Buzzword du Jour: DRM

mattmcal writes "Though the RSA Conference in San Francisco and Bill Gates' keynote were expected to stir up several headlines on 'security' today, the news coming from 3GSM in Cannes seemed to deliver more tangible results. From Qualcomm's new DRM chipsets to NDS' mobile VideoGuard, several interesting 'DRM (digital rights management)' announcements raise the bar for distribution-shy media companies who may have increasing opportunities for driving content to mobile devices. But Intel's Barrett knows this is only the beginning of a complicated standards problem."

Comments

It will take years for these standards to settle d

[Tangential]

If history is any guide, the corporate positioning, coupled with the slowness of standards bodies will make this a mess for at least 2-3 years.

DRM is nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Linus Torvalds, creator of the Open Source OS Linux. I'm glad CmdrTaco and company have created a forum for Open Source news and views, and I am so thankful for being able to post in the Slashdot forums. But now I must get something off my chest.

As you all know, I am a fairly clean cut, well-kempt person (I know, I have a beer gut only ESR could dare to challenge, but you'll have that if you spend 18 hours a day coding and eating Cheezie Doodlez), and in the GNU community that is an anomoly: virtually all users of GNU software and the GPL, under which my Linux kernel falls under, are unkempt, long-haired, beast-bearded dirty GNU hippies, and I am sick and tired of having to deal with them.

The person I have the greatest problem with is the (in)famous communist, RMS. Now, RMS may have been responsible for GNU, the GPL, GCC, and many other contributions to the computing community, but his stance, as well as stench, displayed in his essays and actions, nauseates me. I mean, with that filth-ridden beard of his, where does he have room to demand Linux distros demarkate the OS as GNU/Linux? When he is as clean-shaven as I, he may have the right. Until then, as he sits and plays his little flutes and drops acid like there is no tomorrow, he can shut his mouth and go back to reading Marx. I am sorry to sound so harsh, but a little hygeine every once in a while is a Good Thing(TM). Makes me wish I'd went with the BSD license back in the day.

Next in line of dirty scuzballs I have to deal with, and probably the worst thorn in my side, is Alan Cox, the primary coder of my kernel's TCP/IP stack (ha, what a joke!) and all around dirty GNU hippy. The man's wife, who I spent a few years with at the University of Helsinki, often calls me crying in the middle of the night to complain of the rank, unbearable stench the man exudes after sex. On several occasions I have personally had to withstand his torrent of rotten odor at trade shows, exhibitions, and beer bashes that permeates every inch of his toxic person. Along with the typical GNU hygeine (mis)habits he practices, he also bitches and whines about... well, everything. He lies a lot too; evidence for this can be seen in the fact he almost always wears cheap black sunglasses when talking to people he knows are better than him (such as myself).

And then we come to ESR. I won't reiterate the sewerdweller-like cleansing habits he practices as well, but I would like to focus on his general lifestyle. Firstly, he's never been to school. As a German expatriate, education should have been his priority; however, becoming a Gas Baron was his ambition in life until he realized he would fail at it. I wish he'd make that realization with the other things he tries to do. Secondly, the man is a sub-intelligent hillbilly. You know, the kind that goes to inner-city computer stores and buys 386s to set up as servers all over his house, with cigarette smoke-stained 14" monitors piled high upon his kitchen table. He has no cooth and can't integrate himself into any social situation involving "white collar" executives without rambling into a tirade on gun rights or tanning roadkill. Couple the above facts with his ruddy complection (from drinking Jagermeister like it's water) and his gnat-ridden handlebar mustache and you've got the makings of one more person who pisses me off.

Well, that's it for now. Hopefully with these feelings off my chest and into the Open Source community, things will change for the better. I'd like just once to talk to a Linux user or advocate who washes and changes their clothes at least weekly. Until then, thanks to CmdrTaco, Slashdot, and you, the reader, for the opportunity to bring things to the table and share for the betterment of our community.

It's fundamentally silly

[Theatetus]

DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware. It it's in memory and it's an architecture remotely similary to what we now consider a "personal computer", I can copy it.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[LousyPhreak]

how true...

but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

i dont know anyone who is not quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds, let alone copmuter games.

the point is its no problem for 99% of the /. crowd but remember not everyone spends enough time and effort just to get things going or else almost no one would be running windows ;)

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[asdf 101]

I agree.

In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware, there will always be instances where the content is never completely "locked-in".

Why do I say this? Simply because computers (the digital beings that they are) are not the ones paying for use of media content in the manner that we are? Which computer do you know of today that wants to watch a movie or listen to a song? And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback". And therein lies the greatest weakness of any DRM technology.

Or atleast they find some way to directly bridge the gap between the digital stream of ones and zeroes within computing devices and our senses of perception.

Till then, this is all goobledegook, albeit always at a higer plane than the last time round.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Sven Tuerpe]

DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware.

Bzzzt. Wrong! DRM serves as an anchor for legal enforcement. You are right in that it certainly won't work without hardware support. However, that's not the point. The whole point is to make you, or anyone who does manufacture devices without DRM support in their hardware, look like a villain -- a "hacker", a thief, a criminal.

An example: German news site Heise reports that the music industry here started to go after people who sell software able to copy music CDs. So this is what does happen:

1. Music industry claims there is copy protection (aka DRM) on some of their CDs,
2. Music industry claims this copy protection is "circumvented" if certain tools are used,
3. Music industry sues those who sell those tools,
4. Music industry assumes new_world == old_world - evil_tools, and claims that there is a working copy protection scheme (aka DRM).
5. Repeat ad infinitum.

It does not matter what works and what doesn't from a technical point of view. What matters is that the legal system accepts claim No. 1, and is sufficiently forgetful to not notice the loop when they return to claim No. 1 for the next iteration.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[k_head]

This is a good thing. Trust me joe average is not going to pay for windows and office. If it comes with the computer they are not going to upgrade.

If the people in the third world are unable to pirate they will turn to open source or at least cheaper alternatives.

The worst thing that can happen is that MS will also press non DRM CDs and look the other way while the third world pirates them.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[mirko]

but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

When I was using an Acorn RiscPC, I used to pay for my softs, then I switched to PC and, because of the volume of this mass market, I suddenly became reluctant to pay such amounts of money for buggy software, then I switched to Linux, then to OSX where I began paying for software.
The moral of this story is that I think if you want people to purchase your product, you have to act with them as if they were worthy customers, not as if they were just a mass market supposed to inflate your statistics.
DRM will fail because windows users are pissed off to be treated anonymously and believe me, like a hundred million monkeys coding on a hundred millions windows, they'll end up finding the flaw that will demonstrate how impossible it is to implement a definitely 100% secure DRM system.

(Note that the 100% security may come from ever-changing security schemes)

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet everyone in the 'warez scene' knows how to crack it. And that's where joe sixpack gets his goods. He might not know that, But he can fire up mIRC or KaZaA or what-have-you and get whatever he wants.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[trezor]

• but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

As long as someone is capable of doing it, it will end up on Kazaa or your-favorite-p2p. Exactly how will this be hard for Joe Sixpack?

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Eivind]

But that's not what Joe Sixpack does.

What he's more likely to do is discover that the "originals" have various problems, like not working in his cars, while the stuff you get from Kazaa, or any of the other p2p-networks doesn't have that problem.

Thus he gets it from kazaa. If it initially took 5 minutes of work to rip the CD, or 30, is without consequence to him, as is what technical knowledge is required, because he's not going to be the one doing it. He's only going to download the finished, ripped-by-someone-else unencumbered mp3.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[trezor]

• In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware

Funny you should say that, as I thought of a handy anti-DRM slogan right now.

DRM is to media and playback, what fathers are to girlfriends and sex.

Ok, so now I am a geek.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[WhodoVoodoo]

Music industry sues those who sell those tools

They will first have to find the makers of these tools, is the problem.

This of course will not work. If that sort of thing worked, we would not have spam, or viruses.

Thus I am fully convinced this is a ridiculous snipe hunt. DRM is the new mating call.

Though it may spawn Symantec's new software, Symantec Anti-piracy! Now for 50 bucks you can automagically remove any evil pirated material from your home or business network! (and don't think these wheels aren't turning!)

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[gtrubetskoy]

DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware.

And Microsoft is well aware of this. DRM for them is a great way to continue the monopoly on the personal desktop.

It will not be long before we start seeing PC's (or more likely laptops) that have hardware measures that restrict it to being able to run only a specific operating system (nothing new, I believe the xbox does it already). This will all be done under the auspices of DRM, but the real intent of Microsoft will be to leave the consumer no choice but to pay for the Windows license.

Now I don't think the average geek has anything to worry about as far as this hardware goes - the standard PC's capable of running any OS are not going anywhere, so you can still run your Linux or FreeBSD.

Playing media legally on Linux and *BSD might be a different story though....

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[HeghmoH]

Yes, because comparing DRM to the prevention of teenage sex is such a great way to rally people to the cause....

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Convergence]

Um. Thats the idea. I don't know if the CPU yet encrypts the data bus, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Go back to first principals. The schemes roughly work by: the 'untrusted system' sets a block of memory consisting of a program. It then tells the control chip to 'authenticate' that block. The control chip runs a cryptographic hash over it and only if it matches a signature will it relinquish additional encryption keys to the software in that block. It can also faithfully prove to that controlled box that the chip correctly implements this control scheme.

There's usually a bunch of other stuff for how to get 'privacy' --- by not having to disclose your mobo's public key to that controlled box, but thats about it. The motherboard chipset protects the block from 'unauthorized overwriting' from DMA in hardware or the rest of the OS.

This means that you, I, microsoft, and anyone can write an encrypted application and a boot-loader for it, distribute it to anyone and the machine will only load it *and* relinquish the decryption keys if and when it is unmodified. In an offline setting, this sort of remote control can be subverted. In any online setting, as soon as they detect a broken key, they can blacklist it.

Overall, this technology embodies what is best about well-designed ssytems. General, powerful, flexible and state of the art. Its not a joke like CSS. (which was a bad implementation of a good system design) It isn't evil per-se, but it is subject to great potential evil.

This digital control technology doesn't fully solve the age-old question of how does a distributed system trust a remote untrustable host, but it puts up a pretty tough bar to cross. Each system must obtain the secret keys in their computer individually. Any attack requireing widespread subversion or where the benefits aren't worth the hardwar hacking won't be worth it. Users can choose to leave the system, but they cannot easily subvert it.

The problem is that there are distributed systems that cannot be practically avoided. Thus the 'you have control over their machine also has a reciprocal: They have control over your machine.'

Between equitable individuals playing an online P2P game, thats not a problem. In an inequitable relationship, say between a person and a large software company or an abusive government, this sort of control is ripe for abuse.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it will arrive first in mobile phones...

Those are closed system by design, and a lot of work is being put into locking the user - think simlock-like features. Moreover, a lot of money is already being made on downloadable ringtones even thoug all it takes to have them for free is some kind kind of serial cable.

So that's no wonder, it's already within the requirements of the operators (at least Orange, Vodaphone as far as I can say) for their next-gen mobiles.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[ultranova]

but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.

Joe Sixpack will simply fire up Freenet and grab one of those cd images / mp3's / avi files floating around in keyspace.

And yes, I know that Freenet isn't there quite yet, but it has one very important advantage. Anyone who runs a node contributes resources to the network (CPU, disk space, bandwith, and his own presence (the more users and traffick there is, the harder it is to find out who is doing what) whether they are uploading content or not. Therefore, Joe Sixpack actually helps fight censorship and tyranny while leeching games. Sure, it's a small contribution, but still better than nothing.

i dont know anyone who is not quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds, let alone copmuter games.

I think you're confusing uploading with downloading. True, it might take some skill to break various copy protections, but it most certainly doesn't take much skill to download the mp3 / disc image / whatever.

Think about it as a battle, copy protection against hackers. There's such a battle between the cp and every hacker who tries to break it. However, the cp has to win every time; if the hacker wins, just once, the content is cracked and will forever stay cracked, the crack circulating to everyone who wants it. And there's plenty of hackers around the world; it's extremely unlikely that the copy protection would win every one of them. And even if that should happen, it doesn't protect the cp from a rematch if the hacker should get new ideas to try.

That's why copy protections are completely useless and only serve to annoy end users. Joe Sixpack might be helpless against the bastion of copy protection, but Pete Pirate is not, and once Pete has breached the gates and beaten the guards, nothing's stopping Joe from marching in and taking his share of the loot.

Not to mention Script Kidd who's causing enough chaos and destruction to make anyone too busy to chase after a small-timer like Joe. Even if Joe can never be quite sure Script won't try to burn his house down next...

These and other colorfull characters in an exating adventure with breathtaking special effects in the coming summers most anticipated movie: Pirates of the Internet - Curse of the Black Hat.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[iminplaya]

If the people in the third world are unable to pirate they will turn to open source or at least cheaper alternatives.

You all are probably aware of this, but this is why, in reality, MS, the RIAA, etc. actually "like" pirates. It gives exposure for their products. If not for piracy, MS et al could hardly exist in Asian or African markets due to the price(duh). There is no way they are going make any more than the feeblest(?) of efforts to stop it. And then, it's only for the press. Piracy is just another method of distribution for them. And a very cheap one at that. What they don't like is the competition coming from the "independants". Just like the CIA doesn't like competition from independant drug drug dealers.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[iminplaya]

And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback"

You didn't hear about the latest DRM tech? Blindfolds and ear plugs.

Re:It's fundamentally silly

[Anonymous Coward]

My father gets lots of punani, what's your point?

Please, let's call it what it is...

[TheLoneDanger]

Digital Restrictions Management. Let's let the less technical people know what it really is.

Re:Please, let's call it what it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you don't call it "Doesn't Require Manual", because then DRM-stamped products will sell like hot cakes.

Re:Please, let's call it what it is...

[pilgrim23]

Does anyone here remember the days of the Apple II, Copy protected 5.25 floppy disks, and all the various hardware and software tools developed to circumvent this silliness? Rememeber magazines like "The Computist" with articles describing how to sector edit? The (still) valid discussion that took place back then was: "I did not purchase the physical media, I licensed the software, and that license explicitly allows for backups". 20 years later and we are now attempting to make the equivelent of the COPYCAT Board, or the Central Point Options Card illegal. In other words: "Here we go again!" I seem to rememeber from history class that way back in the Middle ages the Church had a lock-down on clerks and copyists till this feller named Gutenberg came along.

Re:Please, let's call it what it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The term DRM has been hijacked to me mean Copy Prevention or Copy Protection. It has little to do with managing digital rights. Copy protection or prevention can form a subset of a true Digital Rights Managment system.

A real DRM facilitates the re-use of digital material whilst respecting the rights of the original creator, it doesn't necessarily hinder or prevent the re-use.

Re:Please, let's call it what it is...

[Alsee]

A real DRM facilitates the re-use of digital material whilst respecting the rights of the original creator, it doesn't necessarily hinder or prevent the re-use.

And a real invisible pink unicorn is pink while not actually being visible.

Whether a use is legal or not generally depends primarily on the intent of the use. Until we get mind-reading software/hardware it is impossible for any DRM system to distinguish between legal use and infringing use. The best it can do is identify if a use might be infringing. In that case either it blocks use and necessarily blocks some legal uses, or it permits use and the DRM can be stripped off entirely making it worthless.

-

New Oxymoron?

[Bobdoer]

"Intel's Barrett calls for more flexible DRM system" If I recall correctly, isn't DRM all about removing flexibility for the end user? CDs are "flexible"; you can do anything with them. Heck, I would even say that DRM is the opposite of flexibility.

Re:New Oxymoron?

[Daneurysm]

DRM doesn't seem so purposely intent on removing flexibility for the end user so much as enhancing the level of control for the content producer/distributor.

While this is merely a matter of symantics, and you have no argument from me about 'removed flexibility' being the end result, it is key to be even handed in reading, interpreting and explaining what they say, what they mean and what that means to us.

~Dan

Re:New Oxymoron?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding.. it's funny to hear the suits talk about "finding the right balance", especially during the Napster era. (Though, to be honest, I consider Craig Barrett more than just a suit.)

They would look at the completely unprotected MP3 which the music listeners where downloading in droves, and say with a straight face that they would work to find the right balance between what the customer wanted, and was currently consuming, and what nobody wanted. Huh??

MP3's are cheap to produce, have minimal technical support issues, and play in almost any device.

So what do these geniuses do? They adopt DRM-heavy formats and are *shocked* that they didn't succeed.

It took Apple to prove that, duh, minimal DRM is better.

Now that they've got most of their heads out of their asses, lets move to the next obvious step: NO DRM! You might just be shocked that enough people will pay for your content!

What's the first thing I do with my iTunes downloads? That's right, remove the useless DRM and convert it to MP3 so I can play it on my non-Apple stuff.

Re:New Oxymoron?

[derfel]

I agree with you completely, except for your hope that these folks "just might be shocked that enough people will pay for content." I'm not sure these folks will ever be satisfied.

Re:New Oxymoron?

[Jedi Alec]

CD's aren't anywhere near as flexible as old records were, just try bending one a bit, it'll snap on ya right away...

DRM is only putting off the inevitable

[Mrs. Grundy]

It's really pretty simple. The media companies are and always have been in the business of distribution. Distribution used to be hard and they earned their keep. Now distribution is easy (as any teenager with a internet connection will tell you) and there is little reason for creators and consumers to pay media companies a huge chunk of profit for a service that is essentially free today. DRM is the media/software corporations' attempt to make distribution difficult once again. Let's not be suckers and buy into it.

Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable

[zeruch]

this is probably the most pithy and useful response I've seen in thsi thread.

the artists aren't the most threatened here, it's the media comapnies that push their in-house distribution channels that are most at risk for extinction.

Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable

[inertialmatrix]

I could not agree more. Now is the time to scrap the system as we know it. Times change, technology improves, and the way in which media is distributed is CHANGING it's not about piracy, and whether artists get their fair share.. It's about an outdated buisness model, an outdated distribution model.

People want digital content.. and they want it to be reasonably priced, and they want it to be easy.

Taking away cusotemers choices with DRM is not going to work.

request: open source digitization tools

[Anonymous Coward]

do we just have to fight these pushed limited standards with our own home brew open source digitization products?

It's a marketing set up...

[wiresquire]

Average Joe: MS Security sucks
MS: DRM = security
Average Joe: So, I must need DRM

Game over.

Re:It's a marketing set up...

[Daneurysm]

While I think that is a horribly blunt over generalization of the situation, for all intents and purposes it is accurate.

And if it isn't accurate at portraying how 'things will go down,' I do think it is an accurate estimation of how it will be foisted upon us.

I'd like to have faith and think they "there's just no way Joe Sixpack will see the reduced functionality as a fair trade-off for the cheap tricks and half-ass 'value' that may be introduced by DRM (though obviously just as possible without it)", well, what can I say? I'm an optimist, though cynical and jaded. Seen too much of life not to be.

~Dan

Re:It's a marketing set up...

[Elektroschock]

This works with Eu Arlene McCarthy but not with the average PC user. DRM is a component of eSlavery.

I think it is very important to stop legislation designed to promote eSlavery

http://www.ipjustice.org

Re:It's a marketing set up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it's because the average person doesn' know what DRM actually does, that allows companies to advertise it like a feature. I treat it like a bug.

just my .02

[kyshtock]

It's not I am against technology, but... do you really want to travel in a bus where 20 people are watching damn movies on their cell phones? Or listening to music? We already know most cell phone users are rude (see high pitch high volume ring tones and high pitch high volume speaking) and we know that cell phone in a bus (read Faraday cage) will emit at it's peak power. I wonder... do you want to be there?

Just my 2e-2 $

Re:just my .02

[Weird O'Puns]

It's not I am against technology, but... do you really want to travel in a bus where 20 people are watching damn movies on their cell phones? Or listening to music?

I would bet that most of these people would use headphones and not distract you one bit. At least in here listening to music isn't really that uncommon in buses as portable players have been around for ages. In fact there already are lots of people who use their cell phones to listen to music and they haven't irritated me at all. And for movies, I don't think it will distract you more than somebody reading a newspaper or a book.

Re:just my .02

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know most cell phone users are rude (... high pitch high volume speaking)

I believe there's a physiological reason for that. None of the cell phones that I have ever used echoed the speaker's own voice back to the earpiece like land-line telephones do. So, people using cell phones don't hear themselves talking and they start shrieking to compensate. They're not aware that they're doing it.

In the few instances that I've ever used a cell phone, I just pivoted the earpiece a little bit away from my head while speaking, and brought it close to my ear when I want to hear the other person's response. This provides me with a simple way to avoid sounding like the vast majority of oblivious cell phone users.

It also helps me focus on where I am and what's around me while using a cell phone. If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation. Try it!

Re:just my .02

[TEB_78]

...and high pitch high volume speaking

In my experience most people I've heard speaking on the cellphone don't speak louder than many other on the bus do when talking to the person beside them...
So, I can't really understand why people irritate themself so much about it.
But I've come up with one theory, that people irritate themself because they can't hear the person on the other end. So they just hear half of the conversation. And may be sub-consciously they then focus more on that particular conversation?

Re:just my .02

[YrWrstNtmr]

If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation.

Thank you for this bit of insight. This is why moving cars should be a phone-free zone.

Re:just my .02

[bhtooefr]

I've found that I scream into the phone if I'm in a poor service area, and I speak VERY... SLOWLY... SO... THE... OTHER... PERSON... CAN... HEAR...

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't DRM a little heavy handed for any society that wishes to proclaim "freedom" as one of its virtues.

We're talking about installing a little policeman in every concievable piece of hardware. What the fuck is happening to this world? What the fuck is going on here?

Do free born human beings need to have an overseer partake in every aspect of their lives, just in case a crime might happen? We're going straight to hell, folks. And we won't have to die to get there! Weeeeeeeeeee!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Make mine out of wicker please. :-)

DRM? RSA!!

[ackthpt]

Everytime I see 'RSA' I think 'Republic of South Africa'

I'm still screwed up on CRM. How about giving the damn acronyms a break?

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[Anonymous Coward]

RSA stands for "Adleman, Rivest, Shamir". Why the the acronym doesn't go alphabetically is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[Daneurysm]

PCMCIA must really freak you out then.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[FishermansEnemy]

QPSLEDM anyone?

Quantum Phase State Low Electrom Drive Memory, if memory serves.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[bursch-X]

Give him the death blow with WYSIWYG.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[AndroidCat]

And TWAIN will either worry or relax him.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Don't worry, because TMTOWTDI.

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[mikeee]

Could be worse. I used to work with a proprietary MDDB that had a GUI toolkit called the "Presentation Management System".

Re:DRM? RSA!!

[ackthpt]

RSA stands for "Adleman, Rivest, Shamir". Why the the acronym doesn't go alphabetically is left as an exercise to the reader.

Back in the day there was a convention for writers to write out fully the name and afterward refer by the initials or acronym. Now I rarely see this practice followed.

I get some big brochure in the mail on CRM and I can't figure out what the hell they're trying to sell (isn't this the goal of all brochures?) I figure if they can't bother to tell me then it goes in the bin.

IMO, DRM won't work

[Operating Thetan]

People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers

Remember the "science" part

[Xcott Craver]

My standard response to people who want DRM on computers:

Fine, go ahead and put together a DRM system, as long as we let the scientific community verify that it actually works before forcing companies to implement it, and people to put up with it.

No fair waving around white papers or assuring us that someone says this-or-that technology really works, and then demanding an act of congress. Let's see a working system first, and let's let the cryptographic community inspect the system's inner workings (if you can't even reveal how it works, it's not a secure system,) and let them decide if it can be trivially circumvented by any teenager.

I have a feeling that developers of many DRM schemes dread, and would rather avoid, such independent review of their systems.

Xcott

Re:Remember the "science" part

[Daneurysm]

I have a feeling that developers of many DRM schemes dread, and would rather avoid, such independent review of their systems.

I whole heartedly agree with you. The ironic part seems to be that this could only strengthen security...and if nothing else, development and testing time.(ie: OSS, et al)

While most of us here fully understand that DRM's primary purpose is to create a lock on content (distribution and--the part that affects me personally--creation. Think: 'DRM watermark' and having to pay for DRM-watermark certification...per client/license even, maybe)

The simple fact that consumer grade equipment, a little software and a little know how can create some extremely professional results (in audio, video, 3D/animation) seems to play a big part in it.

The bigger part must be the ease of distribution you are granted when 'going digital.'

Think about it - For little more than the price I already paid for my recording equipment, my internet connection and hosting service (and of course the time involved) I can have a professional quality album on hundreds of sites to thousands of users around the world in minutes.

I can do all of this without the aid of the RIAA, major labels, payola for radio support, or even 'knowing somebody'.....

The 'equal playing field' this provides means my music downloaded from any random site is being judged on one factor, and one factor alone: Quality.

They hate that.

Re:Remember the "science" part

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the scientific community *needs* general purpose computers to process particle collision events, sequence the genome, automatically track asteroids, etc. I don't think that they'll let Congress mandate that general purpose computers must become media applicances.

Re:Remember the "science" part

[jmv]

You got it completely backwards. You need to convince the DRM developer that his scheme is unbreakable and that no further review will help. Then you convince all the media companies to make them standard. ...and then you break it (see DVD CSS) and you're able to use the CD/DVD you bought as you please.

Re:Remember the "science" part

[BiggerIsBetter]

They don't need to. Microsoft will take care of that for most people.

Re:Remember the "science" part

[zurab]

You need to convince the DRM developer that his scheme is unbreakable and that no further review will help. Then you convince all the media companies to make them standard. ...and then you break it (see DVD CSS) and you're able to use the CD/DVD you bought as you please.

But you forgot that then you are thrown in jail for violating DMCA by "trafficking a circumvention device" if the recent 321 Studios case is an example. Note the Jack Valenti quote to AP:

Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, has suggested that consumers have no legitimate need for such software, telling The Associated Press in November, "If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."

Nice, huh?

Saw Bill tonight

[evilty]

On a side note:
I just got back from seeing Bill Gates speak on "the future of computing" and how he got so damn rich. Apparently microsoft hires more people from my school than any other in the world (or maybe just in the nation?) What an honor!! It was actually pretty good in my opinion; he's a smart guy. The second question in the Q and A part of the presentation was "What your/microsofts opinion of the open source movement and why do you have a bad attitude about it" or something to that extent. Bill gave a good response pointing to evidence saying that many "GPL zealots" don't believe his business model should exist and that at least he respects open source as a software development method among many. The speech might have been a bit rehearsed, I do believe he gets that question a lot. Either way, you've got to ask your self: Am I a GPL zealot?

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[Jackdaw Rookery]

I know you are modded as Interesting but did he really did use the term 'GPL zealots' or are you paraphrasing?

Anyone either back this or or point at a transcript.

Er, well not point, as that wouldn't really work on this medium would it.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[soloport]

Not before... You've got to ask yourself: Am I a WHG zealot?

(WHG III, KBE)

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[k_head]

The sec of education recently called the NEA a "terrorist organization" and now Bill gates refers to OSS programers are GPL Zealots.

I guess this is pretty standard tactic these days to describe people who disagree with you.

Civility is dead in this country. It's an all out war.

Needless to say I'd be shitting bricks if I was a teacher, we know what happens to terrorists in the US.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[bersl2]

Depending on what type of values you hold, you may have just been duped.

He has always been a businessman, and he'll always be one. Businessmen (IMO; I have very little respect for them) do really unscrupulous things (like trust-building), in the name of the bottom line.

Making money can be a noble pursuit. But most of the time, it's either for greed or for an ego boost. Is there any real reason for him to have as much wealth as he does?

And before I hear 20 people cry "philanthropy," or cite historical examples, let's remember that, for instance, Rockefeller believed that God had given him a mission to make as much money as he could, then give it away; but in the meantime he fucked over whole towns with a stroke of the pen, and he got kickbacks and rebates from the railroad industry, effectively forcing buyouts onto other oil companies.

I guess my message here is that, before we ask ourselves "Are we GPL zealots?" (as you are now thinking), he should ask himself "Am I a capitalism zealot?"

In retrospect, though, this is all just difference of opinion; we think it's better to distribute power, while he thinks it's best to consolidate power. Of course, that's a whole mini-rant in of itself...

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[Stallmanite]

"Either way, you've got to ask your self: Am I a GPL zealot?"

Yup. And proud of it.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[Anonymous Coward]

yes he did use the term 'gpl zealots' indeed

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't equate Microsoft with capitalism. Capitalism is based around free and open markets - Microsoft's strategy is to distort the market (by locking in customers and abusing their monopoly position to destroy competition). In true capitalism, you do not destroy your competitors, you try to out compete them by producing a better, cheaper product than them.

Microsoft is more akin to the Command Economies of the old communist countries.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[bersl2]

When I said "capitalism," I was not referring to the dictionary definition, I was referring to the vulgar meaning (i.e., having to do with making money).

I think that would be a really interesting question to ask Bill. "You have effectively, in the past, called us 'zealots'; are you not a zealot of [something] yourself?" Next person who attends one of these sessions, ask Bill for me.

Re:Saw Bill tonight

[evilty]

Nope, not paraphrasing. I'm not the greatest at remembering the exact words of whole sentences from presentations but in this case its only two words, I'm 100% sure that was the term used. He didn't apply it blanketly to all supporters of oss though.

DRM + open source

[LinuxGuyFriend]

It seems to me as though DRM methods are always sort of obscure and hidden. If you happen to stumble onto how they work (example by reverse engineering) you are going against the DMCA. So how is that going to work with free distributions like Debian? Implemented with an onboard hardware chip?

Re:DRM + open source

[anagama]

Well, fortunately the US isn't all the world. Someone elsewhere will find the solution, and then we will be able to access that information. But this scenario isn't the only area in which the US is forcing science to happen outside its borders (stem cells, cloning, etc.). Eventually, none of the really interesting science will come from here because of increasingly intrusive government restrictions on obtaining knowledge.

Re:DRM + open source

[packeteer]

Oh no, companies will still do research here. There is far too much money to be made doing research in the USA. Remember that scientific research can be patented and if its not banned itll be patented. Tonight i watched a show on PBS about cancer and how a company was able to patent a gene. Thats right they patented a gene. They didn't create the gene. Its been around as long as humans have been. But they have the patent on it. Now whenever anyone wants to do anything involving that gene (which is a genetic cause of breast cancer) they get paid. Remember in this country its not the researchers that are losing its the citizens.

Re:DRM + open source

[Garabito]

Unfortunately, the whole world is becoming like the US. Corporations act globally, and they have the power to convince goverments. For example, Central American countries will have to adapt their local IP laws to accept things like the DMCA and software patents to get to sign a free trade agreement with the US (CAFTA)

DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Crypto Gnome]

1. DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
2. DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
3. US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal
   (These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)
4. OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
5. ALL OpenSource solutions (because they do not include DRM) therefore become effectively illegal

The *only* question here is "how long before this becomes a reality?".

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Neo-Rio-101]

Not to mention his proposed changes to DNS
(And lets not forget that a good deal of DNS goes through BIND, which is Open Source)

So here Bill is trying to stick a patented design into DNS, which he could leverage with his Windows monopoly and therefore forcing Open Sourced BIND to pay a licence to implement it now that Windows' "Trustworthy computing" won't accept anything else.
Hence breaking BIND's GPL....

I don't think it will really work out that way, but the possibility crossed my mind.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[CelticWhisper]

6. I leave this country and never come back.

I don't want to hate America as a country, but I can't help but hate a government that would be so easily manipulated as to sanction forced implementation of something so draconian-indeed, Orwellian-upon its citizens.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Crypto Gnome]

Doesn't work though.

The US is already forcing its DMCA style rules on *all* its trading partners.

Where exactly are you going to go?

Either you're "a friend" (and accept US laws as your own) or you're part of the "Axis of Evil".

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Anonymous Coward]

Asia seems to be only place which won't succumb to this kind of crap.

Main reason for this is huge potential in the internal market (>50% of world population).

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Crypto Gnome]

I guess that includes China, which seems to be into violating its citizens in other ways.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with ya there. I'm a long term asian resident.

We've had VCDs, which are still just as common as DVD here since ages before the earliest DVD-Roms even hit the market. The only reason I gave up was that broadband was so cheap and fast I switched to downloading off P2P because it was more convenient.
I got an MP3 capable CD-R player in 1999 for less than forty bucks when they were unheard of in the States.
I can get free cable satellite from the air including free hardcore porn twenty four hours a day. Or, I can just tap the single cable connection that all my neighbors share. The cable company doesn't even bother to hassle us.
But since my DSL is only twenty bucks a month I just do everything off the Net.
Everything digitial in Asia is based on open standards and the assumption that consumers have the right to exchange content and do what they want with it. The irony is that the US tries to call itself the vanguard of the free market when they're incredibly closed and restrictive compared to a dozen asian countries. I guess they call is double-ya-speak.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Anonymous Coward]

BIND is open source, but not GPL (it's under a somewhat BSDish license, IIRC).

Even if it were GPL'd, if Microsoft really had that kind of influence, it could simply become obsolete and replaced by proprietary alternatives.

But I very much doubt that the IETF would adopt patented standards for key technologies such as this.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[atomico]

I leave this country and never come back.

Where would you move to?
Trust me, there are worse places, having the same screw-the-citizen laws, but not even having the same public debate because the government controls most media, directly or indirectly.

Sadly, the equivalence "1 corporation = millions of voters" is gaining ground in the entire planet. For example, in Spain we never had a chance to say anything when they imposed a levy on blank CD-Rs.

Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US

[Anonymous Coward]

Well spoken!

However, you're assuming you would even be allowed to leave. By the time it became obvious that the legal system was completely broken and we were living in an authoritarian, corporate-sponsored dictatorship, travel restrictions put into place would probably make it nearly impossible to leave.

The trick, then, would be in knowing just exactly when to bail, and in creating a preplanned exit route well in advance.

Yeah, I know how far out in left field that sounds, but that was before Bush and the Sprouts. And even paranoids have enemies ^^

Apple?

[CelticWhisper]

I have to wonder, though, what impact this would have on more *ahem* sensible companies like Apple. Apple centers its entire marketing strategy on digital media and the freedom to create, edit, and share personal media projects. Where is this going to leave them? They're smaller than Microsoft, but still a force to be reckoned with...it surely can't be so simple as "Microsoft pays off politicians, gets its way, game over." ...Can it?

Digital Rights Management

[DonaldDuckBigO]

My rights don't need to be managed, thank-you. You'll take gcc out of my cold, dead fingers.

DRM expensive yet ineffective?

[geoff lane]

The trouble is DRM may well become common and intrusive but will never become effective as it is attempting to solve the wrong problem.

People just don't assign a value to non-material stuff. You will never convince the target audience (which lets face it is a bunch of kids) that it's wrong to copy a music track for a friend. The reason is obvious, nobody seems to be hurt and nobody is deprived of the orginal.

This goes to the fundemental problem with copyright law today. The law was written for a time where perfect copying machines (aka PCs) did not exist. While copyright law was mostly dealt with by printers and publishers it worked. Now it has to cope with billions of people it's failing.

DRM is a response but it too assumes a perfect, closed world where everybody plays the DRM game. As we have seen with DVD region coding, the hardware suppliers just gave it the minimal attention needed because they just spent 20 years getting rid of having to stock different versions for different markets; they were not going to start all over again just because Hollywood gets it's nickers in a twist.

DRM will be treated in the same manner.

Re:DRM expensive yet ineffective?

[sploxx]

Are you from the U.S.? I have a question. No rhetorical question, a real question I did non find out via google yet:

How got book-writers paid for copies made by xeroxing them?
Here in germany, the owner of every copy shop pays a certain amount back to the authors (via a central instance called VGWort).
How is/was that handled in the U.S.?

Re:DRM expensive yet ineffective?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is obvious, nobody seems to be hurt and nobody is deprived of the orginal.

This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson wrote that ideas cannot, in nature, be the subject of property. (He was writing about patents, but the same argument applies to copyright.)

To paraphrase his writings, property is a way to deal with things whose possession cannot easily be shared. When sharing is not possible, it's useful to have a means to prevent constant conflicts over possession of the scarce item. Hence, property. Copies of the Bible, or of Shakespeare's works, or of the Constitution, or of the Beatles' works, aren't like that. One person's full enjoyment of a copy does not preclude another person's full enjoyment of a copy. Once you've paid for creation of the original, every "free" copy increases total wealth. Jefferson had that figured out long before computers.

We allow copyright to exist because we want more publically-available stuff -- especially more public domain stuff. Copyright's about the incentive to create and publish (== ultimately give away) originals. It is about "the public will scratch your back, if you scratch ours".

Though lately, it seems more like the industries and the infringers saying "screw the other guys; let's just stab them in the back and keep it ALL for ourselves." Doesn't make things comfortable for the citizens and the artists standing in the middle, who just wanted to walk away with a fair deal, and in one piece.

Dear Computer Industry,

[IvyMike]

We want DRM-enabled computers even less than we want pen-based tablet computers. And we know what a rousing success those are when you attempt to introduce them every three years.

Signed,
Computer Consumers

I will not buy anything with hardware-based DRM.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not.

I will not.

No, no, you don't seem to be understanding me here; I will not.

No, really.

Yes, my decision is quite final, as in over-my-dead-body final.

Argh!!! [throws up arms in disgust] Igor! Fetch me the 2x4 of Enlightenment!

VideoGuard

[oob]

VideoGuard seems to be an extremely common Satellite TV encryption system, browsing the different Sats over at LyngSat.

I wonder how effective VideoGuard is at protecting content. Anyone had any success decoding it?

But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market

[Moderation abuser]

And pick up copies there for a couple of quid. Made by someone who is "quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds".

Re:But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market

[iminplaya]

Wouldn't you call him "John Guinness" or something over there? Joe Sixpack would never leave the "good ol' U.S.A." and he probably doesn't know what the hell a "quid" is. :-)

forced infrastructure

[neuraloverload]

with microsoft as behind the drm as they are it's going to be near impossible to locate equipment manufacturers that won't put this in due to microsoft's stranglehold on the pc product. some have said before that it's a dollars thing and they're right. they just have to make it tough enough, and terrorize the rest. it must have come up sometime before but it's worth saying again that drm will remove the backdoor some makers put in. like the chinese dvd player that could be easily unlocked to use all countrycodes just by pushing a few buttons on the remote control. now, if you tried to do that with a drm system and because you didn't read the license your computer would send requests to verify your ability to watch a dvd. windows player 9 already includes regular phone homes to "check things". some spyware/adware products pick them up, but then the media player won't work anymore. anyway this just smacks of a grab as much as we can get and see if they notice. if basic playback must have an active internet connection, even at a registration phase to verify through ip etc basic identity then phones home ocassionally to update not only the dvd but any bits of "other " media, downloaded clips, music whatever. right now, it's microsoft. what about when others are forced to join in because the hardware now demands it? and then there's the "not personally attached" database being generated in all this...

Re:forced infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I was thinking of the evils of DRM, and then I come to your post.

If DRM could have made you use some capital letters and the paragraph tag I would have been all for it.

Freedom for corporations, not individuals

[Quizo69]

See, you make the classic mistake of thinking that when they say "freedom", they mean YOUR freedom.

They don't.

They mean freedom as in "We are now free to bilk the consumer in perpetuity, thanks to this wonderful Digital Restrictions Management tech we've put in place."

Re:Freedom for corporations, not individuals

[jridley]

Right. And when they say "digital rights management" they mean THEIR rights, not yours.

And even so, it's still a bastardization of the term "rights" - they aren't really rights when you make them up yourself.

For example, "fair use" is a right, granted by the applicable laws and judicial findings. Their taking away your fair use rights is seen by them as them enforcing their "rights" but in reality it's just them changing the rules; they are not granted that right by an outside force.

Re:Freedom for corporations, not individuals

[sploxx]

Further thought it is the "freedom of the corporations" to pay 0 taxes and go offshore whilst the majority of the population has to pay.

This is not intended as a pro/con tax argument, just to illustrate the usage of "freedom" in weird ways.

DRM is as old as digital technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

And look how effective it has been.
He says as he browses through his Terrabyte RAID of Divx movies planning the evening's viewing while the never ending playlist of MP3s piped throughout the house rolls on in the background.
Oops, one of the P2P boxes just crashed. Gotta go.

DRM is only software

[glassesmonkey]

I'm not concerned about software-based DRM because so far it seems to be limited to Windows. What REALLY concerns me is the large number of news items I've seen lately about hardware based on "Trusted Computing".

TCG TPM is the standard settled upon for trusted computing. An interesting EETimes article is about TPM chips going into systems (costs & chipsets, etc). Described as "low-cost silicon safes for a digital key" the article states, "IBM plans to put the current version 1.1b TPM parts in all but its lowest cost notebook computers by the end of the year." As well as the inclusion of these chips in Gb Ethernet, storage, memory, and I/O buses. The TPM v1.2 standard is worth a look over to see what the future holds.

Much of the software that goes into DRM is moving up the chain (especially seeing how effective DeCSS was for DVD decoding) and into silicon. I do not quite see how Trusted Computing is really that different from a full-fledged DRM hardware system. It seems to be an easy step to make those buses and storage devices scanning for 'trusted keys' to be applied to digital finger prints of unauthorized DRM-licensed media moving around on your motherboard.

DRM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

What is all that wrong with a DRM enabled computer anyway? Let's just say that it has hardware single chip DRM in the monior and sound card. Basically...encrypted in, analog out. Sure you can still digitize the analog or hack at chip level but that's where it ends.
You can still play non encrypted video and audio without any problems, but if you want to use 'commercial' content you have to pay for it.
I really don't see anything wrong with this....paying the artist/producer is good.

A lot of people are saying that DRM is just a way for the distribution companies to keep control and make money. Bull. The trend seems, that any joker will be able to create and encode his content and associate the usage with his bank account for payment, but the distribution is totally open. Even now with the MS DRM system, the content and license SDKs are free and anyone can setup a payment and distribution system. Seems right to me to enable every artist and producer to control his content and get payed directly every time it is used.

I think the fear is, that many of us are used to the old fashion ownership model of, I bought it, i can do what i like with it, and now that this technology will allow the producers to create other ownership models we are scared that we might actually have to pay for our content, software, and especialy that some of these models may be too restrictive, etc.
People could still re-digitize the content and distribute that, and i think systems will never restrict playing of non DRM'd files. The way this will be handled is by the market...the new ownership rules/costs/distribution of the producers' DRM content will have to be reasonable enough that the end users will not bother with poorly distributed analog'd illegal copies.

DRM just enables a producer to control their content, the market will ultimately decide if the content is worth the cost and ownership model, especially if free, opensource,better, or just different content is around.

Re:DRM is good

[Elektroschock]

Digital Rigths Management is eSlavery. The customer will lose rights to use his technology and hhackers will be punished.

Re:DRM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

What rights are lost should be clarified: Fair Use.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
http://www.cetus.org/fairindex.html

It's not that the industry hasn't tried to do this before (CSS); it's just that this time, they've got a better-than-even chance of succeeding in their efforts.

Re:DRM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

But DRM simply can't work without relying on legislation that makes circumvention illegal.

I absolutely do not accept the ethical basis of any legislation that can prohibit me from reverse-engineering hardware or software in my posession.

People don't currently go to jail for disassembling physical products they've bought, nor should they ever. You may void your warranty, but that's an entirely different issue.

Re:DRM is good

[sploxx]

IMHO, there are several things wrong with DRM:

- Consumer loses control over *his*/*her* hardware. Like a poster up in this thread said "policeman in every device". You let foreigners control substantial parts (for many people) of your living room.

- Thought-control. DRM relies on laws which ensure that the DRM schemes remain effective. AFAIK, these laws already forbid you to hack your DRM chip to get the private keys. But they also forbid you to reverse engineer software-DRM-schemes. What is that?? You may not look at and/or tinker with things that you own.

- OSS/FS lockout. Try to write OSS software that decodes DRM and can't be used to "break" DRM. Decoding is breaking in essence. In the case of TCPA-like systems, you'll never have truly OSS systems, the core will remain commercial software. This point, is of course, only relevant to those interested in running as much OSS/FS as they can on their PC.

- Privacy issues. Every feasible DRM system seems to be based on an internet connection and the authentication of the users before downloading content (in ecrypted form, of course). As an example: Do you want that the distributors know your sexual preferences?! Or your political preferences? (In a not-so-nice world, this information may well flow to the government - there are enough examples of that)

Re:DRM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand the value of the content.

Much of the value for the purchaser lies in the ability of the purchaser to tinker with and copy and distribute it. In fact, for geeks, that tinker-ability may even be more valuable than the content itself.

DRM is removing this value.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[dmayle]

Let's hope that's the case. In fact, if you have any care about freedom, implement your own DRM system NOW. Make it buggy, and difficult to implement. Make it confusing for users of the technology, and make sure that any free and open formats JUST WORK. That way, when everything settles down, what is most used, and what becomes the "standard", will be what people have migrated too, DRM-less options...

time for a reality check!

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm glad i paid for my WinXP pro copy.
only because MS is acctually making
an effort in innovation (not 100% mac copy).
i paid for it because i can write any
language on it (it's international)
and is more or less secure (driver signing, etc.) remembering the winNUKE wars on IRC ...
before XP i haven't bought a single copy of
any OS (crap)!
i would like to point out to any judge
that computers are nothing more then
calculaters and just filter/redirect
electricity.
this being main argument. i own my computer
and i pay for my electricity, and
i pay for my internet connection; it's a
damn calculator! software is nothing
more then telling the calculator what
you would like it to "solve". many people
sitting infront of their computer
bond to it and forget completely
what it is doing in fact ...
so i'm assuming all this DRM stuff
is going after the money of people
who just don't have a clue about
computers and just want to be on the
entertainemnt superhighway. well
if there's money to be made, do it.
i'll never ever pay for a song that
is coming thru the internet. it's my
computer and my harddisk etc.
if i want high quality sound i'd buy
a DAT or CD-player and not listen
to compressed/lossy data.
anyway it seems now-a-days laws
are passed to protect the economy
not the dumb citizen, sorry.
if you make laws look at the world
the way it is. don't make REAL
laws for fictional CYBERSPACE!
not that i have alot of music but i
always shared my "entertainment"
stuff. CD borrow to friend,
friend copy to mini-disk.
look at the money flow: kids
sitting infront of computer
pay-for-listening to music.
time wasted. money goes to
crappy artists/producers.
they buy a super-yacht and do nothing
their whole live. it's just amazing.
billions and billions for DATA,
and the DATA does nothing but
waste time (evil interpretation).
they even rely on other companies
(SONY?) to produce the equipment
for them ...
putting ficional laws on a physical reality
(electricity) is kinda stupid,
and stupid laws make people stupid.

the laws in the world at this time
completely ignore the technological
advances in the last 100 years.
time for a reality check (we're not in rome
anymore)!

Re:time for a reality check!

[Anonymous Coward]

that must of taken ages
to type on your PDA,
either that or you must
have a very small screen
if you need carriage returns
every five to eight words

Its Open mobile alliance and mobile DRM

[Geekonomical]

For all who cry that this is silly, it has been existing long enough (see satellite TV and radio). All the mobile operator and content community wants is a restricted environment to beam content (surprised?).

See http://www.openmobilealliance.org for details and specifications. 3GSM is primarily concerned with mobile DRM (obviously).

Re:Its Open mobile alliance and mobile DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh 3GSM , theres an acronym I haven't heard for a while. These are the consortium that got fleeced for 58 Billion for licences to operate technology that was obsolete in 2003. Poor buggers.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[Short Circuit]

Your approach is not only dishonest, it would ruin the reputation of whoever implemented it. Who wants to use software written by someone who has been known to intentionally write security flaws in their code? Open source or not, it's a risk I wouldn't take.

It's not just the media companies...

[Media Withdrawal]

Yes, media companies will fight to own all distribution of old content. But watch out for the hardware companies. They're already trying to own all distribution of new content. It's slick. Just visit their online store, download the content, and it only runs on your phone/PDA/laptop/whatever. Until it breaks, that is.

As an artist, you'd think I'd just love this scheme. Hah! The problem is, once a company thinks it owns your distribution, it thinks it owns you! When I fell for DRM and the lure of easy money, all of a sudden I was spending months fighting to retain designs and customer relationships that had taken years to refine. All this fussing cut into my productivity, and my fans noticed.

For the record, when I dropped copy protection completely, sales doubled almost immediately.

So don't be fooled by the current battle between the media and hardware companies. They're just fighting for who gets to own the artists and milk their audience. I'm not falling for it again, and I hope you won't, either.

Can you spell DRM?... M I C R O $...

[Magada]

Gates' keynote is about DRM. He's talking of a way to only allow apps and content to run if it has all the necessary permissions- implemented as an OS-level service.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[WhodoVoodoo]

Et tu, Microsoft?

You know, sarcasm can sometimes be really hard to portray on the internet.

Draconian, Restricted Media (DRM)

[FreeUser]

A more descriptive term would be:

DRM: Draconian Restricted Media

People really need to be informed about precisely what it is they are wasting their hard earned money on, and exactly what rights the copyright cartels are stripping away from them.

Only then will the mythical "free" market, or at least those of us who participate in it as customers, have a shred of a chance of making an informed decision.

Re:Draconian, Restricted Media (DRM)

[4b696e67]

There is the problem. Getting the average joe the message. The average joe gets his news from the mainstream media. Do you really think the mainstream media is going to take a position against DRM? I sure AOL Time Warner etc will be sure to say how bad DRM is for the masses on CNN. Maybe I'm a bit bitter after seeing things like DMCA getting shoved down our throats. With the big media companies having wet dreams over DRM, I don't see how its NOT going to get implemented everywhere.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[uncoveror]

History also indicates that DRM will frequently make it impossible for legitimate owners of media just to play them. The problem with all DRM is that it is an attempt to tell customers what they can do with their personal property even after a sale is made. That is why there is always a backlash, and rightfully so. Take for example, "copy protected" CDs that won't play in a computer.

That's not the only problem!

[Tom7]

"... this is only the beginning of a complicated standards problem."

I think you mean, the beginning of the problem of trying to sell people something they don't want, and already get along fine without.

sir

[themusicgod1]

people are stupid. be aware of this fact and act and think accordingly. expecting them not to be stupid instantaneously is, well, either in error or just plain evil. it's not their fault, for the most part, that they are stupid. they have been raised stupid... i mean come on, you are obviously smarter than they are and realize these things. but not everyone is as smart as you are. you have to come to grps with this. the people who muck around with transmitters in the bus should not be barred from media, they should be *enlightened*. because if you find a way to bar them from their media, they are just going to screw up some other part of your day. don't have a vehicle yet/taking the bus? wait till you get a vehicle and learn how utterly incapable most mammals are of operating moter-vehicles safely and sanely. don't deal with people day to day for your work? then you mustn't realize the total waitress-groping-loud-annoying-and-obnoxious-assho les that just seem to hang around every corner. yours isn't a problem with media, this is a problem with people. it's not that most cell phone users aren't rude, it's that most people are. how you've lived 10+ years and not realized this after learning about how 3d-spread-electromagnetics work is beyond me.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[jheidebr]

While the standards are settling lets work on re-branding DRM for what it actually is: Digital Restrictions Management.

I have yet to see a DRM solution that does not restrict the fair use options for consumers. Until a proposed DRM solution explicit states how fair use is protected I and other empowered consumers should stay far away from these *standards*.

uhmmm no so fast!

[joered64]

Now there are some interesting facts:
there is oma that has released the drm specification for mobile market...
And some chip makers that are following this standard...
So imho it is possible that this time we get the standard _before_ the products...

Some links and comments on http://www.ziogianni.com

I thought the clipper chip was dead...

[Lodragandraoidh]

DRM embedded in a chip? Isn't that just the Clipper chip reborn?

RMS not DRM

[herderofcats]

Actually, at the conference the buzz-word is not DRM, but RMS i.e. Rights Management System -- that is what several companies are calling their DRMs.

I'm not sure why marketing departments are re-framing DRM as RMS -- it is only removing digital and adding system. Maybe digital is now just a noise word? Or maybe they want their RMS to do more then digital rights?

-- Herder Of Cats

Re:RMS not DRM

[VIIseven7]

Maybe they're just trying to piggyback on the success of RMS in the mathematical community.

Re:RMS not DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are Nuclear Magnetic Resonance instruments called Magnetic Resonance Imaging instruments when used in a clinical setting?

Because the word 'nuclear' scares patients. Same instrument, slightly different software package, different image. I suspect the same thing is going on here.

-M5B

Re:RMS not DRM

[TiggsPanther]

Possibly 'cos if the comanies involved are trying to secure their own internal data (rather than stuff they're trying to "sell"...) then obviously they want to flag this up as being a Good Thing

The term DRM is fast picking up negatyive connotations, so it makes sense that they'd try to distance themselves from it. Especially if they're dealing with their private data and not "anti-piracy measures". They won't want it tarred with the same brush.

A suggestion

[t_allardyce]

To slashdot editors: please script slashdot so that the phrase "Digital Rights Management" is replaced by "Digital Restrictions Management" in all occurences. Lets deface every fucking corporate site that has these words and change them! (don't forget to correct anyone if they mistakenly call it Rights)

Owning is Dead, long live pay per vew!

[Darth23]

Unless new models of distribution can be created which connect the content creators directly with the content users.

Re:Owning is Dead, long live pay per vew!

[Media Withdrawal]

Unless new models of distribution can be created which connect the content creators directly with the content users.

"Content creators/users" is totally corporate-centric terminology. The web already does a great job of linking (ahem) artists to their audiences. As you guessed, pay per view is not far from my specific distribution model. I update my main product about once a month. Customers get the original download and all updates (to the next full version) if they buy a copy. That also grants them access to support/friendly banter. But I don't mind at all if, for example, a teacher makes copies for an entire class, because all support/downloads route through the teacher. About the time the semester ends, I get a flurry of purchases (and fan letters) from the students, their friends and relatives.

Unlike pay-per-view, my model does let people own the downloads and do whatever they want with them. But the downloads start to seem stale in a few months; those who actually buy always have the slickest version.

As I understand it, this sort of "bootleg-friendly" distribution model worked well for the Greatful Dead, Metallica, and others, even before it was trivially easy (via www) to link artists with their audiences.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[Linux Ate My Dog!]

History also indicates that DRM, especially on phones, won't be of any use to guard content for long.

the right balance wrt DRM...

[Anonymous Coward]

is to find how deeply you can screw your customers without them screaming loudly enough to alert law enforcement.

It's kind of like the aphorism about a lion, a tiger, and a lamb discussing what's for dinner. With DRM, the customers are the lambs. "With DRM, your customers are what's for dinner." Now that's truth in advertising.

DRM isn't just for consumers

[bjgolden]

DRM in the context of the RSA conference & Microsoft is probably geared towards securing corporate data rather than consumer goods. Losing a song to piracy is one thing; having your sales projections for the next fiscal year (or internal memos & documents a la Diebold) is quite another.

Up to a point, employees can also be mandated to use DRM software, while consumers can reject it. Corporate DRM will take off before consumer DRM.

DRM parallel to the Industrial Revolution

[argoff]

During the 1850's there were those who believed that the entire purpose and meaning of the industrial revolution was to leverage new technology (like the cotton gin) to make their slaves more efficient and expand their plantations for unlimited profit. Of course what this ment was that it was required to have tight controll over the labor force. However at the same time, to prosper, the factories in the north relied on a mobile and specialized workforce - the anti-thesis of the plantation philosophy. Eventually the tension became so bad, that the south decided to try and fence themselves off and become a seperate union.

Long behold, 150 years later, and psycologically little has changed. Rather than deal with the information age, Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA are trying to fence themselves off from the rest of the real world, and like the southern states they're gonna get their ass kicked. I wish they would "get it", it would save us all alot of headaches.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well I paid for not catching it. But he seemed rather juvenile in his wording.

Or maybe I'm just particularly cynical today.

Re:It will take years for these standards to settl

[janbjurstrom]

Yeah, if they manage to become standards at all. What I found interesting/disturbing about the Barret (Intel) interview, was this telling quote:

"I think it's important ... that we adopt a minimum base line of copy protection technology [...]" he said. "I think this an area best left to he industrial members -- the content owners, the consumer electronics manufacturers and the PC manufacturers -- to deal with and government should take a stand-offish solution [...]"

Telling, in the absolute absence of the slightest mention of the "networked/~ing consumer" (I think the word 'consumer' in the traditional sense is increasingly misleading, but that's another rant).

Are these "industry members" deliberately trying to not understand?!

DVD region protections, the DRM in iTunes, etc. Problems and grief. And for what? If iTunes had no protections on the content, would their sales actually have suffered(?) And the regions, now that's just pathetic.

I mean, simply observing our (consumers-producers) uses, re-uses, combinations, sharing, etc., of this fabled "content".should tell them something. William Gibson wrote something like "The streets finds its own uses for things."

One would think it was abundantly clear by now, that the 80/20 sweet-spot (Pareto's law), is finding a low-ceremonial, painless way of just selling the content. And stopping there!

Ensuring control over it's use at the edges will cost (is costing) way too much (and will probably not work) - standards, systems, enforcement, irritation, inflexibility, etc. All this to make absolutely sure lil' Betty won't play her Aguilera 'songs' on her stereo and to her friends in her chatroom online...

How would one remove iTunes DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how one removes DRM from mp3s.

I've never seen a DRM Mp3, so how would one decode it (for archival purposes, of course)?

copyright laws & minor infringers

[KarmaOverDogma]

"People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers"

Um, what country do you live in?

Here in the USA, minor copyright infringers who HAVE been sued (and either settled or lost) include a twelve year old girl (maybe this is what you meant by "minor infringer") by the RIAA.

Think you are immune to enforcement just because you are a "minor infringer"? Just remember this piece of information from the New York Times:

Even if you are not sharing music on the internet, you may already be infringing copyrights. According to a more thorough examination of (american) copyright law, if you are engaging in any of the following acts, legal action could be brought against you:

1) Whistling a song while in the subway
2) Walking door to door singing copyrighted christmas carols, like "Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer."
3) Singing "Happy Birthday" to your child in a restaurant
4) Making a Mix-CD for freinds, lovers, or wedding guests
5) Displaying posters of your favorite pop-stars in the school hallways
6) Blasting music out of your car window (some wish the record industry would actually crack-down on this behavior instead).

Fred Von Lohmann, Esq., an intellectual property attorney, stated that "In a lot of these examples, copyright owners may not be able to win these lawsuits, but they are all plausible cases that you would need to come up with a defense for."

If all this seems preposterous, let's not forget that ACSAP (American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers) decided it was a violation to sing copyrighted songs around the fire at overnight and girlscout camps... and they WON.

The odds of anyone coming after you may indeed be very low, but please don't make the mistake of assuming it can't or won't happen to "minor copyright infringers," because it already has and will likely continue for some time. Why? I find this quote by Amy Weismann, the RIAA sopkeswoman for the above scenario's to be illustrative: "The application of copyright law in the new technological environment has been a challenge for everyone, but the complexity of the law can't mask right versus wrong. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong."

See my point now?

.

DRM can KMFA

[Luscious868]

That would be "kiss my fucking ass" for the those who are wondering.

Get it right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Buzzword de jour, s'il vous plait.

Calling your bluff

[gidds]

You might just be shocked that enough people will pay for your content!

Now, come on... Yes, some people are downloading files illegally out of principle, in protest against record-company practices, or whatever, but the vast majority download files for the Sir Edmund Hillary reason: simply because they're there. (However they rationalise it...)

This is the implication every time stories like this get posted: that if record companies 'behaved themselves' (though what qualifies as 'good behaviour' is never specified), pass reasonable percentages on to the artists (though 'reasonable percentages' are never specified), then people would pay for their CDs; and that if they were then to produce completely unrestricted downloadable formats, people would all pay for those too.

Yeah, really? Right.

It's a big bluff. Oh yes, people would say great things, but most would carry on downloading illegally. Some would stop, and some would cut down, but most would carry straight on - maybe covering it by moving their goalposts or some other dodgy rationalisation.

What happens if they call our bluff? What happens if they can turn around and say "We need to restrict our formats, because we've proved no-one pays for them otherwise!" Perhaps, in the long run, we're actually better off if they don't take your word for things...

WRONG: DRM (digital...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM does not stand for Digital Rights Management.

It stands for Digital Restrictions Management!

That is what it does!

And maybe we should start calling Free (as in speech) Software Freedom Software , because that's what it protects. Our freedom.

DDR? Pooh.

[tepples]

Likewise, is DDR a former communist country, a type of SDRAM, or a rhythm video game?

And I thought "CRM" was Christopher R. Milne, son of late children's book author A. A. Milne.

Richard Stallman

[tepples]

When conjecturing about Microsoft's motives for "Rights Management System" to describe devices containing digital restrictions management, consider that RMS stands for Richard M. Stallman, who founded the Free Software Foundation. Would RMS endorse RMS?