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 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.
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.
MOD PARENT UP UP UP.
This is so correct. My favorite media player is my modified Xbox because it works. I have no real need to pirate anything, but having your current library of videos available "on demand" is great, the added bonus of my daughter not being able to scratch her $40 a pop and up disney DVDs. DRM may kill this system, which means I will not be getting new content.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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
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.
It means they aren't secure.
Open Source Encryption is fine, since only the people with the keys can do anything useful to the data stream, an attacker is still in trouble.
With DRM, the attacker and the valid user can be one and the same. That's a lot harder to protect.
DRM may kill this system, which means I will not be getting new content.
I just thought of what the media people would do if they were in another service industry. Lets take for example, running water. Lets pretend that Sony gets into the water business.
If they were in the running water business, they would probably be in other businesses as well. Like Sony does content, hardware, etc. So you could get a Sony sink and faucet with your Sony water.
The difference is that you would have to use your Sony sink, or Sony licensed sink to drink your Sony water. The Sony water would then have to be protected so that a Panasonic sink would not be able to dispense of the Sony water. How would they do that?
DRM. Yes, they would add a poison to the water, at great expense and danger to the public. The water would kill you in seconds of ingestion without the aid of a Sony sink to remove the poison.
Of course, you could license the rights to drink Sony's poisoned water, but all of the fittings would be nonstandard. You would have to get special tools to work on the sink. Oh, and Sony water would never just go through PVC or copper pipe. The Sony water would need an end to end transport system.
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.
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.
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..
Yes, I know about other mp3 players and all the other BS, but the point you completely missed is that they set it up so that a song will play on any number of pods that it "knows" are my pods. As such, a system could also be designed such that a song could play on my stereo, my pod, and in my car, all from different manufacturers, as long as it knows each is MY stereo, MY pod, and MY car.
Or you could do something like this...
Either way, I flatly refuse to believe that no possible solution that addresses the main concerns of both sides can ever be found. People do new and "impossible" things every day.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.