Sun Spearheads Open DRM 579
Steve from Hexus writes "If DRM is the future of controlling our media files, then perhaps the open source community can at the very least ensure that the dominant delivery system is an open standard. Hexus.net reports that Sun is spearheading a new open DRM project, which their lab workers and the open source community can contribute to. More information on project DReaM can be found at the Open Media Commons website." Tough call - DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
Oh good grief... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dream on (Score:1, Insightful)
You lost me at "Hello" (Score:1, Insightful)
You lost me right there. If I can't crack it, I'm not using it. There is plenty of unencumbered content available. Who needs Britney Spears when you have a free ogg online from that band down the street? This is the real threat to the established content moguls. That Star Wars quote about "the more you tighten your grip" sounds like a cliche, but in this instance it is absolutely true.
Lock me out of your content such that once I lawfully possess it, I can't do whatever I want with it? GOODBYE! Thanks to the Internet there are so many more fish in the content sea, which will see an altruistic advantage, or a competitive advantage, to not using DRM.
I Object! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have to be an idiot to want to help in this. It would be like being asked to build a prison that is going to be used to lock you in. Even more than that, Sun are asking you to help them make this prison better, and for free. Normally people will do objectionable things for enough money (sadly), but hopefully no-one is stupid enough to do this for free.
Why would you want to help them build shackles for you!
"Open DRM"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if you mean openness of only the software itself, you can't go much farther than Microsoft Shared Source -- the "look but not touch" way. What is source worth if you can't even compile it and have it working?
I don't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibilities of Open DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
In an open DRM system, anybody could create their own DRM "universe" by generating their own set of keys to initialize the system -- this opens the possibility of using DRM to do different things than today's systems, such as protecting privacy: Sun is quite interested in providing storage records for medical records and such, and some kind of DRM would help with HIPPA compliance. (But when I look at the privacy policy I get from my Doc, there are so many people that can see my records that she could save money and just leave them on the curb.)
It's hard to picture media companies getting behind Sun, but other companies that want to build their own systems for protecting information might get on board -- Sun hopes that this will help them sell storage systems.
Hmmn, If it gives me MAC it might be cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be used to grant strictly controlled untrusted access to downloaded content in general, included downloaded content ranging from cookies to SETI at Home.
The OS that supports that will need to be somewhere arround B2 security, something I know Linux, BSD and the commercial Unixes can and have acheieved, but which I strongly suspect VMS and Windows can't reach.
--dave (biased former securitroid) c-b
Free DRM? Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a DRM framework is available to implement as free software, then how can people be prevented from modifying the software to leak the cleartext of the work and then using the modified software?
OpenBSOD (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't object to DRM on moral grounds... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I object to it on consumerist grounds. DRM just doesn't provide enough value for what I'm paying for.
Despite owning a Mac, I have yet to buy anything on iTMS but will still happily buy dinosaur digital audio (a.k.a. "Compact Discs"). Why? Compact discs provide me with several things that DRMed digital audio can't:
Considering that a digital album costs about the same as a CD on Amazon, the decision is a no-brainer.
DRM is here, but the problems are just starting (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, an OpenDRM is worse than regular DRM and should be resisted as strongly as any other DRM. It will only make it easier to for everyone to push DRM because of the common platform. At least there's the chance that competing DRMs will piss off enough people to ALL fail, or that the competition alone will force less restrictive models (a la Apple vs. Microsoft currently).
It actually is a good thing ! (Score:2, Insightful)
That old (Score:4, Insightful)
It's on my computer I paid for, with software I paid for or have an exclusive license for. It'll be a cold day in hell when I buy something and then don't have exclusive rights to it. I'm not leasing software; in any way, shape, or form.
People keep saying DRM is here!! OMG!! I'm scared mommy! Stop acting along the lines of a bitch and realize that the power in the consumer/media conglomerate relationship lies with the consumer.
With my consumer hat fully locked into place. DRM can come, stay, go, do whatever it wants to. Simply, not on my personal hardware. If it means not having the ability to use or watch media because the majority has spoken otherwise. Then so be it.
You can either tow the line with a statement and action you believe in. Or, join em. This segues right into the reason society has faltered when it comes to most anything involving standards, morals or simply standing up for ones self. There is a lot less beating, and a whole lot of joining.
Shouldn't corporations be required to use DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. should never appear in plaintext and managing who has what rights to read/copy/write files with sensitive data seems like a job for DRM. For example DRM would also help when a company uses a 3rd-party provider (e.g., your employer hires another company handle payroll). DRM would let the 3rd-party access the data on a one-time use basis. Any attempt to copy the data or read the data outside the specified application would fail. This type fo DRM would help reduce the chance of a rogue employee trying to sell the data.
It seems like DRM could have valuable applications for helping maintain privacy.
DRM is a waste and ultimately will fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, for the masses it will continue to affect them but for those who have just a bit of savvy and can use the tools that others produce, DRM will be nothing more than a minor annoyance.
Open source developed or not, a DRM is just a hurdle.
The "moral" problem is actually one of legality. It is one thing to introduce an obstacle to certain ways of using content, but to make it criminal merely for bypassing the DRM regardless of your right to the actual content is where the moral problem lies.
Better to object to it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dlugar
DReaM on.. (Score:5, Insightful)
DReaM on, Sun. The Open Source community isn't about writing your code for you, open standards or not.
Many of us vehemently object to DRM on its face, because it goes counter to the beliefs of the Open Source community; fostering learning and growth and a strong sense of community through sharing and improving our creations.
DRM doesn't play into that, even if your "customers" demand it. Creating an Open Source initiative to try to get the Open Source community to write the code for you, so you can lock it up under the CDDL for your customers' use, doesn't play into that.
Find another sandbox to play in, this one is ours.
could be a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
An open source DRM standard would make a method of controlling content widely available. The more widely available it is, the more players we can utilize in playing our DRM'd music, movie, etc. Hopefully, with Sun behind this, enough media executives will start to trust an open DRM.
Pros:
1. High level of transparency/accountability.
2. The standards will be open to everyone. (Now Joe Schmoe can write a player that can read CheapoMP3z.com's DRM'd music.)
3. It's Sun - hopefully, all the music/movie execs will recognize the name and trust them and their products.
Cons:
1. Vaporware? (open DRM is a nice idea, but when's it gonna get here? we'll not hold our breath, thanks [java.net].
2. It's Sun - do we trust them and their products?
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM doesn't work. Unless you are using a TCPA platform.
Open sourcing it will only make it harder to break.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
As with software, if you disagree with the terms and conditions music is sold under, then don't buy it and support what matches your philosophies. Support artists that sell non-DRM MP3 files on bleep.com or similar sites. Support live music.
Just don't take a moral position that's like saying you believe in free / open software and then running pirated Microsoft apps.
Nah (Score:3, Insightful)
How about work create a lot of different standards done wrong, so the whole thing gets scrapped once people get frustrated with the stuff just not working.
Re:Object (Score:5, Insightful)
What was called copyright way back should have been called 'sellright' or 'publishright' - and should only protect against false authorship claim, and against actually selling (eg for money) copies unless you were the rightholder. It wouldnt have hurt to make the whole thing non-transferrable and non-assignable too - eg the actual author/artist of a work holds permanent rights, even if he contracts with a publisher to actually distribute and sell copies on his behalf.
Of course, they will never use any DRM which can have any Open implementation, becuase anyone would be free to implement it and add or remove whatever features they wanted in their implementation, including an option to allow use that the persons issuing the DRM'ed content would want to prohibit. The only way that any 'Open' DRM would ever succeed is if the DRM-pushers are too ignorant to realize that.
Who is the "root authority"? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least an open standard form of DRM could put everyone on equal footing, rathern than locking in the big media company's control over the industry. If independant producers have the same access/right/privileges as the big players, it makes for a much better solution.
Personally, I am all for a good system of protecting the rights of content producers. But, the last thing I want is that system being used to lock in the power of big business and the garbage that they peddle.
Death of filesharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is much larger then just some lame p2p copyright infringement idea.
DRM will effect the very way we retain our knowledge as a society. The "keyholders" will dictate what information is acceptable and what is not.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
We're looking at the death of file sharing as we know it...
Correction, we're looking at the death of illegal file sharing. You can still share all of the music, movies, pictures, etc that you want...so long as it's not violating copyright. (Like photo's you've taken, or indie music)
How can a person be prevented from file sharing and still be able to use the file anywhere they want? When I buy music I don't expect nor will I buy a license to play it anywhere I want whether it be on my stereo or computer at home, on my stereo in my car, and another one to play it on my walkman or iPod. If I have to buy a license for each one then I won't buy at all. Simply if drm prevents sharing then it also prevents portability between devices.
FalconOpen DRM probably good (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with DRM isn't the concept itself, it's the one-sidedness of current implementations: the existing DRM systems enforce the rights the media companies want enforced, but they don't enforce the rights copyright law grants to copy-owners. An open DRM system at least offers the ability to lay down within the system all rights including the ones copyright law grants that the media companies don't like. If we lay down the standard with reference to relevant statute and case law, we can change the playing field so the media companies have to argue why a DRM system shouldn't comply with the law when they object to things like time-shifting and personal-copy rights.
Re:I Object! (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, however, I think the concept of DRM as Free Software (or even Open Source) is even sufficiently self-contradictory to prevent this from working.
For example, if I download this Open Source DRM software, then I have access to the source code, and I can have it, say, strip out the DRM, transcode it, and save it in a digital form on my hard drive. Because FOSS places the ultimate trust in the users of the software, and DRM is based on distrust of the users of the software, I have real trouble seeing any corporation contributing.
Re:Moral objections? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's implemented by a machine, and machines cannot know the intent of someone using the material it protects, a DRM system cannot tell the difference between infringing and non-infringing uses. Therefore the only way for a DRM system to stop copyright infringement is to stop all copying, which stops the *legal* kind, as well as the *illegal* kind.
In short, it's objectionable because it screws people out of their rights.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
Get off your high horse. Some people simply want to listen to their pop idols or certain songs. What do they do then? Pay someone with unoriginal songs whose style is directly copied? Who the hell would support that?
Yes, I download. I also use the iTMS to buy music and use jHymn to strip the DRM. I've bought more than a few songs that I already had on mp3 just for quality, or just because I liked the artist -- introduced to me, no less, by a friend with a mp3. Not to mention that, after hearing some SoaD. I bought the 3 System of a Down CDs out at the time, then ripped them for my own use.
Yes, I pirate Microsoft apps. I have two licenses for XP home (OEM) and one for Pro, and I run XP corp'ed on 2 computers. Technically I'm violating the license, but money has been paid, and screw MS's policy. I disagree with their "terms and conditions", but (since XPSP2)like their software. And I do believe in free/open software, but does that mean that I can't use what works?
I'll take whatever moral position I damn well want to, and you won't stop me. You're a troll on a high horse.
Re:I Object! (Score:3, Insightful)
The bank owns the safe the box is in, and credibly promises to safeguard it, and I own the contents of the box. And promise not to store dead fish in it (;-))
--dave
Re:Free DRM? Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not free, but Open in it's worst sense. Sun is looking for free development and support of a really bad idea. Like all non-free software, it will only be free to it's owners.
As you note, there is no free DRM and you will have to give up control of your computer for DRM to actually work. DRM works by permitting or denying a copy of a file. If you are not the one granting permission for that copy or erasure, you are not the owner of your computer. The first program that has to be owned it the DRM system itself. It does not mater if you can compile the software yourself, the system must not allow you to exchange it or modify itself.
I've read the impassioned defense of trusted computing and I don't buy it. I don't need and don't trust a special piece of hardware on my computer to hold my keys and tell me if I can read or copy a file or process in memory. Those kinds of things are kernel functions. If my kernel is letting someone else look at my private keys, there's something wrong with my kernel or my configuration. When something is wrong with my kernel, I know there's a huge community of people ready willing and able to point it out and fix it. If a fritz chip does something wrong, I'm simply screwed until my vendor can fix it. If my vendor is malicious, I'm really screwed because I was dumb enough to let my vendor own my computer.
DRM is the biggest threat to the free press and free speech since the federal government started allocating radio spectrum. Your computer is the world's press - nothing is written or published without one. Don't let someone else take your keys away just so you can watch a silly movie or listen to some silly song.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
I pirate Microsoft apps...but money has been paid
So if I pay money to Ferrari for a hood ornament, I have the right to steal the whole car?
I disagree with their "terms and conditions"
So don't use MS's software. No one is forcing you.
And I do believe in free/open software
Actions speak louder than words. You can go around saying you support FOSS all you want, but if at the end of the day you sit down in front of your computer running Windows (be it a pirated copy or otherwise), you really aren't supporting FOSS, now are you? All you are doing is giving software companies a bigger reason to incorporate DRM into their products.
Yes, you can take whatever moral position you want, and, no, no one can stop you. But don't bitch when DRM is used in products because when people wonder why companies use it, those companies using it point to people like you as their reason.
Re:Death of freedom or dawn of privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:5, Insightful)
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. To refuse to buy the DRMed material and refuse to listen to or watch it is to agree with the concept that the people who put the restrictions of the use had the moral authority to do so. You are agreeing that culture can and should be denied to people now and in the future for arbitrary reasons.
If you disagree with DRM and its implication that media and culture can actually be owned, then by all means beg, borrow, copy, and steal the material on the encoded media.
Remember these guys stole the public domain by paying off the politicians to indefinitely extend the copyright lengths. They therefore have no claim to any material that can be placed on digital media. Anything they say can not be trusted.
Copyright is basically a pricing issue. After an agreed period of time, the material goes out of copyright and into public domain. Preventing material from entering public domain is the real theft. These people are the real thieves. And in a civilized society, thieves don't get to decide what the property laws are going to be.
These guys plan to use DRM to deny forever any material entering the public domain. We have a duty to future generations to remove the DRM from any material encoded on any digital format, regardless of how old or new it is or who believes that they 'own' it.
These guys don't control the information age; we control the information age. Because we created it. If we don't want DRM, DRM won't exist.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
The revolution starts with me. Worrying about "the majority of people" is senseless, because you have no control over them.
when almost all knowledge and media of any sort is locked down and you have the choice between.... oh wait - no you won't have a choice.
Won't happen as long as people who DO care are vigilant and work not simply to pirate things but to provide knowledge and media that are free.
Re:Death of filesharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't new, what you see, hear and read is all controlled anyway. New tools, but same old tactics.
This is what makes the web (and filesharing in particular) very interesting. People are free to do as they please, without any of the usual controls. People reject the "keyholders" terms of use, piracy (I *hate* that word) is rife. The fact you can buy blank CDs in record stores is an acceptance that ordinary people copy CDs all the time. Christ, you can buy blank media and breakfast cereal in the same store these days - it's a defacto part of society now.
People aren't stupid either, they know that everytime a corporate mouthpiece complains about "evil pirates stealing the artists income" that what they are really saying is you are stealing our income. I don't give a shit about fat, stupid record execs getting ripped off - they've been screwing the artists for years and everyone knows it. The fact that some bands can now make a living by going direct to the fanbase must have the MPAA/RIAA in a cold sweat.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why community wifi projects are so important (and so vehemently opposed by corporate interests).