Slashdot Mirror
Sun Spearheads Open DRM
Steve from Hexus writes "If DRM is the future of controlling our media files, then perhaps the open source community can at the very least ensure that the dominant delivery system is an open standard. Hexus.net reports that Sun is spearheading a new open DRM project, which their lab workers and the open source community can contribute to. More information on project DReaM can be found at the Open Media Commons website." Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Nice idea, but how likely is it that the Big Media Companies will want to work with a scheme that isn't (a) closed source and (b) controlled by the likes of M_______t?
Hate to see open source DRM developed. That will guarantee DRM improves until it actually works. We're looking at the death of file sharing as we know it...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
If you can't beat 'em, and you can't join 'em, you might as well head them off at the pass.
...at least this will make cracking it much easier.
Hmmm... Let me think... I'ts so hard to...
Object to it on moral grounds.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
This idea won't work because people have suggested it on here many times and it was laughed at.
with it being an open source item, I'm thinking that the media companies won't want to use it as savvy users could just comment out any real calls to rights management thus kidding the program that the user is authorised to view the media or whatever.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
This doesn't stand a chance in hell; there is too much potential profit and control at stake for whoever comes up with whichever proprietary solution that is ultimately accepted, not to mention the obligatory backdoors that will have to be implemented. (And I'm not even wearing my tinfoil hat today.)
Are we talking "Open Standard" or "Patent and royalty free openly published specification"? Also it MUST include precautions to disallow non-patent-and-royalty-free "additions".
Until those conditions are met; I'm not wasting another second on this one.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
"If DRM is the future of controlling our media files..."
You lost me right there. If I can't crack it, I'm not using it. There is plenty of unencumbered content available. Who needs Britney Spears when you have a free ogg online from that band down the street? This is the real threat to the established content moguls. That Star Wars quote about "the more you tighten your grip" sounds like a cliche, but in this instance it is absolutely true.
Lock me out of your content such that once I lawfully possess it, I can't do whatever I want with it? GOODBYE! Thanks to the Internet there are so many more fish in the content sea, which will see an altruistic advantage, or a competitive advantage, to not using DRM.
An odd thought occurs:
Would one not prefer a broken DRM scheme that we can break, rather than build our own perfect prison?
That said, remember another thing about DRM: to work, it has to be a complete chain, starting at the DRM'ed media file. It'll won't prevent you from playng a non-DRM file*. So speak with your wallet, folks, and don't go around making the marketers believe people will accept DRM. (iTunes)
*Except of course if the device will only play that type of file. But who'd be stupid enough to buy one?...
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Object of course, why would you want to help contribute to tools of corporate control!
You'd have to be an idiot to want to help in this. It would be like being asked to build a prison that is going to be used to lock you in. Even more than that, Sun are asking you to help them make this prison better, and for free. Normally people will do objectionable things for enough money (sadly), but hopefully no-one is stupid enough to do this for free.
Why would you want to help them build shackles for you!
fp!?
Can they add random word replacement to staroffice?
VPS hosting Guide
Eh? How exactly can you even talk about "open-source DRM"? It's one of strongest oxymorons here, DRM by definition is about restricting access, while openness is about allowing it.
Even if you mean openness of only the software itself, you can't go much farther than Microsoft Shared Source -- the "look but not touch" way. What is source worth if you can't even compile it and have it working?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I thought Big Brother was just a schizophrenic dream...
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
"is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
Open-source developer support or not, I don't think it matters.
This is my firstage postage speeearhead! sun it!
Sun has a strong history of providing software and ideas to the community. But at the same time, Sun seems to have tremendous difficulty with follow-through on these kinds of projects. Remember the Liberty Alliance?
... but how can DRM possibly be open? Isn't that like saying that Nazi Germany was free because they made no attempt to hide the fact that the ruling party was a bunch of thugs?
Am I the only one that "Open DRM" just sounds wrong to? Like civil war or military intelligence?
story about how drm is slowing growth of music sales.
"At the heart of the problem are dueling digital-rights-management (DRM) systems from bitter rivals Apple Computer and Microsoft. Files using either company's DRM are incompatible with players that support the other DRM."
and there you have the real reason for DRM - LOCKIN pure and simple - you have to buy my piece of drm trash software or you can't read it.
the riaa is in microsoft's pocket. riaa has no technical clue so they are getting all their crap from microsoft. doesn't that give you the warm and fuzzies. just look at cnn free video - microsoft crap format - iptv will be microsoft drm crap software. I am sure they patented the hell out of their codecs too.
I think the open drm is a good idea we need to have a base so that EVERYONE can read all video/audio formats.
DRM is being pushed by companies just to lock customers into their crap software. PURIED!
object it. Just because everyone is doing it or following it doesn not mean they are informed or are acting in every one's interest. The backers of DRM are strong advocates of protecting the content provider's rights. Fine, what about me?
It is really a good app. Installed it, spent 2 minutes configuring it and downloading 2 new "applets" and the whole thing is already really useful and doesn't show any serious bug. Oh yeah, I saw this post, in my "Web Clips" (read "Web Feeds" you microsoft people ;) window ...
The GDS API also includes samples for the sidebar and the whole thing doesn't seem too complicated.
Bye bye Konfabulator ...
Good stuff. Once again.
I don't care if it's Open Source DRM with sugar on top, I don't like it and I refuse to use products that restrict the use of something I paid for. I'm doing fine just listening to my old CDs all day.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
"Open DRM" at first sounds like a contradiction, yet, the modern approach in cryptographic systems is to design systems so that security depends on secret key material, not secret algorithms. It's a rule of nature that any piece of hardware that falls in the hands of the enemy will give up its secrets, and algorithm secrecy didn't stop Jon from cracking DVD encryption.
In an open DRM system, anybody could create their own DRM "universe" by generating their own set of keys to initialize the system -- this opens the possibility of using DRM to do different things than today's systems, such as protecting privacy: Sun is quite interested in providing storage records for medical records and such, and some kind of DRM would help with HIPPA compliance. (But when I look at the privacy policy I get from my Doc, there are so many people that can see my records that she could save money and just leave them on the curb.)
It's hard to picture media companies getting behind Sun, but other companies that want to build their own systems for protecting information might get on board -- Sun hopes that this will help them sell storage systems.
Right, Sun can't even protect Java from 1) decompiling, and 2) Bytecode injection.
fp
This could be used to grant strictly controlled untrusted access to downloaded content in general, included downloaded content ranging from cookies to SETI at Home.
The OS that supports that will need to be somewhere arround B2 security, something I know Linux, BSD and the commercial Unixes can and have acheieved, but which I strongly suspect VMS and Windows can't reach.
--dave (biased former securitroid) c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Object to it.
To me, if it's done right, I still have complete control over my system. Can anything be done to "protect content" in that environment? It doesn't really seem so. I just don't want someone else to control my stuff - if you think thats somehow a moral issue, you're quite misguided.
**AA just need to make their own special players that they trust and keep their hands off broadcast television and my computer. It's as simple as that. Any other solution involves me/us giving up something to help them, which is not in the public interest.
Opening up DRM to the opensource community is a good step forward. It is still up to the artists to use it or not. If this is not embraced, then the community will suffer.
While I agree that stuff should be open, it is up to the artists to protect their work. Giving them open source alternatives is additional choice, and choice is always good.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
Fascinating Entendre
DRM can be rejected on several grounds:
1) Cost - who pays for this? How much
2) Effectiveness - will it work?
3) Legal - DRM changes the legal framework of purchases
4) Utility - DRM a worthwhile goal?
5) Supportability - is DRM unsupported by legal or material need?
I think the submitter has a bit of a hidden agenda here. Why can rejection of DRM be on moral grounds only?
I guess I don't understand who would really work on this? I am a horrible programmer these days, so I admittedly have little to contribute to open source development, but if I were a participant, why would I want to dedicate my own personal free time to helping build a DRM product for Hollywood and all the music companies to use? I can see the incentive for the media companies or computer companies to put money up to come up with something like this to profit. I can only imagine someone would be interested in working on this with their own time and resources only under the condition that it became a viable standard that was actually being actively used, in which case there would be interest in seeing Linux or the likes capable of handling it.
That being said, it would be nice to have a documented standard openly available for anyone to understand and code against.
especially considering that the project is open source and any savvy user can simply comment out vast chunks of code to kid the client program that the user is authorised to view the content...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
I choose to absent myself from the discussion, so that I can bitch about the result later with the proper level of detachment and self-righteousness.
What? You mean I'm the only one?
Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
If a DRM framework is available to implement as free software, then how can people be prevented from modifying the software to leak the cleartext of the work and then using the modified software?
With it being completely open source, how could this be implemented so that the DRM cannot be reverse-engineered to just bypass whatever checking mechanism is put in place?
If it's using some kind of connection to the file's creator or some kind of authorization agent, then I can't see it being reliable enough to make the DRM'd content worth buying - for example if it doesn't work while the computer is offline.
Personally i'm against any form of DRM.
Anything that restricts what/when or how i can use files on my own PC is wrong.
I have no intention of buying into M$'s DRM scheme, or anyone elses.
ass lickers! all of you!! you are all a bunch of dirty asslickers!!!
There is no such a thing as protected content.
The moral argument against someone else owning my data will die when I do. I think the open source community needs this about as much as an open source blue screen of death.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Anything that has DRM I've found I can live without. I don't want to be dependant on anything that can't be replaced if the hard disk dies.
. . . to be staking its future on open source Digital Restrictions Management "technology." That's like taking a stand for pro-life murder.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I was gonna get all my sh*t in MP3 for free (from YOUR machines.)
Yeh, its closed source, you can't know...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
More information on project DReaM can be found at the Open Media Commons website.
Am I the only one that read that as Project D-Ream? Isn't that what DRM will do to us?
If you're going to be hung, why do you care if you get to help select the type of rope? Assuming of course that you won't be able to get away with picking one that won't hold your weight...
Slashdot: You will never find a more wretched hive of spam and zealotry. We must be cautious.
What part of the word "No" did they fail to comprenend?
As an option, a slightly longer read on this is availble at Reuters - Sun Spearheads Open DRM. Both essentially cover main points.
The (RI/MP)AA has a choice:
No surprise which one they'll push for.
On the receiving end, DRM'd media doesn't do anything for me, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
As a distributor of media, DRM doesn't do anything for me - it just makes my stuff less accessible, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
Other distributors of media may want to use DRM, and that's fine. They are within their rights to do so. To me, it's a way for them to put a big red flag on their stuff telling me to avoid it, and I assume that's what they want.
The solution to the DRM problem is pretty simple. Don't buy/borrow/download/play/touch the stuff. Send a clear message to the producers and distributors of media that you don't want DRM'd stuff. The smart ones will adapt, and the dumb ones don't matter.
as if millions of geeks suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
There is no enemy, Who are we supposed to be upset at!?!?!
Support OS, Support DRM
Against DRM, Against OS
...this "technology" should not spread. It should be rejected at the very beginning, because afterwards it will be next to impossible to stop people from using it. Silently swallowing it, and writing OSS implementation is not the answer.
It's better to get FP.
By now you should have guessed...I'm your magic negro.
No, DRM is not HERE. It is not in my computer. It won't be. It won't be in most computers. Because people don't care about which OS they use, but what about they DO care is their freedom to listen music and watch movies.
So, simply forget it. There is no fishes to fool in this pool. It is just hype of coorporative droids to create a market which RESISTS to exist.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The only way this is going to work is if *I* (read: end-user) use drm for my files and activetly use it to distribute.
Does anyone besides the media giants we all love to hate use this in a practical way?
~Gildas
My opinion, DRM is a bad idea all around. No matter if it's OSS or the next best thing from Microsoft, the only thing that will happen is those that buy music/video/whatever have more hoops to jump through while those that sell the same media illegally, continue to do so without another thought. Somehow, I don't see DRM working on Linux or any OS for that matter if the source code is open source. It only takes so long for those bright computer geeks to figure out the closed source DRM protection and they want to make it open source? LOL Media companies need to focus on customer trust and giving what the customer wants instead of worrying about people that record music off the radio or television, or wherever they get the copy from. I have a friend who has thousands of DVD movies, that he could have easily found online, but wants the "finished" and polished product. DRM = Bad implementation of an even worse idea!
PS. I swear I just posted this but it didn't come up so here I go again!
Fascinating Entendre
Why do it right?
If you do it right, all the DRM'd media will eventually appear on the open standard, and everybody will be able to use it.
If you let them do it wrong, there will be multiple competing closed standards for DRM, and companies that adopt only one or two of these standards will have their support costs raised by dozens of consumers saying "my music won't play on your machine", or their engineering costs raised by the necessity of supporting all the standards, and their sales reduced by negative customer experiences.
DAT vs. Cassettes. CDDA vs. Sony's Minidisc/ATRAC. CompactFlash vs. Sony's MemoryStick. DVD vs. Circuity City's DIVX. The slow growth of DVD(plusorminusorslash)R(sometimeswithaW) vs. CD-R. The friggin' 1.44M 3.5" floppy vs. everything that proprietary vendors threw at it over 20 years, and which is only now slowly being eclipsed by USB storage.
With the possible exception of Microsoft's WMV, RealMedia, and Apple's iTunes, every instance of a closed standard has been roundly rejected by the consumer marketplace. (And even including those three, you can live a pretty full life without ever dealing with any of 'em. Open video codecs and MP3 are all the market really wanted.)
Consumers don't like vendor lock-in. And they vote with their dollars.
Yes, the DRM gangs will eventually win, but why help them speed up the process?
On what moral grounds are people objecting to DRM as a concept, as opposed to the objections i've seen raised about specific implementations in the past.
Q. What is the goal of DRM?
A. I would propose that it is presented to allow the content distributor strong control over access to content. If someone gets a hold of content through improper channels (not approved by the distributor) that person should not be able to access the content. This implies that there must identification of a user's credentials to access the content. And THAT implies a centralized clearinghouse for access.
Q. What is the goal of Open Source DRM?
A. Ostensibly, the goal is to provide everything listed above, but in an environment where the mechanisms that perform the DRM are exposed and can be modified or duplicated. I would have to assume that this holds true up to and excluding the authentication data held at the central clearing house. However, it still implies control over what content can be accessed. This implies that some users are more equal than others which is counter to the Open Source ideal (and especially the GNU GPL ideals).
Is it possible that people are beginning to confuse DRM with security? Imagine a world where there was a centralized NIS for every person on the planet. Imagine all binaries being held on one gigantic super powerful cluster of machines to which every person on earth had controlled access. Imagine that bandwidth is not a limitation and everyone had 10 gigs to the desktop anywhere all the time. You could then set user and group rights to control access to data and applications. DRM is just a band-aid fix for a problem that was already solved a long time ago.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This is total crap, no one should have anything to do with this. Would you build your own cell?
I simply don't see why OSS-people would contribute to it. They know, better than anyone, the whole IP system is flawed. IP has always depended on a physical product (books, lp's) which takes at least some industrial scale to produce. Now this is no longer the case, it's no use wasting time on attempts to prolonge the old situation. Like the Dutch say: stop pulling the dead horse.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Other articles in this arena have been headlined "Sun pushes for Open Source DRM".
I really don't appreciate the fact that these articles are setting the stage for the malignment of real honest GPL software by claiming it will be "open source".
From where I sit I don't believe any GPL software will be able or even allowed to include this.
That said, I'm sure those fake headlines will become the basis for the next push by these cartels for laws which will further threaten open source... and now those advocates for open source will be slandered as simply being "obstinate" because after all.. according to headlines sun had developed "open source" drm.
I'll leave the rants about how NO CONSUMER WANTS THIS to other people.
Personally, i'd call this project "nightmare" rather than "DReaM".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
IMO there's nothing wrong with DRM if it's done right, as long as the purchaser is warned about it before he or she purchases a copy of the intellectual property.
This is definitely the way forward.
Le français vous intéresse?
Are open source and DRM compatible? Is there even a theoretical way in which the end user can have access to the decryption algorithm and the decryption key (presumably this must be present somewhere), and not be able to remove the DRM? The linked web sites were both somewhat thin on details.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I may only speak for myself here, but the only DRM that's OK with me is no DRM at all.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
First comment.
I don't get it. Wouldn't a company interested in DRM want to be hidden under another layer of secrecy? Even if open source can produce a safer system, once their files were out there, Eventually some one would find a crack.
Having a major backer does take care of the concern that the project will stay supported.
Over all, to me, it seems like a clash of ideology (which the business may or may not care about) and trading a known technology for an unknown one (which they do care about).
...is that the OSS community might actually produce a DRM system that is secure.
I don't wish to take easy potshots at slashdot but why do you ape the language of big news corporations in your story:
If DRM is the future of controlling our media files
There is no 'our' media.
DRM is coming
Look, all of this is a nonsense. Really the world is splitting into two directions; those who believe passionately in freedom and control over their own lives and those who haven't quite woken up to the value of, or understood what that means.
There is nothing else. DRM is haxx0r bait to be circumvented and stamped on. It's there to protect the traditional structures, the big corporations primarily. Some smaller outlets may find a use for it occasionally, but it's not there for them. There is so much good media out there with no DRM and those outlets manage to survive and thrive so I think that reveals quite a lot.
Forced DRM is not compatible with any concept of normal use or freedom or control over one's own systems and files as far as I can ascertain.
As far as Sun goes, to be honest it's preferable in the sense that an open standard is probably better than a closed one, but all said it's working under the erroneous presumption that some sort of wooly, cowering compliance and affection for DRM is about to take over the world, which it won't.
Open DRM? I truly don't understand. I think the problem here is that Sun's definition of "open" is not the same as mine.
The express purpose of DRM is to be closed. DRM exists for no purpose other than to stop you from doing certain things with files.
There are different levels of closed, of course, and perhaps what Sun is proposing is a "less closed" DRM. However, DRM that is open is not DRM.
There can never be a genuinely open source DRM solution - that's to say, no working DRM system will let you take the source, make the smallest tweak you want, and recompile it and make it work. Why not? Because then it would be trivial to make the tweak be "write the media file to disk." Oops, it's not DRM anymore!
DRM is all about promising that software on your computer won't do something. Open source, and especially free software, is all about you being able to make your computer do whatever you want.
One thing that you must remember about DRM: It is a mechanism that allows the controller of the system to enforce an _arbitrary_ policy upon you. Apple's iTunes DRM is nice right now, but that is _only_ because Apple is nice to you right now. If Apple decides that you need to have MacOS 10.7 to play your music, then you are powerless to stop that.
DRM is designed to give somebody else control over what your computer does. If there are multiple DRM standards, then the ones that are more abused will fall away. If there's a single standard, there's the risk that it's much harder to go away from. You have less choice.
Open DRM? It's as open as Microsoft's XML file formats. It's buzzword compliant, without actually fulfilling the meaning of the words in any real sense.
...I object to it on consumerist grounds. DRM just doesn't provide enough value for what I'm paying for.
Despite owning a Mac, I have yet to buy anything on iTMS but will still happily buy dinosaur digital audio (a.k.a. "Compact Discs"). Why? Compact discs provide me with several things that DRMed digital audio can't:
Considering that a digital album costs about the same as a CD on Amazon, the decision is a no-brainer.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
I don't think it really matters if it's open or not. The idea of DRM is wrong and scary and is against freedom. 'Us' making it won't make it a good thing.
The name is hopefully for Sun in this project not the end result.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
first post
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Let them settle on *one* standard for DRM, so that the usual suspects can crack it, and we don't have to worry about DRM anymore. Just like we don't have to worry about CSS.
is OS FRM would make it unnecessary to reverse engineer it in order to circumvent it. Of ocurse, that will mak eit less acctractive to copyright owners.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
We already have a number of DRM schemes and consumers are adopting them without too much fuss. Unfortunately, we're still in the early adopting phase which means there hasn't been enough time for things to go wrong for individual users. No massive loss of music/movie collections due to hard drive failure or ending a subscription. No incompatibilities between Gen 1 and Gen 2 hardware devices (and interfaces). The industry is betting that they can just slip this stuff through as fast as possible so that when all the nasty stuff goes down, users won't remember DRM-free media or will no longer have a choice.
As I see it, an OpenDRM is worse than regular DRM and should be resisted as strongly as any other DRM. It will only make it easier to for everyone to push DRM because of the common platform. At least there's the chance that competing DRMs will piss off enough people to ALL fail, or that the competition alone will force less restrictive models (a la Apple vs. Microsoft currently).
Let's make sure the handcuffs are forged as well as possible, under the scrutiny of as many eyes as possible, so that NOBODY can break out of them. What a great use of the talents of the open source community.
Objecting to it on moral and practical grounds is obviously better.
mbbac
DRM == closed, by necessity, since if you can see the code or understand the protocol, you can break it.
That's why Linux will never be DRM compliant (which doesn't bode well for the future.. with DRM Bioses and processors on the horizon we may end up having to stockpile old hardware to run it on).
In the 'drm future' there isn't supposed to be any idea of 'open' just dumb devices that are little more than souped up DVD players.
Is this thing on???
Open source DRM? That's like... euh.. like... a prison without a fence? spreading democracy to start a war?
jeez, I don't even understand myself...
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
my first first post on /.
I (personally) do not want to contribute to software designed to attempt to strip my rights to fair use of material I purchase and prevent digital backups etc.
Not to mention, I doubt even the most ingenious of open-source engineers could come up with reliable *software* DRM which automatically allows public-domain type rights to any given media when that media's copyright expires.
Media sans DRM please.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
It is a *very* tough call. When DIVX came out I remember most of the folks were pointing at the lack of level of encryption. Most folks were saaying that if they had provided a 'better lever of security', somehow pointing the blame at them, now yu have your chance.
You can get your hands dirty and help them in their folley. Very interesting.
As a more personal note, I still can't understand why the blame for breaking htat format lays with them. They didn't force you to sit and crack their code. I mean here in Canada, if I buy the smallest tiniest lock I can find, its still breaking and entering. Im sure that this will be modded to troll, but I am serious. I want to understand.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I dont see how this can work without closed source components being present (if you can see any of the code that handles the audio/video between the locked down media file and the write out to the sound/video hardware, you can copy the data)
This is a clash of ideology if anything is. Open Source versus... Open Source? Enter Oroborus.
Hackers rejoice. If this project gets off the ground it will be smashed to pieces and rebuilt time and time again until we have the most stable software on the face of the Earth or we have proven that 'security' such as this is a mathematical impossibility.
All rites reversed 2010
Eventhough DRM is the tool of the devil, linux should have a solid implementation. If not loads of media can't be played on linux in the (near) future, well at least not legally.. . Embedded linux would be used less and less since it is not possible to make a legal device baded on linux. There will allways be hacks and cracks around DRM, and that's a good thing, but ignoring DRM in Linux would be a major mistake. Embrace and Extend .. .
Open source and DRM, then the creators could ensure that noone can modify or copy their work!
30 minutes afterwards
indeed
As has been stated numerous times, the "open source community" wants to control their own computers. That's why they/we behave the way we do. Having these people tackle a DRM project is like Having Adbusters run your marketing campaign (This, by the way, happens all the time, I think)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Is that most /.'ers will object on moral grounds.
DRM is far from perfect, but it's encouraging to see that I have a chance of someday releasing a mini-video to the internet without it ending up stripped and hosted on some site like they are the ones that made it. Current options are unreasonably expensive ($100's/year) for some who only releases one short, free e-video per year. I already am _paying_ money to host it, too.
I'm sure you know the sites I'm talking about. I hate seeing someone post a link on the forum and you go look and it's your video with someone else's name on it.
Turning coffee into code.
oh noes.. the author is promoting his own site also.. i swear i read this earlier on slashdot but i can't find it..
Does Sun not get it? Open Source doesn't want any of that DRM crap. Look at this website I just found http://ind-music.com/ not only do they use Ogg Vorbis, but they don't use DRM and don't want any part of it
If you can't beat em, join em. Sorry, but the idea of DRM is wrong in any form.
It's on my computer I paid for, with software I paid for or have an exclusive license for. It'll be a cold day in hell when I buy something and then don't have exclusive rights to it. I'm not leasing software; in any way, shape, or form.
People keep saying DRM is here!! OMG!! I'm scared mommy! Stop acting along the lines of a bitch and realize that the power in the consumer/media conglomerate relationship lies with the consumer.
With my consumer hat fully locked into place. DRM can come, stay, go, do whatever it wants to. Simply, not on my personal hardware. If it means not having the ability to use or watch media because the majority has spoken otherwise. Then so be it.
You can either tow the line with a statement and action you believe in. Or, join em. This segues right into the reason society has faltered when it comes to most anything involving standards, morals or simply standing up for ones self. There is a lot less beating, and a whole lot of joining.
Ow, my brain hurts. I need moral guidance!
DRM is coming (...) is [it] better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
It's better to object on moral grounds. Next question?
With all the problems of lost computers, lost backup tapes, etc., I would think that corporations should be required to use DRM to reduce the risk of identity theft. It may not prevent a company from selling your data (for which they should be royally reamed), but it will reduce "accidental" leaks.
Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. should never appear in plaintext and managing who has what rights to read/copy/write files with sensitive data seems like a job for DRM. For example DRM would also help when a company uses a 3rd-party provider (e.g., your employer hires another company handle payroll). DRM would let the 3rd-party access the data on a one-time use basis. Any attempt to copy the data or read the data outside the specified application would fail. This type fo DRM would help reduce the chance of a rogue employee trying to sell the data.
It seems like DRM could have valuable applications for helping maintain privacy.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
To opensource java first. Release it under LGPL.
DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
What a silly argument. Do you honestly believe that you should not opose something on the grounds that "it's coming, one way or another"? Horseshit.
Obviously DRM will come to pass if consumers fail to oppose it. It'll come even quicker if we bloody well help it along!
This message brought to you by the Campaign for Common Sense
Open DRM = Oxymoronic
Closed DRM = Moronic
I don't see how an open DRM solution could allow someone to play a media file they've purchased while simultaneously prevent them from copying and/or distributing the media file.
On the other hand, I don't see how closed DRM which has had millions invested into it has ever stopped anyone either.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Sun's approach is an intriguing one. Obviously Sun has a significant customer base in corporate America and as such needs to provide soultions they will use. In the DRM market all the cards have been played and all the systems have been worked out. Except Open DRM... very clever of them to see this. OpenDRM is not the first or perhaps even the best idea in terms of efficacity but it may very well become the biggest, by nature of it being open.
We shall see whether the open model continues to do it's magic and provide content producers with a good product.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
This is the kind of DRM i want to see. Right now DRM is a pain to use because there is so many standards that are fighting each other. What I want to see is a single adopted open standard that everyone has access to.
Although DRM is a double edged sword, it's benefits to privacy far outweigh the *AA uses for it. Having a open DRM scheme that everyone can use will just make the adoption more streamline and easier for the end user.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
"The hood of your car is welded shut with an industry-standard flux-cored arc welding robot, and the instructions are freely available if you want to weld your doors too!"
No thank you.
With great numbers come great responsibility!
Now with the yummy goodness of sunspots, open for everyone.
It doesn't matter whether DRM is open or not; "Rights Management" equals "Rights Removal." Anyone who ever said they were going to manage the rights of others didn't plan on extending more rights. (First post?)
Isn't obscurity the only thing DRM relies for it to work? I mean it's already not hard to bypass existing 'closed' DRMs. How efficient an 'open' one will be?
The license is not GPL compatible, Sun has the most stupid execs in the industry.
For another write up on this, check Reuters - Sun Micro announces open-source DRM project. The write up has a little more info on the need/impact of DRM but about the same level of details as the submitters link.
I'm not sure morals really enters into the question here. If you're against DRM, you can choose to only support those who publish without any at all. If you're willing to endure a little DRM with your media, an open standard can only be a good thing.
I say this is a positive development.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
DRM is the end of anonymity.
Just because of that, DRM is bad.
I believe the focus should be on keeping non-DRM alternatives viable.
Even letting the big consortiums make their own DRM is good, because they have failed miserabily in the past, and the least help they can get, the better.
As long as they come up with shitty solutions, there will be room for non-DRM stuff.
As long as they develop a convenient DRM solution, non-DRM hardware and content is at much bigger risk.
One Open DRM system would be nice - only have to break it once, and having the specs available make it easier to break.
There is nothing 'open' nor 'common' about them. Seems like an atemt to market DRM to open source and free software folks and use the 'open source' brand to make people trust DRM. Disgusting.
I just can't see large compaines buying into this. A commercial closed source DRM has more "credibility" behind it from a corporation point of view. How do you get something that is supposed to be secret pushed if you have everyone knowing how it works. I know these arguments don't hold up but they will get voiced. More worryingly is the prospect of DRM that actually works!!!
Why would large media conglomerates accept a standard that in their minds be more open to attack since the source is out there for all to see? Look what they did to the people that opened up the encryption on DVDs, don't they see people who develope open source in the same light as crackers because of the whole DeCSS thing?
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Even assuming I don't object on moral grounds, (which I do, strongly) how would this even work?
Free Software can never implement any Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology. Why? Because, a piece of DRM-compatible software must take an encrypted content file, decrypt it, and pipe the output to a user interface such as a speaker or monitor. At the same time, the software must prevent the user, at any point in the above pipeline, from copying the unencrypted content to a file. This is a fundamental problem which all DRM schemes must solve. With Free Software or Open Source software any user can modify the source code so that the unencrypted content is saved to a file, thus breaking the DRM. Therefore, Free Software can never truly implement DRM. Conversely, any system which correctly implements DRM can never fully be Free Software.
I realize that Sun is talking about open standards, which are very different from Open Source or Free Software. However, their stated aim here is to make open standards which will allegedly be friendly to Open Source. However, I think I have already proven that this is bunk, because the concepts of DRM and Free Software/Open Source software are diametrically opposed.
Therefore, what is Sun's real goal here?
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
you motherfuckers are so goddamn dumb that you wouldn't know a dead fish if you got whacked in the head with that motherfucker.
We already have proprietary solutions such as Windows Media DRM (already spreading all over the world), we have one standardized solution OMA DRM v2 (www.openmobilealliance.com) pushed by at least 200 IT companies, but rejected by the GSM Association due to patent issues (Philips and Sony mainly). The specifications are publicly available. We use to have a RealNetworks solution and a Sony solution. And we have the Apple's solution. Ok, what's next to ensure that the market will be even more fragmented? An open source DRM leaded by Sun...
After all, Sun is a corporation acting in it's own financial interests. Pardon me for saying so, but that is kind of a stupid question. Why does one have to suspend their belief that DRM is corporate fascist control of art in order to believe Sun is acting correctly in making an open source DRM system?
but if it's actually Open Source (and not just something that claims to be Open Source and then isn't), wouldn't it be self-defeating, as anyone, in theory, could look at the source and then figure out how to engineer an anti-DRM?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
It is coming and personally I would rather it happens universally rather than on purely commercial software and hardware.
I kind of thought this was the point of MPEG-7 and (especially) MPEG-21. And those standards are from MPEG which, unlike Sun, has experience and credibility in media.
dupe?
That said, there appears to be no way to retroactively protect the vast wealth of content which is already available in digital form. Even the average consumer is unlikely to migrate from the tried-and-true Audio CD technology which is currently in virtually every American home; that technology is wholly unsecured, and ensuring that any new technology remains "backward compatible" also ensures that no security scheme can be implemented which will provide more than a nuisance obstacle to digital piracy.
The new HD standards may give the movie industry a leg up on that roadblock; even so, with so many DVD's in use (and the spectacular failure of CSS to safeguard DR on that medium), the industry will find it difficult at best to continue providing protection for the movies they wish to market, especially given the number of existing DVD players which would need to be rendered obsolete in order to implement a more robust protection scheme.
Law enforcement would seem to be the only remaining mechanism for the combatting of digital piracy, then. For so long as efforts remain centered around the individual copyright infringer, such efforts are doomed to failure. With factories abroad churning out huge quantities of bootlegged or pirated content, there will be a financial incentive for bright and talented individuals to break the law. Your average Joe (or even the technically gifted among us who *might* be pirating digital content for home use) isn't going to expend more effort in stealing digital content than the content is worth, but an unscrupulous businessman can always be counted on to flout copyrights if the bottom line ends up in the black.
The situation is analagous to the current "war on drugs" being waged in the United States. So long as tax dollars and police efforts remain centered on the identification and punishment of the "end users" in either chain, those efforts will be unable to produce the desired end because of the vast number of potential targets. Only when the efforts of interdiction are directed at the criminals who are making financial gain from enterprise-level violation of the law can enforcement of these prohibitions possibly succeed.
how do they expect this to happen? if there is a publicly available standard what is there to stop people from removing the copy protection? one of the key features of all DRM technologies is they use some secret lock to stop non authorized users from accessing the media. if the lock is clearly defined in a standard it makes it easier to break.
At first I thought it was similar to sun controlling Java. it is not this is released under creative commons license.
But I would rather have open source community not to support DRM at all. By doing that, they may even topple the damn thing.
I hope that this is not because of drm.
My Interpretation Enjoy!
I don't really want DRM to be done "right". I want it to work horribly so that the non-techies get to experience just how much it interferes with their daily lives. I want to see the day where DRM has such a bad reputation attached to it that vendors will see it as a marketing point to write the words "DRM-less" on the box.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Is putting out DRM as open source akin to giving us the job of sharpening the blade on the guillotine used for our beheading?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
DRM that is released already broken...
Isn't Open DRM by definition trivial to defeat?
Just skip the code that prevents you from unlocking the file, and you're done.
D
This finally is starting to make sense.
DRM is the REALITY- because the studios (music/movies) are going to insist upon it.
In the future, if you want to view the content, you will have to play by their rules. And it is only fair that they make rules, because they are making the content.
DRM will be a reality- unless you want to watch a continuous stream of non-DRM'd ballet recitals and birthday parties.
No reason to lie.
First post! Yeah! Uh, what's up with the comments?
No right-minded company is going to want to use an open standard, it'll be too easy to hack. Big media will like closed projects that lock consumers into one delivery system.
...let's create a digital hole :)
Isn't this whole DRM thing essentially the same as all the counter-piracy measures software developers tried 15 years ago? They eventually gave up because no matter what they tried, their software was eventually cracked.
Why do the content providers think DRM will have a different fate?
"At the heart of the problem are dueling digital-rights-management (DRM) systems from bitter rivals Apple Computer and Microsoft. Files using either company's DRM are incompatible with players that support the other DRM."
is this from the linked story but this says it all and what DRM is really all about LOCKIN!!!
I think the Open DRM is a good idea. Because the RIAA is getting their technology advice from microsoft and all they are doing is locking people in so we have to buy their drm crap software. I am sick of seeing their asx,asf files everywhere just because they offer drm with them. I also bet they patented the hell out of them too.
I'm no programmer, but I have to ask - why would any self-respecting Slashdotter want to work on a project like this? I thought the whole idealistic appeal of open source was freedom of information - why the hell would I donate my time and effort to a system designed to restrict that freedom?
It seems to me that the only proponents of a system like this would be people whose work requires some sort of DRM - and those people might well prefer to use closed-source solutions, rather than making use of a DRM system that every hacker in the world has been eyeing up since its inception.
DRM is only the future if the consumer allows it to be that way
Sounds like a contradiction.
but it would be better to have it open source than closed source imo. it would definately be easier to integrate support for if it was open source.
The big problem I have with this is that it may actually result in DRM that _works_ *shudder*.
Any post? Any post at all?
... if you think of all the valuable itches that will go un-scratched in the pursuit of this DRM utopia, it's truly depressing. I don't think the open source community is a right fit for this particular endeavour anyway... once the first iteration is cracked, we'll all call out, "See? Told ya so. It'll never work." and go back to making more PHP CMSes. We should be investing time in better licensing meta data and compromises on rhetoric, rather than trying to race the content industries to make the more perfect sinking ship.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
I hate the whole idea behind DRM, to me as a Free Software guy the whole idea seems just wrong.
But... Open Standard DRM feels a lot better than Apple-only DRM or Windows-only DRM...
You're right. It is a tough call.
But one thing's for sure: if DRM is coming, and we want to continue moving the "ordinary user" over to open source systems, we have to make sure those systems support DRM. They won't switch to Linux if that means they can't play their music & movie files (that they paid for) any more.
I think the most important thing is to make sure DRM isn't used to lock people even further into Windoze. To do that, we'll have to support some kind of "Open DRM".
1) Develop Open DRM
2) Add hidden flaw to code
3) Let media companies standarize on Open DRM
6) Wait
7) Use flaw to free content
8) ???
9) Profit!
Now where did I put my tin-foil hat and Sun cliche reference manual?
Yes, for the masses it will continue to affect them but for those who have just a bit of savvy and can use the tools that others produce, DRM will be nothing more than a minor annoyance.
Open source developed or not, a DRM is just a hurdle.
The "moral" problem is actually one of legality. It is one thing to introduce an obstacle to certain ways of using content, but to make it criminal merely for bypassing the DRM regardless of your right to the actual content is where the moral problem lies.
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Do both, that way if you can't get what you want, at least you'll have some control of it.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
This is going to be a tough one, for proponents of OSS, as well as a proving ground (if any were needed) for the idea.
As they benefit heavily from encryption and are conditioned by the existence of "trusted hardware", the DRM initiatives existing today can only benefit from the existence of open-source platforms, bot hardware and software.
I think this initiative will be successfull, though it will probably pull in most of its needed contributions from people and companies not usually associated with the F/OSS community.
I can also see the pr0n industry jumping on this one like a bat outa hell, but that's a different issue.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Why do i still feel that i'll be getting ReaMD by this?
What Sun seems to be doing is to create a open source = unpatentable DRM. There will be a need, it will come down to DRM on media in some form. By making this move and being a early player SUN is making a good placement for themselves and the Open Source Community. It also will keep out the overzelous companies that have put out products that have not worked well with others (hummbfMacrovisonCough).
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Personally, I would definately still object on moral grounds; but I would most certainly be more open to a truly open standard. It would certainly benefit the use of DRM if it was something that was able to be trusted - certainly something not controlled by the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft or any other corporate entity or corporate organization. But is Sun the right choice to head it up? I don't know. Perhaps the OSDL would be a better choice than Sun; perhaps not.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
but if DRM is open sourced, won't it be easier to "tweak"? how can DRM beat a mitm attack or something similar? who will issue the "verification" licenses in an open-source framework? just my 2 cents
I suppose the accent is on the "ream".
I hate to say it, but with all the positive-enthusiasm sun has had lately for open source, they are probably the best poised to backbone an open DRM implementation - IF a DRM implementation needs be implemented...
personally, I am morally opposed to DRM in all forms, but if its an open platform which sets it up it will likely be easier to live without...
-GenTimJS
Reject that on moral grounds, then go create something of a superior quality.
Personally, I think the Open/Free/Libre community should act simultaneously in two fronts:
1) Continue to fight DRM with the partners that already are engaged in it (EFF, GNU Foundation comes to mind);
2) At least, take a look on Sun's proposal, not only on grounds of maximizing the limited rights DRM gives to the users but also on grounds of interoperability with the industry, something that will allow a deeper penetration of OSS solutions for Mom, Dad & Grandma.
For me, I'm not even thinking about getting a DVD-Audio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD in the next 5 years, so this is a non-issue for me for the time being. CD-A, DVD-video and MP3 fill all of my needs right now, and they are sufficiently open formats that I can read with my Linux machine right now.
Finally, Sun is still a powerful behemoth, but personally I doubt that they have the same power as M$ in the customer market to seduce media content corporations and device makers.
--------
Fighting the herd since 1985.
Where are all the comments?
Slashdot is dying,,,,,,,
Only Post?
DRM is unavoidable if desktops are going to support playback of future media models. If Linux and other OSS systems are to compete for the desktop, there must be a reliable OSS implementation of DRM.
Unfortunately there is a good chance that there will also be a push for "certified" or "approved" DRM, which may well lock out all but the largest OSS distros.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
First?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Interesting that the banner at the top of the DRMEA site shows two people sharing music by each listening to one earpiece of some headphones. I guess their brains haven't been implanted yet.
Posto gizmo broke-o!
test
Currently the geographic community is working with in the OGC to develop DRM for geographic products. The plan is to get in early and define a standard to prevent cosy vendor mapping agency tie-ins.
So if we all get behind an open source open standard method of DRM then may be we can avoid the problems which are dogging DRM in the music industry.
Ian
...so why not make the defacto of those opposed to the abuse of it OSS? If we all adopt it and (mostly) do not evade it unethically, and treat IP with respect, then MS and company are well farked. It wasn't Microsoft's WMA or Real Networks' RA, it was MP3 that the users chose. We can steal the proprietary vendors' thunder again in the IT world if we choose.
I have no problem as long as those using the DRM make the choices, not some big faceless brutal associations, government mandate, or the people who are there to make my PC and nothing else. I want it to be my choice and not something that locks me out of my own system against my choice.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
"Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
Wrong - DRM is failing, one way or another. It isn't ever going to work successfully. That's reality, and we're living it.
Any DRM scheme that is not to be vilified must not break existing rights.
So far the Entertainment Industry has used DRM and the DCMA to renege on the obligations imposed by their side of the Copyright Bargain.
i.e. uncrackable, unavailable to impaired users, unaivable on a variety of devices, unavailable after copyright period runs out, not allowed to share with family, impossible to resell, etc.
This has lead to entirely morally justifiable cracks such as DeCSS to play DVD's on Linux, the adobe ebook crack allowing transfer to devices for the visually impaired.
It's been an all or nothing approach for the Entertainment Industries, where the ignore all fair use/ dealing rights imposing draconian DRM and try to destroy anyone who meddles with it wielding the DCMA/ EUCD.
And they seem blissfully ignorant of technology and will buy anything that some suit assures them is uncrackable - especially if it has 'Security Through Obscurity' built in.
DRM may also have worthwhile uses beyond stopping people sharing things they like.
Such as : demonstrating that documents have not been tampered with for use in court, protecting citizen records from tampering.
But these ideas are probably better served by Authentication and Encryption which already have Open Source Implementations, such as MD5 and GPG.
Well alright I am at a loss, what is the point of DRM.
Why would we want to contribute in digital censorship?
This entire community, open source that is, is build around the free exchange of ideas. To contribute to building DRM technology I'd consider to be a form of treason here. Not only should the community not offer any support on this issue, it should do everything in its power to make sure DRM doesn't worms its way into our community.
I'd just as soon never have a Blu-Ray player in my Linux machine than to know there is code in the "free speech" operating system that is monitoring everything I'm doing and reporting my use to someone I don't know.
No thanks, I think I'll stick to libre stuff.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Slashdot, hello, anyone there???
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Anyway, I think it would be better to have an open standard. That way we can break it more easily. :-)
Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. How does freedom and what can only be described as evil iron-handed restrictions by media conglomerates being together. I don't want to see opensource polluted.
In other news, DRM is still naughty and bad and wrong, and dressing it up in a hat labeled "FREE AS IN SPEECH!" isn't much going to fix that. (Sigh.)
not allowing posting at all is one good way to keep jackasses like me from typing "frist prost"
How can it be acceptable that someone else dictates what your computer can or can't do?
I'd glady prefer to see them gladiating themselves to (hopefully mutual) fatality on some standard of DRM.
The only acceptable DRM is no DRM at all.
Sun calling a nightmare a "dream" only adds to the hypocrisy.
. . . to be staking its future on open source Digital Restrictions Management "technology." That's like taking a stand for pro-life murder!
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
DRMs are already here, but they suck. They could be the corner stone of totally Ubiquitous computing and media access. -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
"Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
I don't mean to compare the two, but just to shed light on your question:
"Nazi's are killing people in gas chambers. Is it better to work on better gas chambers done right, or to object to it on moral grounds."
Again, I want to emphasize, I am in no way comparing the levels of evil involved, I am just using exaggeration to point out the weirdness of the question.
damned if you don't. What an interesting connundrum. wherein lies the answer to this doozie?
I don't see why this is a tough call at all.
DRM itself (like patents or the copyright system) is not a bad thing per se. However, the potential to abuse and misuse it is a bad thing, and so it seems that the smart thing to do is to get in on the process and try to keep the end product from being overly restrictive. I don't know if such a thing is possible in the long run, but it seems to me a far better thing to try to realize such a product than to leave it up to people who might not give a damn about your rights/freedoms.
-30-
Isn't OpenDRM an oxymoron?
Why isn't it showing any comments? It's been an hour.
Having multiple DRM mechanisms pisses consumers off, because they can't play their iTunes-bought songs on a Creative MP3 player.
I think that the only way to get a single, universal DRM mechanism is to make encoding free - if content producers can restrict their content for free, then they will do it. So long as they have to pay a royalty, then (barring monopolies) there will be competing DRM technologies, and so a universal DRM standard will be hindered.
Therefore I hope that there is never an open source royalty-free DRM system.
It's better to object to it on the grounds that it will never work. If you want the person to be able to view the content, then they can copy it. Simple as that.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Funny that moral grounds would be an argument *against* DRM and not in support of it...
There's nothing wrong with Digital Rights per se, but there are flawed implementations. But confusing this fundamental isn't going to help fair use and privacy.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
Isn't that an oxymoron?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
From the Open Media Commons web site:
Well, that's one thing closed-source DRM hasn't got right so far, and doesn't seem to be cluing in on any time soon. Leave it to open source to get DRM right, even if OS DRM is vaporware at this point.
Of course, when you have the likes of Microsoft claiming that open source is akin to giving theives the combination to your safe (which it isn't -- it's like giving them the schematics to your safe), and the pointy-haired bosses are the ones making the big decisions, one has to wonder is OS-DRM could ever take off.
OPEN DRM? Oh and first post :)
Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
Instead of letting the corporations control access to files (Which DRM is all about, no license, no use,) having the open source community work on it may actually make DRM with sensible features. This is something I look forward to reading more about.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I just ordered an expensive set of CBT discs, and I've no qualms about the quality of the training, but a lot about the usabilitiy considering they have DRM. I've been burned before when the software vendor has gone out of business leaving me with nothing.
Opening up the source is actually liable to make the impact worse.
Firstly, a well-designed cryptosystem does not become insecure because you know the sourcecode ; the only thing you have to keep secure is the keys. Modern cryptosystems are generally not considered to be secure unless they have been picked over by a whole bunch of hackers.
So opening up the source to public scrutiny would only enhance the strength of the system. While there are uses of DRM that would benefit the common man (like documents that only open for their intended recipient), the downside is that the very same features in corporate hands represent a huge imbalance of power.
If the DRM is open-source, wouldn't cracking it be a trivial matter since the source code is available to anyone? While I like the idea of an easily crackable DRM scheme, I don't see the content recycling companies going for this approach.
Well, under DReaM we have detected copyright violations, we wil now proceed to remove the offending chunks of your brain. You didn't need that now did you? DRM, coming to a mind reader near you!
I always wondered where this setting was...
if thei is to work how will it be sold to companys? because it is open it is inherentaly eaiser to create compatible products; an end that many bussiness modles have gone to great legenths to aviod (itunes, *wmv, et al.) I also wonder how things like "experation dates" and such will be able to be implemted. I was under the impression that under linux (and bsd as well?) applications put complete trust in the time and date held by the kernel?If this grand vision is to work how will it be sold to companies? It is open and therefore it is inherently easier to create compatible products; an end that many business models have gone to great lengths to avoid (itunes, *wmv, et al.) I also wonder how things like "expiration dates" and such will be able to be implemented. I was under the impression that under Linux (and bsd as well?) applications put complete trust in the time and date held by the kernel?
The more I learn about Windows the more I am surprised it runs at all
My first First Post post?!?
Sell it somwhere else...
It's been up for an hour and no one's done a first post yet?
If it's opensourced, it's easier to get broken.
Like
set enableDRM = FALSE;
and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Well, since creating something done right would involve objecting to DRM...why not both?This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
An open peer-reviewed system is far less likely to contain retarded bugs that allow us to bypass the DRM restrictions and use the media in ways unforseen by the distributors (like running an e-text through a text-to-speech converter for a blind relative). I say keep letting the companies make their own broken DRM schemes that rely on users not noticing the key under the doormat, that way our rights to fair use don't end up completely abridged.
I read the internet for the articles.
For some reason i still feel like i'm going to get ReaMD?
Does this mean that for the first few versions, the DRM won't work because we won't have the appropriate module dependencies? SW33T !!!
It seems that DRM is preventing people from posting comments here. ;-)
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Would those organisations that want DRM be more likely to trust an open source that might have a deliberate flaw from someone philosophically opposed to DRM or hidden source that is more likely to have unplanned flaws?
It's not a tough call at all. Objections on validly moral grounds should ultimately triumph.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
This is DRM done right, in a way. I mean, since the real goal of DRM is vendor lock-ins, an open DRM standard could be interesting.
Dvorak on Doomtech
I do not think DRM implemented in a free-software way can work. All DRM technologies I have seen rely on encryption and 'security by obscurity' as a basis. The 'security by obscurity' is nescesary to prevent interception of the encryption keys, getting the key is somewhat non-trivial although not impossible.
I do not see how they would avoid key interception besides hardware such as the TCPA hardware (grr). As we have seen, this would only irritate users of digital media. I think they can DReaM on...
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
Not a chance this being widely adopted. The control-freaks that run media companies will never understand why "security through obscurity" is bad.
There is a place for DRM when you want to send information to someone you don't trust. Yes, this includes record companies that don't want their customers to redistribute, reencode or modify their music.
The problem with DRM is that it always has a bunch of annoying and unwanted side effects: Will the wmv I bought for playing on a Creative Zen or whatever still work when I decide that I rather want an iPod? Will it work on players sold in five or ten years, when the Creative is fubar? Will it work on Linux? For the wmv, the answer is likely NO to all of those questions, and that's the main reason why I don't buy DRM'ed music -- or use closed document formats, for that matter. (Of course, obsolescence isn't unwanted by the music industry, but it's not something we should be willing to accept.)
I would expect an open DRM system to be cross platform and free to implement, so one could expect many different applications to support it, and that in itself could make it less of a hassle. (It would still have the usual problems DRM is meant to create, of course, or it wouldn't be DRM.)
The problem really is: Would it work at all, when everyone knows how it works?
It also makes me wonder if all of these DRM methods won't clutter up the online music usefulness in the future. If every player not only needs to support 10 different formats, but then 10 different DRM methods on top of those formats, that's a lot more work and effort towards creating any media player, soft- or hardware.
Ultimately, the restrictions on something like, say, Apple's iTunes are not very restrictive. You can still burn multiple copies to disc, and if you really want to share your music, you can just re-rip it. What, it's not super-high quality? It's a rip for free on the internet. I've never had any complaints against original music downloaded from the iTMS, and if someone downloading music "illegally" is complaining about the sound quality, that sounds more like their problem, not mine (or Apple's).
So they want to work on a free, Open Source, technology to develop an Open Standard which will be used to... Lock stuff up so that it is not open, and not free.
Not only is this an ideological conflict but also a logical one.
I'm teminally incoherent
If I can view/hear/play/use it, I can copy it. DRM is a waste of time and money.
Loading...
OK, I know they want that parsed as "Dream", but who else in the context of DRM read that as "D-Ream"?
Kinda like martial arts, then - turn aside the force of the blow, rather than just trying to take it in the gut.
I'd love to use DRM to enforce the GPL.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Isn't open source DRM about as useful as a woollen condom? All the DRM I've seen (and worked with) uses obfuscated keys and black box decryption libraries; if it's open source, how does it work?
Now, I don't think that DRM has much use anyway, but where it does "work", it generally does so through obfuscation. I can't see the content providers springing for this. On the other hand, they've already been sold snake oil by other DRM vendors, so just maybe...
Realistically, though, the only way I can see open source DRM working at all is if it uses TPM in some way.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
..for some instant credibility these days!
I won't give in and welcome our new DRM-overlords, and I hope YOU won't do so, neither.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
what's going on with slashdot?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
IANA specialist, but if the DRM is open, wouldn't it be easy to circumvent it or strip the DRM off the files?
After all there have to be ways to extract the raw data from the DRM container, so what prevents the user from just piping that data into a new, clean, file?
...would content providers trust a DRM solution created by the very group of people who they (rightly) see as some of their staunchest opponents? Even if there were to be an open source DRM system which was both (nearly) uncrackable and out-performed everything else on the market, I think content producers would still be afraid to use it when they considered that this was the same community that supported DeCSS etc.
Why? I see that phrase written all the time as the justification for itself. Are Americans just written off then? It seems like the assumption is that most Americans will just accept whatever Intel and Microsoft tell them is for the own good. Oh.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Now way no one has posted to this topic by now....
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
I'd say it's better to develop an OpenDRM As DRM is here to stay, better fight against it by delivering a better product ( and maybe forcing the propietary DRM's to evolve), than trying to shout at them to stop !
Well, since the main goal of DRM is vendor lock-ins, an open standard like this might prove interesting.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Shouldn't that be from the "oxymoron department"?
DRM by definition is closed - there's no such thing as an "open" DRM standard.
In Soviet Russia, spearhead SUNS YOU!!!
I fail to see just how an open DRM system can work exactly. There is an inbuilt need for secrecy with DRM - I mean, if you 'opened' your private PGP keys, then, well, that would be acting to your detriment. If sun just opened the code, algorithims (sp?) and the like, but kept the keys hidden then I suppose that is probably the best idea (it will be cracked irrespecitive though :) ).
The real question - for me at least - is WHY THE HELL is sun going into DRM?
My UID is prime. Is yours?
Imagine, if you will, an open source DRM music player.
Would it not be trivial to take the source code for this player and modify it to write the output to disk instead of the sound card. Thus rendering the DRM useless.
DRM gives the algorithm, key and encrypted data to the user. So far, the only thing stopping the user from breaking the DRM is the fact that the algorithm is closed source.
Nobody has an opinion on this? Freaking! Microsoft is around Sun. Both are pushing DRM in their way. I would not be surprised that OpenDRM is just a tactic to introduce DRM smoothly to the market. Honestly, on the user side, I don't think there are many DRM fans.
If open means easy to crack, then I'm in. I still refuse to buy DRMed media.
Is there any delivery system or file format that is truly "open?" There are standards, but not necessarily open source.
I see no advantage in building the pillars required by the "Copyright Cartel".
Let's discuss REFORM first (90 years for Brittany Spears?) and once delivered and secure, I'm willing to talk about DRM.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Most DRM stuff I've encountered gives you a Windows-based license that they say will work on that computer forever (and that's short-sighted).
There are two issues that concern me with any DRM manager: 1) they often specify only a windows DRM key, thus leaving out anyone other than a Windows User (Mac, Linux, etc. users are out of luck), and: 2) So I backed it up onto some other media and I re-formatted my hard drive. These files are now useless to me, unless I pay for another DRM license.
If some kind of open source movement can address those two issues, I am all for it.
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
Sun really seems to be getting it lately. This is an all around good move.
First!
I mean, how can you prevent the user from making the decoder write the decoded data to disk?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Just because they used the word "open-source" doesn't mean it's done right. The mere fact that there will probably be a dependancy on Java indicates to me that it's not "done right."
And that assumes that any DRM scheme at all can be considered to be "done right."
This is an example of Sun putting out a standard that they hope the industry will back, ensuring their place in the future of restricted content. At the very least, they're letting it be known that they're happy to play ball with the bad guys. Sun has set their bets, and they're betting that the BSA, RIAA, MPAA, etc are going to be the winners. And they're hoping the open source community will give up and fold. Call the bluff.
I prefer 3) shun it like the plague and explain to friends and family why they should, too. Why do we assume that Digital Restrictions Management is coming? People have been spoiled by copyable material for years, now - I see no reason to believe that the population is going to universally give up the ability to copy an album for friends or lend a movie to their parents.
People keep saying it, and it's true: DRM is fundamentally, impossibly flawed. You can't give someone a key and simultaneously tell them they can't use it. You might not. Your sister might not. Some kid in Finland, or Brazil, or Oklahoma definitely will, and there's no putting the cat back in the bag.
Eventually, some intelligent businessman or board of directors will realize that people absolutely hate being inconvenienced. As a whole, I'd say that people are far more likely to do the Right Thing when they aren't being treated like thieves. There'll always be some idiot who tries to ruin it for everyone, but that guy can't be stopped. It's not worthwhile to destroy your relationship with 99.99% of your customers to try to trick that one last untrickable.
None of this is new, but pretty much everything that can be said about restrictions management has already been said.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
DRM AND open ? It'll be a DRM that's more open to cracking. Yipiiiiiiiiiiii! :-)
There's an old saying in the music business - "You can't polish a turd, but the man who does will get the gig."
I suppose the same holds true here. Sun figures (correctly, I have to assume given the lack of any serious upheaval in market share in the tech and entertainment industries) that DRM is here to stay, and that if it is, they might as well do it right: Strong, secure, and built upon an open standard.
Sure, Microsoft is one of the the first companies to drop the proverbial deuce, though I suspect (just as in the case of operating systems) they won't be the ones to do it at the highest standard, for the lowest cost, or both.
Yes, I know that the crowd here is heavily anti-DRM, and I don't blame them. I suppose Sun getting into the DRM game and doing it right might actually cause DRM to actually succeed, so perhaps it would be best if there were no "turd polishing" going on, by Sun or anyone else.
OTOH, artists have the right to protect their content, and may cease producing content completely if they cannot. Why not give them a strong and reliable way to do so?
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Chicago Federation of Musicians/American Federation of Musicians Union Local 10-208.
I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
I'm already annoyed by previews and FBI warnings I cannot skip on my legally purchased DVDs. They make my life more difficult, and I will just quit buying them. I really should get back to my reading.
Blar.
If everyone can access the source code of the DRM software, then it'd be trivial to work around it, making the DRM pointless.
Please help the Disney corp.
Seriously though, Sun do more for OS than people realise, an this is the 2nd time they have taken something ominous (e.g. MS Passport) and worked on a better alternative (Liberty Alliance). Not sure if it can be applied to DRM, but not sure means not sure, so let's see.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
TFA doesn't say why you can't just dump the decoded data to disk. Is it just a TCPA driver that doesn't really do anything itself or was that just some idea by a Sun marketing dude?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Can someone explain why DRM is the inevitable future? It seems to me that software-based DRM is inherently fatally flawed, since the end user is ultimately given the cipher, ciphertext, and key (in whatever pseudo-obfuscated form). Since there are mathematical theorems that essentially show that true obfuscation is impossible, isn't it just a matter of (usually short) time before any putative scheme is cracked and a tool is developed to "liberate" the content (which can then be freely shared)?
Personally, I'd prefer good DRM because it will stop giving the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to jack up prices and accuse people of theft. And who knows, maybe normal market forces will start to take effect and the price for music/movies will drop to the point where stealing them doesn't make sense.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
I'm genuinely interested in how an oxymoron such as "open DRM" would work. Download the code, comment out all the nasty parts and use whatever is protected? Also, I checked TFA and no, it didn't mean "direct rendering manager".
...outside the tent pissing in?
The way I see it, DRM is already here. Short-term, at least, it isn't going away.
The near-future choice is between a DRMed-up future controlled by open standards (giving nobody but Big Media a vested interest in pushing it), or a DRMed-up future controlled by one company (most likely Microsoft, Apple or Sony), giving us both Big Media and at least one big IT company pushing to have it included/mandatory in all their products.
Against that background, I'll take open standards and one less big player in favour of it. In addition, if DRM does become ubiquitous, whoever controls it influences the entire content-distribution industry. Again, I'll take a vendor-neutral open standards organisation over any one corporation, any day of the week.
The only danger is if OSS developers have anything to do with it, we might actually see a DRM system that works, and is secure. And that'll spoil all our fun...
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
How can DRM possibly be open source? It is by nature security through obscurity. If the algorithm is public, it is trivial to crack it. DRM is client-side "security".
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
FP!
So if I find out this is insecure and submit a bug report saying something like 'If you do X, then you can make a copy of Britney Spears' latest prog-rock triple album', what's to stop the authors of works that use this DRM system clobber me under the DMCA for publishing a description of a copyright-protection circumvention device?
Or do all bug reports have to be PGP-mailed to Sun's top-secret clandestine open source labs in an old minuteman silo in Wyoming to make sure nobody sees them?
How open can the development of this stuff be, under those sorts of legal conditions?
Think of your fourth amendment right to privacy. Think of all the information about you that is publicly available and gathered by the government and large companies.
Now think about if there was an actually-useful DRM scheme that you could use to control access to that information.
I still don't believe that it's ever going to be possible to create an airtight DRM that is impossible to circumvent, but I would buy it in a heartbeat if such a thing existed. I think losing access forever* to all TV, film, and music would be a fair trade, even.
*Because I'd boycott such a thing if it's applied to copyrighted media assets unless I can get the content without having to pay for it each time I want to watch it, can excerpt for purposes of criticism or review, and can make backups of the original media.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I'm not sure... is it a good idea for slaves to forge the chains that bind them?
After the Abu Ghraib business went down, there was a journalist arguing for torture warrants.
Since torture is bound to happen and has its place (the argument went...), it's better to build it into due process and codify the boundaries. The business of torture becomes transparent and affords society more protections while still giving authorities a "last resort" method of gaining information.
Yeah, "Open DRM" reminds me of that. Nice work, Sun!
This article has been up for a while and I see no comments, someone fix the system soon I need my opinion on this matter told to me pronto.
An open DRM standard may be better than a closed one, but it's still a bad idea.
do you want your shackles to be made of first class standardized steel?
You can guess my answer!
Ah, the Open Media Commons initiative. Without taking sides on the issue of DRM I think I can safely say that 'open' and 'commons' has nothing to do with DRM
I fucking hate Orwellian terms. Are computer users that unread that this terminology actually works somehow?
If the purpose of DRM is to basically limit how someone may use said media, and Open Source means that everyone gets to look at the protection method being used, doesn't this just encourage the "protection" to be cracked even more quickly?
I'm probably looking at the situation in the wrong manner... The article really wasn't much of an article, more like a vague summary...
Eh... did they invent water that's not wet?
Hey I may dislike DRM from a moral standpoint. However where I really dislike DRM is the technical side. No DRM can work well! To try and say that "You can listten to this stuff but you can't copy it" It dosn't work from a technical standpoint. The only reason it works at all is the law!
So, do we really wan't to try and make a porject that is fundamentaly falwed from the begining?
Think about it.
frist psot
I'll go with (b). Better to object on moral grounds. (Actually, I object on common sense grounds, but I digress...)
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
I object on moral grounds, and always will.
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
Is this name 'DReaM' a joke? it seems so fitting. :-)
4 articles with no comments?
Though with Open source DRM I think it may lead to faster adoption as the media producers and player makers would not have the licensing fees, it can be examined for flaws (they could know what they are getting instead of being suprised by the sharpie and shift-key workarounds) ported to multiple platforms, and (more importantly) the Linux community might actually package the codec in thier distributions.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
It's DRM, so it's bad, but it's open source so it's good, but it's drm, but it's open source... *head explodes*
Yeah comon guys...
But on balance I'm very glad to see Sun leading an open source imitative. I'd much rather this than a proprietary Apple, Microsoft, or worst of all, a record company.
There is no contradiction in objecting and contributing.
First Post!
GNAA
You can fool some of the people all the time or all of the people sometimes but never sometimes some of the people. Yes, I am talking about The People whom you are trying to restrict. I know that when Apple has DRM we can ignore it but come on, Sun isn't nearly as cool as my Mini Mac! Wake up people. There is no such thing as "open" Digital Restrictions Mandatory. No way. It's cool that Holland in Europe blocks DRM in Euro Congress but this is not enough. DRM in the US is harmful for everyone because where is Hollywood? In the US. We can't let THIS happen.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
>>DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
DRM cannot be done right, because it is about removing freedom and fair-use, and allowing big companies the ability to excercise "rights" they never should have been given in the first place. Supporting it will just encourage it to come, and sooner. I'ld still like to hold on to my idealism that we can keep DRM from coming. If people as a whole decide they don't want DRM, it won't happen (the problem is getting people to care, but joining the other side certainly won't get them to).
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Just because something that is inherently bad may be OSS doesn't mean that it is then good. DRM is already here, but we don't have to use it. We have the right to circumvent it as long as it is within fair use. The courts have determined that; DMCA actually has very little ground for legal action. I object to DRM completely on grounds that it is amoral.
Am I the only /. reader left?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
testing
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as open DRM.
Yes, you can distribute the algorithms openly, but in the end every single DRM system is going to be based on secret encryption keys. It is a felony in the United States for you to read/use such encryption keys for most purposes. This is how DRM works; because it cannot work in any other way, it depends on outlawing certain types of computation to undermine the general-purpose nature of computers. This is done via the DMCA in the United States.
Repeat after me: The only reason for DRM is to eliminate general-purpose computers, and to replace them with futuristic televisions. Why are all of the media industries so scared? Because finally, individual human beings all over the world are able to create and distribute information freely. Up until a few years ago, those media industries had a stranglehold on distribution of information. Everything was broadcast-only. Everything came from a few centralized sources.
DRM is their last hope to outlaw a future that's missing all-powerful information distributors. It is their last hope to turn computers into interactive TVs.
Don't be fooled by DRM that pretends to be "open" or "decentralized." By its very definition, DRM is always closed and centralized -- even if on the legislative level rather than the software level.
As for the inevitable cries of, "DRM has positive uses for system administration and security!": There is no good use of DRM which cannot be achieved with equal ease entirely in user-controlled software. So why don't you put your energy into making easy-to-use encryption systems, and enabling them by default in your applications, instead of scheming to make general-purpose computation illegal?
then perhaps the open source community can at the very least ensure that the dominant delivery system is an open standard
Sure, there is some little hope free software may not be left behind of anything DRM controled if an open standard get massively adopted.
The real question here is: What are the chances an open standard get significantly adopted?
DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Who believe the media industry choices and practices includes moral? Whose moral? Their own moral if any.
With the actual business practices based upon mass market, short terms, high profit. The media industry will choos their DRM standards upon they operate on the most dominant systems at the lowests costs with the maximum profit.
We should not expect the media industry doing moral choices, like using open standard DRM unless it is the more valuable choice for them.
Léa Gris
...outside the tent pissing in?
The way I see it, DRM is already here. Short-term, at least, it isn't going away.
The near-future choice is between a DRMed-up future controlled by open standards (giving nobody but Big Media a vested interest in pushing it), or a DRMed-up future controlled by one company (most likely Microsoft, Apple or Sony), giving us both Big Media and at least one big IT company pushing to have it included/mandatory in all their products.
Against that background, I'll take open standards and one less big player in favour of it. In addition, if DRM does become ubiquitous, whoever controls it influences the entire content-distribution industry. Again, I'll take a vendor-neutral open standards organisation over any one corporation, any day of the week.
The only danger is if OSS developers have anything to do with it, we might actually see a DRM system that works, and is secure. And that'll spoil all our fun...
(Apologies if this is double-posted. The comments system appears to be fscked for the last three or four articles, so I can't tell if this has actually gone through).
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
uh oh, sun is back to spearheading again...didn't they learn from last time...
It'll be a DReaM that these measures don't get hacked in a week.
Is posting broken today? I don't see any comments.
Open source is about freedom. DRM is about control over data, not freedom. That digital control is generally most desired by the monopolistic sources that already control it now.
The only area that I could see any use for an "Open DRM" is for the protection and security of
personal information. And there already are plenty of solutions for that problem.
I got "Nothing to see here" on some topics for like hours today, that's some pretty effective content protection :(
Oh no... it's the future.
IF they lose "Market Share" to non DRM media, would they not "shift their paradigm" to "adopt a more consumer friendly approch" to "increase profitability"?
OTOH, if it is a forgone conclusion, Should we not see and shape our own prison?
Every survey asked of customers includes questions to determine how many rights they can take away from us and still get $19.95. Not, surprisingly, most of the "Sheeple" answer the same way they do about the HomeLand Security Civil Rights grab. "I'm willing to give up some rights in the name of security." Seriously need better history curriculum in the US.
From WIKIQuote Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, Ben Franklin"
So on the "Gripping Hand" I have to say no to SUN and their recruitment efforts. I can not support the cause and ease the stockholders minds. If you want to make money off of media, produce and distribute good media. We'll buy it, maybe even in multiple formats, just for convience sake. You can't expect us to keep replacing our media forever.
For any execs who may be reading. Here's my little buying habit rant.
#1 Word of Mouth/Web introduction to Media$
Web Site or Friend or TV or Radio with full unencrypted Song/Movie/Vide/Level.
#2 Evaluate on merits.
No Brainer for us, completely misunderstood by the suits. No matter how good Bob and Steve said it was, if it sucks I say it Sucks. GOTO END
#3 Purchase Media.
This Means:
Video: I've seen a low quality Video off the web, I'd like to own it for the extras and repeated viewing and portability. DVD, DIVX download would be nice.
Audio: I've listened to a couple of tracks and I'd like to hear the rest, DVD, CD, MP3 or OGG Download would be best. Haven't bought an audio CD in 5yrs, maybe 3 in 10 yrs.
Game: Played the Demo. Verified it works on my System, Verified it was FUN, etertaining. Buy the Box, Downloadable ISO would be nice. Verify the MD5 associated with my Name to prove its mine ONCE.
TV: Watch a few episodes and realized I've missed the story, DVD Season purchase. Examples, Firefly, BattleStar Galactica. PBS/Discover/National Geographic.
Books: I read a ton of PDFs, as a matter of course for work. Out of that ton, I need 4 or 5 every 6 to 8 months. I purchase them, again for portability and repeated reference. Open Source Books understand this well, free PDFs sell DTF (Dead Tree Format) Books. I read all of the daVinci code first and then purchased it for my library.
Take notice of something here that the Studios/Publishers don't, they only involve them selves in the last part. Buying of the MEDIA the plastic/vinyl/paper/dvd. The art they put on the media is the best advertisement for the plastic/box/paper product. That's why concerts sell albulms, remember?
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The Open Media Commons is about royalty-free open standards for digital content, not only for digital rights management. Coming back to DRM, i fail to see how an open DRM is possible? If it is open, I can modify its implementation on my system, and avoid the restrictions, so I don't think it will be accepted by the ones that want to guard their content. Until now, even closed DRM implementations were circumvented easily enough.
I will not be a slave forging my own shackles.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
DReaM on, Sun. The Open Source community isn't about writing your code for you, open standards or not.
Many of us vehemently object to DRM on its face, because it goes counter to the beliefs of the Open Source community; fostering learning and growth and a strong sense of community through sharing and improving our creations.
DRM doesn't play into that, even if your "customers" demand it. Creating an Open Source initiative to try to get the Open Source community to write the code for you, so you can lock it up under the CDDL for your customers' use, doesn't play into that.
Find another sandbox to play in, this one is ours.
Frist P0st!
I mean why on earth wouldn't Sun try to get a piece of the action....
The big question, though, is whether content owners/producers/distributors will want to use it.
Apple has their own DRM, and so does Sony and Microsoft. And each company seems very pleased with themselves for coming up with their particular scheme.
Would they really want to switch?
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
Open source DRM means one of two things:
1 5232
(Michael Gartenberg and his wonderful time with DRM.)
Either
i) It will deliberately be disabled.
Or
ii) It will be impossible to disable.
Everyone will eventually find that any DRM system, that *AA wants and accepts, will mean that they either lose access to their media or programs and have to buy it again, or they have to break it to be able to use things they have a legal right to.
As an example I point you to a previous Slashdot story: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/2
Look at 2 of the 3 aspects of the project;
Java Stream Assembly
Launch pad for video delivery servers using the Java Stream Assembly (JSR-158) API, which reduces the complexity in building and managing video streams to be delivered over access networks. Multiple vendor components can be plugged in using the Java Stream Assembly API for delivering broadcast, on-demand, and interactive TV streams.
Sun Streaming Server
Designed to serve standards-compliant media streams (audio/video) over IP using open-standard protocols such as RTP (Real Time Transport Protocol) & [Real Time Streaming Protocol --posting soon to sourceforge.net]. Sun Streaming Server (SSS) is compliant with the 3GPP [The 3rd Generation Partnership Project] and ISMA [Internet Streaming Media Alliance ] specifications. While the server is agnostic to format the media, the streams served by SSS are generally encoded using the MPEG-4 codecs. It supports MPEG-4 and QuickTime out of the box.
Is this anything more then a way to boost up Sun's products?
If I found in my own ranks that a certain number of guys wanted to cut my throat, I'd make sure that I cut their throat.
I applaud to SUN's effort in attempting an open DRM standard. DRM is on its way to consumer market, whether we like it or not, but an open standard opens the gate to collaboration. Rather than debating endlessly about the moral grounds of DRM, IMHO it is best to accept reality and establish an "outpost" for open source and free use in the hostile land of DRM. Kinda like establishing a constitution in a monarchy state.
The thing is that DRM is such a setup for using it to limit what users can do. The limits is amongst other things fair use. Time shifting, media shifting, lending things to your friends and such is to hard to resist killing off entierly.
The best thing to do is to fight this in any way possible. Puttin it into OSS is giving it cred where no credability should be given. Its a consumer hostile tech and i have a hard time seeing comsumers doing this to themselves. If nobody buys into this it wont fly.
Do you trust the media corporations? Do you firmly believe they have good intentions? Can you look back and with firm belief say that they have been handling their artists and customers fair and just?
If you can then DRM is the thing for you. For the rest of us, never!
HTTP/1.1 400
Military Intelligence is very interested in this Open DRM. They want to use it in conjunction with Microsoft Works.
fp? where are all the posts?
i might break the law driving, like going to fast or running over old ladies. why is no one trying to take those rights away too?
The whole point is in usage. Even if it's used to sign my kernel, and it doesn't boot any unsigned I like it, as long as I decide what to sign - it's usefull in stopping rootkits and stuff. The only problem is when someone removes control from ME on what MY COMPUTER is willing to use. Open standards should at least provide me with choice on that. As long as I have that - there is no problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
woot
DRM is a tool. There are positive and negative ways it can be used.
An open source, truly cross-platform DRM standard is desperately needed for content distribution to grow out of the current decidedly adolescent phase.
Content producers deserve to be paid, consumers deserve to get something for their payment that is more than they can get by downloading a file illegally.
There are many examples of DRM used to restrict what you do with your media after you download it...share it, and it won't work anywhere else. However, with a little unconventional thinking, there are other ways of using DRM that give the consumer rights they never had before.
Weed files are such an example. Just as the GPL gives the consumer rights they never had before, leveraging the restrictions of copyright law, Weed files use DRM restrictions to give the consumer the right to share and be rewarded financially for sharing. See http://weedshare.com/ for details.
Weed files make the expense of buying music into an investment. When you buy a song at iTunes, you cannot resell it, or get anything back for it. With Weed files, the cost is the same, but you now have a capital asset that you can give away, everyone who gets it can listen to it 3 times, and if they buy it, the artist gets 50%, and you get 20%.
This can't happen without DRM. Selling unrestricted MP3s is being done, but they you are depending on the good graces of the consumer to not distribute it, and if they do, the consumer and the artist get no compensation from it.
This open source initiative by Sun deserves support. The current Apple/Microsoft feud is intolerable for the industry. Ogg (For example) + DRM wold be a powerful combination. Otherwise, Microsoft is the only game in town for a DRM with a published API, and Apple trying to dominate with its unpublished API.
Affiliation: I own http://weedtracks.com/ which distributes Weed files, including over 75.000 songs from http://cdbaby.com/'s digital distribution program, and http://sharenewyork.com/ where anyone can share Weed files legally on the web.
http://WeedTracks.com/ - 80,000 Weed files, Legal, Sharable Digital Distribution
Firrrrrrrrrrst posty!
DRM sux0rz
#include <sig.h>
Slashdot fails
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Although in a completely open and free society we shouldn't need such draconian measures as DRM, in our current modern world they are a fact of life. At some point the slow wheels of democracy will catch up and the demands of the population for reasonable access to information will prevail. This, unfortunately, may take a generation or more. So while the populations of the world's democracies are slowly educated about what it means to have information held hostage by DRM, we will have to live with it (and probably live with it on some content indefinately). It is clearly better to support solutions that are implemented correctly than to allow corporations to not only hijack information, but the means to access said information. For the mega-corporations, this is a gold mine. Not only do they "own" (don't flame me, I know the difference between ownership and copyright) the content, they may also get to extract a tax via the proprietary and patent protected DRM solutions they are selling.
my 0.02
cheers, ben
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
Why do I want to help hollywood and Microsoft create virtual monopolies while they control and take over devices that we purchased?
The RIAA once phrased "..if we can not control it, then we dont own it."
Well now they own it and the machines we buy and we dont? More than likely it will be used to kill opensource and force monopolies through drm in the name of security and anti-piracy of course.
So drm is coming whether we like it or not? So what? Why help them? Open or not its still drm.
We will learn to accept it but we surely should not help out renting equipment we bought.
http://saveie6.com/
Inmates on death row are now taking part in a new 'open source' electric chair design initiative :P
Refuse on principal.
No way am I ever going to use software that tries to tell me what I can and can not do. I know my rights, and I'm inteligent enough to decide how to excercize them without being told by some retarded software written by people who don't want me to have any rights.
The more they try to strip away our rights, the more we must fight. If you willingly lay surrender power they will keep taking more and you won't have any before long.
I for one would like to welcome our new Open Overlords.
Somehow I don't think making DRM open source will make music, books, and movies any less likely to end up on a darknet.
Unless the goal is to have all corparations support one format, whether it works or not, so that they can move forward with prosecuting anyone that possesses non-DRM media.
Still, I find it hard to believe that Apple, Microsoft, & Sony are all going to ditch their own efforts to license the ubiquitous DRM standard, and instead support Sun's?
Plan A: Closed source DRM business plan.
1)Make a DRM standard.
2)License to everyone.
3)Profit!!!
Plan B: Open source DRM business plan.
1)Support Sun's DRM.
2)Sue everyone.
3)Profit!!!
I would have thought there would be more comments by now.
One could say the same for Java. No?
Accept that it is here yes, but that is no reason to not try and fight it with whatever logical and correct reason you can think of. Even if the reasons have some moral implementations
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I don't think the open source community appreciates being (D)Reamed by Sun.
Why are there four stories without any comments?
#include
Well, you can find a couple reasons why this just won't work.
Meet new people, and kill them.
I don't agree with the use of DRM at all, and I certainly won't use anything with DRM attached to it. I'd sooner give up movies and television than to use DRM and promote such corporate policies.
But, I also know I'm going to be a minority. So for those that don't do as I do, open DRM is the next best thing. I hate it, but it seems necessary for the ignorant users out there.
Is the forums broken?
What can DRM possibly do for the Open Source community? As I see it, it's a tool that give larger companies an advantage when it comes to their own hardware/software.
Can anyone involved in this project clarify how something can be both open and tamper proof.
If people continue to abuse this feature, I will have to remove it. - Slashdot Comment Box, 1998
I'd rather not contribute to the demise of my own fair use rights.
to get a first post around here?
In all seriousness, we would prefer to have no artificially imposed restrictions on digital media.
None of it works. None of it does any good for any party. All of it only restricts what should not be restricted.
Anyone who works on Digital Restriction Management (please don't tell me that the acronym is wrong, the above is correct in intent, thank you) simply doesn't understand the fundamental and underlining change of consciousness that the Information Age is bringing about. The whole point of the digital media and personal computer revolution of the past 30 years is to expand human potential, not to attempt to lock it into some obsolete corporate, communist, or religious framework.
Let's be united and clear about this from the first posts: DRM sucks, and we don't want it. Any of it; in any form.
Hmmm. An open source project to restrict fair-use rights and restrict portability. Only Sun could bring us this special brand of goodness?!
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
Does anyone know what the security model is? Doesn't DRM rely on the player having embedded keys to decrypt the content? If the DRM is open, won't it be trivial to extract those keys?
If they made the media they wished to protect cheap and easy to obtain, then you wouldn't have to protect it at all. DRM is neither wanted by nor effective against your customers. The people who want to make mix tapes and backup copies will be presented with unnecessary obstacles that make your product look weak and inferior. (Seriously, what will the average Joe and his wife think when they try to playback a standard looking CD or DVD in their new fangled players and they don't work as easily or as predictable as their old VCR) Savvy thieves just by-pass DRM with brute force for kicks, and everyone else think less of you and your pessimistic outlooks. Putting your money in the safe is one thing, but your product?
Over the past few years, it seems as though there has been a major divide between the interests and desires of major media companies and the end user. Major media companies have shown a strong desire to control their digital content via copy protection and DRM, using their own distinct proprietary methods and limiting the usage of said content to a limited scope (you may only play on such-and-such player, copy n times, and/or play this video in the next 24 hours). End users have shown a desire for flexibility in the way the DRM is applied. If end-user Tom purchases a music file, Tom wants to play that file on any player (software or hardware) and be able to make CD copies so he and his wife can each listen to it while driving separate ways in their respective humvees.
An open source DRM standard would make a method of controlling content widely available. The more widely available it is, the more players we can utilize in playing our DRM'd music, movie, etc. Hopefully, with Sun behind this, enough media executives will start to trust an open DRM.
Pros:
1. High level of transparency/accountability.
2. The standards will be open to everyone. (Now Joe Schmoe can write a player that can read CheapoMP3z.com's DRM'd music.)
3. It's Sun - hopefully, all the music/movie execs will recognize the name and trust them and their products.
Cons:
1. Vaporware? (open DRM is a nice idea, but when's it gonna get here? we'll not hold our breath, thanks.
2. It's Sun - do we trust them and their products?
Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Helping on the creation of an open DRM platform is more likely to make it unbreakable than keeping it proprietary. Also, on open source, free source, copyright, IP, fair use, etc. issues, supporting DRM is a clear sign that above all these you value the ad-hoc naturel of EULA as a legit tool for regulation of information use. IOW, you don't have any objections on content providers to decided how much you should pay, how and when you should use it, and who is allowed to do so. Therefore, I think DReaM is not the way to go if you're having second thoughts on DRM.
As long as no law forces you to adopt DRM and meanwhile breaking DRM protection is consisdered (mostly) illegal, my advice is: don't buy DRMed stuff. And that leaves fewer and fewer options...
I will choose to morally object and personally boycot all DRM, no matter if it's from Apple, Microsoft or Sun.
I don't need HDTV or any other new "entertainment" that requires this crap, what I need is more time with my family and friends.
If I wanted to simply sit by my non-DRM monitor and non-DRM speakers there's already more unprotected content in the various P2P networks to outlast me.
Capitalization is the difference between "Helping your uncle jack off a horse" and "Helping your uncle Jack off a horse"
can I comment now?
The Sun people already have various opinions and projects on DRM.
DReaM is is already in use
Hello? Is this thing working??
Check check one two three check ch-ch-ch-check
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I think this is good.
As I see it there are two issues:
1. Are the benefits more balanced than proprietory solutions?
2. Can open-source DRM be secure?
First things first. An open-source solution provides interoperability and (hopefully) freedom from patent-driven private monopolies.
This means that distribution and publication is open to all comers, not just those who can afford patent licensing fees. ("Freedom of the press is only availably to those who own a press". In the modern world, freedom to publish would be available only to those who can license the patent. Just as even now, freedom to distribute is really only available to those who can pay for links on high volume sites like Yahoo etc)
Opening up publication and distribution means that content providers - artists I mean - don't have to go through the rentiers and toll-keepers of the major publishing/recording/film companies, but can put stuff out directly.
This would benefit us all.
The second question is:- can it work? How can DRM be secure if everything is open? Even if I use something like Passport or Liberty alliance to ensure the key is not distributed with the lock, how do ensure that the client executes the DRM logic?
Will the codecs be closed? Will this rely on hardware support? Why don't I just bypass the hardware?
This appears to be hardware independant--which is good if it gains comercial acceptance (as opposed to having hardware requirements forced upon us). But without hardware requirements, what will industry expect of us in order to consider us trusted? With the DMCA be updated to be more draconian? Will we have to be online whenever we access DRM content? And then, what happens when eventually everything on our computers is considered to be some kind of DRM content?
I see projects on the sites, but I don't see any philosophy of operation or concept of user's rights. We need to start establishing boundaries before we loose control over our personal environments.
{ return clarity; }
I think that I, like a lot of fellow geeks, object far more to the monopoly and the forcing-down-our-collective throats tactics of the music/movie/software companies than DRM as a concept. I understand that artists need to make money, I just don't understand where distribution companies get the nerve to take 95% of what we pay. I do not condone, the current distribution model for music. For example, I refuse to pay $15 for a soundtrack of a movie that you can buy on DVD for $15. Frankly, with the availability of the digital distribution medium I feel that large labels have outlived their usefulness.
In their final convulsions they will fight to monopolize every area of the marketplace, and ensure that closed standards will prevent anyone from toppling their business models.
Therefore, I believe that if the DRM standard became open-source, this painful experience can be avoided, or at least eased.
Then again, it may be just wishful thinking.
I see a lot of FIRST POSTs coming...
(this is only a test to see if the comments are really not working)
[..]is better to work on creating something done right?
You cannot create a 'right' implementation of DRM; cryptography-theorie predicts that every method of DRM can eventually be circumvented without too much effort.
It has to do with Alice, Bob and Carol; Normally Alice is the tranmitter, Bob the recipient and Carol the malicious hacker. With DRM, Bob and Carol are one and the same person.
the real question is: will the 'big buys' (see: Apple, Microsoft) play fair with this? potentially adopt this over their own proprietary DRM for an open/controlled software world?
Yes, DRM sucks, yes, it's the great evil of our age, blah blah blah.
The point is, in all likelihood, it's here to stay, and if we can at least keep the methods and delivery open, maybe we can make it less of an evil.
Think about it, which is better: DRM in the hands of Microsoft, Sony, etc., or DRM in the hands of the community?
theres no place like 127.0.0.1
comment?
So is it pronounced "Dream" or "De-Ream"? Both are probably accurate. :)
testing testing 1,2,3
"Open" and "DRM" - is that something like "Microsoft" "Works" ?
If somebody's going to do something evil, we should help them do it effectively!
The problem with an opensource standard for DRM is tha it will not be so easy to crack than proprietary ones...
Object to it on moral grounds, use the same grounds to object to illegal copying, use the same grounds not to buy content that relies on DRM, use the same grounds to not use patent uncumbered and non-open software.
It's all or nothing. If you object on DRM on moral grounds, you should also object to copying of material you don't legally have permission to copy. If you do copy illegally, then you have no moral ground to stand on in regards to DRM.
"Piter, too, is dead."
I like this "Thanks to the Internet there are so many more fish in the content sea..." right on!
that can't be right...FP on a story that's not the lead ?
weird...
DRM is coming. All Fear DRM !
I don't want to DRM and I certainly don't want to pay for it. Why are there a few people who are desperately trying to push a controversial technology that virtually nobody else wants?
better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
How about work create a lot of different standards done wrong, so the whole thing gets scrapped once people get frustrated with the stuff just not working.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
As you said, the secret in cryptography is the key, no the algorithm. However, in DRM, the user has both the encrypted data AND the key, so DRM can only get so good...
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
One of the bigger risks of DRM, as I see it, is giving authority over your system to another entity. Not surprisingly, in many of the schemes pitched thus far, big business decides all and your PC must obey (see the broadcast flag). The same effect exists for the HD copy protection schemes.. the studios decide all, and your hardware must obey.
At least an open standard form of DRM could put everyone on equal footing, rathern than locking in the big media company's control over the industry. If independant producers have the same access/right/privileges as the big players, it makes for a much better solution.
Personally, I am all for a good system of protecting the rights of content producers. But, the last thing I want is that system being used to lock in the power of big business and the garbage that they peddle.
Tough call - the Nazi regime is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on killing Jews right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Doen't sound like much of a decision now, does it? Of course DRM isn't quite on the same scale as slaughtering people, but the very idea that there is a decision to be made between implementing an immoral idea right or opposing that idea is, well, nauseating.
You mean the death of digital freedom in general.
DRM is much larger then just some lame p2p copyright infringement idea.
DRM will effect the very way we retain our knowledge as a society. The "keyholders" will dictate what information is acceptable and what is not.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My problem with DRM isn't the concept itself, it's the one-sidedness of current implementations: the existing DRM systems enforce the rights the media companies want enforced, but they don't enforce the rights copyright law grants to copy-owners. An open DRM system at least offers the ability to lay down within the system all rights including the ones copyright law grants that the media companies don't like. If we lay down the standard with reference to relevant statute and case law, we can change the playing field so the media companies have to argue why a DRM system shouldn't comply with the law when they object to things like time-shifting and personal-copy rights.
Sun is merely proposing an "open" drm system. While I object strongly to such a thing on principle.. it's important to note the fact that these headlines are lying when they say "open source drm". an open DRM system does not necessarily mean open source, and if I'm right then it will never be allowed to be used in the real and non-corporate GPL community. But here is the real kicker... because all these headlines keep saying "open source drm", if and when this becomes a reality you will have every copyright cartel on the planet on capital hill looking for laws which will further marginalize and strangle open source because after all.. the developers are just being "obstinate" in not including the "open source DRM" into their systems. This is a long term lobbying foundation, and a combination of selling out and power play by sun. Truly despicable.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Yeah, all that "open source" security for computers was stupid too. /etc/passwd was a tool of THE MAN. And open source improvements just made it even more evil with /etc/shadow!
And don't get me started on cryptographic algorithms... or PGP... or Tripwire! Damnable open-source tools and techniques being used to protect the greedy server owners!
DRM does not work. Open-source DRM will not work either. Why? Because of the fundamental laws of cryptography.
DRM works by giving someone a ciphertext, a decryption algorithm, and the decryption key. Once you have these three ingredients, you have the plaintext. No amount of open-source-buzzwords or legal threats or appeals to fair-use can change that fact. DRM cannot work. It does not work.
"DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
it doesn't have to happen. Of course apathy amongest those who could actually stop it will alow it to sounter in like a 2 dollar tart ridden with disease.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let's leave aside executable content for a moment. We'll limit the discussion to Audio and Video.
First of all the user who buys/leases (yechh) the rights to some media must authenticate themselves. One way to do this would be a tamper-resistant hardware token containing the private half of a public-key pair. The user submits their claim of identity to some remote authentication server, which responds with something that only the token can decrypt. Of course this key exchange must take place over and encrypted channel. The two parties could use diffie-helman for that. So the token ends up with a stored "ticket" ala kerberos authorizing use of some specific media for some specific time period.
The media player software has to be able to communicate securely with the authentication token. More crypto.
The Audio and video output hardware must also be able to communicate securely with the media player software. They must prove their identity cryptographically. Once having proved their identity they can be "trusted" to make it impossible to copy the media. Now I suppose you could push the crypto out to a video monitor that has no outputs. Then you'd have to hack the hardware to extract a video signal. I can imagine this.
But can anyone imagine speakers that have to identify themselves and use encrypted commuications ? Something tells me those $5 headphones at walmart aren't going to do that. Because if the device has an 1/8" stereo output, the audio can be copied, even if the quality is degraded.
With video you'd have to point a camera at the screen, which sounds less practical, the rise in popularity of "screeners" not withstanding.
So to summarize, I don't think a trusted bios is required. What *is* required is trusted output devices, and that's where the real sick sad world of tomorrow's DRM begins.
If DRM is the future of controlling our media files...
Is that what you really believe?
Who's controlling your media files?
What media files? The ones you purchased or only those you rent?
How would you feel if you purchased $1000 in movies and lost access to because you accept some form of DRM that prevents you from having real access to the unencrypted content without the restrictions of copy protection like macrovision. In case you chose to excercise your rights to fair use, such as using a small clip for a presentation somewhere sometime, etc...
It will be interesting to see how common [hardware that only runs unmodified binaries] becomes. Will the people who don't know (or don't care about) the difference be numerous enough to give it market dominance?
Yes. Millions of closed video game consoles have been sold to end users. As for PCs, if the major residential ISPs mandate "Trusted" computing as a condition of getting an IP address, then you'll see a proliferation.
Time and time again, I hear about some company sharing my personal information with another company against my will. Right now, my credit card company seems to be free to do whatever it wants with my info so long as it sends me a notice of its new policy disguised as a piece of junk mail. If I were able to DRM-enable my own personal information, on the other hand, I could prevent them from doing that in an active, technology-driven way. They couldn't arbitrarily decide that their policy allows them to use my info in a way that I haven't approved, because the pre-defined, explicit digital policies would prevent it.
Everybody's so caught up with rabid, dogmatic hatred of DRM that talking about alternatives, even open source ones, is the geek social equivalent of attending a NAMBLA meeting. Whether you accept the concept of pervasive DRM for all kinds of data or not, if we accept that DRM is an eventuality, isn't it better for DRM technology development to proceed through a community-based action than to let a few corporations control it?
Breakfast served all day!
A DRM technique that (a) I can leverage as much as the "big boys" to protect my own content, (b) preserves more of my fair use rights, is better than one that doesn't.
These techniques, generally involve encrypted content together with decryption keys possessed, but inaccessable to the end-user ("inaccessable" being a matter of effort, of course). In a flexible system, the user would be able, to transfer those keys, or a limited number of copies of them to playback devices, in a secure mechanism -- taking encrypted content to play at a friend's house should not be a hassle, for example.
Of course, given that key possession ultimately means that they can be discovered, to be effective, such a system would require content to be personalized to keys that an end-user already possesses, so cracking one does not crack the system. Given electronic delivery of content, this is not far-fetched.
Where open source DRM shines, though, is the ability to change the access mechanisms that playback or other decrypting devices offer. Fair use is not a static set of rights, but an ever-changing set: VCR-based timeshifting was "new" recognized fair use, for example. When "code is law", and the law is subject to change, it must be possible to change the codew as well.
Naturally, changed code to be loaded on a device that handles encrypted content would have to be signed by an authority the device trusts (or only be available to deal with content encrypted by the device owner), but this would open up community development of DRM code that respects new fair use rights (assuming the rest of the hardware supported them) -- I'm thinking of a fair use right to, for example, decrypted 720p analog video output where the previously permitted resolution was 480p), testing thereof, leaving only signing required to allow its widespread adoption.
The big current weakness in all DRM schemes is that while they may allow for preset fair uses, they can not anticipate and allow for future ones. I'd envisioned that the "DRM Carrot" should come with the "Fair Use Stick" -- manufactures of devices that use DRM should be obliged to modify them to support new fair uses as they are recognised, at their expense, in a timely fashion. Open sourcing the code makes this a lot easier.
You could've hired me.
DRM affects user negatively in three ways:
* It restricts dissemination of potentially useful information, which limits how many people it could benefit
* It allows inflation of the price of obtaining this information beyond it's actual worth, making it less efficent to use even if it can be obtained
* It potentially makes it harder for you to access this information, even after you obtain it, thus further decreasing its utility.
Open DRM can help with the third issue, ie. ease of use, but really can't do much about the first two, since those are economic and even social issues that stem from the ownership discussion.
If I was an OSS programmer working on this, and I accepted that DRM is here to stay, then I feel the best benefit would be making the DRM as seamless as possible, so at least those able to use it, *can* use it efficently.
Personally, I think DRM is simply a barrier to the changes that are needed to realize a new system of dealing with data that is easily duplicated. They're trying to slap patches on the process to avoid radical change.
On one hand, you can hardly blame the companies, since radical changes are always a hassle, and they can even break you. Nevertheless, without these changes, those companies are destined for oblivion sooner or later without a new model.
I feel that mindshare might be better put in moving forward by developing the solution to making digital media feasible economically in it's natural form (ie. data is easily and freely duplicated). Then, convince the record companies to take the plunge. Of course, there is the possibility that the solution means the end of the certain industries as we know them, but the standing companies could have a pivotal transitional role in that process if they play it right. It may pay for media industries to ride the bandwagon towards their own obsolescence than to be run over by it. (And they may even survive with a little luck)
DRM, in it's current form, is the industry trying to put up barricades and burning tires because they lack or fear a new overall model. So, I could imagine better projects for OSS programmers to work on, both in terms of concrete benefits and general principles, but it is still possible to do something useful, if you were inclined to.
The only secret is the key, which is how most security is usually done. ITunes isn't open source, but the DRM is not obfuscated in any way.
If the DRM isn't obfuscated, there's nothing stopping you from reading the key, reading the encrypted file, and writing it out without eny encryption. The only thing keeping you from reading the key is that the software hides it from you... and if the software is open source, it can't hide it.
That's where TPM comes in. TPM establishes an environment that is unmodifiable from the application back to the chip on the motherboard containing the key. And to make that work you need to prevent the user from modifying the OS, the application, or any drivers the application (or the OS on its behalf) might need to use to read data it uses to checksum itself or however else it's supposed to let the chip know it's not been tampered with.
Which is a pretty tough trick, when your software is open-source.
It wont be me, or you.. The 'common citizen' wont have any say-so in the matter.
For our protection of course.
Its being done on a smaller scale now. If you look around the government has declared some information 'improper' and dont want you have have access to it . That is today, not some sort of 'future prediction'..
It wont 'get better' just because its digital. ( or 'open' ). It will get worse, as its easier to control if its digital. Its hard once its put into print. But if its digital, just send out the 'bad bit' to everyone and magically they cant access the improper information any longer.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm surprised to not see references to Linus' comments on the issue from a while back.
See:
Linux founder opens door to DRM
Linus Torvalds blesses DRM, and nothing happens
It's under SUN's CDDL ("cuddle") license, so insofar as it's "open source" it's still pretty restricted in terms of who controls it (e.g. all your code are belong to SUN, and if you don't like that, they can take their ball and go home). In other words, unless SUN can find a lot of people who like to code for SUN for free, it probably won't go anywhere.
Anyhow, where was I? Oh yeah, I'm not about to code my own digital chains, and I suggest you don't either.
Find a security hole? Publish an exploit instead of an advisory. Need a worm payload? Have it mark ALL of the users' files "restricted" and tell them they have to have SUN break the DRM if they want their files back. Doubly so if you do this with some kind of sneaky crypto attack such that by making keys for all the user files, you can find enough data to usurp whatever key authority their system might contain.
Now, you see why I don't like the idea of making it to begin with. I don't like the idea of either of those things being necessary to use my own computer. Oh well, at least I don't believe that it's quite possible to give and not give us access to content at the same time, although we'll have to watch the hardware carefully and make sure there's always someplace or some weak device that "leaks" for us to use.
Stallman chose to *use* the twisted Copyright system to guarantee the continued Freedom of software instead of trying to overturn the Copyright regime itself. I seem to recall RMS stating that if Copyright were ever reformed or overturned and the GPL suffered, he wouldn't care because his goal was to create a buffer against proprietary software.
Yes, mod the parent up!
Open DRM is an opportunity to create DRM that truly manages ALL rights, digitally. The java.net writeup on this had some very nice anecdotes about "buying" (i.e. "licensing") the same music multiple times simply because your copy got destroyed.
The fact is, the **AA wants to have their cake, and eat it too. They want to say you don't OWN the music, you just have a license to it. But if that were true, then I shoudl be able to ask them to send me on CD, the same labum I bought on tape, for only media and shipping costs. Of course, this would require them to maintain a centralized database of who has a license to what, and that would just be too much for them to deal with! Besides, then they couldn't profit from selling you the exact same thing, over and over again!
But isn't that what would be fair?
Saying DRM will be in any way better for being based on an open standard will be like saying state-mandated rape will be made better if only educated professionals are allowed to do the raping.
The problem I have with DRM is not its closed-source implementation, but what it does, and how it can be abused. These things will not change if the implementation standard is open.
It's open source, right? That means somebody has to review the submissions in some way. If they were flooded with submissions that introduced subtle errors into the scheme, the only way to tell which ones to accept would be to know what they were doing in the first place, and they dont' know what they're doing since they've seen fit to form this project.
-insert a witty something-
Open DRM...in fact, why don't you go one further Sun...open it up...pull out its guts...nail it to a frisbee and go fling it over a rainbow
DRM is still DRM
Incidentially, that has nothing to do with the fact that I look like a frog. Now where's my pitchfork I have some strangers to chase out of the village before sunrise.
That said, slashdot needs +1, Irony.
and -1, Irony, too.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
Why have Sun put the Creative Commons logo on the site when CC is in effect the opposite of DRM?
In a way, this is what Apple does with iTunes and iPods. I can have my music on as many pods (devices) as I want, as long as each is registered as mine. So all that's needed to invalidate your assumption is some sort of cross-platform approach that all of your devices, not just pods, can share. Hence this article.
Are you talking about some sort of hardware registration where all hardware is registered to one person? What about if more than one person owns it then what? Say on a desktop or home stereo only one person can play it? And what if the person wants to sale the hardware, do they have to notify the ATF they sold it to have the registration changed? Forget that, I don't even like having firearms registered. Or what if the person doesn't want the media, say music, anymore but knows someone they can sale it to? I've both bought and sold movies and music at stores which buy and sale used media themselves. Or what if I just want to play it on a device owned by someone else, say I have a new movie on dvd and I know someone who just bought a big screen tv who has invited me over to watch the movie on his/her tv?
The point is that there are lots of options that have the potential to be fair.
From the statements above I'd say drm isn't fair, and that's not even bringing up fair use say as for a review. How proposals like this work out is that the buyer buys a license to use the media and doesn't own the media themself. I've got literally hundreds of movies on dvds and tape, most I bought new but as stated above some I bought used, because I don't like renting which is effect what licenses are.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Or music you recorded at a live gig. Or movies you ripped from DVD yourself. You know, all the legal stuff.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Where HRE == Human Rights Enablement.
- I do not support DRM under any circumstances
- I will not buy or use DRM enabled devices
- I use Linux to watch DVDs because I can watch DVDs from anywhere.
- I teach my kids about the evils of thought rights elimination: Patents, DMCA, DRM and to a lesser extent copyrights not about how their life will be bettered with laws and a technocracy that seems to think all new ways to take choice away from people is a good thing (TM)
- I, as in ME, will retain the final say about how/where I will use "digital content" (they're only FILES after all!) not my computer or my OS vendor.
The word for the day is contradiction. Open DRM, building down, military intelligence, jumbo shrimp. These are all examples of contradiction. Can you say contradiction? Good! I thought you could.
How ya like dat?
I want it clunky, I want it unworkable, I want it ineffective, and I want it to crash systems. I want it to destroy data. I want it to /cost you money/. Cost to maintain, cost to repair, cost to replace.
What kind of crazy person would slit their own wrists just because the knife is 'open source'?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
The future of music, at least, is in niche marketing and consumer trust. If you make a good product, and charge a fair price for it, those who do buy CDs will buy it. Those who don't wouldn't anyway. At least, that's the experience of one heavy metal band that gave away enough music to get itself signed on a label and its career resurrected.
exponentiation ezine
I say "bring it on"!!! A drm scheme taking roots from open source will be much better documented, giving us all knowledge and tools necessary to overcome it :) After all, when it's ready, ball will be on our court right??
M$ behind everyone despite their intentions? What else is new?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
With the new Windows release in 2006 all PC will come with the Trust hardware standard. It will "proliferate" simply by the routine process of people replacing their old machines... [they] will simply be handed a compliant machine.
That's not what Peter La Casse was talking about. The inclusion of support for "Trusted" Computing in the Windows Vista operating system and on newer PC motherboards won't lead immediately to "hardware that only runs unmodified binaries". The TPM is a passive system, and "compliant machines" will still run modified binaries; such modified binaries just won't be able to engage in "trusted" activities. On PCs that are not subsidized, booting is not a "trusted" activity. Given that a lot of users are willing to run proprietary media players and free "work" software on separate machines, there won't be much effect on the "work" machine that runs free software until a TNC requirement kicks in. You begin to see a practical effect on the user's ability to run modified binaries only when a "work" machine can no longer connect to the Internet through a residential network.
If that gateway refuses to take input from free computers, I'll just have to stop giving my ISP my money.
And go back to dial-up, especially if both the cable company and the telephone company turn on Trusted Network Connect.
DRM has nothing to do with piracy (other than that piracy is used as a justification).
DRM is anti fair-use.
Eradicating fair-use is much more profitable, and much easier, than eradicating piracy.
I'm sure Hollywood has only my best interests at heart when they cram their broken technology down my gullet. Personally, any equipment I pay that much for that refuses to let me do what I want is technology I'll take a pass on.
MPAA may have wet dreams about all the monet their feavored brain says is "lost" due to copyright infringement, but I haven't seen anything lately I'd pay monet to see, let alone the kind of money they want for HD-TV.
Screw 'em.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
by ianturton (655126) on Monday August 22, @10:15AM (#13371337)
:D
Man, that's LEET!
All we need now is the World Licensing Association, and We'll pretty much be living in the Afternow.
(Seriously, though, Tales from the Afternow is a pretty good series. Plus, it's free [in both senses: no DRM and you don't have to pay for it] and licensed under the Creative Commons system.)
Patrolling ftw
Since these huge conglomerates will NEVER EVER allow a DMCA repeal and will continue to push DRM until the public grudgingly accepts it..
Why not introduce another law.. say.. tacked onto a 3,000 page budget bill, which allows the public to use "technical protection measures" on electronic fund transfers to prevent use of "their" funds in a way which the fundholder disagrees.
In other words.. you control how i use my purchased product, and i control how YOU use the money i purchased it with.
I would most definitely lilmit my cash for use only on tuesdays at taco bell and ONLY for the chicken quesadilla. =)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!