Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Working Group Considers Kinder, Gentler DRM
slave5tom writes "An IEEE working group is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Its scheme will allow unlimited copying of encrypted content, which will require a playkey to activate. Trying to add a cost by making the playkey 'rivalrous' (what you take I lose) and rescuing the big content players from the brink of oblivion does seem futile, but it is entertaining to watch them fight the inevitable."
Turn to page 5...paragraph 4, sentence 3, word 4. Write it in the box. Insert dongle to continue. Serial numbers, online activation, warder, blah blah blah, and the list goes on.
Guys, no matter how you want to fuck with the technology, you can't erase one simple fact: At some point it needs to be viewed by a human, listened to by a human, interpreted... by a human. That means that at some point the data comes out analog, and can be scanned, manipulated, copied, and everything else.
DRM will always be an excercise in fail.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Sony's DRM has succeeded mightily in stopping me spending money on their products. The Sony amp and speakers I bought in the 80's look embarrassed at the way their maker has pissed its good name away.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
From TFA:
To access the content inside, however, you'll need the playkey, which is delivered to the buyer of a digital media file and lives within "tamper-protected circuit" inside some device (computer, cell phone, router) or online at a playkey bank account. Controlling the playkey means that you control the media, and you truly own it, since no part of the system needs to phone home, and it imposes no restrictions on copying (except for those that arise naturally from fear of loss).
"tamper-protected circuit": you may gain some "ownership" of some encrypted media files, but you have to give up ownership of your device.
You can just as easily label what they still control as the "content" and the encrypted files on your device as the "key". Interchanging those labels is just semantics, since you still need both parts to hear the music. The end result is that you gain no additional control over the content, and you have sacrificed control over the hardware.
No thanks.
Who knows, it may yet work - if it manages all rights, not just the distributors rights. For example, I want my user rights to be just as important - if it fails, it has to fail "open". If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.
Treat my rights as a consumer as equally important as the rights of the distributor, and we can talk about DRM. It's probably still a stupid idea, but as long as the "R" in DRM is entirely one-sided, remind me why I should even consider it as an option?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Right, because an internet forum is a great place to get accurate data...
Lets see here, Zombieland made $102,297,496 with a budget of $23.6 million (see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=zombieland.htm) . And that isn't even taking into consideration any sales from DVD sales. I'd say that is a lot of money made in profit. Note that they've made over 50 million dollars in -profit- not just sales but profit after they've paid everyone.
Can you show me a great movie/game/etc that really -has- been killed off by "piracy" and not just the fact that it didn't appeal to a wider audience or that the movie/game/etc was terrible?
Technology is coming along at such a fast pace that you don't need a studio to make a movie, you don't need theaters to make a profit. The internet is full of examples of this. In the '80s and earlier, yeah, you needed professional equipment, today? You can go out and buy a camcorder that will shoot HD video, a computer and programs that add in special effects, etc.
So go on, find an example of something "killed" by "piracy" that was truly killed by it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The big content producers mostly want you to be able to do this as well. The big problem is that they want to be paid for it.
The formula is simple: if some action has value (like format shifting), they want to be paid.
This is why I think "DRM done right" is not possible. DRM *is* rights management. It's all about stopping you from freely using the content in arbitrary ways.
How would you define "done right"?
There is a second problem: Unless the "tamper-protected circuit"(and presumably "trusted" software) is the entirety of the device, it will be completely useless, even if never cracked. Consider:
1. I receive an encrypted copy of $BIG_MEDIA_PABLUM$. It requires the super secret playkey to decrypt. The super secret playkey is stored in an unbreakable TPM.
2. My software requests the playkey, uses it to decrypt $BIG_MEDIA_PABLUM$ and hands me a plaintext copy.
3. I have a plaintext copy. I no longer care a whit about the playkey. Even if the TPM is unbreakable, and the "rivalrous" revocation mechanism impossible to defeat, what does it matter? I have a plaintext copy.
As with any DRM system, this "kinder, gentler" system requires that all the software on a system be aligned against you(and, to keep it that way, typically involves hardware measures that make it hard or impossible to replace that software, even if you wish to opt out of the "ecosystem" entirely). Thus, no matter how "benevolent" the terms of the DRM are technologically capable of being such a system will necessarily be an enemy of software freedom(or even the potential possession of software freedom) and will, in practice, be as restrictive as desired by the company or consortium that exercises cryptographic control over "your" hardware in perpetuity.
"The conversation on /. is often driven by those who reject DRM, but what about those of us who would accept it if it were done right (like me)?"
Nothing personal, just an honest response:
/. consider people like that to be the sheep who are primarily responsible for many of the world's ills. You really should get this idea through your head: if DRM ever truly became successful, eventually you would be kissing your freedom and privacy goodbye. And I would hold it against the sheep who helped allow it to happen. I'll pass on all that, thanks very much.
Most people on