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.'"
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.
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.
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.
The most invisible form of DRM I've seen is Steam. That's because it isn't just DRM, it's a fairly significant service. I can't sell my game, but I can play it on any number of computers, even if I don't have the original disc. I can chat with friends during my game, and every so often, I can play a game for free for a weekend, or give out a guest pass to my friends for a month or two. Given these benefits, and because the only thing it restricts is reselling, I hardly ever think of it as DRM.
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.
Untrue! It is possible to cryptographically lock media to your identity. (Whereby your identity is represented by a public/private key pair.) By loading your key to your different devices (something that can be done transparently if there is a standard), you can remove the media barriers while still throwing up barriers against illicit sharing.
Granted, the result would do little more than keep reasonably honest people honest, but that's about the best that companies can do anyway. If you can play it, you can crack it. So what's the point in coming up with ever-more convoluted DRM schemes? They all rely on security through obscurity, and are thus guaranteed to be circumvented.
If token DRM would give companies a warm, fuzzy feeling, than I'm all for it. (Assuming that a consumer-friendly standard is drafted and a good key backup system is provisioned in the standard.) It may not do much to stop full-on pirates, but what will? It will achieve the exact same goals as current DRM, but without all the anti-consumerism. A friendly compromise if you will.
Unfortunately, I have my doubts about the industry accepting such an idea. The RIAA's position appears to be that everyone is dirty-rotten pirates that must submit to their lord and master, the music cartel. Because if they don't submit, they'll just go back to their evil, immoral ways!
Yeah. The industry would be a lot better off if the RIAA was dissolved. :-/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
Unfortunately, I think this is the future of gaming. The next game consoles might not even have optical drives. You won't be able to loan a game to a friend, or rent a game from Blockbuster. And good luck reselling games that you bought over the Internet! Gamestop and others might go out of business. When your hard drive fails, you'll spend days re-downloading content (if you're lucky). If not, you'll be branded as a thief and have to spend hours arguing on the phone with Indian tech support for the right to re-download stuff you already paid for.
The Internet has done a lot of great things for gaming, but I am really scared of what will happen if console manufacturers get rid of removable media for games.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The construction worker expends resources for every porch built. Thus every porch needs to be payed for. The artist does not expend resources (bandwidth notwithstanding) for every copy distributed to every fan. Thus not every copy needs to be payed for. There will be enough people who will donate*, assuming the guy is any good, to make up for the costs. An artist who's not in it for the money, but rather for the love of doing it, will not care about getting every cent that could possibly be made under RIAA-style accounting**
Not that it matters, but the studios do spend money advertising and publishing media. I say it doesn't matter because there's this thing called "opportunity cost". Let's say God comes down to earth and creates a perfect DRM model. Basically your brain refuses to distribute content you don't own. Now, how many people would buy Album X and what would they pay? The difference between that amount and the amount earned because people copy content is what DRM attempts to recoup. The "but it costs nothing for another copy" argument is just a distraction and not a real argument. I will agree that RIAA/BSA/etc.. style accounting is wrong. e.g. if I copy a $1000 piece of software and play with it, they didn't lose $1000 because I wouldn't have bought it anyway.
Not quite, compare our wordings very carefully. Take a really good artist. He makes art because he loves to make art. If he does not make a load of money, he will continue to make art. As long as he has enough money to live off of his art, he will keep on doing it, and he'll get better. If you love what you're doing, chances are you're good at it.
This whole line of reasoning bores me with its stupidity, frankly. You're making a value judgement on a profession and arbitrarily claiming they should have motivations you agree with or that their ability is dictated by their lack of greed. I could make the same argument for a software developer. Or a doctor. Or a lawyer. You can say the same thing about any profession. It's nonsensical. What if I have a really good voice and musical ability, I can't treat that like a profession and instead should "suffer for my art"? Laughable.
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
Sad and false, though the xxAAs would like you to believe it. For CDs, it's unqualifiedly false. You own the copy of the song, you can do what you want with it within the bounds of copyright law (not any license). For DVDs and Blu-Ray, you still own the copy, but the (totally misguided) decision in the 2600 case said they CAN restrict what you play it on. But there's still no license between you and them. The licenses are between the DVD makers and the player makers and the DVD-CSS or Blu-Ray organization.