Open-Source DRM Ready To Take On Big Guns 520
Barence writes "An open-source digital rights management (DRM) scheme says it's ready to supplant Apple and Microsoft as the world's leading copy protection solution. Marlin, which is backed by companies such as Sony and Samsung, has just announced a new partner program that aims to drive the DRM system into more consumer devices. 'It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,' Talal Shamoon told PC Pro. 'It allows you to protect and share content in the home, in a way that people own the content, not the devices.' When asked about the biggest problem of DRM — that customers hate it — he argued that 'the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. Make DRM invisible and people will use it.'"
Invisible DRM is no DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not DRM restricts what you can do with your files. When you try to do something the copyright holders have forbidden, even the best DRM system will be plenty visible.
Impossible (Score:4, Insightful)
You can never make DRM invisible, since people are illegally sharing video and music files all the time today. If the point of DRM is to protect the content from being pirated, making it invisible to users will completely nullify its' original intent.
There's only one way to make DRM really invisible (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's by not having it at all.
I don't buy products with DRM, no matter how much they've tried to make it non-intrusive for me.
And backed by Sony? That puts it on my personal blacklist right away.
Sense, it makes none! (Score:5, Insightful)
...allowing users to share content between any Marlin-enabled device in the home rather than on specific machines. "It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage,"
So long as Marlin stays in business, and every device you want your music on is a Marlin device. So, if Marlin goes under and your computer crashes, you're out of luck?
Invisible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, the implementation details would be interesting. How quickly will this be broken? Probably before it ever gets popular.
What DRM has to do. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It can never deprive me of my media.
2. It can not restrict what devices I use my media on.
3. It can not restrict the storage format of the media.
In other words it is impossible.
Heck I do believe that copyright infringement is wrong. I just refuse to pay the price for others breaking the law.
But how does it work? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article doesn't seem to be very clear.
Will this mean I'll have to buy a new TV set, a new stereo receiver, a new DVD player, a new Cellphone, a new car stereo and reconfigure all of my PCs to be "Merlin enabled"?
Probably not, since whenever someone claims it will be "more difficult to circumvent then current DRM schemes", that seems to be a challenge to some of the more clever programmers to break it.
Re:Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they'll be happy if it's invisible to the people who have bought the content and are playing by their rules.
The ones who are sharing files on the internet .. they'd like to stop and have the DRM be anything but invisible.
Cheers
Some would disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
One could make the argument that DRM, by its very nature, holds consumers hostage.
Also, I wonder how many slashdotters will be won over by the fact that this implementation is open-source. I'm sure it might make some feel warm and fuzzy inside, but not me.
The biggest problem with DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
"It works in a way that doesn't hold consumers hostage"
But that's the point of DRM - the content distributor gets to decide what happens to the content, not the consumer. Your purchased content is held hostage to the whims of the distributor. That's the point of DRM.
For an encore this guy will sell airplanes without wings that keep you safely on the ground, bladless knifes without handles, and a bucket of jumbo shrimp.
OK, please 'splain this to me . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Same Issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
"With Marlin, any device that runs Marlin can run content on the home domain," he adds. "It's a level playing field [for manufacturers] - they don't have to go up to Redmond with a begging bowl or suck up to Steve Jobs."
So, open source DRM that works well (only) with other hardware also running the same DRM? Don't we already have that? How is this new, or better? The only thing I can see is that, vis-a-vis it being open source, it could be circumvented easier.
not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not quite right. Yes, the biggest problem with DRM is people have implemented it badly. The solution, though, is to make DRM out in the forefront of the feature list and make the DRM HELPFUL and CONVENIENT to users. Making it invisible will show that the companies are trying to hide something. Steam is always brought up as an example of good DRM. People know there's DRM on it but nobody minds because it's actually useful and makes it easy to transfer the games you've bought over to other computers quicker and easier than if you had an actual disk. Make is useful and people will use it.
Re:Invisibility (re)defined (Score:5, Insightful)
Not "people who aren't breaking the law", but people "who aren't doing what we don't want them to do". Not the same thing at all.
Most DRM schemes are trying to put themselves above law and morality then imply that they are simply enforcing that. But law and morality are more complex than any computer is currently able to understand and enforce.
Re:Invisibile (Score:4, Insightful)
No, plenty of people who aren't pirates complain, in my case it's a self fulfilling prophesy.
I didn't use to pirate, but then they took away all are consumer protections and rights.
When I can return a game I don't like, or resell it, or apply fair use I'll stop.
Now if I like a game or music I pirate, I buy it.
Re:It's possible that I'm being extremely stupid h (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't open-sourcing a DRM implementation make it extraordinarily easy to circumvent?
Very true. I fully expect "Tivoization" where only officially signed binaries implementing the DRM will run on equipped devices, though.
Never limit sharing. (Score:0, Insightful)
I live in a world without restrictions and that's the way it should be. No new restriction or means of delivering industry PR to me is a "step forward". US copyright was not made to prevent, "unauthorized reproductions" it was made to maximize the public domain and advance the state of the art. It was supposed to be temporary and it was always considered an evil exclusive franchise. I do not want devices that refuse help and information from my neighbors so that big publishers can keep revenues based on obsolete business models and technology. You are asking me to refuse to help my neighbors when they ask, that's wrong.
Re:How it's theoretically different (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds great... but I have trouble imagining a DRM system that could actually make the distinctions you mention (given that we haven't quite solved that whole artificial intelligence problem).
For instance, the average person (as you mention) is going to want to be able to copy a song to their spouse's computer over the LAN. But how exactly does the DRM recognize the difference between a copy to the spouse's computer, a copy to a friend's computer, a copy to your work computer, a copy to a coworker's computer, a copy to a stranger's computer, or a copy to a redistribution server?
The only way I can think is with encrypted content, and then by defining "permission zones" or somesuch, where various devices get authorized as part of a zone, with restrictions on how many devices can be registered in a zone at a time (so that you can't add your closest 30,000 P2P friends into your zone). But managing these zones isn't going to be invisible. You'll be adding new devices as they are purchased, removing old devices as they are sold/discarded (do you have to prove you've erased the previously authorized content?), flashing firmware to re-authorize devices (because keys will have been revoked), using a restricted set of software (that is able to understand the DRM), waiting for network connections to be available (because it's been too long since the last time the device phoned-home), and so on. The user will notice.
I don't think there is any scheme that is sufficiently permissive that users will never notice it, yet sufficiently restrictive to actually put a dent in the "really bad copying" (commercial redistribution, uploading to P2P networks, ...). And TFA does nothing to actually address this issue: how does the software differentiate between good copies and bad copies.
Answer: computers can't. Actually, given the confusion and disagreement around copyright law, evidently humans can't either.
Re:How it's theoretically different (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, see, I take issue with that statement. If that's true then it should apply to all IP, shouldn't it? That would include a printed book, too, shouldn't it? You're saying then that I can't loan a copy of a book I own to a friend or family member because it's copyright infringement. That's utter and complete bullshit. If I have physical media that I legally purchased, I should be able to loan that media out to whoever the hell I want to, and it's nobody's damned business.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:5, Insightful)
It dont matter. if I can play it I can rip it to a unencumbered format. all my Audible books are converted to mp3 the second I buy them.
DRM is the emperor standing naked in the forum. only the foolish believe it is pretty, useful and works. I guess it makes them feel safer, like a child hiding under the covers to be protected from the monsters.
To those with common sense and can actually see, DRM is useless, it's cracked moments after it is realeased and the worlds' 13-22 year olds have far more programming skill and resources than all the worlds companies combined.
Re:Invisible DRM is no DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open Source DRM would be cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Original source:
char* getData(
char* encryptedData = getDataFromSomewhere();
char* key = getKeyFromSomewhere();
if( key == NULL ) {
return NULL;
}
return decrypt( encryptedData, key );
}
The point is that the content is encrypted, and if you purchased the key you can get the data. Otherwise there's nothing you could do short of breaking the cipher, open source or not.
The whole thing about DRM is how to restrict the key to the people who have legal right to it. That's where having control over the platform begins to help, because you can hack it to not hide the key from you. Which is where Trusted (Trecherous) Computing comes into play: it holds the key in hardware, and tries to ensure that the software has not been tampered with before giving it away.
Because TC cannot know whether a modification is a hack to circumvent DRM or a genuine improvement, it stays on the "safe" side by diassallowing all modification. Hence hardware DRM is incompatible with free software, and software DRM is undefined in the context of free software. Which is why the term "open-source DRM" is an oxymoron.
P.S. How did you indent your code on Slashdot?
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Queue the anti-DRM utopians. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your repetition of the RIAA's propaganda and your unrelated rant on completely unrelated topics makes you a troll.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sense, it makes none! (Score:3, Insightful)
The bold-faced part of your quote is Marlin-enabled device, not just a "Marlin device." I think they're open-sourcing the DRM scheme because they want it on as many players (from different companies) as humanly possible.
Which leads to interesting problems. Will Marlin have the one and only licensing server? Could each studio run their own server to license their own content under this scheme? Could I run my own h4x0r sever to license everything to myself?
Ideally, this would be some kind of Steam/iTunes hybrid: download the music you bought as many times as you want on as many machines as you want. (You could look at the users with most machines activated to see who activated the entire internet.)
But, that's just a pipe dream and completely unrelated to what's in the article I haven't read (natch.)
It will also be an interesting test case of the music industry's pet theories (if it "works:")
If all 3 are true, and the music industry is "competitive," DRM would mean falling prices on song tracks. If this is implemented and we don't see falling music prices, then one, many, or all of these 4 assumptions have been demonstrated incorrect.
Re:Queue the anti-DRM utopians. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well holy shit, brilliant argument. Shit, I suppose a construction worker can go build porches on people's houses for free then hope they pay him some pittance! Maybe Adobe or Apple should follow this path to riches and make all their software free with "Donate Here" buttons, I'm sure they'll recoup the cost of development.
Your repetition of Slashdot's tired propaganda and your overall indistinguishability from a puckered asshole make you a douchebag.
Seriously, did you just use the "they shouldn't be in it for the money if they're any good anyway" argument? What a jackass.
Well Put (Score:4, Insightful)
These are exactly the issues:
(1) It should never be possible for me to lose access to media I have paid for, period. Perhaps this could be solved with a consumer rights law and enforced key escrow for media.
(2) I should be able to play any media on any device I own which supports playing the underlying media. I should be able to convert between media types (ie, aac->mp3) for the purposes of using a media type on another device.
(3) I should be able to make and keep backups on any media. I should be able to restore out of backup onto any device I own. There should not be onerous measures required to 'activate' my media on new devices (I'm looking at you, EA!)
Ultimately, this is why piracy is attractive - piracy gives you a "better" copy - a copy you can use anywhere and move anywhere.
Re:Invisibility (re)defined (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it the same? They licensed their works to you under certain restrictions. Using the works outside those restrictions is not allowed under any license you have acquired, which makes it IP infringement, and therefore illegal.
So yeah, it -is- the same. If you don't like that, work to fix the laws.
Note that I made no moral or ethical judgements here. It is simply fact.
Re:How it's theoretically different (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, and this is completely different from a physical object like a book. The problem is trying to apply an economic model to a situation where it doesn't apply. Prices of physical objects are more or less determined by supply and demand. For this to work the object in question has to be scarce. Digital data isn't. Once it's created, there is an endless supply of it. Supply and demand doesn't work here. Trying to create artificial scarcity through DRM is solving the wrong problem. Don't try to make a product fit your business model, adapt your business model to the actual product.
Even worse, in trying to make the 'new' work exactly like the old they are actually trying to destroy some of the properties that make the 'new' more exiting and desirable.
Re:Never limit sharing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Preventing unauthorised reproductions is the mechanism by which the public domain is enhanced. Without control over reproduction (be it legal or technical) copyright doesn't provide any incentive to create. Without the exclusive right to reproduce copyright simply cannot exist. That's the price we pay to encourage artists, authors and so on to do their thing.
I agree that current copyright law is too extensive in duration and fair dealing / fair use rights can too easily be trampled by DRM, but if you allow any and all reproductions you would destroy copyright, not improve it.
But if you do want to rent. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate licensing. It's too much like renting. I want to OWN the device, program, song, whatever; not rent it.
Exactly, if I buy something then it is mine for personal use and I will not tolerate any DRM whatsoever. And when it comes to music I want to own it. However, there are somethings which I don't mind renting because they only have limited replay value anyway. DRM allows the concept of renting to be extended into the digital realm where things are easily copied, and can create some nice business models that wold not be financially viable otherwise.
It seems like most of the focus right now is on on-demand streaming of videos, which can be obfuscated to discourage most people from recording, but it has it's problems. For one, the bandwidth for high quality video really isn't there yet, and it would creates huge peaks in demand during prime-time if it ever became widespread. By using DRM'd downloads rather than streaming content, distributors and ISPs benifit by allowing downloads to be more spread-out and even intentionally scheduled during low usage hours if it's automated (using a Netflix queue model). Furthermore, not all places have fast internet connections, like subways, cars and airplanes. Being able to sync the movie to a portable device really makes the system more useful to customers. The only problem I have with existing services like this is that they are tied to specific devices, like the rentals on iTMS can only be used with Apple computers and devices. An "open" DRM system like is being proposed here would fix that.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that may be true, but the license seems to be perpetual and non-revokable. Or, more like ownership.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:3, Insightful)
A rebellious reporter releases non-government-approved-news. The license gets revoked, now you can't play it back, even though you recorded it.
A corporation is engaging in illegal activities that place the public at risk. Someone leaks the documentation. The license gets revoked, now you can't look at the documentation.
A hospital is using proprietary software that uses DRM and phones home. Through error, the licenses don't get renewed. Or, the vendor demands a larger amount of money, and they can't pay it, and they can't move off to another software package because everything is locked up in the vendors software. Suddenly, the whole hospital shuts down. You die in the waiting room.
Who really gives a flying fuck about music and movies? People who think this is about protecting Britney Spears from Bluebeard the Pirate are missing the point....
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Using DRM to enforce copyright is the equivalent of having cops watch how much fuel you put in your car's tank, and checking your mileage after a journey, to make sure you don't speed. It's simply invasive, untrusting, and unnecessary for adults, and wrong, given that the assumptions are flawed. This is ESPECIALLY true, given the fact that we actually have a right to change the speed limit, if the majority of us decide to, or to copy things that were previously not copied, if the majority of us decide to.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a bit unfair to the DRM creators. Cracking DRM isn't a competition between the skills of the designers of the scheme and the skills of the crackers of the scheme. It's a test of the skills of the crackers of the scheme against the already-written big fat stationary target of the scheme itself. To use a non-car analogy, it's a one-round game of hide-and-seek where the location of the hidden object (often an encryption key) is both fixed and extremely constrained.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't one of the greatest benefits of open source, the hordes of community developers ready to monkey around with the code for free/cheap?
What self-respecting coder would contribute to this project, if not only to create backdoors to it?
This entire thing seems more than pointless to me
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:3, Insightful)
We'd be missing the point if DRM was primarily (or even AT ALL) used as a censorship tool currently. But it's not. Partly because a rebellious reporter would presumably have enough sense to release the report in a format not immediately susceptible to DRM takedown. And in your second example... un-DRMing the document is the FIRST NECESSARY STEP in leaking the DRM'd document. Otherwise, it won't be readable by unauthorized computers. Like, say, everyone you want to read it.
Hospitals with licensed programs are an issue... but not in this way. Not a single program vital to the functioning of a hospital just hard shuts down when the license expires. The issue is that the hospital stops getting updates, stops being able to get support for maintenance issues, etc.
People give a fuck about music and movies because, like it or not, entertainment is an important part of human life. Reading, watching movies and television, etc. are part of our engagement with our own and other cultures. And documentaries exist. Humor with political or philosophical elements exists.
Also... frankly, this IS about piracy. It isn't actually about censorship or corporate whistleblowing or shutting down hospitals; it's about corporations trying to cripple potential uses of media in order to try and force pirates through their media channels. It's about entertainment revenue, deal with it.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:4, Insightful)
This also ensures that the lifespan of media is temporary, rather than enduring. In a weird way, artists seeking to use DRM cash in on their work today are ensuring their relative anonymity tomorrow, when no one can find a playable copy of that old song they used to love so much as a kid back in '08.
I tend to think of it as ensuring repeated sales of their art throughout their lifetimes.
For a while there, ensuring this was as easy as making sure that your music was released on the format du jour. Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs.... With the advent of digital music sans a physical medium, this trend of rebuying all of your albums is at risk. Suddenly, you're faced with customers never having to rebuy the White album, and you see your sustained profits going down the tubes.
DRM solves that. Now, rather than coming out with a new format every few years, you just have to come up with a new DRM scheme and turn off the old servers. Because the devices playing the music are somewhat general purpose, it's easy to move quickly--you don't have to worry about market penetration for the players, because it's just a free software update away.
Re:How it's theoretically different (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference between loaning a book and "loaning" an MP3 is that once you'd "loaned" your buddy a song, he has complete access to it whenever he wants. More importantly, he has complete parallel access to it with you. Only one instance of the song was paid for, yet two people are able to enjoy its use at any time, perhaps simultaneously.
Photocopier.
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How can it be both effective and invisible? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Durr, uhh, aliens come to earth and want to watch Seinfeld episodes but can't because it's DRM'd! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you corporatist scum!". Lol at myself.
Re:Well Put (Score:2, Insightful)
Ultimately, this is why piracy is attractive - piracy gives you a "better" copy - a copy you can use anywhere and move anywhere.
This point deserves emphasis. Historically, pirated CDs, disks, and video tapes have been of lower overall quality than their legal commercial counterparts, a fact that provided some impetus for people to fork over the dough for a copy guaranteed to have decent quality. But the situation has changed: it is now the case that pirated copies are of both higher quality (due to the lack of DRM) and easier to obtain through downloading. While Amazon's selection isn't all-inclusive due to lack of licensing agreements with a few labels, TPB comes damn close to having everything.
So other than personal honesty and the potential barrier provided by a lack of technical knowledge, what motivation exists for an average person to buy music legally, subjecting themselves to DRM or a limited selection, instead of simply downloading the file from one of the many file-sharing services?
DRM is not the solution to piracy. The only way to substantially curb piracy is to follow these guidelines:
I don't comment very much, and this topic has been repeatedly beaten to death by the Slashdot community, but sheesh. I just don't understand why media industries insist on pissing off the customers that actually pay for their products while doing nothing at all to inhibit the actual pirates. It's ridiculous.
The final quote without the corperate PR revision (Score:3, Insightful)
Make abuse of IP law invisible, and people will tolerate it.