You raise some good points, but one thing to keep in mind is that DRM will always be mostly optional. Linux may require some DRM-awarenes in its bootstrapping mechanism in order to initially boot on DRM'ed hardware, but once it gets past that, the rest of the OS and apps will work just as they do now.
That will be fine for a while, until companies decide they want to sell DRM'ed content to linux users (this will happen, since Miguel is doing such a great job with Mono and Gnome). But how can they sell the content without DRM on the client OS? Simple, a kernel module.
Or, client programs could be designed with their own way of accessing the DRM hardware on the motherboard (or in the processor).
The main challenge I see with this is that Microsoft may not want to build the kernel module or the DRM media player for linux. The good news is that IBM likely will, or AMD will, or any of the other consortium members.
Regarding DRMing GPL'ed software, it wouldn't need to be done unless the creators of such software deemed it important (to prevent piracy, license violations, etc). I could very easily see a fork in the license to accomodate this need, should it arise. I doubt it will be necessary any time soon, but you never know.
DRM does impose some restrictions, but if the infrastructure were large enough and standard enough, then simple digital signatures would be easy to obtain and easy to control. The only control points that are relevent to OSS specifically are derivative works and source code availability, both of which can be handled by the encryption infrastructure and trust network required for other forms of content DRM.
My point is that DRM (like, in a way, DNS) needs to be a basic part of the internet infrastructure and not only a proprietary license management tool used by Microsoft, etc.
I agree that DRM should stand on its own technological feet. If it's hackable then hacking it shouldn't be a crime. Misusing the content should still be a crime though.
There will certainly be a few swings of the penudulum before DRM reaches a consistent type of presence in entertainment media. Markets are good at finding the right balance between the occasionally draconian wishes of businesses and what consumers will tolerate. Labor markets are a good example, as is the OSS movement in general.
Why isn't DRM compatible with p2p distribution channels?
Imagine the following: An artist creates a CD, and then applies DRM (tc) to it. The CD's tracks are then released over the p2p networks where people can download them. The artists wishes to allow 2 weeks of free playback before the tracks will become locked until purchase.
Fans download the traks, enjoy them for a few weeks, and if they purchase them the artist gets some money (whatever price he/she wishes to charge).
You distribute GPL'ed software as filename.htc or.ctc (trusted computing).
The files are encrypted and can only be read by a trusted compiler (tcgcc) or edited by a trusted editor (tcvi).
When you modify the code and recompile it, the resulting executable can be distributed, but it will only be able to execute if the valid source files are available somewhere on the internet. A tc runtime environment would perform this check the first time the program was run.
Obviously, morphing tc into something that would be compatible with a source distribution license would require some creativity, but as you can see it would be far from impossible.
The GPL is designed to grant certain rights and deny certain others. So is DRM. So are most software EULAs.
The courts are used to enforce all non-DRM licenses and agreements. DRM is used to enforce the terms of a EULA or license agreement, both the privileges granted and denied.
If Microsoft started rebranding Mozilla and including it in Windows without the source code, lots of people would be up in arms about it. DRM is just a way of preventing the thousands of similar abuses that occur today with digital music, software, etc. The courts are ill suited to enforce the EULAs.
What about the EULA that you agree to when you download the music or open the package? Do you disagree with the validity of such contracts?
Those contracts are currently enforcable by the courts, only enforcing them that way is impractical. DRM only makes it difficult to violate the contract that you agreed to in the first place.
I do agree that hacking it should not be a crime, since any sort of trustworthy system must be unhackable in a few million years. By the time the lawsuit were to occur, the hacker would be long deceased.
So do you disagree with the concept of a software EULA (of which the GPL is one variety)? Are you saying that if the bits are on your hard drive you should be able to do whatever you want?
I can relate to your slippery slope argument about Microsoft using DRM to thwart competition, but I honestly don't believe that AMD, Intel, Cyrix, IBM, etc., would all decide to include DRM that prevented the installation of Linux on all motherboards produced.
Right now one of the costs associated with distributing music and software is the cost of piracy. Piracy also has some beneficial effects (spreading standards, awareness, etc.) but businesses generally think they'd be better off without it.
While there isn't price competition for the same song, there is competition between different distribution media for the same song. A content provider would have more piracy risk when distributing via CD than when distributing DRM'ed files, and so they would have an incentive to lower costs to drive consumers to the more secure medium.
Ultimately, I think there will be competition for the same song, since I think the future of music DRM will have to include a mechanism for resale of purchased music (via online auctions, etc.).
So you don't differentiate between the concept of DRM'ed material being subject to a EULA defined by the creator? The DRM is just a way of enforcing the EULA, and nothing more. If you purchase the product and violate the EULA, then the courts could be used to enforce the license just as DRM is.
What is the difference between using DRM to enforce a EULA vs using the courts to enforce it? If widespread violation of the GPL began to occur, couldn't DRM be used to prevent abuses?
DRM doesn't necessarily have to be draconian, all it does is allow the content provider to enforce whatever terms the consumer would be agreeing to accept at the time of purchase.
I don't see the connection. DRM is just a way of enforcing through technology the same thing that the GPL is intended to enforce via the honor system and via the courts.
I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters? Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?
If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.
Maybe the 'filler' songs aren't selling. This has the potential to remove the pressure put on artists to write such filler, but it will raise the average price per song, as well as the average quality per song.
I think most of the Dover stuff is in the public domain...
I know that it would be tough for a reader to articulate all of the notation properly, but someone who knew the material well enough would, I believe, have a good shot.
This is a great idea. Maybe we'd even see more technical books available as audiobooks (think the Dover maths texts, for example).
Audiobooks have completely changed my reading habits over the past few years. I now read several books each week, during exercise, driving here and there, etc.
The trouble would be to find talented readers (as a previous post pointed out), but if it required a minimal download fee to hire good readers (or let them quit their day job), I'd certainly support that.
I currently pay $50/month for a membership at Talking Book World, which has a lot of titles, though their selection is fairly light on nonfiction and technical subjects.
Uh, the incease in prices is precisely consistent with the argument that many Slashdotters make, which is that an $18 CD contains only a few good tracks.
Some songs should cost $3 or $4, while others (the much-maligned filler tracks) should cost $0.30. The songs are not all of the same quality and are not demanded equally, and so the prices should not all be identical.
I know the temptation is to solve this as a software problem, but it's really a tax-code problem. A drastic simplification of the tax code would make the IRS much more efficient, make cheating nearly impossible, and would give people confidence that the system was actually fair.
The whole thing should be so simple that it can run on a $1000 pc (with a large storage array, obviously).
As a college Freshman I made the mistake of buying a brand new Apple PowerBook 5300. At the time it was the first PPC laptop and was touted as being really great.
It was a total piece of junk and the worst $2300 I have ever spent. There ended up being a product recall (twice) on 5300s, but mine had already gone back and forth to Apple twice and they'd claimed both times that everything was 100% perfect. Obviously it crashed all the time for no reason which was why I had sent it to them.
Apple has gotten its act together a bit since then, but I still think you'd be better off with an x86 running linux or Windows.
Nano has great syntax highlighting, so it's great for writing code.
Re:Is Real their own problem?
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No kidding! Real is some of the most annoying software in existence, which is why I don't feel sorry for them losing to Microsoft. I occasionally install Real, but always grudgingly. I'd prefer nearly any other format (even Quicktime with its kludgy installer and tendency to hijack).
Slashdot Mirror
You raise some good points, but one thing to keep in mind is that DRM will always be mostly optional. Linux may require some DRM-awarenes in its bootstrapping mechanism in order to initially boot on DRM'ed hardware, but once it gets past that, the rest of the OS and apps will work just as they do now.
That will be fine for a while, until companies decide they want to sell DRM'ed content to linux users (this will happen, since Miguel is doing such a great job with Mono and Gnome). But how can they sell the content without DRM on the client OS? Simple, a kernel module.
Or, client programs could be designed with their own way of accessing the DRM hardware on the motherboard (or in the processor).
The main challenge I see with this is that Microsoft may not want to build the kernel module or the DRM media player for linux. The good news is that IBM likely will, or AMD will, or any of the other consortium members.
Regarding DRMing GPL'ed software, it wouldn't need to be done unless the creators of such software deemed it important (to prevent piracy, license violations, etc). I could very easily see a fork in the license to accomodate this need, should it arise. I doubt it will be necessary any time soon, but you never know.
DRM does impose some restrictions, but if the infrastructure were large enough and standard enough, then simple digital signatures would be easy to obtain and easy to control. The only control points that are relevent to OSS specifically are derivative works and source code availability, both of which can be handled by the encryption infrastructure and trust network required for other forms of content DRM.
My point is that DRM (like, in a way, DNS) needs to be a basic part of the internet infrastructure and not only a proprietary license management tool used by Microsoft, etc.
I agree that DRM should stand on its own technological feet. If it's hackable then hacking it shouldn't be a crime. Misusing the content should still be a crime though.
There will certainly be a few swings of the penudulum before DRM reaches a consistent type of presence in entertainment media. Markets are good at finding the right balance between the occasionally draconian wishes of businesses and what consumers will tolerate. Labor markets are a good example, as is the OSS movement in general.
Why isn't DRM compatible with p2p distribution channels?
Imagine the following: An artist creates a CD, and then applies DRM (tc) to it. The CD's tracks are then released over the p2p networks where people can download them. The artists wishes to allow 2 weeks of free playback before the tracks will become locked until purchase.
Fans download the traks, enjoy them for a few weeks, and if they purchase them the artist gets some money (whatever price he/she wishes to charge).
Uh, ok...
.ctc (trusted computing).
You distribute GPL'ed software as filename.htc or
The files are encrypted and can only be read by a trusted compiler (tcgcc) or edited by a trusted editor (tcvi).
When you modify the code and recompile it, the resulting executable can be distributed, but it will only be able to execute if the valid source files are available somewhere on the internet. A tc runtime environment would perform this check the first time the program was run.
Obviously, morphing tc into something that would be compatible with a source distribution license would require some creativity, but as you can see it would be far from impossible.
Why wouldn't hardware vendors include DRM support for linux too? The doomsday scenario you describe is rediculous.
The GPL is designed to grant certain rights and deny certain others. So is DRM. So are most software EULAs.
The courts are used to enforce all non-DRM licenses and agreements. DRM is used to enforce the terms of a EULA or license agreement, both the privileges granted and denied.
If Microsoft started rebranding Mozilla and including it in Windows without the source code, lots of people would be up in arms about it. DRM is just a way of preventing the thousands of similar abuses that occur today with digital music, software, etc. The courts are ill suited to enforce the EULAs.
What about the EULA that you agree to when you download the music or open the package? Do you disagree with the validity of such contracts?
Those contracts are currently enforcable by the courts, only enforcing them that way is impractical. DRM only makes it difficult to violate the contract that you agreed to in the first place.
You mean people who hack the DRM?
I do agree that hacking it should not be a crime, since any sort of trustworthy system must be unhackable in a few million years. By the time the lawsuit were to occur, the hacker would be long deceased.
So do you disagree with the concept of a software EULA (of which the GPL is one variety)? Are you saying that if the bits are on your hard drive you should be able to do whatever you want?
I can relate to your slippery slope argument about Microsoft using DRM to thwart competition, but I honestly don't believe that AMD, Intel, Cyrix, IBM, etc., would all decide to include DRM that prevented the installation of Linux on all motherboards produced.
Right now one of the costs associated with distributing music and software is the cost of piracy. Piracy also has some beneficial effects (spreading standards, awareness, etc.) but businesses generally think they'd be better off without it.
While there isn't price competition for the same song, there is competition between different distribution media for the same song. A content provider would have more piracy risk when distributing via CD than when distributing DRM'ed files, and so they would have an incentive to lower costs to drive consumers to the more secure medium.
Ultimately, I think there will be competition for the same song, since I think the future of music DRM will have to include a mechanism for resale of purchased music (via online auctions, etc.).
So you don't differentiate between the concept of DRM'ed material being subject to a EULA defined by the creator? The DRM is just a way of enforcing the EULA, and nothing more. If you purchase the product and violate the EULA, then the courts could be used to enforce the license just as DRM is.
What is the difference between using DRM to enforce a EULA vs using the courts to enforce it? If widespread violation of the GPL began to occur, couldn't DRM be used to prevent abuses?
DRM doesn't necessarily have to be draconian, all it does is allow the content provider to enforce whatever terms the consumer would be agreeing to accept at the time of purchase.
I don't see the connection. DRM is just a way of enforcing through technology the same thing that the GPL is intended to enforce via the honor system and via the courts.
I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters? Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?
If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.
Maybe the 'filler' songs aren't selling. This has the potential to remove the pressure put on artists to write such filler, but it will raise the average price per song, as well as the average quality per song.
I think most of the Dover stuff is in the public domain...
I know that it would be tough for a reader to articulate all of the notation properly, but someone who knew the material well enough would, I believe, have a good shot.
This is a great idea. Maybe we'd even see more technical books available as audiobooks (think the Dover maths texts, for example).
Audiobooks have completely changed my reading habits over the past few years. I now read several books each week, during exercise, driving here and there, etc.
The trouble would be to find talented readers (as a previous post pointed out), but if it required a minimal download fee to hire good readers (or let them quit their day job), I'd certainly support that.
I currently pay $50/month for a membership at Talking Book World, which has a lot of titles, though their selection is fairly light on nonfiction and technical subjects.
Uh, the incease in prices is precisely consistent with the argument that many Slashdotters make, which is that an $18 CD contains only a few good tracks.
Some songs should cost $3 or $4, while others (the much-maligned filler tracks) should cost $0.30. The songs are not all of the same quality and are not demanded equally, and so the prices should not all be identical.
I know the temptation is to solve this as a software problem, but it's really a tax-code problem. A drastic simplification of the tax code would make the IRS much more efficient, make cheating nearly impossible, and would give people confidence that the system was actually fair.
The whole thing should be so simple that it can run on a $1000 pc (with a large storage array, obviously).
As a college Freshman I made the mistake of buying a brand new Apple PowerBook 5300. At the time it was the first PPC laptop and was touted as being really great.
It was a total piece of junk and the worst $2300 I have ever spent. There ended up being a product recall (twice) on 5300s, but mine had already gone back and forth to Apple twice and they'd claimed both times that everything was 100% perfect. Obviously it crashed all the time for no reason which was why I had sent it to them.
Apple has gotten its act together a bit since then, but I still think you'd be better off with an x86 running linux or Windows.
What does vim offer that Nano doesn't?
Nano has great syntax highlighting, so it's great for writing code.
No kidding! Real is some of the most annoying software in existence, which is why I don't feel sorry for them losing to Microsoft. I occasionally install Real, but always grudgingly. I'd prefer nearly any other format (even Quicktime with its kludgy installer and tendency to hijack).
Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft made the code to Windows 95 OSS?
It would be very cool of the Open Source network sites had a way of generating GUIDs for each user and the ability to link together.