Slashdot Mirror
Father of MPEG Replies To Jobs On DRM
marco_marcelli writes with a link to the founder and chairman of MPEG, Leonardo Chiariglione, replying to Steve Jobs on DRM and TPM. After laying the groundwork by distinguishing DRM from digital rights protection, Chiariglione suggests we look to GSM as a model of how a fully open and standardized DRM stack enabled rapid worldwide adoption. He gently reminds Jobs (and us) that there exists a reference implementation of such a DRM stack — Chillout — that would be suitable for use in the music business.
He's right that redefinitions of digital "rights" "management" to suit the speaker is pernicious, but in my opinion it's because the people trying to implement the stuff are almost always being deceptive.
If "management" *could mean (as TFA suggests) just attaching stuff to your work that indicates what you think your rights are, I'm all for it I guess. Attach it, be honest, and I'll avoid most of your crap like the plague.
But what many technologies do is actually digital rights *enforcement (i.e. of what your rights are) on people who might not share that opinion; in a great many instances, the federal government agrees with the *recipient about what is allowable.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"he uses the term DRM without defining it"
.. :)
If I was on Usenet I would assume the OP was doing the meaning of the word shuffle. Pretending to misunderstand what the other fella meant and addressing a made up meaning instead.
"while it makes sense to claim, based on empirical evidence, that protected music does not sell, it remains to be demonstrated that managed music does not"
What's the difference between 'managed' and 'protected' in relation to Jobs meaning of DRM and your version of DRM.
'That would be like saying that the Creative Commons movement is a hollow shell'
False analogy and strawman
"Curiously Steve Jobs restricts his analysis to just one option: how can Apple safely license its DRM technology to other manufacturers and be able to keep its obligations vis-à vis the record companies"
Well he can only speak for Apple after all.
davecb5620@gmail.com
GSM is very secure, but is a communications protocol, not a DRM protocol. GSM allows Andrew and Betty to talk, without Charlie hearing. As has been stated often before, in DRM, Betty and Charlie are the same person.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."
That's an interesting opinion to have. If party X is in charge of dictating the restrictions and policies in your product, isn't party X your real customer?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
But the thing is, if Microsoft says, We are going to implement Y system which has XZ restrcition capabilities. The content owners only have XZ as options. But MS choose to have as many restriction capabilities as possible.
"Our view is it's our job to provide the weapons and the warlords can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that." Where's the difference?
With Windows Media Player, I have no fracking clue. Will this track self-destruct in 3 plays? Will this track play indefinitely? Can that track only be used while my subscription is active? Can this one be burnt to a CD?
MS's approach to DRM is the same as their approach to Windows PC technology and is the exact reason their ecosystem, while vast in scope, is also vastly inferior. It's precisely this issue that has led MS to go with the more vertical approach with the Xbox and Zune. It's interesting to note that these two markets where MS is the underdog, where they must woo the consumer with a superior experience if they are to have any hope of success, they take the more controlled, limited approach (the type of approach, in fact, that they deride Apple for taking with their PC hardware and their iPod).
Gates and Jobs are not essentially doing the same thing. One is telling the music companies to drop DRM the other is saying "whatever you want we will give it to you". I think most people can tell the difference between those two positions.
evil is as evil does
Advertisers are the customers. Viewers are the product.