Real Networks to Linux - DRM or Die 582
Baronvaile writes "ArsTechnica is running a story about RealNetworks VP Jeff Ayars at LinuxWorld Boston discussing the future of Linux for the consumer, if it does not support DRM." From the article: "Ayers has a few supporters in this issue from the Linux camp, as Novell, Linspire, and Red Hat spokespeople reportedly said they would be happy to add DRM to their distributions, but with some caveats. Novell, for example, is "currently in discussions with vendors who control proprietary formats" with the goal of supporting these formats in SuSE Linux. One can only surmise exactly which formats that would be, but recent rumblings from Redmond make it likely that Microsoft DRM solutions such as PlaysForSure could be among them."
GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
But of course the "DRM crowd" is generally a security through obsecurity one and will probably not comprehend the fact that DRM has to be secure even when the code is completely open...Well the programmers might, but I doubt if the bean counters or management ever will.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or if they have, they're keeping quiet in the hopes that Apple will stop pooping in their pot. This is another likely scenario.
The worst part is that Hymn by itself was crummy for pirating since it left a big fat signature on the files that Apple could track back to your Credit Card. It was only really useful for people who wanted to play the music on their Linux machine. IIRC, iTunes won't even play the files that were decrypted that way, you have to use something like aacplay. Such a shame.
As always the biggest victims in these DRM schemes are the people who just want to do something a little unusual (but completely legal) that the media company didn't expect. It's just innovation stifling. The worst part is that for the media companies, innovation is often bad. They're in a precarious position already and one more disruptive technology could put them out to pasture for good.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
I think that was intentional as proof that they weren't producing the tool for the express purpose of copyright infringement.
IIRC, iTunes won't even play the files that were decrypted that way, you have to use something like aacplay. Such a shame.
That's incorrect, every file my wife bought from iTMS still played in iTunes (multiple versions on Windows and Mac) after having the FairPlay stripped. I don't think I even have the encrypted files anymore. Neve bothered to authorise any extra computers either.
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
No, the grandparent is correct. FairPlay originally left information in the meta-data that indicated that it was a formerly-protected file. An update to iTunes prevented it from playing these files. The next update to HYMN stopped leaving these tags in (making it better for piracy) and then iTunes would play them again. This was a while ago, so you may not have been using iTunes / HYMN back then (actually, I believe this was back when HYMN was called PlayFair).
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is pretty good at letting you do whatever you want with your computer, especially if you know a bit of C
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
No need to rewrite; the Xvfb [xfree86.org] (virtual frame buffer) server has been part of X for a long time.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
A: Digital signatures. The TCPA chip checks the bootloader signature, which checks the OS signature, which checks the application signature. Since your modified application doesn't have a valid signature, it won't get access to the same data because the TCPA system won't give it the key. They can ship source as much as they like, you can modify it as much as you want, but it won't actually be useful anymore. That is why the GPLv3 draft has a section about DRM signing keys. Of course, to do this you need to remove all the ways the signed code can dump the data - if you can trick the original code to dump data you've succeeded.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, the source code is almost completely useless for building binaries. Even if you don't change the source, something as innocuous as changing the optimization level or version of your compiler will produce a useless binary.
I didn't understand before what the big deal was with the DRM additions in GPLv3. I'm starting to get it now.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
For embedded electronics, say a DVD player or an iPod, I'd have no problems with not having the master key. If a device does what I want it to at a price I like, I can live without being able to tinker with it. But for a general purpose computer - Hell, no! But then, I'm willing to live without access to DRMed content if need be.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
The definition of "Trusted Computing" is that the Powers That Be have the ability to make your computer secure against you.
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If your "source" doesn't produce a working binary, it is not the real source. Source in the meaning of GPLv2 must be complete, that is, it must include all parts needed to duplicate the executable you distribute, starting from nothing but what is distributed with the operating system and/or compiler.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Cool. Could you send me your copy of Red Hat's private keys?
I suspect the answer is no. Of course, I can recompile Red Hat software and sign it with my own private keys and it will run just fine; it just won't
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Why do people keep repeating Linus' ridiculous argument? Red Hat's OS does not require that scripts or binaries are signed by them in order to run. You can copy a binary from another system to a RHEL box, and it will run. Likewise, you can import your own keys into rpm, so that the package managers will install them without warning.
GPL3 doesn't require Red Hat to release the keys that they use to sign packages. It would, only if there were no w
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
I run linux. I don't need to stay on a given architechture. And I don't need DRM.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why this is scary -- because Microsoft has the ability to leverage its monopoly to force the "special hardware" on the public, and the RIAA/MPAA/BSA have the political power to outlaw "non-Trusted" machines (which of course would only be used for "piracy" anyway, you know)!
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
This could *really* backfire for them though. With Dell and the like looking into Linux more seriously because XP licenses drive up the costs of bargin-basement systems astronomically, we could well see a much bigger percentage of users running Linux at home (provided, of course, that Dell invests some serious cash to make Linux more home-user friendly, particularly in the compatibility department). And no content provider is dumb enough to lock out the entire Dell userbase, not even Sony/BMG prior to realizing that the rootkit wasn't such a good idea after all.
As to TC, that's how it'll probably be used although it's marketed as something to protect your system (the exact concept behind this somewhat escapes me, as it was such a poor cover for hardware-level bending over). Much like how crap is marketed as anti-piracy when it's obviously just a hardware lock-in.
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
At first.
Ya know that they're talking about closing the audio "analog hole" by moving the D/A conversion, and thus the decryption, out to the speakers themselves?
Not that there aren't so many unchipped speakers out there in the world already that most of them are already gathering dust in closests, and not that you couldn't intercept the signal between the chip and the cone quite easily, but . . .
This is the way they're thinking. Chip everything.
I assume they know that it won't really work, because a dedicated geek will get the content unencrypted somehow anyway, but that it will knock out the casual copier.
Won't I'm not sure they grasp is that in the Internet world most people don't do their own copying and that it only takes one dedicated geek to crack the shit and spread it to the world.
KFG
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Funny)
No, you couldn't. They'll put a sticker on there saying "Do not open. No user-serviceable parts inside." That will make it impossible for you to open it.
(Seriously, you have to wonder what these idiots are thinking.)
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any technological measures to prevent copying which significantly increase costs won't succeed in the market, I think.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the goal was to have watermarks that would be recognized by consumer recording gear which would then fail to record. I can't imagine that working well... What if you were recording the sounds of traffic for background noise of a movie and a car rolled by blasting some watermarked music; would this break your recording? Oh, and they'd somehow restrict "professional" gear to professionals. The DMCA already makes it illegal to sell a VHS recorder without auto-gain (I think; the part that makes Macrovision copy protection work), unless the sale is to someone who will be using the recorder professionally (the DMCA defines this; I don't recall the exact wording).
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
What you say about auto gain is true, but what I say is true as well. The DMCA does indeed make it illegal to sell a VHS *recorder* that lacks "automatic gain control copy control technology". See US Code Title 17, Chapter 12, (something) 01, (k) (1) (A) (i) [cornell.edu]; search for "automatic gain control". I'm only speculating that the recording industry would like to see similar laws applied to microphones and every analog recording device.
Re:GPL? (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue gets a bit fuzzier if they'd want to add DRM support to the kernel itself, of course; but binary kernel modules are a contentious issue, anyway, and while most people seem to believe that they're a violation of the kernel's license, they have been tolerated so far. But I don't really see why you'd need kernel support here.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Insightful)
not sure if you entended to prove them GP right, or wrong.
It is trivial to decrypt SSH packets, that is the reason for it's success. You need the key to do that, and once you got the data across, you are free to do whatever with the results with no way to know SSH was ever involved.
So ya opensource DRM would work if the goal is to allow the consumer to make sure they got the files fro
Linux to Real Networks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:2)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:2, Funny)
I'd simply remove "Ditch DRM or" from your request and add "already" at the end.
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:5, Insightful)
For me it's about control. A while back I started wondering why it was that that media industry thought it was their right to control what I can and can't do with my computer. I buy the hardware, I buy (license) the software, I'm responsible for fixing stuff when it breaks, and I have to clean it up when their crappy software runs amok. When thay want to pay for my machine, they can tell me what to do with it.
Besides, this is Real we're talking about. Did they suddenly become relevant while I was busy playing with iTunes?
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason we are in so much trouble now is only partly to do with the media companies. They pushed for DRM systems, and the computer industry (or rather Microsoft, Intel and Compaq) setup the secretive Trusted Computing Initiative. A system designed to introduce DRM into the PC... without distrupting current applications, of course.
Trusted Computing rolled forward slowly for 8 or 9 years... all the while Intel and Microsoft (and now HP) were busy rearchitecting software protocols and designing things like
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:5, Informative)
and
http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/index.h
and
http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk [real.com] (see platforms)
But you will get +5 for posting "anti real player bs" and my post will fade -1 eventually. Not that I care.
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, the parent isn't flamebait. Real does indeed develop open source software for Linux. There's even a plugin for encoding video to Ogg Theora. I've heard Windows users claim that it is the best way to play and encode Theora on Windows...
That said, having never used RealProducer or any Helix software, why would I want to use it? Like someone else said, they left a bad taste from previous nagware, and the RealMedia-RealVideo-RealAudio format and codecs remain proprietary and therefore uninteresting to me.
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:4, Funny)
If open source doesn't start supporting their DRM, they'll go bust.
Real Networks to Linux (Again)... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux to Real Networks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because certain content providers insist on using Real's formats for their content.
Ayars was later (Score:2, Funny)
As long as I control it then it is fine (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As long as I control it then it is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux to Real Networks: Open Standards or Die (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone to RealNetworks: just DIE already (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong way around (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask not for the future of Linux without DRM, but for the future of DRM without Linux (or other free OSes, for that matter).
If DRM becomes as oppressive as the big media players seem to want it to be, then it will drive people away from platforms requiring it and towards platforms that circumvent it. Moreover, there are enough such people that attempting to legislate such platforms out of existence is unlikely to meet with success, at least not for very long.
History furnishes few examples of big business successfully forcing the people to accept something not in their interests for extended periods. Once the public get wise to something, it will stop.
Re:Wrong way around (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm amused that he believes the only way to play media is in shackles. I, for one, actually started down the Win-to-Lin migration path *because* of things like DRM. I absolutely refuse to let someone else tell me how I am going to use my general purpose computer.
The coffee I bought at Starbucks this morning didn't come with
Re:Wrong way around (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the late 80's and early 90's, I was involved in a case that got a lot less publicity, but is perhaps an instructive parallel.
At that time, AT&T's Sys/V unix was a market leader, and most vendors sold it with a curious restriction: The low-end systems had a limit of two simultaneous logins. For a price (on the order of $100), you could get an "upgrade" that relaxed this restriction. All it did was overwrite one or two bytes in one of the system files somewhere, but it would cost you.
There were the usual problems with the
It didn't enforce the login limit, because I didn't know how to determine the limit. There were discussions of this on mailing lists and newsgroups, where some people mentioned that they used my login mostly because it didn't enforce the login limit.
I publicly offered to implement the limit (as a command-line option
We certainly could, of course, but this was silly on its face. We didn't need to erase it; we had my login program, duh. There were a few questions as to whether my program was legal. But we decided that was also silly; it was just a program that opened a port, did a bit of I/O, and then exec'd another program. If that's illegal, it would shoot down lots of important commercial apps that used the serial ports to talk to lots of useful gadgetry. Requiring that a plugged-in gadget go through
Anyway you don't see any such discussion any more. To my knowledge, there are no longer any unix-like systems that have such a limit. At least I haven't encountered one for the last 8 or 10 years. Not even OS X has a login limit. (Anyone know of a system that does?)
These days, we're seeing the same fuss over DRM limits. These limits are just as arbitrary and artificial as AT&T's login limit was. The purpose is to prevent users from using their computers' capabilities without paying extra for an "upgrade" that amounts to overwriting a few bytes in some hidden config file. Such an upgrade must be possible, because if the DRM is enforced everywhere, everywhere includes recording studios and production facilities, and nobody can produce commercial recordings. So there has to be a way to allow DRM violations for "professional" customers who pay enough to get those few bytes changed.
I'm betting that DRM will fall to the same quandary that killed off the AT&T login limit.
Of course, if they give me specs for their DRM, I'll be happy to add it (as a command-line option
Maybe we can add a +DRM option to the cp, scp and rsync commands. I wouldn't object to the inclusion of such an option.
Re:Wrong way around (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in the case of a monopoly. If you want to buy the Lord of the Rings trilogy on DVD, you have no choice but to accept DRM. Music, movies and television are not fungible.
Fox can't, for example, decide to undercut New Line and sell the LotR trilogy without DRM.
People w
Why tomorrow's DRM is different to Macrovision (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, then this is where our expectations differ. I can see DRM becoming so annoying that there is a massive consumer backlash.
Macrovision is mostly irrelevant, because few people try to back up their
Re:Why tomorrow's DRM is different to Macrovision (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the imac system allows you to transfer your stuff to another computer if needed. You get a limited number of transfers per year. So as long as Apple stays in business, you can pass your collection on to a nother new machine, assuming your machine runs itunes.
I am not an expert on this, but I have read this a couple of times.
analogy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:analogy (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't want to come to MY house on MY terms, stay where you are!
I don't know about the rest of you... (Score:2, Interesting)
On a side note, when was the last time anyone used RealPlayer? I just haven't found a practical use for it since around '99, but it still seems to get on other users machines.
Rest of the World to Real: DIE DIE DIE!!! (Score:2)
Real Networks? Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kernel Driver? (Score:2, Insightful)
-Matt
You are forgetting. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it is sickening. I don't download music or video but I do want the option to use it on my PC in a fair manner!
I also want to have the option of buying AD chips that don't cost a bloody fortune and work.
Because the world really needs Real? Hah! (Score:2)
What is that? Famous last words?
Seems more like "support what your users want or die!" to me.
or Die? (Score:2)
No DRM for me. (Score:2, Insightful)
I won't use software that implements it, and I won't watch or listen to media that uses it. It is a direct attack on my freedom, and I don't take kindly to that at all.
If the Linux community had any backbone, he would've been booed off the stage after he finished speaking. If it's DRM or die, I'd rather the latter.
Re:No DRM for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No DRM for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
There. Fixed that for you. Yes, we get around it. Anything that gets popular enough and known enough for the RIAA/MPAA to bother
Re:No DRM for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I only want to sell lawnmowers which are chained to large cement blocks, that's fine. The market will probably eliminate such idiocy.
If I want to make it illegal for people to remove cement blocks from their lawnmowers, or to sell lawnmowers which do not contain cement blocks, or to distribute bolt-cutters, I should be executed for treason.
It is that black-and-white.
No compelling use for DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
So, tell me *AA, what benefit does your DRM supposedly have to me, your customer? What would make me decide that your crippleware is actually something I'd want? Go ahead: we're listening.
Re:No compelling use for DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, as a consumer, you';re just a blind, dumb automaton responding to media campaigns. Your "rights" don't matter unless money can be made off them.
They don't care what's good for YOU, they just care what's good for them.
It's all about cramming their preferred technology down your throat for their benefit,. Don't like it? Be prepared to be labeled a pirate or other "criminal" type.
Remember Rule #1, demonize your opposition in the public opinion.
Re:No compelling use for DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that certainly seems to be the approach you're taking.
Re:No compelling use for DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
iTMS also means:
DRM...why bother? (Score:2, Informative)
DRM is E-fascisme (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a consumer and I am _NOT_ demanding DRM.
DRM is E-fascisme.
The case against DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the major Linux players go ahead and support DRM? Then other Linux distributors will come along with their DRM-less versions and scoop up market sahre, and users will see the movies and listen to the music they want to anyway using pirated versions of stuff. Let's not forget, what a coder creates, another coder can hack. No amount of DRM is going to keep enterprising coders from breaking it and freeing the content. The DRM camp is, as usual, kidding themselves.
And we've had unprotected media around us for years, like FM radio or good old cable TV, and all we need in order to make unauthorized copies of those broadcasts are cassette radios or VCRs. Just because content has gone digital shouldn't mean that we all are going to turn into the dirty, rotten pirates in need of heavy restraints that DRM proponents seem to assume that we are.There will always be freely available content, if you know where to look. Let's not forget: many radio stations stream their audio already, and how hard is it to record that stream? A user will always be able to pick up the content they want given the effort, the RIAA and all its cronies be damned. It doesn't make us criminals, but consumers forced to extraordinary lenghts to get the things we want without having to be beholden big media over and over again.
Re:The case against DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
A DRM-less version will have no advant
I hate the word 'consumers' (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the word "Patrons"? or "Customers"? Did anybody notice that?
People are not consumers. Bacteria are consumers. Mindless consuming machines. The word itself is demeaning.
I think it's high time that business started remembering the slogans: "The Customer is always right", and "Thank you for patronizing us". I think the shift to the demeaning and inhuman word, "
Willingness to lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Hilariously, their very greed is still the thing that holds them back. Each company jealously cautious about "licensing" its proprietary format, everyone in "talks", the whole PS3 fiasco...
I'm not even worrying about this any more. Hopefully they will continue to try to compete technologically with FOSS, because so far, it's worked out great.
Re:Willingness to lie (Score:4, Insightful)
First off... you remember what Linux went through to get DVD playback to even work? You know, the whole process of reverse engineering and cracking the protection algorithm. Or the court case against the author, followed by the legal battle funded by the EFF? No, Linux didnt bend over getting DVD support, but they sure as hell didnt have an easy go at it.
As to being a better platform for DVDs, what??!!? Dvd.. insert... play movie. On modern hardware Linux and Windows basically render the same quality output, both have basically the same functional specs. What exactly makes linux the better ( or worse ) platform for DVDs here?
The arrival of Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and secure Cable/HDTV is nothing but bad news for linux. Many times the barrier may be as simple as the fee required to get your hardware deviced signed. Beyond that, the laws today make reverse engineering, even whiteroom a very difficult (legal) prospect. Keeping support for the newest media storage schemes and hardware is going to be a hell of alot harder for the linux crowd then it will be for Microsoft.
Re:Willingness to lie (Score:3, Informative)
I control the player (Score:5, Insightful)
mplayer doesn't tell me "action not allowed" or that I must go through the menu. I put in the DVD and tell it to play Title 1. That's it.
In Windows, (or on a "real" DVD player), it's watch a few ads, look at the FBI warning, wait for the damn animation to finish, push Play, wait for another damn animation....
Re:Willingness to lie (Score:3, Informative)
I've come across Windows machines that would noticably drop frames, let the video fall out of sync with the audio, and pixelate due to some background process suddenly grabbing part of the CPU where similarly speced linux machines never
Re:Willingness to lie (Score:3, Interesting)
This may hurt your philosophy, but we were lucky and they were stupid. They don't have to let it happen again. With appropriate hardware support (and it's there in the EFI spec, so the mac crowd have it already) there's no reason at all DRM can't be effective.
Success, Linux, and DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want success: grow
If you want spectacular success: grow and use leverage
My point is that I don't see any reason in the world why we shouldn't be trying to use Linux as leverage against people who are trying to impose DRM. Market forces are clearly pushing Linux in spite of them anyhow. What do people who controll content really have to offer us that we somehow can't manage without? The truth is that the future is not about extracting revenue from content, but instead extracting revenue from content related services.
IMHO, just as the plantation system tried to deal with the industrial revolution by fencing off the south and breaking off from the Union, the media system today is trying to deal with the information age by using DRM to fence off all content. Both are doomed stratigies, and the sooner we kill copyright and tools used to impose them, the sooner we will be doing ourselves and the information age a big favor.
Continually surprised... (Score:3, Insightful)
In spite of the fact that I know I should know better, I find myself continually surprised by these execs just...not...getting it. The companies are hanging onto an obsolete business model. Consumers want our digital rights protected, not the company's.
My hope is that one day they screw up and lock things down so tightly and inconveniently that Joe 'Average' Sixpack sits up and takes notice. The Sony rootkit fiasco was a start. That's who we need to convince, because if we get the mass market aware of and against DRM, the companies will face a tougher challenge in restricting our rights.
DRM will be the biggest mistake of the CI (Score:5, Informative)
For this we'll be looking at four groups of people:
1. The joe average sixpack crowd, who buy some music, copy some more from his friends and generally think DRM is the new acronym for the thingie to plug into your car to make it faster. He's getting some music online, doesn't make heavy use of torrent and is still plugged into Kazaa, but complains he doesn't find much anymore.
2. The people who use suck the net dry, whether they need it or not. It's there, it's free, it's on my HD. They don't know jack about the inner workings of the DeCSS, don't know who broke it, but they use it to rip it, with the neat and foolproof tools provided.
3. The people who know what DRM means to their privacy and who fear, hate and fight it. Not necessarily in that order. Out of principle, not because they want to pirate what's available. But it's a privacy thing.
4. The people with The Clue to actually break DRM.
Group 1 will suddenly notice that their movies don't work anymore, or that they can't play the movie in the player they want. They bought a $3000+ HDTV set and they now got the same crappy rez because some part isn't to the DRM's liking, so they get the low-rez instead of the promised HD quality. They're understandably pissed, sink another 2k into the system to get better resolution and then find out that, again, some things will work while others don't, they suddenly can't borrow movies from their friends anymore. They do buy most of their movies, but they're PISSED because more often than not the DRM locks them out of their (bought) movies, following the creed of "better prohibit too much than allow too much".
Group 2 will notice that they can't play the ripped movies anymore. They won't do anything about it but google the web up and down 'til Group 4 provides them with the tools to rip again. They won't buy a single movie. They're not in for the movie, they're in for the "wanna have".
Group 3 will talk to Group 1 and blame whatever irks them on DRM. Until Group 1 starts listening to it and starts digging up information about DRM. And they get MORE pissed. Group 3 doesn't buy movies either. They're not in for the movies, they're in for the privacy issues.
And finally Group 4 will spend its time tinkering with the DRM, they'll burn a few of the DRM crates 'til they figure out how to break it, release it and then we are right where we are now.
With a few differences.
Group 2-4 don't change their behaviour at all. They didn't buy before, they won't buy after. Group 1, though, is not PISSED at the industry for making it all so "complicated" and they will think and ask twice before ever buying any new equipment. They will no longer be on the spearhead of adaption, they will wait 'til one of their clued friends tells them that it's ok to get one of those babies.
Who loses? Right. The content industry.
Who wins? Nobody.
People Clamoring for Content not DRM. (Score:5, Informative)
Ayers said. "Linux would be further relegated to use in servers and business computers, since it would not be providing the multimedia technologies demanded by consumers."
People want music and movies not some greedy pig's Digital Restrictions Management. The absolute failure of "Plays for Sure" to gain any market share is because the DRM sucks. No one wants dissapearing music and convoluted subscription plans. You can, right now, get movies and music outside of such restrictions and that's where people are going to go.
That's just the beginning.
These are the new winners. Their work is excellent and they are the kind of people I want to spend my money on. Do you think for an instant that I'm going to corrupt my computer with crap that will lock them out? I'm not alone. People are already outraged by DRM'd CDs and the only people less trusted than Sony is Microsoft. When whole collections vanish they will really howl. The winners will sit pretty on their nice media and wonder what all the fuss is about. Their market share is going to go up and up.
I'm keeping my set top box for the old losers but it's going away. You can get them for $40 at the walmart and they do a nice slide show if you feed them a CD of your jpegs. I'll give the MPAA four bucks here and there to watch their little movies. That's all it takes to not feel like I live in a cave. As more content becomes available elsewhere, I'll spend less of my time and money on that set top box. I've already dropped cable TV and don't miss it.
Let me make this simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM won't work and only systems and artists who avoid it will profit and grow. Go visit the links I provided and tell me what content you are still lacking.
Think ahead. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not buying WMAs, so that's not good enough. DVDs don't really sell as well as they could because of DRM. I don't buy them because I know my set top box won't last forever and that will be the end of them. The problems with other, better built systems like IPod come later. We will see if publishers survive the waves of betrayal they are generating. In the mean time, other publishers are
In Other News.... (Score:4, Funny)
"After all, what candy-bar maker is going to ship candy bars to a 7-11, when any client can come in and just put one in his pocket? It's impossible to make money in such an environment. It's just... Un-American!"
says Hugh Bluehose, CEO of Safe Candy Bars.
"7-11 had better get their act together. We're working with our friends in Congress, who we've helped to really understand this whole industry, to ensure that Americans are protected from the scourge of illegal dealing in plastic-wrapped, un-protected candy bars. We're committed to putting companies based on criminal candy-bar infringement strategies out of business, and behind bars."
Later, when chatting with Bat Fridwig, technical lead of Microsofts EatsForSure project, we were informed that:
"There is just no market for un-protected candy-bars. It's not possible for any company to make money selling such unsafe candy-bars, long term. Why would anyone buy a candy bar, when they can just go swipe one? I mean, really..."
Linux is the DRM crowds biggest fear. (Score:4, Insightful)
Support Them All (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, the rest of us non-Windows lusers will just use the pirated versions of content, since it'll be easier. Fuck the recording companies with a sharp, pointy, broken-glass-studded 12" long motorized 6666 rpm dildo. This will encourage *more* piracy, not less. And artists/bands will still make money by having concerts - if you like a band these days, you'll go to one of their concerts to get the full experience anyway. Free music will just give them more exposure - I downloaded music that I'd never even *heard* before from my college's network in the 90s, and I ended up liking quite a few of those bands, and going to their concerts or buying CDs. I think that the more piracy will also encourage artists to innovate or starve, since they won't be able to make money selling recordings of their music from 25 years ago.
-b.
DRM isn't about stopping piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM isn't about stopping piracy. Piracy is nothing compared to the potential market of forcing the rest of the population that doesn't do pirating (about 85% right now, though that will decline as they push this) to have to pay extra just to play the music or watch the videos they already have. The content industry sees riches in everyone having to buy yet another copy for each different device, and even having to buy replacements for worn out copies (something they tried back when music was on 12 inch vi
Just gave RealPlayer a try (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny personal experience (Score:4, Interesting)
Due to various problems with the library's web site it took her a few hours to download the books. Amusingly (for me), the library DRM turned out to be Microsoft's PlayForSure which doesn't play on iPod, for sure. I was able to witness firsthand what DRM does to Jane user: At first she was confused. Then she was annoyed. Then she asked me what was going on. Then she was furious.
Moral of the story: My wife will NEVER accept DRM ever again. She'd rather pick up a good old book at the library than waste any money on **AA's broken products, be it music or video.
I think the **AA industry overestimates its own importance. DRMed entertainment is not a necessity of life. Once time and space shiftable media such as CDs and DVDs disappear, we'll likely cease to consume any **AA media altogether. We've already cancelled our cable subscription due to the poor programming and amazingly annoying ads. There are better things to do.
DRM only relevent in the USA - market is global (Score:3, Informative)
Other countries will not enforce some weird Hollywood protectionist legislation (which is really the core of DRM) unless it is forced upon them as part of a trade deal. The hardware with DRM will cost more to manufacture than that without - so it may just end up being a drag on US manufacturers who will be facing competition form cheaper imports without it. How much does Hollywood add to the revenue base for it to merit special protectionist laws that hurt larger portions of the economy - don't most large movies make a loss on paper to avoid tax?
Re:Hahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem with buying ready made devices is that you spend so much money in aggregate when you have multiple services. And of course, those devices rarely do what YOU want them to. This will be no different if some Linux distros decide to support DRM. The software will, obviously, not be open source. And it's likely that the software will not do what you want it to. This is going to be a nasty battle and I don't see how Linux can win. Since most people just go out and buy set top boxes, the won't even understand the DRM argument since it won't even be an issue to them. Joe and Jane average aren't typically interested in watching programming from outside of their region, so they'll never notice that their player can't play data from Europe (if they are USians) or vice-versa.
Which leads to the really big question. WHY are the media companies so intent on controlling things by region? What is the possible reason? There is tons of brilliant programming from outside the US that is not available to Americans simply because of artificial restrictions like region codes or sales blocks. For example, I attempted to order the entire Hitchhiker's Guide radio series including the latest "Tertiary, Quandry and Quintessential" phases boradcast on the BBC in 2004/2005. The order was processed, but then I recieved an e-mail from the BBC store informing me that I wasn't allowed to buy that content due to licensing restrictions. Why? Why would licensing be involved at all? Who profits from this (since all artificial restrictions have financial reasons behind them)? How does this put the consumer first? What it really does is point to the fact that these systems are broken and it's getting worse. But only a small segment of the population will be inconvenienced. "...at least, no one worth speaking of", to throw out an Adams quote.
The only way that Linux will gain access to this kind of media in the future will likely be through means that are considered to be "illegal" or "violate copyright laws" or some other language meant to demonize the people who expect more from their media than these corporations want them to. At that point it will be time to just say goodnight to these companies and find something else to do for entertainment. Sadly there are no viable options right now. Reading a book is nice, but it doesn't satisfy the urge for junk entertainment... And that is how the world becomes less pleasnt.
Re:Hahaha! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy. They want to be able to charge each region as much as they can, and certain regions will be willing to pay more than others. They feel that seperating things by region they can make more money.
Well, that's probably an unusual case. I was thinking more of DVDs. In any event, the
Re:DRM in Linux - Why we need GPL v3 for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, unlike the Windows "market", the Linux market is a real, working market. That is, consumers have the choice, and therefore the power. You don't want Linux with DRM? Then get another one without DRM. If there's demand for such a Linux distro, there will be supply for it. And if there isn't demand for Linux with DRM, those distros will simply die (or drop DRM).