Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Buzzword du Jour: DRM

Posted by timothy on from the digital-recording-monopoly dept.

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."

69 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. It will take years for these standards to settle d by Tangential · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  2. It's fundamentally silly by Theatetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It's fundamentally silly by LousyPhreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ;)

      --
      -- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political
    2. Re:It's fundamentally silly by asdf+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:It's fundamentally silly by Sven+Tuerpe · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
    4. Re:It's fundamentally silly by k_head · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    5. Re:It's fundamentally silly by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    6. Re:It's fundamentally silly by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:It's fundamentally silly by trezor · · Score: 4, Funny
      • 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.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    8. Re:It's fundamentally silly by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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....

    9. Re:It's fundamentally silly by Convergence · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  3. Please, let's call it what it is... by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Please, let's call it what it is... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  4. New Oxymoron? by Bobdoer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:New Oxymoron? by Daneurysm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:New Oxymoron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:New Oxymoron? by derfel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:New Oxymoron? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Funny

      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...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  5. DRM is only putting off the inevitable by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable by zeruch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable by inertialmatrix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  6. It's a marketing set up... by wiresquire · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Game over.

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    1. Re:It's a marketing set up... by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

  7. just my .02 by kyshtock · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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 $

    --
    Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
    1. Re:just my .02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

  8. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  9. DRM? RSA!! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny
    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?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:DRM? RSA!! by bursch-X · · Score: 2, Funny

      Give him the death blow with WYSIWYG.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  10. IMO, DRM won't work by Operating+Thetan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Remember the "science" part by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    1. Re:Remember the "science" part by Daneurysm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Remember the "science" part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Remember the "science" part by jmv · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    4. Re:Remember the "science" part by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:Remember the "science" part by zurab · · Score: 2
      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?
  12. Saw Bill tonight by evilty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Saw Bill tonight by k_head · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Saw Bill tonight by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

  13. DRM + open source by LinuxGuyFriend · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:DRM + open source by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:DRM + open source by packeteer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  14. DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?".
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    2. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by CelticWhisper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    3. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    4. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    5. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by atomico · · Score: 2, Insightful


      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.

    7. Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ^^

  15. Apple? by CelticWhisper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
    http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  16. Digital Rights Management by DonaldDuckBigO · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --

    Listen in on Donald Duck!

  17. DRM expensive yet ineffective? by geoff+lane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Dear Computer Industry, by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  19. But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. forced infrastructure by neuraloverload · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  21. Freedom for corporations, not individuals by Quizo69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  22. DRM is as old as digital technology. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  23. DRM is only software by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  24. DRM is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  25. Its Open mobile alliance and mobile DRM by Geekonomical · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

  26. It's not just the media companies... by Media+Withdrawal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  27. Re:It will take years for these standards to settl by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  28. That's not the only problem! by Tom7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "... 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.

  29. sir by themusicgod1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  30. RMS not DRM by herderofcats · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  31. A suggestion by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  32. DRM isn't just for consumers by bjgolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  33. DRM parallel to the Industrial Revolution by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  34. Re:Owning is Dead, long live pay per vew! by Media+Withdrawal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.