petetioners to cover the costs of litigating the violators, so long as creators secure these protections through the Copyright Office and or the USPTO. Having worked for major media companies, we are able to go after infringers as well as prevent parties from infringing upon our rights. One criticism of this process is that it takes a lot of people to preemptively protect digital content. Most companies using the digital mediums release products to millions of people all over the world and only have 20 lawyers overseeing the rights. Companies are relying on software to keep track of ip rights, still the legal minds making the calls and entering the information, which later is shared with thousands of internal clients, are taxed by the level of responsibilty and the lack of investment companies put into the number of people monitoring the IP assets. Hopefully, companies will create a larger budget in their legal departments and employ enough IP specialists who know how to protect the assets through the regulations and not simply rely on software/digital services to protect them, that is unless, the software can represent their interests in negotiations and court.
Jax
DRM is not "Digital Rights Management"--it does nothing to protect anyone's rights. For one, companies who produce software/music/movies have their rights protected by copyright already. "Digital Restrictions Management" is much more accurate--it does nothing in regard to the rights of the company, but restricts the rights of the user.
Digitally Managing YOUR Rights...
Who is that kid? You (or others) have been trolling that link for a while now.
BTW, you spelled 'their' wrong.
In case you hadn't noticed, its spelled "spelt".
Which "shadow" are they talking about? I'm responsible for a moderatly sized MS-network (about 1500 PCs and a 100-odd servers), and RMS is the next thing on my "to implement" list, because it will save me from clueless management people. We have had such a person kill (file system-)security by taking a file from a managemt-only file share and mailing it to the wrong distribution list. With RMS unauthorized partners will not (easily) be able to read the document.
So, in my eyes that is where DRM might actually be useful and neccessary, I don't see a "shadow".
What's wrong with me?
As soon as people wake up to what DRM really is, they'll stop paying for it. There will be so many hacks out there to kill it (De-CSS/iTunes DRM) that it will become as prevalent and annoying as spam, until people wake up. Then it will go back into the history book filled with bad ideas, such as coal powered automobiles.
how they failed to mention protected AAC files and the launch of the iTunes service is beyond me. How dare they call this a year in review and fail to mention iTunes.
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
Drop 'Media'.... ;)
Could someone explain to me why the pig has fur? I didn't think pigs had fur.
Genuinely curious.
What the ...huh? I realize I haven't bowled in a year or two, but how many of them now have chasms that need crossing to enter? Perhaps this is an element of the declining league membership: with Americans in poorer shape, quite a few more are incapable of chasm crossing to even get into the bowling alleys. Perhaps this whole chasm requirement should be rethought.
Say, if I buy something online and request that they not sell my info - they are unable to.
Or if I fly, I can be assued that my information is not given to secret government projects.
Yes, the likelyhood and feasibillity of this 'crazy idea' are small to none, but I have yet to see a application of DRM that is not about content control for the big players. Sure there's the spam prevention that gets tossed around, but I can't see that being available until the $$$-making stuff gets good and locked down.
DRM and anti-fair use legislation will mean the end of independent artists, writers and coders. Welcome to the brave new world.
that's correct right ? better to educate the unwashed masses with the correct terminology than call it something its not
it has nothing to do with "rights" and everything to do with "restrictions", the more you keep calling it the former the more MS/HP etc smile
bit like the "patriot act" , call it a positive name and no one will oppose it
DRM reminds me of the early Internet. Back in the day, the network was built on trust. Slowly, crackers started to pop-up and destroy the bounds of trust. Now, no one trusts anything on the Internet and the Internet suffers because of that. It's harder to use now because of that.
DRM is the solution to removal of trust. Before, the music and video companies trusted us to follow copyright laws. As time went on, the "crackers" shared the music with each other and the companies slowly began to not trust us. Now, DRM is coming in like encryption, passwords, and firewalls did on the early Internet. Just like with the early Internet, DRM doesn't do anything but hurt the people who want to use the music and video legally.
Stop pirating.
Each time that Slashdot has one of these forums on DRM I get dismayed at how few people write about the possible long-term consequences that DRM will take. By long term I mean twenty years at a minimum. Usually people just assume that in the long term there will be DRM on everything and every exposure to a piece of cultural entertainment will trigger a micropayment upon its view or interaction.
That is probably a fantasy wish of the entertainment-media conglomerate corporations.
I suspect that hard DRM (stuff that works like the media corporations want it to and can't be broken by users) would create a parallel 'pirate' media corporate group that would in the long term be absorbed into the other media corporations. This pirate group would provide media product at sharply reduced rates but delayed by months or years from the product's initial release by the primary media corporations. It would analogue the cheap neighborhood second-run movie theatres that played relatively new movies after they had been showing a few months in the larger first-run theatres. (This is how the movie business worked before the VCR boom in the late 1980's and the DVD boom currently happening).
This idea of people 'stealing' cultural product by not paying the media corporations fantasy prices for product would just go away, like the idea that African-American music was sinful (an idea that until the 1990's was often expressed in working class European-American churches).
An example of media corporations have fantasy prices is the notion that all recorded music product have the same price (such as $18 per CD) regardless of how long the product has been on the market or how saturated the market has become with this individual product. The idea that people are 'stealing' recorded music by the Beatles that is forty years old because they aren't paying $18 for a CD of ten songs is a perfect example. Especially when most of the 'thieves' of the Beatle's recordings have previously purchased the same recordings in 45RPM single vinyl format, 33RPM long-play album vinyl format, cassette format, 8-track format, premium Dolby re-release high-grade vinyl long-play album format, ect...
There are lots of other consequences of longterm DRM that you can think of that excape the rest of us here, please post your ideas.
Thank you,
Somebody please, educate these people on how DRM is evil? I'm tired...
Somebody posts a link to a movie, a girl fucked by a dog or something like that. I spend half a hour downloading it. Then I try to play it - no way. .wmv, DRM-protected file, certificate revoked. Good bye.
The way DRM is going is to the hardware level. Its far too easy for people to break software DRM because all it takes is a few debugging tools. The best thing to do is to start getting into hardware hacking early - play around with PICs and stuff (playstation mod chips are PICs) and get to the point where your as comfortable as if you were with a software debugger. DRM is restricted by the 'if you can see it you can copy it' rule and eventually even the best DRM systems finish with an unencrypted data stream or an enable signal. Law is not going to be on our side so if we want our electronics free from artificial restrictions we are gonna have to fight it ourselves and make a mockary of the DRM industry. Screw them all before they start coming out with DRM chips that call the cops or blow-up in the users face if they are tampered with. And stop them before it becomes illigal to own so much as a multimeter without a license.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Fair use "right" is a misnomer. It's more of an indemnity against a copyright holder suing you.
They are in no way required to facilitate or allow (technically) you to copy something. They just can't sue you if you do (DMCA not withstanding).
DRM == Denial of Rights Mechanism
gewg_
I think this requires a revisitation to the idea of information and computer ethics. Read some Norbert Wiener (applied ethics) and Albert Borgmann (information theory). That's my plan for the next couple weeks anyway.
That is what is scary about all of this is that they companies really will be able to encode copyrighted data tightly enough that it will become rediculusly difficult to decode. Yes, their have been mistakes and their will always be a way given enough will power but how much will power will we be able to muster to decode a single song much less hundreds of them that we might want to listen to in a weeks time?
In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it. However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. I think you're right on up until about here, but sadly I'm a bit more cynical about what the future holds. Too few people are in control of way too much on our planet (and that's another thread :p). I read a very interesting article by John Walker, author of Speak Freely recently, and you might want to give it a read. I can say the man tends to repeat himself.. but the ideas he presents and the overall picture he puts together is quite frightening, showing how the traditional giant producer/many consumers model for information and everything else can, will, and already is being imposed on the internet. A big part of this is DRM, and even moreso trusted computing.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
Millions of desktop computers around the world can now restrict your rights. The "Do Not Forward" email is just the beginning. Note however, that in order to use Windows Rights Management, you need a Windows server which hosts the document and authenticates you to receive an encrypted copy of it. The system is not flawless, but I don't see any competition for this "Rights Management" feature from Open Source.
"Digital Rights Management" is to "rights" as "Lung Cancer" is to "lung".
All Congress has to do is pass a law requiring "compliance" chips in all new computers. For a while you can probably get around this by importing stuff from other countries, but eventually they may simply ban possession of such equipment.
bingo.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
It appears that Microsoft named their restrictive Rights Management Services (RMS) in honor of Richard M. Stallman, founder of the GNU project and champion of free speech and free software.
Next week, Microsoft plans to leave a flaming bag of dog crap on Linus's front stoop.
Unknown host pong.
Big Company: We just spent 100 Million dollars in this new DRM scheme...Finally no one will copy our CDs!!!
Kid at home: Hey, you press shift or use other OS and nothing happens!!! Free to copy now!
Everybody: DOH!!!
how long until
Why couldn't you just select all, copy and paste into Notepad, then create a new message, then copy and paste out of Notepad into the new message?
Or if that doesn't work, do a screen capture of the email window, then use some kind of character recognition software to turn it back into text. Then paste said text into a new email. (Or email the bitmap as an attachment.)
Does Outlook scan outgoing mail to ensure they don't contain material copied from "Do not forward" emails?
Unknown host pong.
Here's an idea on how to get around proprietary music formats (so you can exercise all the rights granted by fair use).
1. Write a Windows device driver that looks to an application like a sound card driver.
2. Have fake-sound-card driver actually write raw audio data to a file.
3. Play protected file using proprietary player.
4. Viola! CD quality raw audio data!! Convert to format of your choice.
Implementation is left as an exercise to the reader.
Unknown host pong.
... is accenuated in a system that incentivizes the theft of content in the absense of a cohesive offering made in terms of the nature of the content itself apropos the marked price demanded by the content packager (creator / distributor).
.. $16 CDs with vanilla stereo format music.
I would rather that content packagers make a case for cohesive content instead of offering content wrapped in DRM that kills the "right of fair use".
Think $10 hybrid DVDs including SACD media and band videos and live performances for that album versus what's currently available
If the RIAA makes a serious attempt at convincing its members to offer value for the money they charge, they might actually succeed at curbing their file-sharing scourge. They are certainly getting nowhere with their belligerent attitude as pillagers trying desperately to defend their right to steal -- both from the artist and from the fans.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... Digital Rights manage YOU!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
This is offtopic, but it bugs me to no end.
.....
made particularly deep and yawning by the overall post-9/11 technology slump
Yeah. Things haven't been the same since 9/11. Just last week I died my underwear pink by accident. Damn terrorists.
Not everything is about 9/11! Stop it! Just STOP IT!
That no matter how hard they try to copy-protect media, there will be many geeks trying to break the protection, and at least one of them will succeed?
> We can hope that once both sides finally get past the rhetoric, everyone will see both DRM and P2P for what they are and are not, and get on with the business of using both to their advantage.
Not likely.
The purpose of P2P is to implement the free flow of information. The purpose of DRM is to restrict that flow.
Thus, P2P and DRM are absolutely opposite in their respective purposes -- despite the rhetoric of people who would love to develop a viable P2P+DRM business model.
Yes, it's true that DRM files can be distributed over P2P. But P2P will always have the ability to distribute the uncrippled files too -- and crippled content doesn't stand a chance when it's presented alongside the uncrippled version.
You can't avoid these hard facts. The reality of the situation is extremely bleak for the content industries. People who sugar-coat this situation are doing it so that they can sell their speculative business plans.
Perhaps we can start calling DRM by its real name, Digital Restriction Management, instead of just playing along and using some cutesy euphemism.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
The purpose of DRM is to protect copyright, hence Digital Rights Management.
The purpose of Digital Rights Management is to protect copyright.
Ever heard of copyright?
There is not, at leasts for several years, any prospect of building tamper-proof encrypted speakers, especially given that audiophiles will want to connect their computer to their existing high-end amp/speakers which are analog. With some decent-quality analog equipment, one can re-record something played by a computer, re-encode it into MP3, and trade it around regardless of crippling (or if the OS somehow magically detects this, via encrypted channel between older, non-crippled computers). Hell, even if the speakers were encrypted you could bring it into a quietroom and record... the big hole in the system is that no matter how high the cost, in only takes one person to do this, and everyone can reap the illicit rewards over P2P networks. This is why DRM is impossible.
Even if a new Fritz-ish law comes into effect that requires all new devices to have magic detector chips that make it impossible to dupe copyrighted content, and such chips can be designed, and they work, all existing computers would have to crumble to dust before this could work. Or the internet would have to be sealed against computers without these chips. Not only that, because you could encrypt it and haul disks around... either encryption would have to be banned, or the digital world would have to be entirely divided, with a perfect sentry at every gate, and hardware modding made illegal......
At the point where DRM against re-recording from analog could be implemented, we'd have far, FAR more to worry about from Big Brother than uncopyable songs.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
This is not about rights (consumers' or publishers'). This is about control. This is about not allowing you all you can with the technology at your disposal. It's also a way to position the industry so it can go back to dictating price increases.
At the same time, piracy goes on full steam. They are not after pirates, they are after legitimate users and their "unauthorized uses".
DRM is nothing but an attempt to make it inconvient for people to know their own key.
Even Microsoft repeatedly states on its website that even Trusted Computing cannot hope to enforce DRM if the owner of the computer feels like altering the hardware. The best solution is to rip open a chip and read out your key. That gives you total control over your computer.
You can't stop the owner of a machine from opening it up and reading out his key. He owns it and he has absolutely every right to do so.
They are perfectly free to use all the DRM they like so long as I have every right to circumvent that DRM for legal purposes, and for me to help other people circumvent DRM for legal purposes.
nobody will actually do anything to stop the widespread adoption of DRM
Mere informing people about it can have a signifigant effect. I have caught multiple projects based on Trusted Computing that have actually been making signifigant effort to hide that fact that thet are connected to Trusted Computing because most people who know about Trusted Computing are rebelling about it. Intel's attempt to put ID numbers inside every CPU a few years ago was killed by public backlash against it.
A good example of a project hiding it's Trusted Computing connection is Cisco's recently announced Network Admission Control routers. Cisco's press release on them touts it an an anti-virus anti-worm system, and several news sites (including Slashdot) ran stories on Cisco "delaring war on worms" and "blocking viruses at the router". However people generally express outrage when they learn that what these routers actually do is to deny you an internet connection unless you submit to Trusted Computing. The router uses Trusted Computing to verify that you are running specific software such as approved anti-virus scanner and firewall (thus the "anti-virus" claims). If you aren't Trusted Computing-compliant then it can simply refuse to let you connect to the internet at all.
Perhaps you don't think "informing people" counts as doing anything. Well I for one am QUITE interested in working on the hardware/software projects required to liberate a computer from Trusted Computing restrictions, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Working out how to rip open a chip to read out the key and programming the software required to emulate the system (and control/override that system).
I think a great way to get such a project (and perhaps business) started would be to first target the law-enforcement market. No one can possibly object to aiding law-enforcment in recovering encrypted data/evidence from computers seized from criminals and to control/override software on computers seized from criminals. Go ahead, lets see someone try to paint such a project as a bunch of "evil hackers", chuckle.
Once you've figured out how to routinely extract keys from chips, and once you've developed the required software to give the owner control over the system then you can sell such services and software to anyone and everyone. It would be a sort of "upgrade service" giving you full control of your computer.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Ever try to plug a DVD player into your VCR to watch a movie?
Yes. I found some VCR's are cheap and have the AGC in the video line from the tuner/video in. These mess up the video for you. Other VCR's have the AGC in the record circuit. The E-E (electronics-electronics) circuit does not have AGC. This passes the video through the VCR out to the TV unaltered, but still messes up the recording if you attempt it as required by law. Read the reviews. Let the buyer beware.
The truth shall set you free!
... that's watermarking. Watermarking technology has more potential in theory, but I think in practice it will also be cracked. But my point is that someone will either buy a song in CD form with cash, or break the watermarking, break the DRM (the stuff that prevents you from copying the song) using some method, an analog gap if necessary, and get it into MP3 form or the like on an uncrippled computer. Then there's little that Big Brother or Big Media can due to stop him from sharing it all over with a mesh like Publius or Freenet, other than outlawing encryption.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
"physical rights managers" (PRMs).
DRM disables me from doing a variety of things to which the gov't has decided that I possess the right to do. The "rights" DRM manages are rights that do not belong to those "managing" them in the first place. In some cases, you will have to pay to do what is within your rights (and to pay to whom they do not belong and have never belonged), while others will never be yours (though they are legally so). The rights to goods that I own (my computers and peripherals) are taken away by DRM.
If DRM is about the protection of the rights of copyright holders, then theft should be considered the protection of someone else's right to manage your physical property. Oh wait, they don't have that right? Oops, my bad...
He looks South African.