Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Open Source DRM
DigDuality writes "Wired has an interesting look at Sun's proposed 'Open Source DRM'. From the article: 'Its goal is to promulgate an open-source architecture for digital rights management that would cut across devices, regardless of the manufacturer, and assign rights to individuals rather than gadgets [...] If DReaM works, consumers will be able to access their purchased songs through a number of providers, and using a wide variety of devices." Slashdot took a first look at Sun's DReaM last August.
I'm kind of surprised Sun gets it wrong this time. DRM and its insult/harm to the consuming demographic has almost nothing to do with its technological underpinnings and mostly everything to do with customers' collective perception of the disdain by the industry.
It's already enough of a pain to use unencumbered technology. Thankfully (I guess) I'm part of the tech-savvy crowd, I've done all of (okay most...) my research and homework on HDTV, mp3's and ripping, copy protected CDs not to buy (a tip of the hat to Amazon for flagging copy protected CDs) but it's a constant gauntlet we run.
But have you helped and worked with people who are trying to get their home wired and set up and continued running? It's a nightmare, and I'm not even talking about DRM yet. Even if the first (two) generations of HD DVD roll out unencumbered, they're going to be a royal pain... but with DRM, commercial or open source, forget about it!
From the article:
This is a red herring -- Jacobs merely describes the battle for rolling out DRM. The strongest resistance will come from the user community and I don't even think it's likely to be fierce, it's likely to be passive. Mass consumers will look at the wall of technology, the rules, the configurations, the expense, and will quietly resist the new technology and DRM by simply staying with the already-good-enough media they have.
The article tries to compare this "fix" to the old saw about incompatibilities between browsers. This is NOT the same thing, this is about transparent and without paranoia product use and the "fix" fails the sniff test.
If the industry: RIAA, etc, don't figure this out in time an entire generation of new technology for entertainment runs the risk of dying on the Ethernet vine.
is how they mean to spell it: Dream or D-Ream?
I thought there's already open standard specification for DRM, what makes the genius at Sun think people will adopt there's?
"If DReaM works, consumers will be able to access their purchased songs through a number of providers, and using a wide variety of devices"
Isn't the point of DRM that you have to buy stuff over and over again?
I always find it strange how Sun's business model seems to constantly be evolving towards developing products that either
a) no one wants, or
b) have already been made.
Just because it's open source doesn't make it "right," or even useful. DRM is all about the content provider being able to dictate what your computer is capable, and incapable of doing; if you really do want your computer use restricted by commercial companies (not even necessarily within your own country), then yeah, maybe this might be a good idea.
at least by calling their product d-ream they're not misleading anyone about whant they want to do to you.
If I read the article correctly...
I purchase the -right- to listen to a song.
Once purchased, I can replace it if I lose it.
Once purchased, I can listen to it on any new form of playback that comes along.
---
I doubt it will be supported since it undercuts the dream by the media creators that we pay every single time we play a song- and we rebuy it for each new playback device.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I for one choose to welcome our corporate overlords.
Open Source DRM? Queue the confused dog picture.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Does anyone else find it ironic that they're using a licence designed to let people share ideas and code, to design somthing used to restrict sharing?
Just me.
I don't suppose it'll be licensed under the GPLv3 then?!
I guess DRM is not going to go away anytime soon, so it would be better that
the implementation is open-sourced. However, a high-quality open-sourced
DRM mechanism is less likely to have the "holes" which the Hymn project,
for example, rely on...
Anyway, it's probably doomed anyway... can you see Apple or Microsoft using it?
Erm, no.
return 0; }
Um, isn't this what LAWS are for?
When was the last time some consumer/end-user level standard you pushed was adopted en masse?
Java... NO (not on set top boxes that is)
JXTA... NO
SunRay... NO (only a few universities / corps)
Liberty Alliance... NO
OpenLook... NO
JINI... NO
I'll throw in a few non-consumer things, just to be a dick:
SBus, JavaOS/JavaStation, etc.
Sun's history is littered with failured "standards".
Open source support for DRM - con: DRM can only be successful with widespread software support. By supporting DRM, you make it easier for DRM to be successful.
Open source boycott of DRM - con: DRM can probably gain widespread software support even without open-source software support, so a boycott is likely to only have the effect of alienating open-source software to end-users.
If open-source platforms were significantly more popular, then supporting DRM probably wouldn't be a good idea. But because open-source platforms don't have significant mindshare among the general public, it's more difficult to resist, as the only effect resisting will have is negative.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Is there any way of making a rights management system that prevents vendors from illegally incorporating GPL'd stuff in their proprietary products? Perhaps something like digitally signed libraries that one could then search for in any closed-source executables they build?
I dont think most /.ers can handle that...
Oh and on a more serious note... when is the Digital Responsability Managment, because if the **AA want rights they need to take the resposabilites that come with them.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
In the United Gulags Of America.
Enjoy !!!
Sediitously,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
I see this as one that Microsoft will violently oppose and come up with their own open source drm. Just like they did with OpenDocument. One can only hope. Because last I heard, they were on the "DRM must be private/closed source/proprietary". It will be interesting to see what happens there.
My name is Wootzor von Leetenhaxor
If its 'open source', then it will be trivial for any qualified coder who wants to produce a modified version of the code to remove the restrictions instead of enforcing them. Even if the 'rights holders' are somehow fooled at first, I think they'll catch on eventually.
There is no way for restrictions such as those desired by the 'rights holders' to be enforced absent proprietary binary-only programs doing it for them. And even those usually are defeated, as well. The scheme MS used to call Palladium, where the restrictions extend right to the hardware, is the only way it can ever work even close to their satisfaction. And quite frankly, I hope that never happens, becuase that is the end of any hope of ever overcoming the MS monopoly.
Does anybody have a link to a good technical discussion of this thing? This article really is fluff and doesn't get into any details. I would very much like to know how they intend to bar un-authorized people from playing their files. After all, the program is open source (or is it?) so can be easily modified to allow the audio output to be written to an unprotected file somewhere. Obviously they would need to encrypt their files in some way, but then how do they intent to prevent people from getting at the keys?
:/
Totally confusing.
ource or not, any DRM scheme requires secure hardware and outside control of that hardware by the "Premium Content Provider", "Rights Owner" or whatever you want to call them. Even though the scheme used may be open source, it still doesn't necessarily mean I can disable it on a device that only allows me to listen to "premium content" so I can play the cool, independent stuff. This btw is also why I am violently opposed to TCPA. What use is it to me when I can't take full ownership of it by changing its root key?
Is it still 1st April?
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
How about consumers get to "access" the content we own any which way we please? Not just some restricted way that fits the transient business model of whoever used to own it before they sold it to us. Not just through some extra intermediary who adds no value, just enforces "rights" the seller feels privileged to retain in violation of actual property rights. Just sell us the damn stuff, and keep your greasy fingers out of our pockets while we use it however we want.
If we actually do something that violates a law or agreement with you, then by all means prosecute/sue us. Or stay out of the business if it's too risky for you. Just stop selling me yet another copy of _Dark Side of the Moon_ just because you made my last player obsolete.
--
make install -not war
Maybe it demonstrates how many negative things I have read about DRM, but I couldn't help but read DReaM, as "D-Ream", not "Dream". Did anyone else read it this way?
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
I will still crack the DRM and make my files in MP3 format. I like OGG too, but most devices don't play it.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
No, laws NEVER, I repeat, NEVER assign rights to individuals. Rights should be protected by laws, from encroachments by the respective government or other individuals, but can not be "assigned".
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
The problem is that most people feel that it's not harming anyone when they copy movies back and forth and things like that. I know that it's not taking money out of the hands of the studios and labels, but it does add up to sales that they could get. A lot of pirates are people with the money to actually buy the content that they copy for free.
There is a very real free rider argument to be made here. Most small bands don't get a lot of support from the "fans" that just rip off their music. In college, I had a few guys be shocked by how good they thought Lacuna Coil's album Comalies was. They had the money to buy it, but they insisted that I just burn them CD-to-CD copies instead. They never went to the shows, never bought the merchandise, but hey Lacuna Coil kicks ass and damned if they can't eat off of good will from non-paying fans! Please, no bullshit comparisons to radio. That's like saying that since a movie is shown on HBO, that there is nothing harmful to the movie maker when the fans never buy the DVD, but just make a digital copy off of digital cable TV.
You're not sticking it to the man, but rather sticking it to the very people who are getting fucked over by The Man. Even most bands that make it on Fuse and MTV2 are getting screwed by their labels. I'm still waiting for an alternative system to come into existance going on seven years after people started saying that Napster would give birth to one based on viral marketting and internet sales. Guess what? It hasn't happened. The best that we can hope for is to change the middleman's behavior the way that the antitrust trial forced Microsoft to stop pointing a knife at OEMs' throats.
An open source DRM is something that can be defined in a fairly democratic way. It is a way for buyers to define the terms that they are happy with. If it's never supported, the labels and studios get less money. If it is, then great. Either way, no harm, no foul. Just don't expect the content creators to accept a world in which they are forced to rely on good will and honest behavior. If the terms of Apple's store aren't good enough for you, then promote this DRM by buying content sold through it. Simply taking content you want because it is not sold at prices and DRM terms of your liking is wrong, and dangerous, because the next generation might grow up thinking that that rule applies to jewelry, cars, electronics and other physical property.
I really hate DRM because it limits my freedom. I don't like how complicated it makes copying a simple DVD. But I really like the idea of DRM because it has the potential to protect my work from unauthorized distribution and copying and increasing my cashflow.
...copyright holders mislead and confuse consumers when they buy DRM'ed goods.
The problems I have seen so far with DRM are:
1) Heavyhandedness of DRM schemes
2) Shitty implimentation that causes serious problems on users' computers (eg Sony Rootkit)
3) Inconsistant quality of the DRM scheme itself, which leads to...
4) Easy to crack DRM that is useless.
5) Consumers don't understand that DRM is restricting their rights because,...
6)
7) Small business people can't afford to set up and maintain a good DRM system
8) Large business people don't understand DRM
I think all 8 of these points could be solved with an open-source (or free) software solution. DRM needs to be fair. Not burdonsome.
I have a feeling that Sun's DRM scheme won't use a GPL or any other widely accepted open-source license. Thats the real issue here people!
Patented OpenSource DRM File Sharing On rails !
My Starcraft 2 Blog
Even though the scheme used may be open source, it still doesn't necessarily mean I can disable it on a device that only allows me to listen to "premium content" so I can play the cool, independent stuff.
What makes you think the "cool, independent stuff" is necessarily legal for the artists to distribute? Every musical sound recording has an underlying musical work (whose copies are called "sheet music"), and the recording is a derivative of the musical work. But unfortunately, under the current standards for originality in musical works, it's cost-prohibitive for a songwriter operating in the United States to guarantee that a given work is original. Much of the difficulty comes from the subconscious copying doctrine established in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and upheld on appeal by the Second Circuit. The ramifications are depressing.
Otherwise these guys may have something to say about it.
#5-8 have no relation whatever to either DRM or OSS. Just replace "DRM" with "RFID" to see what I mean.
Information does not follow the law of conservation of matter (since it isn't made of matter). This means that it is logically impossible to control information.
Information cannot be controlled, but the business-model for content providers requires that information be controlled. So what do they do? They reach out at something they CAN control. Namely, you.
DRM is there to control YOU. It is there to decide what actions you will and will not take with your hardware. By controlling you, they prevent you from doing things with information that they don't want you to do.
They dress it up in neutral-sounding language that engages intuitive but logically-contradictory metaphors (information as property, information as being owned and leased, etc.). But what all this amounts to is a leash around your neck, limiting your actions for their benefit.
Making DRM open source, or secure, or non-intrusive in no way changes the fundamental fact that DRM is there to stop me from doing what I want to do (and believe I should be able to do). So it is no less evil.
it would be nice if we could trust everyone not to steal protected content
It would be nice if we could get rid of this silly notion that content could be protected (or that information can be stolen). These are built on mis-matched concepts (information as property). Remember, duplication is not the same thing as theft, since no one is being deprived of use. Similarly, stoping people from using their own hardware as they see fit is not the same thing as "protecting content." Drop the doublspeak, and the solution becomes obvious.
What is the compromise? Simple. Stop using DRM. Let the information be free, let the users be free, and use a *DIFFERENT* business model (one which can turn a profit even without trying to take control of something that cannot be controlled). Such models DO exist, they have be used, and they work. Since they work, there is no justification for something as anti-freedom as DRM.
Wishing I had mod points today.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Copyright is NOT an unalienable right.
A Patent is NOT an unalienable right.
Both ARE rights assigned to individuals by the government.
Open source? and DRM.. Nooooooooooooooooo so.. conflicted....
The Good Life
DRM is evil, but open source is good! What is Sun trying to do, rip a hole in the universe by creating a logical paradox?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Open-source DRM could actually provide users with a powerful way to execise their fair use rights. Imagine a p2p file-sharing network that turns all of the users into one collective library where you can borrow music from one another.
Here's where DRM comes in. Let's say every user on the p2p network has several different legally-obtained files. They could effectively let you borrow these files in a way that mimics a library lending out content. The best part is that between large quantities of people, you probably only need a few licenses to any given file. And if you've lent out you've lent out your license to a file you own, you could borrow a license from someone who's not using theirs, and so on.
I really think if this were implemented well, we could kill the RIAA with their own bastard son.
Well I assume this is not gonna be released under gpl3?
That is exactly what copyright laws do. They assign the right to prevent the free flow of art to the author or anybody else that the author wants to sell that right to.
Most of the problem with DRM's that people have is rooted in the fact that it restricts choice. If you have a DRM'ed song, then you can't use it certain devices, and you can't use it on a whole bunch of computers, and it make piracy harder.
For a legitimate customer, DRM isn't bad as long as they have the choice to play it however they would like. I would argue that part of the reason why Linux user's hate DRM is that it doesn't trust the user, and it is hard to get the content to play on Linux. DRM becomes burdensome when it starts to become inconvient. People really wouldn't care about DRM if it wouldn't interfer with their convience. Sadly, I think that one of the only ways to insure convience is from trusted computing. Or if you could tie a copy of the music to a piece of hardware and then have each song downloaded per that piece of hardware.
However, with all that said, an Open Source DRM is not bad, per se, if it allows consumer choice. If you can port your songs to wherever you want and listen to them without a losing quality would you use it? Also, by it being Open Source it will allow per review and you won't have to worry about the Sony Root Kit crap that went on. If you look at it, the whole filetrading fest that happened in the late 90's created the need for content providers to require DRM. Playing devil's advocate, I seriously doubt that anyone artist that is the target of heavy downloading, is going to be against DRM (with some notiable exceptions).
The way I see it, DRM should be implemented in such a way as to balance consumer choice AND protect the rights of artist. As long as there is piracy there will be need for it. But, any artist that is refusing to take a risk of piracy is an artist that shouldn't be in business (as all businesses have risks).
Do I like DRM? No. But do see the logical need for it.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
come on guys, April Fools day was two days ago........
Jeez, could they have picked a cornier name?
People used to say the same thing about encryption: If it was open, then anyone could break it easily. But we have learned that for encryption to be ubiquitous and reliable, the algorithm must be open.
You're confused.
With encryption, making the algorithm public is the only way we know to make it secure. You make it secure by keeping the key private.
With DRM, you're giving both the algorithm and the key to people. If the DRM algorithm is open-source, you can just remove it from the code -- or add a "Save without DRM..." command, or anything else you want.
"Open-source encryption with private keys" is completely different from "open-source DRM with public keys". If you don't understand why, go reread the Darknet paper.
The DRM wars have taught us several things thus far.
1. Content originators view any exposure to to their content as a potential profit and any exposure not paid for as theft.
2. Content originator associations see #1 as an absolute beyond question on the level of religious dogma. This has risen to the level of holy effrontery.
3. Content originator associations view all possible viewers of content as possible non-paying viewers of content and hence as possible theives of content.
DRM has been essentially linked with the concept that we the people are the enemies of those who bring us our entertainment and we exist to be milked for money and nothing more. As a longtime writer who's given away his works for free, I keep in mind that sometimes being a content originator isn't about making money but about doing something more ephemeral for myself. In the clash of absolutes, an inflexible wall has been erected and we are up against it. DRM open source or otherwise is a dead issue, no sale.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
note that the statement you've emphasized simply says that there are certain rights which are inalienable, not that there exist no further rights which may be assigned. the government will recognize contracts in which one party gives up certain rights, such as the right to sue for certain claims, but not others, such as the right to freedom. there exist inalienable rights, but there may well exist others, as well. copyright is a prime example. and that's even before getting into the (always sticky) rights v. privileges discussion.
it's also perhaps worth noting that you're quoting a document which is not part of our (assuming you're an American; not all readers here are) government's body of law, as it (necessarily) predates said government.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
If something is produced as 'Open Source' in the true sense - i.e. contributions are made from a variety of the most talented people who wish to contribute - YET the content is something people might erm 'object' to - do we run the risk of it being sabotaged?
By this I mean, somebody deliberately seeds the project with a hidden loophole, waits for it to be released and used and then when at critical mass, makes the loop-hole known. Just personally speaking I'd be tempted - and if you can recruit a couple of other like-minded people to assist in reviewing the 99.99% you want them to..
The solution is obvious. The constitution awards patents and gives copyright protection in return for making your ideas and expressions thereof publicly available. When you DRM something, you no longer deserve consideration under current copyright law. If you do not publish your work (i.e. it is not encumbered with DRM), do are not given copyrights to it.
It becomes similar to trade secrets: if it is ever cracked or leaked (the activity of which being illegal), it falls into the public domain.
We've see the evidence. It appears that piracy has near enough a zero effect on sales.
This makes sense when you realise that people have x amount of disposable income to spend on such items as CDs and DVDs; in such a context, file sharing acts a little like radio play. The advertising effect appears to roughly cancel out the displacement effect. More precisely, for older and wealthier people, they are drawn to buy more when they have more information upon which to make their purchases, whereas students buy less. The effects upon different demographics roughly cancel out, to all appearences.
Please let me say here that this does not justify breaking the law, except as a deliberate act of civil disobedience, which means that one then admits the crime for the purposes of being charged. One should instead seek to change the law.
However, the state of evidence reveals that the real issue is not one of lost sales, as the data is in contradiction to the thesis that sales are being lost. Rather, the issue is one of control, and the steady elimination of a particular form of property, so that one then has to rent creative works on a pay-to-play basis, rather than purchasing them.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Your post made my day.
It reminds me of a skit that a local radio station did once, on "What if the airlines ran a hardware store..." but yours is more up to date.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The Constitution and NOT, I repeat, NOT the Declaration of Independence is the supreme law of the U.S. and has been since June 21, 1788. Welcome to the 21st Century, enjoy your stay.
What if we approach the idea from a different perspective? What if we could setup things so that people wouldn't want to share those files in the first place? And, incidentally, so you could play them on any device you own?
Here's how. I buy a song from a iTMS-like store and it's downloaded as normal. During the process, the file was also watermarked and digitally signed with your name, address, and credit card number, which was also appended to the file in plaintext.
Now the buyer has an incentive NOT to share his music with 10,000 "friends". He can, however, play the song on any device that checks to make sure the watermarks and checksums match up.
You can also "share" your song with your mom, girlfriend, or a friend if you wish... but it had better be a good friend.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
So-o-o-o...would you rather have a nice little Microsoft/Intel closed source and proprietary system, performing at the whims of the industry masters who control it, or an open-source solution with predetermined abilities, intents and uses?
I know how I'm voting! Hint - it isn't with the wonderful folks who (tried to) bring you Palladium.
I am not going to pay money for hardware/software that obstinately disobeys me.
Here's how. I buy a song from a iTMS-like store and it's downloaded as normal. During the process, the file was also watermarked and digitally signed with your name, address, and credit card number, which was also appended to the file in plaintext.
Are you serious? I don't know about anyone else, but that kind of customer-hostile activity would make me more likely to obtain an unlicensed copy via murky channels, not less.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
I'm just wondering, but one issue that I've heard raised several times is that DRM prevents material from moving into the public domain and violates copyright law? Couldn't a consumer-driven DRM movement (not necessarily DReaM, but something Open Source) build into it's schema the ability to move material into the public domain once the copyright has expired. In this I mean, that this open source DRM would protect the owner's copyright, only so long as the copyright exists. After which, the DRM removes itself, turns itself off or something? I mean, if DRM is going to be accepted it not only needs to protect the owner of the copyright, but also provide something for the owner of the license. The two models that exist are all-or-nothing models. Apple and Sony have a DRM scheme that's anti-consumer. Unprotected mp3s are totally pro-user. Couldn't a consumer movement combine the issues of both camps into something ultimately fair?
You're taking this way too far. The reality is that the security systems are not targeted at preventing what you can do with YOUR goods but rather preventing what you can do with SOMEONE ELSE'S goods. As soon as I hand over my $200-odd bucks for a XBox, it's not my property. You can't prevent me from leaving with it (they're making sure you don't have other goods of theirs at the door). At which point I can disassemble it, set it on fire, smash it, play it, or pretty much anything else. If I were to do those things within the store with someone elses' property, then they have every right to take me down. I'm not a customer until I purchase something- before that I'm just a guy hovering around their goods.
It's not a question of trust, but rather of ownership. That song on iTunes is yours. When I purchase it, and download it, it's now mine. That CD in the store is FutureShops, but when I pay $18 for it, it's now mine. I should be able to what I want with that good. You can't tell me or restrict what I can do.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
"As soon as I hand over my $200-odd bucks for a XBox, it's not my property."
:)
Of course I meant "it's NOW my property". Sorry
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
This is pretty stupid. It's obvious that all DRM schemes boil down to this:
if (rightsholders criteria are satisfied)
{
play the content
}
else
{
do not play the content
}
If the DRM code is open source, then anyone could reverse the logic. I really don't understand where they're going with this.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
It's also in Blue-Ray players, we'll see if those become common place.
- sigs are for wimps.
there stupider then a box of nails if they think apple will allow the format on there system. theyll simpley change the database structure yet once again, and go to lengths to block it.
good luck. but it wont work. i mean i hope it does. but apples got the strong hand over there junk.
- It just doesn't work - Meaning the DRM fails on a basic technical level because of a hardware or software conflict or hasty implementation.
- DRM fails and things continue as they are.
- It is quickly cracked (software) and modded (hardware) by the community. Given the client/server model that is DRM, it quickly becomes a game of:
- Cat and mouse, where DRM administrators race to patch the holes exploited by the community.
- Things stay the same, consumers continue purchasing content and watch it on DRM devices, while others decrypt, leech, watch, and archive.
- DRM is implemented by closed source vendors and is successful.
- The internet becomes like television again. (Yes, this was your ISP's dream from the very beginning.) DRM will extend from music to video to web pages to online books etc. DRM will by controlled by those who can afford it and will morph into a monopoly. Any content owned and distributed by media distributors (the big boys) will be approved by them. You will either pay them directly or be forced to watch advertisements (maybe both).
- And, since DRM can control your hardware and software, it will be the mainstream of media. Smaller, upstart artists will lose the ground they gained for a little while on the internet and be forced to conform to the whim of big media or left to obscurity. You think that once a wealthy conglomerate gains that much control over the cycle of their product - they will not abuse it? Or let it go easily?
- DRM is implemented by open source vendors and is successful. DRM is available to anyone as an option, for free or for a small license fee to protect their work when they save it or distribute it. (Kind of like getting an SSL cert.)
- While this is most preferable, I do not see it happening, because this levels the playing field for the big boys, who, when it comes to bottom line, do not believe in the product, but in market share and dominance.
ChrisIn America you think of your rights as being like a soul, an intangible and immortal magical appendage. I don't believe in magic, I believe in democracy, society and government. I don't recall my creators (mom 'n pop) endowing me with inalienable rights. I have rights because we as societies decided we want everyone to have them, and our governments arranged it for us such that we do.
So do you.
p.s. if the Constitution is so great, why'd you keep amending it?
Amendment IX
This is my personal favorite ammendment.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The average user will forget their identity. Unless we use driver's licences or SS# - but thats and "invasion of privacy."
Let's mount a campaign for national consumer cards powered by RFID!
Maybe we can use Sun's new computer Grid to crack the DRM on the movies...
/ 22/1924240
Sun Grid Compute Utility http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03
so what rights do i get as an aetheist? my only creators are my Mum and Dad!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Your subversive criminal views have been noted and reported to Homeland Security for possible thoughtcrime processing.
That wasn't even remotely funny. Nice try though...
Okay all you Stallman worshipers, it's time to get off your GNU Gnu. And understand what this could mean. Personally I see an iPod with ext3 and iTunes running on Linux (spare me on the whole emulation topic). I know it won't be Apple to jump over but someone will. Eventually we can see the DRM-centric companies roll over and adopt Linux as viable way of distributing content.
Furthermore, this is the one area where GNU/Linux has been lacking. While yes, I can manage my iPod on my Linux desktop, but it's been a pain or not very pretty (GTKpod is awful looking). I think this could be amazing to see. Unfortunately however, many Linux users (and especially developers) will reject the idea and write it out of the equation. Meaning that someone will have to produce OpenDRM freindly distros. I bet Suse, Redhat, and maybe Ubuntu will think seriously about that.
Having said all of that, yes I hate DRM with a passion, this is why I still buy CDs, and copy them myself, and the same with my DVDs. The biggest problem I have with DRM is in most cases it means taxing the hardware. You need faster processors and more processes running to get something simple done. On my systems playing DVDs is hard enough. (I'm still running a fleet of Pentium III's & a few K6-2's). Yes I know I need to upgrade, but why, so I can play DRMed content? I don't think so. I certainly don't care if it takes 1 minute or 30 seconds to start OOo. And everything I do on this thing runs fine, even most of my games!
The worst thing of all is how somecompanies are being dictators (think of the Skype/Intel debacle). I love how companies tell you what hardware "works" best with their software. My favorite is when I buy a new peice of hardware that has recommended specs far higher than my systems, but works fine on my slow systems (I take it the major slow down is their software that comes with the hardware? I wouldn't know unless I used "their software")
There's just one thing I'm wondering that seems to be missed by every discussion and DRM scheme I've ever come across ...
Copyright has a finite life - it eventually expires
Does the DRM scheme remove or disable itself when the copyright has run out?
The problem with DRM is that it requires everyone to play ball for the whole system to work. The problem is you're trying to prevent someone access to information (copyrighted works) unless they have a secret (the license). Unfortunately, the trusted party (the legit consumer) and the untrusted party (the pirate) are usually the same person! So now the untrusted party has all the information. For DRM to work, the entire digital signal between the file and the last digital output (right before it is turned into analog information) has to all operate on DRM.
Sun finally figured out how to make it easy for everyone to play ball: make the DRM an open standard. So now it's easy to get copyrighted material to play on anything.
As long as you play the DRM game. It'll be illegal to do otherwise. Citizens should have the ability to break the law. As soon as you take away that freedom, then society becomes nothing more than a prison. That's what "fair use" is all about - it's not an enumerated whitelist of things you can do, but the spirit in which the law will make exceptions. I shouldn't have to submit to any body of standards - open or closed - to be able to legally enjoy my purchased property. Unfortunately, it's currently illegal.
The AC text on this post is 'wronged' and I certainly feel that way.
Identity theft is common enough without people having to make sure that their music files are every bit as safe and locked down as their credit card statements.
This is a ridiculous idea, and I'd boycott any company stupid enough to implement it.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
I think the post you are replying to is suggesting a system where rather than restricting what you can do the media simply carries around knowledge of who originally licenced it. There is no technological barrier to illegal redistribution, but if you do it the crime can be traced back to you. This would probably serve to disuade mass redistribution, while allowing a small amount of fair use distribution to people you trust.
The logistics of this are lost on me, though: the only way to do this securely would be to encrypt the data, but once you do that you can't play it unless you have the right key. Once you have the right key, there's nothing to stop you from decrypting it and re-tagging it with someone else's name, or indeed redistributing it in a completely unencumbered format. I can't help but wonder if I'm missing something obvious that's preventing me from completing this picture.
The way copyright applies in those situtations relates to whether others are able to then do the same (or a similar) thing in a different setting. For example, if I listen to you perform a particular piece of music a few times I will remember that music and, assuming I'm an adequate musician, be able to produce at least an approximation of it myself. If I wait until the copyright expires, I can then perform or sell my derivative work without restriction. However, until the copyright expires I am unable to sell sheet music representing your piece, nor perform it myself in any public setting.
This is exactly why it is important to remember that ideas (and therefore creative works) cannot naturally be considered to be property. Once you've shared your idea with me, I have in my memory at least an approximation of your idea which I can then recreate it and potentially represent it as my own or otherwise share it. You can't remove that idea from my brain. Copyright exists to artificially reduce the flow of ideas for a limited time in order to create a market for ideas. Infinite copyright, in the long term, will harm the market for ideas since by their very nature all ideas are derivative works of our memories and life experiences.
In order to be acceptable, Open Source DRM must preserve statutory Fair Dealing rights, the eventual expiration of copyright protection {unchangeable once set, in order to guard against the retroactive application of a new or changed law which would be a violation of the UN declaration on human rights, UK Human Rights Act and US constitution} and also allow for some mechanism to accept special permission. Example: the band, Ocean Colour Scene, granted me verbal permission {in a drunken conversation nonetheless; but the fact of us all being pissed at the time won't make any difference in a court of law} to copy any of their albums for my personal use and my friends and family. There would have to be some method for people in similar situations to inform the DRM system that they have additional rights over and above those already granted to them by the Law of the Land. This must be built-into the software from day one, to guard against the {very real, in the prevailing economic climate} possibility that the company could go out of business and effectively take your statutory rights with them.
It would also be nice to see a legal requirement that any DRM system which fails to preserve a user's full set of statutory rights would be deemed an ineffective technological protection measure {hence, open season!}
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
These get used at present, but usually only for preview copies of movies sent to reviewers ; they aren't used for general purposes because they are a giant pain in the ass to do and fairly easy to remove.
It's unlikely they'll ever catch on though ; for starters, they're probably obliterated by something as simple as transcoding the file, so they won't serve as much of a threat to casual redistributors.
Besides, it would be even worse if you *could* play DRM files on your friends box ; the studios would insist that it have a call-home telltale that let them bill you for it..... "Unauthorised screening to a new audience! Pay your $40 again!"
Open source DRM gives you the cyphertext, the secret key, and the decryption algorithm. Oddly enough this is little different from classical DRM. The level of "security" is about that of a riddle answer printed upside-down at the bottom of a childrens' magazine. Adjust your tinfoil hat to sit snugly, and you will see that comical announcements like this one are simply to distract you from the hardware DRM (uniquely keyed CPUs, public key encrypted individualized binaries) that will surely come soon.
Dude, that sucks. No really, I always thought the RIAA crowd was just covering their bases by attempting to phase out players that can play independent's music (if you want to publish music in the US then only if we let you and on our terms). But since there's a way for them to claim ownership to anything an independent has ever come up... and then making them sign their copyright to the tune away by making them _buy_ into their scheme or facing hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees, you know it figures. Really. It does. Alone over this I am taking another 300 pledges of allegiance they made me do in school back, though I'm not sure whether I still have that many left. Call me unamerican all you want.
Everyone here is whining about the evils of DRM. What if you're a retailer? What options do you have?
I operate an adult DVD store. One thing I'd like to start offering is DVD downloads and streaming. My only choice here is either pay DivX to do everything for me or set up a Windows DRM license server. Of course that means I have to offer the videos in WMP too.
I'm looking forward to an open-source DRM. Perhaps the community can implement the fair-use features you are all whining about.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Sure, it would be great if we didn't have to deal with DRM, and it would be nice if we could trust everyone not to steal protected content, but thats not the way things are.
DRM doesn't prevent unauthorized copying. Give me a css-protected DVD and I'll show you how to bitcopy it, DRM and all intact. It'll play on your DVD player and you can sell it on the street in Chinatown.
DRM controls how law-abiding citizens can use their purchases. That's the entire point, the anti-copying posturing is just a red herring.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In essence, all of those cases and hundreds of others have laws and licenses and restrictions that control your "rights" after the sale. Why? Because of the recognition that the rights of people "other" than your own are involved, need to be protected, and because it's generally recognized that abuses can and do occur.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.