DRM In JPEGs? (eff.org)

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: Adding DRM to JPEG files is being considered by the Joint Photographic Expert Group (JPEG), which oversees the JPEG format. The JPEG met in Brussels today to discuss adding DRM to its format, so there would be images that could force your computer to stop you from uploading pictures to Pinterest or social media. The EFF attended the group's meeting to tell JPEG committee members why that would be a bad idea. Their presentation(PDF) explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works, points out how DRM can infringe on the user's legal rights over a copyright work (such as fair use and quotation), and warns how it places security researchers at legal risk as well as making standardization more difficult. It doesn't even help to preserve the value of copyright works, since DRM-protected works and devices are less valued by users.

Comments

DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

If ever there was a more stupid thing to try to put drm on...

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Tony Isaac]

Oh, don't be so sure. They'll get Microsoft to update the Print Screen feature so it obeys the DRM also.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly so what's to stop me from print screening it ?

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Macrovision for print screen!

If JPEG is considering this, the file format is dead.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Darinbob]

It's not at all implausible. The whole foundation behind video security is making sure that every component obeys the DRM. The graphics cards have tamper detection built in. Microsoft put up only minimal resistance against this.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

So a Polaroid camara obeys it ? Might work for 4k vid not so much for jpeg.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

And they'll stop me from taking a photo of the screen how?

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole foundation behind video security is making sure that every component obeys the DRM

It doesn't appear to be working, or at least not very well

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[mukinrestak]

They don't have to make it impossible, just illegal. And guess what, TPP and its ilk are trying to spread anti DRM circumvention laws to other countries.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[nmb3000]

If ever there was a more stupid thing to try to put drm on...

That doesn't stop them from trying.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, yeah that seems like an efficient way to capture and copy images on a large scale. Put aside your smartiepants shortcuts and try to imagine the actual tangible effect of being unable to copy, save or use these digital images en masse, but instead having to resort to taking a photo of it on screen. How will that work out for the "average user" on an "average day".

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fine, I've got Fraps.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[khellendros1984]

A file only needs to be broken out of DRM-jail once to be made available to the "average user" on an "average day", same way that video rips have been working for years.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[idji]

That's not so funny. Microsoft doesn't let you record from sound devices anymore..

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Put aside your smartiepants shortcuts and try to imagine the actual tangible effect of being unable to copy, save or use these digital images en masse, but instead having to resort to taking a photo of it on screen. How will that work out for the "average user" on an "average day".

Have you looked at how the "average user" takes a screenshot? These days print screen is something that only techies do. Average users rightclicks and saves if they only want the image or takes a photo of the screen if they want to show the entire desktop.
Printscreen is considered an obscure shortcut that only experts know about.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

And Microsoft can affect the print screen function in Linux.. how?

Fact is, if worse comes to worse people will take a damned photograph of the screen - jpegs are lossy anyway so nobody's going to care if there's a slight drop. And odds are people will simply use other formats by default going forward for their own use. I find jpeg to be rather old news anyway - I'm perfectly find using other formats and would prefer them in 99% of any situation I'm in.

If they want to make themselves obsolete, let'em.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Maxo-Texas]

Can they stop me from taking a picture of the picture with my smart phone and then transferring it back to my computer?

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

It cant even work, there is so much screen capture software out there that even if they did this it would stop next to no one from getting the image anyway. Heck Windows has pretty much always had image screen shots that could be obtained by simply pressing the print-screen button, and Windows 7 & up have the snipping tool as well. not to mention the equivalent tools for Mac, Linux, Android, Etc... Good luck convincing Linux users to put DRM on their systems. You would have more luck convincing everyone to add GIF like movement to JPEG.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they stop me from taking a picture of the picture with my smart phone and then transferring it back to my computer?

In due time.

The way smartphones are going we will see more walled gardens. Soon the pesky USB connector will be dropped in favor of wireless charging. After all you can transfer your files via the provided cloud service.
After a while that cloud service will do image analysis and block out what they perceive to be copyrighted content. Sure, it will have plenty of false positives, but that isn't considered a problem on YouTube so it shouldn't be a problem here either.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Printscreen is considered an obscure shortcut that only experts know about.

So? Average users is not the problem - they don't copy much. Copying files is tricky, you know. Have to use "OS stuff" instead of their favourite app.

No, the problem is those that wants to make that copy and monetize it in shady ways. Or at the very least, get free stuff with questionable legality. And those guys knows how to use printscreen (or linux, for that matter.) Games has always been pirated - images won't be different. The "average user" may not know how, but amateurs were breaking copyright protection in the 1980s. Many of them were teenagers. These people were reasonable smart. The "average user" is not, but the amount of reasonably smart people (with some knowledge) is larger now than in the eighties. The fact that we also have a much larger mass of stupid lusers around doesn't change that. If anything, the stupids is the 'market' for hacked stuff these days.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they stop me from taking a picture of the picture with my smart phone and then transferring it back to my computer?

This would be interesting, if you then claimed copyright over the image that you made, and DRMed it. I suspect that, your copyright would not stand up in some cases, but would be perfectly OK in others.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't let you record from sound devices anymore..

Untrue. This problem stems from audio drivers provided by the manufacturer that either don't provide a "stereo mix" recording device or have it disabled by default. It's not a Microsoft problem.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Dr_Barnowl]

Microsoft enable it by having a driver model that requires signed drivers, which was an innovation for the media lobby.

That prevents you from running, for example, a display driver that dumps raw frames to a virtual network adapter that pipes to a video compression program. Or in your example, an audio driver that can record it's digital inputs.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Dr_Barnowl]

They can't affect the screen grab feature in Linux, but patent law can prevent you (legally) writing a DRM compliant image viewer for Linux.

We have DRM protected web video, but not in any OSS browser - you have to grab the Google version of Chrome to watch Netflix on Linux (or the outdated method of using Wine and the Windows version of Silverlight).

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Dr_Barnowl]

Theoretically possible. Just see what happens if you try and scan a bank note in some modern scanners - the EURion constellation will stop you.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Big Hairy Ian]

Wow people still use JPEG? Surely this will only effect people who are into artifacts!

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[raynet]

I don't think that PNG supports CMYK but JPEG does support it.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

PNG for photos make much larger files, that's why cameras don't use PNG.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care about that because the quality sucks and you can't automate that process.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a cool hipster, I can bash a file format for being old." No, you're an idiot.

Jpeg is by far the most popular format for photographs. PNG, FLIF, etc suck for photos where a little bit of loss makes for huge savings in file size. Which is why cameras, even those in the latest smart phones use jpeg for pictures.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[silentcoder]

Most professional photographers don't use JPG either, we take pictures in RAW - storing as much information losslessly as possible.

JPG is something you export to for the low-quality versions you put in web based portfolios. For printing you use a lossless format like TIFF pre-sized correctly to page size (because auto-scaling tends to ruin shots) but what you save and store are camera RAW formats (CR2 for canon) which allows you maximum post-processing ability.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[RabidReindeer]

Can they stop me from taking a picture of the picture with my smart phone and then transferring it back to my computer?

Well, Barnes and Noble can stop you from archiving a copy of a work whose cover page includes these words:

The author and publisher have provided this ebook to you without Digital Rights Management software (DRM) applid so that you can enjoy reading it on your personal devices. This e-book is for your personal use only. You may not print or post this e-book, or make this e-book publicly available in any way. You may not copy, reproduce or uplod this e-book, other than to read it on one of your personal devices.

Copyright infringement is against the law. If you believe the copy of this e-book you are reading infringes on this copyright, please notify the published at ...

I had to type this in manually from the eReader screen because the Nook software hides the document file. Boldface is the publisher's, not mine, and the URL was omitted because this is basically the same text that other publishers are using, with their own URLs substituted.

IANAL, but I'd say that by making the downloaded book inaccessible outside of the Nook software, which keeps its files in a location that cannot be read by other apps without hacking the system constitutes a form of DRM and therefore infringes on the author/publisher agreement.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

On an average day I do not save images I see online. I might do that for a good comic or something once or twice a month on average.

Taking a picture of it works fine for me.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[JohnFen]

They can't affect the screen grab feature in Linux, but patent law can prevent you (legally) writing a DRM compliant image viewer for Linux.

Patent law can't stop you from legally doing this. It can only stop you from distributing the program you wrote.

The DMCA anti-circumvention clause would make this illegal, but who cares? Nobody really pays any attention to that clause anyway.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really needed someone to post this for you then shouldn't you be on reddit instead of slashdot? Here goes anyways:

Follow these steps to disable driver signing using the Group Policy Editor.

Hit the Win+R keys together to open the run dialog. Type gpedit.msc to open the local groups policy editor.

Expand ‘Administrative Templates’ (it’s under ‘User Configuration’). Expand ‘System’. Click ‘Driver Installation’.

In the right panel, double click on ‘Code Signing for Device Drivers’.

Choose ‘Enabled’ in the window that appears. In the underlying options, choose ‘Ignore’. This disables drivers signing in Windows 7, and now you can install unsigned drivers in Windows 7.

Click Apply.Restart your computer to install unsigned drivers.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Both my camera and my phone take photos in jpeg. At crazy high resolutions too. Sure it may not be in RAW but thats ok, there is enough resolution here to work with.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

well, no, copyright of still-images is often ignored by big media houses, so called artists and the likes. as someone who does photos for a living, i'd love all those asshats to either pay royalties or make their own public domain images.

it won't work though, because people will just use another format like .png

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[kheldan]

They don't have to make it impossible, just illegal. And guess what, TPP and its ilk are trying to spread anti DRM circumvention laws to other countries

And you know what? It won't matter. Just like always, any method of locking something down will be broken in a week or less, and spread like wildfire. The tighter they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers, and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[KGIII]

Meh... It won't be the first time I've broken the law. I've got a dollar or two, I can fight the case. I don't normally save images or anything but I probably will just to piss 'em off and to see how the technology works.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

The egos. I am special, therefore these laws don't matter. Your jobs as free citizens is to squash illegal laws. Jury nullification is step one. Bought and sold Congressmen, not guilty. Repeat after me, NOT GUILTY. Your award is zero RIAA/MPAA..

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[flopsquad]

They can't affect the screen grab feature in Linux, but patent law can prevent you (legally) writing a DRM compliant image viewer for Linux.

Patent law can't stop you from legally doing this. It can only stop you from distributing the program you wrote.

Patent attorney here. A patent owner has the right to exclude people from making, using, importing, selling, or offering to sell the invention. Merely reimplementing or running a patented process (or using an infringing device, etc.) can be infringement, without distribution (and subject to very limited experimental use defenses). Unlike in copyright law, distribution isn't the crux at all.

So if there is a patented method of creating or displaying DRM-encumbered JPEGs, and you write a program practicing that method but never share the code or distribute an executable, it may still technically be infringement.

This "feature" of patent law is not very well known to the public, because the type of infringement above is nigh impossible to uncover and is value negative to pursue. Also because most companies do not go around suing millions of end users of competitors' infringing products, rather going after the competitors themselves and getting them on direct and induced infringement.

However, this is mostly for PR and C/B reasons, not because patent law forbids it. If you've heard about the rash of troll suits/shakedown letters against small businesses for, e.g., using a fax machine they purchased, you're hearing about a patent owner leaning on the "use" prong of exclusionary patent rights.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[JohnFen]

Ahh, thank you for the correction!

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that makes mobile processors. Our chip supports protected memory for graphics and framebuffer that the CPU cannot read (but it can write), only certain hardware units can access the buffer. and once the unit has been configured to access that buffer it can't write out to an unprotected buffer until it is soft reset (load in new work, which clears the old state).
It's pretty hard to circumvent because the decode engines are hard wired to write to these protected buffers. And the display engine is capable of compositing a mix of protected and non-protected buffers and displaying it to a secure screen. (buried vias to the panel)

I think the amount of engineering that has gone into fucking over the end user is disgusting. But that's my day job.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[OrangeTide]

"I'm a cool hipster, I can bash a file format for being old." No, you're an idiot.

I was using PCX and TIFF before it was cool.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[fyngyrz]

How will that work out for the "average user" on an "average day".

This isn't about average users. This is about the outliers. And just as with DRM on video, what will hit distribution is video/imagery with the DRM (and the warnings) removed. The only people who will see the warnings and not copy the works are the people who aren't pirates anyway.

The whole thing is an exercise in futility.

Also, to an issue brought up earlier about doing this "en mass", that simply isn't a problem. Programmatic capture of multiple images from a post-file source is a doddle.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[cpt kangarooski]

Patent attorney here. A patent owner has the right to exclude people from making, using, importing, selling, or offering to sell the invention. Merely reimplementing or running a patented process (or using an infringing device, etc.) can be infringement, without distribution (and subject to very limited experimental use defenses). Unlike in copyright law, distribution isn't the crux at all.

Copyright attorney here. Copyright infringement doesn't hinge on distribution. Distributing copies is just one way in which infringement can occur. Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, or even sufficient partial copies (and what's sufficient can be very small; in one noteworthy case, Bridgeport v. Dimension Films, it is suggested that even one note from a song would suffice) is also just as infringing. And there are several other forms of infringement. Since it's a strict liability statute, it's easy and in fact extremely commonplace for people to infringe all the time without even knowing about it.

This "feature" of patent law is not very well known to the public, because the type of infringement above is nigh impossible to uncover and is value negative to pursue.

That's why copyright infringement cases usually involve publicly distributed infringing material. However, our overly litigious bad actors in the various publishing industries haven't let the negative costs, difficulty of investigation, and the general foolishness of trying to stop all infringement stop them. Instead they keep trying to externalize the cost and labor. So, you know, you should probably beware of any efforts of patent holders to use the government or third parties to help enforce patents (e.g. by criminalizing patent infringement, or having customs look for and block import of infringing goods).

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[flopsquad]

Of course you're spot on. For brevity's sake, I connected the notion of "distribution" to a part of IP law (copyright) that explicitly calls it out, without also elaborating that distribution is just one of the exclusive rights listed in 17 USC 106. Whereas, "distribution" is not explicitly listed as an exclusive patent right under 35 USC 154.

Agree completely with your sentiments. And as an IP attorney, IP policy wonk, and a musician, I think Bridgeport was an atrocious decision.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual RAW is the preferred format for real photographers. Not some smartphone photographers who upload their pics to Instagram. Smartphones just made it easier, but their are still real photographers out there.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Most professional photographers don't use JPG either, we take pictures in RAW - storing as much information losslessly as possible.

JPG is something you export to for the low-quality versions you put in web based portfolios. For printing you use a lossless format like TIFF pre-sized correctly to page size (because auto-scaling tends to ruin shots) but what you save and store are camera RAW formats (CR2 for canon) which allows you maximum post-processing ability.

and if.. just if perhaps there's someone out there who is a .. let's just imagine this.. a non-professional photographer?

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[ewibble]

The can stop you taking photos a concerts

http://www.adweek.com/news/tec...

just have the correct set o pixels in your picture.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

No right-clicking!!!!!!!! You can't save as!!!!

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[silentcoder]

About half the other posts discussed those cases, you think it's okay if one of them considered something else ?

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, my system has two sound devices and both have signed drivers, yet the internal Realtek cannot record "What U hear" while the Sound Blaster X-Fi can.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

Megapixels and resolutions become worthless indicators of quality when you're talking about a camera with a crap sensor, such as in point and shoot cameras or mobile phones.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[graphius]

even one note from a song would suffice

That is just fucked.....
And people wonder why lawyers are unpopular....

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[graphius]

JPEG is great for web use. It is small and good enough to display on most consumer devices.
I would never use it as a capture format or especially a working format, but as an output it is sufficient...

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Samizdata]

I don't use Print Screen, I use Greenshot.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

CMYK is dead, nobody uses print any more and even if they did, they'd be using TIFF, not JPEG you clueless n00b.

Also PNG supports alpha channel, JPEG does not. PNG supports lossless compression, JPEG does not.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[lsatenstein]

If ever there was a more stupid thing to try to put drm on...

Do you put drm on something, onto something, in something or into something?

Is it take me out of here, or out from here. or away from here?

I'm gone

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Samizdata]

I actually use to have a Targa rig.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you princess leia!lol that quote was awesome.

Re:DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't affect the screen grab feature in Linux, but patent law can prevent you (legally) writing a DRM compliant image viewer for Linux.

Patent law can't stop you from legally doing this. It can only stop you from distributing the program you wrote.

It can't stop you from doing anything.
All it can do is make it so that others can sue you and possibly win a judgment against you.

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[K10W]

Most professional photographers don't use JPG either, we take pictures in RAW - storing as much information losslessly as possible.

JPG is something you export to for the low-quality versions you put in web based portfolios. For printing you use a lossless format like TIFF pre-sized correctly to page size (because auto-scaling tends to ruin shots) but what you save and store are camera RAW formats (CR2 for canon) which allows you maximum post-processing ability.

who rated this a 5; urrrm we do use them for anything web based I think you'll find along with clients needs. I shoot raw of course but you cant view them direct which many seem confused about, what you see on screen is a lower bitrate representation of that 12-14bit raw info since monitors can't display that kind of DR no matter what and the colour depth is approx too depending on monitor depends how much. I actually print to my 10bit driver pro printer (full 10bit workflow start to end) from 16bit formats that aren't tiff (I use PSD but share in TIFF for 3rd party printing or clients who want for print).

However 16bit displays don't exist yet I'm sure you noticed, an higher bitrate monitors like mine are only useful for screen proofing print colours out of gamut on cheap screens. Anything web based or for digital display which is a lot of commercial work is turned into 8bit Jpeg (sRGB), occassionally for website images I'm asked for png but that is rare ask for photos and tends to be for particular cases. Plus I seen problems from clueless clients/shooters caused from no profile exif in png. Bigger problems are print shares I had between UK and USA for global business because some didn't tag files and we use different CMYK standards (fogra39 here).

Re: DRM Thwarted by Printscreen

[toddestan]

Actually, I've found most clueless users know about Printscreen. I can't count how many bug reports I've seen that include nearly useless screenshots, usually pasted into a Word or Powerpoint document. You could just tell me what the error message is, instead of sending me a screenshot of the entire screen. Or perhaps the data file that's giving you trouble... Or the sequence of steps to create the error... Or the log files...

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

JPEG images have a crap quality. PNG is much better.

Re:Who cares?

[SQLGuru]

If JPEG finally implemented DRM, then more people would switch. PNG is superior if only for the extra features. There are instances where JPG compresses better and instances where PNG compresses better, so I won't claim either wins on that account.....but lossless vs lossy and alpha channel support is nice. I'd also like to see the animation extension more consistently adopted (to supplant GIF). I'm not sure why it hasn't caught on more than it has.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when PNG was new, image size was a bigger concern. Now the difference between the file size of a lossy JPEG and PNG is negligible, however the quality difference is not. With JPEG you get horrible colour blocks and banding artefacts. It ruins most pictures.

Re:Who cares?

[Gr8Apes]

With JPEG you get horrible colour blocks and banding artefacts. It ruins most pictures.

So that's why so many cameras use JPEG!

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are RAW files converted to JPEG. Most good cameras allow you to save in RAW format (different file extensions for different brands) that have the full detail, you lose some of that detail after the camera converts it to JPEG.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

All good cameras capture as RAW. Point and shoot cameras use JPEG because they are crap quality already.

Re:Who cares?

[tepples]

Back when PNG was new, image size was a bigger concern.

At 3 GB/mo for mobile cellular data or 10 GB/mo for home cell/sat, it's still a concern.

Re:Who cares?

[Travis Mansbridge]

Check out FLIF which beats almost any other format in quality per byte regardless of whether you're at the low end (JPG) or the high end (PNG) of the quality scale

Re:Who cares?

[fisted]

Alas, GPL. Forget it.

Re:Who cares?

[darkain]

Or there is always BPG files, which already work on current browsers with a simple JS renderer.

http://bellard.org/bpg/

Re:Who cares?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yeah, it 'ruins' most pictures, that's why the porn industry moved to PNG a decade ago.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a better plan, learn to use thumbnails or disable images in your browser then.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who view porn aren't concerned with image quality. To even suggest that porn is the measure of image quality is absurd.

Re:Who cares?

[rnturn]

``With JPEG you get horrible colour blocks and banding artefacts. It ruins most pictures.''

Maybe... but only if you choose the lower quality image settings on your digital camera. Do you really do that? I know of nobody who does that. Nobody. If you were worried about "artifacts" you'd be selecting the highest quality image settings on the camera. Or, even better, you be shooting RAW images.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The highest JPEG compression quality is visibly lossy and can't handle something as simple as a gradient.

Try using something better than a PowerShot.

Re:Who cares?

[urdak]

If JPEG finally implemented DRM, then more people would switch.

You are missing the point... Even if JPEG implements DRM, it doesn't force you to use DRM on the photos you create. You can still take photos, draw images, etc., and not enable DRM on them. So people who currently create JPEGs can continue to use them and don't need to "switch". The problem with DRM is when other people put them on the images they send you. E.g., you browse some website and you see there a DRMed JPEG. How can you "switch" to PNG here?? You didn't create this JPEG, someone else did it, and they did so deliberately.

What users can do, however, is to not even try to get their content from the official publisher (because it uses some annoying DRM) but rather get the same content from a "pirate" which broke this DRM and converted the content to a more useful format. This is what people have been doing for years for video. I, for example, never use actual DVDs any more (my living-room "DVD player" is stash away in the attic) - I always rip my DVDs to an unencrypted ".vob" file before watching them, and avoid all sorts of region locks, mandatory ads, and other crap the publisher thought he could force on me in the pretense of "copyright".

Re:Who cares?

[piojo]

There is no spec yet, but once a spec is decided, it's unlikely they would license the spec under such restrictive terms. That said, nobody can make an alternative implementation until a frozen spec is available. For the moment, you are indeed stuck with a GPL3 implementation.

Re:Who cares?

[91degrees]

So, pay more, use crappy little images or disable images in order to experience better image quality. Even though JPEG is actually fine as long as people don't overcompress.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did anything good come from that approach?
By writing the software first you ensure that that particular implementation becomes the de facto standard for the format and the specification only a reference.
Since pretty much all software is buggy in some way it is very likely that you will end up in the typical Microsoft situation where the implementation that people uses isn't compatible with the specification, making any other implementation seem crappy since it follows the formal specification rather than the de facto standard.

In theory it shouldn't turn out that way, but in practice it probably will.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

With porn its all about moving the most information in the least amount of bandwidth possible, with the exception of the ads on the page. Besides, the people that look at porn have eyesight problems anyway. They won't notice a color band here or a few giant blocky pixels over there - if they can still see...
 
</sarcasm>

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

JPEG is ok for photos - that is what it was developed for. It is NOT ok for strong contrasts, such as pictures of text. I really hate anyone who saves a screendump as a jpeg. (Is it the only image format they know?)

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to photos though, people won't pirate them (except in *very* special cases). They'll just ignore them and get a similar photo with no DRM from elsewhere.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people can't have as much as regular people. Deal with it.

Re:Who cares?

[wonkey_monkey]

Now the difference between the file size of a lossy JPEG and PNG is negligible

What are you talking about? The difference in file size is arbitrary because you can set the quality of a JPEG to whatever suits your purposes.

With JPEG you get horrible colour blocks and banding artefacts. It ruins most pictures.

So set the quality a bit higher. You'll still beat PNG in filesize for photographic images, enough that pages will load visibly faster.

Re:Who cares?

[wonkey_monkey]

The highest JPEG compression quality is visibly lossy and can't handle something as simple as a gradient.

Bollocks. And anyway, how often do you get pure gradients in photographic images, which is what JPEG is best at?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you are neither a photographer or a graphics artist.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

JPEG is unacceptable at anything below 100% quality and even then it's crap next to a PNG. The file size difference between the two is insignificant.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lossless vs lossy. That's the difference. Perhaps you should learn about them?

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I wanna see that Phillipino fuck that donkey in high def. And when that cum shot erupts, the quality of the image should be clear enough to make me think my face feels sticky.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, beat you by a minute!

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

I took a random 833x1200 portrait photo from the Internet and loaded it into Photoshop to compress.

The 24-bit PNG is 941.4 KB. There are no areas of solid color that benefit from PNG's efficiencies. Just for fun, I ran it through an online PNGCrush tool and it somehow jumped to 1.5MB.

The JPEG at 100% quality is 311.6KB
The JPEG at 94% quality is 260KB
At 80% quality it goes down to 179KB
At a web-appropriate 60% it's 133KB and still looks nearly-flawless, with only a minor loss of detail around pores.

If I'm a professional photographer, I would probably still save to JPEG at 100% for final output instead of RAW or TIFF. And even at 100% it's 1/3 of the size of the 24-bit PNG.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The typical RAW format includes a higher dynamic range than is presented in JPG images, which is why many pro photographers use that format for archiving instead of JPG. That said, your logic is sound in every other mark.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on a mobile processor, and I got the hardware decode engine to decode BPG files. I only did it as an experiment, but the HEVC foundation of the format made it pretty easy to reuse existing hardware.

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

He wad entirely correct. Raw doesn't help for 'final', as 'final' needs to

Re:Who cares?

[CCarrot]

Ha, beat you by a minute!

Quit referring to yourself in the second person, AC! Jeez, you'd think you'd have that multiple personality thing under control by now... :-P

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a link to the photo?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now try something lower resolution, such as the majority of the images used to create web sites. PNG wins in quality and size every time.

For large images meant for viewing and scrutiny, people don't care if the PNG is slightly bigger when it looks 10 times better because it doesn't have visible macroblocks, banding or faded colour.

Re:Who cares?

[wonkey_monkey]

JPEG is unacceptable at anything below 100% quality

Maybe for you personally, but that's just you, and you're an outlier. The vast majority of people find it perfectly acceptable, usually between about 60% and 80% quality, depending on all sorts of factors.

Re:Who cares?

[wonkey_monkey]

Now try something lower resolution, such as the majority of the images used to create web sites. PNG wins in quality and size every time.

Ye-es... that is what PNG is for.

JPEG is still the more convenient for photos.

Your reply is a bit like me extolling the virtues of a microwave oven, then you coming back with "Yeah, but now try putting a metal object in it. It'll explode! Microwave ovens are shit!"

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

Have you been to a major web site recently? Lots of HUGE images. Some of the flashier sites have a full-width background photo. Most headline photos are 500px or wider.

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

This was the photo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hNC-...

Re:Who cares?

[graphius]

Higher jpg compression = lower quality = smaller size
Lower jpg compression = higher quality = larger size

Highest quality/lowest compression is actually quite good considering 8-bit colour etc.
If you know what you are doing, and where you intend to display your images, Jpg works fine for its intended purpose and is more than good enough for Joe Average.

Re:Who cares?

[graphius]

you do know that JPEG is only 8-bit right? convert the image to 8-bit first if you want to compare size.
I do agree that JPEG is more widely accepted though. PNG is still thought of as a graphics only format, probably because of the optional alpha channel.

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

you do know that JPEG is only 8-bit right? convert the image to 8-bit first if you want to compare size.

You don't know what you're talking about. JPEG is 8-bits per channel. There are 3 channels. A 24-bit PNG is also 8 bits per channel x 3.

I do agree that JPEG is more widely accepted though. PNG is still thought of as a graphics only format, probably because of the optional alpha channel.

It's also down to what PNG compresses efficiently. PNG uses DEFLATE so it handles solid colors very well. JPEG uses discrete cosine transforms, which essentially is a mathematical model of the image data - similar to to how MP3 compresses audio. It handles complexity much better than PNG. Just because major web sites and services crank up the compression ratios and produce lousy output does not make it the fault of the format itself.

Re:Who cares?

[graphius]

sorry, my coffee had not kicked in, you are right. Jpg's are smaller and do give more options on compression levels.
I do like that PNG is overall more versatile, except in the implementation used in Photoshop....

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

What's wrong with the current Photoshop implementation? I use it fairly regularly and have great results for the images it's appropriate for.

Re:Who cares?

[graphius]

I tried using GIMP as a photoshop replacement for a while, and while GIMP fell short in a lot of areas it gave many more choices for PNG such as compression level and gamma.
In all honesty though, I usually save in PSD (and my printer can read psd files) and use an export module on Lightroom to send jpg's to my website. PNG's are technically superior to jpg in a number of ways, but not worth the hassle...

Re:Who cares?

[omnichad]

Compression level in PNG should always be the highest possible since it's lossless and you really only need to choose between 8 or 24 bit pixels and transparency or not.

Embedding Gamma in a PNG file destined for the web is not usually a good idea. It could cause color values not to match up with identical CSS RGB values in the color schemes. And where gamma would really help, photos, it's probably not an image that would compress as well with PNG vs. JPEG.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher jpg compression = lower quality = smaller size
Lower jpg compression = higher quality = larger size

Learn to read. "highest JPEG compression quality" = highest JPEG compression quality. Stupid fuck.

If you know what you are doing, and where you intend to display your images, Jpg works fine for its intended purpose and is more than good enough for Joe Average.

Side by side comparison of a JPEG at 100% quality and a PNG says otherwise. You'd have to be blind not to be able to see the compression and banding present in all JPEG images. Or maybe you just have a shitty monitor with a tiny colour gamut and think pictures are supposed to look that way.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop does not let you set the PNG compression level. It's just on or off and on isn't maximum compression.

In IrfanView I can set PNG compression from 0 to 9. At 9 it produces images that have smaller file sizes than Photoshop.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought you were doing a proper comparison. You're using a source that is already lossy, so your findings are absolutely worthless.

Try again, but do it correctly with a lossless source.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which will still compress better and look better in PNG.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why all major web browsers support PNG, because everyone using those browsers don't want PNG.

Maybe you've got cataracts or are legally blind or some shit, but most people aren't. There is a reason people don't watch VHS or analog TV any more, because *image* quality matters, especially when you're talking about *images*.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about. JPEG is 8-bits per channel. There are 3 channels. A 24-bit PNG is also 8 bits per channel x 3.

Nobody who works with graphics says it that way. Images are referred to as 8-bit or 16-bit. GP is correct that JPEG is limited to 8-bit.

It would be like saying you have a 2GHz CPU, but it's quad core so it's really 8GHz. It's just wrong.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually most major web sites are trending towards simpler, basic colour designs.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

FLIF is an effective lossless codec and it has an interesting interlacing algorithm. But no.. it can't compare to JPEG for photographs when it is downloaded to the same size as a JPEG photo. Look here - https://uprootlabs.github.io/poly-flif/

Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's to stop me from taking a high def screen shot of the jpeg and uploading it anyway ?

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Future versions of OS that stop being 'your' computer and start being 'their' computer which interface with 'their' Internet that will soon not support 'your' computer. And sad to say, most people will run screaming with glee towards it at the sight of OOH NEW AND SHINY they bundle with it.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Gr8Apes]

And yet... my phone will take an indecipherable screen shot at better than pixel to pixel resolution.

Re: Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your phone has the CSI Enhance function. Impressive.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah thanks for the doom and gloom, sorry but all the fearmongering in the world hasnt made that any closer to reality.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Darinbob]

For the same reason that you can't just split off the signal and record that when watching a video. The DRM won't run under operating systems that don't implement the proper security to prevent taking a screenshot. Sure there's a possibility of cracking the encryption, but ever since DVDs were cracked the media companies have been getting smarter about how to thwart people who want to exercise their legal rights.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Lunix Nutcase]

You don't follow BluRay protection cracking software do you? AACS and BD+ have been shown to be jokes.

Re: Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you put DRM on my eyes, this will not work. Simply play video that was legally purchased on screen. Then record with a high definition recorder. When done at home, it won't be of crappy quality like many illegal in theater recordings.

Re: Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think the fear mongering is working?
Or do you think it's a bad thing that we aren't there already?

Re: Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't?
That's what every game streamer does.
This would do jack shit to a capture device.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[safetyinnumbers]

The first thing that comes to mind is low-frequency watermarks. Not as easy to filter/crop out as a traditional mark.

This idea relates to the Constellation of EURion (sic) in that it would require servers (or other software) to recognize and reject images containing embedded features.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[MightyYar]

That is until - whoops! - you have your DRM chip manufactured in China and pretty soon anyone can buy a DRM stripper for under $20.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[khellendros1984]

It's been heading that direction for a long time. There are plenty of things, mostly related to entertainment, that my computer's hardware is technically capable of doing, but which software forbids, and the law forbids me from working around the defective-by-design software. That sounds like it's a good start toward my computer being controlled by someone else, and not by me.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Kernel/Video Driver DRM intercepts the printscreen, observes the DRM bit set on the framebuffer, and pops up a scary message about stealing, but not before phoning home to tell Microsoft that you tried to printscreen awwcutekittens.jpg.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[nondeterministic]

Nikon d800 for example can take pictures at 36 megapixels (around 7k x 5k pixels). What's the size of your monitor?

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the descrambled image has now your MAC, IP, time and Microsoft account details embedded steganographically into the image for that extra attribution..

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[JohnFen]

Only if you use the print screen functionality that comes with Windows.

Re: Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea because people are using those pics to share on the web. Hint, they aren't. They scale them down to web size.

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, most of us techs still have Real OS's to bypass their Trojan OS's....no problem.
Now the General Public ? They get what they deserve for being so foolish (WIN8, WIN10 and Apple *.*)

Mind you DRM Images will be easier to "fix" than Audio or Video, so they'll probably be an Haxapp for that :)

Re:Sounds ineffective.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but not everyone on here knows or even understands what is involved here.

All this nonsense

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

All this nonsense, defeated by a simple screenshot.

And I'm sure someone will quickly write a DRM-stripper to clean up these DRM-infected files.

Let me be as succinct as I can regarding DRM in .jpg files: No. No, no, no.

Re:All this nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple: ban screenshots. Only thieves use them, anyway. /s

Re:All this nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming open source hardware and OS, which the majority hasn't chosen yet.

Hey you can't have this

[future assassin]

oh yah?! Click...

Awesome

[viperidaenz]

How is the jpeg library supposed to know the intent? It's not even involved in the image upload process.

Or is the website supposed to check and reject uploads with DRM?

What's to stop me opening the file and saving as PNG, then uploading?

Re:Awesome

[0123456]

What's to stop me opening the file and saving as PNG, then uploading?

The operating system won't let you. Any operating system which does let you will be banned under the 'free trade' treaty for breaking DRM.

It's hard to tell whether the DRM fanatics are insane or just plain evil. But, either way, they have to destroy general-purpose computing to make it work.

Re:Awesome

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The operating system won't let you.

Someone will just write a nifty little program that will bypass that restriction.

Re:Awesome

[Gr8Apes]

The operating system won't let you. Any operating system which does let you will be banned under the 'free trade' treaty for breaking DRM.

It's hard to tell whether the DRM fanatics are insane or just plain evil. But, either way, they have to destroy general-purpose computing to make it work.

How about evil greedy insane expiring bastards?

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you overestimate both the difficulty of their task and their influence. The reality is that they will fail. Microsoft is under no obligation to help them and cannot be made to help them. The Linux crowd doesn't care and neither does anybody involved in FOSS. The genie is out of the bottle now and no amount of stamping will force it back inside. The task of the DRM promoters is hopeless and they know it.

Re:Awesome

[gl4ss]

well quite simply you wouldn't be allowed to open it in gimp, photoshop or similar.

Re:Awesome

[lokedhs]

What makes you think Microsoft won't help them? All they have to do is to hook their existing function to mark a window as "protected" and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, they never want anyone to use JPEG again? Makes sense. JPEG is a shit algorithm anyway. There are multitudes of better formats. The only reason it's still around is because "everyone uses it", and it does an okay job. As soon as it's made any shittier people are going to drop it like a sack of shit, and use something else, like PNG, or WebP, or the dancing plethora of image compression algorithms pulled out of video codecs like BGP.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus they can ban the sell of computer with Linux preinstalled for the sake of consumer (He could infringe IP without knowing)

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what wars are created to solve.

Re:Awesome

[Dr_Barnowl]

Have you read "The Right to Read"?

Thing is, all the technology it describes is possible now, and even in use on some platforms (think iOS, where all apps must be signed by Apple, and apps are specifically prohibited from allowing the execution of arbitrary code). The only gap is in legislation, but that legislation continues to be pushed forward aggressively.

The author of that nifty little program could well find themselves in a nifty little jail cell. They've already tried it, more than once ; and they will keep trying, with the force of these new international treaties like TPP behind them.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM-pushers are treading on thin ice once criminal punishment becomes a factor for the makers of software tools. Do you know what else criminals do? They kill people. And if you make writing software to bypass DRM a crime with equivalent punishment to murder, then the people who made that a crime are no longer safe. They've just traded their security for money. It will shortly become worth someone's freedom to just murder one of the greedy assholes that bought, wrote, or voted on these laws.

Every time that happens, there will be 1) one less greedy asshole to push the DRM agenda, 2) more fear in the greedy asshole community, and 3) another step toward complete breakdown of the rule of law that is inevitable when small crimes become equivalent to large crimes, causing a cascading collapse of the rule of law.

People who push DRM-enforcement and other bad laws basically hate the rule of law. They only want enforcement. Law demands justice. Everyone is under law. There's a phrase about geese and ganders that applies well here. On the other hand, enforcement is merely taking by force under color of law. That's not just robbery, it's war. If they want war, I'm sure they'll get it. It will start with the loonies and outcasts, but eventually it will spread. They've already lost the propaganda campaign. Nobody bats an eye at copyright infringement. Most people don't think it's even wrong. And now they want to start a war on infringement tools? Good luck with that land war in Asia, DRM-dumbshits.

But at some point they won't keep trying, at least not with all of those bullets in their heads, knives in their backs, and poison in their food. That's what they get for escalating it. It serves them right.

Re:Awesome

[gstoddart]

And then you'll be liable under the DMCA/TPP/whatever trade agreements have been signed in secret.

See, the corporations have the American government so firmly on the payroll that the treaties being pushed by America these days are pretty much 100% skewed in favor of large corporations.

So you bypassing this? Well, you'd be an international criminal.

Because corporations have more rights than we do these days.

Re:Awesome

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Have you read "The Right to Read"?

Yes, years ago.

The problem is that there are literally billions of us and not very many of them. The Chinese have tried stuff like this for years and still can't do it. The Great Firewall of China has been a resounding flop for anyone who wants to get around it. It's got more holes than a New Orleans whorehouse.

No matter what they come up with there will always be a way around it. Until they put a chip in our brains I don't see them winning at this game.

Re:Awesome

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Anything is possible, but I don't see it coming to pass.

It's super-duper-mega illegal to download movies, and that hasn't seemed to stop it.

I suppose you could pack all the jails full of people accused of downloading The Hurt Locker or Dr Who Episode #462346, but honestly...I just don't see it happening.

They can make something as illegal as they want, but that won't stop people from doing it. Look at the "War On Drugs", they filled the prisons with people who smoked or sold pot, and it didn't even scratch the surface. If anything all it did was increase drug use.

Re:Awesome

[gstoddart]

Look at the "War On Drugs", they filled the prisons with people who smoked or sold pot, and it didn't even scratch the surface. If anything all it did was increase drug use.

And fill up prisons. All those tasty for-profit prisons which currently make billions of dollars. Sorry, but absolutely nobody in America is listening to the argument that all it would do is fill up prisons. Hell, by now those profitable prisons are probably a big lobby unto themselves ... because shareholder value is now dependent on throwing people in prisons. If anything they need more people thrown in prisons to meet revenue growth.

Look around you, the TPP and every other trade treaty the US has been involved in for the last 10 years specifically adds more criminal liability for copyright.

That's what they're for. The US government lets the copyright industries write the damned treaties and laws.

This shit is already happening.

DRM Does Work

[rsmith-mac]

From TFS:

explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works

While I fully agree that DRM isn't foolproof, I disagree that DRM doesn't work. The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users. And to that end DRM works very well.

Any DRM system that's built half-way decently won't be possible to trivially bypass, and that's enough to deter casual infringement. You don't see people going Napster with iOS apps, you don't see everyone and their mother pirating DirecTV like they once did, and you can't pick up pirated PS4 games off of your local shady games shop. Why? Because the DRM systems that are in place are good enough that it's no longer easy and convenient to pirate this material. So casual piracy stops.

DRM shouldn't be implemented for a whole other host of reasons, least of all because it prevents users from fully controlling works they've purchased. But to argue that it doesn't work is disingenuous. It works to stop the most threatening form of piracy, casual piracy, and with every generation the underlying technology gets harder and harder to break.

Re:DRM Does Work

[gyroheli]

Getting pirated games to work on the 360 wasn't that difficult either, i mean yah you had to take it apart and buy a $10 device to do it. Even with the PS1 you wouldn't just use a copied CD, it need to be modded to allow for that. You don't need to be tech savy yourself, just need a friend who is, which most people have. Anyways piracy isn't as big of an issue as companies think it is. They think every person that pirated their product would have bought it instead, that's definitely not the case. Some people are just looking for free content, they would otherwise have no bothered purchasing it.

Re:DRM Does Work

[elvesrus]

If DRM works why is it that customers generally have a worse experience with products than others that didn't pay?

Re:DRM Does Work

[Dutch Gun]

DRM works reasonably well in closed ecosystems and on closed hardware. That includes consoles, handhelds, phones, and so on. It can be bypassed, but it's a pain, and most people don't do so. This is because the DRM is implemented in hardware, and in ways that are extremely difficult to unravel, and so aren't really worth attacking except for people who are mostly doing it for the technical challenge.

Where DRM typically fails is on open platforms like the PC. There are only two forms (that I can think of offhand) of DRM to really succeed on the PC. One is the "leave most of the code on the server" sort of DRM, essentially online-only games, and that's a pretty draconian solution for single-player games. The other is high-end software that uses a hardware encryption dongle to protect it. Other than that, the only way to make software-based DRM work on the PC is to make it a closed device like consoles, and although I'm sure some companies wouldn't mind seeing that happen, with declining PC sales as is, I just don't see it happening.

DRM in JPEG images is a pipe dream. Even if it were technically possible in the first place, do you really think anyone and everyone is going to bother implementing whatever extensions would make it possible? It's ridiculous. Note that the ONLY way I can think to implement this would be an image handling library with root-level privileges on every computer system on the planet. Did we fucking learn nothing from Stagefright?

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less DRM working, more that there's convenient legal alternatives that aren't too cumbersome. Netflix, various app stores, etc. Part of that is indeed that people don't want to risk being sued for a lot of money... but look at any media industry where there's no legal convenient outlet and you'll see piracy regardless of the effectiveness of DRM. Remember, it only takes one successful crack to break a given DRM forever, and it doesn't take much to casually infringe that.

Re:DRM Does Work

[ArmoredDragon]

The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users. And to that end DRM works very well.

That depends on who is implementing the DRM. The MPAA always seems convinced that they've got something new right around the corner that is unbreakable. Their goal is to prevent piracy completely. The same can be said for Intel and HDCP, which would instantly become pointless once broken.

Also DirecTV's crypto is more intended to be conditional access rather than DRM.

Re:DRM Does Work

[ArmoredDragon]

They think every person that pirated their product would have bought it instead, that's definitely not the case. Some people are just looking for free content, they would otherwise have no bothered purchasing it.

The term you're looking for there is price elasticity. When the price goes down, the demand rises.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM prevents me from being able to view content I've legally purchased. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as not working. It's literally purposefully not allowing me to use legally owned video. Yet I ripped a copy from DVD and I can play it anywhere. Why is it that I'm forced to break a questionable law to view content I've purchased? That seems like a bait and switch to me. I have never bought another movie from Amazon because of their DRM.

Re: DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are generally less computer literate?
I mean, if you know the cracked copy works better why would you not get it and buy the game? Now you have it and an offline version to fall back on if the servers choke.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't go napster with ios apps? That's funny last I checked appcake was still in operation.

No people don't pirate Dave anymore but I think it has more to do with the mass anti-piracy operations they did a few years back than the drm thats what I've heard anyway. Afaik no one has cracked the current encryption on either provider however there are still a lot of iks severs up and running for Charlie.

Ps4 drm has yet to be cracked afaik you can rip the games but can't run them

You can rip blurays without much trouble nowadays .

The xbox one is a serious pita to test when new have to connect to the internet, download an update and login. All just to find out if it can read a disc. Like the ps4 games can be ripped but not run. Afaik its not been cracked either

Wiiu is fully cracked but no one like's the wiiu anway so its rather moot.

Hdmi's hdcp was cracked back in 2011 today all you need to bypass it is a crappy >$20 hdmi splitter.

Vhs (remember those cartridges with the fuzzy pictures?) macrovision protection can be bypassed with equipment in the $70-$100 range. You may even need one if you want to record your home movies to dvd if the tapes have sufficently degraded, dvd recorders often mistake wear for macrovison. (which is likely when was the last time you used a vhs camcorder?)

Rember the broadcast flag? The thing that kept you from being able to record your favorite show? well supposedly its gone now but there is a lot of equipment out their that still looks for it.

Did you see the movie chappie? There was a lot in the movie that was beyond belief but the scene where they setup a ps4 cluster was just too much sony would never alow their equipment to do anything that might be considered useful.

Re: DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

So youre saying people who have a bad experience with DRM products is because they're computer iliterate?

That might be the case in some cases but not when:
1> you buy a store bought blu ray movie and its got unskippable ads
2> you buy a game it comes with limited installs due to the DRM
3> you buy a game on disc and it installs some shitty DRM crap thats required for the game to play but it messes with your DVD drive's burning abilities.
4> you buy a game/program but then you can't install it anymore because the company went bankrupt and the activation servers shut down.

Re:DRM Does Work

[tlhIngan]

Getting pirated games to work on the 360 wasn't that difficult either, i mean yah you had to take it apart and buy a $10 device to do it. Even with the PS1 you wouldn't just use a copied CD, it need to be modded to allow for that. You don't need to be tech savy yourself, just need a friend who is, which most people have. Anyways piracy isn't as big of an issue as companies think it is. They think every person that pirated their product would have bought it instead, that's definitely not the case. Some people are just looking for free content, they would otherwise have no bothered purchasing it.

It's still a relative pain for the 360 because new games require new operating systems, and you cannot connect a modded 360 to the internet. So you lose multiplayer (Microsoft will deactivate your Live account on that console if they detect mods) and updates can revert the mod.

It's why console piracy rates are around the 10% level, while PC piracy rates are close to the 90% level or higher. Enough so that the PC basically is shitcanned - if a console game comes out, chances are the PC version will be a crappy port that comes out months later (which granted, help since instead of asking $60, they ask $30). Sure there's a few day-1 PC releases - like Call of Duty and Battlefield, but they have online servers enforcing DRM (and remember the loss of local servers?), and sometimes you get a good PC port, but they're few and far between - piracy has killed most PC gaming. The only PC games you see are indie games - the AAA releases are far fewer than consoles these days.

Anyhow, it's a bit late to add DRM to the spec - it'll be like JPEG2000 - a format few, if any, support.

Re: DRM Does Work

[suutar]

no, he's saying the people who put up with a bad experience using DRM products are less computer savy than the ones who will use non-DRM stuff for the convenience whether they purchase the DRM product or not.

Re:DRM Does Work

[BronsCon]

You don't see people going Napster with iOS apps

No, but that's because Napster became a legitimate music service which later became Rhapsody, thus it is no longer a filesharing service where this would be possible. There is plenty of .ipa piracy in the jailbreak world; they just use other services that still exist.

Re:DRM Does Work

[urdak]

From TFS:

explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works

While I fully agree that DRM isn't foolproof, I disagree that DRM doesn't work. The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users.

That is a common misconception. When DVD CSS (the DRM on DVDs) came out, they claimed it was to stop piracy. That was a joke - it only took the effort of one pirate to strip out the DRM and create an unencrypted file, and from then on the movie becomes available to pirates, and "casual", "low-skilled" pirates started copying *those* unencrypted fils, not the original DVDs. All these pirates needed to know was how to copy files - they didn't need any special "hacking" skills.

Moreover, not only did CSS not stop DVD piracy, movie producer started to use it to limit users with things that have nothing to do with copying - for example region coding (you cannot play a movie you bought legally in another country) and unskippable ads (in some places in the video, fast-forward did not work). And who didn't have to suffer this crap? Of course, the pirates. The pirates - either copying files over bittorrent or buying a DVD from some pirate DVD manufacturer - will get a DVD without all that crap. What a wonderful business move.

It's gotten to the point where the first thing I do after getting a DVD is to rip it to an unencrypted file, delete the silly "FBI warning" and ads, and save that file. I don't need my children to see FBI warnings and ads before watching a movie I paid for. Nothing in "copyright" law allows the copyright holder to force me to watch this crap - any more than book manufacturers can force me to read the first page of the book every time I want to read it.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

> Any DRM system that's built half-way decently won't be possible to trivially bypass, and that's enough to deter casual infringement.

Yeah, right. And if it ain't trivial to bypass, then we can "fix" that bit by bit, by taking over -- bit by bit -- the user's devices: secure boot, signed OS, signed drivers, encrypted signal links between storage & display hardware.

The nice thing about this takeover is that it satisfies other appetites (or should I say lust for user control) as well.

See where that leads to?

That's my reason to say *NO*.

When something has DRM, I'll mostly (passively) avoid it. When I do need it professionally, I make my customer or employer *pay for it* (making a point of it). Otherwise, I'll crack it.

Re:DRM Does Work

[SuricouRaven]

How many customers does Nap/sody have now? Because the only thing that the original Napster and the post-legitimatisation company have in common is the name, and now they don't even have that.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

So...I shouldn't pirate AND going online to a paid service probably traceable back to me through a credit card? Interesting...

Honestly, except for some new games not working, your point seems pretty moot. It's in the same category as some new PC games not working on your platform either because of relying upon a new platform.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM for videos works quite well and so far not cracked. The keys are sent to the operating system and from the decryption to displaying everything is hidden from the user code. Those movie files aren't even decryptable if you have access to the server. There is a 3rd party managing the keys.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Lennie]

Open platform you say ?

Let's see:
- game consoles -> most are closed
- smart TV -> most are closed ?
- mobile -> some are closed and Android is slowly getting more closed (or less useful when not using closed software)
- pc -> Mac isn't closed yet, but Mac OS X now has System Integrity Protection, next step is to close the hardware. Windows ? Well Windows already has an app store and 'Secure Boot', we all know what comes next
- even monitors include some DRM protocols

Re:DRM Does Work

[jabuzz]

Really given that HDCP is stuffed to high heaven and HDMI recorders are readily available I would strongly argue that DRM on video is as broken as any other DRM.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Kjella]

I think the difference goes far more between interactive and non-interactive content, or data and executables if you will. If you copy any audiovisual work (photo, video, music, books etc.) into a DRM-free format you're pretty much done. Even if you have closed source players checking for watermarks like Cinavia they're going to get tracked down and found. Executables are a different story, first of all to patch code you must download code from various dubious sites on the Internet. Secondly, you never know if there's more DRM checks that will trigger at some point. Updates are likely to break the crack and unpatched software is typically dangerous if you're downloading 3rd party content or at the very least buggy. You could be hit with malware, trojans stealing logins and passwords, identity theft, cryptowalls and all sorts of ugly. You really want to risk all that to save $1 playing Angry Birds? At this point I wouldn't want to run "warez" on anything but a burner box dedicated to it that was never used for anything sensitive ever.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users. And to that end DRM works very well.

The thing that prevents casual piracy among low-skilled users is "making the legal alternative the easiest path" and 99% of that has nothing to do with DRM.

Re: DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out adobe's sector 32 boot "virus", er I mean DRM code block. Had to wipe my boot sector to get a fresh OS install to boot. Looking out for MY interests I'm sure.

Re:DRM Does Work

[drinkypoo]

There are only two forms (that I can think of offhand) of DRM to really succeed on the PC. One is the "leave most of the code on the server" sort of DRM, essentially online-only games, and that's a pretty draconian solution for single-player games. The other is high-end software that uses a hardware encryption dongle to protect it.

The former works, but it's not DRM. It's a server-client architecture. The latter doesn't work. Basically all of those hardware keys have been defeated. At some point there has to be software involved, and you attack the software.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's for the legal protections, so they can bring the hammer down on anyone they choose. Not because they think it's actually effective.

Isn't the TPP fun? I doubt it's a coincidence that this discussion is coming up _now_...

Re:DRM Does Work

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is pointless past a online verified serial number, which is enough to prevent casual piracy. Just because you make it hard to bypass doesn't mean hackers won't make it easy.

Their solution is awesome 8bit music and a button that says patch and the new way is even easier with the rise of portable software. You're wrong about Sat because FTA boxes are very easy to use. Bypassing protection to view encrypted channels is illegal, but very easy. I remember the days when people would buy a card that might last 8 or 10 months for $50.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Blaskowicz]

Pretty much, you have to be spied on to play a legit game, by a few big companies that maintain a list of your games and when and where you install or play them.

Re:DRM Does Work

[BronsCon]

Through their partnership with T-Mobile, quite a few, actually.

Re:DRM Does Work

[mattventura]

But piracy rates are meaningless, because there's no way of knowing how many of those people would have actually bought the game had they not been able to pirate it. There's no difference to a studio's bottom line between someone who buys 5 games, and someone who buys 5 games and pirates 50 more. Or someone who buys 10 games after waiting for them to drop to half their original price. Or someone who buys 50 games when they're 90% off on steam.

I'd say the problem is circular: a lot of people don't want to pay the asking price for PC games because they're awful ports and also because the standard for PC games has generally always been higher in certain areas. Obviously people don't want to pay full price for a game that has no LAN support, has an interface clearly not designed for a kb/m, and crashes your video driver every 30 minutes.

Re:DRM Does Work

[Catbeller]

And the encrypted BIOS on PC and Mac motherboards - has that been cracked? Not really. Linux distro makers have to beg for a license to use mobos, IIANM. Encryption does work, at a certain level. And Google has been good at blocking or demoting crack pages for so many things. Try to find a bleeping free (current!) DVD ripper sometime using a search engine. Point is, they can be successful enough to keep anyone from bothering. And there are more than a few writers and activists in prison for fighting such things. Or at least sued into oblivion, Scientology-style.

Re:DRM Does Work

[gyroheli]

You can't go online with PC games either. Love to know where you got that 90% statistic from, better not have been from Ubisoft.

I'm a JPEG Content producer

[JazzXP]

I produce a lot of JPEGs that earn me money and find me clients (photographer)... DRM? Nope, do not want.

I think JPEG 2000 has DRM as a add on

[Joe_Dragon]

I think JPEG 2000 has DRM as a add on.

But to add it to JPEG?? What happens to all of the open source JPEG tools?

Re:I think JPEG 2000 has DRM as a add on

[graphius]

What happens to all of the open source JPEG tools?

They become more popular as they allow you to look at your pictures without having to jump through hoops...

How will it work? Seriously

[Todd Knarr]

It won't stop uploading. Tools like wput and Curl don't read the contents of files before uploading, and wouldn't be modified to support one closed-source feature for one specific file format.

It won't affect Web sites. Web servers don't read the contents of files before serving them, files are just blobs of bytes to the server. The sites of interest to the DRM people are running open-source Web server software too, and I seriously doubt Apache or nginx are going to add closed-source code for one specific file format. IIS would, but it's at best the third-place player in the large-volume-site space.

And finally, it'll be cracked. My bet is that before it becomes widely implemented someone'll crack the system and there'll be browser extensions easily available that simply strip the DRM off the JPEG before uploading, displaying or saving it. Those extensions'll be widely used too, it won't be long before anyone having problems viewing images on Pinterest/Tumblr/Twitter/etc. will just get told to install the extension and it'll fix the problem. Users won't know or care how it fixed it, just that it fixes it.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[nashv]

You're not getting this. Most likely, adding DRM will make JPEG files unreadable without a license/key. Tools that don't read contents and decrypt will not be able to view it. So irrespective of whether you can upload it or serve it, no one without proper rights will be able to view it. Think of this like locked PDFs.

This will be the end of JPEG. Nothing to worry about, PNG is better anyway.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[AHuxley]

An advanced always internet connected "free" US operating system might have to send back details on any moved, copied, created or altered image under a 'free' anti virus, malware feature.
It would just be a small dataset created from details, names, embedded strings about all files visible, open when the the screen image captured.

All files would be looked at for expected, listed virus or malware and if an image was moved, copied against existing international police databases.
The transmission of a set of small checksums would not be difficult given the amount of other data most big brand modern operating systems send back.
For the average user the file would be reported on by the OS in near realtime for 'free' anti virus efforts with the free operating system.
The user can then run any application to try and convert, remove, transform the image but the report of a copy made would have been sent. Downloading and using any such rights altering application could also be logged :)

Such efforts are usually done now for any images in free email, cloud or other networked products as part of law enforcement image tracking efforts over the years.
Just push the tech down into the users 'free' OS computers and let the publishing/media community add every image checksum they have.
No action if the image stays in a deep part of the OS for say allowed web browsing, if moved to a new folder or captured the rights owner gets the ip, time, unique hardware details of the computer.

The sites will be a walled garden. Users will have to load and enjoy the site everytime without been able to save data.
The OS will phone home the possession of the saved image or creation of a screen capture with the protected image in it. The free gift of AV software at the OS level gets to look at every file in realtime, why not report on DRM files too :)

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is the difference between this and just encrypting it?

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[suutar]

they can spin it as an enhancement to the format instead of a restriction on the user

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not wrong, but you're not really addressing the GP's assertions either. With respect to the given goal ("force your computer to stop you from uploading pictures") DRM is basically useless. Software that only cares about getting a supplied blob of bytes from point A to point B will not be affected by DRM, just as the "copy protection" on DVDs never afforded any protection against actual copying.

It was never about copying. It was only ever about who's able to decode and view the content.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Todd Knarr]

Then point 3 applies, one browser extension to automatically strip the DRM off and it's done.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Trogre]

Well, it won't be the end of JPEG. It will just be another format that nobody uses. Like JPEG2000.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[houghi]

Think of this like locked PDFs. Or like Bluray or DVD. I am sure a real hack will be found fast. Because while a smaller image can be copied with a screenshot, a larger file that comes from a DSLR will not be as easy as the image is larger than most screens , even the 4K ones.

So you could do screenshots and patch them together or reduce the size and get lower quality. That is not what most people would like.

I expect a real hack for this less than a week after it has been implemented.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

An advanced always internet connected "free" US operating system might have to send back details on any moved, copied, created or altered image

It's named Windows 10.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[drinkypoo]

This will be the end of JPEG. Nothing to worry about, PNG is better anyway.

The only thing that PNG is better at than other formats is being a GIF. JPEGs are smaller, lossless JPEGs are better-supported, etc. PNG kicks the crap out of GIF, but uh... so? That's cool for web themes, but pointless everywhere else.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Catbeller]

Surveillance, that thing I've been screaming about for years - it's gonna become impossible to communicate about such things undetected. And believe me, it will be criminal and they will start using the new super-police surveillance sphere to track down people who do. Tomorrow won't be like today. They will keep growing in malice and capabilities. And they buy any law they want.

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[graphius]

who the hell posts full res images? Jpegs are used (by anyone with half a brain) as a low res output format for viewing on a monitor.
Jpegs are only 8-bit, they can introduce artifacts, and they use lossy compression. I record RAW files off my DSLR, process them as PSD (Photoshop) files, and finally convert them to TIF for printing, or jpg for posting on the web.
While I support the notion of stopping people stealing images, DRM is not the solution. It just causes headaches for legitimate users and no real deterrent for "pirates".

Re:How will it work? Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Lossless JPEGs are better-supported than PNG? Are you serious? Practically no web browser supports lossless JPEGs.

Other other news...

[SJ]

Joint Photographic Expert Group trying to think of things to justify their relevance.

Re:Other other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised people still use JPEG for something else than the punchline to a joke.

Re:Other other news...

[Virtucon]

ITU, FIM, FIA, FIFA, IOC all useless bodies that are there to create some "structure" but wind up being bloated and corrupt.

Will not be supported by Instagram/facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

JPEG with DRM will fail because the biggest use of JPEGs (on facebook & Instagram) will require that users upload images without DRM. By necessity, facebook & instagram require you to assign them full rights to use an image, thereby making any DRM from the original owner of the content pointless. Similarly, facebook & instagram (as licencees to use the work but not owners) are not in a position to impose DRM on said images (they don't own the content and thus can't decide or enforce rights management.)

Re:Will not be supported by Instagram/facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps to kill off the likes of Facebook and Instagram, then I support JPEG DRM.

what was that new open source format?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to switch...

commentsubjectsarestupid

[Falos]

We've repeatedly covered the obvious concerns that we all spotted instantly, so let's have them laid out. In order of rejection:

1) It won't be fair. It treads on everyone, both creators and consumer sides. It's morally wrong.

Don't care?

2) It won't deliver. I'll say it more bluntly than TFS: "Whatever corporatefag gains you think will result, won't. Financial, control, influence, whatever you thought." It's motivationally wrong.

Don't believe?

3) It won't work. Screenshots, metacode strippers (coming to soon a one-click launcher near you), countersoftware, a fucking phone camera, anything. It's logistically wrong.

Don't believe? Don't matter. Still gonna be outmaneuvered.

In fact, if the facetwatter and ledditblrgram crowd are the only skill tier affected (temporarily at that) I'm about to say "Come at me, bro."

Won't be implemented

[andymadigan]

JPEG can add this to the standard, but nobody will implement it. Think about it, why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers? Why would Microsoft or Apple implement it?

DRM on video (and to a lesser degree music) only worked because there was a captive market. Blu-ray players, DVD players, and iPods would implement whatever DRM the movie/music industry specified. Browsers and smartphones won't. Without them the audience is so small that it won't matter.

Re:Won't be implemented

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers?

The first browser may be paid to implement it by content producers, all others will be forced to follow once big name sites like facebook declare their browser as being outdated and no longer supported. Note that Mozilla by now incorporates a lot of paid crap ware and advertisements into their browser and Google is quite interested in keeping the target audience of their ad network and user data collection system as large as possible - that is two widely used browsers that will implemented it for the money to be made, Microsoft likely will do the same and Apple has no reason not to support DRM.

Re:Won't be implemented

[JohnFen]

why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers? Why would Microsoft or Apple implement it?

I dunno, why did all those guys cave on the DRM added to HTML 5?

Re:Won't be implemented

[omnichad]

Facebook doesn't want DRM. How are they supposed to re-compress uploaded pictures if they are DRM-protected?

Re:Won't be implemented

[omnichad]

To get rid of Flash. I think there are a lot of desperate things most people will do to never see Flash again.

Re:Won't be implemented

[JohnFen]

Supporting DRM was in no way required to get rid of flash.

Re:Won't be implemented

[omnichad]

It was for content producers in the real world. In fantasy-land, everyone would use DRM-free video for paid content.

Re:Won't be implemented

[Catbeller]

Why did Mozilla implement DRM? They did because Netflix wanted it. They'll implement DRM anything - the ways they can be forced, including, I dunno, guns and prison, are legion.

So...how will this stop anything from happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all of the image modification tools out there this won't stop anything
With all of the screen capture programs out there this won't stop anything
With all of the DVI to HDMI cables to capture cards this won't stop anything
With all of the other formats you could re-save it as this won't stop anything

a picture is worth . . .

[swell]

no, I'm not going to finish that by saying '1000 words'. That would be insulting to those who already despise the stupid phrase.

But what is a picture worth? I spend my days at one of the most attractive places on earth where thousands of visitors from everywhere snap the same photos. One scene in particular must have been shot millions of times over the last 100 years. They line up so that they can stand in the exact spot for the best view. Each photographer walks away proud of their new acquisition.

Certain pictures do have value and are well protected. The hollow inside of Fort Knox. The Dead Sea scrolls (yes, the ones they haven't told you about). The blueprints for the Star Trek phaser weapon. The Royal Personage picking her nose...

But really, who would use this DRM? Web sites with sale-worthy photos show thumbnails and sell the full resolution image via email. Not much problem there. It's true that stock photo sellers have been ripped off badly and I'm sorry about that, but I assume they have watermarks, etc, offering some protection. Even Playboy magazine has come to realize that photos just aren't that compelling anymore.

Re:a picture is worth . . .

[drinkypoo]

Even Playboy magazine has come to realize that photos just aren't that compelling anymore.

Wrong. They're realizing that people want their social commentary and their porn separate. They want their social commentary on paper because it's good for reading, and they want their porn on a screen because there are no pages to stick together.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn boy! You're making me get HARD. I've never seen such a throbbing erection before.

Will it be available to Joe Public?

[grahammm]

Most JPEGs are created by ordinary people, with their digital cameras and phones. So will Joe Public who has taken a photo be able to define the rights on the image? Will he be able change the rights depending on where he sends or stores the image? Or will it only be the media conglomerates who are able to manage the rights to their images?

Re:Will it be available to Joe Public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Egads! I can imagine it already: Sony and Samsung and Cannon immediately start selling Auto-DRMing point-n-shoots. Then when you try to view the photos you took, they demand you pay to unlock them. That sounds about their speed.

If you want "prosumer" level equipment, that doesn't automatically take your photos hostage, you can always pay the prosumer grade licensing fee. It'll be hell on earth. Just like they did with inkjet printers.

Re:Will it be available to Joe Public?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be true copyright theft. The copyright in a photo rests with the photographer (or the employer is taken as a work for hire) not with the manufacturer of the camera. The place for Joe Public to set his desired Digital Rights would be on his PC,MAC or phone prior to uploading or sending it somewhere else. So that if, for example, someone sends an intimate selfie to a partner they could (if the DRM actually allowed them to fully manage their rights) set it so that uploading to social media, attaching to an email or changing the rights permissions is not allowed.

Re:Will it be available to Joe Public?

[Catbeller]

They pay to change that law. Boom.

Re:Will it be available to Joe Public?

[vandamme]

That's on page 193 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Remember when WWW took off causing a fight for GIF

[Trax3001BBS]

Created by Compuserve to save bandwidth, and used for years with no complaints. When WWW took off Gif's were the format of choice of many; their value in that Gif's could be made invisible. 2006 A lawsuit claiming rights to the Gif format I took as a joke at first, yet Unisys and IBM both applied for patents in 1983.

It caused some major concern to big business and the PNG format.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazin...

I haven't searched but take this just as joke worthy as IIRR the Jpg format was release to the public, or at the least now considered fair play.

Somebody in JPEG is high on crack

[Anonymous Coward]

> there would be images that could force your computer to stop you from uploading pictures to Pinterest or social media

Seriously? Is there a video or audio file that stops your computer from uploading it? Why are the JPEG loons trying to push DRM farther than even MPAA and RIAA ever did?

Anyone interested in it

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they agree on the standard, it's pretty meaningless if no one actually implements it. How interest are Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Apple in actually integrating this into their products?

If they are not how many people are going to download yet another plugin just to view images? I know I won't.

code execution?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long do you guys think its going to take before some malicious player figures out how to use the DRM for more evil purposes. I suspect about a week after jpegs starts doing malicious code execution and then we are all screwed.

Better get the facts straight... but who cares?

[TbR78]

The point in adding DRM in JPEG is not to encrypt the image (we have encryption software for that, or ZIP with password), but rather allow to link metadata on copyright statements, ownership, license information of the picture etc to the actual JPEG file. Yes, it can be defeated by a simple screenshot, and it is even possible to strip off this data using a simple JPEG library. The important point is, that by taking this action, a person cannot claim he/she didn't know about the license that was present on this picture. The request to add DRM to JPEG was not something brought up in JPEG itself, but came from IPTC, EXIF, etc related organizations. It will be optional, and will not break the ability to view an image as-is. It is digital rights management, not copy-protection. One more thing: I read a lot of BS about PNG is better than JPEG, or BPG beats bla bla. Let me say that all image formats have their strength and weaknesses. PNG is a lossless image coding format. It is pretty good at that. BPG is based on HEVC, so it is more a file format than an image coding standard. Does it matter? Probably not, but someone's wrong on the internet :) (Google the XKCD... too lazy).

Re:Better get the facts straight... but who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it will be encrypted. And only licensed software will have the key to decrypt it. So Photoshop will be able to decrypt it, GIMP will not. Internet Explorer and Safari will be able to view the pictures, Firefox will not (unless you get the right Windows-only plugin).

That is, until porn sites start using it. Then it will be broken faster than you can say "Geohot".

Re:Better get the facts straight... but who cares?

[TbR78]

I'm sorry, but it won't be anything like what you are saying. But who cares about informed opinion anyways?

Re:Better get the facts straight... but who cares?

[omnichad]

DRM is copy-protecton (and view protection in some cases).

IPTC/EXIF can already embed digital signatures. There's really no need for a new standard for that.

Re:Better get the facts straight... but who cares?

[Evan Langlois]

Copyright expression is via EXIF data. Thats done. DRM means using a shitty encryption so that breaking that copyright is felony (DMCA again). Corportations want people charged with a felony when they see their picture on another site.

Dear JPEG group

[Lumpy]

This already exists, it's called EXIF data.

if your "DRM" is to convey an easily identified data inside the photo than tell your members to stop being stupid and use the EXIF copyright and owner fields.

Oh wait, I'm betting you want to CHARGE MONEY for using the DRM and using EXIF data fields you can do that...... I understand now.

Re:Dear JPEG group

[Virtucon]

how do EXIF fields protect the contents exactly? They're just tags.

Re:Dear JPEG group

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you did not even READ the article.

what they are proposing does not protect the images, it puts tages that it's "copyrighted" that websites can detect.

And lumpy is correct, the existing EXIF data can do this already.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick it in my ass, faggot.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO ... Fanny bandit. I've never heard that one. And btw, I just laughed my ass off, so no fanny bandits can fuck it.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

So take a picture of it, convert it to gay JPEG, add some DRM so it doesn't get spread around the internet like wildfire, and have a nice day ;)

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that "3" at the end of your post supposed to be kissing lips or a sideways butt.

3* (sideways butt pooping out a starfish).

PNG is all cannibals and headhunters.

[Anonymous Coward]

A message from UNISYS:

DON'T FORGET TO PAY YOUR $699 LICENSING FEE, YOU COCKSMOKING TEABAGGERS!

UNISYS : Us? Relevant?

ixnay on the eyesnay

[Thud457]

put DRM on my eyes

shut up, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!
Don't give these idiots any more brilliant ideas.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who accuse others of taking it up to pooper usually do so themselves...

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

So when someone is arrested for rape, it's the victim and the cops who are guilty. The perpetrator should go free.

GUIs for low-skilled folks

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS:

explains why cryptographers don't believe that DRM works

While I fully agree that DRM isn't foolproof, I disagree that DRM doesn't work. The reason DRM is being implemented is not to prevent all piracy ever - simply put, that's impossible - but rather to prevent common, casual piracy among low-skilled users.

How skilled do you have to be to (say) install a Handbrake plug-in:
* http://lifehacker.com/5888078/

We're not talking about having to write assembly code here. All it takes is one high-skilled user to figure things out, and then redistribute some software to the low-skilled folks, and then it's all clicky-clicky and you're done.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

With all of the image modification tools out there this won't stop anything

And to open the image, they'd have to implement DRM. Any tool that implements it would be forced to make the image read-only upon opening.

With all of the screen capture programs out there this won't stop anything

Already a solved problem with HDCP. Graphics drivers will not let you screen capture it.

With all of the DVI to HDMI cables to capture cards this won't stop anything

Any real-world implementation would involve secure content path and require HDCP.

With all of the other formats you could re-save it as this won't stop anything

You would still have to be able to open it in something first.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually, those who use the "he who smelt it dealt it" argument like to rape goats while ravenously feasting on the groin of a crying puppy. It's been proven in peer review and is now a scientific law, bitch.

No sweat. We've got better alternatives.

[Qbertino]

No sweat. We've got better alternatives..
Something like this would give BPG a nice boost in usage and move JPEG to the awkward wayside together with GIF.
Go right ahead, I say.

Re:No sweat. We've got better alternatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

BPG is heavily patented.. nobody wants to pay to compress the images.

and then...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then JPEG was no more...

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN (from VirusTotal which GOOGLE owns, you stupid freak):

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

You failed badly on all accounts.

APK

P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

We all take it up the pooper, at least metaphorically.

The second coming of Adam Orth

[tepples]

Poor people can't have as much as regular people.

Intentionally limiting your audience by using an image codec that is less fit for purpose is bad for business.

Deal with it.

Adam Orth's "#dealwithit" quip is the sort of attitude that drove prospective eighth-generation console customers to PlayStation 4. And even Microsoft's backpedaling on Xbox One's always-on requirement still didn't temper Sony's early lead.

Re:The second coming of Adam Orth

[Anonymous Coward]

Improving image quality is good for business with the people who have money. No company wants to sell to the poor, they aren't worth it.

Re:The second coming of Adam Orth

[tepples]

Improving image quality

Let me put it in concrete terms for you: For a photo, a 400x300 JPEG has higher perceptible image quality than a 200x150 PNG of the same byte size.

No company wants to sell to the poor

One exception I can think of is Walmart, which attracts lower-income customers with everyday low prices and makes it up in efficiency and volume.

Re:The second coming of Adam Orth

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, well Walmart can keep using JPEG on their web site, nobody else will.

A Paradox

[BrendaEM]

Of course people wouldn't be asking JPEG to add DRM if it wasn't popular, and it wouldn't be popular if it had DRM.

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

No one dies a virgin, the republicons fuck us all! (Except the 1%)

Re: JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

When you've been around as long as I have, you know that everyone fucks everyone else.
Everything is a scam intended to let someone get ahead at the expense of others.

Re:JPEG is gay

[Cito]

I heard if we say his name 3 times it can summon him!

APK!

APK!

APK!

Like the GIFs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn All JPEGs!!

Re:JPEG is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Moar like APGay amirite?!?

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Frog is so boiled, it evaporated

[Catbeller]

And cue my toldyousos for the last fifteen years. With nothing to stop them, "property" owners will continue to lock up viewlines, pictures, sounds, and even ideas with ever more violent and drastic punishments (try to escape arrest - pretty violent). At some point, progressing ever so slowly but surely, we'll have personal video surveillance of what we see and hear, somehow, so they'll know if we're seeing something we haven't paid for. Why the hell not? Cam in the forehead, or tap the optical and auditory nerves, or perhaps just fMRI the brain in real time to see what we see. Or just use ubiquitous area monitoring, and just run timelines on people to see if they're acted criminally in looking at a picture or listening to a song.

  Think of the world Stallman posited over 12 years ago in that Day in the Life of Schoolkids essay, and how he was mocked to think that such surveillance of what kids read and paid for would happen. And it did. Not 'cause we're geniuses do we see this, it is just that you graph the equation of greed and power and the answer is always obvious. They'll keep whittling at a free world slowly, in seven year pulses, because that is how long it takes for a new generation to be born and acclimate to fresh insanity. There is *nothing* that humans will not accept, if they're exposed slowly enough and/or young enough.
And it will never end. They'll extend copyright forever. Why not? Who will stop them in, what, 170 years when we're a ghost of a memory and this argument is long lost. This is a forever police state.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

And that is the problem. Many people will not be able to open it. By implementing DRM you will limit your audience. Of course that is your right as a content producer, but be aware that by limiting your audience you are reducing your income....

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

DRM-laden content is very popular with the masses if it's accessible enough. Just look at services like the free version of Hulu or any streaming video using Flash.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

Hulu? What's that?
and aren't we trying to kill Flash?

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

Key words - trying to kill.

You were claiming that implementing DRM will limit your audience. For the general public, that's simply not the case.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

How many of the general public will immediately implement a viewer that incorporates DRM? and of that subset how many will also install the plugin that defeats the DRM?
The other night I wanted to watch a TV show on a streaming service I pay for (shomi, Canadian version of Netflix) but there was an issue on my TV, so I went to watch it on my Linux computer, but I did not have the right program installed. so I went to watch it on my son's Windows machine and was told I was accessing it from too many streams....
In the hour it took to figure this all out, I could have downloaded it from a torrent site....
DRM is not in the best interest of your audience. Some people will give up and go elsewhere....

Making life a little bit shittier

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes i think i'd like to live heaps longer so i can see what great things happen in the future. Then i read an article like this and i'm glad i'm nearly dead (i probably got 20 years tops). The vanity and stupidity of shit like this makes me despair. Who wants your shitty image, if almost no bastard can see it? Nobody does. Nobody will care about your image. Nothing will be invented based on your image. Your image will die immediately and without anybody knowing or caring. So fuck you. (Not you, them...)

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[Anonymous Coward]

HDCP doesn't have anything to do with video cards or drivers, it's only for the connection between one HDMI port and another.

Besides, I can prove you wrong right now: Fraps.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic and business sense is crap.

Implementing DRM will get you everyone who doesn't care about DRM. Not implementing DRM will get you everyone who doesn't care about DRM and everyone who does care about DRM.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

Your logic is crap. We live in a world where DRM-free music exists and DRM-free games, too. But you really think that studios are going to give DRM-free movies. Sorry, the production costs are MUCH higher and that will never happen. This is the real world.

Distributors like Netflix are in no position to dictate the terms of distribution. They either distribute DRM-laden content or they get no deal from the content producers. There is no audience to concern yourself if there are no content rights.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

How many of the general public will immediately implement a viewer that incorporates DRM?

How many in the general public implement even their own JPEG viewer? Not many. They'll just download whatever browser/plugin.

You overestimate the technical savvy required to download a torrent. The average user cannot do this.

The general public will go where the content is and not ask questions. The only elsewhere is torrents and some people aren't going to break the law or their own personal ethics over a movie or tv show. Netflix or shomi aren't going to be able to tell a content producer to even allow them to distribute DRM-free. And there's no sense or incentive, considering the consumer doesn't even acquire a license to the content perpetually - only to view it as a live stream. But there's no rights or freedom to not have DRM if you're not purchasing content. You'd have at least some agreement from me if the end user is buying the content to have perpetually like Blu-Ray or digital download.

It's true that even DRM as simple as streaming in unencrypetd small seamless chunks that would have to be stitched back together is effective.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

You have proven my point. Many people will not download a new program just to see some pictures on the inter webs. If they cannot see it they will move on.
If they really want to see it, they will find out how to defeat the DRM. Either way, content producers lose with DRM built into jpg.
Movies and music are a different case as people have more desire to see/hear the latest pop fodder, and so are willing to go through the DRM hoops. At least for the most part. Piracy is still rampant, and the music and film industries do not hold the power they once had....

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

You're missing the point. People won't download a new program. Their browser will get an auto-update long before that and they would never know they're watching protected content until they right-click to save as.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

I guess I was thinking more as a creator. Mary-joe takes a photograph, tries to upload it, and gets frustrated when Facebook or whatever cannot display it.
I guess it also depends on the DRM implementation. Large companies like Google or Facebook will be able to process and show jpg's regardless of DRM, while average users will only be able to view them (with the attached ads, sorry I must be cynical this morning....)

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

DRM has always been optional for creators. I can't think of any exception to that.

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

DRM has been optional for professional creators. Jpg is an amateur format and said amateurs may check the DRM box unaware of the consequences.

On second thought, bring on DRM in jpg, that way I won't have to look through all the crappy photos.....

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

Jpg is an amateur format

What do you mean by this? I don't know of any other format professionals use for final delivery (outside of personal archives).

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[graphius]

What do you mean by this? I don't know of any other format professionals use for final delivery (outside of personal archives).

TIF for most print jobs, occasionally even PSD.
JPG is used a lot I admit, especially for quick submissions or web work, but there are way more amateurs using jpg then pros....

Re:So...how will this stop anything from happening

[omnichad]

Final delivery to consumers, I mean.

Easy to bypass

[Evan Langlois]

Load into Gimp, export as jpeg ... done. If you can load it and view it, you can bypass the DRM. At worst case, only a DRM-enabled browser can view it and I just take a screenshot and then crop it. Mildly annoying, but still easy enough that a child could do it. On the other hand, we still don't have transparency in JPG, so I have to use a much more cumbersome approach (than bypassing DRM would be) to make semi-transparent regions in a JPG (basically PNG transparency with JPG compression by compositing the alpha channel client-side in the browser).