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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just re-encode the MP3s as FLAC. Problem solved!