Buzzword du Jour: DRM 160
mattmcal writes "Though the RSA Conference in San Francisco and Bill Gates' keynote were expected to stir up several headlines on 'security' today, the news coming from 3GSM in Cannes seemed to deliver more tangible results. From Qualcomm's new DRM chipsets to NDS' mobile VideoGuard, several interesting 'DRM (digital rights management)' announcements raise the bar for distribution-shy media companies who may have increasing opportunities for driving content to mobile devices. But Intel's Barrett knows this is only the beginning of a complicated standards problem."
It will take years for these standards to settle d (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will take years for these standards to settl (Score:2)
Let's hope that's the case. In fact, if you have any care about freedom, implement your own DRM system NOW. Make it buggy, and difficult to implement. Make it confusing for users of the technology, and make sure that any free and open formats JUST WORK. That way, when everything settles down, what is most used, and what becomes the "standard", will be what people have migrated too, DRM-less options...
Re:It will take years for these standards to settl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will take years for these standards to settl (Score:2)
It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM simply cannot work without enforcement in the hardware. It it's in memory and it's an architecture remotely similary to what we now consider a "personal computer", I can copy it.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
but i guess the main point is not absolute security but to make copying as hard as possible until joe sixpack just doesnt care to copy but instead just buys it.
i dont know anyone who is not quite a bit into computers wo knows how to copy one of those 'wanna-be' audio cds, let alone copmuter games.
the point is its no problem for 99% of the
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people in the third world are unable to pirate they will turn to open source or at least cheaper alternatives.
The worst thing that can happen is that MS will also press non DRM CDs and look the other way while the third world pirates them.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:2)
You all are probably aware of this, but this is why, in reality, MS, the RIAA, etc. actually "like" pirates. It gives exposure for their products. If not for piracy, MS et al could hardly exist in Asian or African markets due to the price(duh). There is no way they are going make any more than the feeblest(?) of efforts to stop it. And then, it's only for the press. Piracy is just another m
But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But Joe Sixpack can just go to his local market (Score:2)
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was using an Acorn RiscPC, I used to pay for my softs, then I switched to PC and, because of the volume of this mass market, I suddenly became reluctant to pay such amounts of money for buggy software, then I switched to Linux, then to OSX where I began paying for software.
The moral of this story is that I think if you want people to purchase your product, you have to act with them as if they were worthy customers, not as if they were just a mass market supposed to inflate your statistics.
DRM will fail because windows users are pissed off to be treated anonymously and believe me, like a hundred million monkeys coding on a hundred millions windows, they'll end up finding the flaw that will demonstrate how impossible it is to implement a definitely 100% secure DRM system.
(Note that the 100% security may come from ever-changing security schemes)
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
What he's more likely to do is discover that the "originals" have various problems, like not working in his cars, while the stuff you get from Kazaa, or any of the other p2p-networks doesn't have that problem.
Thus he gets it from kazaa. If it initially took 5 minutes of work to rip the CD, or 30, is without consequence to him, as is what technical knowledge is required, because he's not going to be the one doing it. He's only going to download the finished, ripped-by-someone-else unencumbered mp3.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact even with a routine that marries DRM to hardware, there will always be instances where the content is never completely "locked-in".
Why do I say this? Simply because computers (the digital beings that they are) are not the ones paying for use of media content in the manner that we are? Which computer do you know of today that wants to watch a movie or listen to a song? And the analog-perception beings that we are, there will always be a need to convert from the secured digital format to unsecure analog format for "playback". And therein lies the greatest weakness of any DRM technology.
Or atleast they find some way to directly bridge the gap between the digital stream of ones and zeroes within computing devices and our senses of perception.
Till then, this is all goobledegook, albeit always at a higer plane than the last time round.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Funny)
Funny you should say that, as I thought of a handy anti-DRM slogan right now.
DRM is to media and playback, what fathers are to girlfriends and sex.
Ok, so now I am a geek.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:2)
You didn't hear about the latest DRM tech? Blindfolds and ear plugs.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Bzzzt. Wrong! DRM serves as an anchor for legal enforcement. You are right in that it certainly won't work without hardware support. However, that's not the point. The whole point is to make you, or anyone who does manufacture devices without DRM support in their hardware, look like a villain -- a "hacker", a thief, a criminal.
An example: German news site Heise [heise.de] reports [heise.de] that the music industry here started to go after people who sell software able to copy music CDs. So this is what does happen:
It does not matter what works and what doesn't from a technical point of view. What matters is that the legal system accepts claim No. 1, and is sufficiently forgetful to not notice the loop when they return to claim No. 1 for the next iteration.
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:3, Interesting)
And Microsoft is well aware of this. DRM for them is a great way to continue the monopoly on the personal desktop.
It will not be long before we start seeing PC's (or more likely laptops) that have hardware measures that restrict it to being able to run only a specific operating system (nothing new, I believe the xbox does it already). This will all be done under the auspices of DRM, but the real intent of Microsoft will be to leave the consumer
Re:It's fundamentally silly (Score:3, Informative)
Go back to first principals. The schemes roughly work by: the 'untrusted system' sets a block of memory consisting of a program. It then tells the control chip to 'authenticate' that block. The control chip runs a cryptographic hash over it and only if it matches a signature will it relinquish additional encryption keys to the software in that block. It can also faithfully prove to that controlled box that th
Please, let's call it what it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please, let's call it what it is... (Score:1, Funny)
Draconian, Restricted Media (DRM) (Score:2)
DRM: Draconian Restricted Media
People really need to be informed about precisely what it is they are wasting their hard earned money on, and exactly what rights the copyright cartels are stripping away from them.
Only then will the mythical "free" market, or at least those of us who participate in it as customers, have a shred of a chance of making an informed decision.
Re:Please, let's call it what it is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please, let's call it what it is... (Score:2)
And a real invisible pink unicorn is pink while not actually being visible.
Whether a use is legal or not generally depends primarily on the intent of the use. Until we get mind-reading software/hardware it is impossible for any DRM system to distinguish between legal use and infringing use. The best it can do is identify if a use might be infringi
New Oxymoron? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Oxymoron? (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is merely a matter of symantics, and you have no argument from me about 'removed flexibility' being the end result, it is key to be even handed in reading, interpreting and explaining what they say, what they mean and what that means to us.
~Dan
Re:New Oxymoron? (Score:5, Insightful)
They would look at the completely unprotected MP3 which the music listeners where downloading in droves, and say with a straight face that they would work to find the right balance between what the customer wanted, and was currently consuming, and what nobody wanted. Huh??
MP3's are cheap to produce, have minimal technical support issues, and play in almost any device.
So what do these geniuses do? They adopt DRM-heavy formats and are *shocked* that they didn't succeed.
It took Apple to prove that, duh, minimal DRM is better.
Now that they've got most of their heads out of their asses, lets move to the next obvious step: NO DRM! You might just be shocked that enough people will pay for your content!
What's the first thing I do with my iTunes downloads? That's right, remove the useless DRM and convert it to MP3 so I can play it on my non-Apple stuff.
Re:New Oxymoron? (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling your bluff (Score:2)
Now, come on... Yes, some people are downloading files illegally out of principle, in protest against record-company practices, or whatever, but the vast majority download files for the Sir Edmund Hillary reason: simply because they're there. (However they rationalise it...)
This is the implication every time stories like this get posted: that if record companies 'behaved themselves' (though what qualifies as 'good behaviour' is neve
Re:New Oxymoron? (Score:2, Funny)
DRM is only putting off the inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable (Score:3, Insightful)
the artists aren't the most threatened here, it's the media comapnies that push their in-house distribution channels that are most at risk for extinction.
Re:DRM is only putting off the inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)
People want digital content.. and they want it to be reasonably priced, and they want it to be easy.
Taking away cusotemers choices with DRM is not going to work.
It's not just the media companies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, media companies will fight to own all distribution of old content. But watch out for the hardware companies. They're already trying to own all distribution of new content. It's slick. Just visit their online store, download the content, and it only runs on your phone/PDA/laptop/whatever. Until it breaks, that is.
As an artist, you'd think I'd just love this scheme. Hah! The problem is, once a company thinks it owns your distribution, it thinks it owns you! When I fell for DRM and the lure of easy money, all of a sudden I was spending months fighting to retain designs and customer relationships that had taken years to refine. All this fussing cut into my productivity, and my fans noticed.
For the record, when I dropped copy protection completely, sales doubled almost immediately.
So don't be fooled by the current battle between the media and hardware companies. They're just fighting for who gets to own the artists and milk their audience. I'm not falling for it again, and I hope you won't, either.
Re:Owning is Dead, long live pay per vew! (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless new models of distribution can be created which connect the content creators directly with the content users.
"Content creators/users" is totally corporate-centric terminology. The web already does a great job of linking (ahem) artists to their audiences. As you guessed, pay per view is not far from my specific distribution model. I update my main product about once a month. Customers get the original download and all updates (to the next full version) if they buy a copy. That also grants them acce
DRM parallel to the Industrial Revolution (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a marketing set up... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS: DRM = security
Average Joe: So, I must need DRM
Game over.
Re:It's a marketing set up... (Score:2, Insightful)
And if it isn't accurate at portraying how 'things will go down,' I do think it is an accurate estimation of how it will be foisted upon us.
I'd like to have faith and think they "there's just no way Joe Sixpack will see the reduced functionality as a fair trade-off for the cheap tricks and half-ass 'value' that may be introduced by DRM (though obviously just as possible without it)", we
Re:It's a marketing set up... (Score:2)
I think it is very important to stop legislation designed to promote eSlavery
http://www.ipjustice.org
just my .02 (Score:3, Interesting)
Just my 2e-2 $
Re:just my .02 (Score:1)
It's not I am against technology, but... do you really want to travel in a bus where 20 people are watching damn movies on their cell phones? Or listening to music?
I would bet that most of these people would use headphones and not distract you one bit. At least in here listening to music isn't really that uncommon in buses as portable players have been around for ages. In fact there already are lots of people who use their cell phones to listen to music and they haven't irritated me at all. And for movi
Re:just my .02 (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe there's a physiological reason for that. None of the cell phones that I have ever used echoed the speaker's own voice back to the earpiece like land-line telephones do. So, people using cell phones don't hear themselves talking and they start shrieking to compensate. They're not aware that they're doing it.
In the few instances that I've ever used a cell phone, I just pivoted the earpiece a little bit away from my head while speaking, and brought it close to my ear when I want to hear the other person's response. This provides me with a simple way to avoid sounding like the vast majority of oblivious cell phone users.
It also helps me focus on where I am and what's around me while using a cell phone. If I don't make a conscious effort, my mind tends to wander into the conversation and away from my physical surroundings. I believe this to be true for many others as well, as evidenced by how easy it is to stand near an oblivious cell phone user and listen to every word of their conversation. Try it!
Re:just my .02 (Score:2)
Thank you for this bit of insight. This is why moving cars should be a phone-free zone.
Re:just my .02 (Score:2)
sir (Score:2, Insightful)
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about installing a little policeman in every concievable piece of hardware. What the fuck is happening to this world? What the fuck is going on here?
Do free born human beings need to have an overseer partake in every aspect of their lives, just in case a crime might happen? We're going straight to hell, folks. And we won't have to die to get there! Weeeeeeeeeee!
Freedom for corporations, not individuals (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't.
They mean freedom as in "We are now free to bilk the consumer in perpetuity, thanks to this wonderful Digital Restrictions Management tech we've put in place."
Re:Freedom for corporations, not individuals (Score:2)
And even so, it's still a bastardization of the term "rights" - they aren't really rights when you make them up yourself.
For example, "fair use" is a right, granted by the applicable laws and judicial findings. Their taking away your fair use rights is seen by them as them enforcing their "rights" but in reality it's just them changing the rules; they are not granted that right by an outside force.
Re:Freedom for corporations, not individuals (Score:2)
This is not intended as a pro/con tax argument, just to illustrate the usage of "freedom" in weird ways.
DRM? RSA!! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm still screwed up on CRM. How about giving the damn acronyms a break?
Re:DRM? RSA!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:DRM? RSA!! (Score:1)
Re:DRM? RSA!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DRM? RSA!! (Score:2)
IMO, DRM won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
copyright laws & minor infringers (Score:2)
Um, what country do you live in?
Here in the USA, minor copyright infringers who HAVE been sued (and either settled or lost) include a twelve year old girl (maybe this is what you meant by "minor infringer") by the RIAA.
Think you are immune to enforcement just because you are a "minor infringer"? Just remember this piece of information from the New York Times:
Even if you are not sharing music on the internet, you may alr
Remember the "science" part (Score:5, Insightful)
No fair waving around white papers or assuring us that someone says this-or-that technology really works, and then demanding an act of congress. Let's see a working system first, and let's let the cryptographic community inspect the system's inner workings (if you can't even reveal how it works, it's not a secure system,) and let them decide if it can be trivially circumvented by any teenager.
I have a feeling that developers of many DRM schemes dread, and would rather avoid, such independent review of their systems.
Xcott
Re:Remember the "science" part (Score:3, Insightful)
I whole heartedly agree with you. The ironic part seems to be that this could only strengthen security...and if nothing else, development and testing time.(ie: OSS, et al)
While most of us here fully understand that DRM's primary purpose is to create a lock on content (distribution and--the part that affects me personally--creation. Think: 'DRM watermark' and having to pay for
Re:Remember the "science" part (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember the "science" part (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember the "science" part (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Remember the "science" part (Score:3)
But you forgot that then you are thrown in jail for violating DMCA by "trafficking a circumvention device" if the recent 321 Studios case [wired.com] is an example. Note the Jack Valenti quote to AP:
Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Associatio
Saw Bill tonight (Score:3, Interesting)
I just got back from seeing Bill Gates speak on "the future of computing" and how he got so damn rich. Apparently microsoft hires more people from my school than any other in the world (or maybe just in the nation?) What an honor!! It was actually pretty good in my opinion; he's a smart guy. The second question in the Q and A part of the presentation was "What your/microsofts opinion of the open source movement and why do you have a bad attitude about it" or something to that extent. Bill gave a good response pointing to evidence saying that many "GPL zealots" don't believe his business model should exist and that at least he respects open source as a software development method among many. The speech might have been a bit rehearsed, I do believe he gets that question a lot. Either way, you've got to ask your self: Am I a GPL zealot?
Re:Saw Bill tonight (Score:1)
Anyone either back this or or point at a transcript.
Er, well not point, as that wouldn't really work on this medium would it.
Re:Saw Bill tonight (Score:2)
(WHG III, KBE)
Re:Saw Bill tonight (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess this is pretty standard tactic these days to describe people who disagree with you.
Civility is dead in this country. It's an all out war.
Needless to say I'd be shitting bricks if I was a teacher, we know what happens to terrorists in the US.
Re:Saw Bill tonight (Score:5, Insightful)
He has always been a businessman, and he'll always be one. Businessmen (IMO; I have very little respect for them) do really unscrupulous things (like trust-building), in the name of the bottom line.
Making money can be a noble pursuit. But most of the time, it's either for greed or for an ego boost. Is there any real reason for him to have as much wealth as he does?
And before I hear 20 people cry "philanthropy," or cite historical examples, let's remember that, for instance, Rockefeller believed that God had given him a mission to make as much money as he could, then give it away; but in the meantime he fucked over whole towns with a stroke of the pen, and he got kickbacks and rebates from the railroad industry, effectively forcing buyouts onto other oil companies.
I guess my message here is that, before we ask ourselves "Are we GPL zealots?" (as you are now thinking), he should ask himself "Am I a capitalism zealot?"
In retrospect, though, this is all just difference of opinion; we think it's better to distribute power, while he thinks it's best to consolidate power. Of course, that's a whole mini-rant in of itself...
Re:Saw Bill tonight (Score:2)
I think that would be a really interesting question to ask Bill. "You have effectively, in the past, called us 'zealots'; are you not a zealot of [something] yourself?" Next person who attends one of these sessions, ask Bill for me.
DRM + open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM + open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, fortunately the US isn't all the world. Someone elsewhere will find the solution, and then we will be able to access that information. But this scenario isn't the only area in which the US is forcing science to happen outside its borders (stem cells, cloning, etc.). Eventually, none of the really interesting science will come from here because of increasingly intrusive government restrictions on obtaining knowledge.
Re:DRM + open source (Score:4, Informative)
DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:5, Insightful)
- DRM will be patented, copyrighted and/or trade-secreted
- DMCA makes "working it out for yourself" illegal
- US Government (after pressure from MS and Big Media) will pass laws saying non-DRM computing is (effectively) illegal
- OpenSource DRM solutions will not exist (see points 1 & 2)
- ALL OpenSource solutions (because they do not include DRM) therefore become effectively illegal
The *only* question here is "how long before this becomes a reality?".(These days I'd guess it'll be wrapped up in "HomeLand Security" issues, most likely)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to hate America as a country, but I can't help but hate a government that would be so easily manipulated as to sanction forced implementation of something so draconian-indeed, Orwellian-upon its citizens.
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is already forcing its DMCA style rules on *all* its trading partners.
Where exactly are you going to go?
Either you're "a friend" (and accept US laws as your own) or you're part of the "Axis of Evil".
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:5, Insightful)
Main reason for this is huge potential in the internal market (>50% of world population).
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:2)
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:2, Interesting)
We've had VCDs, which are still just as common as DVD here since ages before the earliest DVD-Roms even hit the market. The only reason I gave up was that broadband was so cheap and fast I switched to downloading off P2P because it was more convenient.
I got an MP3 capable CD-R player in 1999 for less than forty bucks when they were unheard of in the States.
I can get free cable satellite from the air including free hardcore porn twenty four hours
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:2, Insightful)
I leave this country and never come back.
Where would you move to?
Trust me, there are worse places, having the same screw-the-citizen laws, but not even having the same public debate because the government controls most media, directly or indirectly.
Sadly, the equivalence "1 corporation = millions of voters" is gaining ground in the entire planet. For example, in Spain we never had a chance to say anything when they imposed a levy on blank CD-Rs.
Re:DRM === All Yuor Base R bLong 2 US (Score:2, Insightful)
However, you're assuming you would even be allowed to leave. By the time it became obvious that the legal system was completely broken and we were living in an authoritarian, corporate-sponsored dictatorship, travel restrictions put into place would probably make it nearly impossible to leave.
The trick, then, would be in knowing just exactly when to bail, and in creating a preplanned exit route well in advance.
Yeah, I know how far out in left field that sounds, but that was before Bush and t
Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Digital Rights Management (Score:3, Funny)
DRM expensive yet ineffective? (Score:5, Insightful)
People just don't assign a value to non-material stuff. You will never convince the target audience (which lets face it is a bunch of kids) that it's wrong to copy a music track for a friend. The reason is obvious, nobody seems to be hurt and nobody is deprived of the orginal.
This goes to the fundemental problem with copyright law today. The law was written for a time where perfect copying machines (aka PCs) did not exist. While copyright law was mostly dealt with by printers and publishers it worked. Now it has to cope with billions of people it's failing.
DRM is a response but it too assumes a perfect, closed world where everybody plays the DRM game. As we have seen with DVD region coding, the hardware suppliers just gave it the minimal attention needed because they just spent 20 years getting rid of having to stock different versions for different markets; they were not going to start all over again just because Hollywood gets it's nickers in a twist.
DRM will be treated in the same manner.
Re:DRM expensive yet ineffective? (Score:2)
How got book-writers paid for copies made by xeroxing them?
Here in germany, the owner of every copy shop pays a certain amount back to the authors (via a central instance called VGWort).
How is/was that handled in the U.S.?
Dear Computer Industry, (Score:5, Insightful)
Signed,
Computer Consumers
VideoGuard (Score:2)
I wonder how effective VideoGuard is at protecting content. Anyone had any success decoding it?
forced infrastructure (Score:2, Interesting)
DRM is as old as digital technology. (Score:2, Funny)
He says as he browses through his Terrabyte RAID of Divx movies planning the evening's viewing while the never ending playlist of MP3s piped throughout the house rolls on in the background.
Oops, one of the P2P boxes just crashed. Gotta go.
DRM is only software (Score:5, Interesting)
TCG TPM [trustedcom...ggroup.org] is the standard settled upon for trusted computing. An interesting EETimes article [eet.com] is about TPM chips going into systems (costs & chipsets, etc). Described as "low-cost silicon safes for a digital key" the article states, "IBM plans to put the current version 1.1b TPM parts in all but its lowest cost notebook computers by the end of the year." As well as the inclusion of these chips in Gb Ethernet, storage, memory, and I/O buses. The TPM v1.2 standard is worth a look over to see what the future holds.
Much of the software that goes into DRM is moving up the chain (especially seeing how effective DeCSS was for DVD decoding) and into silicon. I do not quite see how Trusted Computing is really that different from a full-fledged DRM hardware system. It seems to be an easy step to make those buses and storage devices scanning for 'trusted keys' to be applied to digital finger prints of unauthorized DRM-licensed media moving around on your motherboard.
DRM is good (Score:2, Insightful)
You can still play non encrypted video and audio without any problems, but if you want to use 'commercial' content you have to pay for it.
I really don't see anything wrong with this....paying the artist/producer is good.
A lot of people are say
Re:DRM is good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DRM is good (Score:2)
- Consumer loses control over *his*/*her* hardware. Like a poster up in this thread said "policeman in every device". You let foreigners control substantial parts (for many people) of your living room.
- Thought-control. DRM relies on laws which ensure that the DRM schemes remain effective. AFAIK, these laws already forbid you to hack your DRM chip to get the private keys. But they also forbid you to reverse engineer software-DRM-schemes. What is that?? You may
Its Open mobile alliance and mobile DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
See http://www.openmobilealliance.org for details and specifications. 3GSM is primarily concerned with mobile DRM (obviously).
That's not the only problem! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you mean, the beginning of the problem of trying to sell people something they don't want, and already get along fine without.
I thought the clipper chip was dead... (Score:2)
RMS not DRM (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not sure why marketing departments are re-framing DRM as RMS -- it is only removing digital and adding system. Maybe digital is now just a noise word? Or maybe they want their RMS to do more then digital rights?
-- Herder Of Cats
Richard Stallman (Score:2)
When conjecturing about Microsoft's motives for "Rights Management System" to describe devices containing digital restrictions management, consider that RMS stands for Richard M. Stallman, who founded the Free Software Foundation. Would RMS endorse RMS?
Re:RMS not DRM (Score:2)
Possibly 'cos if the comanies involved are trying to secure their own internal data (rather than stuff they're trying to "sell"...) then obviously they want to flag this up as being a Good Thing
The term DRM is fast picking up negatyive connotations, so it makes sense that they'd try to distance themselves from it. Especially if they're dealing with their private data and not "anti-piracy measures". They won't want it tarred with the same brush.
A suggestion (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM isn't just for consumers (Score:2, Interesting)
Up to a point, employees can also be mandated to use DRM software, while consumers can reject it. Corporate DRM will take off before consumer DRM.
DRM can KMFA (Score:2)