Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Consumer Electronics Companies Plan Common DRM Standard

Posted by michael on Fri Jan 21, 2005 02:48 PM
from the one-standard-to-bind-them-all dept.
Rinisari writes "'The world's four biggest consumer electronics companies have agreed to start using a common method to protect digital music and video against piracy and illegal copying, they said on Thursday,' begins a Reuters article on Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, and Sony's new alliance to establish interoperability and combat the evergrowing 'threat' to the music industry. The new alliance is to be called the 'Marlin Joint Development Association.'" The BBC's story on this issue is better, with quotes from several people.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by pergamon (4359) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:50PM (#11434941) Homepage
    Don't worry, the association is named after a fish. This isn't going anywhere.
  • Now watch... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:50PM (#11434945)
    Sales of newer electronic devices plummet as consumers realize the older DRM free players will play MP3 files, and the newer models offer no advantage.

    Will the electronics companies attribute sales loss to piracy too?
  • Work around... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neiffer (698776) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:51PM (#11434947) Homepage
    With one standard, doesn't that make it easier work for those working around it?
    • by Erpo (237853) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:18PM (#11435292)
      With one standard, doesn't that make it easier work for those working around it?

      Yes, but that doesn't matter too much in the long run; trying to make an unbreakable DRM system is an unwinnable battle. The content cartel can still win the war by creating a future in which (flawed) Digital Restriction Mechanisms are a standard part of every consumer electronics device, preventing the nontechnical user from making copies of copyrighted works.

      People will be born in this future who will think DRM is normal and OK.

      Besides, the real threat we all ought to be concentrating on is "Trusted" Computing, not the DRM flavor of the week.
      • by Gob Blesh It (847837) <gobblesh1t@gmail.com> on Friday January 21 2005, @03:38PM (#11435511)
        "trying to make an unbreakable DRM system is an unwinnable battle"

        Exactly. People don't seem to realize that the real battle isn't about technology at all, but for people's hearts and minds. Drill it into every child's head that only criminals and morally bankrupt thugs would ever circumvent DRM--even if only to timeshift TV programs, for example, or throw a mixtape together for your cross-country roadtrip--and you'll only need a cursory sprinkling of DRM to (as Steve Jobs put it) "keep honest people honest."

        The battle for content creators and copyright holders is to redefine "honest" in as profitable a way as possible.
          • by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday January 21 2005, @04:41PM (#11436210)
            How about this one:

            You want to give a mix CD to a friend in order to share some of your favorite music with him/her, because they haven't been exposed to it. You don't want to copy whole albums (or a whole iPod) and give those to the friend; you just want to copy a handful of songs from different albums as a sampler.

            Legally, this is perfectly acceptable under the Audio Home Recording Act. You're not copying entire albums, just a few songs; and you're only making one copy, to be given to a friend you personally know (not the entire internet). IANAL, but from everything I've read, this is exactly the kind of thing this Act was written to protect.

            With DRM-protected music, making such a CD is either very difficult, or impossible. My fair-use rights have been restricted unfairly. But more importantly, this is a fair-use right that Joe Sixpack might very well care about.
    • Re:Work around... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by killjoe (766577) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:40PM (#11435526)
      There won't be a single standard. Did you notice which names are NOT on the list? MS and Apple, the two largest companies pushing their own DRM technologies. Also note the absence of content providors such as RIAA.

  • by chris09876 (643289) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:51PM (#11434961)
    As much as I hate DRM, this was really a necessary move. With everybody using different DRM technologies, even consumers who wanted to follow the law really had no choice. Having incompatible file formats wasn't a solution. Consolidation like this was a necessary first step for protected digitas music.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21 2005, @02:52PM (#11434968)
    They keep making that typo. They mean Combat Privacy.
  • by SharpFang (651121) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:53PM (#11434985) Homepage Journal
    Just a few articles below. [slashdot.org]
    Admit. Then bend over. Spanking time.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:53PM (#11434988)
    And in other news, the four most successful Cackers today announced an alliance to work together and crack this system in record time. In a joint statement released they commented, "It's all so much easier now that there's only one system to worry about."

    W00t!

  • Riiiiiight (Score:5, Funny)

    by Erik Fish (106896) on Friday January 21 2005, @02:56PM (#11435030) Journal
    Remember a few years ago when all future hard drives were going to have DRM built into them? There was even an alliance of all the big hard drive manufacturers of the time.

    The headline should read "Consumer Electronics Companies Promise They Won't Cum In Hollywood's Mouth"

  • by big-magic (695949) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:00PM (#11435067)

    Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because all the previous DRM schemes were broken, that any new scheme will suffer the same fate. The crypto necessary to build good DRM exists. It's just that in the past, engineers ignored the advice of crypto experts and developed their own methods. All of which were broken. But I think they are learning from their mistakes.

    Of course, this means that there will need to be a single digital-analog-digital iteration to remove the DRM. As someone said, if I can play it, I can record it. I just may not be able to record the original digital data

    • by meringuoid (568297) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:09PM (#11435182)
      Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because all the previous DRM schemes were broken, that any new scheme will suffer the same fate. The crypto necessary to build good DRM exists.

      Actually, I think that DRM will always be crackable.

      The problem is not really one of encryption; you can use as strong a cipher as you like. The problem is that the user has to be able to decrypt your message. So, somewhere encoded into the software, or on a chip on a circuit board, is the key. Get that key and the scheme is compromised.

      If the system is being implemented as an industry standard, then it'll be done a thousand times by a thousand different manufacturers. Sooner or later someone'll pull a Xing and give us an easy way in. Even if They are careful, and enforce strict standards on how their secret keys are implemented, well... Sony put an awful lot of work into making the PS2 refuse to play pirate games, but how long did it take before there were modchips?

      I'm pretty optimistic about this. A cryptosystem in which the recipient himself is the enemy is a system which is doomed to be cracked.

      • by rbird76 (688731) on Friday January 21 2005, @04:51PM (#11436310)
        As someone else pointed out on this thread, the problem isn't so much DRM as it is Trusted Computing. As of now, if the DRM is cracked, both the crack and the cracked material will be on the Web shortly. New DRM leads to new cracks which quickly follow.

        The "Trusted Computing/Palladium/whatever title we come up with to disguise our intentions" initiative is more threatening. In that case, unless it is cracked as well, which will be harder because of strong crypto and no analog hole, each person that wants to remove the DRM on their copy has to break it themselves, which is not going to happen. They will be unable to download the crack, DMCA will prevent mass distribution of a physical crack, and the de-DRM'd material won't be available (because the OS won't let you). Once each crack has to be done individually, they can DRM to the heart's delight and it will be very hard for their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers to stop them.

        A system with the customers as the enemy is stable if 1) the users can't gang up (TC : check) and 2) they have no alternative to get content. (politician purchase and redemption program : check). DRM is a speed bump. TC is like nuking all of the cars and most of the roads, and making everyone use public transit which only stops at stores.
      • by BillyBlaze (746775) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Friday January 21 2005, @05:42PM (#11436921)
        While your argument is correct, I think it's very dangerous thinking, because it ignores the practical ease with which the restrictions can be circumvented. Ideally it would be legal and easy. Currently, it's illegal but still easy - all it takes is software, and thankfully, governments currently can't effictively stop the flow of information (=software) between internet-connected nations. However, if you just crawl into your hole of optimism for the next few years, you'll wake up and realize that to excercize fair use rights, you'll need physical objects (modchips, soundcards that ignore watermarks, etc.) to excercize your fair use rights - and governments can control objects, especially those that need a fabrication lab to create, much more effectively. Yes, it will still be possible to "crack" the restrictions -- but if I have to buy used soundcards from shady guy in the alley with his eyes gouged out or swallow modchips wrapped in condoms to smuggle them into the Land of the Free from countries being bombed because the cyberterrorists they harbor create Weapons of Mass Circumvention - well, I think that would suck.
  • New Contenders (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:11PM (#11435214) Homepage
    You know, I always have wondered what its like to watch giant corporations tumble and new comers rise in their place. We've seen it with the startups, and if these companies keep up this ignorance, we'll see it again with consumer electronics.

    The people WILL get what they demand, whether its illegal or not (see the War on Drugs and Prohibition for proof).

    The market place has spoken about what they want, and if these companies can't provide it without putting cumbersome, restrictive DRM on it that only benefits the content producers, well...sounds like a ripe opening in the marketplace for someone to come in and give the public EXACTLY what they want at a fair price and then watch the big companies stumble over themselves to compete or litigate.

  • Legal Copying? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by natpoor (142801) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:16PM (#11435268) Homepage
    Nowhere in either of the articles do I see a mention of "legal copying", although that's what I expected. As an academic, we need to be able to make copies sometimes, and US law allows us to do so (see the law at Cornell [cornell.edu]). I feel, as may /.'ers, that the DMCA conflicts with this (did they ever amend it?).

    However, as citizens, regardless of whether we are in a democracy, a supposed democracy, or some other less fortunate type of rulership, the Western belief is that our inalienable rights include the freedom of speech, which in this digital age may mean copying something for criticism, be it from the government or a corporation. These corporations should not be allowed to get away with this, but they will.

  • Impossible. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phorm (591458) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:26PM (#11435362) Homepage Journal
    The problem I see with DRM is that it's impossible to make it work without breaking either existing compatability or fair-use.

    You can't stop the "evil dirty pirates" from copying discs without stopping the home user who just wants to make a backup/archival/play-on-my-laptop-while-I'm-travel ling copy.

    Making a new format that people will have to move to means making it incompatible with older devices.

    Making a device that complies with fair-use laws in various countrie is well nigh impossible too. I believe some places that *do* believe in proper fair use mean that you have to allow personal reproduction.

    Oh, and Get this media companies. The analogue loop still exists. So long as your device needs to plug into my TV, it can also plug into my computer. So long as it needs to work with my headphones, it will plug into my soundcard. I don't need 20923x19334 pixels of resolution and 1024kbps-megasurround... and the people transferring the files online will be just as happy to view a scaled down version (hell, they're happy with cams).

    Your video player needs to be compatible with our TV's. It's not like everyone will rush out to buy a new TV because the existing one doesn't have your DRM-filled digital connector, nor will the new ones take over for many, many years.

    Stop restricting how we use our property, and how about focussing all that intelligence and co-operation on something more useful like features that *enhance* our viewing/listening experience.
  • Quick question: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GeorgeH (5469) on Friday January 21 2005, @03:52PM (#11435697) Homepage Journal
    When the work enters the public domain in 90 or so years, and there are no more Rights to Digitally Manage, will the DRM allow complete access to the work?

    No?

    OK, just be sure to include a sticker that says "This product contains DRM that is the digital equivelant of the burning of the Library of Alexandria."
  • by yeremein (678037) on Friday January 21 2005, @04:37PM (#11436169)
    ...just eschew DRM entirely.

    I'm serious. Please put down your tomatoes, **AA, and listen.

    It doesn't matter what form(s) of DRM you use; it will be defeated, and your content will find its way to P2P networks, bootleggers, and so forth. DRM just punishes honest customers.

    Yet another DRM standard, even one with multiple backers, is an inferior solution to no DRM at all.

    If I can't make a copy to listen to in the car, or play in my MP3 player thats older than the last eight DRM standards but perfectly usable otherwise, Im not interested.

    Likewise, if I have to get permission from the publisher to read a book I've already paid for after I upgrade my computer, I wont buy it.

    If I cant make unencumbered backup copies, then I havent bought anything. Ive just leased some media until my hard drive crashes, or I get a new computer, or the DRM du jour goes out of style, or the file format becomes obsolete. I refuse to shell out cold hard cash for media effectively printed on disappearing ink.

    Almost any imaginable content is available, free and unrestricted, online. While I dont condone piracy myself, I cant understand how you hope to encourage people to pay for their media by offering a vastly inferior product in exchange.
    • Users should be able to activate any DRM enabled device they own and play any DRMed content they have bought. This seems to be a good step in that direction.

      Big companies like this do not collaborate to make things easier on consumers. They collaborate to make money. DRM makes money not by preventing piracy (the official line). It makes money by making you buy more than one copy of each movie, song, book, picture, or whatever. If you want something to work across all your devices, don't expect that to happen with DRM. If the media companies wanted that to happen, they would not put DRM on in the first place. If you think your DVDs will play in your HD-3D-DVD-extreme2 player, or that there will be any legal way to copy them to a format that does work in that player a few years down the road, then you are just wrong.

      Note, they can also make a small amount of money via advertising through DRM. If your DVD player cannot skip commercials, media companies can make more money putting them on your DVDs.

      If you think DRM standards will benefit you, you are probably very mistaken.