Slashdot Mirror
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.
If ever there was a more stupid thing to try to put drm on...
JPEG images have a crap quality. PNG is much better.
So what's to stop me from taking a high def screen shot of the jpeg and uploading it anyway ?
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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
oh yah?! Click...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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?
From TFS:
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.
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.
But to add it to JPEG?? What happens to all of the open source JPEG tools?
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.
Joint Photographic Expert Group trying to think of things to justify their relevance.
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.)
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."
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.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
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.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Damn boy! You're making me get HARD. I've never seen such a throbbing erection before.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
put DRM on my eyes
shut up, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!
Don't give these idiots any more brilliant ideas.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I heard if we say his name 3 times it can summon him!
APK!
APK!
APK!
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.
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....
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.
Hulu? What's that?
and aren't we trying to kill Flash?
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.
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....
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.
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.
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....
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.
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....)
DRM has always been optional for creators. I can't think of any exception to that.
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.....
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).
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....
Final delivery to consumers, I mean.
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).