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.
Although I doubt it will happen, the government should hold the companies using DRM software accountable if it causes financial harm to an individual.
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/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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
The problem with that though is exactly what the author is talking about. Just because a machine has the potential to make copies of digital media doesn't mean it will ever be used in that fashion due to the environment it's used in. Most of the PCs I see around here in the office are equipped with either CD or DVD based drives. The only time most of them are used is when the machine needs to be re-imaged. Sure, if somebody had enough local access rights to the machine they could install their favorite ripping software and make copies from work. That doesn't mean that it would ever happen and that we should be the one's responsible to cover the losses of some other compnay just because the potential is there.
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
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
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
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/
"I don't think it's impossible to create DRM that won't undermine your system"
DRM undermines the system _by design_: its sole function is to prevent people from accessing data that the copyright owner refuses to let them access. It's impossible to do that effectively without 'undermining the system' by preventing the user from using it in the way they want to use it: to be effective DRM has to be built into the operating system at the very lowest level.
It also opens up plenty of new opportunities for the 'bad guys'.
Let's suppose that Joe Sixpack is raided for suspected tax evasion. He's got a spreadsheet with all his income information in it, so the police sieze his computer.
Oh, but it's protected by DRM, so the police can't read it! Joe is laughing to himself and thanking Bill Gates and the MPAA.
Now, of course, maybe Gates would give the police a special version of Windows which can read any DRM file... but then that defeats the whole point: if the police can read them without permission, then sooner or later anyone will be able to.
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.
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.
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
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.
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