Slashdot Mirror
A Look at Google DRM
pcause writes "The Register is reporting on Google's recent announcement of their own DRM. From the article: 'Google's DRM will make its first appearance as part of a new video downloading service. Page revealed that customers will be able to buy TV shows from CBS, NBA basketball games and a host of other content with Google serving as the delivery broker for the video. This move mimics other technology companies - most notably Apple - which have struck deals with large media houses to send video over the web for a fee.' "
thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution
Google Roooooooooooootkit?
Does this make my brain look big?
There are absolutely NO details in there! Of course, that won't stop slashdot from decrying it as evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen since the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996.
If Google can do it then it isn't evil right? But seriously, Google is the egg head capital of the valley. If anyone is capable of making a DRM system that isn't crackable it'll be these guys. So how long till we see it cracked? I say no more than a week. Anyone wan running a pool?
How we know is more important than what we know.
"This move mimics other technology companies - most notably Apple - which have struck deals with large media houses to send video over the web for a fee.' ""
Google: Can I sell your content?
Content creator: Yes you can. Here are our terms.
Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!
You have the power!
I wonder what search engine I can use to search for a hack............
Yep, I'll just wait for the hack, and when it's done I'll just search for it on good ole Google...
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Does this make them evil yet?
Oh my God, Google really has become Microsoft. What's next? Google Mice?
---
Naijarita
I know its not new, but why should I have to base my hardware choices on what content I can access? Its starting to look like I'll have to by 3 all in one music/video/picture viewing devices just to be able to have access to all the content I'd like to have with me. Can't the DRMs all just get along? Well I guess they would if all they were for was to ensure artists got paid for their creative talents...
Really, DRM is neccecary nowadays, or so companies think. I believe that this is here just to please stockholders. Why else would they impliment DRM? Google would probably be the corporation that knows the futility of DRM the best, or so I would have thought. Remember how the Sims 2 was with its DRM, it was broken even before The Sims 2 came out, and not to mention that the DRM on Sims 2 prevented many legitimate purchasers from playing. It was irony at its finest when the DRM forced people to pirate the game that they legitimately bought to play the game.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
I guess to have your own DRM, you have to develop your own player.
More FTFA:How will it work with Microsoft's DRM, Apple's DRM and Real's DRM? Will it extend to music? If so, what will the limitations be on how often you can copy songs or how many devices can store the tunes?
Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.
I think it's important to note that no media conglomerate will do business with Google, Apple, etc. unless they are promised a DRM capability. From my friends who work in MS's DRM department, most people are quite opposed to it, but can't open up a revenue stream without the promise of DRM to appease the MPAA. Perhaps with time, they'll come to their senses. But I doubt it: the current system is too heavily tilted in the MPAA's folder.
DRM has always been a joke (of competing definitions). It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign. (The RIAA has a "trespassers will be shot" sign). As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain. TFA acts like Google is taking it's ball and going home. Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content. Neither of these issues is necessarily tied up in the format the DRM decides to come in.
From TFA:
Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works. It's never provided a policy on how it picks Google News stories. Heck, it won't even let Register reporters visit the company's campus, and one of our staff lives right down the street.
I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
If there's one thing that Slashdot has taught me in the past year, it's that Slashdot finds DRM is evil.
If there's one other thing that I know about Slashdot, Slashdot generally bows before Google and their products.
So this is going to be interesting. Will Google be berated for embracing a technology that limits the use of content being paid for? Or will Google be praised as being the only company that would find a good way to implement DRM?
Since we don't know a whole lot at this point, perhaps neither. Depending on exactly how Google distributes the content, and how the DRM differs for the different types (one-view vs. personal copy), this could be a make or break situation. If the DRM is too restrictive, the "good vibe" it gives off towards the technologically inclined will dissapate, creating a cascade of harsh backlash against the company and it's "Do no evil" campaign. It will also show that even a beloved giant such as Google cannot get DRM to be accepted by the general public. This probably wouldn't stop the likes of Sony from continuing their trend of "Do lots of evil", but it would put a kink in the DRM-inclined plans of a good deal of smaller companies. (If there was enough backlash, CBS et al. would probably back out, and Google would drop the video distrobution, as well as its DRM.)
If their DRM is "just right", with regular customers not caring, technically able customers content, and only the most hard-core upset, then we will see a sudden surge and wide-spread use of DRM. Content providing companies will flock to liscense Google's DRM, or at least have their product be distributed through it, and soon everything is locked into one thing or another.
An interesting situation.
I've been burned already buying DRM'd (Digitally RESTRICTED Media) files from itunes and from mlb.com and I'm through with that. I won't do it any more. If media companies insist on tying up content so they can decide what I can and can't do with it, then I will continue to NOT give them my money.
I'm sorry, but I should not have to violate the friggin' DMCA to break the stupid copy protection on DVDs just so I can move the files to my laptop so I can watch them on a plane or in a hotel room. And no law, company, or technology should stand in the way of being able to do that.
Bottom line: There is no acceptable DRM. Period.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
It's a stupid debate about whether Google is evil or not over this. Obviously they would not be able to buy the shows without guaranteeing the TV companies some type of protection. This has plenty of pluses: competition for apple (maybe videos released that have *good* quality), creating a larger market without the need for iTunes, and *maybe* (although I'm not really that hopeful, it will run under linux. Yeah, not that likely.
One thing I would like to see is a DRM converter. I don't like DRM's, and would like to see them go away. Given that isn't about to happen any time soon, at least being able to convert from one DRM to another is a decent substitute. This could easily make Google a preferred company to buy from.
It seems that Google is going to be using DivX and its DRM to get video into lounge rooms and onto portable devices .DivX has a popular codec ,50 Million DivX certified devices and a MPAA approved DRM .The addition of Geencines movies to Google Video is a clear intention of DivX and Google's relationship as Greencine uses DivX for it's streaming and Burn to Rent and Burn to Buy server .
http://www.greencine.com/divxRelease?content=4
According to Divx representatives, the talks are in a very early stage and details still have to be discussed and determined. However, Divx' role in Google appears not be in direct connection with the search engine's announcement of a commercial video download service. Instead, Divx will help Google to move video content across various device types and ultimately onto the TV screen. Of course, content will only be able to be moved, if it carries a digital rights management platform and if devices are "secure. Susan Wojcicki, Google's vice president of product management said that "Google video's goal is to make the world's video content more accessible" to people. "We want to reach a point when consumers can easily access the content that is important to them from Google whenever they want and enjoy that content on a variety of devices."
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/divx_google/
Remember the Broadcast flag, anyone?
The Broadcast Flag is a great example of governmental checks and balances in action. The courts struck it down. What point were you trying to make? That consumers have all the power they need?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:
:v)
http://www.openmediacommons.org/
Vik
I'm currently paying for Yahoo's unlimited streaming audio service. Five bucks a month gets me all I can eat. And at that price it's more than reasonable to me that I'm not buying license to any of what I listen to. Artists get paid a tiny amount every time I listen to a song. Nobody's getting stiffed.
But when I purchase music, as opposed to subscribing to a stream, DRM is a deal breaker. That's why I've never used the iTunes store and never will. I don't have to worry that five years from now I'll have a hard drive crash, or ten years from now I'll lose a password, and all my music purchases will be gone forever. I'm only going to buy music if it's mine for life, and if I can quickly and easily backup my music library whenever I wish.
Video offerings can be another story. Much of what I want to see is stuff I only want to watch once. I'm not interested in paying $30 a month on cable when about the only TV I watch is a weekly NFL game during the autumn. But I'd really like to pay a buck or two to see an NFL game every Sunday. And given that Google's already got the NBA, I bet they'll have the NFL by the start of next season. If I can pay $5 - $10 a month to watch my football, that'll save me tons of money over either getting cable or over going to a bar to watch the game.
As for DRM, in a case like this, why should I care? As long as the price is reasonable, why should I care that I can't share my video, or that I won't be able to watch it months from now? It's not music. Not only would I have no interest in watching a Giants game I already saw last October, you couldn't pay me to watch it again! And if well-designed DRM without a rootkit or something comparably evil gives the NFL and google enough safety to offer a bit of on-demand video at a fair price -- well, I think it's a great deal all around.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
One has to wonder if google will implement DRM as we know it. After all, they have a tradition of doing things in a different way, so getting people to shift to their side. Of course, the *AA are still the same.
One might wonder if they will not simply put a watermark on the files, so they are traceable. Or maybe some other kind of DRM we never saw or heard about.
The real question is: why care ? It will simply be broken. Google should know better and, perhaps, they do. After all, they need it to be able to get *AA to sign.
But I have to wonder on what kind of Linux and MAC support we will have. Google is heavily based on Linux. One would expect they to support it.
morcego
I'm sure Microsoft would love it if Google's DRM only allowed Windows and perhaps Mac users to access their media, just like the DRM's of all Microsoft's other competitors.
If the content providers choose to only distribute their copyrighted works when DRM is in the loop, that's their prerogative. It's our prerogative to ignore it and give our business to those who do not use DRM.
Voluntary DRM is not evil. What is evil is when DRM is legislated into the system, even interfering with those who choose not to have anything to do with it.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
1) The Google DRM will be broken.
2) It will be an inside job.
What OS's will it support? If Google DRM runs on Linux, I will back it. I'm tired of not being able to get crap to work on Linux without some wierd hack.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:
o ogle+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=G
and got See results for Winzip
and see also winipcfg
in the middle of my searches.
I'm using Firefox, but that still made me wonder if there wasn't some sort of malware bringing it up.
That drew me to reflect on Google's other practices. What was Google's line of reasoning that led it to release a non-open source desktop search utility?
Google evil? The winds are beginning to blow in that direction.
Note: I work for google, so I'm posting AC.
If you are one of the few who has never been presented with evidence that Google plans to muzzle its critics, then be glad that the task to educate yourself has just become easy. With this letter, I compile all of the necessary evidence into one easy-to-read document. To get right down to it, almost every day, it outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's decidedly breathtaking to watch it. There are three points I need to make here. First, I have found, to my considerable surprise, that Google uses its victim status as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis, and persuade us that it is entitled to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Second, the cardinal rule of its pranks is that cold-blooded careerism is the only thing that matters. And third, I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of its offensive subliminal psywar campaigns and inconsiderate maneuvers. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that Google keeps insisting that all literature which opposes unilateralism was forged by infernal pikers. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Google maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.
I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why there is an inherent contradiction between Google's maladroit form of propagandism and basic human rights. My peers contend that Google, serving as judge, jury, and executioner, has decreed that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. While this is doubtlessly true, I insist we must add that it never misses an opportunity to indulge its preoccupation with its alleged victimization. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Google likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why if you think that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Google wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that it has written volumes about how the sky is falling. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that I want to see all of us working together to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Google's power-drunk rejoinders, naturally, do not. The poisonous wine of egotism had been distilled long before Google entered the scene. Google is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. The mot juste for describing Google's lamentations is most probably "scummy". To cap that off, this is a proscribed thought vs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes, a police state vs. free society issue. I mean, think about it. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Google's ploys. But I will say one thing: Google needs some serious professional help. That said, let me continue.
Not surprisingly, while we do nothing, those who instill a general ennui are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we disabuse Google of the notion that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb. It has been said that what Google is doing falls just short of giving handguns to schoolchildren. I, in turn, believe that one does not have to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries in order to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence and encourage others to do the same. It is a cantankerous perso
Imagine though that Google takes the idea of AdSense to the next level and integrates targeted commercials into the DRMed downloads. I would despise the idea like nothing else f I had to pay for it but what if downloads that included the commercials were cheaper or entirely free. Make them non fast forwardable and the content providers will jump at the idea and consumers will enjoy the free legal downloads while the content providers get paid and the advertisers get better then TV exposure. Make it better then TV and make sure there are fewer commercials.
With the stock price at about 450, I'm really not surprised by their behavior. Can you imagine how many employees there are at Google that are paper millionaires right now? I'm not exactly sure how the Google stock options work but my understanding is that most stock options cannot be sold immediately - they need to vest over a period of time and then you can sell them later. How many employees are sitting there just *praying* for the stock price to stay high? Management too...
So what do you do to keep the stock price up? Meet expectations, for one. Unfortunately, Google expectations are so high and possibly un-reachable. Everyone expects them to take over the world as if they're magicians, Jesus, or both. They need to keep making money - MORE MONEY with better and BETTER products ALL THE TIME!!! The moment they just perform "exceptionally" or "excellently", the stock price will go down because this is below expectations. So the hype continues.
If they acheive these expectations, then I'll be happy. We'll have some amazing products, and the world may even be a better place for it! But I suspect that their value is based on expectations of a higher future value, as opposed to realistic expectations regarding revenue and future revenue growth. Irrational Exuberance? Perhaps... I think so anyway.
Why can't they just time limit the stuff for say two years with a separate encrypted key for each song and then un-DRM it when when the two years is up by getting the user to access a server controlled by the media company? Is that such a bad idea?
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
Related article:
s _pack/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ce
Relevant portions:
====================
Page did manage to announce some new products.
First off, Google revealed an addition to its video search -- payments. Google secured nice wins by signing up CBS and the NBA to its service, along with a number of other content makers. Customers will be able to pay around $1.99 for CBS shows such as CSI and Survivor and download any NBA game 24-hours after it has been played.
This set-up mimics what Apple has done with iTunes and ABC.
Google, however, does have a unique twist on its video service. Any company can put their content up for sale at any price. (Five cents is the minimum charge for a download.) Google takes a few pennies from the sale, and the content makers take most of the cash.
Google has created its own DRM (digital rights management) system for the service but will support rival systems as well, Page said. Not that the world needed another DRM mechanism.
================
As to my own opinion... I wouldn't mind
1) Paying a small amount for content I really want, in a format I can use and archive however I want. The fact that Google's minimum is "five cents" reflects some understanding of some files' (frex MP3s) realworld value to most people.
2) Files being watermarked to prevent widespread "sharing" (since the initial culprit can be pegged).
However, I'm NOT okay with DRM or locked-in formats (ie. requiring a specific player). I want to time/format/medium/player-shift what I paid for however the hell *I* want, not how someone else dictates. And I don't want to discover that when I upgrade my hardware or switch my OS, I can no longer play the files I paid for, because they're locked to an old setup by their DRM, or that now I have to scrounge up some underworld workaround to regain their usefulness.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The evil part is that you don't have control over what you purchased, they do. Copy protection is one thing, but modern DRM, in general, is taking it a quite a step further.
It's easy to see how the future of DRM will screw you:
Say you buy 100 Blu-Ray movies over the course of a few years. They aren't cheap.
- Then, when you want to watch one, the disc authentication servers are down
- Or your network connection is down
- Or, the company goes out of business or "end of lifes" your movies -now half your collection is unplayable.
- You put in a scratched disc, and the player's broken firmware reports you're a pirate. The server disables your player.
- You've had a flood, fire, and one of your players was stolen. Whoops, that's too many player units for your "consumer discs." All your discs won't play anymore.
- You have no way to protect your investment against disasters - no way to backup the data you paid for. Do no underestimate this! Especially if you have your collection in an area with lots of guests or kids.
- Disney wants to release another "lion king" in Super Remastered Ultra Uncut editions. They disable all their old discs, so you can't show your kid the Lion King when he asks you to unless you go out and buy the new one.
- Sony decides it's costing them too much money to run the DRM authentication servers. They decide to charge all users $15/mo. If you don't you can't play any of your discs.
DVD's DRM is often cited as a DRM that was universally accepted but it doesn't really count because DVD's CSS was so easy to break the discs are pratically unencrypted.
It's worse then "sucks." It's severely punishing the honest consumer at large for the crimes of the few. They spend so much money on developing and enforcing the DRM that it would be cheaper to simple do *nothing.* But you can't make that case, the big corps don't hear it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The public domain argument is less strong than the fair use argument. DRM, plus the laws which prevent you from circumventing it, lets companies restrict you from doing things that you have the legal right to do. That's evil.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
My analog hole is a 21 Panasonic monitor with a Digital Video Camera. Not saying of course that I would violate DRM. Just sayin.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Watch CNET video on Google's Video Store if you want to know more about the product. I don't recall DRM mentioned in details though. Be warned Larry is a really bad communicator.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
and honest people really don't need the overhead complexities of DRM.
It seems to me that pay for view TV is already in place and just like telephones and VOIP and how many LD companies are using it, internet TV programming is probably already in wide use.
The DRM spin only does what? What is the point, really?
As it is now, living in Atlanta with at least 9 over the air local stations, all of which the reception is getting worse over the years....
So I buy used videos real cheap at the local movie traders. And I can then watch them as much as I want.
Music... Internet radio showed me enough free or advertiser supported music choices, besides teh local over the air stations.
Copyrights weren't supposed to last so long, and back then it took longer to make a product. So now that its easier to produce, copyrights are extended????
That is a contridiction.
As the world economy improves for more and more of the world, what are we heading towards? It doesn't sound anything like the vision of star trek earth economy. but more like "total recall" dictatorship.
What will the war and power mongers do, when they burn out the phantom terrorist scam? It's not always going to be so easy to fool the population of the planet, as not many today would see teh people of russia as some evil empire, for many of us have friends their.
What next? Gotta criminals out of somebody, do them wrong enough to provoke them to retailiate and then claim they are criminals of the worse kind.
Do a search on "Trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript if you really want to know what provoked 9/11
Laying criminal charges on the consumer, is the last ditch effort to maintain some evil in teh world.
What is DRM really all about?
Note that these are not breaches of the author's copyright.
Further, keep in mind that under the U.S. constitution, all materials falling under copyright law belong to the public already. Works don't need to be added to the public domain, they're already ours. The copyright is meant to secure the exclusive right to copy a work from the public. The same goes for patents.
This kit, which includes a mouse, was sent out as a christmas gift to some AdSense affiliates:
m aspresents2005600.jpg
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/googlechrist
Why on earth would a company discontinue the employment of a TEMP? I just can't believe TEMPORARY employees wouldn't be PERMANENTLY employed!
What's up with the caps, dude? You seem to be pretty excited about all this. Take a deep breath and put the Mountain Dew down.
I indicated in my post that many of the temps were hired on as regular employees. I was not. I understood that there were no guarantees going into it. But other younger folks did get jobs, and my age was cited as a reason why I did not. In fact, it was the only reason given to me. She specifically said that the quality of my work was good. Also, I had actual experience, having spent two and a half years at Yahoo. All of the kids they did hire were fresh out of college and ten years younger. Sorry bud, but that's evil in my book. Just one man's opinion, nothing to flip out over.
Maybe when the girl said "The rest of the group was pretty young", she was politely saying "The rest of the group are up-to-speed on new tech and brilliant and you're a temp whose skills have languished in your old age."
So it's your position that rather than cite a valid reason for not hiring me, she gave an illegal one? All in the name of being polite? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And besides, this job had nothing to do with tech skills. It was reviewing the ads to make sure they conformed to editorial policy.
Maybe that's my polite way of saying that you're a dumbass.
From video.google.com Help Center:
How can I tell if a video is copy-protected?
You can determine whether a video is copy-protected during the purchase process: if a video is only available for Windows, it's copy-protected.
It's not unheard of you know...
google = do some evil
apple = think evil
microsoft = be evil
sony = root for evil
sco = sue for evil
dell = build evil
intel = evil inside -> evil ahead
anyone else?
In the sense that any material that has been released must allow fair uses? Yes. Certainly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty_of_m erchantability
Fair use isn't a set of rules to follow. It's all the ways of using a copyrighted work that are fair to both the consumer and producer. When people buy their media, they have an expectation to be able to use it as they see fit, so long as it is fair to everyone involved.
Few people have sued for it -- the Sony rootkit scandal was one of the first mercantibility lawsuits I've heard of regarding IP.
After all, I am strangely colored.
The purpose of DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's simply to give the content owners control over the consumer. Eventually we're going to end up in a pay-per-view type system.
Look at DVDs. Pirating DVD's is simple as hell to do. The DRM on them does nothing useful to prevent it.
So what DOES the DRM actually do? For one, it lets studios FORCE you to watch their previes and ads at the beginning of the DVD. So much for the whole random access usefulness of the DVD.
It has nothing to do with piracy. It's about being able to squeeze more money out of the consumer.
Under which legal theory ?
No, and that's part of the problem with current copyrith-law. There are basically two sets of rigths:
Fair use comes in the second category; It is not *forbidden* to use a copyrigthed work in a way that is covered by fair use. But on the other hand, there is nothing that guarantees you that exersizing the rigth will be practical, possible or legal.
An example: You *are* explicitly allowed to cite from a work for purposes of critique. If, however, the work in question is a movie, protected by some sort of DRM, then the DMCA forbids you from breaking the DRM to be able to cite from the movie. It does not matter that the citing in itself is legal. The DMCA contains no language whereby breaking technological barriers becomes legal if the purpose is legal. You'll be punished for breaking the barrier itself, regardless of the fact that your purpose in doing so was perfectly legal.
There are absolutely no single thing you are guaranteed to be allowed doing with a copyrigthed work.
So when people talk of, say "fair use rigth" they mean rigth only in the sense of "not forbidden", not in the sense of: "guaranteed to be possible/legal"
Nonsense. PageRank was published in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page.
DRM is fundamentally flawed. Certainly today's encryption methods make it virtually impossible to crack encrypted data, but that is not the situation with DRM'd content. To actually be able to enjoy the content they have to give you the key. Once that transaction has occurred the DRM is 100% compromised. You then have everything you need to remove the DRM. Doing it practically can be tricky, but because of the need to give away the key, DRM is fundamentally flawed. It's a bit like sending an encrypted document to a friend. You explain to him that it would take longer than the age of the universe to crack the encryption. He phones you up and says "Hey I can't read it." You say "Ok, right yeah, here's the password, but please don't copy and paste the text."
Assuming the existence of unbreakable DRM, what happens is that you, as the former copyright holder, can choose to make a non-restricted copy available at that time, or not. This is what I was getting at with my comment that a lot of works are already lost, even though they are now legally public domain. That, to me, is a tragedy.
IMHO, you have legal permission to engage in Fair Use, but (unless I missed something) you don't have the explicit right to do it. IE you can't force a copyright holder to provide you a DRMless file that you can sample from.
That's more or less correct. To be more precise, fair use is an affirmative defense, which is not a right, and not really "legal permission", depending on how you think about that phrase. Without getting overly legalistic, basically, when accused of copyright infringement, the defendant says, yes, I did that, but my actions are justified, and here's why. For fair use, there's a fairly specific 4 part test defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 that attempts to specify what fair use looks like. The burden is on the defendant to show that their actions qualify as fair use.
And of course you're correct that, absent a contract, there's no way anyone can force anyone to provide data in any particular format - that would be silly.
As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.
I forget what 8 was for.
I disagree. The enrichment of the public domain is the entire reason for the existence of copyright law. "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts..." so that We, the people, have access to that progress at some later point. A temporary monopoly is granted to ensure permanent enrichment of the people. DRM changes that, and means that a permanent monopoly is granted to ensure permanent enrichment of the monopoly holder.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.