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 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.
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
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?
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
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!
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.
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........
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.
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?
so what rights do i get as an aetheist? my only creators are my Mum and Dad!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------