Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source DRM Ready To Take On Big Guns
Barence writes "An open-source digital rights management (DRM) scheme says it's ready to supplant Apple and Microsoft as the world's leading copy protection solution. Marlin, which is backed by companies such as Sony and Samsung, has just announced a new partner program that aims to drive the DRM system into more consumer devices. 'It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,' Talal Shamoon told PC Pro. 'It allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices.' When asked about the biggest problem of DRM — that customers hate it — he argued that 'the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. Make DRM invisible and people will use it.'"
I don't get it... If DRM works, it restricts what you do. If it restricts what you do, it's not inivisible. How is this implementation different from any other DRM?
Bow-ties are cool.
Like it or not DRM restricts what you can do with your files. When you try to do something the copyright holders have forbidden, even the best DRM system will be plenty visible.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You can never make DRM invisible, since people are illegally sharing video and music files all the time today. If the point of DRM is to protect the content from being pirated, making it invisible to users will completely nullify its' original intent.
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
And that's by not having it at all.
I don't buy products with DRM, no matter how much they've tried to make it non-intrusive for me.
And backed by Sony? That puts it on my personal blacklist right away.
...allowing users to share content between any Marlin-enabled device in the home rather than on specific machines. "It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,"
So long as Marlin stays in business, and every device you want your music on is a Marlin device. So, if Marlin goes under and your computer crashes, you're out of luck?
"Make surveillance invisible and people won't object to it!"
Still, the implementation details would be interesting. How quickly will this be broken? Probably before it ever gets popular.
It will become visible as soon as Bob wants legitimately to copy the same song in his car player, his two desktops and his laptop...
Didn't Sony try that not too far back? And look at how well that worked out for them.
The only way to make DRM truly invisible is to effectively pwn the users' box.
I am officially gone from
Is that the kind that silently reports you to The Authorities when you do something naughty with information?
Doesn't open-sourcing a DRM implementation make it extraordinarily easy to circumvent? If you have access to the workings, surely you can remove it.
the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it
there, fixed for you
It is useless.
I'm convinced the only reason it got to the /. front page is the combination of the terms "open source" and "DRM".
Certainly there is a more informative article out there on the same subject, but this is not it.
1. It can never deprive me of my media.
2. It can not restrict what devices I use my media on.
3. It can not restrict the storage format of the media.
In other words it is impossible.
Heck I do believe that copyright infringement is wrong. I just refuse to pay the price for others breaking the law.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The article doesn't seem to be very clear.
Will this mean I'll have to buy a new TV set, a new stereo receiver, a new DVD player, a new Cellphone, a new car stereo and reconfigure all of my PCs to be "Merlin enabled"?
Probably not, since whenever someone claims it will be "more difficult to circumvent then current DRM schemes", that seems to be a challenge to some of the more clever programmers to break it.
The Internet is generally stupid
They don't mean invisible to everyone. They mean invisible to people who aren't breaking the law. Frankly, that's good enough for me, in this case; if it doesn't interfere with my legitimate use of a game or my music, I don't have a real problem with it. Yeah, it'd be nice if DRM weren't necessary, but when you get right down to it, most people will steal digital media (as opposed to physical media) when they think they can get away with it. I'm not going to debate whether that's morally wrong or not, but it IS against the law.
Now, of course, I'm not convinced this company is going to be successful in creating effective DRM that doesn't interfere with legitimate use, but it'd be interesting if they managed it.
Surely each of the 3 commenters, who all phrase "if you can't copy yo shit, howzit invisible?" are intelligent to understand the guy clearly meant it's invisible during normal, fair use. Jesus Christ.
While I'm sure it's a load of BS, I don't think many people will hate "perfect DRM" any better than what we've got now. They'll just stop complaining about how it annoys them as legitimate license owners and start complaining that stuff costs too much. Because the people that are complaining are usually pirates.
Whale
One could make the argument that DRM, by its very nature, holds consumers hostage.
Also, I wonder how many slashdotters will be won over by the fact that this implementation is open-source. I'm sure it might make some feel warm and fuzzy inside, but not me.
Let's not open source a turd...
The biggest problem with DRM isn't that people hate it while they're using it. It's that they REALLY hate it when the company they bought their music/movies/games from turns their entire collection of "owned" content to dust because the company got tired of running their DRM servers.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage"
But that's the point of DRM - the content distributor gets to decide what happens to the content, not the consumer. Your purchased content is held hostage to the whims of the distributor. That's the point of DRM.
For an encore this guy will sell airplanes without wings that keep you safely on the ground, bladless knifes without handles, and a bucket of jumbo shrimp.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Just think what you'd need to do to bypass it:
Original Source:
bool isLicenceValid()
{
(Implementation goes here)
}
"Hacked" Source:
bool isLicenceValid()
{
return true;
}
Job done :)
Summation 2
If it's open source, then I can go in, change the code and bypass the whole kit-n-kaboodle, right?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Based on their description, they seem to have built it from a better understanding of the human psychology WRT ownership of property. Most people instinctively believe that they own their music and movies and that their personal use shouldn't be restricted. This DRM seems to operate on the basis of restricting the ability to playback the content to the devices controlled by a customer, not to a set number of devices.
If this article turns out to be mostly right, it's a positive step. It recognizes the fact that most people will never get why it's infringement to share a CD or DVD across a family. So, the solution, is to focus more on how one user might give the data to a user that shouldn't receive it, than to focus on locking up the user's practical enjoyment of the product.
The key to making DRM work is to back off the user's day-to-day playback, and focus on making it so that devices won't receive content from users that don't have permission to give it to them. That's what copyright was created for: to prevent unauthorized reproductions, not tell the user exactly how they will use the IP once they buy it.
I can see this is going to be a big long cry-fest from the anti-DRM crowd. What a wonderful world you all think you live in where you can just release digital content for all the wonderful people to share out for free and where apparently content is free to produce and content owners shouldn't worry about getting money for their work because they happen to work in a field where there's no perfect distribution model.
In my world, the real world, DRM is largely a necessary evil. People deserve to get paid for their work. Software and entertainment content requires work to create and the producers have the right to compensation. Couple that with the entitlement mentality rampant today and you'll find without DRM people will just give other people's shit away for free without a second thought, and other people will download said shit for free without a twinge of conscience.
Hell, I wish we there were no guns, no wars, no murder, no rape, etc... But here in the real world these are facts of life, just like DRM. The goal is to find a reasonable DRM model that lets people do what they want with only modest restrictions on use. If a DRM model doesn't fit that, then don't buy the product.
Raising issues about a particular DRM implementation is fine. Crying about the concept of DRM is like crying about death or taxes - i.e. pointless.
"With Marlin, any device that runs Marlin can run content on the home domain," he adds. "It's a level playing field [for manufacturers] - they don't have to go up to Redmond with a begging bowl or suck up to Steve Jobs."
So, open source DRM that works well (only) with other hardware also running the same DRM? Don't we already have that? How is this new, or better? The only thing I can see is that, vis-a-vis it being open source, it could be circumvented easier.
Making it invisible doesn't make me want to use it. Even if I can't see it, I still don't like it. Even if you make it so I don't smell the shit, I'm not looking to bathe in it.
Forgive the meme, but DO NOT WANT.
SIG: HUP
That's not quite right. Yes, the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. The solution, though, is to make DRM out in the forefront of the feature list and make the DRM HELPFUL and CONVENIENT to users. Making it invisible will show that the companies are trying to hide something. Steam is always brought up as an example of good DRM. People know there's DRM on it but nobody minds because it's actually useful and makes it easy to transfer the games you've bought over to other computers quicker and easier than if you had an actual disk. Make is useful and people will use it.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
It is a conceptual problem, not one of implementation. To stop me from doing something with data, you have to prevent me from ever accessing that data in its native format, and the devices must not allow me to make them do some things that they are technically able to do. At that point, I don't own the devices or the data. They're extensions of your domain into my domain.
Doesn't the latest revision of the GPL specifically prohibit DRM?
So I assume (withot RTFA of course) that the source to this DRM is published, but it isn't GPL 3? Is it GPL 2 or some pseudo "open source"?
Dumb Restrictions on Media can use any license it wants, I want no part of it. Anyone who has anything to do with DRM is either ignorant or a fraud, and I really don't like doing business with the ignorant or with frauds.
When information isn't free, neither are you. I think I'll make that my new sig.
Free Martian Whores!
The whole concept of DRM is flawed, because they give me the media, and the key, and the algorithm and then tell me I can not put the three together in any other way than the way they choose. Sorry, not happening here. You can keep your broken products to yourself and I'll spend my money somewhere else.
No, it's more appropriate to say it will be invisible to people who use the media in the ways the creators envisioned as the only legitimate uses. Those of us who are legitimate users who want to do something out of the mainstream (say, a home built media server; or putting a selection of titles on an inexpensive portable drive to take on vacation) are screwed.
Just as there is no way to determine what all the end users will want to do with the products they purchase, there is no way to place restrictions on a system without inhibiting some users.
It's not much different than the firearms issue in the US. There are people out there who will abuse the rights, but that shouldn't prevent the vast majority of users from exercising the right.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Doesn't open-sourcing a DRM implementation make it extraordinarily easy to circumvent?
Very true. I fully expect "Tivoization" where only officially signed binaries implementing the DRM will run on equipped devices, though.
More Twoson than Cupertino
From my experience its not so much the DRM itself, but rather difference of opinions between the implementation and interpretation of the spec among the various hardware vendors.
Case in point. My home theater receiver is HDCP compliant, however it doesn't play nice with Vista. This forces me to use gray market software just so I can watch video on my projector. For the record I am not talking about just DVDs and HD disc based content. I can record an AVI with my digital camera and I will still get errors trying to play that content on my projector.
My main point is that its not necessarily the DRM itself that is the problem. HDCP "looks okay" on paper. However when you have a multitude of manufacturers interpreting the spec and the logistical impossibility of unit testing against everything else out there, ultimately its left up to the consumer to do the testing which will ALWAYS end up bad for the little guy. And there is NO WAY an individual user is going to have any teeth when a manufacturer doesn't play by the rules.
My last point is this. DRM doesn't prevent piracy.
again...let me repeat that for the industry folks who are a little slow. DRM DOESN'T PREVENT PIRACY.
It's kind of like network security. The only truly secure computer is one that is sealed in concrete, has no keyboard, no monitor, no mouse, no network, and no power. If someone wants in bad enough, they will get in. Period.
The only truly secure content is that which is never distributed.
There will always be a better mouse.
Yeah, I heard this kind of promise from the FlexLM guys decades ago. Interoperability, you control the licenses, yadda yadda. It's a turd. Individual vendors couldn't get their client implementations working well enough to "play nice" with other competing vendors applications (yes, Altera and Xilinx, I'm looking at you.) If your network and license-server topology is slightly different from the reference one, nothing works properly. FlexLM is still a disaster. This form of restriction will be too.
It is a simple problem but very hard to get around because the problem used to simply not exist. Standards.
Get this and get this if you get nothing else. STANDARDS HAVE GONE OUT THE WINDOW in the digital age.
ALL VHS was VHS. A LP's were LP's. All cassette tapes were cassete tapes.
Sure, there were competing standards for a short time but by and large, to the consumer media tech had one standard.
Now, in the digital age, this is no longer true. iPod may be synonmous with MP3 player but the fact is that it barely got 50% of the market. The rest of the market is split by dozens of brands each with dozen of models. Each model has its own system, its own capabilities.
This is why iTunes is NOT the standard method to distribute music. Nor is MS fairplay. Hey, even zune didn't support that.
This hampers DRM (and don't we all feel sad about this), how are you going to get your DRM method on all devices? Apple doesn't even bother with it, that is why it is trivial to convert iTunes music to MP3's and they don't license their solution out. Why would a MP3 maker bother with supporting fairplay when nobody uses it? And when so few players support it, nobody is going to use it.
Sure, Sony is a big company, but we all know how succesful it has been in the MP3 market. The company that OWNS the walkman has totally lost its touch, choosing to push its own formats over making money.
Unless someone comes up with a solution of DRM that works with just the file and doesn't need any software installed on devices that can't have software installed it can't work.
This new system doesn't fix that. Why is going to buy a Marlin enabled device when there are no services that use it, and what service is going to support it when nobody is buy marlin enabled devices?
Apples DRM slipped in by accident. People didn't buy iPod's because of iTunes. It just came with it. MS has totally screwed up its own changes by dropping its own system on its own MP3 players.
Saying that Apple and MS are the big boys in DRM land says it all. THERE IS NO DRM INDUSTRY. The consumer not only doesn't want it, but has no need for it. The industry, the hardware makers only offers it if it thinks the extra checkmark on the box is worth the effort and increasingly, they don't.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
4. ...
5. CASH!
DRM makes stuff fragile, so the consumer will lose it more easily. This just makes it fragile in an open environment, which is not relevant once you lose the stuff you paid for.
I use it all the time. It works great, especially under Linux. (Commercial DVD players tend to be a bit crippled for some reason...)
and your customers won't realized they've been pwn3d until its too late, kind of like Sony making the now infamous root kit invisible by patching the OS?
They want to go to a license model for media, but they also want to charge for new media types (VHS->DVD->BluRay->)
I've bought Bladerunner now, oh, I don't know, 10 times, but if you believe the media folks I've never actually owned it, I've only had the right to view it......
making it open source might insure that you have a chance of using it everywhere and somewhat future proofs it, so long as the system uses a method that does not require external verification and/or an occasional phone home; DRM sucks, and the only way we are going get rid of it is to stop being ignorant consumers.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
I live in a world without restrictions and that's the way it should be. No new restriction or means of delivering industry PR to me is a "step forward". US copyright was not made to prevent, "unauthorized reproductions" it was made to maximize the public domain and advance the state of the art. It was supposed to be temporary and it was always considered an evil exclusive franchise. I do not want devices that refuse help and information from my neighbors so that big publishers can keep revenues based on obsolete business models and technology. You are asking me to refuse to help my neighbors when they ask, that's wrong.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1) Take computer on which you can run whatever you like 2) Patch open source drm to remove all restrictions 3) Re-encode to any free format 4) Play on any device you like 5) ??? 6) PROFIT! Open source and DRM are mutualy exclusive concepts, as DRM by definition relies on security by obscurity.
but the GOV should force manufacturers to put a label on that says "This item is DRM protectd" It would save us the consumers tons of headaches from buying something and later finding out I can't take my music/movies/games/game consoles/etc... and used them anywhere I want for my own personal use or build a terrorist device with it. I could then avoid those item and be done with it. If I have to do without "new" digital format music so be it I'll get a cd or a product that I can use anyway I want with out breaking the law.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I sorted through the Marlin website to try and figure this thing out, and underneath the glut of shiny "This is great for your company" PR, there is actually some useful info on how the system works; it's quite complicated.
What I didn't figure out was if the the client or "DRM Engine" on the consumer's side is a daemon process, let alone if it's doing boot-sector dirty work or poisoning the operating system for its own preservation. I can't tell if this is really "invisible" or if it's just another SecuROM - Sony is in the interest group, after all.
Furthermore, I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but is this really "open source?" As far as I can see, you have to license Marlin (annual fee) or else you can barely see anything.
There's no better use for a Rootkit in my opinion. Just ask Sony about invisible DRM. :D
And backed by Sony? That puts it on my personal blacklist right away.
You should have seen (well maybe you did) the rant I posted on my now-defunct site about XCP. My daughter worked at a record store (since bankrupt, labels say copyright infringement, I say boycott) and put a Sony-BMG CD in the PC, which had autostart disabled, but she trusted the label to not put nasty shit on her dad's computer and ran it.
I had wipe the drive (thankfully I keep data on a different drive from OS and apps) to reinstall Windows, and couldn't find my driver CDs for my video card or sound chip. The video card mfg no longer supported 98 so I had to buy XP, and an Audigy. It cost me almost two hundred dollars, plus an afternoon of my time.
The rant's title was (in caps, with the sord "die" in red) "SONY MUST DIE!!!"
If I did to their computers what they did to mine, I'd be in prison.
I think you'll like Uncyclopedia's take on DRM.
Free Martian Whores!
If I had an account at slashdot, it would be for one reason only: to +1 this comment.
They mean invisible to people who aren't breaking the law.
No, they mean invisible to people who buy Merlin devices.
Which means not invisible at all. Just because they have raised the restrictions a little higher for one class of device doesn't make it any better for the average consumer.
If someone says a DRM is invisible pull out a portable digital video player and say "So I can transcode my video to this, right?
The degree to which the faces fall and the stammering begins indicates just how "invisible" it is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If it's Open-source, then all that means is that it'll be cracked and nullified several orders of magnitude faster than Closed-source DRM. DVD and Bluray DRM has been cracked, there's Fairplay for Apple iTunes, etc, and those were Closed-source. Get a clue Sony, and give the hell up on DRM -- because even if you make it bulletproof, we'll just re-record it in analog anyway.
The whole idea of DRM is to keep the decryption keys secret from the person who is using them. So how can you make DRM be open source?
MarlinPlayer(filename)
{
SuperSecretKey = "WhoWillWatchTheWatchers123"
GetKeyFromServer(SuperSecretKey)
DecryptToSecretPlaceNobodyCanFindIt("C:\temp\__secret\123.mp3")
PlayThatFile()
}
FAIL.
DRM and open-source do not go together. They can't. If it is open-source, you can circumvent the restrictions. You can simply look at the code and change it so that it accepts whatever you want to do. Even if they depend on some information you get from a system that isn't under your control. You do it once, and then you can get at the content, and then you can decode the content, and then you can do whatever you want with it.
Conversely, if you cannot alter the software to disable the restrictions, it's not open source.
Having said that, I suppose it is possible to slap an open source license on your software, and still have users be legally disallowed from circumventing the DRM that is in your software.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
There's a reason copyright law isn't clearer than it is, and that it because a lot of the uses are potentially infringing based on intent and effect. This is the four factor test of fair use:
What is the character of the use?
What is the nature of the work to be used?
How much of the work will you use?
What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
Of these, a computer could only know ONE, the nature of the work as that's already known when it's published. What am I going to use it for? Am I going to make one excerpt or 1000 covering the whole thing? What effect would it have on the market? Doesn't have a clue.
The only kind of DRM you'll find it the one that will block any use that may be potentially infringing, which means damn near everything. Please tell me how this DRM system will be magically telephatic and able to avoid this.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No, it will be like the Tivo - the source is open, however the hardware will only execute code that is signed. So you can modify the software all you want but it won't run on the hardware. You won't be able to buy / make your own hardware device that isn't locked down because the managers of the DRM will not issue device keys to entities unless they sign a contract agreeing to lock down the hardware.
The benefit of being "open" is primary for the device manufacturers - they don't have to pay any royalties for use of the DRM, and have free reference implementation(s) to work with.
Doesn't open-sourcing a DRM implementation make it extraordinarily easy to circumvent?
DRM on music is trivial to circumvent no matter what media. It's a felony to tell someone how to circumvent DRM, so should I just turn myself in to the FBI?
Free Martian Whores!
By it's nature, Open Source gives you both the code and the right to modify it to suit your needs, so why not recompile it to pass every file it checks, therefor nullifying the DRM aspect of it? The name Digital Rights Management gives away who it's made for....it gives the content producers the right to restrict what their customers can do with the stuff they bought, but calling it a more accurate "hire" instead of a "sale" would make more sheep wonder why.
It doesn't seem to be open source by any of the usual meanings. I would describe it as proprietary.
Nope. Since it's Open Source, you just comment out the part of the code that says "If I can't contact the server, refuse to work," recompile, and then everything works.
Or if they use a decryption key downloaded from Marlin, then before they go out of business, go into the part of the code where it downloads the decryption key, and store that key somewhere. No, wait, even better: use that key to decrypt your content, and store the plaintext and delete the original. At that point, everything works flawlessly regardless of when Marlin goes out of business.
Now that's what I call effective DRM.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I can almost feel the heads of slashdotters exploding as they are simultaneously pulled by their intense love of OSS and their intense hatred of DRM. This is just someone's cruel plot to kill all the geeks isn't it?
When do I get to DRM my medical and financial records? Or does this still only restrict consumers?
The article linked here is the only place on the web that makes the peculiar, and false, claim that Marlin is "open source". Marlin's own creators make no such claim; they only claim that it operates on "open standards", which is quite a different can of worms.
No story here, just one careless reporter and one careless ./ submitter.
And this is why I will stick To buying only products that don't contain DRM.
The logic of you cant see it so it isn't there there is a step backwards and is also concealing it from the consumer they have a term for this its called spy ware.
I have my own reasons to oppose DRM - I believe it is not a crime to crack it and distribute the content - but I am very surprise to see that most arguments against DRM on /. boil down to
It's evil *because* it sucks for consumer (understand, it sucks for me), I don't want to rent my songs, etc.
DRM is indeed evil because it is backed by DMCA
DRM indeed sucks for technology oriented consumers
But these are two different things and should not be confused. Making a defective product is stupid, not evil.
\u262D = \u5350
I don't have the answer to your question, but you bring up a good point. Perhaps it is time to start a new form letter.
I'll get the ball rolling:
Your system advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting copyright violations.
Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
(X) It will stop copyright violation for two weeks before it gets hacked
( ) Users of media will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
(X) Consumers will have to buy new versions of all their gadgets
(X) Requires too much cooperation from device vendors
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many device vendors cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for media
(X) Asshats
( ) Not every device has a permanent connection to the internet
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Susceptibility of DRM protocols to attack
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all DRM approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of copyright violation
( ) Identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity of consumers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of copyright violators themselves
(X) The Internet
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(X) The customer is always right
( ) We should be able to share our own media all we want
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of private computers
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government listening over my shoulder
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
These are exactly the issues:
(1) It should never be possible for me to lose access to media I have paid for, period. Perhaps this could be solved with a consumer rights law and enforced key escrow for media.
(2) I should be able to play any media on any device I own which supports playing the underlying media. I should be able to convert between media types (ie, aac->mp3) for the purposes of using a media type on another device.
(3) I should be able to make and keep backups on any media. I should be able to restore out of backup onto any device I own. There should not be onerous measures required to 'activate' my media on new devices (I'm looking at you, EA!)
Ultimately, this is why piracy is attractive - piracy gives you a "better" copy - a copy you can use anywhere and move anywhere.
It's not that it's badly implemented. It's that DRM is a bad *idea*. Period.
Is that it exists at all.
This is wrong, no mater what you pretend it is or isn't.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That depends on how it's implemented. OpenPGP is open-source, but it is no less secure than closed-source PGP. Having the source code shows you how the encryption works, but without the specific key that the content was encrypted with, you're out of luck.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
In Sony's opinion, DRM that doesn't force you to repurchase all your content every time you buy a new player is DRM that doesn't work. Apparently this "open source DRM" guy is unclear on what the real purpose of DRM is.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I hate licensing. It's too much like renting. I want to OWN the device, program, song, whatever; not rent it.
Exactly, if I buy something then it is mine for personal use and I will not tolerate any DRM whatsoever. And when it comes to music I want to own it. However, there are somethings which I don't mind renting because they only have limited replay value anyway. DRM allows the concept of renting to be extended into the digital realm where things are easily copied, and can create some nice business models that wold not be financially viable otherwise.
It seems like most of the focus right now is on on-demand streaming of videos, which can be obfuscated to discourage most people from recording, but it has it's problems. For one, the bandwidth for high quality video really isn't there yet, and it would creates huge peaks in demand during prime-time if it ever became widespread. By using DRM'd downloads rather than streaming content, distributors and ISPs benifit by allowing downloads to be more spread-out and even intentionally scheduled during low usage hours if it's automated (using a Netflix queue model). Furthermore, not all places have fast internet connections, like subways, cars and airplanes. Being able to sync the movie to a portable device really makes the system more useful to customers. The only problem I have with existing services like this is that they are tied to specific devices, like the rentals on iTMS can only be used with Apple computers and devices. An "open" DRM system like is being proposed here would fix that.
http://www.marlin-community.com/technology/how_marlin_works Draw three large dollar signs and a single direction arrow from the user to the web store. I see how they did that.
The only invisible DRM is NO DRM.
It's either there and it will get in your way, or it's not there and doesn't bother you.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
1. Now I'm against piracy, but claiming something as broad as "invisible to people who aren't breaking the law" is BS.
For example, from what I understand, you only need to try playing t on a device which isn't "Marlin-enabled", for it to become very visible right there. I fail to see what counts as "breaking the law" if I merely take my bought song and try to play it on my old car stereo. Care to explain?
2. How _do_ you enforce a DRM without locking access to certain parts of the "pipeline"? E.g., if I can use open-source sound drivers, what's to keep me from writing an un-DRM-ed .WAV to disk of their music? E.g., if I can play it in a self-compiled music player, what's to keep me from writing the decrypted stream from the player instead of playing it? Etc.
That's why MS's "trusted computing" insists on authorizing and authenticating every single bit of your computing, starting from the CPU. And you can't have a signed program that you can change, recompile and have it still stay signed.
So basically they _have_ to restrict what drivers, software, etc, you use, or they can't guarantee enforcing that DRM. And as soon as you, say, went the OSS route and recompiled anything, again, it _has_ to become very visible. Because as soon as the binary has changed at all, you no longer know whether it now has a backdoor which extracts the binary stream.
_But_, and here's the important part, the binary changes even if you didn't do anything devious there. If I, say, decide to play with these stupid drivers and make them able to play multiple streams like under windows (Gnome and KDE do come with daemons that do that mixing, but natively it isn't available) it necessarily produces a different executable.
So, again, care to explain what's illegal or "breaking the law" if I decide to tweak my sound drivers on this here Linux machine? I mean, FFS, even MS's FUD at its darkest hour stayed clear of claiming that doing any OSS work is criminal.
4. I thought that it was up to the courts to decide if a law has been broken? Just a thought. Deciding a priori that anyone running into trouble with a particular piece of retarded software is a criminal, is rich. The whole fundament of the western justice is based on such ideas as establishing exactly what happened, the degree of evil intent ("mens rea"), hearing the other side's half of the story too, etc. It seems to me that deciding a priori that, basically, anyone doing things differently than you imagined is automatically a criminal, goes against pretty much everything that justice stands for.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
... unless your definition of "open" includes signing a contract and paying an annual fee before you can see the code. See http://www.marlin-community.com/develop/become_a_participant
Nobody wants it.
Nobody is asking for it.
Nobody wants to pay for it.
Completely true where Nobody=="Copyright holder".
Take Paramount for example. They're coming out with a new Star Trek movie. They want Alice and Pete to go to the cinema and have a good time. They also want Alice and Pete to pay to watch the movie. A year or so down the road, Paramount will release the movie on DVD. They want to be sure that Alice cannot borrow Pete's copy and duplicate it. (Although, Paramount is probably more concerned that Alice, Pete, Bob, Sue, Charlie, Howie, Martha, Mary, Vijay, Carl, Mike, Henrietta, George, John, Leonard, Anistasia, Ellen, Heather, James, Sophia, Thomas, Gary, Tracy, Csaba, Julie, Trevor, Trey, Sasha, Leslie, Hans, Jose, Esteban, Carlita, Monique, Kevin, Lola, Nancy, Ruby, Victor, Frank, and Zuzu might go over to that place near chinatown that sells bootlegs, and get their DVD there.) Paramount can't rely on Alice and Pete's good will. They can't rely on their old method of being far too expensive to copy. The only way they, or any copyright holder can prevent copying, especially bulk copying, is by some DRM scheme.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
... then I should be able to build my own media playback device, using their source code, and it will work when I have the corresponding media and license key. If I choose to do such an implementation as a software "device" in my Linux based computer, will it really work? To me, that will be the big test.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
No, it will be like the Tivo - the source is open, however the hardware will only execute code that is signed. So you can modify the software all you want but it won't run on the hardware.
But, with open source, you can just build your own "device"...really.
See, the TiVo system is not truly open source...only the changes that they have made to the GPL code are available. Their completely non-GPL code isn't, and the DRM is all within that code.
For Marlin, you would simply compile the code and run it on whatever system you wanted, then have it acquire licenses, which I assume would be (in some way) personalized decryption keys for the content. You can't embed the decryption keys in the device, or you end up with CSS...break it once and it's permanently broken.
One way around this is to give each individual device a private key signed by the Marlin developers. Then, any "purchase" would result in encrypting the content using the device public key. This would allow revoking the device key which would only break one single device (not a class of devices). The problem then becomes how to allow movement of content between devices.
All these potential problems and ways to circumvent the DRM are just off the top of my head. A determined team would easily defeat this, just like they defeated everything else. So, like every other DRM, Marlin will be an annoyance to legal users of the content, and of complete unimportance to illegal users of the content.
I propose someone just create a single home domain, then everyone, every single Marlin devices just join to this domain.
"One world, one dream" right?
Well, depends on how it was implemented, if the domain owner could shutdown the domain, then the next step would be-
PROFIT!!
a software movement founded on getting around ip restrictions being used to enforce those ip restrictions
next you'll tell me the chinese communist party is actually hypercapitalist
ok now wait, bad example
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What exactly is their understanding of the concept of "open-source"? It doesn't look like any definition I've heard.
But in a media environment, you need both the encrypted source AND the key to be able to use them. Having both means game over.
Set your recording device to be "wav" or "what I hear" or something similar in your soundcard's mixer's "recording" view. Grab Audacity, hit record, then hit play on *insert_audio_source_here* No signal loss from using the physical outputs.
body massage!
What if the function of DRM wasn't to restrict what device or how many devices you could use it on, but instead it affected the quality for every generation that it was copied? Back in the days of vinyl and cassette tapes (and video tapes, for that matter) you'd lose quality of the recording every time you made a copy-of-a-copy, down to the point where the signal-to-noise ratio was low enough that it was basically garbage. That was regrettable -- but at the same time, the recording industry wasn't anywhere near as anal-retentive about it as they are now, and in fact they more or less turned a blind eye to it unless you were doing it on a commercial scale and selling the copies.
So the question is: Would you accept DRM that degraded the quality of the file every time you copied it, but otherwise let you do whatever you wanted to do with it?
Granted, the downside would be that there would have to be co-operation on a broad scale to make an idea like this work: you'd have to have a special utility to copy the song or movie, and P2P software would have to have the functionality built into it (most likely this would end up being built into the OS itself). The upside is that the song or movie could be copied freely and as much as you want. Naturally, someone would come up with a crack for even this type of DRM, and even as I write this I'm coming up with other implementation problems (like transcoding a song to a different, DRM-free format, like a plain .WAV file), but I'm accounting for that being part of the compromise that the industries would have to accept since I don't believe that you can completely and permanently stamp out all piracy.
Gee, lemme guess.
- It doesn't actually prevent me from doing what I want to do with my media - therefore, it never appears, and is invisible.
- It doesn't require my intervention to buy, use, move, archive, or delete media - therefore, it never appears and is invisible.
- It doesn't alter my media experience - therefore, it never appears and is invisible.
So it doesn't show itself, and therefore to me it doesn't exist.
Got it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, yeah no DRM system is actually secure. They all depend on obfuscation of the keys which is a flawed approach. The point is that having the source gains you nothing - all the exploits you mentioned come down to extracting the encryption keys.
My TV is digital and incorporates HDMI with it's nice, integrated DRM scheme.
My HD reader is digital, incorporates HDMI, with it's nice, integrated DRM scheme.
My TV tuner is digital, with it's nice, integrated DRM scheme (no record bit...ah yes, they said they would never use it)
My radio is analogic. But they are all pushing that DAB thing that is digital
My Ebook reader....
ad nauseam.
Now add a touch of ubiquitous Wimax/wireless in all of those pieces of kit. And they can revoke your licences at will.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
if I can play it I can rip it to a unencumbered format.
Sure, analog reconversion ultimately defeats DRM on noninteractive works, such as music or movies, at some cost in quality. But it does not work with video games.
What a jealous twat. Learn to write, lose the hateful attitude (you sure are a twisted, angry little person, I feel sorry for you), and you might become popular too.
And if you'd read the K5 "Paxil Diaries" (they were very popular, even Rusty was a fan) you'd know that she didn't take me to the cleaners; in fact, she only got what Illinois law demanded. The bankers took me to the cleaners.
The teenaged girls stayed with me. Both were estranged from their mother for a long, long time.
Now get off my lawn, boy.
Free Martian Whores!
Sounds like a shill for the RIAA spinning... "Hey I know we'll create an open source front to make people trust us..."
Any technology that is based upon mistrust of your users is flawed to start with.
Steam is mostly about not allowing used game shops to operate.
The fact that it restricts you from loaning it (or selling it) to a friend is a nice little benny, but hardly the main reason. The fact that you cheerfully give up hard won rights (i.e. doctrine of first sale) shows that DRM will succeed mostly because of lazy people say "well, it's so easy".
I don't see any music company going for this. If the source is open, then anyone can implement the DRM in order to break the restrictions. Hence, this would provide the same protection from piracy as a plain mp3!
My TV is digital and incorporates HDMI with it's nice, integrated DRM scheme.
It has a display and a speaker. Use a camcorder.
My radio is analogic. But they are all pushing that DAB thing that is digital
It has a speaker. Use a microphone.
The one kind of digital restrictions management that you can't break with the analog hole is the DRM on a video game.
"The ones who are sharing files on the internet "
It also restricts people who want to loan a game to their friend(s). If you think about it, the current inherent DRM of console games is perfect in a way; it allows everyone to treat the game like a book. You can't easily copy it, you "own" it, and you can loan it, and you can sell it.
However, I think you'll find most of the game companies would prefer you couldn't do the last two, and they object strongly to the last item, since it puts them in competition with cheaper, legal copies of their own product.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices.
Um, to play music you need a device. This means you own both the content and the device. You won't convince consumers otherwise.
Idiot.
how is babby formed?
That, however, misses half the point of DRM. Or rather, what the media companies expect from a DRM.
Most of the point of DRM is, basically, "Thou shall not distribute unencrypted copies of our data." Because that's what a pirate would _do_. He wouldn't just distribute the encrypted file and urge the downloaders to purchase a legit key. He'd strip the DRM right out, and distribute the unencrypted non-DRM-ed version.
Now even the media companies realize that they can't prevent that _completely_. E.g., there's no way they can prevent you from recording from the analog audio output, or just holding a microphone in front of the speakers. So they've learned to grudgingly accept it, as long as enough loss of quality occurs in the process.
What they _don't_ want is you just decrypting the file and getting the same quality as the paying customers. That's where they draw the line.
And let me show you how that source of yours can be modified by a pirate to save a decrypted copy of anything it plays:
Original source:
Changed source:
That's it. Now I can take that decrypted file and upload it on P2P or whatever, and their DRM has no more power over it. The whole lock for that key has been removed. Best of all: it's of exactly the same quality as the DRM-ed version.
Exactly one person had to buy a copy there, and everyone else gets it cracked. It's no improvement over, say, just selling it on a CD. Anyone who doesn't want to rip it off the CD, has to have the "key" (the physical CD), everyone who rips it, doesn't need the "key" any more.
So, yes, it's as pointless as alcohol-free vodka. It removes the whole control that those media bigwigs wanted in the first place. It doesn't prevent piracy in any form or shape. Why bother with a DRM in the first place, then?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Assuming that you'll be able to rip whatever DRM they use is dangerous. With hardware that cooperates to undermine you, PKI could easily be used to encrypt data in ways that are unbreakable through software -- by ANYONE. All it takes is a chip that publishes its public key for the media source, and re-encypts data directly to digital monitors (IE, an LCD monitor, and speakers) which also publish their public keys. Short of breaking your OWN chip apart to see it's unique key, you're screwed. Moreover, it could well be unbreakable, if those chips used one-time pads.
Battling DRM and other abuses of power is a lot like the anecdote about battling the nazis: if they come for others and you don't speak up, there will be no one left to speak up when they get to you. Or, in other words, don't be complacent on the grounds that you'll survive. If you let the technology gain a foothold, you'll be up the creek too, just like everyone else.
What a wonderful world you all think you live in where you can just release digital content for all the wonderful people to share out for free and where apparently content is free to produce and content owners shouldn't worry about getting money for their work because they happen to work in a field where there's no perfect distribution model.
Nobody is saying artists shouldn't be paid. What we are saying is that DRM isn't the way to go about it.
Refute that point instead.
There are other ways to get paid. It's been discussed here on /. millions of times, so I'm not going to rehash them. Go and search and find them yourself.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I don't see people moving away from it any time soon. Saying DRM is baaaad on slashdot is kind of like making an argument against gun control at the NRA. There aren't many people that would argue that an ideal content solution includes DRM. Content owners are, for the most part, unwilling to license content that is not DRM'd. Since that's the case, it makes sense to create a DRM product that attempts to solve most of the issues with DRM, namely that it's proprietary, non-transferrable, and dependent on the long term survival of the company handing out licenses. To that extent, I think Marlin is at least trying to do more than the other branded DRM schemes. The only problem with their plan is that it is reliant on getting a tipping point of CE manufacturers and content providers on board, and even then it's dependent on Apple or Netflix totally fumbling and losing their momentum, neither of which is going to happen. In the long run, all of the companies that are using DRM are eventually going to suffer as a result of it. The trend is for data to become more ubiquitous, not less. Any data that is encumbered by access restrictions will be less favored than data that is unencumbered by such restrictions. In other words, a movie released through studios will be at a disadvantage when compared to a movie released independently. When distribution channels become completely open (not by plan but by natural progress) then you'll see mediums like film production becoming smaller, more targeted, and eventually DRM free.
The stifling impact of DRM on the nongeek really hit home for me recently. My mother in law (who is somebody's grandmother) had a whole bunch of songs from iTunes. She didn't understand why she couldn't just burn the files into a CD for archive or playing in a CD player. I explained to her about how she couldn't do that because the copyright owner didn't permit it. I immediately told her that she could burn the CD's into a CD audio format, then reencode into a friendlier format. Her exact words were this "That's so stupid. Why do I have to do all THAT for something I bought?"
Open source or not, there is no DRM that is invisible. That'd because DRM can't keep up with every kind of fair use.
For example, from what I understand, you only need to try playing t on a device which isn't "Marlin-enabled", for it to become very visible right there. I fail to see what counts as "breaking the law" if I merely take my bought song and try to play it on my old car stereo. Care to explain?
Sure, it's easy: they failed in their goal, and their claims are pure advertising bullshit. Doesn't have anything to do with my original point.
How _do_ you enforce a DRM without locking access to certain parts of the "pipeline"?
Damned if I know. I don't design this stuff. Personally, I suspect it's impossible. That would be why there have been so many attempts, and zero successes.
I thought that it was up to the courts to decide if a law has been broken?
True. Tell you what... let's outlaw door locks. After all, no one can say whether someone who enters your house at three in the morning and loads your stereo, television, and other valuables into a truck is a burgler except the courts. And safe deposit boxes. And every other type of security device.
My point here is, as it has always been in these discussions (to stretch the definition of the word "discussion" to its breaking point), that DRM is the equivalent of a lock. If well designed, it should do what a door lock does: keep lawbreakers out, while letting in the people you want to let in. The fact is, no one has yet come up with a good design for DRM: it never keeps out the lawbreakers for long, and it generally keeps out some people you want to let in. That doesn't mean the concept is flawed; just the execution.
This DRM seems to operate on the basis of restricting the ability to playback the content to the devices controlled by a customer
Maybe they are trying to make it seem that way, but it is 100% untrue. It is absolutely no different than any other DRM.
It completely throws copyright law out the window, and it only permits the ability to playback on approved devices with approved restricted functionality devices in the limited approved pre-defined manners. No different than any other DRM. Any device that they have not pre-approved is prohibited, and any usage or activity that they have not pre-approved is prohibited. All of copyright and all devices and all legal uses and all technology is forbidden.
It is not copyright infringement for me to build my own record player to play the record I bought. It is not copyright infringement for me to independently create an innovative new record player with valuable new features and for me to sell it to other people to benefit from, to play the records they bought on this great new innovative independent non-infringing player.
It is physically impossible to make any other form of DRM. It is physically impossible to make "invisible" DRM. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit legal non-infringing activities. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit Constitutionally established Fair Uses.
Yeah yeah yeah, their intent for DRM is to combat piracy, but no DRM past or future can ever prevent or diminish the effect of a single copy making it onto the internet. Regardless of their reasonable legitimate desire for DRM, the fact is that the primary effect is to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing activities, and event worse, to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing technologies and products and innovation.
I absolutely positively will NEVER buy their defective-by-design DRM crap, except perhaps for the explicit purpose of cracking it. And I'm getting so pissed off at this entire evil delusional anti-technology war they are waging that I want nothing more than to insert a live lobster up Mr Talal Shamoon's anatomy - sideways - and to explicitly rip any and all content 'protected' under this deluded system and post it on the internet so that legitimate buyers can make full and proper use of the content they bought.... and oh well everyone else can download it for free and I'm GLAD and I have absolutely ZERO sympathy left for these asshats. I am just sick and tired of the whole war and I just want them to financially and physically die already.
Bah. I probably shouldn't post on this stuff when I haven't slept in more than two days. I'm tired and fuzzy and I have no patients for these evil abusive delusional DRM companies and no patients for these evil abusive delusional media companies and no patients to be calm and reasonable and polite and self-sensor the flamage, and most of all my sleep deprived brain is enjoying the the whole live lobster thing way too much.
These people have the fuxored notion that they can, should, and will criminalize noninfringing technology, and that they can, should, and will imprision an innocent non-infringing school kid for up to five years for doing some non-infringing constitutionally protected Fair Use classroom media project in some unapproved way or with some unapproved devices. If someone want to bitch about my flamish tone, fine, but I want to hear them defend this. I want to hear them defend that criminalizing non-infringing technology is good or reasonable or even tolerable, defend that criminalizing non-infringing school kid clss project is good or reasonable or even tolerable. Just becase someone would like to prevent bank robberies does not make it ok for them to go around shooting innocent people in the attempt, does not make it ok for them to rollback and ban valuable-but-inconvenient technology itself, does not make it ok to prohibit free market competition in legitimate valuable innovative
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Actually, standards are a late 20'th century issue. It's the standards that used to not exist, and the whole free market theory was based on, well, survival of the fittest.
The whole market-solves-it-all idea is, essentially, a genetic optimization algorithm. There are lots of companies and products competing with each other, and the best one wins, the worst ones die out. And then someone takes the ideas from the ones that did well, and tries to tweak them even further. And the whole cycle repeats.
The whole idea was that someone would get an idea, like, "let's make the wheels larger." Or, "let's try a thinner rope made of synthetic fibres instead of hemp." Or, "let's make a rope tightening device instead of using nails and screws to build a fence."
Standards are an attempt to prevent that from happening. Essentially now you have the sacrosanct standard that says exactly how thick your rope must be, and woe if you deviate from the standard. (Don't laugh, you couldn't have a wider VHS tape, for example.)
What nowadays is seen as "OMG, MS is evil because their JavaScript implementation isn't 100% standard" used to have another name: innovation. Roll that around in your head.
Now I'm not saying that MS is good or innovative, and their being a monopoly subverted the free market anyway in the first place. It's just a silly example to get the point across. And the point is: you used to be _supposed_ to try to take a good thing and make it even better. Then let the market decide if it's really better or not.
If you want a non-MS example, take cordite. (Modern smokeless "gunpowder".) Nobel's original idea involved a liquid solvent. Then someone figured out a way to make it all solid and still not self-ignite. And it was called innovation, not "OMG, they're evil because they make non-standard cordite."
The whole rise of standards and having any need for them at all, is something rather new. It's not some sacred tradition.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I definitely agree that having the keys are the attacks on all current DRM systems, but the reason this occurs is because the keys are so broadly distributed. In other words, many devices have the exact same key, and media has to have multiple keys embedded on it.
With a download-only system, you could conceivably have devices where every one has its own key, and media is encrypted in such a way that only that one key will decrypt it.
With a one device/one key system, gaining control of a key gives you nothing more than attacks like a debugger that grab the decrypted data off the bus (or out of memory) while the system runs, which can never truly be stopped.
But, along with having to decrypt/encrypt to send to another device, the major flaw with this system is no pressed media. To be honest, though, the only DRM system that might have a chance to work would be one that didn't support mass-produced read-only media.
The reporter would be reduced to taking photographs of each page. But the document display could have a watermark in it that would forbid the digital camera from capturing an image.
There are ways around this: the reporter could use an old camera, or an ordinary film camera.
But the problem is that if the document will only display on a corporate employee's computer, a whistleblower can't forward the document by email to a reporter; the reporter has to take pictures of the whistleblower's computer. And the DRM could be used to make every copy of the document look different somehow, so when the reporter publishes the story, the corporation can identify the whistleblower.
DRM means there's a cop in your computer, a hostile force that doesn't work for you. Sure, there might be ways around it, but there will be many traps to catch the unwary. Just say no.
Copy protection is not just DRM, it's DRM used stupidly. Copy protection involves giving someone an encrypted document, the key to decrypt it, and the algorithm to decrypt it. It only works because the code that combines the key and the algorithm is obscure. Either the location of the key is hidden, or the key is encrypted with a second key hidden in the code. Make the code visible, and there's no place left to hide it.
My problem with DRM is that (1) it takes away my control and (2) it risks my investment in whatever contents I have subjected to it.
I can see that with iTunes, I just had a laptop nuke its hard disk and presto, one less system "authorized" to play. The other laptop will never work again, yet the clock ticks further.
Leaving control aside, the other problem is that of reliability. For DRM to work it means every SINGLE component in a DRM chain from source to display/performance has to be in working order. One glitch and the chain breaks, which gives you an MTBF of at most the MTBF of the weakest component in the link. And it's still beta software, it's still beta hardware.
So, no thanks. Not for me. Ever.
Insert
There are a lot of people here saying that if by making it open source, you can strip the DRM.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that the file will be anything like the original. What do I mean by this? Well, if they were to use a lossy encryption algorithm, then the decrypted copy will be uncompressed. Of course, it would be playable, but at a significantly larger file size. It would be practically the same as the "CD workaround" in iTunes, or recording and recompressing the line-out from your sound card when playing from any existing DRM scheme.
Personally, I see this as being the best way for someone to implement an opensource DRM scheme, as having the source in no way "enables" the user.
3... 2... 1...
Bingo: that's actually the point of most of us. It's not even possible, but in the name of it we do get saddled with stuff that does only harm and no good. If you were wondering why so many people are against DRM a priori, that's why: because nobody offered yet proof -- or even reasonable suspicion -- that it might actually do what it says.
Tell you what: you come up with an analogy that isn't that melodramatic and actually is relevant, and then we'll use it :P
Seriously, these things are not like a lock. Locks exist, are known to work, keep more bad guys out than owners out of their own homes, and don't infringe on anyone's rights on their own property. And you're free to remove or change your lock if you don't like it. DRM so far is just the opposite: it's an idea that never worked, (and likely can't even theoretically work,) it never kept pirates out, it routinely keeps people from using their own bought stuff, and is even bragged about as a way to defeat first sale doctrine and other consumer rights.
And I don't even propose to flat out outlaw them. Rather: let's see one that actually works like that, before I'm saddled with yet another dysfunctional idiocy in the name of that idea.
Well, that's a bit like saying that the following concept is sound: a Santa Claus who doesn't spy on you.
But in practice it's an impossibility within a contradiction. It's not even theoretically possible, and it's internally contradictory. Yes, it would be nice to have something like that, great concept, but I'll cheer when/if it actually works that way. I see no pragmatic need to debate the merits of concepts like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or a DRM which magically keeps only law-breakers out and doesn't hold anyone's media or computer hostage ;) I'll be more concerned with those who try to sneak in some nasty surveilance scheme disguised as Santa, or yet another annoying bit of snake oil disguised as "keeping the law breakers out". Especially when it (or at least the latter) has already happened a dozen times verbatim.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Inaccurate. Remember that HDMI is based on shared-key encryption, with a totally public algorithm. Unless you're arguing that shared-key encryption is security through obscurity of the private key.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
Start making lists of this software.
DO not buy it.
Do not sell it.
DO NOT BREATHE AROUND IT.
when they lose sales that is only way they get the message.
If they embed it then don't use the embedded device, ask about one that's NOT DRM'd.
If you cant get one , i am sure you can live without until someone gets the idea to make Something that's NON DRM'd.
"It's simply invasive, untrusting, and unnecessary for adults..."
Unfortunately, most of the participants in file "sharing" act more like greedy self-absorbed two-year-olds than adults. Adults at least tend to have at least some perception of the consequences of their actions. Children simply demand they be given MORE! MORE! MORE!
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
As I understend , DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. As a great open source project, this implementation should allow us to manage digital rigts - for example allow my son watch my porn on his iPod or not, allow my brother to play my songs (or not), and allow my neighbour to read my digital ebook - right? If so, then I love the idea, finally DRM that will be useful :P.
AFICT:
1. This is *not* Free Software. You are correct in thinking that Free Software is fundamentally incompatible with (software) DRM. There's just no way to make it work. The user freedom that's part of the very definition of what constitutes Free Software means that anyone with half a brain could reverse-engineer the DRM implementation, extract the key, and generally have their way with the content. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
2. This is only "open source" in the most minimal, literal sense. Basically, if you sign some sort of (presumably very restrictive) license agreement, they'll send you the source code. I'm sure that they prohibit you from redistributing the source to anyone who hasn't also signed on to the license agreement. I would not call this "open source," since the source is not really "open." It's more like "source available" software. There are quite a few high-end commercial software packages that are like this: when you buy the package, they give you the source as well, so you (or the contractors who come to install it) can tweak it. But you can't redistribute the code afterwards, any more than you can make copies of the whole software package and redistribute it. Generally you only get the code after you've signed a whole stack of NDAs and license agreements.
I think Windows actually has an option for some buyers where they give you the source, under an extremely restrictive license. So in a very real way, this "open source" DRM project is about as open as Windows is. Which is to say, not at all.
The only way a FOSS DRM system would work would be if it relied on hardware features to hide the keys, and basically was nothing more than a wrapper around that hardware. It would 'work' because it's pushing the obfuscation that's so critical to any DRM implementation down from the software level to the hardware level. But since DRM can't exist without hiding things from the user, there's no way to implement it on an open platform.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Make abuse of IP law invisible, and people will tolerate it.
That phrase truly reminded me of invisible fences for dogs. Invisible cages for content. In effect we are being told that when the copyright for the protected content expires, nobody will want it anyway so it doesn't matter that it isn't freely accessible to the public domain.
...that you can officially bypass the DMCA and "crack" the DRM (ie. modify the source code) to play DRM-infested files without a key?
If not, it's still DRM, and can go to hell.
I'm posting as AC for obvious reasons.
At my current job I had actually implemented parts of the marlin DRM client and server. I didn't bother to check the MTMO (marlin trust management organization) website recently but it used to be possible to download the entire spec for free. I encourage fellow slashdotters to check it out.
The *key* to making marlin-as-a-platform work is:
1) it's all open source so anyone can implement it ... oh and marlin is an all-online solution. It has sensible (engineering-wise) offline mode that works for "a while". It was never designed as an offline drm (at least not the part that I've implemented).
2) marlin trust management organization gets $$$ by selling corporations trusted certificates and maintaining the root servers
3) if someone makes a implementation that allows unauthorized usage of the content (mainling, removing drm) it gets hefty fines and its certificate is revoked permanently so it's a economical suicide
4)
5) compared to everything else I've seen (microsoft DRM for networked/portable devices and verimatrix) it's actually *very* good (as far as security/scalability/availability etc are concerned). And you don't have another binary blob without sources that you have to support in your embedded product, you can just write the whole stack yourself.
Finally, a better solution for multiple-security-level role-based-access-control for secure environments.
Employee 1 may read Document 1 one time but not print it, screenshot, whatever.
Perfect.
Are you kidding? Perhaps it's been a while since you actually read a book, but I have a Safari subscription and the content there shits all over the stuff you can get for free on the internet.
I'd be fascinated to see the free version of Lord of the Rings. I bet it's way better than the multi-million-dollar professionally produced one which wouldn't have existed without copyright law.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Doesn't that fish have a long pointy snout?
I wonder which bodily orifice they intend to ram that into, if they don't just create their own.
"Sony the Impaler", why does that have a familiar ring to it?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Some time ago I've stopped buying anything with the Sony brand on it because their lack of standards support and bully behaivor. Now I guess I'll have to add Samsung to that list too...
If your VM system was clever and simulated the hardware well enough, the virtualized OSes might not be able to tell they're not running on actual metal
Virtualization is exactly the sort of attack that Trusted Computing Group's technology is intended to prevent. If a VM's implementation of a TPM were to fraudulently claim that the VM is bare hardware, software publishers would revoke the VM publisher's TPM certificate.
Well the book was sure a hell of a lot better than the movie, and that was produced with far less than millions of dollars.
The 7digital.co.uk started toying with providing MP3 downloads a while back. I don't now how they did it, but they have managed to go fully MP3.
From the site:-
"Folks, the day has come: 7digital is officially 100% MP3. This means that all of our 4 million strong catalogue is now available in this fine, fuss-free format - making ours the largest collection in the UK. MP3 is compatible with almost anything, including your iPods. Itâ(TM)s how things should be. Weâ(TM)ve worked long and hard for this but you should fight for what you believe in, right? Enjoy your freedom..."
PS. I don't work there. I just emailed a few times about the DRM, it must have paid off!
throw new SignatureNotFoundException();
Can you say SOLD OUT??
I knew it was going to happen...open source sells out to make a profit.
Open source is now in the biz of DRM...next, open source will force Linux to have an "activation" so users will have to purchase it to acquire a legit serial number....
All that "free" and "better" talk was just to distract the sheeple while the greedy OSS founders make off with the gold (while the coders get the shaft...again...)
hear that pop? that was your bubble of delusion bursting.
An oxymoron is a moron with too much oxygen
Although this is "Open DRM", it doesn't grant patent rights. Since the DRM space is encumbered by M$ and InterTrust patents, no new commercial entity could use this anyway without buying a license. So in this case Open != Free.