If most of the updates will be available for current versions of Windows, what is the incentive to upgrade?"
It's DRM. If MS will forge an agreement with a few big content providers and you'll want to access that content, you'll need a new DRMed PC with a new DRM-certified OS.
If those insurers cover the kernel (or any other ubiquitous component) then they're a joke, IMHO.
Let's say Linus blunders and commits in something that really violates a patent. Now when the patent holder sues everybody... it's like if all the cars crashed in an instant for a car insurer. The insurance company would go broke in a second.
Wait, what's exactly wrong with SWT? It's not like they force you to use SWT for your projects, I have a good Swing based project in Eclipse right now.
If you use Eclipse you might want to extend it...
A more serious point would be: a thing that Sun was so afraid OSSing Java would do (a fork) has been done by IBM. We now have TWO desktop Javas: OSGi/SWT (Eclipse platform) vs JavaWebStart/Swing (J2SE)...
How to fix it? Make SWT (and OSGi?) a part of J2SE ASAP. I guess it should be obvious for Sun that resistance is futile ant SWT's popularity is unstoppable... anyway, will IBM please stand up and explain why SWT is not yet a JSR?
Here is a relevant quote stright out of the latest EU portal newsletter (europa.eu.int/newsletter/index_en.htm):
Originally created as a mere consultative assembly, the powers of the European Parliament have been considerably enhanced over the years. Together with the Council of the EU, it has real legislative powers in 35 domains, including the EU's health policy, the fight against fraud, professional training, certain aspects of environment policy, to name but a few. The draft Constitution of the European Union aims to extend the legislative power of the European Parliament to 80 domains, including
intellectual property, the protection of workers, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)... etc.
One more thing to keep in mind during upcoming referendum(s) on that constitution.
One of the incredible things about people coming to America...
I'll just remind you that in America, and elsewhere, crusaders have been trying to eliminate non-christian cultures (their written works included).
I'd also like to point out that the modern concept of a University and scientific thought is an outgrowth of Christian thought and philosophies dating from the middle ages.
You must be a Minister of Information of the Vatican? Secular schooling hint for Europe was given by Arab universities. Giving a credit for this (Renaissance) to the christian church is just a pure lie.
As for modern example of religious bigots trying to supress ideas they don't comprehend... trying to supress knowledge only spreads it further... Harry Potter is even more popular because of the book burning, with the author and publisher laughing all the way to the bank.
Well. Harry poter example was of course a joke. And of course it's impossible to destroy a written work these days because of the printing presses and ubiquitous literacy (you just can't destroy ALL the copies these days). Back in the day, however, situation was totally different: just get a scientist, all his manuscripts, throw to a fire, and you are done. No one was "laughing all the way to the bank" when the Library of Alexandria was on fire, because those were the unique copies of the works.
To suggest that Christians deliberately burn books simply to hide knowledge is totally wrong.
I haven't done any serious research but that much i can point out:
They've been burning scientists and their books (inquisition).
They've been encouraging destruction of the "savage" culture during the colonisation of the New World.
They just can resist burning Harry Potter.
If they could just get their hands on they would be happy to burn writings on stem cell research or genetic engineering.
Having said that i guess it's a pretty realistic hypothesis that library of Alexandria could have been burnt by christians (burning pre-christian pagan writings must have been a natural idea for them).
The problem that happened at Alexandria, and what caused the "Dark Ages" was a total breakdown of the political & social framework of Europe due to the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Yes. But it's church that prolonged the agony. The dismissal of the church bullshit and replacment of it with a secular knowledge [re]imported from the Arab wold is the definition of the Renaissance, isn't it?
First: looking at things from developers' perspective does not make any sense. These days the majority of PC users are not developers.
Second: MS won everything mostly due to their absolute commitment to backwards compatibility. It allowed them to survivie during Sux'95 days of BSOD and will allow them to survive the present security fever.
But that's nothing. What's important is DRM. Here is a probable scenario for the next decade: 1. DRMed Longhorn PCs become commonplace. 2. Most of the commercial content is accessible via DRMed PCs only. 3. Linux' chances to win a consumer desktop are dead once and for all.
I mean, commercial websites will not be accesible from nonDRMed Linux/Gnome/Mozilla PCs because those web sites will be happy to use DRM for: 1. blocking ad blockers 2. blocking "helpful" slashdotters from violating their copyrights.
And chances for a GPLed kernel to become compatible with that patented MS DRM stuff are zero.
Q; What's wrong with you using a login password, GPG, encrypted FS, etc. to protect your stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various curious people might hate that.
Q: What's wrong with your company using login passwords, permissions, etc. to control their stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various spies might hate that.
Q: What's wrong with content authors, publishers using DRM to protect their stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various P2P-spoiled folks might hate that.
And don't you worry about "control". Your personal data as well as all the noncommercial content will remain as yours as before. And neither PC makers nor content publishers will abuse their DRM power, because their interest is in providing a reasonable proposition that will not be rejected by consumers.
Right?
So, you say, you're ready to reject DRM stuff anyway? What are you gonna do ten years from now when the only way to access paid contend will be DRM-enabled gadget? Choose to live in a digital equivalent of a "cave"?
I write a program, you want to run my program, but you CAN'T unless it's signed by some dictatorship granting approval.
I don't expect things to be this way. I think all the noncertified apps would run. They will only be denied access to encryption keys and decrypted data. I expect that only a small minority of all applications would need to access those DRMed keys/data (e.g. content viewers). Even in case of a kernel - only a small DRMed core of the kernel will have to be DRM certified (as well as the other "core" kernel modules); those kernel modules that don't need to access the copyrighted/DRMed keys/data will not have to be DRM-cetrified. Of course, in order to implement such a scheme it might be necessary to change architecture of the Linux kernel significantly. That's why Linus should be sitting on some DRM desing panel (with Bill), IMHO. Also, as long as some particular PC does not need to access DRMed content it would be free to boot any non-DRMed OS, i guess.
how the hell am I supposed to release that application when it costs thousands (or more likely ten's of thousands)
Kernel certification costs will probably be covered by some big company. Content viewers' cetification costs will probably be covered by... big publishers who would rather like to avoid paying some sort of "subscription" tax to MS. And the rest of the software (that neither needs to access DRMed keys/content nor is willing to get DRM-protection itself - like 99% of the OSS stuff) will probably not have to be DRM certified at all.
LOL. A broken AND circular argument [that authors will only release their copyrighted content under DRM locks].
Nothing broken at all. WinXP has become the best selling MS' OS despite all the whines on "activation" and "passport". I can bet that Longhorn will do just fine despite all the whines about DRM. And soon after a significant proportion of PC users is gonna be sitting behind DRMed machines - a significant portion of the copyrighted content will be distributed under DRM locks. And at that point users will refuse to buy "crippled" (non-DRMed that is) PCs that can't access that content. I guess.
Anyway, it's too early to argue about DRM's impact because we simply don't know how it will look like when it finally ships. I personally don't expect things to be as bad as you picture them, because it's in their interest to make sure that market will accept their stuff. Threfore they are probably unlikely to try to push some utter nonsence. That's just my HO, so, as i said, let's wait and see. If it tuns out that you're right i'll be marching among the ranks of anti-DRM protesters; however, i'll be protesting against a particular "draconian" DRM implementation rather than against DRM idea in general.
Trusted Computing effectively terminates OSS... If you change a single line... then the program won't run.
All the OSS windows apps will run just as well as all the other "legacy" apps. MS does not have a suicidal habit of breaking backward compatibility. Those apps simply won't be able to access DRMed content - the new content that consumers will buy in encrypted form that will only be accessible via DRM-certified apps. That's how i understand things.
The President's CyberSecurity advisor at computer conference called on ISP's to begin enforcing a Trusted system as a condition of internet access.
He is insisting to break backward compatibitily with existing software/hardware base? Than he is crazy. I don't expect such a nonsence to be accepted by anyone.
In Trusted mode (DRM mode) if so much as a single bit under the hood gets touched then it all drops dead.
I guess you will be able to see those bytes just as you do now. Anyway, when was the last time you needed to change you BIOS?
I admit that was a long time ago on my Commodore 64.
Precisely. The last time i looked into a ROM was a long time ago on my ZX Spectrum. And i never needed to change that ROM.
And BTW didn't you love the commercial market for C64 software? Would you allow me to assume that some effective DRM scheme would have encouraged more of that software to be written?
Do you plan to put me in prison if I decide to take a microscope to my own property to see the key? If not then I intend to do so for everyone I know, and maybe go into business doing so for the entire public.
Copyrighted stuff is not your property even if it's recorded into your chips (i guess). And i doubt you will find such a magic microscope anyway. Will public pay you instead of paying authors/publishers? Won't you be stopped due to copyright violations?
You mean it's [DRM] a great way for MS to kill Linux.
Maybe yes, maybe not. It all depends on how the DRM-certification process will be organized. And it's up to OSS crowd to work to make sure they won't be left behind the DRM bandwagon.
You might be able to certify A trusted version of Linux, but as I said, touch one line of the source code and it's dead.
Commercial software vendors will have to DRM-recertify all their new releases too. So i don't see how this can be some sort of OSS-specific problem. This only means OSS developers will develop the development versions of their software while using the last certified binary release. This can only be good because it will resurrect Debian Stable:-)
did you really not notice that the "OSS crowd" ARE authors?
I'm talking about authors who are willing to use DRM locks. For commercial software, info (e-books, sites, etc.), movies[, music]...
Why would anyone white come to prevent themselves from doing what they want? To disable themselves? It just doesn't make any sense.
Of course i was talking about writing software for commercial content creators. Only viewers of such a content (as well as the kernel) will have to be "DRMed". All other OSS will stay free to change anytime anyway.
How do you gain an edge by offering a less functional less valuable crippled product?
1. Authors will only release their copyrighted content under DRM locks (to prevent piracy). 2. Consumers are willing to access that copyrighted content. 3. You need DRM-certified software to access DRMed content. 4. If only Windows will be DRM-certified - only windows will give consumers an access to that DRMed content. 5. That would render Linux useless as a consumer desktop. 6. Therefore Linux must have DRM support that's compatible with that of Windows in order to be software-that-works (allows users to access DRMed content) as opposed to being software-that-sucks (is not very usefull to general public that is not ready to abstain from accessing cpyrighted/DRMed works). 7. "Enabling to access" is not "crippled".
OK. Let's say music is going to be fine. But it's no reason to declare that authors of every other type of works won't be hurt by the DRM-less "sharing" fever.
As a programmer i could not be happier that small businesses (shareware authors), who do not have resources to fight against pirates in courts around the world, will get better locks to protect their work. OSS will be just fine. Linux will boot, just in non-DRM mode. You will be able to dig under the hood as much as you do now (you don't have BIOS sources anyway), except you won't be able to access encryption keys. Anyway, DRM is a great chance to for Linux to kill MS. I mean, publishers should like a fact that Linux is thought to be more secure (for now) and, most importantly, DRM platform based on Linux means no need to pay MS tax. OTOH Windows is still the most popular consumer desktop... Instead of whining against DRM, OSS crowd should team with authors/publishers - that's the best chance in sight to gain an edge over MS in consumer market. IMHO.
BTW i would be very happy to see paper books and even e-books to go extinct. I would prefer one huge super book instead - the internet. So how do we ensure that authors of web pages will get paid for their works? I think DRM/micropayments could be a very nice combination. Or DRM/ads.
Going to the bathroom during commercials is theft! LOL!
You don't use earplugs to avoid hearing those commercials, do you? Your bathroom attendance frequency is lower than that of commercials, right? LOL indeed.
Anyway, consumers' inclination to use commercial-skipping stuff is forcing TVs to embed commercials right into the content (product placement). Anyone is happy about that?
Of course TVs can switch to cable/sattelite broadcasting. Or PPV (pay per view). And guess what. DRM is necessary to protect these models. E.g. encryption of the satellite signal.
I fully expect the FREE MARKET to do just fine in ensuring creators get paid.
It does. It has invented IPOC which works just fine. Need some info - pay for a copy of it. The more important/popular content the authors create - the more copies get sold - the more those authors earn. Free market 101.
Truble is in thieves. Those folks who disagree with property laws. Who refuse to pay. That's why you see security guards in supermakets, banks, etc. and that's why you'll see DRM in a laptop near you.
And whenever they want to make a buck they have to pay creators first.
Not "whenever they want to make a buck" but "whenever consumer consumes the work". P2P kids are not "making a buck", yet they still are ruining the compensation model. Robin Hood, is that you?
Copyright restrictions... have always been and continue to be supremely effective in ensuring that the profits generated by a work go to the creator.
1. And that's bad because? 2. GNU leverages copyright restrictions for something quite different.
You constanly fall back on the absurd claim that the internet is going to exterminate payment to creators.
Nonsence. All i'm doing in this thread is explaining DRM to you. I could not be happier with the free content on the internet. I'm not happy about "liberating" the copyrighted stuff. As i said: "if DRM works, P2P is no longer a problem".
As i've said, my interest is to see more works accessible in electronic form. DRM would increase supply of works in electronic form. So the situation will be better than it is now. Now situation is deteriorating. Many authors are unhappy about P2P-enabled piracy levels and their depression will not make them offer more of their works. That should induce some degree of depression and give some food for thought to the P2P users too.
I don't expect we'd ever need the governemnt to provide direct and primary funding of the production of such works, but even if we did it would be far far better than trying to to impose a DRM system
You are suggesting that forcing everyone (PUBLIC) to pay would be a better idea than forcing only the CONSUMERS of the works to pay. I disagree. I say: Wanna a copy - pay for a copy. Don't wanna a copy - don't pay anything.
You claim that there are myriads of ways to make sure creators get paid. Fine. DRM is one of those ways. Given it's being pushed by MS it's unavoidable. Whether it will succeed or not we will see. FREE MARKET will decide if the scheme survives. That's fine. Where is the reason to whine about it? And more specifically, what was your reason to respond to my "The purpose of DRM is to protect copyright, hence Digital Rights Management"?... "Restrictions"? Yes, DRM restricts users' Fair Use rights to copy. "Rights"? Yes, DRM protects rights of the copyright holders. Dual acronym. I've disagreed with "DRM is Digital Restrictions Management, and we should always refer to it as such". That's all:-)
First of all "consumers"... don't pay a sent for radio. "Consumers" don't pay a cent for TV. "Consumers" don't pay a cent for the umpteen billion webstites out there.
Of course they pay. They pay by buying crap that's being advertised (i'm sure you can track a part of that money that ends up with authors). But there is a problem - ad skipping, ad-banner blocking stuff. How to fix this? DRM.
But most importantly UK TV is not paid for by through "consumers" or by commercials either.
So, you think, public TV is all we need? You think some public agency is more effective/fair at distributing $$$ to the authors than free market? You think it's fair that the guy who does not watch BBC still has to pay tax to support it? You think it's fair to pay a tax on CD-R media that you might not even use to burn MP3s?
OTOH this your UK TV example rises a question on how to implement a similar model on the internet... so here it is: 1. all ISPs must pay 50% of their revenues to authors (50% being a minimum, because i've heard P2P traffic is somewhere in a range of 70%), 2. ISPs hike up internet access prices 2x to compensate for their losses, 3. internet users pay 2x more for internet access... and are free to share anything they like on KaZaA for "FREE":-). Is this the model you're asking for? Let's do a slashdot poll...
The free altruistic/philantropic supply of web pages is not enough. I'm sure you're finding commercial info sources (all the books you can buy on Amazon.com) to be a more complete/up-to date, accurate, fine-tuned (edited) than that free stuff, don't you? You do acknowledge a need for those paid sites, do you? Rest assured that when micropayments will give rewards to authors of the web pages thus giving them a chance to earn something from their writings (instead of making them pay for hosting themselves) there would be even more supply of usefull content on the internet. And micropayments scheme will have to be protected by DRM, of course.
Lets try basic arithmetic. Free content + paid content is more than just free content alone. Right?
So, you say, P2P is helping small labels and new bands to become popular (just trow a few promo tracks to this free advertisement channel and see if they bite). Excellent.
Now, realize that DRM would help them to earn [more of the] well deserved money in addition to making them popular. By keeping those other tracks (full albums that is) from making it into the realm of P2P.
Therefore P2P + DRM is better for small bands/labels than P2P alone.
BTW damage done to labels of any size due to P2P piracy is a bad thing. Right?
I'm looking forward to DRM solution as to some sort of a "holy grail" of electronic publishing that should make PC a friend rather than a foe of publishers and authors.
I expect DRM to increase the supply of e-books (and other bytes-based offers). I'm looking forward to carrying all my personal library with myself (e.g. on a laptop).
And as you said - elecronic publishing is cheap - so DRM will actually increase availability of the works (because per copy prices of the works will be lower).
There is absolutelly nothing wrong with P2P, in theory. If you want to distrbute you work for free to the world it is the cheapest option (no hosting costs). BUT! In practice 90% (if not more) of the P2P is piracy. Of course the idea to ban P2P is silly (free speech) and that's precisely why wee need DRM stuff. If DRM works P2P is no longer a problem.
The only way (torture being not an acceptable option) to encourage the [potential] authors to publish their knowledge is to guarantee that they will be compensated for their work. The only way to adequately compensate for their work is to make sure the consumers will pay. P2P tries to omit the compensation part so it clearly does a damage to the interests of the consumers and authors. DRM is the savior.
BTW i don't care about music. I'm worried about the lack of e-book supply. It's ridiculous that i have to pay for a pile of paper and S&H of that pile of paper. Something tells me that pile of paper is more P2P-resistant than a file. DRM to the rescue.
You claim that law cannot prohibit distribution of software DRM circumvention tools because that would be in violation of constitutional right of free speech. I agree. But what about outlawing sales of harware devices designed to bypass DRM?
Let's introduce a few acronyms, because "copyright" seems to be ambiguous:
IPOC - Intellectual Property Owner's Copyright (C)
FURC - Fair Use Right to Copy (this one is consumer's copy right)
So, my original statement is: DRM's purpose is to protect IPOC.
DRM happens to be worthless without... legal enforcement.
I assume that CPU/BIOS/OS level DRM (NGSCB) will be uncrackable, at least without a use of a special hardware - you won't be able to download DeNGSCB utility to bypass DRM. Such a DRM will be useful in protecting IPOC. If you say - "worthless". I disagree. Maybe "not 100% effective"?
I NEVER suggested DRM was illegal.
OK. Sorry. I thought that you think that DRM is illegal, because, if DRM works it will be capable to block not only IPOC but also FURC. And given that FURC is a law -> DRM is illegal. If that's the state of the law, then IMHO the law should be changed (to save DRM). That's what i thought/wrote in my last post.
The problem is attempting to "fix" broken DRM by passing laws to protect DRM itself. I never said DRM was illegal - I said laws to enforce DRM are unconstitutional.
Now i got it. You are right. But then - constutution sucks, because it does not take P2P into account... no matter how silly that sounds:-)
But maybe you are wrong? Just because DRM-circumvention stuff is prohibited does not mean that you can't obtain [excerpts of] that copyrighted work for your Fair Use needs. The law might say: you shall contact publisher if some Fair Need to copy the stuff arises and they'll give you what you need... but DRM-cracking stuff is illegal. IANAL.
What you wrote seems to imply that P2P "apples" are massive piracy and that library "oranges" pretty much amount to small and tolerable piracy.
OK. You got me. I must admit that i wrote a complete nonsence. I should have wrote "bricks and birds" rather than "apples and oranges". So let me try once again:
Libraries have nothing to do with copyright or piracy because libraries are merely lending/renting books. They do not make any copies of those books... unlike those nasty PCs that have that nasty "copy file" function which should be somehow blocked, and that "somehow" is DRM.
I asked if you have any idea why libraries actually benefit copyright's purpose.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why? [the law should establish a good compromise between the wishes of publishers and consumers]
That compromise should lead to the higest amount of the higest quality of works being created as well as the maximum possible availability of those works to the people. KaZaA reduces incentive for the potential authors to bother to become ones. DRM should remedy that. Laws should help DRM if tech is not enough. That's all. I doubt constitution was written with P2P in mind, so whatever it has to say is of no interest to me.
I have no doubt that there are people who would like to exterminate Fair Use
Exterminate? Frankly, i can't even see how DRM can block FU. Wanna record an excerpt of a song? Just plug a DAC instead of speakers (or use a microphone next to speakers). Want to use an excerpt from an eBook? Just key it in, or take a photo of a monitor displaying the page, etc. The only thing DRM blocks is an ability to make (in a second) a full 1:1 copy of the work. That makes DRM idea pretty fair, i think, given that the copy would be just a few clicks away from entering the realm of P2P.
If present day Fair Use guidelines have something to say against it - those quidelines will have to be changed. Right? (IANAL.)
You seem to imply that NGSCB that MS is busy creating is clearly illegal and MS' lawyers are unaware of a fact that their damn DRM stuff will be declared illegal soon after Windows users file a class action lawsuit or smth. I would guess that you're mistaken.
BTW libraries have nothing to do with the insane levels of piracy enabled by the P2P networks. Have you heard that most of the internet traffic is P2P? I mean, let's not compare "apples to oranges" here. And about "purpose"... well, i think the law should establish a good compromise between the wishes of publishers and consumers. And that makes fantasies of copyright creators irrelevant if they no longer work in an age of the internet (and P2P). Anyway, if you're right and DRM will be outlawed... well, that's very bad, because P2P piracy is sure to reduce incentive for authors to create anything and consumer will suffer in the end. I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
What about "clickdosed"?
You forgot to mention Stalin.
It's DRM. If MS will forge an agreement with a few big content providers and you'll want to access that content, you'll need a new DRMed PC with a new DRM-certified OS.
Get rid of that small screen of a handtop and get goggles instead. Enjoy your big, hi-res virtual monitor and get an extra bonus of augmented reality.
So i guess that wearables, not handtops will kill laptops some day.
...SourceForge is playing with Java: http://www.sdtimes.com/news/105/story9.htm
If those insurers cover the kernel (or any other ubiquitous component) then they're a joke, IMHO.
Let's say Linus blunders and commits in something that really violates a patent. Now when the patent holder sues everybody... it's like if all the cars crashed in an instant for a car insurer. The insurance company would go broke in a second.
Am i missing something?
Oops, sorry. My reading accuracy needs an improvement :-)
Care to post a short doc on it? I mean: "A description how to work with encrypted partitions !" (www.scherrer.cc/crypt).
If you use Eclipse you might want to extend it...
A more serious point would be: a thing that Sun was so afraid OSSing Java would do (a fork) has been done by IBM. We now have TWO desktop Javas: OSGi/SWT (Eclipse platform) vs JavaWebStart/Swing (J2SE)...
How to fix it? Make SWT (and OSGi?) a part of J2SE ASAP. I guess it should be obvious for Sun that resistance is futile ant SWT's popularity is unstoppable... anyway, will IBM please stand up and explain why SWT is not yet a JSR?
Here is a relevant quote stright out of the latest EU portal newsletter (europa.eu.int/newsletter/index_en.htm):
One more thing to keep in mind during upcoming referendum(s) on that constitution.
I'll just remind you that in America, and elsewhere, crusaders have been trying to eliminate non-christian cultures (their written works included).
I'd also like to point out that the modern concept of a University and scientific thought is an outgrowth of Christian thought and philosophies dating from the middle ages.You must be a Minister of Information of the Vatican? Secular schooling hint for Europe was given by Arab universities. Giving a credit for this (Renaissance) to the christian church is just a pure lie.
As for modern example of religious bigots trying to supress ideas they don't comprehendWell. Harry poter example was of course a joke. And of course it's impossible to destroy a written work these days because of the printing presses and ubiquitous literacy (you just can't destroy ALL the copies these days). Back in the day, however, situation was totally different: just get a scientist, all his manuscripts, throw to a fire, and you are done. No one was "laughing all the way to the bank" when the Library of Alexandria was on fire, because those were the unique copies of the works.
I haven't done any serious research but that much i can point out:
Having said that i guess it's a pretty realistic hypothesis that library of Alexandria could have been burnt by christians (burning pre-christian pagan writings must have been a natural idea for them).
The problem that happened at Alexandria, and what caused the "Dark Ages" was a total breakdown of the political & social framework of Europe due to the collapse of the Roman Empire.Yes. But it's church that prolonged the agony. The dismissal of the church bullshit and replacment of it with a secular knowledge [re]imported from the Arab wold is the definition of the Renaissance, isn't it?
Just wait till you get offered a DRM brain implant with a cool new level of VR realism as a bonus.
First: looking at things from developers' perspective does not make any sense. These days the majority of PC users are not developers.
Second: MS won everything mostly due to their absolute commitment to backwards compatibility. It allowed them to survivie during Sux'95 days of BSOD and will allow them to survive the present security fever.
But that's nothing. What's important is DRM. Here is a probable scenario for the next decade: 1. DRMed Longhorn PCs become commonplace. 2. Most of the commercial content is accessible via DRMed PCs only. 3. Linux' chances to win a consumer desktop are dead once and for all.
I mean, commercial websites will not be accesible from nonDRMed Linux/Gnome/Mozilla PCs because those web sites will be happy to use DRM for: 1. blocking ad blockers 2. blocking "helpful" slashdotters from violating their copyrights.
And chances for a GPLed kernel to become compatible with that patented MS DRM stuff are zero.
Right?
Q; What's wrong with you using a login password, GPG, encrypted FS, etc. to protect your stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various curious people might hate that.
Q: What's wrong with your company using login passwords, permissions, etc. to control their stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various spies might hate that.
Q: What's wrong with content authors, publishers using DRM to protect their stuff?
A: Nothing. No matter how hard various P2P-spoiled folks might hate that.
And don't you worry about "control". Your personal data as well as all the noncommercial content will remain as yours as before. And neither PC makers nor content publishers will abuse their DRM power, because their interest is in providing a reasonable proposition that will not be rejected by consumers.
Right?
So, you say, you're ready to reject DRM stuff anyway? What are you gonna do ten years from now when the only way to access paid contend will be DRM-enabled gadget? Choose to live in a digital equivalent of a "cave"?
Block the ads and soon you'll be suffering the DRM/micropayments consequences.
I don't expect things to be this way. I think all the noncertified apps would run. They will only be denied access to encryption keys and decrypted data. I expect that only a small minority of all applications would need to access those DRMed keys/data (e.g. content viewers). Even in case of a kernel - only a small DRMed core of the kernel will have to be DRM certified (as well as the other "core" kernel modules); those kernel modules that don't need to access the copyrighted/DRMed keys/data will not have to be DRM-cetrified. Of course, in order to implement such a scheme it might be necessary to change architecture of the Linux kernel significantly. That's why Linus should be sitting on some DRM desing panel (with Bill), IMHO. Also, as long as some particular PC does not need to access DRMed content it would be free to boot any non-DRMed OS, i guess.
how the hell am I supposed to release that application when it costs thousands (or more likely ten's of thousands)Kernel certification costs will probably be covered by some big company. Content viewers' cetification costs will probably be covered by... big publishers who would rather like to avoid paying some sort of "subscription" tax to MS. And the rest of the software (that neither needs to access DRMed keys/content nor is willing to get DRM-protection itself - like 99% of the OSS stuff) will probably not have to be DRM certified at all.
LOL. A broken AND circular argument [that authors will only release their copyrighted content under DRM locks].
Nothing broken at all. WinXP has become the best selling MS' OS despite all the whines on "activation" and "passport". I can bet that Longhorn will do just fine despite all the whines about DRM. And soon after a significant proportion of PC users is gonna be sitting behind DRMed machines - a significant portion of the copyrighted content will be distributed under DRM locks. And at that point users will refuse to buy "crippled" (non-DRMed that is) PCs that can't access that content. I guess.
Anyway, it's too early to argue about DRM's impact because we simply don't know how it will look like when it finally ships. I personally don't expect things to be as bad as you picture them, because it's in their interest to make sure that market will accept their stuff. Threfore they are probably unlikely to try to push some utter nonsence. That's just my HO, so, as i said, let's wait and see. If it tuns out that you're right i'll be marching among the ranks of anti-DRM protesters; however, i'll be protesting against a particular "draconian" DRM implementation rather than against DRM idea in general.
All the OSS windows apps will run just as well as all the other "legacy" apps. MS does not have a suicidal habit of breaking backward compatibility. Those apps simply won't be able to access DRMed content - the new content that consumers will buy in encrypted form that will only be accessible via DRM-certified apps. That's how i understand things.
The President's CyberSecurity advisor at computer conference called on ISP's to begin enforcing a Trusted system as a condition of internet access.He is insisting to break backward compatibitily with existing software/hardware base? Than he is crazy. I don't expect such a nonsence to be accepted by anyone.
In Trusted mode (DRM mode) if so much as a single bit under the hood gets touched then it all drops dead.I guess you will be able to see those bytes just as you do now. Anyway, when was the last time you needed to change you BIOS?
I admit that was a long time ago on my Commodore 64.Precisely. The last time i looked into a ROM was a long time ago on my ZX Spectrum. And i never needed to change that ROM.
And BTW didn't you love the commercial market for C64 software? Would you allow me to assume that some effective DRM scheme would have encouraged more of that software to be written?
Do you plan to put me in prison if I decide to take a microscope to my own property to see the key? If not then I intend to do so for everyone I know, and maybe go into business doing so for the entire public.Copyrighted stuff is not your property even if it's recorded into your chips (i guess). And i doubt you will find such a magic microscope anyway. Will public pay you instead of paying authors/publishers? Won't you be stopped due to copyright violations?
You mean it's [DRM] a great way for MS to kill Linux.Maybe yes, maybe not. It all depends on how the DRM-certification process will be organized. And it's up to OSS crowd to work to make sure they won't be left behind the DRM bandwagon.
You might be able to certify A trusted version of Linux, but as I said, touch one line of the source code and it's dead.Commercial software vendors will have to DRM-recertify all their new releases too. So i don't see how this can be some sort of OSS-specific problem. This only means OSS developers will develop the development versions of their software while using the last certified binary release. This can only be good because it will resurrect Debian Stable :-)
did you really not notice that the "OSS crowd" ARE authors?I'm talking about authors who are willing to use DRM locks. For commercial software, info (e-books, sites, etc.), movies[, music]...
Why would anyone white come to prevent themselves from doing what they want? To disable themselves? It just doesn't make any sense.Of course i was talking about writing software for commercial content creators. Only viewers of such a content (as well as the kernel) will have to be "DRMed". All other OSS will stay free to change anytime anyway.
How do you gain an edge by offering a less functional less valuable crippled product?1. Authors will only release their copyrighted content under DRM locks (to prevent piracy). 2. Consumers are willing to access that copyrighted content. 3. You need DRM-certified software to access DRMed content. 4. If only Windows will be DRM-certified - only windows will give consumers an access to that DRMed content. 5. That would render Linux useless as a consumer desktop. 6. Therefore Linux must have DRM support that's compatible with that of Windows in order to be software-that-works (allows users to access DRMed content) as opposed to being software-that-sucks (is not very usefull to general public that is not ready to abstain from accessing cpyrighted/DRMed works). 7. "Enabling to access" is not "crippled".
OK. Let's say music is going to be fine. But it's no reason to declare that authors of every other type of works won't be hurt by the DRM-less "sharing" fever.
As a programmer i could not be happier that small businesses (shareware authors), who do not have resources to fight against pirates in courts around the world, will get better locks to protect their work. OSS will be just fine. Linux will boot, just in non-DRM mode. You will be able to dig under the hood as much as you do now (you don't have BIOS sources anyway), except you won't be able to access encryption keys. Anyway, DRM is a great chance to for Linux to kill MS. I mean, publishers should like a fact that Linux is thought to be more secure (for now) and, most importantly, DRM platform based on Linux means no need to pay MS tax. OTOH Windows is still the most popular consumer desktop... Instead of whining against DRM, OSS crowd should team with authors/publishers - that's the best chance in sight to gain an edge over MS in consumer market. IMHO.
BTW i would be very happy to see paper books and even e-books to go extinct. I would prefer one huge super book instead - the internet. So how do we ensure that authors of web pages will get paid for their works? I think DRM/micropayments could be a very nice combination. Or DRM/ads.
You don't use earplugs to avoid hearing those commercials, do you? Your bathroom attendance frequency is lower than that of commercials, right? LOL indeed.
Anyway, consumers' inclination to use commercial-skipping stuff is forcing TVs to embed commercials right into the content (product placement). Anyone is happy about that?
Of course TVs can switch to cable/sattelite broadcasting. Or PPV (pay per view). And guess what. DRM is necessary to protect these models. E.g. encryption of the satellite signal.
I fully expect the FREE MARKET to do just fine in ensuring creators get paid.
It does. It has invented IPOC which works just fine. Need some info - pay for a copy of it. The more important/popular content the authors create - the more copies get sold - the more those authors earn. Free market 101.
Truble is in thieves. Those folks who disagree with property laws. Who refuse to pay. That's why you see security guards in supermakets, banks, etc. and that's why you'll see DRM in a laptop near you.
And whenever they want to make a buck they have to pay creators first.Not "whenever they want to make a buck" but "whenever consumer consumes the work". P2P kids are not "making a buck", yet they still are ruining the compensation model.
Copyright restrictionsRobin Hood, is that you?
1. And that's bad because? 2. GNU leverages copyright restrictions for something quite different.
You constanly fall back on the absurd claim that the internet is going to exterminate payment to creators.Nonsence. All i'm doing in this thread is explaining DRM to you. I could not be happier with the free content on the internet. I'm not happy about "liberating" the copyrighted stuff. As i said: "if DRM works, P2P is no longer a problem".
As i've said, my interest is to see more works accessible in electronic form. DRM would increase supply of works in electronic form. So the situation will be better than it is now. Now situation is deteriorating. Many authors are unhappy about P2P-enabled piracy levels and their depression will not make them offer more of their works. That should induce some degree of depression and give some food for thought to the P2P users too.
I don't expect we'd ever need the governemnt to provide direct and primary funding of the production of such works, but even if we did it would be far far better than trying to to impose a DRM systemYou are suggesting that forcing everyone (PUBLIC) to pay would be a better idea than forcing only the CONSUMERS of the works to pay. I disagree. I say: Wanna a copy - pay for a copy. Don't wanna a copy - don't pay anything.
You claim that there are myriads of ways to make sure creators get paid. Fine. DRM is one of those ways. Given it's being pushed by MS it's unavoidable. Whether it will succeed or not we will see. FREE MARKET will decide if the scheme survives. That's fine. Where is the reason to whine about it? And more specifically, what was your reason to respond to my "The purpose of DRM is to protect copyright, hence Digital Rights Management"? ... "Restrictions"? Yes, DRM restricts users' Fair Use rights to copy. "Rights"? Yes, DRM protects rights of the copyright holders. Dual acronym. I've disagreed with "DRM is Digital Restrictions Management, and we should always refer to it as such". That's all :-)
Of course they pay. They pay by buying crap that's being advertised (i'm sure you can track a part of that money that ends up with authors). But there is a problem - ad skipping, ad-banner blocking stuff. How to fix this? DRM.
But most importantly UK TV is not paid for by through "consumers" or by commercials either.So, you think, public TV is all we need? You think some public agency is more effective/fair at distributing $$$ to the authors than free market? You think it's fair that the guy who does not watch BBC still has to pay tax to support it? You think it's fair to pay a tax on CD-R media that you might not even use to burn MP3s?
OTOH this your UK TV example rises a question on how to implement a similar model on the internet... so here it is: 1. all ISPs must pay 50% of their revenues to authors (50% being a minimum, because i've heard P2P traffic is somewhere in a range of 70%), 2. ISPs hike up internet access prices 2x to compensate for their losses, 3. internet users pay 2x more for internet access... and are free to share anything they like on KaZaA for "FREE" :-). Is this the model you're asking for? Let's do a slashdot poll...
The free altruistic/philantropic supply of web pages is not enough. I'm sure you're finding commercial info sources (all the books you can buy on Amazon.com) to be a more complete/up-to date, accurate, fine-tuned (edited) than that free stuff, don't you? You do acknowledge a need for those paid sites, do you? Rest assured that when micropayments will give rewards to authors of the web pages thus giving them a chance to earn something from their writings (instead of making them pay for hosting themselves) there would be even more supply of usefull content on the internet. And micropayments scheme will have to be protected by DRM, of course.
Lets try basic arithmetic. Free content + paid content is more than just free content alone. Right?
OK. Let's pretend that i care about music.
So, you say, P2P is helping small labels and new bands to become popular (just trow a few promo tracks to this free advertisement channel and see if they bite). Excellent.
Now, realize that DRM would help them to earn [more of the] well deserved money in addition to making them popular. By keeping those other tracks (full albums that is) from making it into the realm of P2P.
Therefore P2P + DRM is better for small bands/labels than P2P alone.
BTW damage done to labels of any size due to P2P piracy is a bad thing. Right?
I'm looking forward to DRM solution as to some sort of a "holy grail" of electronic publishing that should make PC a friend rather than a foe of publishers and authors.
I expect DRM to increase the supply of e-books (and other bytes-based offers). I'm looking forward to carrying all my personal library with myself (e.g. on a laptop).
And as you said - elecronic publishing is cheap - so DRM will actually increase availability of the works (because per copy prices of the works will be lower).
There is absolutelly nothing wrong with P2P, in theory. If you want to distrbute you work for free to the world it is the cheapest option (no hosting costs). BUT! In practice 90% (if not more) of the P2P is piracy. Of course the idea to ban P2P is silly (free speech) and that's precisely why wee need DRM stuff. If DRM works P2P is no longer a problem.
The only way (torture being not an acceptable option) to encourage the [potential] authors to publish their knowledge is to guarantee that they will be compensated for their work. The only way to adequately compensate for their work is to make sure the consumers will pay. P2P tries to omit the compensation part so it clearly does a damage to the interests of the consumers and authors. DRM is the savior.
BTW i don't care about music. I'm worried about the lack of e-book supply. It's ridiculous that i have to pay for a pile of paper and S&H of that pile of paper. Something tells me that pile of paper is more P2P-resistant than a file. DRM to the rescue.
You claim that law cannot prohibit distribution of software DRM circumvention tools because that would be in violation of constitutional right of free speech. I agree. But what about outlawing sales of harware devices designed to bypass DRM?
Let's introduce a few acronyms, because "copyright" seems to be ambiguous:
IPOC - Intellectual Property Owner's Copyright (C)
FURC - Fair Use Right to Copy (this one is consumer's copy right)
So, my original statement is: DRM's purpose is to protect IPOC.
DRM happens to be worthless withoutI assume that CPU/BIOS/OS level DRM (NGSCB) will be uncrackable, at least without a use of a special hardware - you won't be able to download DeNGSCB utility to bypass DRM. Such a DRM will be useful in protecting IPOC. If you say - "worthless". I disagree. Maybe "not 100% effective"?
I NEVER suggested DRM was illegal.OK. Sorry. I thought that you think that DRM is illegal, because, if DRM works it will be capable to block not only IPOC but also FURC. And given that FURC is a law -> DRM is illegal. If that's the state of the law, then IMHO the law should be changed (to save DRM). That's what i thought/wrote in my last post.
The problem is attempting to "fix" broken DRM by passing laws to protect DRM itself. I never said DRM was illegal - I said laws to enforce DRM are unconstitutional.Now i got it. You are right. But then - constutution sucks, because it does not take P2P into account... no matter how silly that sounds :-)
But maybe you are wrong? Just because DRM-circumvention stuff is prohibited does not mean that you can't obtain [excerpts of] that copyrighted work for your Fair Use needs. The law might say: you shall contact publisher if some Fair Need to copy the stuff arises and they'll give you what you need... but DRM-cracking stuff is illegal. IANAL.
What you wrote seems to imply that P2P "apples" are massive piracy and that library "oranges" pretty much amount to small and tolerable piracy.OK. You got me. I must admit that i wrote a complete nonsence. I should have wrote "bricks and birds" rather than "apples and oranges". So let me try once again:
Libraries have nothing to do with copyright or piracy because libraries are merely lending/renting books. They do not make any copies of those books... unlike those nasty PCs that have that nasty "copy file" function which should be somehow blocked, and that "somehow" is DRM.
I asked if you have any idea why libraries actually benefit copyright's purpose.I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why? [the law should establish a good compromise between the wishes of publishers and consumers]That compromise should lead to the higest amount of the higest quality of works being created as well as the maximum possible availability of those works to the people. KaZaA reduces incentive for the potential authors to bother to become ones. DRM should remedy that. Laws should help DRM if tech is not enough. That's all. I doubt constitution was written with P2P in mind, so whatever it has to say is of no interest to me.
Exterminate? Frankly, i can't even see how DRM can block FU. Wanna record an excerpt of a song? Just plug a DAC instead of speakers (or use a microphone next to speakers). Want to use an excerpt from an eBook? Just key it in, or take a photo of a monitor displaying the page, etc. The only thing DRM blocks is an ability to make (in a second) a full 1:1 copy of the work. That makes DRM idea pretty fair, i think, given that the copy would be just a few clicks away from entering the realm of P2P.
If present day Fair Use guidelines have something to say against it - those quidelines will have to be changed. Right? (IANAL.)
You seem to imply that NGSCB that MS is busy creating is clearly illegal and MS' lawyers are unaware of a fact that their damn DRM stuff will be declared illegal soon after Windows users file a class action lawsuit or smth. I would guess that you're mistaken.
BTW libraries have nothing to do with the insane levels of piracy enabled by the P2P networks. Have you heard that most of the internet traffic is P2P? I mean, let's not compare "apples to oranges" here. And about "purpose"... well, i think the law should establish a good compromise between the wishes of publishers and consumers. And that makes fantasies of copyright creators irrelevant if they no longer work in an age of the internet (and P2P). Anyway, if you're right and DRM will be outlawed... well, that's very bad, because P2P piracy is sure to reduce incentive for authors to create anything and consumer will suffer in the end. I guess.