Well here's the other point I think people are completely missing about a USABLE Drm system. A truly secure 100% bulletproof DRM is not going to happen. That's been proven time and time again. What is viable is something that functions and works as a viable deterrent in many of these situations. If a AVERAGE consumer, is not going to spend the time downloading a crack from a spyware infested website, or couldn't figure it out in the first place, then DRM as a deterrent has succeeded. At some point for most users its just not worth the hassle to try breaking something and will just work with it. Music DRM is pointless for another reason, the fact that perfect digital masters of the same content are already in wide circulation.
E.g. If Adobe's PDF drm had actually worked and been easy to setup it would fill this niche nicely, albeit not open source.
Everyone on this board appears to be so biased by the DRM implementation that the RIAA has used that it is truly blinding your vision to some actualy good uses.
Example.
Small time photographers will photgraph a wedding. These guys generally pay for their time/expense by charging for the shoot. Where they actually make a profit to spend on fancy things like food and clothing is by charging per print. Most people want to view a good copy of the prints online before ordering. The photographer must place online low quality photos, or ones that are covered in trademarks, lines and other crap that can't be easily photoshopped out. Why? Because if they put the high quality res version up, the person would just download and print the thing without paying.
Now the argumnet "Fuck the RIAA" doesn't really apply here I would hope people see.
In this scenario a "DRM JPEG Browser Plug-in" would be very handy. the photographer can release a drm'd version so the consumer can see a high quality copy, they just can't then "steal" the thing.
And yes I know about print-screen and etc, but this is just an example of how document drms are not necessarily bad.
Am I missing something or why would they have to actually mix them on the plane? Once your past the security screeners you have a very large airport terminal and plenty of time to do all sorts of chemistry tricks.
One thing I've always wondered about with compression is if Quantum Computers ever become a reality. Now people always say a quantum computer can try every permutation for a bitset simultaneously cracking encryption ciphers instantly.
So my question is if you had a large piece of data (such as an image taken by a voyager probe), could you generate a bunch of different checksums/hashes using algorithms and transmit those to a computer. Then on the computer try every possibility until you find the possibilities which all generate the transmitted checksums. Finally then run some AI on possible photos and rule out the obviously garbage ones until you find the correct one. (Figuring random data won't show a meaningful picture).
So could that work if the all-powerful quantum computer becomes a reality?
Want to know how much file overhead is added by adding DRM encryption to a wma file?
Roughly 3k per file irregardless of the file size. (DRM adds a header to the file, the rest of the file is just scrambled)
so you can only store about 999 3 minute tracks instead of 1000 on your system.
When you first open up a DRM file to play it, yes a little bit of processing occurs right then doing public/private key decryption to unlock the RC4 encryption key used to decrease the rest of the file. This however is probably about the same amount of juice as is required to play 1/10 a second of audio.
During actual audio playback the players are doing an RC4 block cipher decryption operation. That's a linear time operation on par with generating a modulus for 8 bits. Meaning it's basically nothing compared to the horsepower needed to convert from compressed audio to waveform pcm audio.
The article review is a crock of crap.
I've been playing with an app I stumbled on to while looking for a podcast client alternative to IPodderX called IM (www.im.com). Seems its an rss/podcast client but has built in bittorrent support for rss feeds (although this isn't mentioned on their website. Not a real useful general purpose bt client, but for RSS it seems to use a fraction of the resources Azereus does on my box. Windows XP only though so no love for my Linux box.
-People who download music illegally, purchase more music than people who don't download illegal music.
This I can accept as a fact.
-This means downloading music illegally must promote the sale of music.
This I disagree with heartily. Let's use an analogy.
-People who poach deer also spend more money on legal hunting licenses than people who don't poach dear.
-This means deer poaching encourages purchasing licenses through the Fish and Wildlife commission.
OR
-People interested in deer hunting are more likely to both Poach deer and to buy hunting licenses from time to time.
Apply that to music.
-People who have a high interest in music are likely to both purchase, and illegally download music.
-People with a lower interest in music buy less and download little. (Many opting to stick with the radio)
The idea of this is a move towards universal music ownership. Now most of you say you won't rent music, you want to buy it.
But, if there were a way where you could pay $10 a month, and you could listen to any song ever made on your PC, car stereo, iPod, home stereo, DVD Player etc, would that be a compelling service to have?
That's the step this is trying to move towards as a number of new devices are trying to adopt this as a standard.
As far as DRM's go iTunes DRM pretty much has the same rules as the Microsoft DRM. It's just that they've made the user experience nicer, and transfer of content to their 1 player (iPod) very seamless. As far as the true DRM restrictions go, it's the same thing.
As far as hacking. These people aren't totally retarded. Yes you can use a line-out, or sound card capture to copy this content. But if you're willing to do that odds are you would have skipped the trouble and just gotten the damn thing off Kazaa or a friend's CD. DRM isn't supposed to make things hack proof. What it's supposed to be is a deterrent for the normal user (if you're on slashdot odds are you aren't the typical user).
Somewhere there's a magical pricepoint and featureset where the majority of the population feels its' in their better interest to just pay and accept the rules, than jump through hoops to get it for free. (Why do people buy books instead of getting them from the library).
Microsoft and Apple aren't developing technology for those of you who spend 4 hours a day tweaking your self-built, self-modifying Linux system, they're developing systems for the person out there who picks their computers because they like the color of the mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
Well here's the other point I think people are completely missing about a USABLE Drm system. A truly secure 100% bulletproof DRM is not going to happen. That's been proven time and time again. What is viable is something that functions and works as a viable deterrent in many of these situations. If a AVERAGE consumer, is not going to spend the time downloading a crack from a spyware infested website, or couldn't figure it out in the first place, then DRM as a deterrent has succeeded. At some point for most users its just not worth the hassle to try breaking something and will just work with it. Music DRM is pointless for another reason, the fact that perfect digital masters of the same content are already in wide circulation.
E.g. If Adobe's PDF drm had actually worked and been easy to setup it would fill this niche nicely, albeit not open source.
Everyone on this board appears to be so biased by the DRM implementation that the RIAA has used that it is truly blinding your vision to some actualy good uses. Example. Small time photographers will photgraph a wedding. These guys generally pay for their time/expense by charging for the shoot. Where they actually make a profit to spend on fancy things like food and clothing is by charging per print. Most people want to view a good copy of the prints online before ordering. The photographer must place online low quality photos, or ones that are covered in trademarks, lines and other crap that can't be easily photoshopped out. Why? Because if they put the high quality res version up, the person would just download and print the thing without paying. Now the argumnet "Fuck the RIAA" doesn't really apply here I would hope people see. In this scenario a "DRM JPEG Browser Plug-in" would be very handy. the photographer can release a drm'd version so the consumer can see a high quality copy, they just can't then "steal" the thing. And yes I know about print-screen and etc, but this is just an example of how document drms are not necessarily bad.
Am I missing something or why would they have to actually mix them on the plane? Once your past the security screeners you have a very large airport terminal and plenty of time to do all sorts of chemistry tricks.
One thing I've always wondered about with compression is if Quantum Computers ever become a reality. Now people always say a quantum computer can try every permutation for a bitset simultaneously cracking encryption ciphers instantly. So my question is if you had a large piece of data (such as an image taken by a voyager probe), could you generate a bunch of different checksums/hashes using algorithms and transmit those to a computer. Then on the computer try every possibility until you find the possibilities which all generate the transmitted checksums. Finally then run some AI on possible photos and rule out the obviously garbage ones until you find the correct one. (Figuring random data won't show a meaningful picture). So could that work if the all-powerful quantum computer becomes a reality?
Want to know how much file overhead is added by adding DRM encryption to a wma file? Roughly 3k per file irregardless of the file size. (DRM adds a header to the file, the rest of the file is just scrambled) so you can only store about 999 3 minute tracks instead of 1000 on your system.
When you first open up a DRM file to play it, yes a little bit of processing occurs right then doing public/private key decryption to unlock the RC4 encryption key used to decrease the rest of the file. This however is probably about the same amount of juice as is required to play 1/10 a second of audio. During actual audio playback the players are doing an RC4 block cipher decryption operation. That's a linear time operation on par with generating a modulus for 8 bits. Meaning it's basically nothing compared to the horsepower needed to convert from compressed audio to waveform pcm audio. The article review is a crock of crap.
I've been playing with an app I stumbled on to while looking for a podcast client alternative to IPodderX called IM (www.im.com). Seems its an rss/podcast client but has built in bittorrent support for rss feeds (although this isn't mentioned on their website. Not a real useful general purpose bt client, but for RSS it seems to use a fraction of the resources Azereus does on my box. Windows XP only though so no love for my Linux box.
-People who download music illegally, purchase more music than people who don't download illegal music. This I can accept as a fact. -This means downloading music illegally must promote the sale of music. This I disagree with heartily. Let's use an analogy. -People who poach deer also spend more money on legal hunting licenses than people who don't poach dear. -This means deer poaching encourages purchasing licenses through the Fish and Wildlife commission. OR -People interested in deer hunting are more likely to both Poach deer and to buy hunting licenses from time to time. Apply that to music. -People who have a high interest in music are likely to both purchase, and illegally download music. -People with a lower interest in music buy less and download little. (Many opting to stick with the radio)
The idea of this is a move towards universal music ownership. Now most of you say you won't rent music, you want to buy it. But, if there were a way where you could pay $10 a month, and you could listen to any song ever made on your PC, car stereo, iPod, home stereo, DVD Player etc, would that be a compelling service to have? That's the step this is trying to move towards as a number of new devices are trying to adopt this as a standard. As far as DRM's go iTunes DRM pretty much has the same rules as the Microsoft DRM. It's just that they've made the user experience nicer, and transfer of content to their 1 player (iPod) very seamless. As far as the true DRM restrictions go, it's the same thing. As far as hacking. These people aren't totally retarded. Yes you can use a line-out, or sound card capture to copy this content. But if you're willing to do that odds are you would have skipped the trouble and just gotten the damn thing off Kazaa or a friend's CD. DRM isn't supposed to make things hack proof. What it's supposed to be is a deterrent for the normal user (if you're on slashdot odds are you aren't the typical user). Somewhere there's a magical pricepoint and featureset where the majority of the population feels its' in their better interest to just pay and accept the rules, than jump through hoops to get it for free. (Why do people buy books instead of getting them from the library). Microsoft and Apple aren't developing technology for those of you who spend 4 hours a day tweaking your self-built, self-modifying Linux system, they're developing systems for the person out there who picks their computers because they like the color of the mouse.