Slashdot Mirror
The Choice Between DRM and Security
gormanly writes "Victor Yodaiken has an article up on Groklaw in which he discusses how DRM may decrease security and reliability. He raises several questions that the developers of DRM technologies ought to answer - because not all computers are merely personal entertainment systems for 'content' consumers." From the article: "Sony BMG put DRM software onto CDs that broke the basic system security and made the entire system slower and less reliable. Imagine that your children put such a CD on your computer and opened an avenue for hackers to make copies of your business memos and personal email ... We are entering the era of ubiquitous and safety critical computing, but the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers. This belief is convenient, because creating DRM mechanisms that respect security, safety, and reliability concerns is going to be an expensive and complex engineering task."
Perhaps these new DRM actions overstep the bounds of consumer rights so far that it ensures copyrights will always be in place? What I mean is that the focus and question seems to not be, "What are the artist's musician's rights?" so much as "What rights do we even have as consumers?"
Have I angered the mod gods with my slightly offtopic (and idealistic) Bowie quote?
My work here is dung.
Replace 'DRM' with 'liberty' throughout that paper for an interesting take on things...
Although I doubt it will happen, the government should hold the companies using DRM software accountable if it causes financial harm to an individual.
Here are some issues:
1. One goal of DRM developers is to prevent "digitization".
That first point sums it up. How do you stop something in its raw digital format from being copied?
You can't, David Bowie is correct in his assumption about music flowing freely like electricity or water.
Maybe one possible scenario is that a digital tax will be added to all machines that can play digitized music/games/etc. in order to make up for the lost revenue.
Another idea is to package the music/software/game with something that is above and beyond what you would normally get from just a plain disc. Add something to the packaging that makes people want to buy the product and not just download it. You could add writing, pictures or objects that people could enjoy that can't be easily reproduced with a copy program.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Probably not. You probably just reminded them of the babe.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
In the words of a known company, "most people don't even know what DRM is, so why should they care about it?"
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers!
Since when have software developers accepted any responsibility whatsoever for their own software, let alone the effect it has on peripheral applications or the OS at large? Ever read all the disclaimers in the typical EULA? What makes anyone think that DRM software is going to be any different?
DRM is a nice keyword to be used to describe something in both a negative and positive light.
The media industry is about to die the same way the blacksmithing and wagonsmithing (?) industries died with the advent of the car.
They're desperately trying to hold on and to make themselves work in the new order, but it's just not happening. The cat's out of the bag. The genie's out of the bottle, etc.
Some companies are very openly embracing the new reality and adjusting their business models-- Apple, for example. They use DRM as a watch word to make the others feel safe and secure as Apple slowly digests their dying corpus. But Apple *IS* digesting them.
DRM is the media industry's last rally before the old dinosaurs die and the young, swift mammals take over. It sounds bad, but will never be anything but a minor annoyance.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
It is not going to be a "complicated" engineering task.
It is an "impossible" engineering task.
Repeat after me.
There is no such thing as DRM.
There is no such thing as DRM!
There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one. You can cripple your products, annoy or even imprison your customers, and shut out OS/FS competitors from compatibility, but you cannot "manage" your "digital restrictions." Not in this universe.
It's a jail. Things only need to escape once. Once they escape they're on the internet in open formats and the game is over.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
DRM is what the industry is using to avoid the real issue at hand. The real issue is that movie and music industry have become too greedy and see the consumer as a revenue source and not a customer. They have come to expect a certain amount of money without adapting to a changing marketplace. People expect movies and music to be of high quality and freely transferable to other devices like iPods. The industry won't except that because their business model has worked for decades without problems. With the growing digital media revolution, they have found it difficult to adapt, so out of fear and ignorance they have chosen draconian DRM measures to safeguard their empire instead of pleasing the paying consumer. While it may work in the short term, it is destined to fail in the long wrong because the consumer's dollar has the final say... I hope.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Now, this DRM business seems to be just a sign that not only will music copyrights stand but we are also going to lose some of our rights as to what happens when we attempt to merely listen to a purchased recording.
I disagree... especially with crusaders like the Bearded RMS rallying troops against the encroaching evil DRM-Empire.
If the various virus scanner companies can resist getting into bed with the guys foisting this DRM stuff on us, and make their virus scanning utilities detect this crap _like_any_other_virus_or_malware_, then it wouldn't be much of an issue.
I know, I know - if the DRM wasn't there to begin with it wouldn't be an issue. But like virii and malware, it is probably here to stay. Just give me reliable tools to crush this stuff.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I don't listen to music or watch movies on my own PC's, I don't bother with souncards. I also have never (to my knowledge) been rooted, had a virus or had a PGP protected message compromised. I have no need for TCPA or DRM and such technologies are detrimental to my use of a computer. The only game I have played in the last 2 years is Doom3 on linux - onboard AC97 audio all the way. The machine running Doom3 has binary only drivers and binary only code, I refuse to do any online banking using the gaming box.
"It's a jail. Things only need to escape once. Once they escape they're on the internet in open formats and the game is over."
The game will only be over for technophiles. A day will come where it will take a bit of hacking to get and listen to content that had DRM. It won't be impossible, but difficult. Yes, people will be able to defeat it but most won't know how or care to bother. It used to be a pain to copy an album onto a cassette and wans't worth the trouble to many people. Soon a DRM will come that will be equally painful and most but not all will be stymied.
I'm not saying I approve or disapprove of DRM, but it will not go away. It will slowly become more accepted and move covert.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
He raises several questions that the developers of DRM technologies ought to answer - because not all computers are merely personal entertainment systems for 'content' consumers."
And how likely is it that they'll ever be forced to answer these questions? Considering the deep pockets of both the music and video industries and how much pull they have via their lobbyists, it's likely they'll never be pressed to answer these types of important questions. Without some more high profile issues like those witnessed with the Sony fiasco, the average consumer will probably never be the wiser as to the depths of contempt these companies have for their customers. To them, every single person is a potential thief.
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
PC owners need to take control of their PC to secure the machine. If content owners can control what content buyers do with their data, then perhaps PC owners should exert similar control. Perhaps not every application on a PC should have the right to send any bit of data over a network. Preventing keyboard loggers, file snoopers, IM buddy list readers, etc. is effectively a type of DRM -- "sorry MalWare.exe, but only one copy of that SSN is allowed". As with P2P applications, DRM is just a tool that can be used for "evil" or "good". Perhaps PC owners can use that tool to secure their data and their machines.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
People like to be free, they might not know what DRM is, but they will still want to copy a single track off their cd so they can play it at the skating rink, a wedding, or a graduation (basically anywhere your disc is likely to get lost/broken) The fact that they wont be able to do so will bother these ignorant masses quite a lot. The responsibility of informing these people lies on the tech-saviour (whoever circumvents the DRM, and gives them a copy).
I liken this problem to speeding. Everyone speeds sometimes, and some have no regard whatsoever for speed limits; most of these people have little driving skill, and less vehicle repair/performance experience. Some will even go as far as removing a speed limiter even though they don't fully understand what it is.
DRM will probably be the same way soon. It may take different technical forms, but the basic idea is very simple, and understanding the idea is unimportant to disliking it.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I'm concerned about DRM as much as anyone here, possibly moreso because I work in an laptop-based educational environment and DRM is going to affect students in the classroom and when they're at home.
On the other hand, if Microsoft is serious about security and the other OS platforms grow in popularity, people should eventually end up with just as many access rights as they need to function on their computer and no more. If a DRM like Sony's rootkit were to try to install itself, it would either fail or trigger a warning allowing people to make an informed (yeah, yeah, I know) decision about whether to install the stuff or not.
Any technique used by DRM makers to sneak tracking software into a computer can be used by (more) malicious types to sneak software into a computer. OS makers serious about security would be forced to either patch the problem or offer their own "safe" brand of DRM (as Microsoft seems to be doing). Either way, 3rd party DRM creators probably won't ultimately win this battle.
Buy music from ALLOFMP3.com.
DVDs, leave it to the standalone DVD Player.
Anyting I want copies of, Download.
When I buy DRMed music by downloading it to my own PC, then (some implementations of) DRM will bind the downloaded music to a licencing key on my machine. So if the bought and downloaded music is intended as a birthday gift for someone else, how will he/she be able to play it on his/her PC? Or how will I be able to play it on my laptop, if I downloaded it on my desktop?
While DRM is intended to increase music sales, the implementation of DRM technologies that binds a DRMed tracks to a license key on the downloading PC will prevent this track from playing on other (peoples) machines. So buying DRMed music as a gift for someone else won't be an option if DRM prevents playback on other PC - which isn't very good for music sales.
Rootkits and security holes are just one kinf of pain that comes with DRM. The inability to playback bought tracks on the OS of your choice (say Linux), or a different PC than the one used for the download, is another pain.
I believe you call someone who makes wagons a "cartwright". "Smith" tends to refer to someone who works in metal, e.g. blacksmith, gunsmith, goldsmith, silversmith.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Perhaps these new DRM actions overstep the bounds of consumer rights so far that it ensures copyrights will always be in place? What I mean is that the focus and question seems to not be, "What are the artist's musician's rights?" so much as "What rights do we even have as consumers? /.ers would be happy with that until they are the ones that get smashed up), so why on Earth not get their hands dirty on this one? Who do these guys think they are telling us how to behave? If anyone has such a right, it is the state not the market.
This is the key question. Whilst market muscle seems to be able to dictate certain aspects of our behaviour - whether regarding DRM, what authentication methods are used to access certain services, or whatever - the balance of power invariably lies with the provider dictating and requiring use of the terms that best suit their business and to hell with what the consumer might want. Public policy and public standards propose and enforce sane, safe and workable solutions to all aspects of our lives (imagine no rules of the road - yeah, I guess some
The main problem with DRM is that in current legislation with DMCA and related laws, DRM has the highest priority in computing. Basicly every computer task has to comply with DRM, or it is a "circumvention device". Security, Audition, Reliability... everything has to take second seat behind DRM. And only if something bad happens due to this priorising (like in the case of the Sony Rootkit), this rule gets questioned for that particular event.
The most convincing argument the article brought was, what would happen if the 'analog hole' gets plugged, and every analog recording device has to comply with DRM. Imagine the bad boys robbing a store just taking a portable video player first and start playing a movie in front of the surveillance camera: According to the potential law the camera has to stop recording, otherwise it would record an illicit copy of the movie! But if surveillance cameras are taken out of the law, who hinders the bad boys to buy one and take it to the cinema to record the movie?
DRM is not orthogonal to other computer tasks. It gets in the way of everything. It has to audit every piece of information moved. And it is not able to take in account the importance of the movement or the effects it has if it stops the movement of information. It can't decide from the context if it should shut down the task or let it run. It's all or nothing. If it encounters a trigger, it will shut down the task anyway, may the data stream be generated by the underage son trying to rip a CD or by the brake sensors telling the brake to stop the car immediately.
In the end, it's not about DRM software, system security, greed or anything else. It boils down to this: am I free to do what I want? To listen to the music I want when I want, to watch the TV programs I want to watch, to download the internet content/software I want to have on my machine. To quote the phrase, "freedom isn't free," nor is it profitable.
If "consumers" (and that word should become an epithet) are allowed to have true choice, free access to everything, they will choose the things they want. If the companies providing those things charge a minimal fee for the privilege, they will make money. The conflict arises because "consumers" want something for nothing and producers want more money than is reasonable for their products, beyond the mere expense of producing them.
It's all going to come to a head eventually. Things can either be free or they can be metered, like electricity and water. And don't forget, the power company can cut you off at any time. Of course, if you're smart, you can generate you're own electricity. In the end it's a battle of wits between producers and consumers; I think it's safe to say the consumers hold the ultimate edge, for if they don't consume, producers will not have the resources to produce.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I don't like DRM. Not at all. They'll have to discount it heavily, or have some pretty compelling content (which is nowhere to be seen) before I buy. But it will probably be a dedicated DRM applicance, 'cuz there's no way to secure a PC computer. None when the user has root and access to hardware. Not even strong crypto.
I can't believe this. I never thought I'd see the day. Someone using the fact that Micros~1 writes a terribly insecure operating system to argue that DRM and IP is a bad idea.
I'm not saying that enforcing IP rights on media files via proprietary software is a good idea.
The fact that Windows' terrible security model makes it a trivial task for user-space programs to comprimise the security of a computer, doesn't mean DRM-enforcing techniques are a TERRIBLE IDEA.
What a HORRIBLE, AWFUL scar on the front page of Slashdot. Shame on Slashdot (again)
Let's assume that safeguarding intellectual property is, in fact, impossible. Can we still come up with a system that rewards people for their efforts? I believe we can. Basically, an artist, programmer, or filmaker would give their product to a government agency (much like a national library) and that product would be available free to any citizen for the asking, except for the cost of manuals, etc. The artist would be paid a bountya ccording to how many people take delivery on their product, so he gets compensation. The revenue would come from the tax stream, again like libraries. Now before you start railing against creeping socialism, think this system through. Everyone would have the most productive, up-to-date software, older versions wouldn't need to be supported. Also, basically everybody indulges in one form of entertainment or another, so drawing from the tax base isn't unreasonable.
The only 100% non-crackable digital data is the data that was not created yet (adapting from the software-piracy statement). The more protection schemes appear, the more piracy schemes appear, soon or later. Lets change the way things are sold, lets kill the current "money industry".
The problem with DRM is that it inherently disrupts proper operation of your computer. A general purpose computer cannot both stop you from playing digital data off media, and copying it. DRM is incompatible with reliability.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It is ancient philosphical, not current engineering problem.
Consider the universe (brahma) consists of three fundamental substances (gunas) in dynamic balance: energy (rajas), information (sattva) and entropy (tamas). Can you remove one of them (information in case of DRM) from any system without seriously disturbing the system structure?
It is higly predictable what results can be achieved by limiting sattvic principle from human culture...
There you are, staring at me again.
I installed Nokia's software for backing up the phone numbers in my 6800 phone to my hard drive via USB. The program also allows you to download games and ringtones into your phone. Imagine my disgust when I saw that the program wanted to load every time I started my machine. There was really no way to completely exit it. It also insisted on putting an icon in my system tray that couldn't be removed.
ATTENTION NOKIA: YOUR PROGRAM IS FOR MY FREAKING PHONE YOU SELF-OBSESSED MORONS!!! Why the hell should it take up valuable resources and screen real estate ALL the time? Sheesh.
Insert witty sig here.
David is right, but dinosaurs do not die prettily. There is no obvious path from here to a world where all digital data is freely copyable AND people are compensated for producing it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The babe with the power.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Choice between DRM and security?
I don't know, that one seems pretty easy to me.
It's like someone asking me to choose between Roseanne Barr and Scarlett Johansen.
As a customer (please - if you think of yourself as a giant sucking mouth consumer, this is what happens) you are king. Don't want DRM music? Don't buy it. There are places where you can buy music without DRM (and some of these places give the option of downloading in lossless formats).
When that executive of a recording industry association in Europe (I forget which one) said that 'being able to listen to the music you bought off us on a Mac or Linux is a privilege and not a right' he was entirely wrong. No, his association companies receiving my money is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege I can revoke at any time.
If you don't like DRM, be a customer not a consumer - revoke the offending company's privileges and buy your music elsewhere. Musical ability is extremely common in the human population, and the internet has made it easier than ever for people to distribute their work. What the record companies put out is in the main the cult of the personality.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
So if we talk negatively about DRM, we are abating the terrorists?
Like when we complain the troops don't have enought body armor, that supports the terrorists as well.
Like I said yesterday, the more more freedoms we take away from Americans, the less the terrorists will hate us, cause they hate our freedoms.
While I think that raising the DRM security issue is valid especially in light of the Sony issue, this particular point that I've quoted is likely to blow up on users because inevitably someone will ask "but why are you running music /media / games on critical machines or work machines or critical work machines anyway? Non-issue, just stop playing music on you work network! Easy!" At least, this is what I see happening.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
There is only one type of intellectual property...trade secrets, and it is only property as long as it is a secret.
I'm not a fan of DRM.
/two cents
But to address some of your points:
So if the bought and downloaded music is intended as a birthday gift for someone else, how will he/she be able to play it on his/her PC?
iTunes, and I would guess other music downloading services, offer gift certificates that you can give instead of the actual music itself. Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.
Or how will I be able to play it on my laptop, if I downloaded it on my desktop?
Once again, iTunes, and I would assume other services might do the same, allow you to play a downloaded song on up to 5 different computers, as long as iTunes (or whatever software) is registered to you.
The inability to playback bought tracks on the OS of your choice (say Linux)...is another pain.
Amen to that.
Slackware
Trouble is, that's also going to play Hob with businesses' need for reliable backups. They need to be able to restore a secure system in case of failure, and don't want to have to prove to Intel (or whoever) that they are the One True Rightful Owner to get the master keys.
Conclusion: businesses will have some way (bound up in massive contractual terms with Draconian penalties) to acquire the master keys to their machinery at the time of purchase. The rest of us will have to beg Intel, IBM, Microsoft, etc. for access to the machines we paid for.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I don't think it's impossible to create DRM that won't undermine your system; DRM acheived with encryption can effectively limit the reading of a file to one computer or to that computer and a handful of devices. The DRM would enable the computer to read the file, not prevent it from doing anything. It would "work" (in the sense of preventing unauthorized listening) on any computer, music player or toaster, but only "work" (in the sense of allowing authorized listening) on suppported systems.
The real problem with, say, the Sony/Sunncomm DRM is that it's trying to prevent you from copying files that are written in an open format. Doing this means removing functionality from a system. Therefore the DRM must damage your system, but fortunately can only work on specific systems.
The type of DRM I described in the first paragraph is what the record companies really want. And if there must be a DRM system, I'd really it rather be one that wasn't going to try to harm my computer.
I guess the problem is that as long as the model persists in which albums are sold in physical form in stores and have to play on a variety of "consumer electronic" devices without hassle they will always have to be protected by the harmful type of DRM if they are to be protected. And yet this type of DRM is also doomed to failure (anything released on a CD that can be read in anything resembling a CD player will be on the Internet within a few days of its release, regardless of the DRM attached to it). It appears that DRM that degrades a CD's quality has been rejected, and we seem to be in the process of loudly rejecting DRM that tries to modify users' computers. I don't know if there are any more steps beyond creating a new encrypted music format and protecting the secret better than they did with DVDs.
For example, Apple iTunes already lets you send a song as a gift. Any future DRM-system is sure to have implemented gift cards. And in the case of something like (the new) Napster, well, there's no "giving out" songs as a gift. For any more complex matters (grandma doesn't know how to download), the companies will probably not care.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Or your business stuff.
most important info really isnt important or worth ANYTHING to anyone else.
It's simply MY security vs. THEIR security.
And if it's a matter of using my own assets to enforce one or the other, I'll choose me, thank you very much.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Economic pressure is the ONLY thing the music business will understand. Trying to solve the problem with legislation will be a very long process and you'll be fighting people with much more money and influence.
Perhaps the next generation of Disc technology whether it be blu ray or HD DVD will be the new battleground for DRM. The threat is that there are many people out there with more money than sense. They will buy it up because they are to lazy to care about the implications of rewarding companies that force DRM down your throat. Its the obligation of those in the know. Namely /. readers to inform others so that they can make a better decision.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
If it has to be supported by draconian legislation and lawsuits, better have law enforcement move covert too (think secret trials, gagging defendants). The technology that circumvents the limitations of printed books and analog audio is already here; it will not go away unless it becomes either obsolete or illegal. To be completely covert, thereby making existing technology obsolete, DRM systems must avoid standing in the way of people doing what they have always done, whether legal or not. Then what purpose will such a system serve?
If your qouting what I think you're quoting it's much worse.
Most people don't even know what a ROOTKIT is, so why should they care about it?"
-- Thomas Hesse, president of Sony BMG's global digital business division
I don't think we will ever be free of DRM but then nor do I think DRM will ever be what the music industry wants. I suspect what we will end up with is the sort of DRM that we currently find on DVD which is good enough to stop casual copying. It might be possible to go one step further as is being tried with next gen DVD but much further than that and you are going to start to annoy a large portion of Jonny Sixpack users.
IIRC HD-DVD has the ability to kill keys. I wonder how long it will be before human error accidently adds a good key to the kill list and screws up a huge number of players.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Gee, last time I looked, I had to pay for both electricity and water. Is Ziggy saying that we'll have to pay some central authority for music rather than individual distribution companies?
I can't imagine how they'll meter it...
That's an easy one, Roseanne Barr is much funnier
What power?
The only way DRM will increase music sales is by more or less guaranteeing the producer of the music 100% license enforcement on all computers that will play the music. This makes for a better environment to sell music in, but a worse one to buy it in. So I predict that if the DRM is very hard to crack, people will do a few things:
1. Download illegal copies that have been cracked. We're already starting to see this.
2. Buy fewer CDs if they don't work "correctly," i.e. you can't transfer them to an iPod or rip them to a hard drive or they damage your computer like the Sony discs.
3. Listen to music that has fewer restrictions on it, like online radio.
Either way, the studios shoot themselves in the foot. The fact of the matter is that fewer people will illegally procure music if the legal stuff is reasonably priced than if the penalties and restrictions keep going up. It's called the black market and it always gets a mention in the economics textbooks, which I suggest the **AAs read. And you can't simply arrest everybody that breaks the law by copying music because if you do, they will simply vote the laws down in one way or the other. The best way to make a buck is to make the customer want to buy your goods, not to threaten them into doing so.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
There was a prompt. It just installed itself anyway.
...violated state laws because it was [installed] even if users rejected a license agreement.
This is all about selling back catalogs in a format change. Record execs thought that moving to the digital age would mean buying Dark Side of the Moon in a 4th format.
The music industry thrived on the big format changes from LP to tape, and from tape to CD. Now, CD can easily become the new format without having to go back and buy it.
Their solution? Make the conversion cost you money. It's just the latest degradation of fair use.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
The power of voodoo
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
According to Microsoft trustworthy computing, DRM and security are the same thing. I call BS.
Sounds like a good deal, but it isn't. I have three computers right now. My old 500 MHz / 64 MB should have been replaced a year ago, when I replace it the iTunes 'machine-count' would hit 4.
And when I replace my 3 years old laptop, then the iTunes machine-count will hit 5.
So when I replace my other desktop PC, say two years from now, the iTunes machine-count will hit 6 - meaning I can't make new copies of songs I downloaded now.
The 5 different computers limit is a limit you will run into pretty soon - hey, someone I know has 7 computers, he'll never be able to play his iTunes songs on all his machines.
You really must love DRM technology - if you work for the record industry.
is it just me, or does the sony thing seem overblown?
yes it was stupid and hide files from the user.
however a malicious user would still need to drop files on the machine first.. and if they can drop files on your machine, they could just as easily install a rootkit like sony's.
i think DRM and Personal Computer Security are distinctly different.
If you were the "owner," you'd have control of the keys stored on the computer. Instead, the hardware is very carefully designed to prefer total loss of those keys over letting you back up and restore them.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
You imply that as you replace your computers the available 'authorizations' are reduced, but you can 'deauthorize' a computer at any time. So old replaced computers aren't counted against you.
This is only a problem if you want to have access on more than 5 computers simultaneously. It could happen, but a lot less likely- I have 6 computers that get regular use, but only 3 that I listen to music with.
Oh- I'm not for DRM, just saying that the iTunes implementation isn't that restrictive (and its easily broken anyway).
yes, but if they see revenue dropping (or even think that they aren't making as much as they should), they'll start crying "PIRATES!!!!11!" and demand new legislation to allowing them to use broomsticks in means other than originally intended and stop t3h eb1l p1r4at35.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I'm pretty sure iTunes has a mechanism to "delicense" a computer that you no longer want regestered to you. However, the delicensing is done from the computer you want delicensed. This means if the computer crashes/breaks unexpectedly you could be out of luck.
Unless you have a pretty impressive lab in your garage, capable of stripping an IC layer by layer and e-beaming the results to detect stored charges, you don't have access to the hardware. Next!
They'll have to discount it heavily, or have some pretty compelling content (which is nowhere to be seen) before I buy.
Hate to break the news, but it's in all of the next generation of CPUs. Either get used to the idea of a "rootkit in hardware" or quit retiring those old boxes to the guest room, because from now on the old kit is the only kit you can trust.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Despite being an apple fanboy myself, sometimes there IS a desire to give a friend specifically selected tracks rather than a gift certificate. A gift certificate has no connection to the giver when executed (heh, that could be read funny).
For the other camp, iTunes computers can be de-authorized. You can use 5 computers at once, provided something unheard of like a hard drive dying doesn't happen.
DRM doesn't work for consumers. The only question is if the not working will be annoying enough for consumers to say that buying isn't worth the hassle.
Music, itself, is going to become like running water or electricity...' - Maybe David Bowie is so cool, that for him the water in the tap and the electricity in the wiring is free, but the rest of us have to pay for it to use it.
You can't handle the truth.
Next came 78's. These were cast in a mold and made of the miracle plastic bakelite. Since the recording machinery was expensive and complex, as was the disk manufacturing process, the door was opened to both rights management and mass production. Improvements in technology lead to the 45 and the 33 &1/3 LP & EP albums.
While the technologies which used mechanical force were dominating the marketplace, a competing technology, based on magnetic recording also existed. Magnetic recording was less expensive, and much harder to mass-produce, but it was capable of making copies fairly easily. The new difficulty was that a small portion of the magnetic image was erased every time it was played.
Finally the digital technology emerged as the primary vehicle for copyrighted audio materials. At first it was not a problem, because individual users were unable to afford the technology to duplicate and/or create recordings which were theoretically perfect copies. But today it's hard to get a computer that can't accomplish this feat. So the audio industry turned to the promise of DRM. Unfortunately, though it will take many more incidents like Sony's debacle, we will reach a level of understanding where we realize that as long as the technology is in the hands of everyone that can duplicate these forms of media, that they will be copied.
The only way that we will see any form of successful rights management will be for the audio industry to develop a technology which is as popular and as acceptable as the LP. It may take the form of a holographic crystal or some other 'futuristic' media. But as long as the ability to manipulate the bits is available to end users, DRM will continue to fail. IMHO it is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the audio industry to believe that there will ever be a digital solution to a digital problem. In the meantime I believe that any damage to computers and infrastructure brought on by companies who cannot accept the fact that DRM will never work should be punished to the full extent of the law.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
The civilization that gave billions of dollarsto the likes of Brittney Spears, Saturday Night Live's lip-synch girl and Barbara Streisand doesn't give a rat's sphincter about personal rights, liberties or freedom.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Basicly every computer task has to comply with DRM, or it is a "circumvention device". - no, not every computer. Only the new computers, new electronic devices, new analog devices. The old ones will die out eventually.
You can't handle the truth.
You have 2 conflicting models here.
For DRM to succeed, there needs to be a decentalized model. Apple fairplay eludes to it, but Apple too wants easy administration, hence a centralized system is the result. Businesses don't want to do things the hard way anyhow...
I have to clap for this one. If record copanies would have tried to do anything close to this. The entire nation would be at some hippy sit in fest to protest against it. You said it all DON'T BUY IT! Give me a break its not like anyone is gonna die if they dont get to hear the new crap band's song over and over and over.... just turn on any radio. I am sure they will play it 4-5 times an hour. I only buy music cd's from bands like NOFX that contained a sticker under the plastic that said "DO NOT PAY MORE THAN $12.00 FOR THIS CD" and a phone number to call if you did. If no one buys the music, yes the RIAA will bitch like little babies but maybe one day give in.
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
I tried to find out details on the DRM on my son's christmas gift of a CD from Virgin Music Group. Does anyone know how bad this is? ( I know, all DRM is bad.)
;)
Thank God, he chose to NOT to agree to installing the software, but was that too late, like Sony?
My state (OK) has already sued Sony, is Virgin next?
This computer appears to be fine, bzzzz ss8 dfkla8 ksfja
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
> So if we talk negatively about DRM, we are abating the terrorists?
I'd love it if we could abate all the terrorists. Or did your finger slip and you meant abetting?
Don't sweat it. Apple's made it easy!
iTunes gift cards
There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one.
I agree with your position but I disagree with your reasoning. The failure of DRM is in that you have to give the consumer both the lock and the key. If you don't give them the key then they can't use it...ever!
Plug the analog hole. Make circumvention illegal. Etc. Etc. All it is is restraining how the user can use the key. There's no way, in this case, to have your cake and eat it too.
This game was lost before it ever started and it's a game that can never be technologically won. Only politics can make it winable, and that only creates a black market and an underground so you never really win.
Once you have a digital copy of something, there's no scarcity on copies; once you have an idea, there's no scarcity on spreading it. DRM is like any IP protection (copyrights, patents, trade marks, service marks): it's an artificial restraint on non-scarce resources.
:wq
Anything you add to a computer runs this risk. DRM is going to be particularly invasive of the OS, so more likely to cause chaos, but the same problem goes for any software...
One of the comments on Groklaw mentioned this.
"A technician who plays CDs on a PC that's running a (critical) safety monitoring system for a nuclear power plant is grossly misusing the system in a manner for which both he and the system designers (who allowed this to be possible) should be fired. Regardless of DRM concerns, that PC should not be running any programs -- such as music players -- that it has not been completely certified to be able to run safely while doing its job."
There are a bunch of valid questions around this though. Can I pay bills on the net and listen to music on the same computer? Can I watch a movie and compose and edit my own music on the same computer? Can I listen to music at work? Do I need to buy separate DRM-enabled hardware to listen to or watch media that my current hardware could handle if it wasn't for the DRM?
Since we pay taxes for things like empty cd's and hard drives, my country has legislation specifically allowing copying for personal use. Currently nothing says content providers can't prevent this from happening to the best of their ability. Still, it's illegal to circumvent their attempt to prevent copying. The letter of the law clearly conflicts with the intent of the law here.
"the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers"
Worse than that, they seem to have this impression that it's okay to modify my computer to work how they think it should. This isn't even just DRM, I'm getting incredibly fed up with programs which automatically install themselves on the desktop/quick launch bar (the Quicktime player, as an easy example, which I almost solely want to launch by double clicking on a file), and/or auto-run at startup (Creative used to be terrible for this - install soundcard drivers, and suddenly it plays an intro movie on the desktop at login, and you have an application launcher stuck to the top of your screen).
</rant>
I have to disagree here. It's not your music, it's (in effect) his. There's no law by which you can demand that he allow you to listen to that music on any arbitrary device; you have to negotiate that privilege with him, and pay the price he demands. If he sells you a disk with the understanding that you are not to play it on a Mac (or to cover it with cheese sauce) and you choose to do so anyway, you're breaking your end of the agreement.
Most publishers don't (or can't) do that. They might say it's not supported on Mac or Linux and leave it up to you to try to figure out how to do it, but they don't make you agree not to play it on a Mac. Or if they do, at least their lawyers make them be up-front about it.
I agree with you that if you don't like their product you shouldn't have to give them any money. I disagree that this is how it is. In the U.S., compulsory license laws (whereby a tax is added onto the cost of blank media and paid to the music publishers to cover the cost of copying you might do) force you to give money to the music publishers even if you don't like their product, or are incapable of using it. (Deaf people pay this compulsory license tax on CD-R media and audio tapes used for data storage only.)
The model we are moving toward (and can't get there fast enough, if you ask me) is for a world where in order to play an MPAA movie or listen to an RIAA CD, you will need a special-purpose hardware device (think: E-book reader or DVD player) which specifically serves the needs of a specific publisher.
Unfortunately, their efforts, if successful, will result in no 'open' or 'general purpose' devices able to read the media (which, many argue for many reasons can never happen), no general purpose communication platforms (kkss the Internet bye-bye) and ultimately the death of media companies in the market place due to competition from other media companies (each with their own proprietary media and devices) and publishers who do not attempt to restrict access using DRM.
The threat here is that their efforts will result in a 'music tax' anyway. Think about this: If you publish (and own the copyrights to) a song, and choose to give it away (for reasons that make sense to you) and I choose to 'buy' (er. download for free) it for reasons that make sense to me, I still have to pay the compulsory music tax, that tax gets paid to the RIAA -affiliated publishers (who I'm trying to boycott), and you don't see a penny of it.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
You are entirely right. We can stop buying DRm'ed music, I know I have. The only problem is that (and this is just a guess) most music is bought by teenagers and they simply don't give a shit! They want their overpriced jeans, shoes and horrible music, come what may. They are by definition imature consumers and the music industry's favourite target. DRM is for them and, unfortunately, will live on.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
considering that he sold bonds based on the value of his music catalog.
55 million dollars worth.
http://www.morevalue.com/themes/bowie.html
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I know it's mainly theoretical, but DRM will still be on the media in 100 years (give or take) when the content that it is protecting becomes public domain.
Oddly enough, there are people who still occasionally listen to 78RPM LPs and people in museums that occasionally listen to the old Ediston wax cylinders. Although it WILL be rare, I guarantee that there will be surviving audio CDs and CD-ROMs from the 1980s & 90s in the year 2100.
If DRM was available in the early 1900s...we might not be able to easily use the content NOW even though it has passed into the public domain.
And the Sony DRM that compromised its victim's computers. Now comes the topic poster who asks really about how DRM writers will develope intruders who will know when the victims have values and when they do not?! And just WHAT will they consider 'valuable'; now THAT is the QUESTION of the HOUR! Perhaps this victim had valuable sales data that a competitor would pay SONY good money for; or maybe she had plans to a bank that she was doing structural design for and agents within SONY knew when the DRM reported back to that office of value 'assessment' that this was salable also but not legally. Perhaps the DRM will find the baby pix that your parents took of you and report you to your friendly local prosecuter straightaway thinking that you took them; now your music can send you away for life courtesy of your own deceased parents who can never defend you any more. Is'nt DRM wonderful now that it can make value judgements. Suppose your children discuss politics on the net and make a blog that criticizes China and the Chinese government uses the WTO and other agreements to extradite you to Tibet to stand trial for 'anti-Chinese activities', or countenancing the same? Now suppose your nice intelligent DRM finds out about a stock split your fellow executives have been discussing in executive session at board meetings and reports this back to SONY and THEY make all the money on it by manipulating the stock before your board has a chance to say boo? Could you prove yourself innocent at your trial or your board's trial of colluding at insider trading knowing that SONY will get off scott free claiming their precious DRM was sacrosanct and above the law like they have for years?
After all, you know that they are the new nobility along with the other 'content companies', and no testimony against them is REALLY accepted in any court of law that is ever upheld on appeal----they are ABOVE THE LAW!!! You know that anybody that can redefine words in all the world's languages to mean something they never did, like 'piracy' for plagiarism and 'infringement' for fair use is ABOVE THE LAW, don't you. You know that any cabal that can flout the elected officials of many countries acting together or separately like this souless monopoly did when they thumbed their noses at the European Parliament while knowing that the members of the European Commission that they had obviousely bought and paid for would back them......IS ABOVE THE LAW. Just like you know that 'intellectual property' is the dirty secret behind all the exportation of your jobs to China. They think that the low level bribes they make in the Chinese factory system will guarantee the free flow of slave goods to America and the free flow of American jobs to China will last forever! After all, the intellectual property laws will always be respected by the Chinese and they would never STEAL this and make their own despite what our own government has said about Chinese spying for years now WOULD'NT THEY?! And the Chinese would NEVER expropriate those 'property rights' and nationalize those slave labor factories after a coup brings a new government to power that suddenly 'discovers' that its people have been exploited by American 'running dogs of yankee imperialism' now would they? Because that would mean WAR now would'nt it?
...until I see a reliable service with quality music that is DRM-free.
I see a lot of people complain about DRM and then talk about what they bought on iTunes. I have to wonder if they understand that they're supporting the use of DRM by spending the money.
Right now, I just buy CDs I know are DRM-free, rip them how I want, then store the CD away in a closet.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
1. People can gather, record, produce, and distribute their music anywhere in the world from a single computer.
2. Everyone inherently seems to feel that music has been overpriced and overmanaged for a long time.
3. People don't mind paying to download.
4. p2p downloaders statistically (RIAA numbers!)are the biggest customers of pay per download.
5. Inevitability of open formats which are cross-platform for distributing all sorts of music and video type files.
With business cycles there tends to be shifts in certain industries. For example sometimes an industry will be in a shift of Centralization (Big Labels for distribution of millions of CD's/Vinyl/Tapes), future market conditions can cause this shift to head in the other direction (Indie Labels, Web Distribution) which is Decentralization. The music industry is decentralizating and with more and more artists forming their own labels the Big Labels become useless empty shells with only their intellectual property left to earn them money. The death of the CD will be the death of the Big Labels for this will remove the last reason for their existence.
DRM isn't about musicians...it's about middle men and distributors. These middle men have no indespensible talent or skill in this particular system but hold alot of capital and control over the current cheapest effective distribution channels. Musicians will eventually own and distribute their own work in an on demand format/platform that people subscribe to and the middle man will control the medium or provide the recording/production services rather than actually owning the performances. This is a little wa off but it's the only way that creative rights and consumers can co-exist. I believe that until we reach a tipping point where the middle men can no longer financially sustain the current cartel system due to excessive consumer backlash that it will continue to be a struggle but once that happens both artists and consumers of art will experience better interaction, profits, and enjoyment.
The root cause of the Sony problem was that damn "autoplay" feature.
For security, the default behavior must be TO NOT EXECUTE FOREIGN CODE.
The OS (or at least the shell) must be designed from the bottom-up to ensure that all user actions (playing a CD, reading e-mail, viewing a web-page, watching a video clip, listening to music) NEVER executes code from an outside source.
Scripts are an exception. But the scripting environment must be designed with the full understanding that the scripts WILL be written by a hostile attacker.
Microsoft still relentlessly violates these basic principles. They will never get a handle on their security problems until they acknowledge this problem, and enforce zero-tolerance policies about the execution of foreign code.
I agree, but also go further to say that we can revoke their privilage of getting our patronage and we're still entitiled to the art, because the purpose of "IP" is not to compensate publishers anyway. The purpose of "IP" is "to Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," and if the publishing industry fails to uphold their part of the bargain -- by building technology such as DRM that restricts the progress of the arts, for example -- then the deal is off and we are no longer obligated to respect their claim to "ownership!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And if you're out of luck, you call Apple. They deregister ALL of your computers and then you re-enable those that you need. It's really a pretty painless process.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Look, the thing that made computers so prevalent was their general purpose nature. The ability to transform any content (from the printed page to music/audio to video) into a stream of digital bits and then copy it losslessly anywhere is what has made the computer such a desirable tool, both for the distributors and the consumers.
Any DRM system is inherently designed to destroy that very nature. Rather than being able to copy the data losslessly to anywhere, DRM is designed to limit such copying, thus disrupting the computer's general purpose nature and destroying the very thing that made it so desirable in the first place.
By insisting on DRM to increase an already considerable revenue stream, content distibutors are quite literally destroying the very thing that can provide them revenue in the first place.
A man and his wife had the good fortune to possess a goose which laid a golden egg every day. Lucky though they were, they soon began to think they were not getting rich fast enough, and, imagining the bird must be made of gold inside, they decided to kill it in order to secure the whole store of precious metal at once. But when they cut it open they found it was just like any other goose. Thus, they neither got rich all at once, as they had hoped, nor enjoyed any longer the daily addition to their wealth.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
IMHO, this article, while well written doesn't really paint an accurate picture of the way DRM will likely be implemented on the PC, and how that will affect security. But before I go any further, let me state for the record, I am apposed to the concept of DRM in every way, and everytime I think about how bad the issue can get, I feel sick in my stomach.
/. over the last few years, and I feel I have a fair idea of what the industry envisages happening. Let's look at Microsoft's software activation technology, which is there primarily to prevent piracy of their intellectual property, I believe it's consequences are similar to what we can expect from DRM, a pain in the ass, but the majority of people accept it, and more importantly, it works pretty well, without creating security problems.
About the only good line in the article is "DRM technology is sometimes described as security technology when it is really licensing technology -- something very different.". This is of course marketing at work, people rename things to make them less ugly sounding, just like Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage Validation Tool" could far more easily have been called something along the lines of "Windows Anti-Piracy Validator", however the latter just has such bad implications, even though that is exactly what it is. So the author demonstrates in the second sentence of the article exactly what it is he is trying to say, but then proceeds to use IMO very bad examples of what he means.
I have been diligently reading all DRM mentioned articles on
What I personally hate about software activation is that Microsoft made a far more secure way of protecting their software from casual piracy, but did not take the time to make it easier for their customers to keep track of their paid for software. Our company often has the task of fixing computers, which occasionally involves reloading Windows and or Office, and if the client doesn't know where their Office Product key happens to be (Windows key is normally stuck on the box), we end up "legally" having to tell the client we are unable to reload Microsoft Office onto their machine until such time as we have a valid CD-KEY. What I would like from Microsoft Activation is something similar to the way the WoW (the US release is the same or similar I would think) authorisation key system works. When one buys a copy of the game, they get an authorisation key with it, they then logon to their respective regional website, and create a new account, during the account creation they are required to input their authorisation key, once the account creation is complete they will NEVER require the authorisation key ever again. If their house burnt down, they could copy their friends WoW CD, use it to install the game on their new PC, and carry on playing. Obviously, Microsoft Activation has to work a little differently, seeing as we don't have to pay a monthly subscription to use it (yet). But it should work the same, the customer should to create an "account" with Microsoft, once done they can authorise copies of Office or Windows or whatever onto it, if the computer needs to be reloaded, they will always have access to their paid for software.
Right, now onto DRM, to get back to the attached article's point about security, I believe that when and if Microsoft's codename "Palladium" technology is released, if done right, will not negatively impact the integrity of the host computer's security, all that Palladium will do is prevent other programs of that computer from accessing the memory of that program, which is why DRM advocates like the idea of Palladium, it should be practically impossible for hackers to reverse engineer software which utilizes Palladium, as they have no way of seeing the memory of that active program. Assuming Palladium works as intended, everything is protected with the help of encryption, so it is still *possible* for the hacker to work out the private key, but unlikely, and the only other wa
~ roscivs
iTunes has allowed gifting of specific tracks since 6.0 or so.
This
At work we can't play CDs on any work computer, regardless of O/S or access level (Internet, work network, etc.). We are stuck playing them on standalone players. I guess that is what the DRM folks are forcing us into. We used to have audio CDs that were just that, RedBook audio CDs and contained only audio. Now, you can't rely on that so the solution was to ban playing of ANY media on work computers.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that prevents me from making fair use of copyrighted material that I have compensated the publisher for (and presumably thereby compensating the author/artist/etc.) should be made illegal. Now, I'd prefer to see the penalties be extreme, but there is no way that will ever happen, but lawmakers really need to get with the program here, and make certain that fair use rights are not restricted by anything at all.
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
Who do?
So the rootkit couldn't be used in conjunction with the big WMF exploit, which I'm sure hasn't been patched on all machines yet?
FC Closer
What a joke, there is nothing "Safety Critical" about a personal computer in someone's home. No one's life is going to be lost, one's safety is going to be put into question by having some trojan DRM scheme foistered upon them.
This is a technology based site, lets at least stick with the correct terminology. Security, not safety is the buzzword here. Why do so many people in the world, who don't know a lot about how their computer works, be able to be so easily fooled into such things being installed on their systems?
Is it a failing of the user?
Hardly, they are ignorant of such things and such things are not a pre-requesit of using a computer
Is it a fault of the Operating System?
More than likely, it is hard to engineer a system that is impervious to such an assult. A far more secure system would be one that prevented users from installing such things - but how to seperate that from software they are wanting to conciously install?
From that point of view operating systems are showing a massive lack of maturity - gone are the days when a quick power cycle cures problems - I am sure a lot of users are still stuck in that mindset.
How easily is the rollback feature in XP circumvented? Probably very easily, given the general lack of security elsewhere in the OS.
You do.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Well, herein lies the rub.
DRM is not designed to increase music sales. And it never was. It is designed to let the copyright holder control how and where you access the content. Increasing or maintaining sales levels is secondary in their mind. It's all about control. They had it, and they're not giving it up without a fight.
The big media producers are scared right now. They are scared out of their wits, because things are changing, and the old comfortable system is getting obsolete. So they design half-assed measures to maintain their control of the content, which only servers to infuriate legitimate customers because they are being treated as criminals.
I can only laugh when I am forced to watch an anti-copying commercial at the start of my DVD disk (which I payed for), and think that the people that just fetch a torrent of the movie are not subjugated to this.
So its all about control. They have no idea how to increase the sales, or if they do, they are so afraid of taking the plunge into a new media paradigm that any effort made by them is destined to fail. So they crack their buggywhips, and shout "legislate!"
It prevented the virus checkers from spotting malware on PC's with the SONY DRM on it. Think about the combination of the WMF exploit and the SONY Rootkit. You go to a site it downloads malware onto your system. You think you are secure because you have virus scanners and you scan daily, but the SONY rootkit prevents your scanners from picking up the worm on your machine. That is a reduction in security.
Note: Sites can be hacked and trojan downloads installed unbeknownst to the websites. So you could potentially be going to gospel/business website and end up with undetectable malware on your machine. My sister went to a site to buy some glass cylinders for her lab and ended up with a virus.
How do I deauthorize all of my computers?
If you have authorized five computers, a button labeled "Deauthorize All" will appear in your Account Information screen. This button will deauthorize all computers associated with your account. You can then reauthorize up to 5 computers. Note: You can only use this feature once a year.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
The arguments on Groklaw can be made for the entire software industry as a whole, not just DRM creators. To lynch DRM vendors and not all other software vendors on those arguments is pure FUD.
Last I heard Symantec was supposed to protect my PC, and look now they have a rootkit too, one which was designed to circumvent control over your own PC for what is perceived as your benefit. Sound familiar?
Do what?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The DRM systems under development aren't usable by business because they depend on the master keys being held by an external trusted party (Microsoft, chip manufacturer, etc.) against users doing the exact things that businesses need to be able to do: replicate secured material to a different machine in case of failure.
If a business can replicate a crashed system, an end-user can replicate (and decrypt) "protected" files. The process is identical. Law enforcement demands for access to secured content also fly directly in the face of business requirements for security.
In a contest between the (mostly clueless) small business on one side and:
- The Secret Police^W^WDepartment of Homeland Security,
- Microsoft
- IBM
- Intel
- AMD
- Content Cartel
- etc.
I know which way I'm going to bet.Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Are you saying the high end of the IQ scale are not consumers? So most intelligent people are entirely self-sufficient survivalists who never buy anything? That's an odd world view.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
When that executive of a recording industry association in Europe (I forget which one) said that 'being able to listen to the music you bought off us on a Mac or Linux is a privilege and not a right' he was entirely wrong. No, his association companies receiving my money is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege I can revoke at any time.
:)
That would be Tommi Kyyrä of IFPI Finland (www.ifpi.fi). Send him a message
The whole article is just flamebait. Any software you install can introduce risks, and there are already a host of things that pose similar threats. It's silly/stupid to think that DRM is unique in this way. Users should not be misled into believing that other applications (like word processors, web broswers, anti-virus programs, games, etc.) are inherently safe and don't have the same set of issues outlined by the article's author.
Remind them of the babe.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
An important correction: you can currently download the music and make an audio CD to give. You don't know that will be true in the future, and if the RIAA gets their way, it probably won't be.
More or less. It's cryptographically impossible to close the last analog hole, since Bob and Eve are the same person (to Alice's irritation). However, making the digital part secure isn't that hard... if you accept a lot of incompatibility with non-DRM systems, and limits on what the consumer can do.
Lessee... postulate new proprietary media format -- the RIAA FuDisk -- and corresponding FuD player. Some aspect of the FuD technology must be clearly patentable to facilitate restricting manufacture-- perhaps some underlying encryption algorithm. FuD output is digital, but encrypted. Playback may only be by RIAA-approved FuD digitial decrypting speakers, which use a public/private key handshake with the player to ensure that the encrypted FuuP signal can only be played on the particular speaker. Circuitry of the decryption chips in FuD-approved speakers or player will self-destruct on physical tampering with any chip in the unit, such as from someone trying to replace the chip containing the speaker PKI key pair, or rewire the output from the analog speaker to an analog input.
Of course, there's still an analog hole of microphone-next-to-speakers, consumers won't be able to record on FuD, computers wouldn't be able to play the FuD music without a special sound card, FuD speakers would be unnaturally prone to failure from false positive tampering indicators, and no-one in their right mind would buy a FuD system. But those are relatively minor defects.
Someone put this idea in the "disclosed prior art" file, please....
It's a jail. Things only need to escape once. Once they escape they're on the internet in open formats and the game is over.
True; however, if the technology to arrange that escape is difficult enough so that very few people both can afford access and possess the skill to use it, Pirate hunting becomes practical.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
That is, if the hardware doesn't fail before you have a chance to deauthorize. I used to use iTunes, I had it on my work computer, and on my home computer, so I authorized both. Then, one Windows-Update totally screwed my win install, it would hardly boot. Fortunately, I keep backups. Reformat, reinstall Windows, reinstall all my software, reinstall iTunes. iTunes won't play my purchased music, I need to authorize it again. I do so and it counts as a 3rd machine, even though it is the exact same hardware, just a fresh install.
A couple of weeks later, the hard-drive on my work computer totally crashes (loud noise and all). Obviously, the system won't boot in a stable enough fashion that I can start iTunes and deauthorize it. Buy a new hard drive, reinstall everything, reinstall iTunes, re-authorize iTunes. Machine count is up to 4. So now, I'm only allowed one more hard drive failure or failed Windows Update or what-have-you before I permanently lose access to all that legally purchased music.
Since then, I basically said "well screw that", I burned all that bought on CD's and re-ripped them to unDRM'ed MP3's, and went Linux. I'm not going back to iTunes.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
This is sort of the situation we have now with copy-protected recordings: the copy protection works well enough for companies like Sony to feel comforatable making releases (though they are going to have to find some new method after the rootkit fiasco, obviously)-- they have settled for reducing the number of seeds or sources to unauthorized distribution channels. This may be where the balance is finally struck: DRM just restrictive enough to stop the casual user from distributing or seeding. Coupled with lower prices to the public **AA may have steady and tolerable sales, even if unsatisfactory in terms of their historical business practices.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Thanks (to you and others)! I was unaware of that ability. I was just (stupidly) repeating what I heard from a somewhat trusted source. I don't use iTunes much myself, so I never worried about enough to check.
Machine count is up to 4. So now, I'm only allowed one more hard drive failure or failed Windows Update or what-have-you before I permanently lose access to all that legally purchased music.
The other replies to the parent already covered this, but once you 5 you can de-auth all the computers and start over...
Since then, I basically said "well screw that", I burned all that bought on CD's and re-ripped them to unDRM'ed MP3's, and went Linux. I'm not going back to iTunes.
There are better ways to remove the DRM from itunes tracks than burning/ripping.
You guys actually did it. I'm both scared and proud.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I have to disagree here. It's not your music, it's (in effect) his.
I bought it, it's mine. The only thing that limits what I can do with my music are copyright laws (incl. the DMCA) Your sentiment is a result of propoganda and not law.
There's no law by which you can demand that he allow you to listen to that music on any arbitrary device;
There is no law that forbids it either. On top of this, fair use is an affirmative defense in the case of a copyright infringement case. No court in the land would fine you for ripping a cd you own to your mp3 player.
you have to negotiate that privilege with him
No you don't. You don't actually understand copyright law do you?
, and pay the price he demands.
given..
If he sells you a disk with the understanding that you are not to play it on a Mac (or to cover it with cheese sauce) and you choose to do so anyway, you're breaking your end of the agreement.
This might be an argument the day you are required to sign such an agreement before purchasing the disc. Of course, the DMCA does back any technological restrictions put in place by the manufacturer.
In the U.S., compulsory license laws (whereby a tax is added onto the cost of blank media and paid to the music publishers to cover the cost of copying you might do) force you to give money to the music publishers even if you don't like their product, or are incapable of using it. (Deaf people pay this compulsory license tax on CD-R media and audio tapes used for data storage only.)
This is not really the case in the US. I think "audio" cd-r's may have such a tax but that is it. Maybe you are thinking of Canada.
Let's say that nobody with an IQ > 500 buys a Brittney Spears CD. In this case yes, those people within the high end of the IQ scale are not consumers of Brittney Spears CDs. I'll go out on a limb and predict that if a study were ever completed one would find that a group of people who never buy CDs but only attend the symphony or opera in person are generally more intelligent than people who stand in line for Lip Synch Simpson CDs.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
It is up to us the consumers to win this battle. We MUST refuse to buy or support DRM in entirely. Period. Boycott any and all DRM media and be completely infelxible in this.
s/Artists/Sales critters/ and your viewpoint should change.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
"Those who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security". --Benjamin Franklin
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
You really do not understand popular music at all. In fact it has almost nothing to do with music at all. The so called artists are irrelevent except as names and faces. The popular music industry is all about fashion, which in turn is about social acceptance and social power, and the crises of identity faced by older children / younger adults.
Joking aside, though, the rootkit was a HUGE security risk, and took Digital Restriction Enforcement (I've started calling it DRE, as that's what it really is) to a new - though still completely ineffective - level.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.
;).
I don't know about you, but most people would consider a BURNED CD somewhat of a cheap gift, regardless of if you paid for the tracks or not
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
OTOH, a dedicated applicance _is_ possible.
Doubt all you like, but that's what they've all announced that they'll be doing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
While I agree that (to take an example) the guys running Sony's DRM program are sleazebags for doing what they do, people also need to take more responsibility for their own computer systems; this means learning how to use root or Administrator accounts properly. Even on Windows it's possible to let your children use the computer without letting them have the ability to install random crapware on it. People like the convenience of doing everything as root, but it's just dumb.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
It's silly/stupid to think that DRM is unique in this way.
Um, no.
DRM is unique in that it has to operate at the OS level, and that its entire reason is to prevent the normal operation of the computer from proceeding to completion. Even anti-virus software... which I consider a bad solution to the wrong problem... can run purely at an application level, by running the potentially infected application in a sandbox, and anti-virus software can always be turned off because it's the user who makes the decision whether to run it or not.
You can run your word processor in a sandbox, you can run your web browser in a sandbox, but you can't DRM software in a sandbox, lest you bypass the DRM by hijacking its outputs! Your word processor and web browser don't contain code to disable other applications that could be triggered accidentally by a bug, but since that's the whole point of DRM software it's far more likely to happen accidentally. And in a multi-user system there's nothing a word processor in my daughter's account can do to damage anything in mine... but if that was true for DRM software you'd just have to run your "sniffer" in another account to hijack the decoded output.
Users should not be misled into thinking that strong DRM is similar in any way to applications. It has to operate at the OS level, and it has to have more rights at that level than the user themself!
The song begins to play automatically just as our fictional victim recognizes that he is experiencing a heart attack and he desperately clicks the Skype window to dial emergency services. But all he sees on the screen is a big notice:
DETECTION OF UNLICENSED USE OF MEDIA: SYSTEM SHUT DOWN.
It is unlikely our Congressmen would give a twit about the logic of this example. The remedy is clear: the survivors sue the spammer for damages.
Similar to courts upholding that city police can confiscate and auction off the car of a guy cruising for prostitutes EVEN THOUGH IT WAS HIS WIFE'S CAR.
The law's the law and civil lawsuits are today's answer for cleaning up whatever collateral damage they cause.
Who me?
Couldn't be!
Le français vous intéresse?
It's truly mind boggling when you think about how much money they've pissed away by failing to simply throw up a web site and sell mp3's. Do they not realize that they're competing with a black market?
I haven't used a p2p app in ages... but when I did, I would have gladly paid a dollar a track if it was easy to find, consistent quality, and devoid of the viruses and spoof files so common on the p2p networks. I'm not about to pay a dollar for a crippled track that doesn't let me play it on all my devices.
The whole logic behind DRM is completely irrational. "If we sell Britney Spears's latest album on the internet in an unencumbered format, then there's a chance that the album will get shared on peer to peer networks!" Um, hello?
The pirates are gonna do their thing whether you're selling tracks with DRM in place or not. The DRM is just managing to piss off honest consumers and make the pirated content look that much more appealing by contrast.
We're just out of the Xmas season; how many people gave or received CDs or DVDs as presents? I did - and almost everyone I know did. And whereas I also received gift vouchers for (real 3D) music stores (sorta low on funds, so I didn't give any :-), I enjoyed giving and receiving the real thing. It requires a bit of a personal touch.
It's not so nice to give someone a present that's broken, which is what I did the year before last when I accidentally gave a friend a DRM'd "CD" that wouldn't play in her car (didn't know they'd come out over here yet - I check all music disks for the CD symbol now).
I suppose the music distribution companies could soften the blow to their Xmas income a tiny bit by allowing a customer to explicitly specify what media to transfer to the recipient's computer.
What a lovely scene: Xmas morning; the children wake up early and run downstairs to the computer to see what presents they got...
I'm reminded that Bowie had one of the first subscription-only websites. Maybe his predicting the death of copyright is merely karma. ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Content owners must learn to compete with free. DRMed content is worse than free. Much worse. If you make your product worse than equivalent products that people can steal for free, then people will steal it.