Slashdot Log In
Sun Spearheads Open DRM
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 22, 2005 08:22 AM
from the better-to-embrace-then-be-destroyed dept.
from the better-to-embrace-then-be-destroyed dept.
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?
Related Stories
[+]
Sun's Open Source DRM 274 comments
DigDuality writes "Wired has an interesting look at Sun's proposed 'Open Source DRM'. From the article: 'Its goal is to promulgate an open-source architecture for digital rights management that would cut across devices, regardless of the manufacturer, and assign rights to individuals rather than gadgets [...] If DReaM works, consumers will be able to access their purchased songs through a number of providers, and using a wide variety of devices." Slashdot took a first look at Sun's DReaM last August.
[+]
Sun DReaM Finds Home In IPTV 68 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Register has a story reporting that Sun's DRM will find a home in a Korean IPTV system. From the article: "This week Sun released the source code for two components of DReaM, its DReaM-CAS (Conditional Access System) and DReaMMMI (Mother May I) the underlying mechanism for always asking a central resource for permission to access content. In papers that Sun put out this week it has described both of these processes. DReaMCAS or D-CAS currently only manages access to content in the MPEG-2 format."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Oh good grief... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because without those artificial limits, too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends.
So now we have a point between "anyone can copy it as many times as they want and give it to as many people as they want" and "no one can copy it at all". Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?
In short, too many abuse the system illegally. And yes, you pay for it, just like you "pay" for the security cameras, sensors, and guards at Best Buy. If no one shoplifted, then those "costs" would not need to be covered by those who did not.
BTW, the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices. Personally, I kind of like the idea of signing/encrypting downloaded digital work with the name and credit card number used to purchase it.
Yes, you can loan it to friends you trust... but they'd better be friends you trust.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
FalconParent
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!
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.
Parent
Will F/OSS support make it work? (Score:3, Informative)
"is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
Open-source developer support or not, I don't [nanocrew.net] think [lemuria.org] it matters [eff.org].
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.
I actually like this <flame suit> (Score:4, Interesting)
A DRM technique that (a) I can leverage as much as the "big boys" to protect my own content, (b) preserves more of my fair use rights, is better than one that doesn't.
These techniques, generally involve encrypted content together with decryption keys possessed, but inaccessable to the end-user ("inaccessable" being a matter of effort, of course). In a flexible system, the user would be able, to transfer those keys, or a limited number of copies of them to playback devices, in a secure mechanism -- taking encrypted content to play at a friend's house should not be a hassle, for example.
Of course, given that key possession ultimately means that they can be discovered, to be effective, such a system would require content to be personalized to keys that an end-user already possesses, so cracking one does not crack the system. Given electronic delivery of content, this is not far-fetched.
Where open source DRM shines, though, is the ability to change the access mechanisms that playback or other decrypting devices offer. Fair use is not a static set of rights, but an ever-changing set: VCR-based timeshifting was "new" recognized fair use, for example. When "code is law", and the law is subject to change, it must be possible to change the codew as well.
Naturally, changed code to be loaded on a device that handles encrypted content would have to be signed by an authority the device trusts (or only be available to deal with content encrypted by the device owner), but this would open up community development of DRM code that respects new fair use rights (assuming the rest of the hardware supported them) -- I'm thinking of a fair use right to, for example, decrypted 720p analog video output where the previously permitted resolution was 480p), testing thereof, leaving only signing required to allow its widespread adoption.
The big current weakness in all DRM schemes is that while they may allow for preset fair uses, they can not anticipate and allow for future ones. I'd envisioned that the "DRM Carrot" should come with the "Fair Use Stick" -- manufactures of devices that use DRM should be obliged to modify them to support new fair uses as they are recognised, at their expense, in a timely fashion. Open sourcing the code makes this a lot easier.
Parent
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?
Does it work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Flawed prospectus (Score:5, Interesting)
If DRM is the future of controlling our media files
There is no 'our' media.
DRM is coming
Look, all of this is a nonsense. Really the world is splitting into two directions; those who believe passionately in freedom and control over their own lives and those who haven't quite woken up to the value of, or understood what that means.
There is nothing else. DRM is haxx0r bait to be circumvented and stamped on. It's there to protect the traditional structures, the big corporations primarily. Some smaller outlets may find a use for it occasionally, but it's not there for them. There is so much good media out there with no DRM and those outlets manage to survive and thrive so I think that reveals quite a lot.
Forced DRM is not compatible with any concept of normal use or freedom or control over one's own systems and files as far as I can ascertain.
As far as Sun goes, to be honest it's preferable in the sense that an open standard is probably better than a closed one, but all said it's working under the erroneous presumption that some sort of wooly, cowering compliance and affection for DRM is about to take over the world, which it won't.
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).
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.
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.
Open 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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent