Indeed, it requires users to invest their complete trust in a few large companies. Hopefully the entire ploy will be fended off, but the DRM companies seem to have got a good start with iTunes. Maybe more people will realise the problems with DRM when the iPod is less popular and their iTunes music libraries won't play on their new portable music player...
If there is a single DRM system, who decides who is "in it" and who is "out of it"? You cannot simply allow anyone to write software (eg. media player software) for DRM content because as soon as someone obtains access to the raw data (necessary for playback of music/video, in the absence of DRM-compatible hardware) they can just write that raw data to a non-DRM file, and all of a sudden the DRM isn't very useful because everyone can convert their files to unrestricted formats with this software.
You might say "okay, well, what if there is DRM-compatible hardware?"
In the case of DRM-compatible hardware (aka "Trusted Computing" hardware) you have the same problem. Who are you going to allow to create this hardware? If you allow anyone to do it, they can create hardware that circumvents the DRM system, resulting in media converted to unrestricted formats, or even users finding out the encryption keys embedded in the other DRM hardware.
Eventually you get into a situation where you can't let just anyone make hardware that is compatible with the DRM hardware, and you can't let just anyone write software that is compatible with your DRM system, or else the DRM system is broken. The side-effects of this scenario are extremely beneficial to established hardware and software companies, but make it practically impossible for new companies to create software or hardware that works with the DRM group of hardware and software. The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
That's true, but come on, it's going to be pretty fun to play with on desktop machines, too, isn't it? Imagine all the tricks you can play on computer-illiterate friends/family. One second it's Windows, the next it's MacOSX, then 10 seconds later it's Linux! Heads may explode.
Be happy. There's only one way this whole thing is going to end, and that's with the EU dropping or getting soft about the action against Microsoft. Some might say I'm being cynical, but does anyone seriously expect Microsoft to ever comply? The current fines don't seem to be enough, since Microsoft have chosen to just keep pretending they're fixing the problems instead of actually doing anything.
It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.
This review sounds a bit like a Windows user reviewing Linux. This Nokia 770 device runs a modified version of Debian, and is an ARM architecture. While Nokia couldn't bundle something like MPlayer with it, there is nothing stopping anyone from getting a copy of MPlayer and using it to play all of the different formats/codecs that the reviewer has had a whinge about it not being able to play.
For geeks, this seems to be a good device! For Rob Pegoraro, it sucks, because it won't run Windows Media Player. Poor baby.
I wonder what exactly is going through their minds when they decide to let people stream a show as much as they want, but not download it. It's almost as though they think that they can make money simply by inconveniencing their users.
The guy presenting this lecture has the right idea.
In short, he thinks small icon advertisements (eg. "drink coke") should be put in the corner of a TV show, and then the TV show should be freely distributed on bittorrent. Everyone wins.
What I don't understand is WHY Duke Nukem Forever had to take so long. In the same time that it has taken to do DNF, 3D Realms has shipped several other decent games, for example, Max Payne and Max Payne 2. I understand that these games would have been developed by separate teams within 3D Realms, but why did they have the wrong team working on their BIG game?
They could have shipped at least 3 Duke Nukem games in the time it has taken to do DNF. No one expects a Duke game to be the best game ever. It's supposed to be some quick fun.
Yes, but as I pointed out, that requires special hardware. Without special hardware, in a completely GPL'ed environment, there doesn't seem to be any way to implement DRM.
How do you write GPL'ed DRM? At some point, the GPL'ed player will get its hands on pixel data to write it to the screen. Anyone could modify that part of the program to simply save the data.
It seems to me that the only way GPL'ed programs could cooperate with DRM is if they are not the parts that are doing the decryption, and instead some proprietary hardware or software is doing the final stages of playback, dealing with the raw data. This seems to be the idea behind "Trusted Computing".
Exactly. I think my favourite quote from the article has to be from the FSF guy. I think he's trying to tell Real something...
The sooner we bury the foolish notion of putting each and every use of a computer under control of the media industry, the sooner we can start looking for real alternatives.
... although I think we already have plenty of Real alternatives, so Real can go play with their DRM in their own little corner. Bye, Real.
What about the other side of this?
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
Ignoring whether or not it is legal, and whether or not it should be legal, it seems to me as though Apple are doing something stupid, here.
Whenever something is brewing from Google, many rumours fly around, and lots of buzz is generated. Very often, one of the rumours is the real product, but lots of buzz is generated because no one really knows for sure what is coming. It seems Apple are naturally attaining the same position as Google - lots of buzz is being generated about Apple products. That is, until Apple sue everyone who published the rumour that turned out to be correct.
Apple are morons for doing this. They should be slowly stirring the pot, like Google is. It generates speculation, excites potential customers, and probably even reveals some good future product ideas in the process! I've never seen rumours subtract from the effectiveness of a Google product launch, and I see no reason why it should be any different for Apple.
They're killing off an opportunity that any other company would pay millions of dollars for.
Attacking someone for their laptop isn't really any different than attacking them for anything else. This isn't new. Whenever you reveal in public something of particular worth, there's a possibility that some moron is going to attack you in the hopes of stealing it from you.
Yet I can't even ask them to just not put Windows on my laptop when ordering it from them. The fact that they offer it on a small few servers isn't really relevant when they force customers into Windows on 99% of their computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the correction.
Indeed, it requires users to invest their complete trust in a few large companies. Hopefully the entire ploy will be fended off, but the DRM companies seem to have got a good start with iTunes. Maybe more people will realise the problems with DRM when the iPod is less popular and their iTunes music libraries won't play on their new portable music player...
If there is a single DRM system, who decides who is "in it" and who is "out of it"? You cannot simply allow anyone to write software (eg. media player software) for DRM content because as soon as someone obtains access to the raw data (necessary for playback of music/video, in the absence of DRM-compatible hardware) they can just write that raw data to a non-DRM file, and all of a sudden the DRM isn't very useful because everyone can convert their files to unrestricted formats with this software.
You might say "okay, well, what if there is DRM-compatible hardware?"
In the case of DRM-compatible hardware (aka "Trusted Computing" hardware) you have the same problem. Who are you going to allow to create this hardware? If you allow anyone to do it, they can create hardware that circumvents the DRM system, resulting in media converted to unrestricted formats, or even users finding out the encryption keys embedded in the other DRM hardware.
Eventually you get into a situation where you can't let just anyone make hardware that is compatible with the DRM hardware, and you can't let just anyone write software that is compatible with your DRM system, or else the DRM system is broken. The side-effects of this scenario are extremely beneficial to established hardware and software companies, but make it practically impossible for new companies to create software or hardware that works with the DRM group of hardware and software. The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
That's true, but come on, it's going to be pretty fun to play with on desktop machines, too, isn't it? Imagine all the tricks you can play on computer-illiterate friends/family. One second it's Windows, the next it's MacOSX, then 10 seconds later it's Linux! Heads may explode.
Be happy. There's only one way this whole thing is going to end, and that's with the EU dropping or getting soft about the action against Microsoft. Some might say I'm being cynical, but does anyone seriously expect Microsoft to ever comply? The current fines don't seem to be enough, since Microsoft have chosen to just keep pretending they're fixing the problems instead of actually doing anything.
It might be next month, or it might be years from now, but the EU will eventually cave and give in to Microsoft.
It could just mean Ubuntu has less people looking for technical help.
You can't run a new kernel on any Linux distribution without booting the kernel again. The same goes for pretty much every operating system.
Why would anyone want to read a review of a game that they will never get a chance to play?
This review sounds a bit like a Windows user reviewing Linux. This Nokia 770 device runs a modified version of Debian, and is an ARM architecture. While Nokia couldn't bundle something like MPlayer with it, there is nothing stopping anyone from getting a copy of MPlayer and using it to play all of the different formats/codecs that the reviewer has had a whinge about it not being able to play.
For geeks, this seems to be a good device! For Rob Pegoraro, it sucks, because it won't run Windows Media Player. Poor baby.
I wonder what exactly is going through their minds when they decide to let people stream a show as much as they want, but not download it. It's almost as though they think that they can make money simply by inconveniencing their users.
The guy presenting this lecture has the right idea.
In short, he thinks small icon advertisements (eg. "drink coke") should be put in the corner of a TV show, and then the TV show should be freely distributed on bittorrent. Everyone wins.
What I don't understand is WHY Duke Nukem Forever had to take so long. In the same time that it has taken to do DNF, 3D Realms has shipped several other decent games, for example, Max Payne and Max Payne 2. I understand that these games would have been developed by separate teams within 3D Realms, but why did they have the wrong team working on their BIG game? They could have shipped at least 3 Duke Nukem games in the time it has taken to do DNF. No one expects a Duke game to be the best game ever. It's supposed to be some quick fun.
They're being penalised because they were *successful* in breaking the law.
I was joking. They'll always appeal, unless they settle.
Yes, but as I pointed out, that requires special hardware. Without special hardware, in a completely GPL'ed environment, there doesn't seem to be any way to implement DRM.
I just can't believe they appealed...
Wake up. No one uses Real. A few (not many) people did in the 1990s, but the 1990s were more than 6 years ago.
How do you write GPL'ed DRM? At some point, the GPL'ed player will get its hands on pixel data to write it to the screen. Anyone could modify that part of the program to simply save the data.
It seems to me that the only way GPL'ed programs could cooperate with DRM is if they are not the parts that are doing the decryption, and instead some proprietary hardware or software is doing the final stages of playback, dealing with the raw data. This seems to be the idea behind "Trusted Computing".
Yeah, exactly.
I'm sorry, Real. It sounds like you were threatening us, but we know you meant to beg.
This whole situation is a bit like someone unarmed threatening someone with a gun. You don't just go up to a guy with a gun and say "hands up".
Real need to play catch-up. They don't have any guns. They *might* have 10 years ago... maybe.
Exactly. I think my favourite quote from the article has to be from the FSF guy. I think he's trying to tell Real something...
... although I think we already have plenty of Real alternatives, so Real can go play with their DRM in their own little corner. Bye, Real.
The sooner we bury the foolish notion of putting each and every use of a computer under control of the media industry, the sooner we can start looking for real alternatives.
Ditch DRM or die.
It's already been done before.
Ignoring whether or not it is legal, and whether or not it should be legal, it seems to me as though Apple are doing something stupid, here.
Whenever something is brewing from Google, many rumours fly around, and lots of buzz is generated. Very often, one of the rumours is the real product, but lots of buzz is generated because no one really knows for sure what is coming. It seems Apple are naturally attaining the same position as Google - lots of buzz is being generated about Apple products. That is, until Apple sue everyone who published the rumour that turned out to be correct.
Apple are morons for doing this. They should be slowly stirring the pot, like Google is. It generates speculation, excites potential customers, and probably even reveals some good future product ideas in the process! I've never seen rumours subtract from the effectiveness of a Google product launch, and I see no reason why it should be any different for Apple.
They're killing off an opportunity that any other company would pay millions of dollars for.
Attacking someone for their laptop isn't really any different than attacking them for anything else. This isn't new. Whenever you reveal in public something of particular worth, there's a possibility that some moron is going to attack you in the hopes of stealing it from you.
Yet I can't even ask them to just not put Windows on my laptop when ordering it from them. The fact that they offer it on a small few servers isn't really relevant when they force customers into Windows on 99% of their computers.