Slashdot Log In
Sun's Open Source DRM
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:14 PM
from the get-ready-for-some-resistance dept.
from the get-ready-for-some-resistance dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Sun Spearheads Open DRM 579 comments
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?
[+]
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This discussion has been archived.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.
weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kind of surprised Sun gets it wrong this time. DRM and its insult/harm to the consuming demographic has almost nothing to do with its technological underpinnings and mostly everything to do with customers' collective perception of the disdain by the industry.
It's already enough of a pain to use unencumbered technology. Thankfully (I guess) I'm part of the tech-savvy crowd, I've done all of (okay most...) my research and homework on HDTV, mp3's and ripping, copy protected CDs not to buy (a tip of the hat to Amazon for flagging copy protected CDs) but it's a constant gauntlet we run.
But have you helped and worked with people who are trying to get their home wired and set up and continued running? It's a nightmare, and I'm not even talking about DRM yet. Even if the first (two) generations of HD DVD roll out unencumbered, they're going to be a royal pain... but with DRM, commercial or open source, forget about it!
From the article:
This is a red herring -- Jacobs merely describes the battle for rolling out DRM. The strongest resistance will come from the user community and I don't even think it's likely to be fierce, it's likely to be passive. Mass consumers will look at the wall of technology, the rules, the configurations, the expense, and will quietly resist the new technology and DRM by simply staying with the already-good-enough media they have.
The article tries to compare this "fix" to the old saw about incompatibilities between browsers. This is NOT the same thing, this is about transparent and without paranoia product use and the "fix" fails the sniff test.
If the industry: RIAA, etc, don't figure this out in time an entire generation of new technology for entertainment runs the risk of dying on the Ethernet vine.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is so correct. My favorite media player is my modified Xbox because it works. I have no real need to pirate anything, but having your current library of videos available "on demand" is great, the added bonus of my daughter not being able to scratch her $40 a pop and up disney DVDs. DRM may kill this system, which means I will not be getting new content.
-nB
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
I just thought of what the media people would do if they were in another service industry. Lets take for example, running water. Lets pretend that Sony gets into the water business.
If they were in the running water business, they would probably be in other businesses as well. Like Sony does content, hardware, etc. So you could get a Sony sink and faucet with your Sony water.
The difference is that you would have to use your Sony sink, or Sony licensed sink to drink your Sony water. The Sony water would then have to be protected so that a Panasonic sink would not be able to dispense of the Sony water. How would they do that?
DRM. Yes, they would add a poison to the water, at great expense and danger to the public. The water would kill you in seconds of ingestion without the aid of a Sony sink to remove the poison.
Of course, you could license the rights to drink Sony's poisoned water, but all of the fittings would be nonstandard. You would have to get special tools to work on the sink. Oh, and Sony water would never just go through PVC or copper pipe. The Sony water would need an end to end transport system.
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is NO DRM, that's very easy: I buy and I can do whatever I want with it (no, I haven't said "put it on the internet") There is no DRM without problems to the customers: the CD that is not playing in the car, the song you can't put on your mp3 player or the game that won't play in three years on the new Windows (and yes, I still play Monkey Island, that would be impossible with DRM)
The DRM is wrong. If you don't trust me, your customer giving my money, I'm not buying.
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine. Go put locks on YOUR front door, and post as many security guards and cameras around as you like. But if you're selling to me, your guards and cameras have no business being around once I pay. Stores have cameras to protect the property in the store; they don't attach a mini-camera to see what you do with products you buy.
Or, would you like Ford to put a camera on your car, to check that you don't install third party parts? Perhaps Sony would like to visit once a month to see that you haven't modded your PS2? AT&T might like to stop by and make sure you're not putting any unapproved devices on your phone line. DirecTV knows you didn't buy satellite service from them, so they'd like to take a peek and make sure you didn't buy a black market receiver off ebay.
There's got to be a limit to this, and that's at the point of sale. It doesn't matter if you trust the buyer. If you find they violated the copyright, go sue them later. That's the remedy the law provides, and it is perfectly adequate.
Which brings up the problem that people seem to buy the claim that copying is currently a significant economic loss. Just about every non-??AA study I've heard suggests it is negligible, or encourages sales. That's not to say there isn't the right to enforce existing laws, but that there's no demonstrated need for additional protections. So this sort of lock is not only improper, it is entirely unnecessary. How much lower would DVD prices be, if casual copying were completely eliminated? How many more movies would be made per year, if only CSS were uncrackable? Which studios have closed shop, because the VCR and the Internet destroyed their revenue stream? If enforcement of existing laws is adequate, and there is no gain from stricter laws, why should anyone favor more rules?
Think of speeding, maybe. It's not that it doesn't happen, or that it doesn't have negative effects when it does happen. It's just that it's silly to put a lot of additional effort into cracking down on it when we would gain little benefit. Why don't we put a speed governor in every car sold? I tend to think it's because there are some circumstances where it's better to let the driver make a judgment than to strictly enforce the law, but as much as I dislike the idea, I have no solid reasons. But arguing for DRM is a lot like saying every car must have a speed governor.
Another comment is that "we're probably going to need to do it ourselves" doesn't apply to this any more than to Microsoft or Apple. It sounds like Sun is thinking of a closed-source project where applications would be reviewed by a committee rather than by a single company. This is probably good if you're a company; you never want to have to trust your product to a single competitor. But it's no more open to the average developer than the DVD CCA is.
As a separate issue, how would an Open Source DRM system work? If I'm able to decrypt a file once, I'm able to save it in an unencumbered format. It's fundamentally different than encryption; PGP, for example, isn't designed to prevent you from posting every email you get to a web page. Current schemes assume that the recipient of the keys can be trusted to use them for only the intended purpose. This seems to be based on an assumption that a hacker can't see the code or key (because they're using a microcontroller that has a hardware Code Protect feature), that a network protocol can't be emulated (for cases where a key must be retrieved from a server), or that it's too much of a pain to bother (presumably what Windows Media and Fairplay must do). These are all essentially security through obscurity, and I don't see how that can work in an Open Source environment.
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM should be outlawed since it allows copyright holders to violate copyright law by preventing a work from ever becoming public domain. Period.
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
If DRM were used as you read, that would certainly make an argument for the validation of DRM. However, the people you speak of on this site that oppose DRM do so because it's not about piracy and lost moneys - it's about control. Taking control out of the hands of the consumer and putting control into the hands of the corporation.
Originally, control of distribution was about as far as things went. But with technology, media companies see the ability to control the media (and the devices that play such media) through the entire lifecycle of the device or media. Creation to destruction - media corporations watching everything you do, every time you do it.
In this understanding, DRM is inherantly (sp?) evil. Sun hopping on board - even with "open source" as a moniker, makes Sun still a player on the evil stage of control. Open source control of my legally purchased media is still control and is still - to it's very core concept - wrong.
Parent
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
For once, someone actually is begging the question on /. The assumption here is that DRM significantly deters piracy. This claim is far from obviously true, and I have never seen any solid evidence to support it. However, it is known that people who use media encumbered by DRM if anything have a worse experience than those who use unencumbered media (including pirates). Definitely providing value to the customers is a better idea (and a sounder business decision) than possibly putting a small dent in piracy while inconveniencing legitimate customers.
Parent
The real question (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting! (Score:5, Interesting)
a) no one wants, or
b) have already been made.
Just because it's open source doesn't make it "right," or even useful. DRM is all about the content provider being able to dictate what your computer is capable, and incapable of doing; if you really do want your computer use restricted by commercial companies (not even necessarily within your own country), then yeah, maybe this might be a good idea.
This is the kind of DRM I could support (Score:5, Interesting)
I purchase the -right- to listen to a song.
Once purchased, I can replace it if I lose it.
Once purchased, I can listen to it on any new form of playback that comes along.
---
I doubt it will be supported since it undercuts the dream by the media creators that we pay every single time we play a song- and we rebuy it for each new playback device.
Re:This is the kind of DRM I could support (Score:4)
Parent
Not GPL v3 then... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess DRM is not going to go away anytime soon, so it would be better that
the implementation is open-sourced. However, a high-quality open-sourced
DRM mechanism is less likely to have the "holes" which the Hymn project,
for example, rely on...
Anyway, it's probably doomed anyway... can you see Apple or Microsoft using it?
Erm, no.
Assign rights to individuals rather than gadgets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Assign rights to individuals rather than gadget (Score:5, Informative)
No, laws NEVER, I repeat, NEVER assign rights to individuals. Rights should be protected by laws, from encroachments by the respective government or other individuals, but can not be "assigned".
Parent
Wake up Sun! (Score:4, Interesting)
Java... NO (not on set top boxes that is)
JXTA... NO
SunRay... NO (only a few universities / corps)
Liberty Alliance... NO
OpenLook... NO
JINI... NO
I'll throw in a few non-consumer things, just to be a dick:
SBus, JavaOS/JavaStation, etc.
Sun's history is littered with failured "standards".
Re:Wake up Sun! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Open source support for DRM - con: DRM can only be successful with widespread software support. By supporting DRM, you make it easier for DRM to be successful.
Open source boycott of DRM - con: DRM can probably gain widespread software support even without open-source software support, so a boycott is likely to only have the effect of alienating open-source software to end-users.
If open-source platforms were significantly more popular, then supporting DRM probably wouldn't be a good idea. But because open-source platforms don't have significant mindshare among the general public, it's more difficult to resist, as the only effect resisting will have is negative.
Would be nice, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no way for restrictions such as those desired by the 'rights holders' to be enforced absent proprietary binary-only programs doing it for them. And even those usually are defeated, as well. The scheme MS used to call Palladium, where the restrictions extend right to the hardware, is the only way it can ever work even close to their satisfaction. And quite frankly, I hope that never happens, becuase that is the end of any hope of ever overcoming the MS monopoly.
Re:Would be nice, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it will turn out that DRM is the same way. Has anyone read any serious research into DRM strategies and algorithms? Does this turn out to be the case that it must be closed to be secure? Isn't it really just a key distribution question?
Parent
Re:Would be nice, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Source Encryption is fine, since only the people with the keys can do anything useful to the data stream, an attacker is still in trouble.
With DRM, the attacker and the valid user can be one and the same. That's a lot harder to protect.
Parent
Middlemanhandling (Score:5, Insightful)
If we actually do something that violates a law or agreement with you, then by all means prosecute/sue us. Or stay out of the business if it's too risky for you. Just stop selling me yet another copy of _Dark Side of the Moon_ just because you made my last player obsolete.
Sadly, DRM is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a very real free rider argument to be made here. Most small bands don't get a lot of support from the "fans" that just rip off their music. In college, I had a few guys be shocked by how good they thought Lacuna Coil's album Comalies was. They had the money to buy it, but they insisted that I just burn them CD-to-CD copies instead. They never went to the shows, never bought the merchandise, but hey Lacuna Coil kicks ass and damned if they can't eat off of good will from non-paying fans! Please, no bullshit comparisons to radio. That's like saying that since a movie is shown on HBO, that there is nothing harmful to the movie maker when the fans never buy the DVD, but just make a digital copy off of digital cable TV.
You're not sticking it to the man, but rather sticking it to the very people who are getting fucked over by The Man. Even most bands that make it on Fuse and MTV2 are getting screwed by their labels. I'm still waiting for an alternative system to come into existance going on seven years after people started saying that Napster would give birth to one based on viral marketting and internet sales. Guess what? It hasn't happened. The best that we can hope for is to change the middleman's behavior the way that the antitrust trial forced Microsoft to stop pointing a knife at OEMs' throats.
An open source DRM is something that can be defined in a fairly democratic way. It is a way for buyers to define the terms that they are happy with. If it's never supported, the labels and studios get less money. If it is, then great. Either way, no harm, no foul. Just don't expect the content creators to accept a world in which they are forced to rely on good will and honest behavior. If the terms of Apple's store aren't good enough for you, then promote this DRM by buying content sold through it. Simply taking content you want because it is not sold at prices and DRM terms of your liking is wrong, and dangerous, because the next generation might grow up thinking that that rule applies to jewelry, cars, electronics and other physical property.
DRM Dilemma & a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems I have seen so far with DRM are:
1) Heavyhandedness of DRM schemes
2) Shitty implimentation that causes serious problems on users' computers (eg Sony Rootkit)
3) Inconsistant quality of the DRM scheme itself, which leads to...
4) Easy to crack DRM that is useless.
5) Consumers don't understand that DRM is restricting their rights because,...
6)
7) Small business people can't afford to set up and maintain a good DRM system
8) Large business people don't understand DRM
I think all 8 of these points could be solved with an open-source (or free) software solution. DRM needs to be fair. Not burdonsome.
I have a feeling that Sun's DRM scheme won't use a GPL or any other widely accepted open-source license. Thats the real issue here people!