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.
Yeah, what's with all the opposing viewpoints lately? We come to Slashdot to turn off our brains, not to actually think.
comma
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.
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
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.
"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
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
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.
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/
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?
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.
Did anyone read the open letter to Steve Jobs over at the Inquirer?
7 522
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
Full Tilt
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
"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).
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.
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.