Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Privacy Technology

The Choice Between DRM and Security 292

Posted by Zonk from the no-choice-at-all dept.
gormanly writes "Victor Yodaiken has an article up on Groklaw in which he discusses how DRM may decrease security and reliability. He raises several questions that the developers of DRM technologies ought to answer - because not all computers are merely personal entertainment systems for 'content' consumers." From the article: "Sony BMG put DRM software onto CDs that broke the basic system security and made the entire system slower and less reliable. Imagine that your children put such a CD on your computer and opened an avenue for hackers to make copies of your business memos and personal email ... We are entering the era of ubiquitous and safety critical computing, but the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers. This belief is convenient, because creating DRM mechanisms that respect security, safety, and reliability concerns is going to be an expensive and complex engineering task."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Choice Between DRM and Security More

The Choice Between DRM and Security

Comments Filter:
  • You know, for a while there, I really thought David Bowie had something in a 2002 New York Times article where he speculated on the future of music and its copyrights:
    'The absolute transformation of everything we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years,' he wrote, 'and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing. Music, itself, is going to become like running water or electricity...'
    Now, this DRM business seems to be just a sign that not only will music copyrights stand but we are also going to lose some of our rights as to what happens when we attempt to merely listen to a purchased recording.

    Perhaps these new DRM actions overstep the bounds of consumer rights so far that it ensures copyrights will always be in place? What I mean is that the focus and question seems to not be, "What are the artist's musician's rights?" so much as "What rights do we even have as consumers?"

    Have I angered the mod gods with my slightly offtopic (and idealistic) Bowie quote? :-) I hope not.
    • Have I angered the mod gods with my slightly offtopic (and idealistic) Bowie quote? :-) I hope not.

      Probably not. You probably just reminded them of the babe.

    • Now, this DRM business seems to be just a sign that not only will music copyrights stand but we are also going to lose some of our rights as to what happens when we attempt to merely listen to a purchased recording.

      I disagree... especially with crusaders like the Bearded RMS [slashdot.org] rallying troops against the encroaching evil DRM-Empire.

    • Re:The Rights of Artists Vs the Rights of Listener (Score:5, Interesting)

      by VitaminB52 ( 550802 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:15AM (#14463453) Journal
      Do I have the right to buy DRMed music as a gift for somebody else?

      When I buy DRMed music by downloading it to my own PC, then (some implementations of) DRM will bind the downloaded music to a licencing key on my machine. So if the bought and downloaded music is intended as a birthday gift for someone else, how will he/she be able to play it on his/her PC? Or how will I be able to play it on my laptop, if I downloaded it on my desktop?

      While DRM is intended to increase music sales, the implementation of DRM technologies that binds a DRMed tracks to a license key on the downloading PC will prevent this track from playing on other (peoples) machines. So buying DRMed music as a gift for someone else won't be an option if DRM prevents playback on other PC - which isn't very good for music sales.

      Rootkits and security holes are just one kinf of pain that comes with DRM. The inability to playback bought tracks on the OS of your choice (say Linux), or a different PC than the one used for the download, is another pain.

      • I'm not a fan of DRM.

        But to address some of your points:

        So if the bought and downloaded music is intended as a birthday gift for someone else, how will he/she be able to play it on his/her PC?
        iTunes, and I would guess other music downloading services, offer gift certificates that you can give instead of the actual music itself. Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.

        Or how will I be able to play it on my laptop, if I downloaded it on my desktop?
        Once again, iTunes, and I would as
        • Once again, iTunes, and I would assume other services might do the same, allow you to play a downloaded song on up to 5 different computers, as long as iTunes (or whatever software) is registered to you.

          Sounds like a good deal, but it isn't. I have three computers right now. My old 500 MHz / 64 MB should have been replaced a year ago, when I replace it the iTunes 'machine-count' would hit 4.
          And when I replace my 3 years old laptop, then the iTunes machine-count will hit 5.

          So when I replace my other de

          • You imply that as you replace your computers the available 'authorizations' are reduced, but you can 'deauthorize' a computer at any time. So old replaced computers aren't counted against you.

            This is only a problem if you want to have access on more than 5 computers simultaneously. It could happen, but a lot less likely- I have 6 computers that get regular use, but only 3 that I listen to music with.

            Oh- I'm not for DRM, just saying that the iTunes implementation isn't that restrictive (and its easily broken
          • I'm pretty sure iTunes has a mechanism to "delicense" a computer that you no longer want regestered to you. However, the delicensing is done from the computer you want delicensed. This means if the computer crashes/breaks unexpectedly you could be out of luck.
            • Simply deauthorise all your computers [apple.com] at once from one of the other 4 accounts:

              If you have authorized five computers, a button labeled "Deauthorize All" will appear in your Account Information screen. This button will deauthorize all computers associated with your account. You can then reauthorize up to 5 computers. Note: You can only use this feature once a year.

              Of course, if you suddenly lose access to all your accounts, contact Apple.

        • Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.

          An important correction: you can currently download the music and make an audio CD to give. You don't know that will be true in the future, and if the RIAA gets their way, it probably won't be.

        • Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.

          I don't know about you, but most people would consider a BURNED CD somewhat of a cheap gift, regardless of if you paid for the tracks or not ;).
      • For example, Apple iTunes already lets you send a song as a gift. Any future DRM-system is sure to have implemented gift cards. And in the case of something like (the new) Napster, well, there's no "giving out" songs as a gift. For any more complex matters (grandma doesn't know how to download), the companies will probably not care.
      • The only way DRM will increase music sales is by more or less guaranteeing the producer of the music 100% license enforcement on all computers that will play the music. This makes for a better environment to sell music in, but a worse one to buy it in. So I predict that if the DRM is very hard to crack, people will do a few things:

        1. Download illegal copies that have been cracked. We're already starting to see this.

        2. Buy fewer CDs if they don't work "correctly," i.e. you can't transfer them to an iPod or r
      • Despite being an apple fanboy myself, sometimes there IS a desire to give a friend specifically selected tracks rather than a gift certificate. A gift certificate has no connection to the giver when executed (heh, that could be read funny).

        For the other camp, iTunes computers can be de-authorized. You can use 5 computers at once, provided something unheard of like a hard drive dying doesn't happen.

        DRM doesn't work for consumers. The only question is if the not working will be annoying enough for consumer
    • David is right, but dinosaurs do not die prettily. There is no obvious path from here to a world where all digital data is freely copyable AND people are compensated for producing it.
      -russ

    • Re:The Rights of Artists Vs the Rights of Listener (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:27AM (#14463568) Journal
      As a customer (please - if you think of yourself as a giant sucking mouth consumer, this is what happens) you are king. Don't want DRM music? Don't buy it. There are places where you can buy music without DRM (and some of these places give the option of downloading in lossless formats).

      When that executive of a recording industry association in Europe (I forget which one) said that 'being able to listen to the music you bought off us on a Mac or Linux is a privilege and not a right' he was entirely wrong. No, his association companies receiving my money is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege I can revoke at any time.

      If you don't like DRM, be a customer not a consumer - revoke the offending company's privileges and buy your music elsewhere. Musical ability is extremely common in the human population, and the internet has made it easier than ever for people to distribute their work. What the record companies put out is in the main the cult of the personality.

    • Music, itself, is going to become like running water or electricity...' - Maybe David Bowie is so cool, that for him the water in the tap and the electricity in the wiring is free, but the rest of us have to pay for it to use it.
    • I don't hold my breath for anything good to come out of any of this. The average IQ is set at 100 - the subset of consumers, as a whole, probably skew the average far downwards.

      The civilization that gave billions of dollarsto the likes of Brittney Spears, Saturday Night Live's lip-synch girl and Barbara Streisand doesn't give a rat's sphincter about personal rights, liberties or freedom.

  • Once something is digital, it flows free (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:01AM (#14463324)
    Here are some issues:

    1. One goal of DRM developers is to prevent "digitization".

    That first point sums it up. How do you stop something in its raw digital format from being copied?
    You can't, David Bowie is correct in his assumption about music flowing freely like electricity or water.

    Maybe one possible scenario is that a digital tax will be added to all machines that can play digitized music/games/etc. in order to make up for the lost revenue.
    Another idea is to package the music/software/game with something that is above and beyond what you would normally get from just a plain disc. Add something to the packaging that makes people want to buy the product and not just download it. You could add writing, pictures or objects that people could enjoy that can't be easily reproduced with a copy program.
    • Or how bout this model all music will be free to copy and do with how you please for individuals. Commercial use will still cost, IE you put the music on a TV show or use it to sell something you're going to pay. Concerts will be the major form of income though but all in all you won't see many mega millionare musicians. Musicians will make about as much money as writers, good ones will live well not so good ones will have to find another job.
      • You're right, I believe alot of this has to do with the expectation of profits and the greed motive behind them.
      • Actually, an aspiring musician I once talked to who was friends the guys of Smashing Pumpkins (the chain broke down into: a friend of a friend of a friend, but who's counting), told me that artists don't really make much money from their CD's because the record companies take most of it. The concert tours are what make them rich. Consider who the wealthiest artists are. It's the ones with really successful concerts like U2, Paul McCartney, etc. The ones who rise and fade, like Paula Abdul, make a bit of mon
    • that a digital tax will be added to all machines that can play digitized music/games/etc. in order to make up for the lost revenue
      And how the hell do you quantify this lost revenue?? Company A: "hmmm, we signed up this crap music act, processed the shit out of their performance and spent a gazillion dollars marketing it trying to make out gullible target market, i mean valuable consumers, go out and buy it. But nobody is buying it because they're all pirating it. So please can you give us a gazillion dol
    • Maybe one possible scenario is that a digital tax will be added to all machines that can play digitized music/games/etc. in order to make up for the lost revenue.

      The problem with that though is exactly what the author is talking about. Just because a machine has the potential to make copies of digital media doesn't mean it will ever be used in that fashion due to the environment it's used in. Most of the PCs I see around here in the office are equipped with either CD or DVD based drives. The only time mo
    • Maybe one possible scenario is that a digital tax will be added to all machines that can play digitized music/games/etc. in order to make up for the lost revenue.

      This stupid and bad idea is already law in some countries - e.g. The Netherlands and Germany.
      If I buy recordable/rewritable media in The Netherlands, then I pay some extra tax to 'compensate the record industry for lost sales due to illegal copying'. So every recordable/rewritable media I use will bring the record industry some extra much neede

    • The digital tax is a bad idea. They do that in Canada with all recordable CDs. But I use almost all of my CD-Rs to burn things like data backups and Linux ISOs- things that have nothing to do with music. I am not going to pay a tax for something that I am not using. The tax is a flawed idea because it assumes that all burnable CDs are being used to copy or burn music illegally, which is not true.

  • Responsible software? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:03AM (#14463345)
    Since when have software developers accepted any responsibility whatsoever for their own software, let alone the effect it has on peripheral applications or the OS at large? Ever read all the disclaimers in the typical EULA? What makes anyone think that DRM software is going to be any different?
    • Ever read all the disclaimers in the typical EULA?

      You make a good point. I wanted to point out that the Sony DRM Rootkit installed itself on auto-run before you even saw the EULA.
    • Remember that the DRM software on the Sony (and other) CDs installed itself *silently* - there was no "do you want to install this evil software?" prompt.
    • I sure hope that if the TPM/DRM stuff gets passed, those who benefit from it (and it isn't the consumers) have to take responsibility for it as otherwise it would NEVER be on the users' machines in the first place. It is ridiculous to think that all of the consequences and none of the benefits should fall on the user. I'd think the first time that got challenged in court, it would fall down like a paper wall getting blasted with a fire hose.

      Otherwise I am going to steal your new plasma TV from your house an

  • One last Rally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:03AM (#14463347)
    DRM is a nice keyword to be used to describe something in both a negative and positive light.

    The media industry is about to die the same way the blacksmithing and wagonsmithing (?) industries died with the advent of the car.

    They're desperately trying to hold on and to make themselves work in the new order, but it's just not happening. The cat's out of the bag. The genie's out of the bottle, etc.

    Some companies are very openly embracing the new reality and adjusting their business models-- Apple, for example. They use DRM as a watch word to make the others feel safe and secure as Apple slowly digests their dying corpus. But Apple *IS* digesting them.

    DRM is the media industry's last rally before the old dinosaurs die and the young, swift mammals take over. It sounds bad, but will never be anything but a minor annoyance.
    • I believe you call someone who makes wagons a "cartwright". "Smith" tends to refer to someone who works in metal, e.g. blacksmith, gunsmith, goldsmith, silversmith.

    • Re:One last Rally (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ortholattice ( 175065 )
      You know how Amazon is putting "CONTENT PROTECTED" in big letters above DRM'ed CDs? Now I'm no marketing genius, but I'd bet this designation cuts into the sales of such CDs. (I for one would never buy such a CD.) In this case, a DRM-free CD is a definite selling point, at least for me. An amusing experiment would be for Amazon to offer DRM'ed and DRM-free versions of the same CD at the same price, or even a premium for the DRM-free version, and see which sells the most.

      Currently there is no "CONTENT

  • No! Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) * on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:04AM (#14463348) Journal
    It is not going to be a "complicated" engineering task.

    It is an "impossible" engineering task.

    Repeat after me.

    There is no such thing as DRM.

    There is no such thing as DRM!

    There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one. You can cripple your products, annoy or even imprison your customers, and shut out OS/FS competitors from compatibility, but you cannot "manage" your "digital restrictions." Not in this universe.

    It's a jail. Things only need to escape once. Once they escape they're on the internet in open formats and the game is over.

    • Re:No! Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)

      by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:16AM (#14463456) Journal
      Of course the next step in DRM will be special booths that you have to be strip searched to enter, then and only then will you be allowed to listen to content on DRM protected devices. You will be searched again while leaving the booths. :) Then and only then will DRM work, and damnit someone will find a way around it.
      • Of course the next step in DRM will be special booths that you have to be strip searched to enter...

        Sign me up for the DRM'd pr0n!
      • I know you're being funny, but I can see the government going quite far along that road before the prohibition-style repercussions set in.

        The black market for media will become very prevalent and profitable and the rest will be a repetition of history.

        Trust your consumers, educate your consumers, but do not abuse them.

      • Re:No! Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by david.given ( 6740 )
        Of course the next step in DRM will be special booths that you have to be strip searched to enter, then and only then will you be allowed to listen to content on DRM protected devices. You will be searched again while leaving the booths. :) Then and only then will DRM work, and damnit someone will find a way around it.

        Back in the days of Shakespeare, when copyright didn't really exist, there were people with trained memories who would go to the first night of one of his plays, make notes, and then later r

        • Fascinating. We can only speculate how much the progress of science and useful arts were set back by these blatant acts of copyright infringement. One wonders how many more plays Shakespeare would have been able to write, if only his income wasn't unjustly diverted by these pirates. :)

          • Re:No! Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The Conductor ( 758639 )
            Actually the reverse. The primary extant sources for the Shakespearean plays (the folios & quartos) were assembled by fan groups years afterwards and would have been copyright infringement by today's standards. If working DRM existed then, his plays would all have been lost. Maybe he coculd have written more, but, in the end, progress of the arts would have suffered a grievous loss.
      • No worries, i'm sure some brave people will sneak mini-recorders into the the booths hidden in their asses.

        A new meaning for "brown noise"???!
      • point an IR laser at the side of the listening booth, you should get a decent representation of the music being listened to transmitted through vibrations in the glass or objects inside the booth, use a few lasers at various frequencies and you should be able to get a clear enough copy of the sound that a computer could clean up any errors.
    • Sure you can.

      Only release the music to be listened to at predefined locations within your local mall. While nekid. And cavity searched.. ;-)
    • They don't even need to escape. The RIAA hasn't even figured out how to formulate the bars yet. They've got some shadowy concept-ideas but none of them have ever been legally tested (and I'd guess most people believe they're pretty flimsy anyway).

      Example: As I understand it, the music industry insists that "owning" a cd doesn't mean I actually own the music and can do what I want with it. "Ownership" of a cd merely gives me the license to listen to it. The media itself is functionally irrelevent, it's t
    • There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one.

      I agree with your position but I disagree with your reasoning. The failure of DRM is in that you have to give the consumer both the lock and the key. If you don't give them the key then they can't use it...ever!

      Plug the analog hole. Make circumvention illegal. Etc. Etc. All it is is restraining how the user can use the key. There's no way, in this case, to have your cake and eat it too.

      This ga

  • DRM is avoiding the underlying issue. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:07AM (#14463372) Homepage

    DRM is what the industry is using to avoid the real issue at hand. The real issue is that movie and music industry have become too greedy and see the consumer as a revenue source and not a customer. They have come to expect a certain amount of money without adapting to a changing marketplace. People expect movies and music to be of high quality and freely transferable to other devices like iPods. The industry won't except that because their business model has worked for decades without problems. With the growing digital media revolution, they have found it difficult to adapt, so out of fear and ignorance they have chosen draconian DRM measures to safeguard their empire instead of pleasing the paying consumer. While it may work in the short term, it is destined to fail in the long wrong because the consumer's dollar has the final say... I hope.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • Refreshingly naive...you fail to realize that the government trumps capitalist mechanisms, and that the government is run by and for people who only care about the consolidation of wealth and power. You may protest that we can "vote the bums out", but recent history would imply otherwise. DRM is here to stay, just like domestic spying, unwarranted searches, and torture.

      I figure it will take another Great Depression to cause a shakeup. The good news? It's coming.
      • I figure it will take another Great Depression to cause a shakeup. The good news? It's coming.

        correct me if i missed the meaning on something you said, but i doubt that there will be another great depression, barring some massive global catastrophe.. there has already been a greater stock crash in 1987 than there was in 1929. and i also believe that there was a even greater drop in the Dow Jones on September 17, 2001. the whole system is well set up now to prevent such a thing from occurring again.
    • May I respectfully disagree ? I think the situation is far worse than the one you describe. Basically, you're stating that the old economic model of entertainment industry is doomed because it can't cope with Internet. But it's in no way different than in old times, when you could copy whatever LP at hand on a tape ! And that didn't stop the old model from being profitable, last I checked.

      I personaly think that instead of being aslept, the industry did had a new model at hand for the internet since a very

  • It's really quite simple - virus scan! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maillemaker ( 924053 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:12AM (#14463419)
    If the various virus scanner companies can resist getting into bed with the guys foisting this DRM stuff on us, and make their virus scanning utilities detect this crap _like_any_other_virus_or_malware_, then it wouldn't be much of an issue.

    I know, I know - if the DRM wasn't there to begin with it wouldn't be an issue. But like virii and malware, it is probably here to stay. Just give me reliable tools to crush this stuff.

    Steve

  • There are no answers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thaerin ( 937575 )
    He raises several questions that the developers of DRM technologies ought to answer - because not all computers are merely personal entertainment systems for 'content' consumers."

    And how likely is it that they'll ever be forced to answer these questions? Considering the deep pockets of both the music and video industries and how much pull they have via their lobbyists, it's likely they'll never be pressed to answer these types of important questions. Without some more high profile issues like those witne

  • Why not use DRM for security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:13AM (#14463434)
    PC owners need to take control of their PC to secure the machine. If content owners can control what content buyers do with their data, then perhaps PC owners should exert similar control. Perhaps not every application on a PC should have the right to send any bit of data over a network. Preventing keyboard loggers, file snoopers, IM buddy list readers, etc. is effectively a type of DRM -- "sorry MalWare.exe, but only one copy of that SSN is allowed". As with P2P applications, DRM is just a tool that can be used for "evil" or "good". Perhaps PC owners can use that tool to secure their data and their machines.
    • Yadda yadda yadda....

      That's all fine and dandy as long as you know what goes on on a PC. 99.9% of all PC users do not. Why? They don't care, have no interest etc and that is how it should be. Why should a regular user have to have a Masters in computing in order to use it?

      It's like me and cars. I can fill gas and wiper fluid and a couple of other things, but that is all. I have no interest in what goes on under the hood, to me a car is a transportation vechilel, nothing more, nothing less. It's the same
    • You can't use DRM for security, because the whole system is designed around the premise that you are the threat.

      If you were the "owner," you'd have control of the keys stored on the computer. Instead, the hardware is very carefully designed to prefer total loss of those keys over letting you back up and restore them.

      • > You can't use DRM for security, because the whole system is designed around the premise that you are the threat.

        Bingo. You've gone straight to the heart of the issue.

        For security today, on most desktop machines, that premise matches reality. Most desktop machines are compromised Windows boxen. Most are run by people who will download and install hostile software. The problem of DRM is a lot like the problem of keeping transactions secure on a compromised box, and not just because both are impossible.

        T
    • That would be a good use of the technology, but it is sadly incompatible with the TPM standard. Why? Because then you could block all of the authentication used to verify your box is compliant and thus use a "hacked" box on the secure network. That would totally defeat the entire reason for TPM because you could defeat the copy protection.
  • I'm concerned about DRM as much as anyone here, possibly moreso because I work in an laptop-based educational environment and DRM is going to affect students in the classroom and when they're at home.

    On the other hand, if Microsoft is serious about security and the other OS platforms grow in popularity, people should eventually end up with just as many access rights as they need to function on their computer and no more. If a DRM like Sony's rootkit were to try to install itself, it would either fail or tr
    • "people should eventually end up with just as many access rights as they need to function on their computer and no more."

      Whoa whoa whoa! In which contexts are you looking at the situation? Sure, in an educational or corporate environment, limiting access is acceptable.

      But what about on personally owned machines? It's my box, I get full access rights, no questions about it.

  • DRM vs. other goals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sique ( 173459 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:17AM (#14463473) Homepage
    The main problem with DRM is that in current legislation with DMCA and related laws, DRM has the highest priority in computing. Basicly every computer task has to comply with DRM, or it is a "circumvention device". Security, Audition, Reliability... everything has to take second seat behind DRM. And only if something bad happens due to this priorising (like in the case of the Sony Rootkit), this rule gets questioned for that particular event.

    The most convincing argument the article brought was, what would happen if the 'analog hole' gets plugged, and every analog recording device has to comply with DRM. Imagine the bad boys robbing a store just taking a portable video player first and start playing a movie in front of the surveillance camera: According to the potential law the camera has to stop recording, otherwise it would record an illicit copy of the movie! But if surveillance cameras are taken out of the law, who hinders the bad boys to buy one and take it to the cinema to record the movie?

    DRM is not orthogonal to other computer tasks. It gets in the way of everything. It has to audit every piece of information moved. And it is not able to take in account the importance of the movement or the effects it has if it stops the movement of information. It can't decide from the context if it should shut down the task or let it run. It's all or nothing. If it encounters a trigger, it will shut down the task anyway, may the data stream be generated by the underage son trying to rip a CD or by the brake sensors telling the brake to stop the car immediately.
    • Basicly every computer task has to comply with DRM, or it is a "circumvention device". - no, not every computer. Only the new computers, new electronic devices, new analog devices. The old ones will die out eventually.

  • Freedom of Choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:18AM (#14463485) Journal

    In the end, it's not about DRM software, system security, greed or anything else. It boils down to this: am I free to do what I want? To listen to the music I want when I want, to watch the TV programs I want to watch, to download the internet content/software I want to have on my machine. To quote the phrase, "freedom isn't free," nor is it profitable.

    If "consumers" (and that word should become an epithet) are allowed to have true choice, free access to everything, they will choose the things they want. If the companies providing those things charge a minimal fee for the privilege, they will make money. The conflict arises because "consumers" want something for nothing and producers want more money than is reasonable for their products, beyond the mere expense of producing them.

    It's all going to come to a head eventually. Things can either be free or they can be metered, like electricity and water. And don't forget, the power company can cut you off at any time. Of course, if you're smart, you can generate you're own electricity. In the end it's a battle of wits between producers and consumers; I think it's safe to say the consumers hold the ultimate edge, for if they don't consume, producers will not have the resources to produce.

    • A nitpick: customers not consumers hold the edge. A consumer follows the herd. A customer on the other hand makes decisions. If the customer doesn't like DRM, they don't buy things that use the DRM they don't like. A consumer doesn't care, they just want to consume the shite marketed towards them.

      • For clarification purposes from Merriam-Webster [webster.com]:

        • consumer - Usage: often attributive: one that consumes : as a : one that utilizes economic goods
        • customer - 1 : one that purchases a commodity or service

        6 of one, a half dozen of the other. Semantics isn't my specialty and I try to keep my arguments in a simpler context. Either word will do, though "consumer" is usually linked with "producer", hence my choice. In the broader social context, you have a valid point.

  • Who here has just one computer? My kids each have their own (my daughter is building her third). Old machines get retired to guestroom use. I have two on a KVM, and a half dozen nearby. Of course, we're not all geeks, and some people have only one comp {shudder in Horror}.

    I don't like DRM. Not at all. They'll have to discount it heavily, or have some pretty compelling content (which is nowhere to be seen) before I buy. But it will probably be a dedicated DRM applicance, 'cuz there's no way to secure

    • But it will probably be a dedicated DRM applicance, 'cuz there's no way to secure a PC computer. None when the user has root and access to hardware.

      Unless you have a pretty impressive lab in your garage, capable of stripping an IC layer by layer and e-beaming the results to detect stored charges, you don't have access to the hardware. Next!

      They'll have to discount it heavily, or have some pretty compelling content (which is nowhere to be seen) before I buy.

      Hate to break the news, but it's in all o

    • You have an interesting point with the dedicated DRM appliance. I actually see the entertainment PCs and HTPCs becoming appliances like a cable box: a sealed box that you don't own and aren't to modify. You pay for access to the content like you do for cable TV or satellite- per month or possibly per-view and the content comes in through an encrypted channel like it does to the satellite or cable box. I don't have too big of a problem with that as I couldn't care less about one and would never get one. If p

  • Screw the poster (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Biff98 ( 633281 )
    I can't believe this. I never thought I'd see the day. Someone using the fact that Micros~1 writes a terribly insecure operating system to argue that DRM and IP is a bad idea.

    I'm not saying that enforcing IP rights on media files via proprietary software is a good idea.

    The fact that Windows' terrible security model makes it a trivial task for user-space programs to comprimise the security of a computer, doesn't mean DRM-enforcing techniques are a TERRIBLE IDEA.

    What a HORRIBLE, AWFUL scar on the front page

  • A new approach to intellectual property (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maximthemagnificent ( 847709 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:21AM (#14463514)
    Let's assume that safeguarding intellectual property is, in fact, impossible. Can we still come up with a system that rewards people for their efforts? I believe we can. Basically, an artist, programmer, or filmaker would give their product to a government agency (much like a national library) and that product would be available free to any citizen for the asking, except for the cost of manuals, etc. The artist would be paid a bountya ccording to how many people take delivery on their product, so he gets compensation. The revenue would come from the tax stream, again like libraries. Now before you start railing against creeping socialism, think this system through. Everyone would have the most productive, up-to-date software, older versions wouldn't need to be supported. Also, basically everybody indulges in one form of entertainment or another, so drawing from the tax base isn't unreasonable.
    • Well if we were all reasonable peole that's the sort of things we could work towards ;) But given human nature then here are just a couple of questions I just thought of:

      1) How would the tax be levied ? Some people might not "consume" ANY entertainment or software. Should they have to pay too ? Maybe you're thinking of taxing "any device capable of being used to view content" ? then what about people who are buying said devices to only view content they themselves have created ? (e.g. home camcorder mo
  • The problem with DRM is that it inherently disrupts proper operation of your computer. A general purpose computer cannot both stop you from playing digital data off media, and copying it. DRM is incompatible with reliability.
    -russ
  • It is ancient philosphical, not current engineering problem.

    Consider the universe (brahma) consists of three fundamental substances (gunas) in dynamic balance: energy (rajas), information (sattva) and entropy (tamas). Can you remove one of them (information in case of DRM) from any system without seriously disturbing the system structure?

    It is higly predictable what results can be achieved by limiting sattvic principle from human culture...

  • This kind of myopia is all too common (Score:3, Insightful)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:24AM (#14463537) Journal
    I installed Nokia's software for backing up the phone numbers in my 6800 phone to my hard drive via USB. The program also allows you to download games and ringtones into your phone. Imagine my disgust when I saw that the program wanted to load every time I started my machine. There was really no way to completely exit it. It also insisted on putting an icon in my system tray that couldn't be removed.

    ATTENTION NOKIA: YOUR PROGRAM IS FOR MY FREAKING PHONE YOU SELF-OBSESSED MORONS!!! Why the hell should it take up valuable resources and screen real estate ALL the time? Sheesh.
  • He raises several questions that the developers of DRM technologies ought to answer - because not all computers are merely personal entertainment systems for 'content' consumers.

    While I think that raising the DRM security issue is valid especially in light of the Sony issue, this particular point that I've quoted is likely to blow up on users because inevitably someone will ask "but why are you running music /media / games on critical machines or work machines or critical work machines anyway? Non-issue, j

  • Keep in mind that an essential requirement of both DRM and Government is that the master key be held by someone other than the nominal owner of the computer. Government can be bought off by including a built-in "back door" as with the late unlamented Clipper chip, but that's not enough for DRM.

    Trouble is, that's also going to play Hob with businesses' need for reliable backups. They need to be able to restore a secure system in case of failure, and don't want to have to prove to Intel (or whoever) that

  • "Impossible DRM" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Al Dimond ( 792444 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:30AM (#14463603) Journal
    I don't think it's impossible to create DRM that won't undermine your system; DRM acheived with encryption can effectively limit the reading of a file to one computer or to that computer and a handful of devices. The DRM would enable the computer to read the file, not prevent it from doing anything. It would "work" (in the sense of preventing unauthorized listening) on any computer, music player or toaster, but only "work" (in the sense of allowing authorized listening) on suppported systems.

    The real problem with, say, the Sony/Sunncomm DRM is that it's trying to prevent you from copying files that are written in an open format. Doing this means removing functionality from a system. Therefore the DRM must damage your system, but fortunately can only work on specific systems.

    The type of DRM I described in the first paragraph is what the record companies really want. And if there must be a DRM system, I'd really it rather be one that wasn't going to try to harm my computer.

    I guess the problem is that as long as the model persists in which albums are sold in physical form in stores and have to play on a variety of "consumer electronic" devices without hassle they will always have to be protected by the harmful type of DRM if they are to be protected. And yet this type of DRM is also doomed to failure (anything released on a CD that can be read in anything resembling a CD player will be on the Internet within a few days of its release, regardless of the DRM attached to it). It appears that DRM that degrades a CD's quality has been rejected, and we seem to be in the process of loudly rejecting DRM that tries to modify users' computers. I don't know if there are any more steps beyond creating a new encrypted music format and protecting the secret better than they did with DVDs.

    • Re:"Impossible DRM" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 )
      "I don't think it's impossible to create DRM that won't undermine your system"

      DRM undermines the system _by design_: its sole function is to prevent people from accessing data that the copyright owner refuses to let them access. It's impossible to do that effectively without 'undermining the system' by preventing the user from using it in the way they want to use it: to be effective DRM has to be built into the operating system at the very lowest level.

      It also opens up plenty of new opportunities for the 'b
  • It's simply MY security vs. THEIR security.

    And if it's a matter of using my own assets to enforce one or the other, I'll choose me, thank you very much.

  • The outcome is in out hands (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Saint37 ( 932002 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:34AM (#14463645)
    Perhaps the next generation of Disc technology whether it be blu ray or HD DVD will be the new battleground for DRM. The threat is that there are many people out there with more money than sense. They will buy it up because they are to lazy to care about the implications of rewarding companies that force DRM down your throat. Its the obligation of those in the know. Namely /. readers to inform others so that they can make a better decision.

    http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/ [stockmarketgarden.com]
    • get the word out among non-technical people, write to newspapers etc. tell people that blu-ray and HDDVD have a system that lets the publishers disable a movie or player after it has been purchased. warn people that it has a dangerous system where discs can force it to update. spread a little FUD too make it sound like you can get a virus on your bluray player from bad discs.

  • I don't think we will ever be free of DRM but then nor do I think DRM will ever be what the music industry wants. I suspect what we will end up with is the sort of DRM that we currently find on DVD which is good enough to stop casual copying. It might be possible to go one step further as is being tried with next gen DVD but much further than that and you are going to start to annoy a large portion of Jonny Sixpack users.

    IIRC HD-DVD has the ability to kill keys. I wonder how long it will be before human e

  • Format change (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevin.fowler ( 915964 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @10:41AM (#14463722) Homepage
    This is all about selling back catalogs in a format change. Record execs thought that moving to the digital age would mean buying Dark Side of the Moon in a 4th format.

    The music industry thrived on the big format changes from LP to tape, and from tape to CD. Now, CD can easily become the new format without having to go back and buy it.

    Their solution? Make the conversion cost you money. It's just the latest degradation of fair use.

  • Felten on CD copy protection and spyware (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrAtoz ( 58719 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @11:03AM (#14463938)
    Ed Felten's blog [freedom-to-tinker.com] had an excellent analysis [freedom-to-tinker.com] of why CD copy protection will inevitably lead to spyware. The crux of the matter, as Felten sees it:
    So if you're designing a CD DRM system based on active protection, you face two main technical problems:
    1. You have to get your software installed, even though the user doesn't want it.
    2. Once your software is installed, you have to keep it from being uninstalled, even though the user wants it gone.
    These are the same two technical problems that spyware designers face.
    He's had a lot to say about the Sony rootkit, all of it interesting.

  • Unrealistic expectations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stuffduff ( 681819 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @11:05AM (#14463960) Journal
    Let's take a look at rights management. When recordings were made on wax cylinders, there was little or no concern for what rights could and could not be protected. Granted you had to speak or sing in a stage voice to make any kind of decent impression on the wax, and that brought about a somewhat unique situation in that while everyone who used the technology could both make recordings and play back with the same device, it was practically useless for either copying or mass production.

    Next came 78's. These were cast in a mold and made of the miracle plastic bakelite. Since the recording machinery was expensive and complex, as was the disk manufacturing process, the door was opened to both rights management and mass production. Improvements in technology lead to the 45 and the 33 &1/3 LP & EP albums.

    While the technologies which used mechanical force were dominating the marketplace, a competing technology, based on magnetic recording also existed. Magnetic recording was less expensive, and much harder to mass-produce, but it was capable of making copies fairly easily. The new difficulty was that a small portion of the magnetic image was erased every time it was played.

    Finally the digital technology emerged as the primary vehicle for copyrighted audio materials. At first it was not a problem, because individual users were unable to afford the technology to duplicate and/or create recordings which were theoretically perfect copies. But today it's hard to get a computer that can't accomplish this feat. So the audio industry turned to the promise of DRM. Unfortunately, though it will take many more incidents like Sony's debacle, we will reach a level of understanding where we realize that as long as the technology is in the hands of everyone that can duplicate these forms of media, that they will be copied.

    The only way that we will see any form of successful rights management will be for the audio industry to develop a technology which is as popular and as acceptable as the LP. It may take the form of a holographic crystal or some other 'futuristic' media. But as long as the ability to manipulate the bits is available to end users, DRM will continue to fail. IMHO it is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the audio industry to believe that there will ever be a digital solution to a digital problem. In the meantime I believe that any damage to computers and infrastructure brought on by companies who cannot accept the fact that DRM will never work should be punished to the full extent of the law.

  • "personal entertainment systems for consumers" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xugumad ( 39311 ) on Friday January 13, 2006 @11:30AM (#14464228)
    "the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers"

    Worse than that, they seem to have this impression that it's okay to modify my computer to work how they think it should. This isn't even just DRM, I'm getting incredibly fed up with programs which automatically install themselves on the desktop/quick launch bar (the Quicktime player, as an easy example, which I almost solely want to launch by double clicking on a file), and/or auto-run at startup (Creative used to be terrible for this - install soundcard drivers, and suddenly it plays an intro movie on the desktop at login, and you have an application launcher stuck to the top of your screen).

    </rant>

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close