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.

Comments

weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!

[yagu]

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:

Jacobs expects the fiercest resistance to come from backers of existing, closed-source DRM. "If you happen to be one of those handful of winners -- there are probably two winners at the moment -- you want to make sure there's a lot of FUD out there about how hard it is for the whole world to switch over to anything other than what they've already got. But in reality, everyone else is on the outside, looking with great envy at the potential for success that's been shown by this first generation of digital distribution solutions. And so all these other suppliers on the outside are looking at how they (can) get in."

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.

Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!

[Japher]

I'll probably get modded down for this, but here goes anyway. I see a lot of valid arguments against each new DRM mechanisim that comes out, but nobody seems to be offering an alternative. 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. Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, and I think they generally work against the better interest of the public as well as artists, but they do have the right to protect their investments. So my question for everyone opposing this move by Sun is this: Whats wrong with having an open source, freely distributed DRM system so we can at least be sure nothing nasty is going on behind the scene?

Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!

[nkh]

I see a lot of valid arguments against each new DRM mechanisim that comes out, but nobody seems to be offering an alternative.

The alternative is NO DRM, that's very easy: I buy and I can do whatever I want with it (no, I haven't said "put it on the internet") There is no DRM without problems to the customers: the CD that is not playing in the car, the song you can't put on your mp3 player or the game that won't play in three years on the new Windows (and yes, I still play Monkey Island, that would be impossible with DRM)

Whats wrong with having an open source, freely distributed DRM system

The DRM is wrong. If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying.

Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!

[kimvette]

I believe the alternative is called "Copyright Law" which is in of itself in need of a major overhaul, especially where the DRM mongers see copyright as a one-way street and oh-so-conveniently forget about Fair Use and also about expiration of the copyright down the road, which DRM effectively prevents.

DRM should be outlawed since it allows copyright holders to violate copyright law by preventing a work from ever becoming public domain. Period.

Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

"So from my perspective I think it's only rational to recognize that, unfortunately, we DO need locks on the front door. "

Fine. Go put locks on YOUR front door, and post as many security guards and cameras around as you like. But if you're selling to me, your guards and cameras have no business being around once I pay. Stores have cameras to protect the property in the store; they don't attach a mini-camera to see what you do with products you buy.

Or, would you like Ford to put a camera on your car, to check that you don't install third party parts? Perhaps Sony would like to visit once a month to see that you haven't modded your PS2? AT&T might like to stop by and make sure you're not putting any unapproved devices on your phone line. DirecTV knows you didn't buy satellite service from them, so they'd like to take a peek and make sure you didn't buy a black market receiver off ebay.

There's got to be a limit to this, and that's at the point of sale. It doesn't matter if you trust the buyer. If you find they violated the copyright, go sue them later. That's the remedy the law provides, and it is perfectly adequate.

Which brings up the problem that people seem to buy the claim that copying is currently a significant economic loss. Just about every non-??AA study I've heard suggests it is negligible, or encourages sales. That's not to say there isn't the right to enforce existing laws, but that there's no demonstrated need for additional protections. So this sort of lock is not only improper, it is entirely unnecessary. How much lower would DVD prices be, if casual copying were completely eliminated? How many more movies would be made per year, if only CSS were uncrackable? Which studios have closed shop, because the VCR and the Internet destroyed their revenue stream? If enforcement of existing laws is adequate, and there is no gain from stricter laws, why should anyone favor more rules?

Think of speeding, maybe. It's not that it doesn't happen, or that it doesn't have negative effects when it does happen. It's just that it's silly to put a lot of additional effort into cracking down on it when we would gain little benefit. Why don't we put a speed governor in every car sold? I tend to think it's because there are some circumstances where it's better to let the driver make a judgment than to strictly enforce the law, but as much as I dislike the idea, I have no solid reasons. But arguing for DRM is a lot like saying every car must have a speed governor. ...

Another comment is that "we're probably going to need to do it ourselves" doesn't apply to this any more than to Microsoft or Apple. It sounds like Sun is thinking of a closed-source project where applications would be reviewed by a committee rather than by a single company. This is probably good if you're a company; you never want to have to trust your product to a single competitor. But it's no more open to the average developer than the DVD CCA is. ...

As a separate issue, how would an Open Source DRM system work? If I'm able to decrypt a file once, I'm able to save it in an unencumbered format. It's fundamentally different than encryption; PGP, for example, isn't designed to prevent you from posting every email you get to a web page. Current schemes assume that the recipient of the keys can be trusted to use them for only the intended purpose. This seems to be based on an assumption that a hacker can't see the code or key (because they're using a microcontroller that has a hardware Code Protect feature), that a network protocol can't be emulated (for cases where a key must be retrieved from a server), or that it's too much of a pain to bother (presumably what Windows Media and Fairplay must do). These are all essentially security through obscurity, and I don't see how that can work in an Open Source environment.

Not GPL v3 then...

[TangoCharlie]

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.

Assign rights to individuals rather than gadgets

[Spy der Mann]

Um, isn't this what LAWS are for?

Middlemanhandling

[Doc Ruby]

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.

DRM Dilemma & a solution

[sweetnjguy29]

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.

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) ...copyright holders mislead and confuse consumers when they buy DRM'ed goods.
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!

Re:Wake up Sun!

[jb.hl.com]

Java is a massive success. Right now, a lot of people have it on their PCs, if only for LimeWire. And new mobile phones will, 99% of the time, have a Java runtime environment on them. I know mine does. Might just be used by bored commuters to play sudoku or whatever on the bus, but it's still used, and useful.