Slashdot Mirror
Is Interoperable DRM Really Less Secure?
Crouch and hold writes "Are closed DRM schemes like FairPlay more secure than interoperable ones? Based on the number of cracks, it doesn't look like it. 'When it comes to DRM, what history actually teaches us is that one approach is no more secure than the other in practice, as they relate to the keeping of secrets. Windows Media DRM has had fewer security breaches than Apple's FairPlay, yet WM DRM is licensed out the wazoo: there are more than a dozen companies with WM DRM licenses.'"
Windows Media DRM has had fewer security breaches than Apple's FairPlay, yet WM DRM is licensed out the wazoo
I had no idea that the MS licensing department was actually an orifice.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Doesn't mean anything when you consider the market share of Apple vs. all of the Microsoft-licensed stores combined. Clearly people will be cracking the more-popular DRM, and that happens to be Apple's FairPlay.
How does that work?
I'm not suggesting this is official Apple policy, but just because something has been cracked more times than any other doesn't actually imply much. If Apple deliberately set the bar low, then they fulfill their obligation and allow the counter-culture to flourish as much as the "official" party line. Hmmm, who would that benefit ?
:-)
I know some very smart engineers at Microsoft, and I know some very smart engineers at Apple. Devising a hard-to-break DRM system wouldn't be beyond any of them, and iTunes really doesn't go to too much effort. I'll let you draw your own conclusions
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Funny how Apple supporters dismiss this reason when it's applied to Windows security, but when it supports Job's reasons for keeping FairPlay closed it's accepted.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Not licensing Fair Play has nothing to do with making it more secure. It has to do with being able to roll out fixes to counter security breaches in a timely manner.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
It only takes one. Last I checked the FairUse4WM hole still hasn't been fixed.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Funny how Apple supporters dismiss this reason when it's applied to Windows security, but when it supports Job's reasons for keeping FairPlay closed it's accepted.
You're right to point out the contradiction. However, another way of interpreting it is just that FairPlay is simply not as well-iplemented as Windows Media DRM. That would be an interpretation consistent with the view that Windows gets cracked not just because of its market dominance, but also because of its flaws in implementation. Maybe Apple simply isn't as good at DRM as Microsoft, which isn't necessarily such a bad thing.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Isn't this why Windows is hacked more often, because it is more widely used? What did I say???? Screw it..
You will never have experience until after you needed it.
Apple has actually been accused of being slow to fix exploits in Fairplay. And exploits currently exist for even the latest version of iTunes (see QTFairUse). Steve Jobs argument for not licensing Fairplay makes no sense on any level.
Apple seems to update their DRM as well though, whenever FairPlay was cracked, but this can also be attributed to the fact that there are a lot more ipods than wma players. There's more harm done in breaking FairPlay than Windows DRM hell.
It's like that thing were people propose a truly horrific law because they know they will be "forced to settle" for a merely terrible law.
No Digital Restriction Management is good. NONE of it.
I am not anti-encryption.
I am not anti-artist.
But any scheme that involves someone "selling" or "giving" me something so provisionally that they can then just take it back is simply a BAD IDEA.
The next step down this road is the one where some Bad Actor gets to send people threatening letters and blackmail that is "unprintable", "read only once", "no screen shot", "read only for 1 minute", watermarked to prevent your camera from taking a picture of the screen. Leaving you, in turn, with no proof for a complaint and then leaving the police with no clues while they are pondering over your corpse.
Eh, so what, at least some music executive is *sure* to get to split the full 99-cents that he ripped off the consumer for, in the name of an artist who got a bill for overages in production.
Oh, wait... which kind of Illegal Prior Restraint (commonly misspelled DRM) was good again?
It is _NEVER_ helpful to repeat the artificially biased question as if it represents something worth answering.
The question, as stated, presumes facts not in evidence, namely that the DRM that is harder to break is in any possible way "Better".
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Since there are no effective DRM schemes out it seems silly to evaluate which are 'more secure'. What do you do; count the ways available to bypass the DRM? There are easy cookie cutter utilities to crack them all.
DRM can only be secure through secrets and confusion so it's pretty necessary.
What you should be asking is "Is any DRM really secure?" It doesn't matter how open the DRM scheme is, if there are holes, an enterprising cracker can find them.
The interoperability that Jobs said was less secure, the interoperability that Norway wants, isn't offered by Microsoft's WMV either. Norway is demanding that Apple allow fairplay encrypted files to be converted into files DRM'd under Microsoft's PlaysForSure(OrNot) DRM model or anyone else's, not that they start licensing FairPlay.
"Windows Media DRM has had fewer security breaches than Apple's FairPlay, yet WM DRM is licensed out the wazoo: there are more than a dozen companies with WM DRM licenses"
Hmmmm.... could it because no one really cares about downloading wmv files? The point is that if the product sucks, no one will bother even to break into it.
Or, ya know, hardware. Which can be made tamperproof by suicide mechanisms.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does Swiss Cheese have more holes when its package is opened or when it is closed?
DRM is in of itself not secure because it will get cracked wide open each and every time
somebody comes up with a scheme. Take the digital broadcast / subscriber card hacker arms
race. They are already light years ahead of whatever Apple or Microsoft are cranking out
and they will be well prepared if "trusted computing hardware" comes out.
These people have phisticated lab equipment and are capable of cutting the chips wide open,
manipulating chip fuses, patching rom masks etc. They will extract Disney's latest singing
and dancing monkey mascot together with the accompanying mermaid from any and all DRM scheme.
What Jobs seemed to be claiming wasn't that having fewer implementations would make it harder to crack (he admitted that it can always be cracked), but rather that it made it easier and faster to release new versions when the old ones had been cracked.
My hunch is that Fairplay is less about iPod lock-in and more like Zune lock-out. iTunes is your classic loss-leader* as it really only exists to add value to the iPod, which they make a tidy profit on. That being the case, there's no upside for Apple to sell at-cost music for devices they don't sell. The model would have to change, and I suspect that 99-cent downloads would become a thing of the past.
*Yes yes... i know that $0.99 downloads are more profitable than CD sales, but that's only for the MAFIAA. Apple only makes a few pennies off of that $0.99
I believe I read Apple didn't support DRM in the first place. Didn't Our Lord Steve say that he would be fine with no DRM at all?
It seems to me, when looking at the big picture, that digital data is being distributed to customers. Digital data is exactly copyable, due to its nature.
Now this digital data is encrypted, however if it can be decrypted (i.e. played!) then the encryption can be broken. It might prove to be difficult, but it will be broken.
There are two possible ways that the big content distributors can go:
(1) Get rid of DRM and change your marketing and pricing model so that it is convenient and cheap enough for most consumers to just by the media through the channels that they provide.
(2) Remove digital data distribution and instead distribute media in the form of a sealed, enclosed device (with speakers, no other outputs) that only plays the media that you have purchased.
Option (1) is the logical conclusion to most people and the neolithic companies will eventually (maybe in 10 years?) realise this and go with it. Option (2) is just not feasible, due to cost, space and sound quality issues.
Please don't send a Word document when a text file will do the job.
Apple had to sign over the right for the record-labels to pull their entire catalogue from the iTunes store, if a breach happens and Apple don't fix it in a timely manner.
Jobs doesn't care about DRM, but (because he's sane) he doesn't want to lose the iTunes store either - here's his nightmare scenario:
Now Apple can try and pin liability on No-mark company, but at the end of the day, the iTunes store contract is between Apple and [insert record label], and if fairplay is compromised, [record-label] are fully entitled to pull their catalogue...
See it now ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
and won't be bought by me.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say enough people will object to autodestructing chips that hardware manufacturers will not produce them.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Again, this question isn't the right question. DRM is not interoperable. Using the word "interoperable" is deliberately confusing, because DRM by definition isn't interoperable. It's a method of restriction, not an operatable thing per se.
The operative word is "third party licensed."
Audible.com is licensed to multiple vendors. How have those vendors done? Besides the iPod, Audible.com's DRM is licensed to a number of other players. Has it been a major factor in anyone's purchase? Possibly, if they want to listen to audible.com content.
WMA/Plays for Sure is licensed to multiple vendors. How have those vendors done? The market has spoken.
Zune WMA isn't licensed. The market is in the process of working out how the Zune is doing, but the prognosis isn't good.
FairPlay isn't licensed. The iPod is doing great.
The iPod is reallly a good example of what's called a "Network Effect Monopoly." People buy iPods because it has the most accessories. The iPod has the most accessories because people buy iPods. Etc etc etc. eBay is the same: people sell on eBay because the buyers are there. The buyers are there because everyone sells on eBay. Ad infinitum.
Will licensing FairPlay change this? No. If Apple licenses FairPlay to hardware makers, it'll make the iTMS even more dominant. If Apple licenses FairPlay to other stores, it'll make the iPod even more dominant in hardware. If it licenses FairPlay to everyone, then Apple will sit on the dominant DRM system, period.
As I said before, there isn't one thing that makes the iPod successful. But of those things, DRM is definitely not one of them.
No contest, hardware makers provide guarentees. An auto destruct process is likely to amplify a spin doctored FDIV bug into a flaming death Lithium battery bug. They're not stupid, they're in the business of making nearly bug free products so they don't get too many defective returns. Unlike certain software houses.
At least, first and foremost, it indicates popularity. There might be a secondary impact based on strength, but how you'd determine how big that is is a mystery to me. The large factor will drown out the smaller ones.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
They've sold what 100 million or more iPods, and 2 billion iTunes.
So 20 tracks, or 2 albums per iPod, sold to people who are into music (because they bought an iPod!)
So for all the hype iTunes isn't a success, it's only looks successful because the other DRM heavy stores flopped so badly.
So I fully agree with your last comment. That DRM wasn't the reason iPod succeeded. I think iTunes isn't the reason it succeeded either, if it was they'd have sold much more music than 2 CDs worth, it's the cool small neat stylish iPod itself that succeeded.
Why would DVD Jon or anyone want to develop a crack that only benefits a minority of users and applies to audio format that is non-standard even after decryption. iTunes is the most popular download service and Apple has geek appeal. Its no surprise that there are more cracks.
Closed DRM schemes like FairPlay are not more secure than interoperable ones. Generally because both aren't secure.
They both attempt to accomplish something that is impossible.
Security requires communication between two or more trusted parties, if any of the parties are not secure then the communication isn't secure. With all DRM schemes there is only one trusted party, the content producer. The other party being the consumer who can't be trusted.
Without 'Trusted Computing'(trusted by the content producer not the consumer) DRM is impossible.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
You're implying that Microsoft is good and anything else appart leveraging a monopoly ?
In light of a long past of being able to suck in anything they managed to make ?
With a long history of making the most easily cracked OS and whose product are the most targeted on, even when Vista is still in Beta and has a lower market share than Linux, or when IIS couldn't ever dream about reaching Apache's widespread ?
You must be kidding.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That is only true if Apple supporters are doing so. Something I didn't read in TFA (or the comments for that matter). I'm an Apple supporter, yet I don't apply this reasoning to either the DRM or the OS comparison. I haven't seen a lot of Apple supporters, much less ALL of them, comment in any form on the closed nature of Fairplay, or even commenting on DRM much at all. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that most "Apple Supporters" have no idea what Fairplay is, even.
/. already to amuse anyone for years of reading.
Your remark, as far as I can see, is not only unsupported, it's erroneous. Just the musings of a fanboi troll looking to start "Yet Another MS v Apple thread" as if there weren't enough of those around
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
They suicide when you try to open them.. I didn't think I'd have to explain that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The issue is not whether you can license it or not. The issue is whether letting other license it makes it harder to update it. If you only have one group of devices to update it is easier to maintain control....That sounds like lock in. Isn't that what we are all are talking about. You miss the point totally if you think that breaking the DRM is the point. The point is not if you can break the DRM. DRM will be broken. The point is how fast you can fix it. Revolving secrets in DRM was acceptable to the record companies. The secret revolves after you fix it from being broken. You can fix it faster if you don't have it licensed all over the place. Go to apple and read the post from Jobs. He has got it right.
...Don't encourage them by implying that DRM can be licensed and is a legitimate option.
:)
DRM is bad bad bad, and is broken whether licensed or not. Don't use it, that's the answer
Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
You can't get less than "no security"..
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I'm confused, isn't DRM about protecting a copyright instead of "the keeping of secrets"? What is TFA trying to say here?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Whats wrong with this picture? Logically, if you can put them together in order to play the media you can 'read' the unencrypted data, and if you can read it you can copy it. The "magic" in DRM is simply the "how" that they keep you from knowing how to put them all together. Its nothing but a secret designed to prevent you from accessing your own computers data while playing the media. Everything else is nothing but hype with smoke and mirrors. The only people that truly benefit from the distribution of DRM are the ones designing, producing, and selling it the DRM itself, not the media that it encodes. The Media boardroom executives at the major studios are just not smart enough to realize the hype that they are being fed by these DRM designer companies. Bottom line, you can't make a DRM that is unbreakable so it prevents nothing so far as the goal that it is being sold for. Its a sham and it needs to be recognized for what it is.
To the professional black-market vendors all the DRM smoke-and-mirrors is merely a speed bump because they just physically copy the whole disk/file bit by bit and bypass the need to even decode the data, it's the user needs to do that and their player will happily do that for them. Making the much sought after DRM-free Internet down loadable version of the file is a little harder, but then you only need one pissed-off geek to put it out there and the game is over. Just one. Thats something that the all the Board Room Exec's should all think about. How much has the price of what they produce gone up due to the DRM they have uselessly added to their product? How many fewer people have purchased their product due to the DRM making it more expensive and in many cases completely unusable? If there is one thing I know is that the bottom line in their check book is what matters, and they are being duped by the technology vendors just like the snake oil salesmen of years ago.
Could it be possibly that FairPlay gets cracked more simply because it isn't licensed? It would seem to make sense to me that more people are interested in cracking it than an interoperable scheme simply because people would want to use their legally purchased songs on say their iriver/zen/nomad/[insert favorite interoperable media player here]. I know my interest in removing the FairPlay DRM has nothing to do with piracy or anything but the fact that i bought a song off of iTunes and just want to be able to use it in linux and/or on my iriver clix.
Article is way off the mark because it does not take into account the different corporate goals... MS is not "open" because it is licensing it's DRM, it is simply fulfilling the extend and extinguish and platform hegemony objectives...
MS is licensing an entire platform, so having their DRM on every possible platform is already a goal. They only need to license binaries for the platforms they support already (Windows, mobile, etc...)
Apple if they want to license to non-Apple platforms has two un-palatable choices: Distribute as source, or support binaries on all kinds of unknown platforms (ie. Symbian, linux, Palm, in addition to all the MS flavours.) It's clearly in complete opposition to Apple's strategy of controlling the platform to provide the best end user experience.
Ahem. This is going to feel mighty good.
The only reason that PlaysForSure isn't cracked all the time is because no one really uses it on a large scale. Since Apple dominates the DRM music field, and most DRM'd music sold is from Apple and includes FairPlay, then of course people are going to attack FairPlay more than PlaysForSure. If it were the other way around, PlaysForSure would be just as insecure as FairPlay.
I don't really believe that, of course - but it was nice to turn the whole security through obscurity argument around for once so Windows fanboys could see how freaking STUPID it is.
It has nothing to do with rights, it's just a pissing match between companies to lock each other out.
It's CMM - Corporate Monopoly Management.
The ones pushing proprietary DRMs probably could actually care less about piracy.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Only on slashdot such FUD gets modded insightful. WMV is for VIDEO, not audio, and if you look at some decent codec shootout (like doom9's), you'll see it rivals the very best (very good results), and it's also what's used for Blu-Ray and HD DVD (under the VC1 name). Audio wise (WMA files), look at the latest listening tests from hydrogenaudio - it scores as good as ogg vorbis and AAC @ 192kbps!
I stick to the non-DRM'ed mp3 format, but saying Windows Media sucks when it's basically as good as anything else...
DRM is a huge pain in the ass for consumers and digital distribution of media that uses it is never likely to take off in the same fashion as it's physical medium counterparts unless it's easy to use and not very restrictive like Apple's FairPlay. Part of what makes FairPlay acceptable to me is the ability to burn purchased content to a CD that I can then take with me and listen to in any CD player that I wish. If FairPlay didn't have this ability I wouldn't use it. Likewise I'll never buy a "digital download" version of a movie or TV show unless I have the ability to burn that movie or show to a DVD. IMHO anything with DRM that doesn't let you burn to some kind of physical media that can then be played back on other devices (players, portables or other PC's) is essentially a rental and isn't worth it. I think most consumers agree which is why I'm tired of these DRM articles. A huge factor in any media format leap is convenience. Does anyone here really think that either CD's or DVD's would have taken off as they did if they didn't involve huge leaps in convenience for consumers? Quality played a part sure, but I'd argue it was the convenience of CD's and DVD's that really caused them to take off. Being able to leap back and forward between tracks instantly and not having to flip back and forth between sides was a huge factor in moving from tapes to CD's. Likewise the ability to skip back and forth easily through movies (and not having to rewind tapes to watch them) was a huge factor in the move from VHS tapes to DVD's. Not to mention never having to worry about a bad tape or VHS player destroying your music or movie. A poster on Slashdot said something a while back that I completely agree with. Everyone is looking at HD-DVD and Blue-Ray, freaking out about the DRM, and wondering which will be the next big thing in video and I think they are off the mark. All that HD-DVD and Blue-Ray offer over their DVD counterparts is more space and HD content. Newsflash, most consumers don't have an HD TV and won't anytime soon. Even when there's an HD TV in every home, HD TV's are expensive and most homes have more than one TV anyway so most consumers would then probably have one HD set in the living room and regular TV's elsewhere. I think some kind of hybrid DVR / Apple iTV kind type of box with a price point of around $200 bucks would be poised to be the next big thing in video. Consumers want a leap in convenience more than they want a leap in quality because at this point the leap in quality requires a large investment in expensive new hardware to pay real dividends. Why pay thousands of dollars for one brand new large HD TV in the living room and a bunch of HD-DVD's and/or Blue Ray discs (when you probably already own the content on DVD) who's improvements in quality can only be seen on that one expensive large TV in the house when you can spend between $600 and $700 dollars and have set top box hooked up to each TV in the house that lets you record, share with the other boxes and play back content recoded by the DVR and/or download, share with the other boxes and playback movies and TV shows that you've downloaded from the Internet. IMHO that latter option makes a lot more sense than shelling out all that money for a new HD TV set and bunch of content in HD that I've already paid for just to get better picture quality. My point is that convenience sells. DRM that isn't convenient won't sell and DRM that is convenient will. The box that I spoke of above could be DRM'd to the hill as long as I could share the content with the other boxes, have a backup system or the ability to re-download content that I paid for if I lost it and as long as it had a simple interface and "just worked" it would be a hit much like the iPod / iTMS combination. The RIAA and MPAA are to stupid to get it that and I have no doubt they'll DRM consumers to death and turn them off to digital distribution completely if they are left to their own devices. All they have to do is look at Napster. Napster didn't offer higher quality. Napster offered the con
Why are we using the word "secure" to indicate whether a DRM scheme has been cracked or not? A cracked DRM scheme has no negative security implications for the user, but calling it "insecure" makes it sound to Joe Sixpack like it's dangerous, when in fact, a cracked DRM scheme is a good thing.
Also, a DRM scheme being a little bit cracked is like being a little bit pregnant. Either it's cracked or not. CSS, for instance, is cracked (weaknesses in the scheme allow keys to be recovered through brute force). FairPlay (afaik) isn't cracked, but various implementations of it have been.
correct me if i'm wrong, but hasn't the dmca legislation afforded the opportunity for things like drm. I'd like to see the dmca thrown in the trash can. 1984,.. controlling what you see. It would be nice if lawmakers required a bright green star sticker labeled drm ontop of goods sold with drm.
Whether a DRM scheme (or any other software implementation) for that matter is more or less secure because of interoperability is in the margins; security is a question of implementation, not licensing. (Some have made the point that open schemes are subject to more scrutiny and more likely to identify flaws early; perhaps so, but I still argue that the difference is probably marginal.)
The point Jobs raised in his essay is that it's harder to propagate fixes to software that is broadly licensed across many vendors, which in turn means that vulnerabilities remain in the field longer. He also asserts that this could threaten the agreement between Apple and music companies, although you might want to add salt to that to suit your tastes.
All DRM systems are closed.
And their only purpose is to hinder interoperability.
DRM systems are closed towards content creators and distributors.
DRM media are closed towards users.
I do not care if iPod and Zune Restrictions systems are "interoperable"
because there will be no interoperability with my Linux computer.
Yeah, I got that.
But it makes the chips inherently less reliable, and hardware vendors know that. Things that might not previously cause damage, can now accidently trigger the autodestruct and make the chip useless.
What would you make autodestruct anyway? The way around hardware DRM is through mod chips usually. So if your intent is to place a chip on the motherboard, it's not much of an issue if the chip you want to replace autodestructs.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
The more interoperative it is, the more secure it is, because the less likely that the user will suffer a Denial Of Service. But of course, that's still not anywhere as secure as having no DRM at all.
Security should always be defined in terms of how much or how little the user gets screwed. When you equate crack-resistant with "secure," you accept a perverted values system.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's not a question of licensees choosing WM DRM because they trust it more than FairPlay - Apple doesn't license FairPlay at all, so Windows Media is the only choice for a third party.
There may be lots of licensees, but the consumers are ignoring it for the most part. Some consumers have been bitten by the format and avoid it entirely.
Don't flame me for FUD. I am relating facts. You are free to repeat the process to verify the problem. You will need an RCA Lyra flash player, a Windows Computer and some other computer with any OS.
My son is an example. He has an RCA Lyra. It plays MP3's and WMA files. He was at a friends house and did what kids do. He copied a few songs onto the player using drag and drop. The player was in the Flash Drive mode, not the DRM Sync mode. Some songs would play, some would not. This should not be a problem. The protected songs that won't play are simply considered broken due to DRM and should be deleted. This is where things got very sour very quickly. You can't delete the broken songs from anywhere except from the computer that put them there! The player won't delete them, the home computer with Windows can't delete them, and even a Linux box can't delete them. Permission is denied. Who in their brain dead design decided you can't delete files you can't play?
I found about it because at first my son just thought the files were in the wrong format and asked help converting them to MP3. They are songs and should play. I let him know about DRM (he didn't know) and told him to delete them. This is when we found out the true nasty implentation of DRM in the Plays for Sure format. Since there is no way to tell on the PC if the files are DRM WMA or WMA and the potential for problems, we have moved away from anything WMA. Because my son had to go back to the friends house to remove the files from the player, his friend also learned the evils of DRM gone bad. Plays for Sure doesn't and won't delete either. MP3s play for sure.
The solution was to RE-Rip in MP3. (middle school boys, no credit card, no online store sales) The defualt settings in some bundled media players for ripping CD's is bad.
The truth shall set you free!
This is the argument that RIAA wants us to have. The reality is that DRM treats all customers as likely criminals.
My collection of music is more than 13,000 songs bought legally (and mostly CDs over the past years). I've made a few mix CDs here and there, but I'm not a pirate and am sicking of being treated like one. My online music purchases are relatively low due to this fact alone.
I have more than 5 machines, so even FairPlay restricts my usage. MS's PlaysForSure/Zune DRM seems even more draconian.
Steve Jobs is on the right track by pointing out the idiocy of the recording industry (whether or not he has ulterior motives). I read that EMI is considering non-DRM tracks for sale online. RIAA has been asserting its rights at the expense of our rights (not unlike the Patriot Act). It is doing it under the guise of piracy, but ultimately it is about control and more importantly money. RIAA wants DRM so that it can control what you do with the music you bought.
DRM and interoperable DRM are interesting topics for things like subscription services (where for $10/mo you get access to the entire library of music), but for bought tracks, it is the wrong argument.
And finally, let me say Bravo to the open market. The more RIAA tries to tighten its grip, the more sales plummet for the music they hock. This, of course, only causes RIAA to stick its head farther up its ass and tighten more. The ultimate result will be the end of RIAA, it'll just take some time for everything to implode. Hopefully then, the artists will get their rights back (as a bonus).
But Microsoft ISN'T licensing the DRM in Zune. Sure, they license Plays4Shit, but who cares? They already obsoleted it when they came out with Zuma!
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"There are more than a dozen companies with WM DRM licenses"
Yet every doorknob out there rants whines and complains about Apple as if Apple is the only answer. The only problem with Apple is that its is the preferred solution, not the sole or best solution.
Just read up a few stories where EMI is targeting Apple... Doorknobs!
Given Steve Jobs' recent remarks regarding DRM, specifically his desire to see the recording industry open up and sell their music without DRM restrictions, it makes me wonder if Apple's Fairplay DRM is intentionally week and simply suffices as a facade to placate the recording industry. As a purchaser of music from Apple's iTunes, wouldn't you feel better knowing that Fairplay is easily cracked and stripped from the music you own. Isn't that really a feature rather than a bug. None of us here know why Fairplay isn't that good, maybe they're incompetant, maybe they simply weren't willing to spend the money to create a really good DRM system, maybe they consideer DRM to be a passing fatuation and don't want to expend the resources on it. Either way, in the end, it's actually better for consumers that Fairplay sucks.
You do realize what these conjectures say?
The first conjecture says this: for any axiom system, a machine X can be built that takes a statement in that system and a string; for any proven statement P, a string $p can be constructed such that the pair, when entered into machine X, returns "true"; and that any false statement R will return "false" no matter what string is entered. Problem with this: if your statement is "The Godel statement is not provable," is there a string $g that will return "true"?
The second conjecture says that a black box can be built so that an untrusted user of the box can tell what the outputs should be from the inputs--but nothing else. Turing proved that there could be no such machines.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Before Apple writes an iTunes/Quicktime for Vista that doesn't work with QTFairUse, Apple has to write an iTunes for Vista that works with Vista.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
You must be kidding.
Is any person capable in all areas or incapable in all areas? Is any company?
What do you think of the XBox? Is it a seaming piece of crap?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Exactly. The XBox.
It's a nice exemple of a supposedly "uncrackable" device, using Trusted Computing-like encryption and key exchange to ensure that only licensed code could be runned on the machine.
According to Microsoft, no luck for either pirates or home-brewers...
The XBox 360 itself is going the same way.
Microsoft has always sucked at security. XBox is a nice proof, (and for now, still inoffensive, at least until bot-nets of XBoxen start to appear), just as any other DRM attempt from them even for music.
If there isn't such a widespread of cracking of microsoft DRM protected music, it's just because nobody is interested : you can't botnet it. I mean, yet. If Zune manages somewhat to be more popular than now, maybe you'll see trojanised musci files used to turn Zunes into WiFi-scanning/SPAM-spitting zombies.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]