Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Media Your Rights Online

DRM Advocate Violates DRM 397

Posted by Zonk from the i-don't-like-you-either dept.
Alsee writes "A year and a day after arguing DRM was good for business, acceptable to consumers, and necessary in today's world, JupiterMedia VP and Research Director Michael Gartenberg comes face to face with DRM reality, downloads a circumvention tool, violates DRM, and blogs about his MS Reader DRM issues being solved ... permanently. Perhaps now he would be interested in the EFF Action Center where Americans can quickly and easily ask your Representative to co-sponsor the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DRM Advocate Violates DRM More

DRM Advocate Violates DRM

Comments Filter:

  • Oh god... (Score:5, Funny)

    by KD5YPT ( 714783 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:44PM (#13077500) Journal
    ... such an irony. Its like advocating for death penalty and finds yourself in a electric chair with the executioner asking you "Medium Rare or Well done?"

    • Re:Oh god... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:52PM (#13077568)
      From his blog:

      "While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."

      He appears to hail from the "Medium Rare" school of self-execution.

    • DRM Needs to happen (Score:4, Interesting)

      by takeya ( 825259 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:31PM (#13077851) Journal
      DRM needs to become commonplace so that companies can see it doesn't work. Once cracks and cracking tools become widespread enough that one Joe Average can say to another "oh you just need to download this program and it will work ok" it will become apparent that DRM in any usable form is able to be circumvented.

      Once DRM becomes nearly useless, the incentive to include it with products declines, and we begin to see more and more DRM-free software. Even though we can see it's useless, the computer world needs to make these mistakes so it can learn from them and hopefully, not repeat them.

      • Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:36PM (#13077884) Homepage
        It did way back in the day, with copy "protected" floppies. And then abandoning it, and using more copy "protection" and abandoning it, etc.

        The computer world keeps learning, and then forgetting.

        Perhaps some needs to give free Ritalin to IT industry execs.

        • Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Siener ( 139990 )
          It did way back in the day, with copy "protected" floppies. And then abandoning it, and using more copy "protection" and abandoning it, etc.

          The computer world keeps learning, and then forgetting.

          I remember, in the floppy era, reading an article about a study that concluded that games that are too hard to copy actually sold *less* that games that were easy to copy because they didn't benefit from the viral marketing associated with pirating.

          I wonder if this still holds true in the internet era.

          There is
  • Most important piece of it is in the final (and shortest) section.

    Still, needs to be done.

    • Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gsfprez ( 27403 ) * on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:58PM (#13077618)
      nice to see its bi-partisan names on the bill.

      Goes to show that evil is not a party line problem; its a congressional whore problem, spanning both parties.

      I hope that this passes. Reasonable R's and D's need to get behind this kind of thing, putting the assholes like Hollings and Hatch out to pasture...

      • Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chasuk ( 62477 ) <chasuk@gmail.com> on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:35PM (#13078230)
        And, thanks to Google cache, here is the link to the program he used:

        http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html [processtext.com]

      • Rep. Boucher once again sponsers Slashdot laws (Score:4, Informative)

        by typical ( 886006 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @09:58PM (#13078906) Journal
        And it looks like the bill sponsor is the Representative from Slashdot, Boucher. Seriously, I love this guy (and I'm kinda sad that he represents Virginia instead of my state). Take a look at the list of legislation he's been involved in [house.gov].

        Reading down the list, he's opposed the RIAA, the DMCA, argued for fair use, argued for privacy laws, argued against the broadcast flag, argued against additional RIAA laws (and urged that the RIAA simply lower prices to provide a more appealing product), in favor of allowing features for Linux, worked on weakening the DMCA, pushed an anti-spam law (though admittedly not the most stringent of the proposals), pushed for the Do Not Call List, opposed DoJ anti-P2P propaganda attempts, and been a proponent of pro-VoIP laws. His arguments are quite tech-savvy -- if the man does not understand technology himself, he has some pretty sharp advisors. Many of these stances have been those that oppose major lobbyist groups (direct marketing, RIAA, MPAA, etc).

        Stick about a hundred more like him in Congress and throw Orrin Hatch to the wolves and I'd have a damn lot of respect for the legislative branch.

  • He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:49PM (#13077540) Homepage Journal
    To quote Mike from his original blog last year:

    "Our research shows clearly that DRM is only an issue to consumers when it's technology they keep bumping into."

    That remains true. His problem now w/ the MS DRM is that he's bumping into it. If the DRM was improved so that it would get out of his way, he would still have no issue with it.

    -Rick

    • Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rhizome ( 115711 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:00PM (#13077634) Homepage Journal
      If the DRM was improved so that it would get out of his way, he would still have no issue with it.

      Except that the whole *point* of DRM is to be in the way. What would a DRM system that did not get in the way look like?
      • The point of DRM is to be in the way when you try to distribute something.

        I think DRMs should be capable of running on anything that is associated as mine, or in my possession. IE: My car sterio, my home entertainment system, my computer, my MP3 Player, my friends PSP that he loaned me, etc. So long as I can (EASILY!) prove to the DRM that I own the content, I should be able to view/play/use whatever the content.

        Infact, I think that in the advent that my content is stolen or damaged, I should be able

        • Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Informative)

          by arose ( 644256 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:14PM (#13077743)
          The point of DRM is to be in the way when you try to distribute something.
          With digital files there is no differnce between copying and moving. I can move my dead-trees just fine, no one is getting in my way.
        • <AOL>

          Until such time as the above is delivered, I'll stick with DRM free music. I still buy CDs and rip them to MP3 to play for myself (not distribute) but I've returned two CDs because they had DRM on them, even though I wanted the CDs.

        • Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by steelfood ( 895457 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:15PM (#13077754)
          This begs the question. How does this technology know who you are, and how does it know that you're you. How does a computer differenciate between you loaning something to somebody (a DVD) and making a copy for that person (your ideal DRM would provent you not from making the copy, which would get in the way of people looking to back things up, but prevent your friend from playing your DVD).

          Perhaps your solution is biometrics. But what if you got into a horrible accident and lost that particular part of your body? Your eyes? Your face was disfigured? You lost your fingerprints, fingers, or even the whole arm?

          So what about a unique PGP key? What if you lose or forget it? Do you stop being you? Do you now have no right to any of your stuff because you cannot be identified?

          Any way you cut it, DRM will be intrusive to somebody. And if you justify its existence by saying that person isn't likely to be you, then I think that's a very selfish way of looking at things, and completely inappropriate for application to the rest of the world.

        • Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by localman ( 111171 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:13PM (#13078083) Homepage
          I hate to just appeal to my own authority here, but even a medium level understanding of technology seems to indicate two things:

          1. Real criminals will always be able to get around DRM
          2. Regular people will always bump into it in some innocent situation

          Let me connect the dots from there: DRM sucks. And it always will. That won't necessarily stop it from becoming mainstream and accepted, just like copyright extention and the stagnation of the public domain, but that doesn't make it right or good.

          Cheers.

        • Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @08:28PM (#13078494)
          That is what DRM's should do in my opinion. They don't yet, but hopefully they will.
          They won't because it's not in the content owners interests for DRM to work that way. The content owners want you (or your insurance) to pay for a new copy of everything when the old one is stolen or damaged. They want you to buy separate copies for your car stereo, your home entertainment system, your computer, etc. In fact they'd like you to rent all your content. DRM doesn't quite enforce all that (yet), so it doesn't work entirely the way the content owners would like either, but it's closer to their vision than yours, and it's likely to get worse for the consumer, not better.
      • It would get in the way of things that you weren't supposed to do while not get in the way of things you are supposed to do. In this case he couldn't transfer files from one computer he owned to another computer he owned.
      • Except that the whole *point* of DRM is to be in the way.

        In general, no, it's not. The point of DRM is to get in the way when someone tries to do something they don't have the right to do - ideally, anyway. The devil is in the details, obviously. But just because someone hasn't created the perfect DRM yet doesn't mean the whole idea is evil.

      • Yes, exactly. This is, in fact, blatant hypocracy. Being for DRM, but for some standard that has not been met and will probably never be met, as it has to fluctuate to meet the need of the user, is very similar to pointing out that communism has never been implemented as a government, properly, and therefore, it is not a bankrupt philosophy.

        It's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy of logic. As soon as something gets in the way, it is no longer 'true and perfect' DRM.
    • DRM is technology -> DRM is an issue for customers every time DRM restricts them.

  • teh forumla (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:49PM (#13077541)
    1. force drm down our throats
    2. circumvent drm to do it
    3. ????????
    4. profit!!!

    • Re:teh forumla (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:56PM (#13077600)
      Actually for once, the AC's feeble joke is spot on: DRM isn't as much about preventing people from cracking it as it is about having solid grounds to sue infringers.

      DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

      • Re:teh forumla (Score:4, Funny)

        by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:09PM (#13077709)

        DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

        Just like AOL subscribers have caught on to using "a softwares" like Winzip to unzip zip files, they'll ask how to get programs to play "thier" files even though they keep annoyingly asking to "aquice a lisnce", and people will point the to un-drm utilities with just a big fat "crack" button.

        These people will still have no clue.

      • Re:teh forumla (Score:4, Interesting)

        by raitchison ( 734047 ) <robert@aitchison.org> on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:11PM (#13078074) Homepage Journal

        DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.

        Actually, I suspect that, for the content producers at least an equally important purpose for DRM is to inhibit people's ability to exercise their fair use rights for the content they supposedly purchased.

        How many times as a Disney video been sold to the same family more than once because the kids (being kids) destroyed the first one? Most consumers don't have the knowledge or tools to copy a Macrovision [aitchison.org] "protected" video or CSS encrypted DVD. Sure, for the technically savvy this is a non issue, whenever I get a movie I can make a copy and lock the original away from my kids but I'd be surprised if anyone else on my block could do the same.

        Or with DRM'ed music, You know that there are more than a few people who have bought the same song more than once after they reformatted their hard drive or got a new computer and found they could no longer open the music they previously "purchased"

        Both Disney & Apple are well aware that even with no so-called "backyard piracy" (or any other copyright violations) going on that they will lose sales if their media can be easily copied.

        One DRM scheme I would actually be OK with is one that doesn't restrict copying but imparts a digital "watermark" in the media that makes it traceable to the original purchaser. This is sorta-kinda how TiVo handles videos that you copy off if your TiVo DVR (using approved methods anyways). If I were an idiot and put my TiVo media files on BitTorrent or something it would be easily traceable back to me.

        Of course the main flaw in the TiVo system is there is only one application that is "approved" for burning your TiVo files to DVD and it's as expensive as it is lousy. So the result is that I have to use unapproved of methods for converting the TiVo file to MPEG so I can burn it to DVD using the tool I want to. Honestly I'd love to skip that step because it more than doubles the time involved in putting a show on DVD.

  • necessary evils (Score:5, Informative)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:50PM (#13077545)
    Note that he still feels DRM is a necessary evil, just so long as there's a way to circumvent it...
    • It is extremely important that we continue to build a hardware infrastructure capable of enforcing rigid DRM. This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable.

      But the availability of the technology is a separate issue from the use of the technology - something bittorrent whoring slashdot users should understand easily, but apparently seem to have a brain-freeze when applying the concept to DRM.

      Just as we don't accept the argu

      • Re:DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jarnis ( 266190 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:24PM (#13078144)
        "This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable."

        What you describe is fundamentally impossible to do.

        You can wrap it with ten tons of DRM Snake oil, but if the recipient can read it, it can be copied. Accessing = copying.
        • You can wrap it with ten tons of DRM Snake oil, but if the recipient can read it, it can be copied. Accessing = copying.

          For instance, if I am a commie spy, and you send me a DRM'd double-super-secret document that becomes visible on my screen, such that it can be seen and read, well, I can utilize some archaic technology to circumvent the DRM, in fact, this is a classic commie spy technique: I can write it down on paper or take a picture of the screen with a camera.

          This public service announcement was ju
      • This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable.

        Why would you want to do that? If you don't trust the person on the receiving end not to copy the document... well, you're screwed, because if it's that important and they can see it, they can copy it.

        Every other form of information hiding is different from DRM because you are worried about an unintended third party viewing your message. Even then it is extremely difficult to
  • this probably is not the only guy doing this. It is just like celebrities that tell you to not do drugs, right after they finish clearing the bong. I really wouldn't be surprised if Bionic Bill himself has violated DRM at some point in time.
    • Many moons ago I looked at the wee rotating world that was on Microsnot's site - to see how it worked, I didn't know about gif89a or whatever it was - and it had a little para in it saying 'built with shareware tool xxx, please pay $10 to yyy if you find this useful. This image unregistered'. Cheapskates.

  • Just maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:50PM (#13077553) Journal
    You can be for DRM, but against shitty implementations thereof?

    No wait, that would involve too much thought and judgement. Black and white is so much easier.

    • Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aftk2 ( 556992 )
      You took the words right out of my mouth. Reading the two blog entries, there's nothing inconsistent about them: he rails against Sony's crappy implementation of DRM in the first, and against Microsoft's crappy implementation of DRM in the second. He praises Apple's DRM in the first, and that praise still stands: Apple's DRM gets out of your way (at least, I haven't butted up against it, and I use the iTunes Music Store frequently, and own an iPod.)

      • Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jarnis ( 266190 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:02PM (#13077651)
        How can you have DRM that doesn't get into your way?

        DRM, by design, takes away your ability to access/modify/distribute data.

        Data is, by definition, there to be accessed/modified/distributed.

        There can only be slightly less braindead DRM, and braindead DRM. DRM will ALWAYS get into your way sooner or later (it's designed to do that) - even when you limit your usage to what fair use allows you to do.
      • Apple's DRM, in the iTunes Music Store, is hardly there at all. It's "nudge nudge wink wink" DRM, it's "honor system" DRM. They should call it "digital rights hinting". Apple's old "Rip, Mix, Burn" ads pretty much tell you how to remove DRM from their files, if you're not prepared to use any of the widely-available HYMN variants. Just... change the order a little. Yeh, you take a one-time hit in the audio quality... but if you care about audio quality why aren't you buying and ripping CDs instead of lossy-compressed files anyway?

        DRM is acceptable when it's just strong enough to remind you that this isn't freely redistributable content, but not strong enough to actually prevent you from breaking it when you need to.

        That's what Microsoft doesn't get. That's what Michael Gartenberg doesn't get. Strong DRM will inevitably screw you over. If Apple used strong DRM in iTunes I'd have been really pissed when I ran out of authorizations due to a bad disk that forced me to reinstall my OS a couple of times... because even though Apple was willing to reset all my computers AGAIN, it took a while, and having all my music burned onto audio CDs meant it wasn't actually held hostage by the DRM...

        That's why Apple's DRM works. Because it doesn't. If it did, it wouldn't.

      • Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Interesting)

        by orz ( 88387 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:31PM (#13077852)
        Many (most? all?) DRM advocates also advocate criminal penalties for violating DRM (DMCA, etc).

        If he's a believer in the DMCA and similar laws, he should explain whether or not he believes that he should be jailed for his actions, and why. If he's not a DMCA advocate, he should explain how DRM could work without the force of law backing it.

        But I can't be bothered to read through a years worth of blog to find out if he discusses that issue.

      • Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lord Ender ( 156273 )
        My car has an MP3 player. You burn MP3s to a data CD and pop it in and it plays. iTunes won't let you convert their crap to MP3 because of DRM. The user must circumvent the DRM to be allowed to use his legally purchased music in a legal way. Therefore, Apple DRM is CRAP. Good DRM should not get in the way of legal use.

        • Really? (Score:3, Informative)

          by MattHaffner ( 101554 )
          I think you need to read some more before distributing the FUD:

          http://www.apple.com/itunes/burn.html [apple.com]

          Play Them Anywhere

          You can play your music CDs in your car and on home stereo systems. iTunes also lets you make MP3 CDs, though iPod makes them a little less useful. Audio CDs play in CD players like the one in your car or home stereo. MP3 CDs play on Mac and Windows computers and in MP3-compatible car stereos and CD players. Data DVDs are great for archiving and backup, but they only work in your DV

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 )
      You can be for DRM, but against shitty implementations thereof? No wait, that would involve too much thought and judgement.

      So, using your amazing powers of "thought and judgement", describe for us an unobtrusive form of DRM.

      Well?

      Any thoughts?

      Didn't think so.


      Most of us would have no problem with the idea of DRM, if any possible implementation didn't inherently either totally deprive us of anonymity (just because I bought a CD doesn't mean the **AA should suddenly know my complete medical history

  • Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheStupidOne ( 872664 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:50PM (#13077555)

    Oh ho ho... we've gone from praising DRM to circumventing it, haven't we? This is exactly the problem with DRM, when the DRM is so bad it restricts the legitimate use of the media it's protecting. I like how he praises DRM but says it's a "necessary evil" and is willing to circumvent it when it inhibits him.


    Sorry Mike, you can't have your DRM and circumvent it when it's in the way too y'know.

    • Actually, his position hasn't really changed. He supported, and still supports (RTFA) DRM which the consumer is "not constantly bumping into." For this product, this is obviously not the case. He even says in his blog that this is a terrible implementation of DRM.
      • It's true that he's come up with a rationalization for breaking the DRM, but the fact is that he's broken the DRM, and it's illegal to break DRM - it's a violation of the DMCA. Regardless of whether or not you have a good rationalization for it.

        The problem with DRM is not that it's somehow immoral or something. It's that there is a DMCA. Get rid of the DMCA, and the market would decide whether or not DRM is a good idea. Keep the DMCA, and the market doesn't get a vote.

        Point being, his rationalizat

      • Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:01PM (#13078009) Homepage
        He even says in his blog that this is a terrible implementation of DRM.

        And that's exactly where he should've stopped. If he were at all consistent he would've exercised his right to free speech on the matter but never have tried to crack the DRM.

        Unfortunately this moron believes that HE gets to be the one who decides whether or not some subset of DRM is 'good', and if it doesn't meet HIS standards then it's okay to crack it. He's essentially said that his own personal beliefs supercede the law and are justification for breaking that law.

        This makes him no different than any other 'pirate' out there, just a little slicker at convincing people that what he's doing is actually okay.

        Max

  • So can we report him... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lothsahn ( 221388 ) <Lothsahn@@@SPAM_ ... tardsgooglmailcm> on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:52PM (#13077563)
    To the agencies and get him arrested for violation of the DMCA?

    Finally, a GOOD use for the DMCA... putting people behind bars that support the DMCA.

    Mod me flamebait, if you want... but DON'T mod this funny! I'm being serious...
    • Finally, a GOOD use for the DMCA... putting people behind bars that support the DMCA.

      Too late, I've already patented that use.
    • Finally, a GOOD use for the DMCA... putting people behind bars that support the DMCA.

      Don't you mean "putting the people that BEGIN TO DOUBT their support of the DMCA, behind bars"? Nice help, compadre!

      On the other hand... in Farenheit 451, wasn't Montag's persecution what led him to his full conversion against the system?

  • Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mad_Rain ( 674268 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:52PM (#13077572) Journal
    Re-read the comments he made: From the first article, last sentence "DRM is a necessary technology that need not burden consumers, tech vendors or content providers."
    From the second one, last sentence. "Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."

    He didn't make a 180 degree turn on the issue. He was critical of this particular implementation of DRM (and the general cluelessness of Microsoft tech support when it came to his esoteric issue).

    It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.

    • Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bani ( 467531 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:55PM (#13077595)
      The problem is that virtually ALL DRM is like this.

      It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.

      Yep. He's still an asshole.

    • Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by crimethinker ( 721591 )
      But the DMCA says it doesn't matter if it's crappy and inconvenient DRM; circumvention is circumvention. He broke the law, even if he did have rights to the content that was being protected.

      Of course, I think the law is stupid, and getting people thrown in jail (or at least fined) for what is apparently a perfectly reasonable behaviour, is the only way to make people realize that the law needs to be changed.

      -paul

    • Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Coward Anonymous ( 110649 )
      No, he did not change his mind but now he is a self confessed criminal under the DMCA and he should be thrown in jail.
      Maybe then will he appreciate what he advocates.

  • How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Flying Purple Wombat ( 787087 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:53PM (#13077579)
    The blog entry (TFBE?) highlights a huge problem with DRM schemes. You legitimately obtain a copy of a protected work. Years later, something breaks or becomes obsolute. Now you're screwed, because you can't use the protected work that you paid for. You have two choices: buy another copy, or break the DRM. But the latter makes you criminal under the DMCA.

    This madness has to stop!

    • Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mellon ( 7048 ) * on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:01PM (#13077640) Homepage
      Actually, you may not have the choice of buying another copy. Frequently things go out of print, and there's no reason to assume that this will change in the new age of DRM. The way it will happen will be less likely that they stopped printing it, since "printing" digital media is basically free; rather, what will happen is that the original issuer will go out of business, leaving you in the lurch with not even an avenue of support.

      And if we get really effective DRM, you won't even have the choice of breaking the DRM, because the DRM won't be breakable. The only reason this guy was able to break the DRM was because it was crappy DRM. Which, frankly, is the best kind, because really effective DRM renders the product unrecoverable if the access key is lost.

      I haven't ever broken the DRM on a piece of iTMS music that I've purchased, but one of the things that makes me comfortable in buying iTMS music is that I know the DRM is breakable, so in the event that iTMS goes away, I am not shafted.

      • Re:How ironic (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ta ma de ( 851887 )
        I broke itunes DRM once, the downside to that was itunes knew that I had broken it and refused to play the tracks. It would play in other apps, but I like itunes so I live with the DRM; though I don't really care for it.

    • Re:How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by keraneuology ( 760918 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:09PM (#13077708) Journal
      The blog entry (TFBE?) highlights a huge problem with DRM schemes. You legitimately obtain a copy of a protected work. Years later, something breaks or becomes obsolute. Now you're screwed, because you can't use the protected work that you paid for.

      Are you advocating demands that Apple Records provide free music DVDs to everybody who bought Yellow Submarine on 8 Track? If I bought a copy of Ping (book about the duck) and go blind am I entitled to a free copy on tape?

      Now on to my real points.

      1. This clown needs to be prosecuted for DMCA violations. Not only did he circumvent DRM but he told everybody else how to do it. This blatant recommendation of a tool is nothing short of advocating the theft of copyrighted material.

      Unreasonable? Yes, but will the law. It is only through the prosecution of people like this will they start to advocate reasonable positions on DRM. It is the easiest thing in the world to advocate enforcing laws when you aren't subjected to them yourself (which is why Congress and the President have no real incentive to fix social security, for example). If this guy is sued with the same zeal as grandmothers who have 15 year old visitors who installed kazaa on that newfangled box then maybe there would be a louder voice calling for reason.

      2. With regards to backup, so long as there exists a legal right to back up digital works (as there should be) then -no- DRM is acceptable for the very reasons mentioned by the OP. If the companies force DRM onto their product then they should be forced to provide replacement media, for free, on demand in perpetuity. The concept of "you don't own the copy of the song you only license it" is BS: the copyright holders can sell you the song with any restrictions they like, just as I can sell you a 5 acre parcel of land with a deeded restriction that you can never build more than a single house.

      But so long as people like this guy can advocate DRM yet violate it on whim without consequence and as long as people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something with which they are not completely satisfied then nothing will change . Ever. There is no motivation for the companies to do so, so they will not.

  • Priceless (Score:3, Funny)

    by Imidazole ( 775082 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:54PM (#13077584) Homepage
    Advocating and promoting the use of DRM - $1,000,000
    Blogging about your own circumvention of it - $10

    Getting caught in the act, and ridiculed by the millions that view Slashdot - Priceless.

  • Did this guy just break the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @05:54PM (#13077590) Homepage Journal
    Did he just break the DMCA, in a very public way? Or is this not the case.

    It sure looks like the did the sort of thing that folks do, that can get them in huge trouble -- he attempted to circumvent a technological device there to protect Copyright.

    Is he really so dumb as to blog about it?
    • My question is: how in the world does Amber LIT survive? Sure, they plead with users on their website to only use the conversion tool on content that they have legally purchased, but according to DMCA et al, users don't have the right to convert content to other formats. And creating tools to circumvent DRM is explicitly criminal according to the DMCA. So how long before Amber gets a cease-and-desist? And then what will our friend Mr. Gartenberg do?

  • He still does not get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:01PM (#13077639)
    He still supports DRM, but only "good" implementations of it.

    What he does not get is that DRM *has* to be intrusive to work. DRM is based on having someone other than the owner of the machine control the data on that machine. If you want to move that data to another machine, you have to request permission and it had to be hard to get pewrmission, otherwise people will take advantage of you and copy the data more times than allowed.

    DRM is all about control. Control does not work unless you show them who is the boss early on.

    An interesting side effect of this is what it is teaching Americans. It is teaching them that they only way they can do what they want in society on a day to day basis is to break the law.

    Contemptable laws generate contempt for ALL laws.

    Or as Macalypse the Yonger put it...
    "Imposition of order = Escalation of Disorder".
  • He's rather realizing the error of his ways. Later he'll realize how evil DRM actually is.

  • Did he? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by whitehatlurker ( 867714 )
    This is just a question about this DRM stuff ... I am not familiar with US law.

    As far as I read this, he read content that he legally owned. He did use a different piece of software than the "correct" s/w, but that required him to own a copy of the correct software. He did not redistribute it.

    Is this really a violation?

    It's certainly a poor advertisement for MicroSoft. Apparently security isn't their only weakness. ;-)

    • Yes, according to the DMCA, you are not allowed to be in possession of a tool that circumvents copy protection technologies, let alone use it. It does not matter who owns the file in the eyes of the law.

    • Re:Did he? (Score:3, Informative)

      by neurojab ( 15737 )
      Is this really a violation?

      Unfortunately in current US law, the mere circumvention of a "copy protection" mechanism by the end user is illegal, whether your doing so violates ordinary copyright or not. There are exceptions made for libraries and research institutions, but not for ordinary end users.

      This "well thought out" piece of legislation is called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) [ucla.edu].
    • My understanding of the DMCA is that it makes the use of a "circumvention device" illegal, regardless of whether or not you have "fair use" rights to the content.
    • Technically he circumvented a copy protection scheme which is a violation of the DMCA. This act is highly questionable legally but it is the law here.

  • Can't have your DRM and remove it too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheStupidOne ( 872664 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:03PM (#13077661)

    Oh ho ho ho, it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine. Now he knows what it's like to be on the recieving end of DRM that restricts the legitimate use of media, media that customers paid for.

    Notice how fast it the DRM was defeated as well. From TFA, it took Michael only a few minutes to convert the DRM-ed eBooks over to PDF. Compared to the tech support nightmare that he went through, it's obvious why DRM is and always will be, a doomed technology.

    DRM does nothing except hinder the legit and paid-for use of media by honest customers, and mildly thwarts those who are determined to break it. Hopefully (but don't count on it), this will be a wake-up call to anyone seeking to implement a DRM system. When one of DRM's great apologists breaks out the "illegal" tools, you know there's a problem.

  • Yep, just another example of a "technical" person being stumbled by DRM.

    ...and these crazy companies actually think my mom is going to be able to figure this out? Sheesh, right. Remember, 95% of the people out there have no clue what DRM is or even what it means. They just want to take that cool video over to their friends house and watch it. DRM prevents that. And that's why DRM will ultimately fail in the long run.

    And don't give me the "implemented wrongly" line. DRM's purpose is to preven

  • So if I read the article right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:08PM (#13077703)
    Good DRM = Good. Don't try to go around it, that's bad.

    Bad DRM = Bad. It's good to circumvent it if you need to.

    Um, so who gets to decide what's good and what's bad?

    In the words of Homer, "Ummn, I don't know, the Coast Guard?"

  • One useful link for you. (Score:3, Funny)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:12PM (#13077733) Homepage Journal

    https://tips.fbi.gov/ [fbi.gov]

    Let him get the taste...
  • YAZBS (Yet Another Zonk Blogging Story)
  • One of the bigger gripes i have with DRM is that it lets the seller decide what you can do with your own product. Often the seller is mostly interested in money. When the customer becomes the sellers biggest enemy you know something is wrong.

    DRM is a tool to create a physical market out of a purely abstract one. DRM lets the companies make media you bought be impossible (in theory) to copy and only be at one place at a time. It can place all kinds of fictional physical boundaries up.

    I think using DRM is l
  • I'll never understand content companies. When it comes to dealing with pirated content, it's not enough that the legitimate product costs more. It also needs to be less reliable and have fewer features. What kind of moronic CEO's are these? It's like they do everything in their power to encourage people to spurn legitimate content and turn to pirated content. Where do these idiots come from?

  • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:16PM (#13077763)
    Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions. Wrong. Which generates more revenue: selling people the same content over and over again each time they buy a new computer, or giving it to them once and letting them migrate to any other machine for the rest of their life? He is obviously forgetting the main purpose of DRM: to make consumers pay for the same content over and over again! I'd say Microsoft's DRM is optimally designed to acheive Microsoft's goals: derive continuing revenue from something you used to pay for only once.

  • I hope he goes to jail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kilonad ( 157396 ) * on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:17PM (#13077767)
    I sincerely hope that someone, somewhere, takes him to court over this. It would publically shed light on how ridiculous the DMCA really is, and we'd have a better chance at fighting it. Or we'd at least have a precedent set that allows us to crack things we legally own.

  • Hypocrisy is everywhere (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:20PM (#13077786)
    He is right up there with the anti-handgun advocates who own guns for their own protection -- he wants everybody else to follow rules that he feels he is personaly above. I say we contact the appropriate copyright protection organisation and have him audited, since he has already publicly admitted to breaking the law (DMCA)!

  • Your Prize is Waiting, Michael (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:40PM (#13077903)
    Your prize is waiting, Michael Gartenberg. You have just won a No Expenses Spared date with Hilary Rosen and her MP3 player.

    You can both discuss common life experiences together -- like hypocrisy!

  • Very unfair (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Viking Coder ( 102287 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:46PM (#13077934)
    This is quite sad. The entire Slashdot crowd is being very unfair, here. He didn't change what he was saying - he said one thing and then did another. That's totally different. He castigated the community about how things should be, but when faced with harsh reality, he broke the law and tried to convince you that the law is not at fault - someone else made him do it. It's not that the law didn't protect him as a consumer of content, it's that the producer of content did a poor job - so now, he had to break the law - but they still shouldn't fix the law.

    Get ready for office!

  • MS Reader is a terrible DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Renesis ( 646465 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:03PM (#13078024)
    I'm a fan of a lot of the products Microsoft produces, and I was even a Microsoft MVP (Most Valued Professional) for several years.

    I was also employed as a Windows Media DRM expert for several years.

    I have to say, Microsoft's eBook DRM is probably the worst DRM I have ever encountered. I frequently buy eBooks, but now I have books I can't use. There is no way to de-activate an old piece of hardware from their hardware list, so after 5 equipment changes (and as geeks we update our PCs and PDAs reguarly) you're screwed.

    They promise another activation every 180 days or something on their. But that's a total lie. A complete falsehood. It says you can mail support and ask for more activations, but you just get denied every time.

    The reason their technical support knows nothing about the DRM is because the whole MS LIT/MS Reader project appears to be abandonware. The reader app hasn't had any non-critical updates in years.

    MICROSOFT! PLEASE! We just want to read the books we bought! *sob*

    I've had some bad experience with Adobe's DRM too - it won't let you re-flow DRM'd books so I can't read them on my PDA. I have to remote desktop into my PC from my Pocket PC to read them in bed.. and that's just a total scroll-fest then.

    Don't make me have to go back to using tree-based books...

  • My DRM. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:29PM (#13078198) Homepage
    Well my idea of DRM (stuff that "D"isturbs my "R"esplendent "M"ind) is that whatever impinges upon my senses is mine to play with as I will. OR KILL ME. Then again what Orthodox Thelemic Odinist Subgenius would argue otherwise ?

    Witness blackbirds in England who have taken to include the sounds of car alarms in their calls... (After all this could be another bird trying to muscle in on their territory).

    The attempted enforcement of DRM on all current "Bit Manipulating" technology sums up how shallow, unimaginative, uninteresting and shite our 21st century culture currently is. Working "uncrakabull" DRM (which will never occur, trust me) is the ultiate masturbatory fantasy of the utterly untalented who only seek to catch and control the output of the inspired (who will do what they do regardless of reward) In the long term all it will mean is that large parts of DRMd culture will be forgotten. And quite frankly it's for the best.

    Any good artist will do what they've always done... i.e. make a living by performing their art live or doing custom work for willing patrons.

    Watching the retard "media crowd" arguing over who owns the "rights" (sic) to pimp the inspired work of artisits reminds me of nothng more than flies arguing over who owns the right to the dung of an elephant.

    In't booze grate ????

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close