Slashdot Mirror
Real Networks to Linux - DRM or Die
Baronvaile writes "ArsTechnica is running a story about RealNetworks VP Jeff Ayars at LinuxWorld Boston discussing the future of Linux for the consumer, if it does not support DRM." From the article: "Ayers has a few supporters in this issue from the Linux camp, as Novell, Linspire, and Red Hat spokespeople reportedly said they would be happy to add DRM to their distributions, but with some caveats. Novell, for example, is "currently in discussions with vendors who control proprietary formats" with the goal of supporting these formats in SuSE Linux. One can only surmise exactly which formats that would be, but recent rumblings from Redmond make it likely that Microsoft DRM solutions such as PlaysForSure could be among them."
Not if its real DRM which has to be implemented in Hardware theoretically through use of the BIOS. The BIOS is where the DRM will reside.
But of course the "DRM crowd" is generally a security through obsecurity one and will probably not comprehend the fact that DRM has to be secure even when the code is completely open...Well the programmers might, but I doubt if the bean counters or management ever will.
Ask not for the future of Linux without DRM, but for the future of DRM without Linux (or other free OSes, for that matter).
If DRM becomes as oppressive as the big media players seem to want it to be, then it will drive people away from platforms requiring it and towards platforms that circumvent it. Moreover, there are enough such people that attempting to legislate such platforms out of existence is unlikely to meet with success, at least not for very long.
History furnishes few examples of big business successfully forcing the people to accept something not in their interests for extended periods. Once the public get wise to something, it will stop.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm sorry, but when was the last time this joker was relevant? 1996?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Seriously. When was the last time Real has been the least bit relevant?
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Exactly. I think my favourite quote from the article has to be from the FSF guy. I think he's trying to tell Real something...
... although I think we already have plenty of Real alternatives, so Real can go play with their DRM in their own little corner. Bye, Real.
The sooner we bury the foolish notion of putting each and every use of a computer under control of the media industry, the sooner we can start looking for real alternatives.
So, tell me *AA, what benefit does your DRM supposedly have to me, your customer? What would make me decide that your crippleware is actually something I'd want? Go ahead: we're listening.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Ayers said: "Linux would be further relegated to use in servers and business computers, since it would not be providing the multimedia technologies demanded by consumers."
I am a consumer and I am _NOT_ demanding DRM.
DRM is E-fascisme.
Why would they have to make anything available under the GPL? They would if they took existing GPL code and modified it or incorporated it into a new project, but as long as they - for example - build a new media player from the ground up, they don't have to do anything.
The issue gets a bit fuzzier if they'd want to add DRM support to the kernel itself, of course; but binary kernel modules are a contentious issue, anyway, and while most people seem to believe that they're a violation of the kernel's license, they have been tolerated so far. But I don't really see why you'd need kernel support here.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Hilariously, their very greed is still the thing that holds them back. Each company jealously cautious about "licensing" its proprietary format, everyone in "talks", the whole PS3 fiasco...
I'm not even worrying about this any more. Hopefully they will continue to try to compete technologically with FOSS, because so far, it's worked out great.
I agree. But I also realize that we are at a crossroads here. I predict that Linux users are going to find that access to popular content is going to get increasingly harder. Sadly many of us will probably have to buy appliances to access this stuff which will take away from the elegance of home made devices. I'm already in that boat with DirecTV. The only PCI card that can play subscription content for PVR use is VERY expensive. Much more than just buying a ready made box. So I've had to circumvent by using a video capture card and LIRC to change the channels. It works, but it's not as pretty as having a DirecTV card in my mPC. Hence the reason my homemade PVR lives in the basement and the DVI cable comes up through the wall into my LCD monitor.
The big problem with buying ready made devices is that you spend so much money in aggregate when you have multiple services. And of course, those devices rarely do what YOU want them to. This will be no different if some Linux distros decide to support DRM. The software will, obviously, not be open source. And it's likely that the software will not do what you want it to. This is going to be a nasty battle and I don't see how Linux can win. Since most people just go out and buy set top boxes, the won't even understand the DRM argument since it won't even be an issue to them. Joe and Jane average aren't typically interested in watching programming from outside of their region, so they'll never notice that their player can't play data from Europe (if they are USians) or vice-versa.
Which leads to the really big question. WHY are the media companies so intent on controlling things by region? What is the possible reason? There is tons of brilliant programming from outside the US that is not available to Americans simply because of artificial restrictions like region codes or sales blocks. For example, I attempted to order the entire Hitchhiker's Guide radio series including the latest "Tertiary, Quandry and Quintessential" phases boradcast on the BBC in 2004/2005. The order was processed, but then I recieved an e-mail from the BBC store informing me that I wasn't allowed to buy that content due to licensing restrictions. Why? Why would licensing be involved at all? Who profits from this (since all artificial restrictions have financial reasons behind them)? How does this put the consumer first? What it really does is point to the fact that these systems are broken and it's getting worse. But only a small segment of the population will be inconvenienced. "...at least, no one worth speaking of", to throw out an Adams quote.
The only way that Linux will gain access to this kind of media in the future will likely be through means that are considered to be "illegal" or "violate copyright laws" or some other language meant to demonize the people who expect more from their media than these corporations want them to. At that point it will be time to just say goodnight to these companies and find something else to do for entertainment. Sadly there are no viable options right now. Reading a book is nice, but it doesn't satisfy the urge for junk entertainment... And that is how the world becomes less pleasnt.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
There is an old saying....
If you want success: grow
If you want spectacular success: grow and use leverage
My point is that I don't see any reason in the world why we shouldn't be trying to use Linux as leverage against people who are trying to impose DRM. Market forces are clearly pushing Linux in spite of them anyhow. What do people who controll content really have to offer us that we somehow can't manage without? The truth is that the future is not about extracting revenue from content, but instead extracting revenue from content related services.
IMHO, just as the plantation system tried to deal with the industrial revolution by fencing off the south and breaking off from the Union, the media system today is trying to deal with the information age by using DRM to fence off all content. Both are doomed stratigies, and the sooner we kill copyright and tools used to impose them, the sooner we will be doing ourselves and the information age a big favor.
DRM guys have been growing up with regards to actual computer security though. Sure they're still making dumb mistakes, but sometimes they actually get it right. AFAIK the latest version of FairPlay has been out for awhile and nobody has managed to get a Hymn like program working again.
Or if they have, they're keeping quiet in the hopes that Apple will stop pooping in their pot. This is another likely scenario.
The worst part is that Hymn by itself was crummy for pirating since it left a big fat signature on the files that Apple could track back to your Credit Card. It was only really useful for people who wanted to play the music on their Linux machine. IIRC, iTunes won't even play the files that were decrypted that way, you have to use something like aacplay. Such a shame.
As always the biggest victims in these DRM schemes are the people who just want to do something a little unusual (but completely legal) that the media company didn't expect. It's just innovation stifling. The worst part is that for the media companies, innovation is often bad. They're in a precarious position already and one more disruptive technology could put them out to pasture for good.
I read the internet for the articles.
How do you write GPL'ed DRM? At some point, the GPL'ed player will get its hands on pixel data to write it to the screen. Anyone could modify that part of the program to simply save the data.
It seems to me that the only way GPL'ed programs could cooperate with DRM is if they are not the parts that are doing the decryption, and instead some proprietary hardware or software is doing the final stages of playback, dealing with the raw data. This seems to be the idea behind "Trusted Computing".
In spite of the fact that I know I should know better, I find myself continually surprised by these execs just...not...getting it. The companies are hanging onto an obsolete business model. Consumers want our digital rights protected, not the company's.
My hope is that one day they screw up and lock things down so tightly and inconveniently that Joe 'Average' Sixpack sits up and takes notice. The Sony rootkit fiasco was a start. That's who we need to convince, because if we get the mass market aware of and against DRM, the companies will face a tougher challenge in restricting our rights.
So, you don't watch DVDs?
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
The BIOS is where the DRM will reside.
At first.
Ya know that they're talking about closing the audio "analog hole" by moving the D/A conversion, and thus the decryption, out to the speakers themselves?
Not that there aren't so many unchipped speakers out there in the world already that most of them are already gathering dust in closests, and not that you couldn't intercept the signal between the chip and the cone quite easily, but . . .
This is the way they're thinking. Chip everything.
I assume they know that it won't really work, because a dedicated geek will get the content unencrypted somehow anyway, but that it will knock out the casual copier.
Won't I'm not sure they grasp is that in the Internet world most people don't do their own copying and that it only takes one dedicated geek to crack the shit and spread it to the world.
KFG
mplayer doesn't tell me "action not allowed" or that I must go through the menu. I put in the DVD and tell it to play Title 1. That's it.
In Windows, (or on a "real" DVD player), it's watch a few ads, look at the FBI warning, wait for the damn animation to finish, push Play, wait for another damn animation....
Why? You cant easily DRM Linux. Why , well imho its because Linux is community driven not profit driven. While some people make a profit off Linux it is not its end all be all. There is no central company to buy off to put DRM in. Communities design it to be free and open. Any project that decides to become DRM infested will lose community support. Without a community behind it the project is as good as dead. When one distro dies 4 more take its place. It isn't hard to do. Its easy to do with Linux, its called a fork! Using the last available code that wasn't DRM infected. But the biggest fear of the DRM crowd is that Linux is a DRM free alternative. mThey fear more people will find Linux is open, and easier than they thought. I know I did, no trusted computing OS for me! I see this as the biggest fear from people like Real. Will linux have DRM in the future? Maybe. It could be mandated by law, or some other dirty trick. But it all comes down to trust. Do I trust the Linux community or or closed sorce companies not to take away more than is abaslutly necessary? For me , its a no brainer.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
Linux is open software. I want to be able to play DRM content, as well as non-DRM content. Why should my "more open" platform be more closed to some formats? Let proprietary systems, like Windows and RealNetworks' servers, suffer from less content because they support only DRM content. Support all the formats, make content creation cheap and easy without DRM, and let people choose what we want to produce and consume. The open, easy to share stuff will win. Along the way it might even bring low the high & mighty Hollywood brand franchises and the DRM-mongers who love them.
--
make install -not war
In this case, the source code is almost completely useless for building binaries. Even if you don't change the source, something as innocuous as changing the optimization level or version of your compiler will produce a useless binary.
I didn't understand before what the big deal was with the DRM additions in GPLv3. I'm starting to get it now.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
Nah, the rest of us non-Windows lusers will just use the pirated versions of content, since it'll be easier. Fuck the recording companies with a sharp, pointy, broken-glass-studded 12" long motorized 6666 rpm dildo. This will encourage *more* piracy, not less. And artists/bands will still make money by having concerts - if you like a band these days, you'll go to one of their concerts to get the full experience anyway. Free music will just give them more exposure - I downloaded music that I'd never even *heard* before from my college's network in the 90s, and I ended up liking quite a few of those bands, and going to their concerts or buying CDs. I think that the more piracy will also encourage artists to innovate or starve, since they won't be able to make money selling recordings of their music from 25 years ago.
-b.
With a Trusted Computing Platform it's all about who has the master key. If you have the master key, all this Trusted Computing stuff is actually pretty cool - it gives the you a lot of power over malware. If you don't have the master key - well, it really isn't your computer any more.
For embedded electronics, say a DVD player or an iPod, I'd have no problems with not having the master key. If a device does what I want it to at a price I like, I can live without being able to tinker with it. But for a general purpose computer - Hell, no! But then, I'm willing to live without access to DRMed content if need be.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
For me it's about control. A while back I started wondering why it was that that media industry thought it was their right to control what I can and can't do with my computer. I buy the hardware, I buy (license) the software, I'm responsible for fixing stuff when it breaks, and I have to clean it up when their crappy software runs amok. When thay want to pay for my machine, they can tell me what to do with it.
Besides, this is Real we're talking about. Did they suddenly become relevant while I was busy playing with iTunes?
The reason we are in so much trouble now is only partly to do with the media companies. They pushed for DRM systems, and the computer industry (or rather Microsoft, Intel and Compaq) setup the secretive Trusted Computing Initiative. A system designed to introduce DRM into the PC... without distrupting current applications, of course.
Trusted Computing rolled forward slowly for 8 or 9 years... all the while Intel and Microsoft (and now HP) were busy rearchitecting software protocols and designing things like HDCP.
Now we are in a situation where most of the big technology companies have all signed up for this Trusted Computing stuff... and very few people seem to be asking the important questions. You may ask why I said the music industry is only partly responsible? It's because this has now gone way beyond them. Companies like Microsoft and Intel now understand that DRM is about far more than music and video. DRM is, fundamentally, about the hardware encforcing access to data "X" only to code which matches the digital signature "Y". They can enforce absolute control over what code gets to access a piece of data... if you code doesn't obey their arbitrary rules, it doesn't get access. For example: an application that accesses a particular word processing document must be written to ask a Microsoft Rights Management server (perhaps on the internet) what the user can do with this document -- are they allowed to open it at all, how much does it cost, how long can they keep it open, can they print etc etc. Applications which haven't got the correct digital signature doesn't get access by default. You, of course, have no say in any of this. You can't make a decision to trust... it is made for you, because *you* aren't trusted.
This technology allows tech companies to completely control a PC... to specify what it can and cannot do. To be the brokers for access to digital data (be it music, video, emails, word processing documents) -- the hardware is essentially a big brother chip on the motherboard. So you see... DRM is far beyond music and video these days. The tech companies all know how much power it will give them, and they all want it badly. And if you think using Free software will save you... it won't. This hardware operates on the digital signature of a binary. If you have the source code for a program, you can't compile it and use it as you did because you can't sign the resulting binary.
This is where Real's claims come in... to implement DRM, you first need to ensure that the kernel doesn't do anything you don't want it to (that it is "Trusted"). What Real is talking about is an unmodifiable Linux kernel... if you change it in anyway, it is no longer trusted and won't be allowed to access the data. Interested parties might also like to ask Red Hat just what the fuck they are doing working on the Linux equivalent of Microsoft's Protected Media Path -- a technology that relies on you not being able to modify your own software... so much for Red Hat being a supporter of Free software. They don't like talking about this much, for obvious reasons. Considering how much influence they have over the kernel, they should have to. One might also consider just what their game is with SELinux -- that's the basis for a DRM system when it is tied with an unmodifiable Linux kernel and TCG hardware (indeed, that was it's original design purpose at the NSA... only for controlling access to intelligence information, rather than music).
More information:
Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions
EFF: Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk
The definition of "Trusted Computing" is that the Powers That Be have the ability to make your computer secure against you.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz