Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Digital Rights Managment Year in Review 204

Posted by CmdrTaco from the keep-your-eyes-on-this dept.
zjango writes "DRM Watch is a great source for the ongoing monitoring of Digital Rights Management issues and news. They've put out a useful 2003 year in review for DRM across several categories that Slashdot readers will likely find of interest. It is a look back at the year's significant trends in DRM technology, along with some predictions for 2004 and beyond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Rights Managment Year in Review More

Digital Rights Managment Year in Review

Comments Filter:

  • DRM is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reub2000 ( 705806 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:33PM (#8013861)
    20 years from Sony vs. Universal, fair use is going the way of the dodo.

  • My prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:33PM (#8013866)
    DRM will increasingly cause problems for normal users. For those who copy the content nothing will change. Normal users will then begin to copy a lot more content.

    A few nasty laws will undoubtably be made when the govern ... er.. corporations realise DRM isn't working to keep there high prices.

    • Re:My prediction (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rcpitt ( 711863 ) * on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:17PM (#8014122) Homepage Journal
      Hmmm... you stole my topic :)

      Harken back to the days of laser-drilled holes in floppy diskettes and wierd formats and such - and the backlash of the software users against the producers that in no small part ended up with the engendering of the Open Software movment. It put some vendors out of business because so many of their customers had such troubles getting replacement disks when their machines ate the original and put their own businesses at risk (or affected the game playing time).

      The customer is king - and the vendors (including the associations like RIAA) are going to have to get used to the fact that the customer won't put up with any problem that causes them to have to stand in line for a return or wait on hold for hours to get a new key or whatever.

      "Anti-piracy" measures don't protect against wholesale piracy - they just piss off the end customer.

      "I paid for this CD (DVD, download, whatever) and if I can't listen to the music on it whenever I want, wherever I want, with no hassles, then I'll either get an unlocked copy or I will purchase something else and I'll return this for a full refund and shout at the clerk while I'm doing it." I can just hear the CEO of a major retail store telling his suppliers that he holds them personally responsible for the increase in return rate on DVDs and CDs and the fact that 100% of his frontline people refuse to talk to irate customers anymore.

      DRM in the consumer world (not the intra-corporate - different story) will not fly unless and until the purveyors of the content ensure that the consumer not only accepts that what they are purchasing is limited in some way, but that the limiting mechanism never intrudes for the life of the product. This means for example, that it will be fine with most consumers if their copy is personally watermarked such that copies (if any) can be traced back to the original but if the copy is in the posession of the original purchaser there will be no repercussions and if it is in the posession of someone else, the original purchaser will not be impacted (Caveat emptor); and there is no automated way that the publisher or anyone else can know when and where the purchaser plays the work (or watches the video or reads the e-book or...) i.e. no monitoring.

      "Quiet enjoyment" is what they need to achieve.

    • Try to think long term (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8014150)
      Each time that Slashdot has one of these forums on DRM I get dismayed at how few people write about the possible long-term consequences that DRM will take. By long term I mean twenty years at a minimum. Usually people just assume that in the long term there will be DRM on everything and every exposure to a piece of cultural entertainment will trigger a micropayment upon its view or interaction.

      That is probably a fantasy wish of the entertainment-media conglomerate corporations.

      I suspect that hard DRM (stuff that works like the media corporations want it to and can't be broken by users) would create a parallel 'pirate' media corporate group that would in the long term be absorbed into the other media corporations. This pirate group would provide media product at sharply reduced rates but delayed by months or years from the product's initial release by the primary media corporations. It would analogue the cheap neighborhood second-run movie theatres that played relatively new movies after they had been showing a few months in the larger first-run theatres. (This is how the movie business worked before the VCR boom in the late 1980's and the DVD boom currently happening).
      This idea of people 'stealing' cultural product by not paying the media corporations fantasy prices for product would just go away, like the idea that African-American music was sinful (an idea that until the 1990's was often expressed in working class European-American churches).

      An example of media corporations have fantasy prices is the notion that all recorded music product have the same price (such as $18 per CD) regardless of how long the product has been on the market or how saturated the market has become with this individual product. The idea that people are 'stealing' recorded music by the Beatles that is forty years old because they aren't paying $18 for a CD of ten songs is a perfect example. Especially when most of the 'thieves' of the Beatle's recordings have previously purchased the same recordings in 45RPM single vinyl format, 33RPM long-play album vinyl format, cassette format, 8-track format, premium Dolby re-release high-grade vinyl long-play album format, ect...

      There are lots of other consequences of longterm DRM that you can think of that excape the rest of us here, please post your ideas.

      Thank you,
      • The biggest longterm effect will probably be social rather than technical. DRM is impossible, that's a fact. But if they can make anything anti-DRM seem 'dodgy' or 'illegal' then they begin to get control. What company will product non-DRM hardware if everyone is convinced it's illegal?

        It's starting already. I laughed out loud when I was told that region-free DVD players are illegal in the UK by a PC-World drone.
        • I'm beginning to suspect that the use of legality to address what are essentially pricing issues will backfire on the global media corporations.

          People will subconscously associate the use of all products from the global media corporations with being illegal as a result of the constant warnings from these corporations that viewing their products can in some circumstances be illegal. This will become even more true as media products shift from being watched in a public setting to the home setting, like w
          • Wow, that is a great point. If a 'new breed' of media companies sprung up with lower priced merchandise, they would have an excellent selling point over their mainstream competitors. In addition to the lower price, they could assure consumers that they would not be restricted or get in trouble for use of the product. They would probably find it to their advantage to market the product in a way that allows copies to be made (while still cracking down on wholesale, for profit pirates).

          • the global media companys will regret that they spent so much effort creating a public perception that viewing mass-marketed media products (movies, music, games, ect...) is somehow illegal because this perception will eventually start to shrink their market and revenue streams.

            Or, worse, society at large will regret it has become one in which artificial constraints has created people who regard flaunting the law as not a big deal at all, exciting, etc.

            When people come up with

            "Hey! I have a great idea

    • Last year Intuit restricted the installation of Quick Tax to just one computer, using the activation scheme that Windows now favours. This year, they allow it to be installed physically on more than one computer of the owner's.

      I think DRM will take the same route, after companies find that the consumer outcry is bad for business, and increases production and support costs.

  • DRM here on /. (Score:3, Funny)

    by aredubya74 ( 266988 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:33PM (#8013867)
    Digital Rights Managment Year in Review

    Apparently, someone has patented proper spelling of the word "management", so /. invented its own hacked spelling. Fight the power!

  • "Dominated by Microsoft"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:34PM (#8013874) Homepage
    How could they possibly discuss online music and DRM in 2003 and not mention Apple and the ITMS [apple.com]? This may be the most significant product in the growth of legal online music yet released. It's far more popular than any of its competitors, and much more friendly to its users, and yet the online music scene is "dominated by Microsoft". I can't decide if they deliberately left it off because they hate Apple or if they're just stupid/uninformed.

    • Re:"Dominated by Microsoft"? (Score:4, Informative)

      by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:51PM (#8013978) Journal
      Maybe they left it out because it is largely transparent to the user. I would guess that once your three computers are 'authorized', you will rarely see it restrict you under normal circumstances.

    • Re:"Dominated by Microsoft"? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jeffehobbs ( 419930 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:53PM (#8013987) Homepage

      Yeah, seriously. Apple's AAC "protected" files were the only DRM encoded media I bought last year, and probably the only DRM media most people bought last year, and it doesn't even get name-checked? Sloppy.

      For most people, I think the more restrictive DRM schemes will be like the advertising monsters of Springfield -- "just don't look, just don't look". Nobody liked DiVX (the circuit city kind) and it went away.

      ~jeff
      • Yeah, seriously. Apple's AAC "protected" files were the only DRM encoded media I bought last year, and probably the only DRM media most people bought last year, and it doesn't even get name-checked? Sloppy.

        You are kidding, right? I think many of those who bought Apple's AAC "protected" files are forgetting that they also bought a DVD (Macrovision and/or CSS).
        How soon we forget these have DRM protection.

        • Many people in North America (Region 1) do not realize that DVDs have DRM other than they cannot skip/Fast Forward through the FBI warnings (Disney tried forcing viewers to sit through previews at first, but relented after they got a bunch of complaints from irate parents and relented). The only people that regionalization affects in N.A. is Anime and British TV fans (Dr. Who for example). Most everything else is already available in Region 1.

          In the rest of the world the story is completely different, a

    • Wrong. They most likely left it out because they own an iPod and have already bent over to its DRM. I've got friends that do this - despise DRM but pay through the nose for an iPod and think they're getting a deal with iTMS.

      /me sheds a silent tear for integrity
      • OK, I know this comment will be treated as blasphemy on Slashdot, but I really don't see a problem with Apple's DRM. They obviously did not want to restrict users' ability to make use of the files, which is why they allow them to be copied on CD or put on a portable player. They had to use some sort of protection to keep someone from downloading a file and then immediately and effortlessly sharing it on the Internet. Not only would it hurt their profits if people do this, but how could they get any record l

  • Just a thought, not a lecture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ten000hzlegend ( 742909 ) <ten000hzlegend@hotmail.com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:35PM (#8013879) Journal
    I'm all for DRM in '04 maturing into say... half a dozen vendors such as Apple and even Microsoft, all with relatively different filetypes for distribution and end-user benefits

    I am worried about Microsoft though *No, not flaming*

    Windows Media is a robust system for music and video quality, being a Mac user myself, I use it regularly alongside AAC but the fact Microsoft in the last few months have used the Windows format as basically an excuse to try and monopolize on key aspects of the up and coming DRM race is distressing, Apple were the first company to introduce a fair play DRM, the first to provide a quality end user service, Microsoft for one are pushing vendors into Windows Media Format, making it integral to Longhorn and beyond, this not only encompasses the OS but any app ran on it, for me... I excuse that I'm not the most privvy to reading up more closely on DRM, but I do feel Microsoft are up their old tricks again regarding DRM

    • Re:Just a thought, not a lecture (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:30PM (#8014183)
      Windows Media is a robust system for music and video quality

      In what way exactly? Its audio codecs add positively nothing to what's out there, its video codecs may be slightly ahead of the curve compared to standards-based mpeg 4, but nothing to sneeze at compared to DivX or any of the other high quality lowbitrate codecs. The default settings in their encoders encourage producing crappy "streaming" video files which don't allow for fastforwarding or reversing (unless you re-encode them), I haven't had much luck with the container formats (ASF and WMV files always end up giving me trouble somehow, even if it's just getting the right player to open them).. And don't get me started on streaming stuff on webpages which won't open in a separate player, way too much UI going on, again no ffwd/rwd - all other streaming video gear (yes, QT, winamp, and even real) are much better (though real has even more stupid ads embedded in it).

      It's no wonder that most films on kazaa end up as divx encoded .avi files (and the kazaahounds have the widest possible choice of codecs since they don't even pay any license fees), (S)VCD being number two (for interoperability with DVD players)..

      I can go for days of intensively downloading "funny movies" from weblogs without seeing a single good quality ASF/WMV, but see hundreds of just fine MPEG, AVI(typically DIVX) and MOV (yes, apple quicktime, usually sorensen) files.

      If anyone knows what's so good about windows media files, please tell me.. Seriously..

  • DRM for all! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WebTurtle ( 109015 ) <derek&blueturnip,com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:37PM (#8013891) Homepage
    Well, it seems like this issue is definitely not going away, despite what many might wish. Naturally, it will be implemented and at first some people will whine about the annoyances, but nobody will actually do anything to stop the widespread adoption of DRM (who could possibly succeed?).

    Looks like Sony and Philips will bring the noise with their InterTrust acquisition. What technology was InterTrust developing? How might it be implemented in electronics? Are we going to see some sort of digital signature type of authentication or encryption occuring between devices (e.g., a DVD player and a computer)? Or between a HDTV and a DVD recorder or PVR?
    • but nobody will actually do anything to stop the widespread adoption of DRM (who could possibly succeed?)

      At least try and avoid it. Do something, even if it isn't much. Open an account at Bleep.com and warpmusic.com, throw a few bucks at companies giving you a non-DRM'd better deal or shop at independent labels like icehouserecords.com . Voting for freedom with your wallet will do more good than you might imagine, especially if enough people do it.

      Download 10 bucks worth of music at each of those sit

      • Re:DRM for all! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by WebTurtle ( 109015 )
        I agree in principle; I should be able to "vote" with my dollars for whichever technological solution I prefer. In fact, I can and do. However, the note of dismay present in my post reflects my resignation to the fact that no amount of voting with dollars is going to prevent DRM from being implemented by the major corporations like Sony and Philips or whoever. Sure, 5 years from now when ever consumer device is DRMed there may still be a handful of independent online or hardware based vendors offering non-D
        • Unfortunately you're probably right. Not arguing your central point. But, like you, I just gotta try, even if it's futile. At least we can say we did something.
    • DRM is nothing but an attempt to make it inconvient for people to know their own key.

      Even Microsoft repeatedly states on its website that even Trusted Computing cannot hope to enforce DRM if the owner of the computer feels like altering the hardware. The best solution is to rip open a chip and read out your key. That gives you total control over your computer.

      You can't stop the owner of a machine from opening it up and reading out his key. He owns it and he has absolutely every right to do so.

      They are pe

  • Just accept that (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:38PM (#8013892)
    DRM is impossible. And stop wasting millions on chasing a rainbow that is mathematically, computationally, logically _impossible_ . There will never be a working copy protection system. News about stupid companies failed (or doomed) attempts to do this are just getting sad.

    • Re:Just accept that (Score:3, Informative)

      by deitel99 ( 533532 )
      Unfortunately this isn't the case. In future your computer will contain an additional chip (the "fritz" chip) which is able to regulate the flow of information only through "trusted" programs, OSes and hardware. It will recieve encrypted keys from the provider of the media which then allow it to decrypt the media itself. Assuming that you are unable to physically break into the chip, or to break the encrypted connection going from the chip to the media provider, then you will not be able to put the digital

      • Re:Just accept that (Score:4, Insightful)

        by starsong ( 624646 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @04:04PM (#8014845)
        This is indeed scary, but ONLY if ALL computers sold incorporate the chip. In a free market, this would never happen, because people are willing to pay a little extra for a non-crippled computer. What's more scary is if it becomes legally mandated. Ever try to plug a DVD player into your VCR to watch a movie? You can't because CONGRESS (you know, the people YOU elected to run YOUR country) mandated that the gain-control chip in VCRs be intentionally flawed, in order to respond to the Macrovision copy-protection in the video signal.

        All Congress has to do is pass a law requiring "compliance" chips in all new computers. For a while you can probably get around this by importing stuff from other countries, but eventually they may simply ban possession of such equipment.

        Fortunately, you can do something about it; use the democratic process in the way that the founders intended. Make it clear that you and your community won't stand for any more of this bullsh*t, and make it clear to your congresscritter that they're out of a job if they don't listen to the people.
        • Not really--the DRM machines are not crippled, they can play non-DRM content just as well as a non-DRM machine. But only the DRM machines can play DRM content. So from a purely individualistic, prisoner's dilemma kinda way, the DRM machine has more abilities than the non-DRM machine.
        • In a free market, this would never happen, because people are willing to pay a little extra for a non-crippled computer.

          Computers with a TPM (Trusted Platform Module) will be marketed to be better, not crippled, because they will supposedly make an end to virusses and spam. Somehow I think the companies selling computers will be reluctant to say it will also make an end to your personal freedom.

          All Congress has to do is pass a law requiring "compliance" chips in all new computers. For a while you can p
        • In a free market, this would never happen, because people are willing to pay a little extra for a non-crippled computer.

          unfortunately they have taken a page from Microsoft's playbook - they are pulling an "embrace and extend" manuver.

          The new Trusted computers can do anything and everything current computers can do - that is the "embrace". They can run all regular software and they can use all regular files. There is absolutely no reason NOT to get the new machines. The new Trust chip is like a pair of sp
        • Ever try to plug a DVD player into your VCR to watch a movie?

          Yes. I found some VCR's are cheap and have the AGC in the video line from the tuner/video in. These mess up the video for you. Other VCR's have the AGC in the record circuit. The E-E (electronics-electronics) circuit does not have AGC. This passes the video through the VCR out to the TV unaltered, but still messes up the recording if you attempt it as required by law. Read the reviews. Let the buyer beware.
      • Even if you are able to break into the chip...

        Once you rip open your chip and read out your personal key then you have total control over your computer. That is the point of defeating the system.

        ...and copy some media you don't have the rights to copy, you will be caught because the version sent to you will have your identity recorded somewhere within it.

        So what? Defeating Trusted Computing and other DRM systems is about enabling perfectly legal and legitimate activities. It also happens to make it ea

    • Re:Just accept that (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rhetoric ( 735114 )
      Like I posted in this [slashdot.org] thread, DRM for AUDIO seemed to me to be impossible. There will always exist devices for recording and playing back analog audio. You can't stop someone from copying sound. Then I realized I'm a moron (you already knew that, I got modded +4 Insightful) and that DIGITAL Rights Management != copy protection. It's just that: controlling what you can do with DIGITAL audio. Which is quite possible and seemingly inevitable given the amount of control those who would like it implemented have.

      • [...] make analog equipment ridiculously obsolete - ie quit making it, so people have to make their own or pay ludicrous amounts for old equipment - so for most people it isnt worth the effort, and unfortunately that's what I think will eventually happen.

        Yeah, but the thing about unwrapping the encryption is it only has to be done once. Then it can be shared digitally, after being re-recorded. So the obvious answer is only studios can have "record" buttons. That'll foil the holdouts until their equ

    • It's also impossible to think of a number made from the product of two primes, such that anyone else couldn't guess the two prime numbers from which it was made. But you *can* think of one such that it's damn hard (this is the basis of PGP encryption). Are PGP-encrypted files easy to break into? Nope.

      And I bet that's what they intend to do with DRM. Make it damn hard to beat, no matter how much it pisses us off.

  • Take the hint! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anarchima ( 585853 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:39PM (#8013895) Homepage
    2003 was a terrible year for copy protection for physical media. DVD piracy abounded, thanks to the selection of the weak CSS copy protection scheme, whose primary advantage seems to be low unit cost for the DVD player makers who designed it. Attempts to foment copy protection schemes for audio CDs were mostly laughable.

    People break these things because ordinary folks don't want them! I think the music industry should take a hint from their consumers, stop throwing millions of dollars at R&D for Digital "Rights" Management and instead try to work out a sustainable digital media strategy (i.e. ITunes and high-quality downloads etc.). How long (and how much wasted money) before they figure this just isn't going to work out?

  • I prefer to call it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kirun ( 658684 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:40PM (#8013907) Homepage Journal
    I don't like the name DRM, it's misleading. If all it involved was proper management of rights, no problem. However, it's a little one-sided.

    I think the name Capability Removal by the Author of Media Products, or CRAMP is much more accurate. Want to CRAMP your PC? I didn't think so.
    • How about:

      Sound/Song/Special Handlers in Trade(SHIT)

      Copy Restrictor and Protector(CRAP)

      Media Oriented Restrictions Enforcer Support Handler Intended To Harass End-users And Destroy Systems(MORE SHITHEADS)

  • DRM = Digital Restrictions Management (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:47PM (#8013953) Homepage
    DRM is Digital Restrictions Management, and we should always refer to it as such, especially when writing OpEd pieces or online articles about it. Perhaps we'll have better luck than the casinos and "gaming".

    Oh, Lord, what should I do?
    Keep gaming.
    What?
    It means gambling... keep gambling.
    Oh! Righty-O!
    • Media conglomerates think that software which manages their rights is called Digital Rights Management software, but software that manages our rights is called theft tools or the like.

      I wouldn't be opposed to calling it Digital Rights Management as long as all software which helps people manage their rights is called Digital Rights Management software. DeCSS, for example, is Digital Rights Management software. It helps owners of DVDs manage their digital rights (rights to their private property, fair use r

  • When are people going to wake up? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xyxy ( 742859 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:47PM (#8013957)
    In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it. However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing. If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.) The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative. That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
    • In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it. However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restr
    • restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software

      No, that is NOT Microsoft's plan. They know that would cause outrage and backlash. They are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

      Microsoft goes to great lengths to explain that Trusted Computing will place NO restrictions on non-protected content and non-protected software. It's standard Microsoft Embrace-and-Extend. They embrace all existing content and software it will all work fine on the new Trusted machines.

      Trusted computing only re

  • What's Negative about this ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <leoaugust@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:48PM (#8013958) Journal

    Negative Developments

    2003 was a terrible year for copy protection for physical media.

    What's negative about this ? I think this was the best part of last year.

    In related news, P2P file sharing seems to have picked up again ... [slashdot.org]

    • Yeah, their "Negative Developments" section heading was pretty funny. You have to realize that the drmwatch.com is very pro-DRM.

      In this story [drmwatch.com] they cover a consumer rights group filing a suit about CD's that violate functionality expectations. That is an interesting term for what *I* would call *crippled* CD's. They conclude with the dire warning that "If this lawsuit succeeds... could.. throwing the entire DVD industry in those countries into turmoil". Note that it would only be those implicitly stupid cou

  • The hardware front... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lenski ( 96498 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:50PM (#8013971)
    Nothing in the article about how sales of "secure" digital media exceeded the sales of compact flash in 2003. The reason *I* am interested in this disturbing trend is the decreasing availability of media accessible to my open-source OS workstation.

    My Palm Tungsten has a SD/MMC slot, MultiMedia cards are becoming unavailable, SD cards are all over the place, and there are *no* open-source drivers for the restricted SD media.

    Naturally, I would *welcome* being wrong. does anyone in the community know of a way to use SD media in a Linux or other open-source OS context? I know the SD protocol seems to be available only under NDA and with some sort of fee structure, but it's possible that a driver exists somewhere.

    • Re:The hardware front... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bhtooefr ( 649901 ) <bhtooefr@bhtooefr. o r g> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8014152) Homepage Journal
      Do it with a bit of organized crime. Get a BUNCH of people from various countries in, then get the spec, and send the specs into international waters, then write the driver from there, and upload it to the least restrictive country possible. Why use many people? Simple - it's so that they can't trace it to anyone person. The part about international waters is so that you wouldn't get in nearly as much trouble. Now, you might have to run a profitable front for this to happen (enough to buy the SD protocol spec several times over, and buy a seaworthy boat and satellite transmission equipment, so your front might have to have it's own front), but it would work very well in the end. There is also reverse-engineering the protocol, which would actually fall under reverse-engineering for interoperability, which is legal under the DMCA. However, your driver would have to be closed-source to be safe, and coated in DRM.
    • I would like to see a source that shows SD exceeding compact flash. I thought it was a good year because Sony is finally (partially) giving up their Memory Stick format and putting compact flash into some of their cameras and PDAs. Kodak did switch to SD in many of their cameraa, but also appears to be loosing market share - NOT saying a causation, maybe just coincidence, but I used to like the Kodak cameras, but only recommend compact flash for any device since it's been around and will be around for qui
    • CF has been dropped by many manufactures because much of the older memory cards are slow and power hungry. If the memory is slow or eats the battery, the device manufacture gets a bad rap for speed or power consumption. The newer SD memory has high speed specifications. (unfortunately they compare it to CF 1X speed not the new CF speeds)

      A lot of CF is has high speed (check a good photoshop) but it is expensive. (well so is SD) CF speed is a moot point for me as my new camera has a large buffer. I choos

  • DRM Watch Blows (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They are VERY pro-DRM. If you subscribe to their newsletter, you can look forward to getting regularly spammed by them (they seem to ignore unsubscribe requests).

    But props to them for sleazing a mention of themselves on ./.

  • DRM Devlopments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Iplaw-dc ( 742360 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:56PM (#8014002) Homepage Journal
    Fortunately, current intellectual property law remedies digital infringement allowing petetioners to cover the costs of litigating the violators, so long as creators secure these protections through the Copyright Office and or the USPTO. Having worked for major media companies, we are able to go after infringers as well as prevent parties from infringing upon our rights. One criticism of this process is that it takes a lot of people to preemptively protect digital content. Most companies using the digital mediums release products to millions of people all over the world and only have 20 lawyers overseeing the rights. Companies are relying on software to keep track of ip rights, still the legal minds making the calls and entering the information, which later is shared with thousands of internal clients, are taxed by the level of responsibilty and the lack of investment companies put into the number of people monitoring the IP assets. Hopefully, companies will create a larger budget in their legal departments and employ enough IP specialists who know how to protect the assets through the regulations and not simply rely on software/digital services to protect them, that is unless, the software can represent their interests in negotiations and court.

  • Get the name right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42NO@SPAMosu.edu> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @01:59PM (#8014018)
    DRM is not "Digital Rights Management"--it does nothing to protect anyone's rights. For one, companies who produce software/music/movies have their rights protected by copyright already. "Digital Restrictions Management" is much more accurate--it does nothing in regard to the rights of the company, but restricts the rights of the user.
    • "DRM is not "Digital Rights Management"--it does nothing to protect anyone's rights"

      Digital Rights Managment is indeed a fair evaluation of DRM. It is a technology which *manages* (e.g. restricts in specific ways) the rights you have to play and distribute media.

      Whether or not you agree with DRM, saying that it does not "manage rights" is simply not true. The fact that the word "rights" is used does not imply that the technology grants you any new rights. For example, a document marked "limitation of righ
      • Digital Rights Managment is indeed a fair evaluation of DRM. It is a technology which *manages* (e.g. restricts in specific ways) the rights you have to play and distribute media.

        Absolutely 100% FALSE.

        DRM has absolutely NO effect on your rights. It cannot grant rights. It cannot restrict rights. DRM has absolutely nothing to do with rights. You have the exact same rights no matter what the DRM does. You have the exact same rights if there is no DRM at all.

        DRM restricts abilities.

        All DRM inherently atte
        • the fact is that DRM restrictions are NOT copyright restrictions
          Apparently you haven't heard of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
          • If the DMCA attempted to directly impose the restrictions DRM impose it would have been immediately thrown out as unconstitutional. The DMCA isn't copyright protection, it i

            I still expect parts of the DMCA to be struck down as unconstitutional, but it's kinda hard to do that when in the 6 years we've had the DMCA it has hardly ever seen the inside of a courtroom, and you cannot appeal to strike down a law unless there is actually a conviction under that law. If anything is an illegal circumvention device u
            • Akk, mis-edit.

              The DMCA isn't copyright proctection, it is DRM protection. It attempts to impose by proxy restrictions that it could not constitutionally impose itself.

              -
            • I still expect parts of the DMCA to be struck down as unconstitutional...
              ...but until they are struck down, they are law.
              • And DRM still does not manage any rights.

                DRM has absolutely no effect on or control over what is or is not copyright infringment.

                The DMCA even states itself that DRM merely restricts the ABILITY to make noninfringing uses [cornell.edu], and implicity DRM also merely restricts the ABILITY to make infringing use.

                The DMCA also says Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

                The DMCA has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH C
                • Ok--it's still illegal, even if they call it circumvention instead of copyright infringement. However, it still reduces my rights by essentially undoing fair use. It may not say so, but under most definitions of fair use I would be allowed to make a copy of something I own, legally. The DMCA says I cannot if it would mean circumventing the copy protection.

                  And DRM still does not manage any rights.

                  >
                  The DMCA even states itself that DRM merely restricts...

                  I agree--that was my original point in this thread

  • Digitally Managing YOUR Rights...
    • "physical rights managers" (PRMs).

      DRM disables me from doing a variety of things to which the gov't has decided that I possess the right to do. The "rights" DRM manages are rights that do not belong to those "managing" them in the first place. In some cases, you will have to pay to do what is within your rights (and to pay to whom they do not belong and have never belonged), while others will never be yours (though they are legally so). The rights to goods that I own (my computers and peripherals) are t

  • Windows RMS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MadMirko ( 231667 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:07PM (#8014057)
    The development in the corporate DRM space that threatens to overshadow all of the above is Microsoft's release of Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) for Windows Server 2003

    Which "shadow" are they talking about? I'm responsible for a moderatly sized MS-network (about 1500 PCs and a 100-odd servers), and RMS is the next thing on my "to implement" list, because it will save me from clueless management people. We have had such a person kill (file system-)security by taking a file from a managemt-only file share and mailing it to the wrong distribution list. With RMS unauthorized partners will not (easily) be able to read the document.

    So, in my eyes that is where DRM might actually be useful and neccessary, I don't see a "shadow".

    What's wrong with me?
    • Windows RMS? That's GNU/Windows to you, thankyou!
    • So, in my eyes that is where DRM might actually be useful and neccessary

      No, you don't need DRM for the situation you described.

      The difference between DRM and ordinary software is that DRM attempts to restrict what the owner of the computer can do. The situation you describe is on office computers. The company owns the computers and it can easily install "normal" software that uses exactly the rules you want and it doesn't need to pull any stupid "DRM-tricks" to do it.

      It's an ordinary programming/softwar

  • Few People Pay To Have Their Rights Taken Away (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metalligoth ( 672285 ) <metalligoth.gmail@com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:10PM (#8014078)
    As soon as people wake up to what DRM really is, they'll stop paying for it. There will be so many hacks out there to kill it (De-CSS/iTunes DRM) that it will become as prevalent and annoying as spam, until people wake up. Then it will go back into the history book filled with bad ideas, such as coal powered automobiles.

  • what about iTunes? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by unborracho ( 108756 )
    how they failed to mention protected AAC files and the launch of the iTunes service is beyond me. How dare they call this a year in review and fail to mention iTunes.

  • Crossed the chasm ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:17PM (#8014123)
    and made it firmly into the bowling alley. ?!?

    What the ...huh? I realize I haven't bowled in a year or two, but how many of them now have chasms that need crossing to enter? Perhaps this is an element of the declining league membership: with Americans in poorer shape, quite a few more are incapable of chasm crossing to even get into the bowling alleys. Perhaps this whole chasm requirement should be rethought.

  • DRM for the people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:19PM (#8014134) Journal
    I would like to see applications of DRM used in keeping my personal information safe.

    Say, if I buy something online and request that they not sell my info - they are unable to.

    Or if I fly, I can be assued that my information is not given to secret government projects [google.com].

    Yes, the likelyhood and feasibillity of this 'crazy idea' are small to none, but I have yet to see a application of DRM that is not about content control for the big players. Sure there's the spam prevention that gets tossed around, but I can't see that being available until the $$$-making stuff gets good and locked down.

    DRM and anti-fair use legislation will mean the end of independent artists, writers and coders. Welcome to the brave new world.

  • its Digital *Restrictions* Managment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:19PM (#8014135)

    that's correct right ? better to educate the unwashed masses with the correct terminology than call it something its not

    it has nothing to do with "rights" and everything to do with "restrictions", the more you keep calling it the former the more MS/HP etc smile

    bit like the "patriot act" , call it a positive name and no one will oppose it

    • bit like the "patriot act" , call it a positive name and no one will oppose it

      The worst part about the terrorist bit is these people are reacting to the US Government meddling in their affairs. So they meddle back. But the US is much more powerful, so invades.

      Is Bush's plan world domination? We're spreading ourselves a bit thin militarily for that, but he's got the legal part covered.

      So what's gonna happen when we decide we've had it with the corporations meddling in our affairs, and decide to

  • Its time for a war on DRM (Score:3, Informative)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Sunday January 18, 2004 @02:50PM (#8014347) Journal
    The way DRM is going is to the hardware level. Its far too easy for people to break software DRM because all it takes is a few debugging tools. The best thing to do is to start getting into hardware hacking early - play around with PICs and stuff (playstation mod chips are PICs) and get to the point where your as comfortable as if you were with a software debugger. DRM is restricted by the 'if you can see it you can copy it' rule and eventually even the best DRM systems finish with an unencrypted data stream or an enable signal. Law is not going to be on our side so if we want our electronics free from artificial restrictions we are gonna have to fight it ourselves and make a mockary of the DRM industry. Screw them all before they start coming out with DRM chips that call the cops or blow-up in the users face if they are tampered with. And stop them before it becomes illigal to own so much as a multimeter without a license.
  • "Digital Rights Management" is to "rights" as "Lung Cancer" is to "lung".
  • Perhaps we can start calling DRM by its real name, Digital Restriction Management, instead of just playing along and using some cutesy euphemism.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close