Slashdot Mirror
Today Is International Day Against DRM
jrepin writes "Digital restrictions management (DRM) creates damaged goods that users cannot control or use freely. It requires users to give-up control of their computers and restricts access to digital data and media. Device manufacturers and corporate copyrights holders have already been massively infecting their products with user-hostile DRM. Tablets, mobile phones and other minicomputers are sold with numerous restrictions embedded that cripple users freedom. The proposal at table in W3C to put DRM into HTML goes even further. Fight it: use today's today is international Day Against DRM, so spread the word and make yourself heard!"
The EFF suggests making every day a day against DRM.
EA retaliates with International "Fuck You, You're Going To Buy Our Games Anyway" Day.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
But if one wants to have a specific day to agitate for something, maybe give some advance warning? Also, a better though-out plan than "spread the word and make yourself heard" might also be useful.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Simple solution that politicians would have a hard time saying no to. All products that have DRM should be forced to display a DRM warning message on the outside of the packaging in print, TV and on line advertising. The message should explain in simple terms what the DRM does. IE - requires on line connection all the times, Requires Disk in drive all the time, prevents back up copies...etc. There should be stiff fines for selling products with DRM and no warning label. Then let the market decide. DRM is toxic to computers and users. So the proper warning is the right thing to do.
If you don't like a product with DRM, don't buy it.
A required security module can not be activated. Your comment can not be posted.
SecuROM has determined a debugging or an emulation tool is running. Please refer to the following procedure to remedy:
Only on
There are too many awareness days to keep track of, and most of the time you don't even hear about them until the day is almost over. What we need is an International Day Day, so that we can let people know what days are the international awareness days for what topics.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
There is nothing wrong with DRM. Personally, I think it is not a good idea for music or games. Those are things that should exist perpetually and for your own personal use.
However, it is short sighted to say that DRM should not exist. I brought this up in the previous DRM related thread, but people don't think of its best possible uses.
- When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
- When you work under SEC rules and have to provide your financial statements to management for compliance, wouldn't you want control over where/when those can be viewed?
Yes, it is a bad idea to treat your customers like thieves. But it isn't a bad idea when 3rd parties are distributing your private information to other 3rd parties.
At least IPv6 day was mentioned before hand.
That's like saying that the OpenGL group is heavily supported by ATI and nVidia, and the suggestion to remove GPU's from computers in favour of a little man who draws the screen for you breaks their business model.
It doesn't mean that having the little man ISN'T a stupid idea, or that ATI/nVidia should be ignored for their opinion.
Assume for a second that Google *are* anti-DRM. Assume it has nothing to do with their business or (equally) is SOLELY because it affects their way to make money. Who are they going to support? Probably groups that are anti-DRM. Who listens to the EFF? People who want the opinion of an anti-DRM organisation.
Thus is Google support for EFF something that should be expected anyway, or is the EFF some huge front to push on Google's behalf? You can't really draw any conclusion from the facts given.
If two linked items seem unfairly biased or somehow malicious, try to reverse the positions and see what happens.
The EFF is heavily supported by Google and DRM breaks Google's business model. Is it any surprise that the EFF is saying this.
Really, you're being silly. The EFF is older than google and has always been against this sort of thing. If you're going to make wild claims then you need to provide evidence to back it up.
Merely relying on an over developed sense of cynicism isn't actually evidence.
ut as Linus Torvalds says, DRM is just the same problem as cryptography and secure communication.
Linus Torvalds has said many silly things. I have no idea if he said this, but either way associating his name to it does not increase its credibility.
DRM is not the same as secure communication. In secure communication you're trying to prevent eavesdroppers listening in. With DRM you're trying to get unencrypted data to your target without them being able to intercept it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You could go to O'Reilly and celebrate by buying any of their 50% ebooks. It jumps to 60% if you're like me and load up your shopping cart like a madman whenever their stuff goes on sale...
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
May I borrow that video?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
In some countries, products with digital restrictions management have become necessities of life. For example, some countries require citizens to file income tax returns using software that runs only on Windows, an operating system that ships with media players supporting MPAA-approved video DRM. And with payphones being retired in many areas, it's becoming more and more of a necessity to own a cellphone, and the vast majority of cellphones ship with bootloader DRM or MPAA-approved video DRM or both.
Always the visionary:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'm old enough to remember when the term "minicomputer" was used to describe a computer that fit in a single room. Our desktops were "microcomputers" and our phones and tablets were "science fiction". :-)
If you aren't buying crap with DRM why complain about it?
Because manufacturers make affordable products only for the majority of users, not the minority of users. If only a slim minority of users abstain from works and devices that use digital restrictions management, manufacturers of devices and publishers of works won't see DRM-free as a selling point. Eventually, it'll become impossible to publish a work to a wide audience without DRM, as has been the case for TV video games since the mid-1980s when Atari introduced code signing on the 7800 and Nintendo introduced the CIC on the NES.
MPAA, RIAA, EA, Sony and all DRM users and makers demand congress to declare a "Piracy Day" where everybody on Earth must pay $1,000 in order to live or face a gabillionzillion dollar fine and eternity in prison.
Whether you use their products or not is immaterial. By God EVERYBODY steals! Everybody is a pirate and must be punished with extreme prejudice! Them dirty Hobbits are stealing our preciousss!!!!
The bill is expected to pass with 100% support and be signed into law since these groups were "nice" enough to pay for their run for office.
Except, in your examples, existing regulatory/enforcement methods seem to work reasonably well already (like HIPAA regulations). Unlike mass media content being sold to (and potentially copied by) zillions of people, it's pretty trivial to determine who is responsible when your medical records show up on the Pirate Bay. Medical and financial professionals might want to build automated compliance safeguards into their own computer systems to, e.g., automatically delete expired "borrowed" files --- but, unlike DRM, such systems can be *entirely under the control of the computer user* (not forced on them by third parties).
Don't buy Televisions from Westinghouse. They're using DRM to restrict over-the-air broadcast reception - the primary purpose of a TV! You have to get a special code from them just to use your TV.
So, the EFF is Google, which is why we're talking about the EFF opposing a Google-backed extension to the HTML5 spec? Google is really messed up, in that case...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Rights restrictions on recognition of the day limited dissemination of the announcement until the day of the event.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If we want to have privacy and cryptography, DRM is just an extension of it.
It isn't really the same thing, though.
Privacy and cryptography: Alice uses Alice's computer to securely communicate with Bob's computer (and presumably Bob on the other end), without Eve listening in on the conversation. For example, the goal of key-based cryptography is that only Bob can understand Alice's messages and be sure they're from Alice, while only Alice understands Bob's messages and is sure they're from Bob.
DRM: Bob uses Alice's computer to securely talk to Bob's computer, without Alice listening in on the conversation. To completely prevent Alice from listening in, Bob has to cooperate with the hardware manufacturer and OS author to prevent Alice from knowing or controlling what her own computer is doing.
It's that last part that makes DRM a problem. And to make it even more of a problem: What could be used by MediaCorp to force Alice's computer to communicate information to them about her computer's activities could just as easily be used by Russian mobsters to do the same thing.
I am officially gone from
1) So what if it's older.
Well it means that they were provably against such things before google came on the scene. Therefore google appear to have not modified the EFF's behaviour.
And so they dance like any hired gun.
[citation needed]
i.e. put up or shut up.
Show one thing where the EFF have gone against their stated goals as a result of google's influence.
3) DRM is secure communication. The pirates are the eavesdroppers.
There's no notion of "pirate" in the cryptography world. Please make some attempt to stick to established terminology otherwise understanding you is quite difficult.
The eavesdropper is the same as the recipient. That's the difference. Eve and Bob are the same person.
Locking up my love letter so only my spouse can read it is the exact technological challenge as locking up my artistic creation so only the non-pirates can view it.Locking up my love letter so only my spouse can read it is the exact technological challenge as locking up my artistic creation so only the non-pirates can view it.
Not even slightly. Pirates aren't eavesdroppers. Your spouse is the pirate. DRM is an attempt to make it readable but not copyable by your spouse.
Quit being a sap for leeching business models
That's an odd allegation.
Quit being a sap for leeching business models. The EFF and Google just want to manipulate you into hating DRM so the money will keep flowing to them.
I disliked DRM before google even existed. It was called copy protection then.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
However, it is short sighted to say that DRM should not exist.
- When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed?
I think you're confusing encryption (a Good Thing) with DRM (a Bad Thing). If encrypted, only authorized doctors would have the decryption key. They can access the data when needed. If DRM'd , the moment the controlling body -- think online gaming server -- dies or is obsoleted, no doctor will ever again be able to access your records. Not an ideal situation.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
calling it 'restrictions' is petulent and confusing. without a verbose disclaimer about what you mean and why youve corrupted the name it becomes confusing.
arguments against DRM are just as valid whilst avoiding cheap shots.
What an ignorant Pirate!
Seriously, "When. In. Rome."
Really, we're showing a massive amount of restraint here, instead of just calling out anyone using DRM. For example: If you use DRM, then you're actively raping our childrens' and grandchildrens' and great-grandchildrens' minds. DRM is a Disgusting Racist Movement that aims to set Greedy Corporate Publishers apart as an artificial race of self entitled elitists to the detriment of all the real humans who create content: DRM permanently steals the public domain that all those lazy bastards got rich by exploiting. They didn't invent English, or Humor or ANY Literary Element, or Musical Themes or the concept of Instruments or even Movies -- Hell Hollywood is in California because the Movie industry wanted to STEAL Movie camera technology without Paying Patent fees to New England businesses! We give you copyright laws that last for THREE Generations of Humans! And this is the thanks we get from You Immortal Amoral Ingrates?! You give us DRM to ensure that even after 70 years or more beyond the author's life -- A time when EVERYONE alive now will be dead -- when the copies should finally be legally able to be remixed and added back into culture, that no copies will be able to be made at all thanks to your bullshit Digital Racist Movement?! I guess Immortals don't have to worry about having Kids labeled as FELONS because they shared cartoon clips with different backing music to their friends for a laugh.
You see, they're fighting dirty. Equating copyright infringement with theft -- "you wouldn't steal a car" -- and calling us the equivalent of Murderous Pillaging Rapists. We're beyond rational discourse here buddy. You must not do politics much. Whomever has the catchiest mud to sling wins. It's not about stooping to their level. We've got high-minded arguments too for the intellectuals, but we DO NEED simple antagonistic and UGLY comparisons to help sway the common man's mind and spark discussion.
"Oh, you've corrupted the name of Digital Rights Management, ehuuuue." You low down yellow bellied good for nothing Theif. Get bent Pirate. Bend right over as they steal your culture, and squeal your pathetic high minded complaints as they forcibly screw you from behind all the while demonizing you and your friends and family and children, and give the fascists fuel for the police state.
You might think that's the right thing to do, but it's not me. If they fight dirty, I fight dirtier.
Including cars! (Your car's ECU is encrypted to try to prevent non-dealer mechanics from working on it.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
DRM, by definition, means that the owner [of the device] does not have control. This is always inherently a bad thing!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
Hell no, imagine all the medical staff who are kept in the dark because time is of essence and the DRM key is not there. Imagine your data leaked in DRM'ed format, so every hacker can have a go at it. Leaking sensitive information is a completely separate problem. DRM is just an envelope. A problematic one for whoever means good, and a laughable one for whoever means bad. Sensitive information should not be leaked PERIOD. Not DRM'ed, not auto-destructing (if you believe that is possible). DRM is no answer to leaks or security issues.
When you work under SEC rules and have to provide your financial statements to management for compliance, wouldn't you want control over where/when those can be viewed?
Off course not. Management is usually digitally challenged, so you can trust management to treat keys in the worst possible fashion imaginable. So they probably cannot read it anyway AND have published the key in a random social network site before you even know there is a key. If you cannot trust management to deal with sensitive information, you have a completely different problem. DRM will not help you there either. The only thing DRM does is break and annoy by design.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Don't buy Televisions from Westinghouse. They're using DRM to restrict over-the-air broadcast reception - the primary purpose of a TV! You have to get a special code from them just to use your TV.
This is one of the very few cases where DRM benefits the consumer, as it keeps the price of the TV lower. Westinghouse does this so that they only have to pay patent royalties for the tuner technology if the tuner is actually used.
Once the tuner is activated, it is permanent until a complete reset of the TV. Even with a reset, the same code will re-activate the tuner, as it is only tied to the serial number. So, yeah, it's a very weak form of DRM, but it's not much of a problem as far as real world use is concerned.
(a) if the existing enforcement regime is already blocking these events (so leaks are rare or unheard of), then "don't fix what ain't broke"
(b) by adding restrictions, I may be hindering my doctors from doing things I'd want them to --- "sorry, the radiologist couldn't read your scans; can you re-send the file with permissions for the radiology department, and $400 for our lost hour of troubleshooting?"
(c) by encouraging DRM to protect "my" data, I'm also encouraging others to do the same against me --- they won't be in control of their computers, and I won't be in control of mine. I'd rather protect other people's freedoms (even admitting the possibility they might do wrong) to protect my own.
DRM is the "Pascal's Wager" approach to security. For an infinitesimal chance of stopping "really bad" hypothetical things from happening (which may just be "unpleasant," not "really bad"), how much will you cripple your real ability to work?
You're describing some kind of science fiction fantasy, not DRM. DRM, as we currently know it today, means that neither your own doctor or the other doctor, is able to view the medical information at all, unless they pay some third party (not you) for some kind of tech license, and passes that cost on to you. And then the licensing body (not you) decides what can be done with the information.
If we had DRMed medical records, every patient would have to ask their doctor to store a second copy of all the records, outside of the broken DRM system, so that the information would actually be accessible when it's needed.
The DRM fantasy industry has had ample opportunity to come up with a non-stupid DRM scheme. They have a 100% failure rate: EVERY SINGLE TIME that DRM has been used, it has interfered with customers and providing incentive for them to cut off revenue, and there have been only a few (edge!) cases (DivX) where the DRM prevented misuses. It's all expense and never provides any benefit. Every time. If DRM failed only 99% of the time, maybe we could chalk it up to growing pains, but right now all evidence points to it being a complete scam.
Imagine an industry where, after a few decades and many many products, 100% of the time it turned out to be fraud. DRM is right up there with astrology. That's how seriously we should take it, and it is an outrage that our government is for it, rather than neutral toward it (the conservative, pre-DMCA approach) or outlawing it (the progressive approach).
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, it can't. If the doctor wishes to nefariously leak the information, then the DRM will not stop him. Worst case, he can take a photograph of the screen (not that it's likely to require anything so extreme). He can read it aloud while another person (or robot) in the room listens.
If DRM actually solved some kind of problem, you could maybe make a case that the enormous costs of it were balanced by .. something. You could say that it's worth it to use force against doctors to require them to use crippled (yet strangely more expensive) computers which serve a higher agenda (no leakage) than the computer owner's agenda. But after a few decades of the scammers trying to come up with a working application, they still don't have even a demo!
This is like saying taxpayers ought to be forced to pay astrologers, before you have shown evidence that astrology works. Show the evidence that astrology might not be bullshit (you don't need to prove anything, just provide some evidence), and then we can have the cost/benefit debate. Right now, it's nothing-for-something, an objectively stupid tradeoff where breaking even is the best possible scenario, and most paths lead to loss.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But they have the same effect: an end user cannot make modifications to an application distributed as free software and install the modified application on the device.
The UK for one. Here ya go. The US also, Almost all of the US healthcare requires mandatory use of IE.Even the US govt is on this. Most of the govt healthcare websites (Medicare, Medicaid, etc) for fee for service physicians will only work with Windows and IE. No other operating system or browser is supported. Most US insurance carriers web portals such as Navinet require IE and ActiveX. They could have developed their portals using web standards and allowed different browsers and operating systems. Instead MicroShaft has thrown alot of money in the healthcare industry in order to DRM lock it into it's own proprietary junk.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
...buy a monthly book bundle from Baen! :o)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I am a game developer. My game is available for ios, android, mac, and pc. So I am giving my perspective on DRM from the other side of the fence.
I do not add DRM to the game.
Piracy, especially in android, is rampant. I die a little inside every time I see someone stealing my work. Meanwhile DRM whispers to me "come and play".
Laws are useless. I could spend my day sending take down notices all over the web. 5 minutes after I take one down, 10 pirates post it in some other place. So I don't do this either.
So what alternatives do we have? lets see...
In app purchase? Hated by a lot of people. Maybe even more than DRM.
Subscription?: Hated
Bundling (humble bundle)?: You can do that once or twice, not a long term solution
Advertising? No revenue.
So yes, go on, oppose DRM if you like. As I said before I don't do it. But don't stop there, think which one of these other business models you do support.
Don't just say "I won't buy this game because of DRM", instead say "I will buy game X instead of Y because of DRM", as that speaks much more loudly.