Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM Advocate Violates DRM

Posted by Zonk on from the i-don't-like-you-either dept.

Alsee writes "A year and a day after arguing DRM was good for business, acceptable to consumers, and necessary in today's world, JupiterMedia VP and Research Director Michael Gartenberg comes face to face with DRM reality, downloads a circumvention tool, violates DRM, and blogs about his MS Reader DRM issues being solved ... permanently. Perhaps now he would be interested in the EFF Action Center where Americans can quickly and easily ask your Representative to co-sponsor the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."

53 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Oh god... by KD5YPT · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... such an irony. Its like advocating for death penalty and finds yourself in a electric chair with the executioner asking you "Medium Rare or Well done?"

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    1. Re:Oh god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      From his blog:

      "While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."

      He appears to hail from the "Medium Rare" school of self-execution.

    2. Re:Oh god... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny that he still sees it as a "necessary evil"... How many other problems will he need to face before he realizes just how unnecessary it is? DRM makes suits feel better, but rarely stops people from getting around it.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  2. He was right then, and he's right now. by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To quote Mike from his original blog last year:

    "Our research shows clearly that DRM is only an issue to consumers when it's technology they keep bumping into."

    That remains true. His problem now w/ the MS DRM is that he's bumping into it. If the DRM was improved so that it would get out of his way, he would still have no issue with it.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by rhizome · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the DRM was improved so that it would get out of his way, he would still have no issue with it.

      Except that the whole *point* of DRM is to be in the way. What would a DRM system that did not get in the way look like?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    2. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point of DRM is to be in the way when you try to distribute something.

      I think DRMs should be capable of running on anything that is associated as mine, or in my possession. IE: My car sterio, my home entertainment system, my computer, my MP3 Player, my friends PSP that he loaned me, etc. So long as I can (EASILY!) prove to the DRM that I own the content, I should be able to view/play/use whatever the content.

      Infact, I think that in the advent that my content is stolen or damaged, I should be able to goto a distribution point (like the record label's web site) and download another copy of the content completely free, because I have already paid for it.

      That is what DRM's should do in my opinion. They don't yet, but hopefully they will.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by arose · · Score: 3, Informative
      The point of DRM is to be in the way when you try to distribute something.
      With digital files there is no differnce between copying and moving. I can move my dead-trees just fine, no one is getting in my way.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by steelfood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This begs the question. How does this technology know who you are, and how does it know that you're you. How does a computer differenciate between you loaning something to somebody (a DVD) and making a copy for that person (your ideal DRM would provent you not from making the copy, which would get in the way of people looking to back things up, but prevent your friend from playing your DVD).

      Perhaps your solution is biometrics. But what if you got into a horrible accident and lost that particular part of your body? Your eyes? Your face was disfigured? You lost your fingerprints, fingers, or even the whole arm?

      So what about a unique PGP key? What if you lose or forget it? Do you stop being you? Do you now have no right to any of your stuff because you cannot be identified?

      Any way you cut it, DRM will be intrusive to somebody. And if you justify its existence by saying that person isn't likely to be you, then I think that's a very selfish way of looking at things, and completely inappropriate for application to the rest of the world.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by centauri · · Score: 4, Funny

      This begs the question

      No, it doesn't.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    6. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by starling · · Score: 3, Funny

      The phrase has been so mis-used that it has, in affect, come to loose it's meaning.

    7. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by Jarnis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are indistingusihable, because the only difference is the intent.

      Are you making a copy to be used on another piece of hardware you own, or for someone else (who pays you for the copy, for the sake of argument, making it definitely illegal)? Show me an automated DRM that can make a distinction between the two, without employing a human spying on your actions?

      Computer programs cannot determine the intent of the user, and neither can the rightsholder without seriously breaching little things like 'right to privacy'. So DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept that will always be designed to restrict fair use and normal legal use - because that's the only way to prevent potential 'evil' uses where your intent is to make illegal copies. The only difference being the intent of the user.

      Hey, even supreme court got the idea (with their P2P ruling) - intent is everything in these things.

    8. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to just appeal to my own authority here, but even a medium level understanding of technology seems to indicate two things:

      1. Real criminals will always be able to get around DRM
      2. Regular people will always bump into it in some innocent situation

      Let me connect the dots from there: DRM sucks. And it always will. That won't necessarily stop it from becoming mainstream and accepted, just like copyright extention and the stagnation of the public domain, but that doesn't make it right or good.

      Cheers.

    9. Re:He was right then, and he's right now. by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That is what DRM's should do in my opinion. They don't yet, but hopefully they will.
      They won't because it's not in the content owners interests for DRM to work that way. The content owners want you (or your insurance) to pay for a new copy of everything when the old one is stolen or damaged. They want you to buy separate copies for your car stereo, your home entertainment system, your computer, etc. In fact they'd like you to rent all your content. DRM doesn't quite enforce all that (yet), so it doesn't work entirely the way the content owners would like either, but it's closer to their vision than yours, and it's likely to get worse for the consumer, not better.
  3. teh forumla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. force drm down our throats
    2. circumvent drm to do it
    3. ????????
    4. profit!!!

    1. Re:teh forumla by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually for once, the AC's feeble joke is spot on: DRM isn't as much about preventing people from cracking it as it is about having solid grounds to sue infringers.

      DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:teh forumla by wfberg · · Score: 3, Funny


      DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

      Just like AOL subscribers have caught on to using "a softwares" like Winzip to unzip zip files, they'll ask how to get programs to play "thier" files even though they keep annoyingly asking to "aquice a lisnce", and people will point the to un-drm utilities with just a big fat "crack" button.

      These people will still have no clue.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    3. Re:teh forumla by raitchison · · Score: 3, Interesting

      DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

      Actually, I suspect that, for the content producers at least an equally important purpose for DRM is to inhibit people's ability to exercise their fair use rights for the content they supposedly purchased.

      How many times as a Disney video been sold to the same family more than once because the kids (being kids) destroyed the first one? Most consumers don't have the knowledge or tools to copy a Macrovision "protected" video or CSS encrypted DVD. Sure, for the technically savvy this is a non issue, whenever I get a movie I can make a copy and lock the original away from my kids but I'd be surprised if anyone else on my block could do the same.

      Or with DRM'ed music, You know that there are more than a few people who have bought the same song more than once after they reformatted their hard drive or got a new computer and found they could no longer open the music they previously "purchased"

      Both Disney & Apple are well aware that even with no so-called "backyard piracy" (or any other copyright violations) going on that they will lose sales if their media can be easily copied.

      One DRM scheme I would actually be OK with is one that doesn't restrict copying but imparts a digital "watermark" in the media that makes it traceable to the original purchaser. This is sorta-kinda how TiVo handles videos that you copy off if your TiVo DVR (using approved methods anyways). If I were an idiot and put my TiVo media files on BitTorrent or something it would be easily traceable back to me.

      Of course the main flaw in the TiVo system is there is only one application that is "approved" for burning your TiVo files to DVD and it's as expensive as it is lousy. So the result is that I have to use unapproved of methods for converting the TiVo file to MPEG so I can burn it to DVD using the tool I want to. Honestly I'd love to skip that step because it more than doubles the time involved in putting a show on DVD.

  4. necessary evils by justforaday · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note that he still feels DRM is a necessary evil, just so long as there's a way to circumvent it...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  5. Just maybe by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can be for DRM, but against shitty implementations thereof?

    No wait, that would involve too much thought and judgement. Black and white is so much easier.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Just maybe by aftk2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You took the words right out of my mouth. Reading the two blog entries, there's nothing inconsistent about them: he rails against Sony's crappy implementation of DRM in the first, and against Microsoft's crappy implementation of DRM in the second. He praises Apple's DRM in the first, and that praise still stands: Apple's DRM gets out of your way (at least, I haven't butted up against it, and I use the iTunes Music Store frequently, and own an iPod.)

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    2. Re:Just maybe by Jarnis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you have DRM that doesn't get into your way?

      DRM, by design, takes away your ability to access/modify/distribute data.

      Data is, by definition, there to be accessed/modified/distributed.

      There can only be slightly less braindead DRM, and braindead DRM. DRM will ALWAYS get into your way sooner or later (it's designed to do that) - even when you limit your usage to what fair use allows you to do.

    3. Re:Just maybe by morgue-ann · · Score: 3, Informative
      If circumvention is legal then it's not so much of a problem, but the current situation seems to be that it is not legal.


      The Librarian of Congress has made four exceptions to circumvention prohibition:

      (1) Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.

      (2) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.

      (3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

      (4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
    4. Re:Just maybe by Jarnis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't seem to get it.

      With computers, when you are accessing the data, you are making a copy of it. If nothing else, you are copying it to the framebuffer of your videocard for display.

      Any 'effective' DRM that tries to prevent you from copying the data will affect your legal, fair-use rights to access the data.

      Until all your own hardware talks to each other and phones home to the DRM makers, there is aboslutely no practical way to DRM something to work only on 'your' hardware. The hardware doesn't know who owns it, and if you are asking for access on multiple hardware platforms, you are asking for copies. One copy = unlimited copies. No matter how you obfuscate, limit or mangle things, it boils down to a simple fact; If you have bunch of data on your hard drive or RAM, in order to do *anything* to that data, you are making a copy of it, and any piece of code designed to prevent that is going to prevent legimate uses (or alternatively the DRM is so weak its irrelevant and you can make unlimited copies)

      The whole idea of DRM is so braindead - until they have DRM code running in your brain, it's always circumventable, and to make it hard to circumvent, it will inevitably get into way of legimate uses, as numerous legimate uses *require* making of copies of the data.

    5. Re:Just maybe by orz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many (most? all?) DRM advocates also advocate criminal penalties for violating DRM (DMCA, etc).

      If he's a believer in the DMCA and similar laws, he should explain whether or not he believes that he should be jailed for his actions, and why. If he's not a DMCA advocate, he should explain how DRM could work without the force of law backing it.

      But I can't be bothered to read through a years worth of blog to find out if he discusses that issue.

    6. Re:Just maybe by Jarnis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, I understand that.

      Problem is, to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the data, you need to prevent huge number of scenarios where you access the data - many of them quite legal.

      The only difference between 'making a warez copy of the data to be distributed for all mankind' and 'making a backup copy in case the original dies' is *intent*. And no DRM can dechiper that.

      There is no way to 'secure' identification of an 'authorized user' to 'unlock' data. Once an authorized user unlocks it legimately, he can make copies (or if he can't, then DRM is in the way).

      I dunno.. for decades we had this analog rights management system called 'the Copyright Law' that ensured that 'talented individuals' got their 'appropriate compensation'. Content business was huge before the term DRM was even invented, so additional protection seems pointless. Now if your business model cannot survive unlimited digital copying, maybe it's time to rethink the business model? Because you cannot possibly prevent it - once you have a digital copy, and you allow an user to access said digital copy, it's possible to make a perfect digital copy of it. It's so fundamental that any DRM is doomed to fail, and on the way there it will piss off paying customers that just wish to legally access the data they paid for.

  6. Can't have your cake and eat it too... by TheStupidOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh ho ho... we've gone from praising DRM to circumventing it, haven't we? This is exactly the problem with DRM, when the DRM is so bad it restricts the legitimate use of the media it's protecting. I like how he praises DRM but says it's a "necessary evil" and is willing to circumvent it when it inhibits him.


    Sorry Mike, you can't have your DRM and circumvent it when it's in the way too y'know.

    --
    unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
    1. Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... by Lothsahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, his position hasn't really changed. He supported, and still supports (RTFA) DRM which the consumer is "not constantly bumping into." For this product, this is obviously not the case. He even says in his blog that this is a terrible implementation of DRM.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    2. Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He even says in his blog that this is a terrible implementation of DRM.

      And that's exactly where he should've stopped. If he were at all consistent he would've exercised his right to free speech on the matter but never have tried to crack the DRM.

      Unfortunately this moron believes that HE gets to be the one who decides whether or not some subset of DRM is 'good', and if it doesn't meet HIS standards then it's okay to crack it. He's essentially said that his own personal beliefs supercede the law and are justification for breaking that law.

      This makes him no different than any other 'pirate' out there, just a little slicker at convincing people that what he's doing is actually okay.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  7. So can we report him... by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To the agencies and get him arrested for violation of the DMCA?

    Finally, a GOOD use for the DMCA... putting people behind bars that support the DMCA.

    Mod me flamebait, if you want... but DON'T mod this funny! I'm being serious...

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  8. Ugh... by Mad_Rain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Re-read the comments he made: From the first article, last sentence "DRM is a necessary technology that need not burden consumers, tech vendors or content providers."
    From the second one, last sentence. "Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."

    He didn't make a 180 degree turn on the issue. He was critical of this particular implementation of DRM (and the general cluelessness of Microsoft tech support when it came to his esoteric issue).

    It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.

    --
    "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    1. Re:Ugh... by bani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that virtually ALL DRM is like this.

      It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.

      Yep. He's still an asshole.

  9. How ironic by Flying+Purple+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blog entry (TFBE?) highlights a huge problem with DRM schemes. You legitimately obtain a copy of a protected work. Years later, something breaks or becomes obsolute. Now you're screwed, because you can't use the protected work that you paid for. You have two choices: buy another copy, or break the DRM. But the latter makes you criminal under the DMCA.

    This madness has to stop!

    --
    If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
    1. Re:How ironic by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, you may not have the choice of buying another copy. Frequently things go out of print, and there's no reason to assume that this will change in the new age of DRM. The way it will happen will be less likely that they stopped printing it, since "printing" digital media is basically free; rather, what will happen is that the original issuer will go out of business, leaving you in the lurch with not even an avenue of support.

      And if we get really effective DRM, you won't even have the choice of breaking the DRM, because the DRM won't be breakable. The only reason this guy was able to break the DRM was because it was crappy DRM. Which, frankly, is the best kind, because really effective DRM renders the product unrecoverable if the access key is lost.

      I haven't ever broken the DRM on a piece of iTMS music that I've purchased, but one of the things that makes me comfortable in buying iTMS music is that I know the DRM is breakable, so in the event that iTMS goes away, I am not shafted.

    2. Re:How ironic by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The blog entry (TFBE?) highlights a huge problem with DRM schemes. You legitimately obtain a copy of a protected work. Years later, something breaks or becomes obsolute. Now you're screwed, because you can't use the protected work that you paid for.

      Are you advocating demands that Apple Records provide free music DVDs to everybody who bought Yellow Submarine on 8 Track? If I bought a copy of Ping (book about the duck) and go blind am I entitled to a free copy on tape?

      Now on to my real points.

      1. This clown needs to be prosecuted for DMCA violations. Not only did he circumvent DRM but he told everybody else how to do it. This blatant recommendation of a tool is nothing short of advocating the theft of copyrighted material.

      Unreasonable? Yes, but will the law. It is only through the prosecution of people like this will they start to advocate reasonable positions on DRM. It is the easiest thing in the world to advocate enforcing laws when you aren't subjected to them yourself (which is why Congress and the President have no real incentive to fix social security, for example). If this guy is sued with the same zeal as grandmothers who have 15 year old visitors who installed kazaa on that newfangled box then maybe there would be a louder voice calling for reason.

      2. With regards to backup, so long as there exists a legal right to back up digital works (as there should be) then -no- DRM is acceptable for the very reasons mentioned by the OP. If the companies force DRM onto their product then they should be forced to provide replacement media, for free, on demand in perpetuity. The concept of "you don't own the copy of the song you only license it" is BS: the copyright holders can sell you the song with any restrictions they like, just as I can sell you a 5 acre parcel of land with a deeded restriction that you can never build more than a single house.

      But so long as people like this guy can advocate DRM yet violate it on whim without consequence and as long as people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something with which they are not completely satisfied then nothing will change . Ever. There is no motivation for the companies to do so, so they will not.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  10. Priceless by Imidazole · · Score: 3, Funny

    Advocating and promoting the use of DRM - $1,000,000
    Blogging about your own circumvention of it - $10

    Getting caught in the act, and ridiculed by the millions that view Slashdot - Priceless.

    --
    -Imidazole
    Hilarious Office Prank!
  11. Did this guy just break the DMCA? by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did he just break the DMCA, in a very public way? Or is this not the case.

    It sure looks like the did the sort of thing that folks do, that can get them in huge trouble -- he attempted to circumvent a technological device there to protect Copyright.

    Is he really so dumb as to blog about it?

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:Did this guy just break the DMCA? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know this probably violates some unwritten rule on slashdot, but I did actually read the link;

      He said in his blog that he circumvented the DRM.

      He provides a link to the tool he used to do it.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  12. Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... by gsfprez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    nice to see its bi-partisan names on the bill.

    Goes to show that evil is not a party line problem; its a congressional whore problem, spanning both parties.

    I hope that this passes. Reasonable R's and D's need to get behind this kind of thing, putting the assholes like Hollings and Hatch out to pasture...

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  13. He still does not get it by Black+Art · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He still supports DRM, but only "good" implementations of it.

    What he does not get is that DRM *has* to be intrusive to work. DRM is based on having someone other than the owner of the machine control the data on that machine. If you want to move that data to another machine, you have to request permission and it had to be hard to get pewrmission, otherwise people will take advantage of you and copy the data more times than allowed.

    DRM is all about control. Control does not work unless you show them who is the boss early on.

    An interesting side effect of this is what it is teaching Americans. It is teaching them that they only way they can do what they want in society on a day to day basis is to break the law.

    Contemptable laws generate contempt for ALL laws.

    Or as Macalypse the Yonger put it...
    "Imposition of order = Escalation of Disorder".

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
  14. Can't have your DRM and remove it too by TheStupidOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh ho ho ho, it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine. Now he knows what it's like to be on the recieving end of DRM that restricts the legitimate use of media, media that customers paid for.

    Notice how fast it the DRM was defeated as well. From TFA, it took Michael only a few minutes to convert the DRM-ed eBooks over to PDF. Compared to the tech support nightmare that he went through, it's obvious why DRM is and always will be, a doomed technology.

    DRM does nothing except hinder the legit and paid-for use of media by honest customers, and mildly thwarts those who are determined to break it. Hopefully (but don't count on it), this will be a wake-up call to anyone seeking to implement a DRM system. When one of DRM's great apologists breaks out the "illegal" tools, you know there's a problem.

    --
    unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
  15. Mix, Burn, Rip, why Apple's DRM works... by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple's DRM, in the iTunes Music Store, is hardly there at all. It's "nudge nudge wink wink" DRM, it's "honor system" DRM. They should call it "digital rights hinting". Apple's old "Rip, Mix, Burn" ads pretty much tell you how to remove DRM from their files, if you're not prepared to use any of the widely-available HYMN variants. Just... change the order a little. Yeh, you take a one-time hit in the audio quality... but if you care about audio quality why aren't you buying and ripping CDs instead of lossy-compressed files anyway?

    DRM is acceptable when it's just strong enough to remind you that this isn't freely redistributable content, but not strong enough to actually prevent you from breaking it when you need to.

    That's what Microsoft doesn't get. That's what Michael Gartenberg doesn't get. Strong DRM will inevitably screw you over. If Apple used strong DRM in iTunes I'd have been really pissed when I ran out of authorizations due to a bad disk that forced me to reinstall my OS a couple of times... because even though Apple was willing to reset all my computers AGAIN, it took a while, and having all my music burned onto audio CDs meant it wasn't actually held hostage by the DRM...

    That's why Apple's DRM works. Because it doesn't. If it did, it wouldn't.

    1. Re:Mix, Burn, Rip, why Apple's DRM works... by argent · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, that's your choice.

      There's no legal, click-wrap contract, or other issues of force or coercion involved here. Apple explicitly permits you to make non-DRMed backups of your music. In fact they encourage it.

      If even touching a DRMed format is enough to squick you, if very idea disgusts you, then that's your trip.

      But where you see DRM, I see nothing but a facade.

  16. So if I read the article right... by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good DRM = Good. Don't try to go around it, that's bad.

    Bad DRM = Bad. It's good to circumvent it if you need to.

    Um, so who gets to decide what's good and what's bad?

    In the words of Homer, "Ummn, I don't know, the Coast Guard?"

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  17. Wrong by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions. Wrong. Which generates more revenue: selling people the same content over and over again each time they buy a new computer, or giving it to them once and letting them migrate to any other machine for the rest of their life? He is obviously forgetting the main purpose of DRM: to make consumers pay for the same content over and over again! I'd say Microsoft's DRM is optimally designed to acheive Microsoft's goals: derive continuing revenue from something you used to pay for only once.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  18. I hope he goes to jail... by kilonad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sincerely hope that someone, somewhere, takes him to court over this. It would publically shed light on how ridiculous the DMCA really is, and we'd have a better chance at fighting it. Or we'd at least have a precedent set that allows us to crack things we legally own.

  19. DRM Needs to happen by takeya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    DRM needs to become commonplace so that companies can see it doesn't work. Once cracks and cracking tools become widespread enough that one Joe Average can say to another "oh you just need to download this program and it will work ok" it will become apparent that DRM in any usable form is able to be circumvented.

    Once DRM becomes nearly useless, the incentive to include it with products declines, and we begin to see more and more DRM-free software. Even though we can see it's useless, the computer world needs to make these mistakes so it can learn from them and hopefully, not repeat them.

    1. Re:DRM Needs to happen by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It did way back in the day, with copy "protected" floppies. And then abandoning it, and using more copy "protection" and abandoning it, etc.

      The computer world keeps learning, and then forgetting.

      Perhaps some needs to give free Ritalin to IT industry execs.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:DRM Needs to happen by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, this is also the IT industries fault.

      The next *BIG* drm scheme will be *secure*

      Faster than Ever! More features than before! Able to deliver virtual reality in a single packet!

      A large part of the blame lies on the bozos (or maybe they are smarter than we think) selling 'uncrackable' (snake-oil) DRM.

      Of course, if it ever was uncrackable, they wouldn't be able to sell version x+1.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  20. Very unfair by Viking+Coder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is quite sad. The entire Slashdot crowd is being very unfair, here. He didn't change what he was saying - he said one thing and then did another. That's totally different. He castigated the community about how things should be, but when faced with harsh reality, he broke the law and tried to convince you that the law is not at fault - someone else made him do it. It's not that the law didn't protect him as a consumer of content, it's that the producer of content did a poor job - so now, he had to break the law - but they still shouldn't fix the law.

    Get ready for office!

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
  21. MS Reader is a terrible DRM by Renesis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a fan of a lot of the products Microsoft produces, and I was even a Microsoft MVP (Most Valued Professional) for several years.

    I was also employed as a Windows Media DRM expert for several years.

    I have to say, Microsoft's eBook DRM is probably the worst DRM I have ever encountered. I frequently buy eBooks, but now I have books I can't use. There is no way to de-activate an old piece of hardware from their hardware list, so after 5 equipment changes (and as geeks we update our PCs and PDAs reguarly) you're screwed.

    They promise another activation every 180 days or something on their. But that's a total lie. A complete falsehood. It says you can mail support and ask for more activations, but you just get denied every time.

    The reason their technical support knows nothing about the DRM is because the whole MS LIT/MS Reader project appears to be abandonware. The reader app hasn't had any non-critical updates in years.

    MICROSOFT! PLEASE! We just want to read the books we bought! *sob*

    I've had some bad experience with Adobe's DRM too - it won't let you re-flow DRM'd books so I can't read them on my PDA. I have to remote desktop into my PC from my Pocket PC to read them in bed.. and that's just a total scroll-fest then.

    Don't make me have to go back to using tree-based books...

  22. Re:DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. by Jarnis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable."

    What you describe is fundamentally impossible to do.

    You can wrap it with ten tons of DRM Snake oil, but if the recipient can read it, it can be copied. Accessing = copying.

  23. Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... by Chasuk · · Score: 4, Informative

    And, thanks to Google cache, here is the link to the program he used:

    http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html

    --
    Neopets - the best free game on the Int
  24. Rep. Boucher once again sponsers Slashdot laws by typical · · Score: 3, Informative

    And it looks like the bill sponsor is the Representative from Slashdot, Boucher. Seriously, I love this guy (and I'm kinda sad that he represents Virginia instead of my state). Take a look at the list of legislation he's been involved in.

    Reading down the list, he's opposed the RIAA, the DMCA, argued for fair use, argued for privacy laws, argued against the broadcast flag, argued against additional RIAA laws (and urged that the RIAA simply lower prices to provide a more appealing product), in favor of allowing features for Linux, worked on weakening the DMCA, pushed an anti-spam law (though admittedly not the most stringent of the proposals), pushed for the Do Not Call List, opposed DoJ anti-P2P propaganda attempts, and been a proponent of pro-VoIP laws. His arguments are quite tech-savvy -- if the man does not understand technology himself, he has some pretty sharp advisors. Many of these stances have been those that oppose major lobbyist groups (direct marketing, RIAA, MPAA, etc).

    Stick about a hundred more like him in Congress and throw Orrin Hatch to the wolves and I'd have a damn lot of respect for the legislative branch.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.