Slashdot Mirror
RIAA and MPAA Developing Domain-Based DRM
An anonymous reader points out news that the music and movie studios are attempting to develop a new type of DRM that would allow customers more flexibility in playing content on multiple devices. The Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) would establish a list of devices in your personal "domain" (unrelated to web domains), and minimizes or removes restrictions within that domain. TechCrunch summarizes DECE and notes that many of the big corporations have decided to support it.
"The ecosystem envisioned by Singer et al revolves around a common set of formats, interfaces and other standards. Devices built to the DECE specifications would be able to play any DECE-branded content and work with any DECE-certified service. The goal is to create for downloads the same kind of interoperability that's been true for physical products, such as CDs and DVDs. Where it gets really interesting, though, is the group's stated intention to make digital files as flexible and permissive as CDs, at least within the confines of someone's personal domain. Once you've acquired a file, you could play it on any of your devices -- if it couldn't be passed directly from one DECE-ready device to another, you'd be allowed to download additional copies. And when you're away from home, you could stream the file to any device with a DECE-compatible Web browser."
Isn't that REALLY close to the permission system Apple has for Fairplay?
In practice, this can only work if the implementation of DECE is a trade secret, which means implementing it in hobbyist devices or open source software is impossible. Sounds like something the device manufacturers would love, since it gives them a nice big barrier to entry.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Because I've never taken a cd to a friend's place, used it in someone else's car (or a hire car), or given one away to a friend when I didn't want it any more.
Fuck that, I'll stick to the CD, which I can rip myself.
.
The problem with DRM is that DRM requires a server out on the Internet to give me permission to listen to the music, or to watch the movies, I have purchased. Without that server, the content I purchase are little more than a random collection of useless data bits.
Look at those people who foolishly bought into Microsoft's DRM for music. In a short while, Microsoft will be turning off the DRM server, and all the music thus "protected" by Microsoft's DRM will be unusable.
Do you really want to give the RIAA an on/off switch for your ability to listen to your media collection?
So the answer to it is to make the entire world one single big DECE. Wonder how one goes about doing that.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Blackhat developing domain-based crack.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
A few problems: /. et al) because of its downfalls in terms of flexibility. Take that away, DRM seems more reasonable to Joe College, his parents, and his little sister.
1. Co-Option! TFA: "it [DECE] could be a very good thing for consumers." Ever heard of the concept of a co-option? The anti-DRM movement has so much public support (outside of
2. More centralization, more big corporations, less privacy, and another chance for IE to redeem itself. TFS: "you could stream the file to any device with a DECE-compatible Web browser" And what exactly does DECE compatability mean? Does this mean my real identity is broadcast when I use a browser? If so, Will it be disabled by default?
3. Use your MP3 player/computer for storage of non-music files? Think again.
TFA: "The caveats: the devices have to be registered electronically to that user, and the copyright holder gets to limit the total number of devices customers may register."
Considering the history of DRM, I wouldn't be surprised if this means both corporations AND whoever cracks their methods gets to see everything.
... as long as it's IE (possibly Opera or Safari).
Unless this form of DRM is radically different from its predecessors, it will only be supported on closed-source browsers, which eliminates Firefox, Chrome, and Konqueror.
I really don't see anything new here - we already have standard formats like mp3 and mpeg-4 (aka XviD) that play on a variety of devices. This new plan looks like a great way for DECE to profit from licensing and certification fees, but not much else.
Sorry, what's a "web domain"?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I've seen this business model somewhere before....oh ya! This is what the call cable television in some countries.
A compost pile is an ecosystem. So I'm suggesting HEAP - Helpless Effort to Accumulate Profit (of shit)
More like the wasteland envisioned by him. Whereas interoperability or lack thereof between CD and DVD systems is due to inherent technical constraints, they want to impose constraints, then lift them slightly and call it a breakthrough. Digital Revenue Minimizer 2.0: now with more loss!
Not to mention that it pretty much nullifies your ability to sell/give your media to somebody else. No more second-hand CD stores.
(not that the media companies would mind that at all).
Something that always gets overlooked is how this is also an attempt to kill off the second-hand market. As has been said before, their ultimate goals are to get paid for every viewing and listen, and to cut those pesky greedy artists out of the deal entirely.
we will end no whine before its time
Yawn. If you buy into a DRM system you surrender control and trust. It's inevitable that your trust will be broken and the cost of surrendering control will become apparent. They're actually teaching you with these methods why you can't trust them with the keys to your system and the content you buy. My rant on this issue is two and a half years old now, and it's as true as ever. DRM won't work. DRM can't work.
It is good though to see yet another technology scammer taking the media giants for yet another ride on the DRM dream train. I hope they got their cash up front.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
....am not at all interested. There is literally NO value-added here. You can get good prices on digital downloads from places like Amazonmp3.com, and all my music can transfer (wirelessly! instantaneously! more-marketing-phrases-here!) from all my devices to all my other devices.
If they made the music cost waaay less than non-DRMed music, they might have a shot. But I suspect that would only really entice the people who are already buy DRMed music because they don't care about true interoperability anyway....which would just mean that instead of selling their crap for 99 cents a pop to these people, they'd be selling it for 40 cents, and losing over half their revenue.
Sounds like a recipe for laughter. My laughter.
You would believe that it's a Pavlovian response. Sales are plunging, we need new DRM. Yet, the customers have been clear: no DRM, high quality music in high quality encoding, or no sales, period. But the RIAA would try anything in the world to avoid giving their customers what they want. Not that anybody would expect music industry executives to have any bit of common sense at all, but still, I thought that even absolute lunacy had its limits. But it seems that I've been wrong...
Unless they can find sufficient clueless morons to buy into this, it'll flop.
For myself, any device or service that restricts my ability to play purchased media in any way I want doesn't have any appeal at all.
Note I said purchased. I *do* purchase my media, all of it, in fact I spend a fair bit of cash on audio purchased online and dvds.
I only buy products which are free of DRM or trivially easy to rip into other, more portable formats. If these guys think my cash will flow endlessly into their restrictive DRM caged products that make it harder for me to get value for my money, they're mistaken.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
My domain consists entirely of open source software, nearly all of which I compile from source. Oh and I also don't like "trusted" hardware or anything that subsumes my control of my systems.
Anyways my fav cartels, do let me know when this super-duper DRM thing is released. That way I'll be able to utilize my legally purchased data without being criminalized by the DMCA.
From China or Korea within two months after DECE is introduced: six or seven players that are "DECE-region-free".
I call it FREEDOM. Any media imbued with FREEDOM can be converted to any other format. It'll play on ALL your devices guaranteed! No authentication servers to worry about!
Oh, one small problem; FREEDOM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. ... but then again, neither does any other DRM in existence. So, use FREEDOM today!
I know this has been said again and again, but it's like the music industry doesn't read slashdot ;)
If Jill (Music Industry) gives an encryption key to Jane (a person using a DRM infested player that needs the key to play music) so that Bob the hacker (Who happens to be the same person as Jane) cannot spy on the music being played by Jane and copy it, Jane can still spy on the music and copy it because she is listening to it.
There is no way to solve this problem without banning all recording devices and computers that are not running software that is vetted by the government or some corporate entity every time they're turned on. Do you want to live in that world?
What do you bet that was the original full project name? ;)
creation science book
Once you've acquired a file, you could play it on any of your devices
Can't I do that anyway? Oh wait...
You really have to think that after 10 years of consumers telling the labels and studios what they want, and then voting with their feet when they don't get it, it would have sunk into even the head of the thickest *AA dinosaur. In the annals of colossal stupidity, the last 10 years of IP wars will have to rank pretty near the top.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
like the RIAA and MPAA Just Never Learn and may need take Ratardation Drugs
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I love music, I respect the artists and I hate DRM.
I will always choose to pay for something that I like because I believe both in supporting the artists and in voting with dollars.
When Amazon started selling DRM free music I was given the glorious opportunity to do both. I spend more money on music now than I ever did before thanks to Amazon, Pandora and MySpace. The combination of which give me the opportunity to explore new music and buy it, hassle free.
Amazon especially has been my music salvation. Prior to that, despite the fact that music means so much to me in my life, I was living in a musical blackhole. I wasn't going to purchase CDs that cost as much as $20, I wan't going to purchase anything with DRM and I couldn't ethically bring myself to pirate.
DRM doesn't hurt the people who pirate, it hurts people like me. People who want to support artists but who believe that what I purchase belongs to me and I should have the freedom to use it where I want.
I wish that the RIAA would get this through their thick skulls. Because everyday they keep this up, another person like me stops caring.
So what do I do with my existing MP3 (not iPod) music players? They play unencrypted MP3 files (even OGG files) without any hassle. If we buy into this DECE (or any DRM scheme for that matter), we might as well throw our existing devices into the junk drawer with all our other useless/obsolete technology.
Sure...I'm biased against DRM in general. But I'm even more biased against creating even more unnecessary tech waste. I pisses me off that all these corporations couldn't care less about the endless garbage that their DRM initiatives will add to the world - just so they can line their pockets a little more.
As usual they ignore the obvious fact that it only takes one person to exploit the analogue hole, and after that the internet will take care of the rest. Heck, even if you could shut down the internet data storage technology is rapidly approaching the point where you would be able to carry every piece of music ever recorded in a studio on your key-chain. It's over already, adapt or die.
What does this give me that I don't get with P2P?
NO DRM. PERIOD. No matter HOW they dress it up, it's STILL DRM, and it's STILL UNACCEPTABLE, it's still the RIAA looking over everyone's shoulder and putting a leash on purchased content. Them, them, FUCK THEM.
It is essential that anyone who has mistakenly bought a DRM device has rights to return it and get all the direct and indirect costs as a refund.
Actually it sounds more like a spinoff of PlaysForSure. Personally they can keep it. I'm sick of companies either treating us like criminals or making us do a little monkey dance just to use what we PAID for. And people wonder why piracy is rampant? It is because the pirates are the only ones not having to jump through hoops just to watch or listen to the cartels precious IP. And yet here we see again that they never learn and won't be happy until they run off their very last customer. Because how many of you are going to want to buy all your media devices AGAIN just so they can support this latest DRM BS? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Oh yeah. I can see a bunch of idiots thinking this is a great idea. Now, instead of Sony (as an example), controlling ONE of your devices, now they CAN control ALL your devices and REMOVE YOUR ability to use the material YOU bought. Fucking idiots.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Repeat after me: All DRM is inherently defective and bad for consumers. Consider the baseline: completely unfettered media. You can do with it whatever you want.
All forms of DRM add fetters to that situation without giving any additional abilities or functionality. There is absolutely nothing that can be done with DRMed media that cannot be done (in a technical sense) with unfettered media.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Under this plan, will fair use still reside in the DRM toilet? And to elaborate on the parent, if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got. To expect otherwise, without some change in context, is a good working definition of insanity.
Well, I sure hope they choose "Public Domain"
(it's funny, laugh!)
If I can put a VM on the domain list and then all the media inside the VM I can publish that VM to the internets and then anyone can run that VM and get all the music.
In other words, not at all the same as CDs.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
You continue wasting money on DRM that isn't effective. And I'll continue getting the content I want in the format I want it in.
MPAA and RIAA are obsolete.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The goal is to create for downloads the same kind of interoperability that's been true for physical products, such as CDs and DVDs.
No, the goal sounds like being able to charge outrageous licensing fees for "certified" devices, thus helping to extinguish DRM-free players, music sources, etc.
It is unlikely any open source, unencumbered device or software would receive the certification blessing.
I don't like having to attach my identity to all of the devices that would supposedly support this sort of thing.
Apple has already insisted on embedding personal ID into their DRM, and as such that is an invasion of my privacy. I don't care if it is innocuous or not, we are just talking about music and videos-- not classified material or national secrets...
supporting Indy bands (musicians on independent labels) instead of RIAA member bands is the true way to speak with your dollar.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Where it gets really interesting, though, is the group's stated intention to make digital files as flexible and permissive as CDs
My "real" cd will play on any "cd" player no matter where I am or who owns the cd player. This is as unrestrictive as it can get.
Once you've acquired a file
This should be "Once the consumer has leased a file" because we obviously won't be able to do with it, what we can do with the current cd's/tapes/racords/etc..
you'd be allowed to download additional copies.
But of course they'll make it easier on us to download for a small additional handling/service fee.
The real blame on this comes to joe/jane consumers who outnumber the "Hey I'm getting shafted here consumer" Joe/jane consumers really doesn't think about what they are buying as long as its shiny/cool so all of their friends will praise them for having the first one or for joing the group of shiny cool thing owners.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I've yet to buy a song online because of this.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The music 'industry' really needs to rethink their 20th-century mentality. Where one monolithic entity (posing as several individual global corporations) controls culture for everyone by distributing entertainment 'packages' from one central source. And by bringing the full force of state-controlled legal violence against anyone stepping outside of this Stalinist framework. There really is no difference in the mind-set between the RIAA and Soviet Orwellian Ministry of Culture. Neither of them work well in the real world; which consists of real people and real culture that can't be controlled by a centralized authority.
The only thing that government-controlled (or corporate-controlled) culture does is create a vast and illegal underground counter-culture. Artists end up imprisoned or spending all their creative energy hiding, fighting, or defending their work against the corporate Stalinist cement-heads. Society suffers, people suffer, other people and nations advance and your culture and people don't.
Culture and Art comes from the bottom up, not the top down. Especially in an era of inexpensive and widely available technology like high resolution digital video cameras, software audio mixing studios, and internet high-speed media distribution.
My advice is to stop sucking on Hollywood's Grand Tetons, get some gear, learn some literary and music theory, create your own works, distribute them discretely among your own trusted people, and ignore the RIAA/MIAA.
And for goodness sake's don't let the cement-heads steal your culture. We need to completely change our mentality from believing that artistic success is being a 'rock star' to a mentality where being an artistic success consists of being able to keep our important and meaningful works of art hidden from Hollywood.
Had they done this from the start, provided this illusion of interoperability rather than blatantly draconian DRM, they just might have gotten away with it. But I'm afraid they're about a decade too late.
This whole "middle-man" meme is a red herring. Even if all writers and musicians start selling directly — rather than through publishers and studios — they will still be concerned about people, enjoying (or otherwise benefiting from) their creations without paying for it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It shouldn't bother you, either. DRM doesn't affect people who aren't criminals. So don't worry about it unless you're a filthy thief, then you're only getting what you deserve.
If only this were true...
In reality, it only affects the people who don't pirate things.
For example, my copy of Spore restricts my to three installations. That's it. So between my desktop and my laptop, thats two right there. Then, if I have to format one for whatever reason...there's my third. After that, I can't play it if I get a new PC, or if for some reason I have to format again, now I can't play the game I legally BOUGHT and PAID for, without jumping through all kinds of hoops with EA's customer service, with one of those being interrogated like I was a criminal for the reason I needed more than three installs. I PAID for this game!
And then, on the other hand, you have the pirates who got the same release date, didn't pay a dime, and get MORE flexibilty with the product, and can install it on as many PCs they like. It's this kind of comparison that makes people who don't want to steal from the developers (myself included) start to seriously think about pirating in the future.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It encourages it.
My Domain for my money transactions is limited to accounts i own and operate plus a few trusted family accounts.
The money is free of DRM to move between these accounts.
Beyond this personal domain, my money is tied up by my DRM and cannot move to Sony, or other RIAA labels without violating federal statues.
Sorry.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
"Sounds like something the device manufacturers would love, since it gives them a nice big barrier to entry."
Open Source is it's own barrier.
"In practice, this can only work if the implementation of DECE is a trade secret, which means implementing it in hobbyist devices or open source software is impossible"
Considering attitudes around here. Why would that be an issue?
Piracy is rampant because it's easy to get stuff for free and not get caught. It has nothing to do with DRM.
Years of watching people swap 120 minute cassettes of non-DRM'ed Spectrum games (which could be bought for less than $6 each) has made that obvious.
It doesn't matter if the music/games/films are cheap or without DRM as you just can't beat free for a lot of people.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
... they just quit treating pirates better than the paying customers and get rid of drm totally?
Shadus
I got the local library CD of RS Bigger Bang several years ago and dubbed it using Exact Audio Copy to my Windows PC. No problems with the transfer. Maybe the CD maker is putting some new code in the data stream to prevent people from listening to the music, as you suggested. Have you tried AudioCatalyst or some other ripping program?
Or booting a Linux session from a CD ROM, using Linux audio ripping programs, and then using those MP3 files?
The music is competent, but no different that what the Rolling Stones were doing thirty years ago. The best way to be 21st century Rolling Stones fan is not to be concerned with getting perfect copies of their recordings, but rather to get a guitar and learn to play the Keith Richards/Ron Wood riffs in the alternate tunings that they use. There are internet postings of how to tune and play songs that they recorded 25 years ago. Since their style hasn't changed, learning to play their old stuff is the same as copying the recordings of their 'new' stuff.
"The second good is not needed anymore since access to the music itself is theoretically ubiquitous, hence yes, it is dead on a dying business, and the sooner these companies realize that, the better they will be off"
I think the pool of people who complain about the state of broadband need to start talking with the "your business is dying" people. Apparently you have much to discuss.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
And then, on the other hand, you have the pirates who got the same release date, didn't pay a dime, and get MORE flexibilty with the product
you're absolutely right, but i've got a little correction for you: they get an even earlier semi-release date, in the form of leaked betas that honest people wouldn't even notice before the game got out. also, the game won't reach every single store out there right on the release date, so the real release will be a few weeks later than the day where pirates get it online as well.
so yup, honest users really get the short end of the stick here: they get to play later, with limits, and they get to pay more for it. yay honesty... >_>
oh, and capitaine? thanks for the insightful post, man!
... is the domain of "any bloody thing that I ever want to play it on, any damn time I want to play it, with absofuckinglutely no hassles whatsofuckingever"
Hahaha What a duchebag...Im guessing part of the RIAA cadre. YOUR ALL CRIMINALS HAHAHAHA SUPPORT THE RIAA HAHAHAH ..Whats my name errrr I dont need no stinking name.
BTW anon above I shaved your mammas back
Nothing more to add.
There are still lots of people who think the hardware is broken when they run into a DRM problem. I refuse to buy anything blu-ray because of the DRM system they have in place.
The RIAA knows damn well that this whole battle has never been about shifting legitimately purchased content between devices in your "domain" (insert your own Seinfeld "master of your domain" joke here). Unfortunately, that is one of the arguments that many (including posters here) have used in the past: "I just want to shift the music I've already paid for (snort) from CD to computer to iPod to [insert device] -- I would never (suppressed giggle), EVER think of downloading it for free (fingers crossed behind back) or ripping it and uploading it (nose growing) to some P2P net!" This smacks to me of a big PR concept that will enable them to justify even more draconian crackdowns on file sharing, with carefully orchestrated public sympathy. "See -- we gave these people what they claimed they wanted, but piracy goes on, and has even increased! They are really just a bunch of freeloaders -- that whole "content shifting" argument was nothing but a vile canard! Off with their heads!!" Could very well be a case of many of us being hoist by our own petard here.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
This makes me never want to buy anything ever again. I'm tired of ridiculous laws being put in place because of our dying economy. Even huge businesses are suffering, but they take it out on us by restricting our usage and making us pay for the same thing multiple times (unless it's under their terms). Also, this kind of DRM bullshit they pull, doesn't allow people hard up for cash to resell their music collections to pay rent during times of desperation. So now there is no resale value for ANYTHING you purchase either. What's next, you can't sell your car because Microshit DRM/IP is built-in to your car's computer? If we keep letting the courts support the deceptive lies that these companies claim, only big business have the right to sell their shitty products.
Fuck these assholes!!!
It shouldn't bother you, either. DRM doesn't affect people who aren't criminals. So don't worry about it unless you're a filthy thief, then you're only getting what you deserve.
You were modded funny, but I am worried that you were being serious. The problem with DRM is not only its inconvenience, but its inherent anti-competitiveness. Since the whole idea of DRM is based on security in obscurity, it is impossible to create cross-platform DRM, thereby tying people to one platform and preventing them from trying others, like Linux, or even switching between other mainstream operating systems.
I say that instead of targeting pirates (unrelated: copyright infringement is comparable to pillaging?) the *AAs need to look into their business model. They truly aren't needed anymore (whether they ever were need not be discussed) and should be allowed to die out.
Oh, just another rant about the horrors of DRM...
All forms of DRM add fetters to that situation without giving any additional abilities or functionality.
There is the possibility of providing a service through which to re-download the media, as many times as you want.
Granted, it's possible to provide that with completely unfettered media -- so, strictly speaking, it's not the DRM itself that adds this. It is, however, possible for a DRM'd system to have additional capabilities that the non-DRM'd media alone wouldn't have.
So...
All DRM is inherently defective and bad for consumers.
Consider services like Napster et al -- download anything you want that exists in the service for some reasonable monthly fee, less than the cost of buying two CDs. So if you listen to at least two new albums a month, it's cheaper to go the DRM route.
Consider services like Pandora Radio -- granted, there isn't actually DRM happening there, but I know of no easy way to pull the audio out of that. Mostly, I'm guessing, because people haven't tried. In this case, the benefit to the consumer is, again, a huge media library, but this time, it's free.
In the case of Pandora, the failure modes of DRM really don't affect you -- you'd just go listen to another form of Internet Radio, perhaps last.fm.
Now, in the very limited case of media which you are purchasing, DRM is inherently defective and bad for consumers, and no amount of dressing it up will change that fact. Certainly, I would prefer my other media to come without DRM, but at that point, I really don't lose anything by, say, listening to Pandora.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And people wonder why piracy is rampant? It is because the pirates are the only ones not having to jump through hoops just to watch or listen to the cartels precious IP.
And here all these years I thought it was because you could get music for free! I forgot how it's sooo hard to rip a CD to MP3 and legally play it on all my devices.
Piracy is rampant because it's easy to get stuff for free and not get caught. It has nothing to do with DRM.
So...if it's easy (and it is), what's the point of the DRM then? All it takes is one bored kid from the Netherlands and item X is now on the net for free. The only people the DRM hassles are the paying customers.
It doesn't matter if the music/games/films are cheap or without DRM as you just can't beat free for a lot of people.
And yet, these people who will never buy item X at any price, but will only accept it for free - the industry counts each one as a lost sale when they do their reports on how much piracy costs.
These people you mention who only like their product for free - how does it hurt the industry if they cannot pirate something? They'd never buy it in the first place. It adds up to zero no matter if they get it for free or not.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Wow, DRM, again.. why? they really can't admit they are on the losing side of this argument. Sheesh!!
This is great news! Here's how this will work:
1. Get every device manufacturer and studio to agree on a common DRM.
2. Crack the single DRM scheme.
3. ???
4. Pilfer!
"Every society will sacrifice liberty and privacy to be deceived by security theater." ~ With apologies to Franklin.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
"As usual they ignore the obvious fact that it only takes one person to exploit the analogue hole, and after that the internet will take care of the rest."
Right. Which is why we all are still listening to analog media.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
very true. I pay 44$ a month to get extra channels that they can fill commercials with. So pretty much I paying 44$ a month to watch more commercials. i knew i was getting screwed. *runs off to cancel the TV side of cable bill*
"That's right...I said it."
Eh, this sounds like the high-and-mighty features that FlexLM was supposed to bring to the CAD market over the last few decades. Anyone who has used development tools from Xilinx, Altera, Cadence, et al, knows what an outrageous PiTA this thing is. It's undeniably twitchy, and changing any configuration item (like adding a new licensed feature) results in something breaking somewhere else. You have to have a degree to manage a FlexLM server, and I can't envision Joe Sixpack *ever* getting a floating license structure working between his PC, his iPod, his laptop, and anything else.
... they're not any more palatable now. I tend to classify them as a scam, attempting to motivate you to re-purchase the product due to severe inconvenience.
These "portable" license management schemes were one collective turd when deployed 20+ years ago
Just buy CD's and do what you want with it. Encode it to Flac, Apple Lossless.... etc... copy the disc to a new cd... no DRM no Nothing.
If we let the CD die, we're in trouble. I dont want compressed to shit music. I like my uncompressed audio because i can convert it to any format i want.
The CD is key to our freedom. If everything goes the way of downloadable lossy compressed file formats, we will have lost quality for convience... and the freedom to do with our music as we please.
Buy a CD today. Or atleast start downloading FLAC, APPLE LOSSLESS, and ISOs instead of MP3 and AAC ;)
http://everything2.com/e2node/Removing%2520copy%2520protection%2520from%2520audio%2520CDs
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Second that. DRM doesn't stop pirates. It only annoys real customers.
The other part of me remembers that they were fine with shafting the legitimate purchasers of their product. They had their chance to do the right thing. Instead they uselessly trampled over their customer's "fair use" rights in a futile attempt to technologically slow down pirates, all the while blaming their decreased profits on anything but their crappy, overpriced products. They worked hard to make legitimate activities illegal, pocketed the majority of profits for themselves rather than the artists, and used their money and power to get awful laws passed (DMCA) that everybody has to live with even if they aren't in the music or movie industry.
No, &($%^#%@$! them! They had their chance and it's too late to convince me they have customers' interests at heart. A DRM system that sucks less than the previous DRM systems and will probably be as technically flawed and expensive to implement as before is of no interest to me. I don't want DRM. I'm quite capable of comprehending the law when it comes to whether or not something can be legally copied or not. A machine can not accurately consider all the circumstances where "fair use" legally applies. Leave it in the domain of human judgment and the law rather than lame technical solutions we all know will be flawed, will obstruct philosophically legitimate and explicitly legal uses, and won't stop the pirates anyway.
How about we don't give money to the RIAA bunch? that means you have to be picky with the music you buy. Maybe a campaign is in order to let the independents mark their products with 'No RIAA-evil used in the production of this album'. That way it becomes a little easier to discern it from RIAA poison.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
If you want my business again you will do 2 things:
1 - remove *all* DRM, both direct and indirect forms of it.
2 - produce product worth my money.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sort of blows me using my ipod eh?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is digital piracy wrong? Sure, I was breaking the LAW when I downloaded Beck's new album from The Pirate Bay a few weeks ago, but morally, was what I did WRONG? There are many examples throughout history where disobeying unjust laws was considered (ex post facto) the morally just thing to do. In some cases it was not merely considered just, it was considered ones moral duty. The American Revolution and The Civil Rights movements come to mind. Of course, during these times in history, what a person felt was the wrong or the right side of the conflict was entirely subjective. There were people during the civil rights movement who were utterly convinced that minorities should not have the same rights as whites. Ignore the causes and misguided nature of those beliefs for a moment and focus on the fact that they were simply people who were fighting for what they believed in. History has judged them to be wrong. Just as history has judged the actions of the american revolutionaries to have been morally just. The question is, how will history judge the digital pirates? Will we be revolutionaries or racists? As with most historical perspective, how two opposing groups are viewed depends largely on the outcome of the dispute. The spoils of history belong to the victorious. Regardless of the outcome however, I have chosen my side and I will NEVER give up. DRM, lawsuits, criminal charges; NOTHING will stop me. EVER. Because to me, the war over intellectual property is not a war. It is merely a battle in a much larger conflict. The conflict between the rights of the people and the will of the corporations. I and many of us are constantly trampled by corporations. At work, at home, on the road, what we eat drink and breathe, how much our money is worth and what we can and can't do with our lives. It is all controlled by corporations who abuse that power according to their own greed. So when I downloaded that album illegally, its not just a rallying cry against copyrights and DRM, its a rage against ALL corporations and ALL that they do to us. We have so little to fight back against this onslaught of corporate fascism with that we will seize onto any little crack, any little chink in corporate America's armor and fight them there. And while the corporations may win the war, they will almost certainly lose this battle because they fail to realize that this isn't just about music and movies and getting things for free, this is about fighting back in any way we can against the larger enemy. Its not about the price of a movie ticket, its about anybody who ever got fucked over by some company taking a little bit of their dignity back in the only way they can. The Boston Tea party wasn't about tea and taxes and the East India Trading Company, it was about FREEDOM. And it was about fighting back against a much larger adversary when and where you could. So until the day comes where the corporations iron grip has been broken, I will continue to fight them any way I can. I will take every opportunity to strike back no matter how small, no matter how insignificant. Even if that means illegally downloading the new Beck album. Which is a very good album actually. Now where can I mail Beck the $.01 he would have gotten from my purchase?
Yeah so their evil marketing attempt is to still make it seem like a bonus; they will eventually have reached their goal when we assume that we have no granted rights to begin with, from there on, any right will seem as a bonus. Maybe that's their idea of how this should continue.
Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
Just wait until analog TV is gone and all you can receive is DTV. I already can't record whatever I want to a DVR (is there even a standalone HD/DVR left on the market now?) I don't what to keep paying a rental fee for my cable/dish DVR anymore because it disables recording for many programs. So much for the VCR.
Read the terms before you buy it
Link please? It's not like they are printed on the box.
You shouldn't have to install it more than three times
Because hard drives never die, windows never fubars, and people never run out of disk space and delete things they can later reinstall.
And installing on multiple machines? Are you fucking insane?
Whats next? Wanting to listen to a CD on your home stereo AND car stereo?
The goal is to accomplish something that's already possible?
More monopoly! Yay!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
"The group's goal is to meet consumers' expectations for what they can do (legally) with media, he said, and those expectations are based on what people have been able to do with content that has no DRM."
I know, I know. Isn't it awful that consumers have developed the expectation of being able to exercise "fair use" within the scope of legal activities, and they expect no less from any DRM system? The problem here is: consumers expect that after they've paid for the product they aren't going to get screwed by the vendor by discovering the product can't be used.
There's another way of putting it. No DRM system will EVER allow the full scope of uses allowed under "fair use". It will always short-change the user. Users won't be able to do reasonable and legal things with it. There will always be occasions when, for example, you want to copy and share that 10-second clip for the purposes of criticism, for example. Or you want to edit an image to make a parody of the original work of art. Or you simply want to play the signal through a device that doesn't happen to have support for the DRM system in question but is otherwise fully capable. Or the same thing 10 or 20 years from now when the DRM system in question is unsupported even by the vendor.
It is highly unlikely that any technological system would be able to distinguish these usually legal uses from attempts to make illegal copies, which means that any DRM system will either have to let pass any copy that could be put to such uses (which would kind of defeat the point), or the DRM would have to ILLEGITIMATELY stifle such legal uses.
Give it up. DRM is never going to be able to make that kind of judgment call. And on top of that it won't even stop dedicated attempts to illegally copy. Stop trying, stop wasting the money, and stop treating your customers like children. Inform them of the legal limitations inherent in copyright, let them know the repercussions of violating them, let them make the choice, and prosecute the ones that choose badly in a court of law. That's the way it has always been done. DRM technology is no substitute for human judgment and a court of law.
Piracy is rampant because it's easy to get stuff for free and not get caught. It has nothing to do with DRM.
It's actually quite possible to sell people stuff they can get for free (eg., Cable TV, bottled water, DVDs of TV shows.) You just have to add some sort of value to the free product, such as convenience or quality. DRM is backwards, it lessens the value of the paid-for product.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
I'd say BS.
I pirate TV shows, not because I'm too cheap to buy them, but because when they finally hit the shelves here in Denmark its usually 3-4 years after originally airing in the US - if we get the offer at all.
For instance shows like High stakes poker and I bet you never airs on Danish television and are not available for purchase around here. Funny enough though DRM is in this case actually a reason for not getting my money, not because I choose to not buy DRM laden materials, but because the only region I can get my stuff in is 1/A and they won't play on my equipment.
And music/games/movies being cheap can beat pirated content, for instance I bought me a PS3, I have no idea if it is possible to pirate for it, because I don't care. I can shop games directly from the PlayStation at fair prices. Make it convenient and hazzle free and you will get your customers.
This will, unfortunately, work.
It will allow a transparent use-case for end-users where they don't feel hampered by DRM. While still blocking them from sharing the media with the internet as a whole. If the content mangement companies wanted to be smart they should let people share media with their friends too, 1 hop, but not friends of friends and not over the internet.
If they were to enable that level of flexibility it would meet the use case for 90% of the users out there and unfortunately for us content owners would again be king.
Hack tools though would still exist and savvy users would be able to strip the DRM.
Whatever they change, they will never remove my biggest problem with DRM: I will never pay for anything that has a habit of disappearing when they turn off their DRM server.
Actually pirates usually have games, music and movies before the release date. spore was pirated and up Sept 2nd days before the American release.
Fiscal
Enhancement
Content
Encumbrance
Service.
There. Much more fitting, don't you think?
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Thats one way, but i think its a lot easier to maintain the CD, than get rip artists out of the grips of RIAA.
FLAC is a great distribution format for quality audio. It would be GREAT to get to the point where artists distro their own music through their own websites (thats how it really should be)
The Artists do not need the RIAA taking cuts from their hard work, and at the same time... hunting down the fans.
The CD is the best source of quality audio right now. Vinyl too but its too rare.
I'm just saying in the face of NEW DRM schemes.... I'll take the old trusty CD because I'm not a consumer who feels we should buy into newer technology that does nothing but lesson quality and limit freedom of use.
Just re-encode the MP3s as FLAC. Problem solved!
They just won't give up on this beautiful dream of DRM-Everywhere.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Domain already has too many meanings. DNS domains, Active Directory domains, now 'personal domains' unrelated to the previous two... Stupid.
Pick another word.
Goodluck with that, I already have formats and devices that are compatible within my "domain" without anything extra.
Actually, it doesn't bother me, BECAUSE I pirate music. DRM always punishes someone who bought the software/music/whatever legally, but never those who pirate them.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Once you've acquired a file, you could play it on any of your devices -- if it couldn't be passed directly from one DECE-ready device to another, you'd be allowed to download additional copies. And when you're away from home, you could stream the file to any device with a DECE-compatible Web browser."
Sadly this is hardly innovative at all.
I can do it with any song on any CD I have bought since late 1982... and not just being limited to my "domain" I actually enjoyed swapping them with friends, lenting them and selling those I didn't like (of course same goes for DVD's).
Guess these people need more than a bit of reality check before thinking into bullshitting their costumers. And if that is where the future of America is heading I see sad days coming.
They are simply retrenching for the next battle which is control of the music from some future point, forever if possible.
Control of the music market, if even possible, is a lucrative business, so they will try again.
Ten years is nothing; in corporate America, corporations and copyright live forever. This 10 years may only be a blip, a nuisance, in the history of their future earnings.
What is their other options?(in their mind)
Dear Cary, in order to get credibility posting on /. you really need to create an account. Otherwise it's not going to be funny to bash you!.
Thanx
When I buy a cd etc I expect to be able to use it on my already purchased (phone, laptop, stereo, etc) and not have to buy some special device. I have already spent $1.5k on 2 year phone contract, $1k on laptop $200 on monitor etc. If I need to throw away my laptop and get some vista bullshit to listen to a $0.99 song, all of a sudden that song is very expensive for me to listen to.
Also, after purchasing a CD etc I can at my option resell said item when I no longer want it. This allows me to subsidize the costs of my media consumption, and makes a larger selection available to me. Will this scheme allow me to resell media I purchase, at a price I choose?
For about $8 a month I can watch as many movies as I like with netflix. You might think that the internet would be an ideal medium for low cost media distribution, however it is apparently the case the the postal system is more effective.
I do buy CDs and I am picky with the ones I buy because I don't buy them before I've listened to them once.
That means I never buy a duff CD which in turn means I consider them good value for money - so I really don't give a toss where the money goes beyond that point.
Please don't automatically equate CD buying with financing the RIAA - legal music downloads cost more for less quality and the RIAA still gets some of the proceeds.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I don't see the distinction. A site could offer for-pay music downloads ($N per track), with no DRM anywhere in sight, and once you pay for a song, you can go back and redownload it as often as you want.
I think what you mean is that music publishers are unlikely to offer certain functionality in their download scheme if the music isn't DRMed, which is probably true (assuming we're talking about RIAA members, here).
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Yes, and we all know how well PlaysForSure worked out.
"One solution is to switch to a different business model -- make your money from touring, and treat everything else as promotional material."
If what's good for the goose is good for the gander then this should work for programmers. You all tour the planet shaking your moneymakers and people throw token offerings your way. What do you all say?
"It's actually quite possible to sell people stuff they can get for free (eg., Cable TV, bottled water, DVDs of TV shows.) "
Interesting choices. The first is "Cable TV theft". The last is the Asian counterfeit market.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
You can use a keyboard, so I can safely presume you know how to use Google.
http://www.gametreeonline.com/SporeEULA.pdf
And I really believe that the RIAA will resist the temptation to impose domain taxation where every device someone wants to add to a domain cost a few dollar more per month. Just look at how cable and phone companies (which in comparison are not monopolies) set byzantine, ever changing rules to bleed their customers.
What's more, they'd never need to release any new music. Just tax people in perpetuity for the privilege of listening.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
My sarcasm detector went off here.
If it's not accessible directly on the product before purchasing, the terms are worthless. Best Buy was careful to cover the "This product requires internet activation" (or whatever) warning on the front that fits exactly within the width of one of their price tags.
I can't agree to terms if I'm not presented with them upfront. The terms aren't visible within the product itself until you've opened it, voiding your return policy. You're not even linking to a page on the developer's website, for Christ's sake. Shrink wrap EULAs are bullshit, plain and simple.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
For some people, sure. But it's certainly possible to beat free, especially within the right demographic.
The problem is that these companies seem to think they can beat free to death, which is NOT possible. Piracy will never die. They've attempted to take away value from not paying* (and fail consistently) rather than add value to paying. If they think they're going to sell information to an "information wants to be free" crowd, they've got another thing coming. That's not their target market, nor should they think it is. Selling good, genuine entertainment that provides good value is going to get some sales from that crowd, but taking it to the next level by providing extras in legit accounts (NOT requiring a legit account to play at all, as that's just a different take on DRM) could really enhance that.
We live in a time where many, many people feel that they're entitled to get something for nothing - especially with regard to digital goods (there's plenty of political stuff as well that I won't get into). You can try to fight it (and lose), or you can acknowledge that and use the knowledge to your own advantage.
Yeah, if you're going to make a PC game targeted at 14-year-olds with broadband, good luck selling any software. Aiming a few years older to a market that actually has some disposable income would be a very wise move. Actually giving people a _reason_ to pay (send them a free shirt or whatever, some sort of tangible value-add that can't come in bit form) will help so much more. Attempting to use technical means to stop people from playing if a pirated copy is detected isn't going to convince them to cough up. There just aren't means of detection that are 100% safe for paying customers. Look at WGA for example. It accurately tagged a downloaded copy of Vista I'd thrown in a VM for poking around a bit, and the result is that I've now got a VM that can do nothing but browse the internet for no more than an hour a day or buy a legit copy of Vista. I've heard way too many horror stories about WGA to even momentarily consider risking that happening on something I'd pay for. Now that's a somewhat extreme example as far as DRM goes, but simply knowing it's in there has caused me to avoid the product entirely (FWIW, I mostly have no problem with Vista, and I'm a Mac guy).
* Companies have gone so far to intentionally sabotage the game if it detected a pirated copy, going well beyond the usual DRM. Obviously, this completely backfired when it would sometimes wrongly tag legitimate copies causing crashing among paying customers. More significantly, when it hit the scene a few days before release as always happens, it started getting tons of bad press for appearing buggy as hell, even though the "bugs" were intentional crashes caused by the pirated copy bit getting flipped.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
>You're not even linking to a page on the developer's website, for Christ's sake
>
Fine:
http://files.ea.com/downloads/commerce/eula/en_US/eula.pdf
What difference it could possibly make, who knows.
>I can't agree to terms if I'm not presented with them upfront.
>
That's why you are presented with them up front.
>The terms aren't visible within the product itself until you've opened it, voiding your return policy.
>
The terms don't fit on the box. Voiding the return policy is a separate issue.
>Shrink wrap EULAs are bullshit, plain and simple.
>
So when you make a product, feel free not to use them. Shrink wrap EULAs have been around for decades and have never been successfully challenged as a legal tool. They may be bullshit to you, but it's up to the creator what, how, and whether to sell any part of the product to you.
dunno, games like everquest, wow and age of conan really dont need that shyte ... people pay for play, not for the game, the companies makes millions with it, without harassing the customers ... they should see that it IS possible imo
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
And then, on the other hand, you have the pirates who got the same release date.
Actually, Spore was cracked and made it to my torrent tracker of choice on September 2... two days BEFORE the first release date (Australia, Sep 4). I already made it well into the space stage before my Amazon prepurchase made it to my house :P
Pirates - 3
DRM - 0
What? Shrink wrap EULAs have been thrown out in several court cases. And no, I'm not linking them, since you know so well how to use Google.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
>Shrink wrap EULAs have been thrown out in several court cases.
>
Never once simply because they WERE a shrinkwrap EULA, but only where a particular provision was unenforceable, and only to the extent that the unenforceable provision was involved. Learn to read.
Personally they can keep it. I'm sick of companies either treating us like criminals or making us do a little monkey dance just to use what we PAID for.
Damned right -- this sounds like letting a rapist define the terms under which he will consent to be prosecuted.
Fuck these bastards -- make then keep the shitty DRM they have until pissed-off customers tell them to ram it back up their assholes where they got it from in the first place.
Buncha fucking whores.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It encourages it.
You know, it was really gracious of you to explain reality to this chimp, but I fear you were just pissing into the wind.
This kind of closed-minded, rule-bound, externally-controlled idiot -- who can't distinguish between theft (a crime involving depriving an owner of the use of his own physical property) and copyright violation (a misdemeanor, in the current context, which involves imaginary property which generally can't even be detected without someone ratting you out) -- isn't going to be up for having his alleged mind wedged open.
What the **AA cumstains would like to implement would be equivalent to a book publisher licensing a given copy of a book to be read only in a specified room of your house. If you wanted to read it in another room, or on a bus or on the beach, you would have to purchase additional copies.
To the lowest pit of hell with these devil-spawn parasites.
Any chance his use of the word "filthy" to describe his "thieves" reflects poorly on his potty training? Sounds to me like it was pretty traumatic.
Airtight DRM is physically, mathematically impossible. But the content industry's lust for *complete control* is so overwhelming they go out begging for people to sell them snake oil. More thoughts here: http://rocknerd.co.uk/2008/09/13/step-right-up/
http://rocknerd.co.uk
And this doesn't even allow editing/remixing content at all. With a CD, you can rip a wave file and edit it, make it part of a home movie, set a clip to play on Windows startup, whatever. You can't do that with any sort of DRM'ed file.
I don't understand, why wanting to be paid for your work is a sign of being a "control freak" and "jerk". I can only guess, you do unpaid charity work full-time, while living off of your trust fund...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't see the distinction. A site could offer for-pay music downloads ($N per track), with no DRM anywhere in sight, and once you pay for a song, you can go back and redownload it as often as you want.
I was making a distinction between the service and the media.
The non-DRM'd media alone doesn't magically give you this ability. It's the service that gives you this ability, DRM'd or not.
I think what you mean is that music publishers are unlikely to offer certain functionality in their download scheme if the music isn't DRMed
I was implying that, yes, but it's a bit beside the point.
The point is, as a consumer, a DRM'd service may be a better value than a DRM-free track, and the equivalent DRM-free service may not exist. I'm not arguing that the DRM itself is beneficial...
Well, actually, there is one case where it is: Games. Particularly, online multiplayer games, in the form of anti-cheat technology. For a single-player game, I would much, much rather have an open source game, even if I have to pay for the content. But for a multiplayer game, it seems like the game has to at least be closed, if not heavily protected, for many genres of game.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Do like I do, buy it, then get download the DRM-free stuff. I almost never install software from the actual vendor simply because it's ridden with DRM. My games play without CDs, I can listen to my music anywhere I like. I think I'm in the clear as long as I don't distribute. DRM is for losers... and yes, I also mean the industry.
Amen brother!
if only the industry got what we are saying, DRM, CSS, DB+, that is why i dl most of my music from jamendo.com, no illegal stuff! and there is no GRM and i can get it in OGG/Vorbis, so i do not have to use MP3, witch is illegal to use in the US, but i do not have to worry i live in Sweden..
//Gego/XAREN
Because hard drives never die, windows never fubars, and people never run out of disk space and delete things they can later reinstall.
you forgot one, securerom recognizes a new video card as a new install- so if you get the game and need to upgrade your card to run it- you just blew 2 installs- happened to a lot of ppl with the mass effect install
No, seriously, cant they make some sort of lossy-but-losslessly-reencodable codec? I mean the audio quality degrades with compression, but the data does not? Could be usefull.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Doesn't matter if the game's closed, the entire functionality of the client is on the user's computer. It slows down anyone who wants to manipulate the client, but it cannot ever stop them.
But we're not talking about DRM any more; anti-cheat protections are a different beast, and one that almost no one objects to (unless they interfere with the normal operation of the game).
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
It slows down anyone who wants to manipulate the client, but it cannot ever stop them.
That's true, but slow it down enough, and it will mostly work. And unlike other forms of DRM, this isn't something you crack once and distribute via torrent -- it becomes an arms race to keep even a single game cheatable, because the next patch could always break it.
Therefore, if I want to play with people who don't cheat, all I have to do is find a decent server that stays up to date (and insists all clients do, also), and at least there's a decent chance.
Contrast this to copy protection, where it's a losing race to keep even a single game un-pirated, and where most of the measures target a very strange demographic -- namely those who would be savvy enough to share a CD amongst themselves, install daemontools and rip an image, and yet not savvy enough to know how to use torrents.
But we're not talking about DRM any more; anti-cheat protections are a different beast, and one that almost no one objects to (unless they interfere with the normal operation of the game).
Plenty of people object to Warden (from WoW), which seems to want to know and track more about the user's system than it ought to. But it helps to figure out whether or not they have a cheat program running.
And many of the same properties of DRM apply -- even the way I interpret that name (Digital Restrictions Management) applies as well. By its very nature, it limits the ways in which you use a game -- pretty much the same as DRM does.
The most fundamental difference is that DRM does not directly benefit consumers, at all. Cheat prevention does.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!