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.'"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Not "people who aren't breaking the law", but people "who aren't doing what we don't want them to do". Not the same thing at all.
Most DRM schemes are trying to put themselves above law and morality then imply that they are simply enforcing that. But law and morality are more complex than any computer is currently able to understand and enforce.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
No, plenty of people who aren't pirates complain, in my case it's a self fulfilling prophesy.
I didn't use to pirate, but then they took away all are consumer protections and rights.
When I can return a game I don't like, or resell it, or apply fair use I'll stop.
Now if I like a game or music I pirate, I buy it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
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.
It dont matter. if I can play it I can rip it to a unencumbered format. all my Audible books are converted to mp3 the second I buy them.
DRM is the emperor standing naked in the forum. only the foolish believe it is pretty, useful and works. I guess it makes them feel safer, like a child hiding under the covers to be protected from the monsters.
To those with common sense and can actually see, DRM is useless, it's cracked moments after it is realeased and the worlds' 13-22 year olds have far more programming skill and resources than all the worlds companies combined.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Almost but not quite. More like:
... ) {
Original source:
char* getData(
char* encryptedData = getDataFromSomewhere();
char* key = getKeyFromSomewhere();
if( key == NULL ) {
return NULL;
}
return decrypt( encryptedData, key );
}
The point is that the content is encrypted, and if you purchased the key you can get the data. Otherwise there's nothing you could do short of breaking the cipher, open source or not.
The whole thing about DRM is how to restrict the key to the people who have legal right to it. That's where having control over the platform begins to help, because you can hack it to not hide the key from you. Which is where Trusted (Trecherous) Computing comes into play: it holds the key in hardware, and tries to ensure that the software has not been tampered with before giving it away.
Because TC cannot know whether a modification is a hack to circumvent DRM or a genuine improvement, it stays on the "safe" side by diassallowing all modification. Hence hardware DRM is incompatible with free software, and software DRM is undefined in the context of free software. Which is why the term "open-source DRM" is an oxymoron.
P.S. How did you indent your code on Slashdot?
Burn to CD (or CD image) and rip.
How about the fact that an artist can release their album in FLAC format on their website, put a PayPal "donate" link there, and make ends meet? They probably won't get rich anytime soon, but if they are any good, they probably weren't in it for the money in the first place.
Your repetition of the RIAA's propaganda and your unrelated rant on completely unrelated topics makes you a troll.
Any DRM makes comsumers' use of lawfully acquired media subject to external control, which means that sooner or later the consumer is going to get ripped off. Notoriously frangible EULAs, market conditions, corporate acquisitions and mergers, etc., mean that someday the external entity that supports the continued use of the media will likely go away. This also ensures that the lifespan of media is temporary, rather than enduring. In a weird way, artists seeking to use DRM cash in on their work today are ensuring their relative anonymity tomorrow, when no one can find a playable copy of that old song they used to love so much as a kid back in '08.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Well holy shit, brilliant argument. Shit, I suppose a construction worker can go build porches on people's houses for free then hope they pay him some pittance! Maybe Adobe or Apple should follow this path to riches and make all their software free with "Donate Here" buttons, I'm sure they'll recoup the cost of development.
Your repetition of Slashdot's tired propaganda and your overall indistinguishability from a puckered asshole make you a douchebag.
Seriously, did you just use the "they shouldn't be in it for the money if they're any good anyway" argument? What a jackass.
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.
Isn't it the same? They licensed their works to you under certain restrictions. Using the works outside those restrictions is not allowed under any license you have acquired, which makes it IP infringement, and therefore illegal.
So yeah, it -is- the same. If you don't like that, work to fix the laws.
Note that I made no moral or ethical judgements here. It is simply fact.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
Well, that may be true, but the license seems to be perpetual and non-revokable. Or, more like ownership.
Line-out, line-in, patch cord. What's so difficult?
A rebellious reporter releases non-government-approved-news. The license gets revoked, now you can't play it back, even though you recorded it.
A corporation is engaging in illegal activities that place the public at risk. Someone leaks the documentation. The license gets revoked, now you can't look at the documentation.
A hospital is using proprietary software that uses DRM and phones home. Through error, the licenses don't get renewed. Or, the vendor demands a larger amount of money, and they can't pay it, and they can't move off to another software package because everything is locked up in the vendors software. Suddenly, the whole hospital shuts down. You die in the waiting room.
Who really gives a flying fuck about music and movies? People who think this is about protecting Britney Spears from Bluebeard the Pirate are missing the point....
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Nobody said they had to be on the same machine.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Exactly. Using DRM to enforce copyright is the equivalent of having cops watch how much fuel you put in your car's tank, and checking your mileage after a journey, to make sure you don't speed. It's simply invasive, untrusting, and unnecessary for adults, and wrong, given that the assumptions are flawed. This is ESPECIALLY true, given the fact that we actually have a right to change the speed limit, if the majority of us decide to, or to copy things that were previously not copied, if the majority of us decide to.
This is a bit unfair to the DRM creators. Cracking DRM isn't a competition between the skills of the designers of the scheme and the skills of the crackers of the scheme. It's a test of the skills of the crackers of the scheme against the already-written big fat stationary target of the scheme itself. To use a non-car analogy, it's a one-round game of hide-and-seek where the location of the hidden object (often an encryption key) is both fixed and extremely constrained.
Isn't one of the greatest benefits of open source, the hordes of community developers ready to monkey around with the code for free/cheap?
What self-respecting coder would contribute to this project, if not only to create backdoors to it?
This entire thing seems more than pointless to me
We'd be missing the point if DRM was primarily (or even AT ALL) used as a censorship tool currently. But it's not. Partly because a rebellious reporter would presumably have enough sense to release the report in a format not immediately susceptible to DRM takedown. And in your second example... un-DRMing the document is the FIRST NECESSARY STEP in leaking the DRM'd document. Otherwise, it won't be readable by unauthorized computers. Like, say, everyone you want to read it.
Hospitals with licensed programs are an issue... but not in this way. Not a single program vital to the functioning of a hospital just hard shuts down when the license expires. The issue is that the hospital stops getting updates, stops being able to get support for maintenance issues, etc.
People give a fuck about music and movies because, like it or not, entertainment is an important part of human life. Reading, watching movies and television, etc. are part of our engagement with our own and other cultures. And documentaries exist. Humor with political or philosophical elements exists.
Also... frankly, this IS about piracy. It isn't actually about censorship or corporate whistleblowing or shutting down hospitals; it's about corporations trying to cripple potential uses of media in order to try and force pirates through their media channels. It's about entertainment revenue, deal with it.
This also ensures that the lifespan of media is temporary, rather than enduring. In a weird way, artists seeking to use DRM cash in on their work today are ensuring their relative anonymity tomorrow, when no one can find a playable copy of that old song they used to love so much as a kid back in '08.
I tend to think of it as ensuring repeated sales of their art throughout their lifetimes.
For a while there, ensuring this was as easy as making sure that your music was released on the format du jour. Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs.... With the advent of digital music sans a physical medium, this trend of rebuying all of your albums is at risk. Suddenly, you're faced with customers never having to rebuy the White album, and you see your sustained profits going down the tubes.
DRM solves that. Now, rather than coming out with a new format every few years, you just have to come up with a new DRM scheme and turn off the old servers. Because the devices playing the music are somewhat general purpose, it's easy to move quickly--you don't have to worry about market penetration for the players, because it's just a free software update away.
Why not continue the CD-era tradition of "remaster" releases? Lots of digital music is sold in relatively low-quality MP3 files. As time goes by, the audio equipment and music industries alike could promote better-sounding equipment *and* higher-quality releases, such as on FLAC, to supplant the cheap iPod dock speakers and MP3/AAC files that the populace buys today. I wouldn't mind an audiophile revival to replace the "make it small and pretty" trend.
98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
"Durr, uhh, aliens come to earth and want to watch Seinfeld episodes but can't because it's DRM'd! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you corporatist scum!". Lol at myself.
Make abuse of IP law invisible, and people will tolerate it.