Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Father of MPEG Replies To Jobs On DRM

Posted by kdawson on from the way-forward dept.

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.

33 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Completely Moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It has already been established that DRM is bad. It doesn't work and it hurts everybody.

    So frankly, who cares about this small part of Jobs' argument?

    His main point -- that there shouldn't be DRM -- is correct.

    1. Re:Completely Moot by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another big influence in the market thinks differently. According to Microsoft: "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."

      So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    2. Re:Completely Moot by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Completely Moot by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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
    4. Re:Completely Moot by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Completely Moot by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The way to express it to the suits is "DRM hurts your sales." I think that was the real thrust of Jobs's argument, that music companies could stand to expand their market presence immeasurably if only they promoted interoperability and ease of use--and that's just impossible as long as they insist on DRM.

      Jobs and Gates are essentially doing the same thing here. They both understand that DRM is pretty bogus, they are both supporting it since that is the only way to bring the content providers onboard at the moment.

      Having attended one of Leonardo's SDMI meetings I would not trust him as far as I could spit. He was the architect of the SDMI fiasco. I have no confidence in either his technical or his political skills.

      Incidentally the title father of MPEG is somewhat overblown.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:Completely Moot by arose · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Different permissions on music bought from the same store are going to be confusing for both consumers and music labels.
      You certainly don't want to confuse customers with all that freedom, why, they might start asking why they can't do all the nice things with all tracks they buy. And we wouldn't want them to learn about the evils of DRM, no sir, they should just think thats the way the world now works.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    7. Re:Completely Moot by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen. When I buy a song from iTunes, I know *exactly* the rights and restrictions applied. Everything in my iTunes library has exactly one of two restrictions: the FairPlay DRM set and none.

      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).
    8. Re:Completely Moot by VertigoAce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're targetting Apple, you can look forward to a version of iTunes that doesn't work with iTMS and an iPod that is incapable of playing any DRM-protected songs. Apple does not have the right to remove DRM from the songs it sells. The real target should be the companies that license the songs, since they are the only ones that can control the terms of distribution for their content.

    9. Re:Completely Moot by shmlco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "If Jobs realized that it couldn't be successful without DRM and he really believed DRM was bad, he would have decided against opening the store in the first place.

      Or he could, you know, like, open the store and let the MARKET decide how they felt about it.

      Being "consistent" would have removed OUR choice in the matter. It's one thing to get on your high horse and make a decision. It's quite another to do so and assume that what you're doing is right for everyone else. For example, I've no doubt that a pro-life individual would be happy to stand up and make your decsion for you in that matter, but that ignores you right to choose for yourself.

      Further, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Steve could well have accepted the idea that DRM is a neccessary evil and now, after years of actually running the business that's the iTMS and seeing the results, decided that it's no longer needed.

      I "expect" people to be able to look at the world and have the wisdom and courage to change their minds if needed.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    10. Re:Completely Moot by dch24 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In case you wonder what SDMI was (this was me), and how it relates to Mr. Chiariglione today, hopefully this will save you a little time.

      The End of SDMI

      The reason why the article says SDMI is "ending" is because SDMI was a "solution" to the MP3 problem of the late '90's. When Eric Scheirer wrote the article for MP3.com, he had this to say:

      "The solution is to get the technology companies into bed with the record industry. But the consumer-electronics industry knows a hard lesson that the RIAA has yet to learn: regardless of the business model, it has to start with value to the consumer. What it all adds up to is this: the floodgates are opening. Portable devices will be huge for Christmas this year [Article published Oct 15 1999]; they will all play MP3, and none of them will be SDMI-compliant in any way that matters."

      So if SDMI (Mr. Chiariglione 's baby) was truly failing in October of 1999, and MP3 was going to be the wave of the future, the core problem was DRM.

      But Mr. Chiariglione had a rebuttal for that article (also on mp3.com), just like he has a rebuttal for Jobs today.

      SDMI Checks In

      Moreover, in contrast to your report on October 15, SDMI is not merely some theoretical possibility. I am sure you have seen the same announcements I have-advertisements and other public statements that announce the intention of some leading manufacturing companies to produce portable devices complying with the SDMI specification.

      Mr. Chiariglione is convinced that SDMI will be a success.

      Finally, read the Wikipedia article on SDMI for the rest of the story:

      Scheirer's comments proved to be correct; the SDMI has been inactive since May 18, 2001.

    11. Re:Completely Moot by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    12. Re:Completely Moot by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I buy a song from iTunes, I know *exactly* the rights and restrictions applied. Everything in my iTunes library has exactly one of two restrictions: the FairPlay DRM set and none.

      Actually, this isn't completely true. A year or two ago (possibly more) Apple changed the number of computers you could authorize at one time and the number of burns you could make of a given group of songs. Since they can't legally [IANAL] change the rights of music you have already purchased, you may have Fairplay music with two different sets of 'rights'.

      Course, it's not nearly as crazy as MS's two setups[Zune and wmv], where you don't necessarily know what rights you were granted until after you purchase the tune and examine the rights [I have no idea where/how someone would do this as I have never purchased anything with MS's DRM applied to it].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:Completely Moot by senatorpjt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Advertisers are the customers. Viewers are the product.

  2. Re:What's with the Pro DRM Articles? by limecat4eva · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, what's with all the opposing viewpoints lately? We come to Slashdot to turn off our brains, not to actually think.

    --
    comma
  3. As a wireless/microwave engineer by LM741N · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite disliking DRM, GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc. Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked- unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.

    Yet it is the most widely used wireless personal communication standard in the world. Woe are the hackers and crackers who try to attact it directly. But like any encrypted system, the weak points usually lie elsewhere. Those would be the point of attack.

    1. Re:As a wireless/microwave engineer by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:As a wireless/microwave engineer by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Looks like the implementations of GSM encryption are known to be weak:

      http://www.gsm-security.net/faq/gsm-a3-a8-comp128- broken-security.shtml

    3. Re:As a wireless/microwave engineer by iamacat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know if you would call 40 bit encryption a lockdown, especially since it doesn't protect your conversation from the phone company, even if you are calling the other person with a GSM phone. Furthermore, they weaken or turn off encryption in most countries. Sounds like a typical effect of a DRM scheme on users all right.

    4. Re:As a wireless/microwave engineer by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are briefcase-sized portable systems that allow easy eavesdropping on GSM communications. IIRC, the encryption is weak, and the tower can be actually told to turn it off anyway.

  4. please define your terms .. by rs232 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  5. They are scared. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The content industry wants one universal DRM. Everyone thought that would be MS and they were happy. When Apple won the battle, they were not happy. What you are seeing by calls for Apple to license their DRM is this frustration made public and an attempt to allow MS to embrace, extend and extinguish Fairplay. Jobs called their bluff and they realize they just may well be fucked on this. Interesting times.

  6. Re:What's with the Pro DRM Articles? by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly right. If you have a view you better have no doubt, because once you doubt you could be wrong. Which makes your stance untenable. It's like back when God existed. He doubted the logic of his existence and *poof* he disappeared. Do you want to disappear? Then never doubt what you think. Ever.

    42

    Swi

  7. DRM TPM GSM... bwahhh??? by jhealy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People... PLEASE unabbreviate your abbreviations at first mention in an article. To those that don't know what TPM or GSM are (isn't GSM for cell phones?), this article appears completely ridiculous. I thought it was a joke at first.

  8. OMA DRM by kevinbr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is a bag of shit. Most phones only implement OMA DRM 1.0 - forward lock. OMA DRM 2 - I doubt it will catch on. How many phones have implemented it and how many content providers are using it?

  9. The issue isn't DRM, it's greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If music were priced at its real cost plus the same small profit that all other manufacturing enjoys, it would cost $1.00 an album. After all, production costs have already been recouped for 99.9% of popular music, hundreds of times over for anything in the top 40.

    And with such low pricing, people wouldn't even think twice about buying every new album that comes out in their genre. Youngsters have no money anyway, so asking them to cough up inflated prices is just completely ridiculous, and counterproductive since kids create much of the music buzz. They'll eventually purchase all the CDs that they really appreciate once they've grown up anyway --- just have patience!

    You wouldn't need DRM not only because very low cost would make non-market acquisition pointless, but also because everybody would have all the music they want --- there would be nothing left to copy, in one's area of interest!

    [The argument that pricing music logically would make new music cost hundreds of dollars per album is bollocks: like in all industries, development of a new product should be funded from past profits, and amortized across projected future sales. Music should be no exception, and the fact that currently the income from sales of age-old music is pure untouched profit and not reinvested to fund new production just shows the extent to which greed has distorted the music industry.]

    DRM is only an issue today because of the artificial scarcity created by artifically high pricing --- greed.

  10. What should we believe? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What should we believe? Microsoft's claims -- that they favor and aim to provide an open platform --, or our lieing eyes, which are currently witnessing a thing called "Zune" which is the exact opposite of open.

  11. Re:What's with the Pro DRM Articles? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Based on many past threads and discussions- you are making a bit of an overstatement.

    Lots of people here are anti-drm / information wants to be free. In varies from the college student being as ethical as they can afford to be (buy a few CD's and then pirate the rest when they run out of money) to the folks who have absolutely no respect for copyright to people like me that have no respect for the extended copyright periods that I feel were bought by media companies (If it's over 28 years old, I'll pirate away unless i can get it for a *reasonable* price).

    For example: I put down $200 smackers five seasons for get smart. On the other hand I ahoy'd some 1960-1966 comics in cdisplay format vs paying $50 for them in hardback format. I'll also download things so I can take them on a trip with me- for example I downloaded Moulin Rouge (which I own on DVD) because I wanted to take it with me and not risk losing my original.

    I have a problem with DRM period. I think we have a temporary window where these products are grossly overpriced. I completely disagree that an "artist" should get paid for the rest of their life for a song when the rest of the world gets paid by the hour. The purpose of copyright is not to provide artists/ creators retirement but to encourage them to create works for the public. Given how many artists there are striving to create entertainment today- I really doubt they need any more encouragement.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  12. Open letter to Steve Jobs by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anyone read the open letter to Steve Jobs over at the Inquirer?

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 522

    --
    Full Tilt
  13. Re:What's with the Pro DRM Articles? by jlarocco · · Score: 3, Informative

    You put DRM in your stuff, I don't buy it, that simple. There's no such thing as good DRM.

    I'll second that.

    If I can't buy a product without DRM, I'll download it from a torrent site, or I'll go without. If I crack the DRM to get a copy in a different format, I'll be a "criminal" anyway, so might as well go the path of least resistance.

    --
    Maybe not
  14. DRM doesn't kill music; people kill music. by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."

    "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?

    1. Re:DRM doesn't kill music; people kill music. by JazzLad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, shoot, when you put it like that MS/other DRM creators seem in the right ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  15. GSM is insecure by this+great+guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc.

    I am shocked to see this statement so highly moderated ! You are obviously not qualified to comment on the GSM standard. GSM is riddled with flaws and makes use of particularly weak ciphers that are known to be so poorly designed that communications can be decrypted in a few seconds with a stantard PC.