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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
it will never be able to plug the "analog hole".
... you're assuming there that there will a. always be analog recording equipment being sold, or legal to use and b. that the analog data stream will be accessible. VCRs are already on the way out, casettes aren't far behind, and standard NTSC/PAL video interfaces will be the next to go. The FCC has already mandated that ALL television receivers in the United States WILL be digital, which means that the death of the old NTSC standard can't be far behind. When NTSC is no longer broadcast or encoded on DVDs, it will immediately obsolesce all the millions of video cassette recorders out there. The only side benefit I see is that those assholes at Macrovision will become gainfully unemployed. Once all data flow between consumer devices (DVD player, HDTV, etc.) is completely and irrevocably digital the analog hole won't be an issue anymore because it won't be there to need plugging.
Sure it can
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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".
Will the general public ever understand waht Trusted Computing is? I doubt it.
The key is reducing it to a level the non-tech public can understand:
Give me my key!
That can be backed up by a few simple points. It is your key, you have a right to it. If you have your key then you control your computer. Knowing your key cannot reduce your computer's ability to protect you in any way. If you don't know your key then people can turn your computer against you (lock-ins / lock-outs).
All very easy and very understandable. THAT is the message we need to get to the mainstream media.
The EFF goofed in it's opposition to Trusted Computing when it demanded an "owner override" so that the user can "lie". Owner override is too complex an issue and being able to "lie" sounds like an evil thing. If the owner knew his key (PrivEK) then he could just download an "owner override" program.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.