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."
Ditch DRM or die.
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.
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.
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
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
The content industry sees DRM as its saviour from the pirates. In fact, it will be their doom. Let's take a look at what DRM will do, and to whom.
For this we'll be looking at four groups of people:
1. The joe average sixpack crowd, who buy some music, copy some more from his friends and generally think DRM is the new acronym for the thingie to plug into your car to make it faster. He's getting some music online, doesn't make heavy use of torrent and is still plugged into Kazaa, but complains he doesn't find much anymore.
2. The people who use suck the net dry, whether they need it or not. It's there, it's free, it's on my HD. They don't know jack about the inner workings of the DeCSS, don't know who broke it, but they use it to rip it, with the neat and foolproof tools provided.
3. The people who know what DRM means to their privacy and who fear, hate and fight it. Not necessarily in that order. Out of principle, not because they want to pirate what's available. But it's a privacy thing.
4. The people with The Clue to actually break DRM.
Group 1 will suddenly notice that their movies don't work anymore, or that they can't play the movie in the player they want. They bought a $3000+ HDTV set and they now got the same crappy rez because some part isn't to the DRM's liking, so they get the low-rez instead of the promised HD quality. They're understandably pissed, sink another 2k into the system to get better resolution and then find out that, again, some things will work while others don't, they suddenly can't borrow movies from their friends anymore. They do buy most of their movies, but they're PISSED because more often than not the DRM locks them out of their (bought) movies, following the creed of "better prohibit too much than allow too much".
Group 2 will notice that they can't play the ripped movies anymore. They won't do anything about it but google the web up and down 'til Group 4 provides them with the tools to rip again. They won't buy a single movie. They're not in for the movie, they're in for the "wanna have".
Group 3 will talk to Group 1 and blame whatever irks them on DRM. Until Group 1 starts listening to it and starts digging up information about DRM. And they get MORE pissed. Group 3 doesn't buy movies either. They're not in for the movies, they're in for the privacy issues.
And finally Group 4 will spend its time tinkering with the DRM, they'll burn a few of the DRM crates 'til they figure out how to break it, release it and then we are right where we are now.
With a few differences.
Group 2-4 don't change their behaviour at all. They didn't buy before, they won't buy after. Group 1, though, is not PISSED at the industry for making it all so "complicated" and they will think and ask twice before ever buying any new equipment. They will no longer be on the spearhead of adaption, they will wait 'til one of their clued friends tells them that it's ok to get one of those babies.
Who loses? Right. The content industry.
Who wins? Nobody.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think that was intentional as proof that they weren't producing the tool for the express purpose of copyright infringement.
IIRC, iTunes won't even play the files that were decrypted that way, you have to use something like aacplay. Such a shame.
That's incorrect, every file my wife bought from iTMS still played in iTunes (multiple versions on Windows and Mac) after having the FairPlay stripped. I don't think I even have the encrypted files anymore. Neve bothered to authorise any extra computers either.
Now, I actually design loudspeakers, and I'm not sure how they could pull this off. Do they want to put the DAC, the amp, and all the requisite power supplies into the speaker cabinet? At its most basic nature, a speaker element is just a piece of paper (or something similar), a coil, and a magnet. Are they planning on using some kind of macrovision-esque noise between the DAC and the amp? Even if they did, I could *still* take the speaker cabinet apart and rewire the speaker outputs from the amp, and record it that way. It'd be a pain in the ass, but I've still got a tape deck, and plenty of free time.