BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"

Comments

Re:Article buys industry lies

[LiquidCoooled]

Digital rights management is about controlling the data on your machine and deciding who has the rights to run it.

That data can be images, movies, mp3s or executable code...

Re:Trusted System

[yagu]

..., most of us, most of the time, will pay a reasonable amount for good quality material , ...

Absolutely... as a matter of fact I think it's more than most, it's close to ALL. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while some take to the challenge of stealing... most don't. So, while some in the past would make illegal copies and share "illegally" (downloading, etc.), the record companies' response by tightening the screws eventually I think will have an unintended effect. At some point the extra onus on the customer to "unlock", and jump through all of the drm hoops just to use something they already paid for and thought they were just going to sit down and enjoy will push them to their path of least resistance... e.g., not bother with buying cd's anymore, not bother with dvd's anymore, not bother with iTunes anymore...

Instead they'll just use the radio, go to the movie theater, whatever. What a wasted amount of time and effort to "trust" we the consumers.

BBC

[Lord_Dweomer]

As an American, I'd like to express my gratitude to the BBC for being one of the most, if not THE most outstanding media organization in the world.

I know they have their faults, but when they need to come through, they really come through, especially on matters of public interest.

I for one welcome our new BBC Overlords, in hopes that they will be a big ally in our struggle to further media distribution on the net.

+1 Informative

[Sanity]

This is a very important point, lest anyone in the UK be lulled into a false sense of security as to their vulnerability to this kind of thing.

If anything Europeans need to fight harder against this stuff because often those arguing against it are arrogant Americans whose argument is often "we do it in the US, therefore you must too". The irony often is that they have a harder time pushing it in the US than elsewhere.

I had a recent experience of this type of thing in teh debate over software patents in the EU.

"trusted computing"? Framing issue

[MikeCapone]

Lets not use the language of the opposition.

By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".

George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...

One simple criterion for what is trustable

[file-exists-p]

If the device includes a private key known by the manufacturer and not known by the customer, the device is trustable by the manufacturer and not anymore by the customer.

There are no user-friendly feature which requires such a key, and there are no way to take your right away without such a key.

--
Go Debian!

Freeloaders

[bonch]

Unfortunately--at least on /., anyway--the loud opinions of those "freeloaders" usually makes rational discussion of copyrights, intellectual property, and DRM meaningless. You can't get past the "RIAA IS EVIL AND I AM A FREEDOM FIGHTER" mindset. I think we'll start seeing some real progress and some valid compromises made by both sides if we can get past the reactionary attitudes that really only exist to shift blame away from downloaders and onto some faceless corporate entity, because demonization is easier than acknowledgement of one's own guilt.

The truth is that the portrayal of both sides is usually wrong. Most companies aren't big, evil, cigar-smoking Republicans sitting in dark rooms plotting economic takeovers to maintain their monopolies. They're just companies trying to protect their media content because of the explosion of piracy. And pirates aren't freedom fighters riding the wave of a big cultural movement. Most are just freeloaders looking to get stuff without having to pay for it (it's basic human nature).

So far, iTunes has been a big success, so apparently a lot of consumers have no problem with DRM and online legal music-downloading. So to be quite honest, I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes. Legal online music is already here, which makes the argument for piracy appear even more self-serving.

Re:Freeloaders

[Doctor_Jest]

DRM is a technological solution to a social problem. It's been said many times before, but it's still true.

The problem with the Big labels' acceptance of the "new" business model like Napster (subscription) is that if they could, they'd rent you content and charge per use. A "pay-per-view" society is the content providers' wet dream. A funnel of money coming from your wallet and going to their bank account each time you turn on your TV, read a newspaper, or get on the internet.

Don't think that's what they want? DiVX was a piss-poor version of what they REALLY are after. You not having a physical copy of anything, and they controlling both ends of the pipe.

Can't do it? No, not yet they can't. But Trusted Computing and the legislation to back up their lockdown (DMCA anyone?), and they, not you, are in control. Each step is making it harder and harder for people to exert their rights over the rights of content owners, not the producers, the OWNERS. The biggest cry is from those who create NOTHING. They just OWN it. Who are the REAL freeloaders in this debate?

Explosion of piracy? You sound like a PR statement from the RIAA front desk. They are making billions. Still raking it in.. and by the way, increasing sales, in the face of "the explosion of piracy." How can they explain this? Well, they'd be making TRILLIONS if it weren't for those bastard college students. In other words, they don't. Don't look at how much we are making. Look at how much we claim to be losing. (That's another debate entirely.)

Every technological advancement has been met with the same brand of resistance and sometimes even from the same people (MPAA and VCR, anyone?) Every time the content providers adapt and innovate, they tap into yet another stream of revenue. Every time they stifle, legislate, sue, and whine, they disappear. It's called progress. Get on the train, or be left at the station. Sad thing is, the current content providers want to obliterate the train and the station.

They won't innovate anymore. Now their course it to control. I am not a freeloader, but I am also not going to give up any control. The things these people are trying to control are worthless pieces of entertainment that are not essential to your or my daily life. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the importance of this whole debate will return to the level it should. These providers aren't making anything we can't live without.

I for one would rather do without than to live under someone else's control. Nothing they have is worth losing your freedom over. Nothing.

law??

[Fuzzums]

i didn't know it was the duty of software writers to enforce the law.

let's look at cars. speeding is prohibited. should cardesigners make it impossible to speed?

you're not allowed to kill. should bullet makers make bullets that don't kill?

then why....

I know why...

[mangu]

I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes.

Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.

I would gladly pay for online music if the price was in the same order of magnitude as the cost the distributors have. But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.

The "business model" is still obsolete, it's done in the same way John D. Rockefeller used to do business. It's a cartel (or a "trust", as it was called in the late 19th century) that fixes prices and imposes artificial barriers to competition. Things like the broadcast bit and closed binary formats have the same use as the different train gauges the "robber barons" of the 19th century used to push independent railroads out of business.

No, the media cartel uses unethical business methods, and should be broken up. No new legislation is needed, any honest government could get rid of the ??AA using the same laws that were used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, what you call "piracy" I call "freedom fighting". Happy Boston Tea Party!