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?

Comments

Flawed prospectus

[uprock_x]

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.

I actually like this <flame suit>

[renehollan]

I've often found that present-day DRM techniques are bad because they forbid so much of what would otherwise be fair use, not the least of which is making backup copies of content, or compilations of parts of multiple contents. Furthermore, they are far too tied to particular pieces of hardware -- one is SOL if the "authenticated" player breaks.

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.

Re:Oh good grief...

[shmlco]

"Arbitrary limits like "you can copy this music 3 times" are not "fair use". If I'm not doing anything illegal with it, why should there be a limit at all?"

Because without those artificial limits, too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends.

So now we have a point between "anyone can copy it as many times as they want and give it to as many people as they want" and "no one can copy it at all". Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?

In short, too many abuse the system illegally. And yes, you pay for it, just like you "pay" for the security cameras, sensors, and guards at Best Buy. If no one shoplifted, then those "costs" would not need to be covered by those who did not.

BTW, the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices. Personally, I kind of like the idea of signing/encrypting downloaded digital work with the name and credit card number used to purchase it.

Yes, you can loan it to friends you trust... but they'd better be friends you trust.