While it is certainly true that it is very close to imposable to keep people from copying software. A good DRM design should allow copying, it isn't the copying that is managed it is the use. I think most people feel it is fare to pay for a song or movie what have you. But as you say we only want to pay for it once, then we should be able to use it any way that we choose short of profiting from it or diminishing it's profit potential. Manipulating the distrobution media to inflate per product sales is clearly against the public trust. However, if a new format provides a value in an of itself, such as a better quality level then that surely caries a premium with it. All of this "in the public interest" logic goes right out the window when people pay for poorly implemented DRM. If you are willing to pay for it then it is worth what you pay.
If people had an alternative that was satisfactory to both distributors and users then perhaps a fair middle ground could be found. I sure do hope we see some DRM competition. But right now it seems like the two camps are too polarized to find a "fair" middle ground solution. As witnessed on this list most consumers are outranged and want no DRM at all, and as well expressed by them the distributors want more restrictions on their products then are reasonable.
But listen up people they've got the money and the attention of the general public. If an alternative is not developed soon, we will all end up eating what they serve. So I ague don't be anti bad DRM be pro good DRM.
Boy you hit the nail on the head with that. Because Intertrust and other DRM providers sell to distributors they only attempt to address the issues the narrow sighted distributors have. If the DRM provider considered the end users as just as much a client as the distributors then perhaps we could see a little more even handedness in the DRM designs.
This could happen if we the customer could choose the DRM solution from a set of providers, or pay the DRM directly, so that they see us as the client.
I worked briefly for a now defunct DRM company that was going to compete against Intertrust (we also considered using Intertrust technology under ours where there where patent issues). It seemed like it was going to be easy to compete (and it would have been if the VC wasn't so scarce at the time), because most DRM solutions are designed only to help the copyright holder not the customer. Are designs we focused on a balanced approach.
DRM wouldn't have quite such a bad name if it would provide users with benefits. Intertrust technology has the ability to do this it seems but since consumers are not their clients, so easily integrated features are ignored. We designed a system with the end user in mind. From the point of view of how would we want to use the electronic media we buy.
Important user features should include:
Free trial, and fare use of content, while right management is still in effect. Merging of artistic works into new works with automatic (pass through) licensing fees. License to the user not to the computer so I can listen to MY music at home or office or at a friend's house. Easy distribution from user to user with no penalty to either user in the transaction (i.e. napster 1.0 can work because each file is self managing). User selected automatic billing from incremental use (such as paying a per hour fee to use very expensive, but rarely used software, PPV etc.) to outright purchase.
From a security point of view our philosophy was not to make an unbeatable DRM solution, but rather to make the cost of circumventing the DRM higher then the value of the content. This came about automatically when you allow people to use $30,000 software packages for $5 an hour or whatever. It just becomes too easy to work with the DRM then not. We also had the ability to pass the billing for the software use (plus any "cost plus" amount) to a user's client, so mom and pop shops had equal access to high end software that big companies had only pay for what you need.
I'd love to see the open source community pick up where we left off. Current DRM solutions need a user-focused competitor. Perhaps, I'll start a project. What do you guy think? Is it worth it?
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - If you want to talk to me about it.
Man this forum is defensive. But I have to say like it or not this article represents the attitudes of many users, and attempted users of open source software. You don't agree and just want to write the software you want to write great knock your self out. But if one wants people to adopt open source over pay software, then one would be well advised to listen to dissenters at least as often as supporters.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
[end snip]
So does this then mean that if I install Linux on my computer, and then sell or give my computer away I must provide extensive notification of the Linux installation? Including documentation at each place I may have edited the code, and some form of the Linux kernel source in cases were I do not have the kernel source installed?
I can see how distributing firmware upgrades constitutes distributing software, and is thus firmly within the preview of the GPL. However, I'm having a harder time understanding how imbedded hardware applications constitutes a software distribution. If the hardware running the GPLd software can not under normal operation be accessed by an end user does it still constitute software distribution? The manufacturer does seem to be getting some benefit from the use of the GPLd software. However, if I use an online service that uses a modified Linux on internal hardware are they required also to provide me with their source? Where is the line? That the hardware is physically in my possession? What if I rent or lease equipment? This seems like a very slippery slope for the proliferation of GPLd software.
I'm not proposing an opinion I'm just curious what the/. opinion is on this.
I'm sorry but it is you who aren't familiar with the term socialism. I have read all of the FSF materials many years ago. I do not argue that one can make money from software written under the tenants of FSF, and calling it socialistic does not imply that either. I point out that the person making the money is not necessarily (and usually isn't) the person who wrote it, thereby eliminating profit motive. Free software is a community effort, profit or lack thereof is to the community, meaning it is socialist (Q.E.D.). Hence the failings that the gnome project is now having to work around, per the article and my original post.
I don't mean to bait, but I have to say that this is an elegant and succinct demonstration of the fundamental flaw in the concept of 'free' software. The socialist idea that we will all do our best with no compensation other then the ability to use other people's work, has holes.
This model of idea weather applied to software or to government always makes the mistake of not accounting for human weaknesses. Free software works, to the degree that it does, based on the profit motive of ego. However, without money the boring work that doesn't boost the programmer's reputation has no profit value whatsoever, and this is where you find all the missing pieces in open source software. That and the duplication of effort, so that each programmer can plant his flag and get the ego boost that is his only reward, which is so prevalent in open source software.
My apologies if this is inflammatory, but it seems to me that this article does kind of prove the argument. It puts into question weather open source software can ever produce a product that is better then a for profit alternative. On the other hand this does not undermine the educational value of open source.
I have to say that I disagree with most of the highly moderated posts here so far.
A legal precedent for this type of defense is already set. This type of case should not be considered differently from other crimes.
If my car is stolen and later used in a bank robbery I am not culpable in any way. I was not an accomplice before, during or after the fact, I did not commit the crime. In fact, I am one of the victims. My lack of culpability remains intact weather I am aware of my care being stolen or not, and wither I report it stolen or not.
In all such cases regardless of the items used to commit the crime or how they where obtained the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that it was in fact the defendant who was in control of the items at the time, and therefore the guilty party.
The only complicating factor in computer cases is that the computer may be in the virtual control of one person while in the physical control of another. This has the net effect of slightly shifting the burden of proof towards the diffident; his control of the computer is implied. This is, in my opinion, unfortunate and I hope that future cases will set precedent that shifts the burden back to the prosecution.
In a truly free country the legal system must expend most of its effort keeping innocent people free, not punishing the guilty.
Naturally, a different set of guidelines exist for civil cases.
Granted RAID-0 isn't for everyone, but for our applications we require very high data rates. We are seeing sustained 239MB/s.
Our previous SCSI setup is 6 disks at $600 each (at the time of purchase) plus a $1,200 controller. At that price differential even if the SATA's fail more often (which there is no evidence of) we can replace every component 4 times and still be better off then the SCSI system.
If anyone can do this on a SCSI system for the equivalent price, I'd honestly love to know it.
No doubt Bill is referring to the speed at which they can fix critical earth shattering holes in the code such as the recent worms that hit windows systems on the net.
And Linux man though I am, I'd have to agree that in all likelihood if Microsoft agrees that the issue at hand is actually a problem worth addressing then they can fix and distribute it faster then the Linux equivalent.
In other words they only take the fights they can win, and therefore of the fights they take they always win.
Boy this sure is a scary precedent. The obvious effect regardless of the end result is that lawyers will tell their clients not to expose security holes. Good for the government for admitting the mistake, but I do believe the damage is done.
What I want to know is if I expose a weakness in someone else's code, how is it that I'm the one 'impairing the functioning' of the code? I didn't put the security flaw in there. However, I can see a bit of an argument that you are communicating trade secrets, why is that not the case the government took.
I guess well be seeing fewer fixes to insecure applications from now on.
I had a TiVO, that I got shortly after the 30 hour version came out. LOVE IT! Been traveling so I can't use it at the moment so I don't now how compatible the mods are for the new OS versions etc. But here's what I did...
I was able to put in two new drives (mirroring the original drive without ever booting it, and setting it aside. I can always recover to the store version if I absolutely have to) I was able to turn the system into a 280 hour unit! Worked great. And let me just say that's the only way to use TiVO because as soon as you get used to it you'll realize that there is a lot more on TV that you are interested in then you thought. It just plays at times incompatible with your lifestyle. But not with TiVO.
I now have a 3 year old TiVO that is better then anything on the market by more twice the recording time.
Now if I can just get my old TiVO to work with my new Dish network program schedule. Or HD-TiVO open for the same hacks. I'm getting a stiffy just thinking about it.
Now that it's enforceable it's too bad that the list is locked out.
It's also worth noting that the site (previously) reported that it may take up to three months for any number you enter to be included in the list. So don't call your layer just yet.
Microsoft's only descovery
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Windows, DirectX,.NET
This is old news. Microsoft bases it's whole business model on software fashion. Redressing existing technology for a good showing on the runway.
The largest pirate film market in the world is in South East Asia. It is easy to find all the latest film in release at small mobile vendors. These burnt DVD's and Video CDs are usually from DV or Hi-8 source most often taped from the projection boot (for clean sound).
Although it is hard to believe that anyone would want to watch such a low quality product. It has clearly established itself in those cultures. I'm sure the studio sees this a being shut out of that market, even though there is high demand for their product.
So I am not suppressed at all that they would crate a system that is obvious enough to be seen in such a low quality reproduction, cheep enough to be implemented on ~2,000 prints (at least one reel), and simple enough to be unique for every print. I'm not sure there are other techniques that can accomplish this.
As far as I've seen these versions of a film are not in high demand on the blacknet, obviously because these are people with a higher standards for entertainment. Far more common are rips of academy screeners or regular DVDs.
What I object to is that they don't try to use this as a deterrent with labels on advertising (i.e. "This film protected by...") , because they know most people would object to it. What money they gain in Asia they will loose from the far more demanding (I pray) U.S. market.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is certainly true that it is very close to imposable to keep people from copying software. A good DRM design should allow copying, it isn't the copying that is managed it is the use. I think most people feel it is fare to pay for a song or movie what have you. But as you say we only want to pay for it once, then we should be able to use it any way that we choose short of profiting from it or diminishing it's profit potential. Manipulating the distrobution media to inflate per product sales is clearly against the public trust. However, if a new format provides a value in an of itself, such as a better quality level then that surely caries a premium with it. All of this "in the public interest" logic goes right out the window when people pay for poorly implemented DRM. If you are willing to pay for it then it is worth what you pay.
If people had an alternative that was satisfactory to both distributors and users then perhaps a fair middle ground could be found. I sure do hope we see some DRM competition. But right now it seems like the two camps are too polarized to find a "fair" middle ground solution. As witnessed on this list most consumers are outranged and want no DRM at all, and as well expressed by them the distributors want more restrictions on their products then are reasonable.
But listen up people they've got the money and the attention of the general public. If an alternative is not developed soon, we will all end up eating what they serve. So I ague don't be anti bad DRM be pro good DRM.
Boy you hit the nail on the head with that. Because Intertrust and other DRM providers sell to distributors they only attempt to address the issues the narrow sighted distributors have. If the DRM provider considered the end users as just as much a client as the distributors then perhaps we could see a little more even handedness in the DRM designs.
This could happen if we the customer could choose the DRM solution from a set of providers, or pay the DRM directly, so that they see us as the client.
GNU DRM comes to mind.
I worked briefly for a now defunct DRM company that was going to compete against Intertrust (we also considered using Intertrust technology under ours where there where patent issues). It seemed like it was going to be easy to compete (and it would have been if the VC wasn't so scarce at the time), because most DRM solutions are designed only to help the copyright holder not the customer. Are designs we focused on a balanced approach.
DRM wouldn't have quite such a bad name if it would provide users with benefits. Intertrust technology has the ability to do this it seems but since consumers are not their clients, so easily integrated features are ignored. We designed a system with the end user in mind. From the point of view of how would we want to use the electronic media we buy.
Important user features should include:
Free trial, and fare use of content, while right management is still in effect.
Merging of artistic works into new works with automatic (pass through) licensing fees.
License to the user not to the computer so I can listen to MY music at home or office or at a friend's house.
Easy distribution from user to user with no penalty to either user in the transaction (i.e. napster 1.0 can work because each file is self managing).
User selected automatic billing from incremental use (such as paying a per hour fee to use very expensive, but rarely used software, PPV etc.) to outright purchase.
From a security point of view our philosophy was not to make an unbeatable DRM solution, but rather to make the cost of circumventing the DRM higher then the value of the content. This came about automatically when you allow people to use $30,000 software packages for $5 an hour or whatever. It just becomes too easy to work with the DRM then not. We also had the ability to pass the billing for the software use (plus any "cost plus" amount) to a user's client, so mom and pop shops had equal access to high end software that big companies had only pay for what you need.
I'd love to see the open source community pick up where we left off. Current DRM solutions need a user-focused competitor. Perhaps, I'll start a project. What do you guy think? Is it worth it?
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - If you want to talk to me about it.
Man this forum is defensive. But I have to say like it or not this article represents the attitudes of many users, and attempted users of open source software. You don't agree and just want to write the software you want to write great knock your self out. But if one wants people to adopt open source over pay software, then one would be well advised to listen to dissenters at least as often as supporters.
[snip from GPL]
/. opinion is on this.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
[end snip]
So does this then mean that if I install Linux on my computer, and then sell or give my computer away I must provide extensive notification of the Linux installation? Including documentation at each place I may have edited the code, and some form of the Linux kernel source in cases were I do not have the kernel source installed?
I can see how distributing firmware upgrades constitutes distributing software, and is thus firmly within the preview of the GPL. However, I'm having a harder time understanding how imbedded hardware applications constitutes a software distribution. If the hardware running the GPLd software can not under normal operation be accessed by an end user does it still constitute software distribution? The manufacturer does seem to be getting some benefit from the use of the GPLd software. However, if I use an online service that uses a modified Linux on internal hardware are they required also to provide me with their source? Where is the line? That the hardware is physically in my possession? What if I rent or lease equipment? This seems like a very slippery slope for the proliferation of GPLd software.
I'm not proposing an opinion I'm just curious what the
I'm sorry but it is you who aren't familiar with the term socialism. I have read all of the FSF materials many years ago. I do not argue that one can make money from software written under the tenants of FSF, and calling it socialistic does not imply that either. I point out that the person making the money is not necessarily (and usually isn't) the person who wrote it, thereby eliminating profit motive. Free software is a community effort, profit or lack thereof is to the community, meaning it is socialist (Q.E.D.). Hence the failings that the gnome project is now having to work around, per the article and my original post.
fireI don't mean to bait, but I have to say that this is an elegant and succinct demonstration of the fundamental flaw in the concept of 'free' software. The socialist idea that we will all do our best with no compensation other then the ability to use other people's work, has holes.
This model of idea weather applied to software or to government always makes the mistake of not accounting for human weaknesses. Free software works, to the degree that it does, based on the profit motive of ego. However, without money the boring work that doesn't boost the programmer's reputation has no profit value whatsoever, and this is where you find all the missing pieces in open source software. That and the duplication of effort, so that each programmer can plant his flag and get the ego boost that is his only reward, which is so prevalent in open source software.
My apologies if this is inflammatory, but it seems to me that this article does kind of prove the argument. It puts into question weather open source software can ever produce a product that is better then a for profit alternative. On the other hand this does not undermine the educational value of open source.
fire
I have to say that I disagree with most of the highly moderated posts here so far.
A legal precedent for this type of defense is already set. This type of case should not be considered differently from other crimes.
If my car is stolen and later used in a bank robbery I am not culpable in any way. I was not an accomplice before, during or after the fact, I did not commit the crime. In fact, I am one of the victims. My lack of culpability remains intact weather I am aware of my care being stolen or not, and wither I report it stolen or not.
In all such cases regardless of the items used to commit the crime or how they where obtained the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that it was in fact the defendant who was in control of the items at the time, and therefore the guilty party.
The only complicating factor in computer cases is that the computer may be in the virtual control of one person while in the physical control of another. This has the net effect of slightly shifting the burden of proof towards the diffident; his control of the computer is implied. This is, in my opinion, unfortunate and I hope that future cases will set precedent that shifts the burden back to the prosecution.
In a truly free country the legal system must expend most of its effort keeping innocent people free, not punishing the guilty.
Naturally, a different set of guidelines exist for civil cases.
I have been working with SCSI RAID-0 arrays for a while for streaming video, and have been very happy with them.
However, we just setup a prototype SATA RAID-0 system here's the info:
MegaRAID SATA 150-6 raid controller (raid-0)
6 WD Raptor 36 GB drives.
The whole thing was almost exactly $1,000.00.
Granted RAID-0 isn't for everyone, but for our applications we require very high data rates. We are seeing sustained 239MB/s.
Our previous SCSI setup is 6 disks at $600 each (at the time of purchase) plus a $1,200 controller. At that price differential even if the SATA's fail more often (which there is no evidence of) we can replace every component 4 times and still be better off then the SCSI system.
If anyone can do this on a SCSI system for the equivalent price, I'd honestly love to know it.
fire
No doubt Bill is referring to the speed at which they can fix critical earth shattering holes in the code such as the recent worms that hit windows systems on the net.
And Linux man though I am, I'd have to agree that in all likelihood if Microsoft agrees that the issue at hand is actually a problem worth addressing then they can fix and distribute it faster then the Linux equivalent.
In other words they only take the fights they can win, and therefore of the fights they take they always win.
. fireBoy this sure is a scary precedent. The obvious effect regardless of the end result is that lawyers will tell their clients not to expose security holes. Good for the government for admitting the mistake, but I do believe the damage is done.
What I want to know is if I expose a weakness in someone else's code, how is it that I'm the one 'impairing the functioning' of the code? I didn't put the security flaw in there. However, I can see a bit of an argument that you are communicating trade secrets, why is that not the case the government took.
I guess well be seeing fewer fixes to insecure applications from now on.
fire
I had a TiVO, that I got shortly after the 30 hour version came out. LOVE IT! Been traveling so I can't use it at the moment so I don't now how compatible the mods are for the new OS versions etc. But here's what I did...
I was able to put in two new drives (mirroring the original drive without ever booting it, and setting it aside. I can always recover to the store version if I absolutely have to) I was able to turn the system into a 280 hour unit! Worked great. And let me just say that's the only way to use TiVO because as soon as you get used to it you'll realize that there is a lot more on TV that you are interested in then you thought. It just plays at times incompatible with your lifestyle. But not with TiVO.
I now have a 3 year old TiVO that is better then anything on the market by more twice the recording time.
Now if I can just get my old TiVO to work with my new Dish network program schedule. Or HD-TiVO open for the same hacks. I'm getting a stiffy just thinking about it.
fire
Now that it's enforceable it's too bad that the list is locked out.
It's also worth noting that the site (previously) reported that it may take up to three months for any number you enter to be included in the list. So don't call your layer just yet.
Windows, DirectX, .NET
This is old news. Microsoft bases it's whole business model on software fashion. Redressing existing technology for a good showing on the runway.
The largest pirate film market in the world is in South East Asia. It is easy to find all the latest film in release at small mobile vendors. These burnt DVD's and Video CDs are usually from DV or Hi-8 source most often taped from the projection boot (for clean sound).
Although it is hard to believe that anyone would want to watch such a low quality product. It has clearly established itself in those cultures. I'm sure the studio sees this a being shut out of that market, even though there is high demand for their product.
So I am not suppressed at all that they would crate a system that is obvious enough to be seen in such a low quality reproduction, cheep enough to be implemented on ~2,000 prints (at least one reel), and simple enough to be unique for every print. I'm not sure there are other techniques that can accomplish this.
As far as I've seen these versions of a film are not in high demand on the blacknet, obviously because these are people with a higher standards for entertainment. Far more common are rips of academy screeners or regular DVDs.
What I object to is that they don't try to use this as a deterrent with labels on advertising (i.e. "This film protected by...") , because they know most people would object to it. What money they gain in Asia they will loose from the far more demanding (I pray) U.S. market.