Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
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.
All's true that is mistrusted
Digital Restrictions Management. Let's let the less technical people know what it really is.
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
"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.
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
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.
Average Joe: MS Security sucks
MS: DRM = security
Average Joe: So, I must need DRM
Game over.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
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!
People accept copyright laws because they aren't enforced against minor infringers
Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
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
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?
- DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
- DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
- US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal
- OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
- 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?".(These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
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.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
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.
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
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...
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!
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".
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
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."
Visceral Psyche Films
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.
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).
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.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
"... 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.
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.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
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)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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.
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.