DRM Advocate Violates DRM 397
Alsee writes "A year and a day after arguing DRM was good for business, acceptable to consumers, and necessary in today's world, JupiterMedia VP and Research Director Michael Gartenberg comes face to face with DRM reality, downloads a circumvention tool, violates DRM, and blogs about his MS Reader DRM issues being solved ... permanently. Perhaps now he would be interested in the EFF Action Center where Americans can quickly and easily ask your Representative to co-sponsor the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."
Oh god... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh god... (Score:5, Funny)
"While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."
He appears to hail from the "Medium Rare" school of self-execution.
Re:Oh god... (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM Needs to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Once DRM becomes nearly useless, the incentive to include it with products declines, and we begin to see more and more DRM-free software. Even though we can see it's useless, the computer world needs to make these mistakes so it can learn from them and hopefully, not repeat them.
Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
The computer world keeps learning, and then forgetting.
Perhaps some needs to give free Ritalin to IT industry execs.
Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
The computer world keeps learning, and then forgetting.
I remember, in the floppy era, reading an article about a study that concluded that games that are too hard to copy actually sold *less* that games that were easy to copy because they didn't benefit from the viral marketing associated with pirating.
I wonder if this still holds true in the internet era.
There is
Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM Needs to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
The next *BIG* drm scheme will be *secure*
Faster than Ever! More features than before! Able to deliver virtual reality in a single packet!
A large part of the blame lies on the bozos (or maybe they are smarter than we think) selling 'uncrackable' (snake-oil) DRM.
Of course, if it ever was uncrackable, they wouldn't be able to sell version x+1.
Software as a service (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if it ever was uncrackable, they wouldn't be able to sell version x+1.
Not if the DRM vendors rent the patent licenses and trade secret know-how to publishers rather than sell them. Then the vendor would be able to sell version x+1 when the publisher's contract expires.
DRM roll, please: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we can see why Jobs wants Apple in bed with Intel.
See, now, that's not a bug, that's a feature, if you're in the hardware market.
I've got to force feed you a pile of nonsense so that I can declare defeat, and sell you some more stuff, and declare victory.
See sine wave [wikipedia.org].
Interesting Piece of Legislation... (Score:2)
Still, needs to be done.
Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Goes to show that evil is not a party line problem; its a congressional whore problem, spanning both parties.
I hope that this passes. Reasonable R's and D's need to get behind this kind of thing, putting the assholes like Hollings and Hatch out to pasture...
Re:Interesting Piece of Legislation... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.processtext.com/abclit.html [processtext.com]
Rep. Boucher once again sponsers Slashdot laws (Score:4, Informative)
Reading down the list, he's opposed the RIAA, the DMCA, argued for fair use, argued for privacy laws, argued against the broadcast flag, argued against additional RIAA laws (and urged that the RIAA simply lower prices to provide a more appealing product), in favor of allowing features for Linux, worked on weakening the DMCA, pushed an anti-spam law (though admittedly not the most stringent of the proposals), pushed for the Do Not Call List, opposed DoJ anti-P2P propaganda attempts, and been a proponent of pro-VoIP laws. His arguments are quite tech-savvy -- if the man does not understand technology himself, he has some pretty sharp advisors. Many of these stances have been those that oppose major lobbyist groups (direct marketing, RIAA, MPAA, etc).
Stick about a hundred more like him in Congress and throw Orrin Hatch to the wolves and I'd have a damn lot of respect for the legislative branch.
He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Our research shows clearly that DRM is only an issue to consumers when it's technology they keep bumping into."
That remains true. His problem now w/ the MS DRM is that he's bumping into it. If the DRM was improved so that it would get out of his way, he would still have no issue with it.
-Rick
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the whole *point* of DRM is to be in the way. What would a DRM system that did not get in the way look like?
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think DRMs should be capable of running on anything that is associated as mine, or in my possession. IE: My car sterio, my home entertainment system, my computer, my MP3 Player, my friends PSP that he loaned me, etc. So long as I can (EASILY!) prove to the DRM that I own the content, I should be able to view/play/use whatever the content.
Infact, I think that in the advent that my content is stolen or damaged, I should be able
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:3, Interesting)
Until such time as the above is delivered, I'll stick with DRM free music. I still buy CDs and rip them to MP3 to play for myself (not distribute) but I've returned two CDs because they had DRM on them, even though I wanted the CDs.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps your solution is biometrics. But what if you got into a horrible accident and lost that particular part of your body? Your eyes? Your face was disfigured? You lost your fingerprints, fingers, or even the whole arm?
So what about a unique PGP key? What if you lose or forget it? Do you stop being you? Do you now have no right to any of your stuff because you cannot be identified?
Any way you cut it, DRM will be intrusive to somebody. And if you justify its existence by saying that person isn't likely to be you, then I think that's a very selfish way of looking at things, and completely inappropriate for application to the rest of the world.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Funny)
No, it doesn't.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Real criminals will always be able to get around DRM
2. Regular people will always bump into it in some innocent situation
Let me connect the dots from there: DRM sucks. And it always will. That won't necessarily stop it from becoming mainstream and accepted, just like copyright extention and the stagnation of the public domain, but that doesn't make it right or good.
Cheers.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:2)
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:2)
In general, no, it's not. The point of DRM is to get in the way when someone tries to do something they don't have the right to do - ideally, anyway. The devil is in the details, obviously. But just because someone hasn't created the perfect DRM yet doesn't mean the whole idea is evil.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you making a copy to be used on another piece of hardware you own, or for someone else (who pays you for the copy, for the sake of argument, making it definitely illegal)? Show me an automated DRM that can make a distinction between the two, without employing a human spying on your actions?
Computer programs cannot determine the intent of the user, and neither can the rightsholder without seriously breaching little things like 'right to privacy'. So DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept that will always be designed to restrict fair use and normal legal use - because that's the only way to prevent potential 'evil' uses where your intent is to make illegal copies. The only difference being the intent of the user.
Hey, even supreme court got the idea (with their P2P ruling) - intent is everything in these things.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy of logic. As soon as something gets in the way, it is no longer 'true and perfect' DRM.
Re:He was right then, and he's right now. (Score:2)
teh forumla (Score:4, Funny)
2. circumvent drm to do it
3. ????????
4. profit!!!
Re:teh forumla (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.
Re:teh forumla (Score:4, Funny)
DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.
Just like AOL subscribers have caught on to using "a softwares" like Winzip to unzip zip files, they'll ask how to get programs to play "thier" files even though they keep annoyingly asking to "aquice a lisnce", and people will point the to un-drm utilities with just a big fat "crack" button.
These people will still have no clue.
Re:teh forumla (Score:4, Interesting)
DRM's more or less open goal is to prevent "casual theft" in the form of playground CD swapping, but it's much easier to sue someone who took deliberate, non-obvious steps to circumvent a protection than sueing someone who just copied something. For infringers, it takes away the "oops I didn't know it was forbidden" excuse.
Actually, I suspect that, for the content producers at least an equally important purpose for DRM is to inhibit people's ability to exercise their fair use rights for the content they supposedly purchased.
How many times as a Disney video been sold to the same family more than once because the kids (being kids) destroyed the first one? Most consumers don't have the knowledge or tools to copy a Macrovision [aitchison.org] "protected" video or CSS encrypted DVD. Sure, for the technically savvy this is a non issue, whenever I get a movie I can make a copy and lock the original away from my kids but I'd be surprised if anyone else on my block could do the same.
Or with DRM'ed music, You know that there are more than a few people who have bought the same song more than once after they reformatted their hard drive or got a new computer and found they could no longer open the music they previously "purchased"
Both Disney & Apple are well aware that even with no so-called "backyard piracy" (or any other copyright violations) going on that they will lose sales if their media can be easily copied.
One DRM scheme I would actually be OK with is one that doesn't restrict copying but imparts a digital "watermark" in the media that makes it traceable to the original purchaser. This is sorta-kinda how TiVo handles videos that you copy off if your TiVo DVR (using approved methods anyways). If I were an idiot and put my TiVo media files on BitTorrent or something it would be easily traceable back to me.
Of course the main flaw in the TiVo system is there is only one application that is "approved" for burning your TiVo files to DVD and it's as expensive as it is lousy. So the result is that I have to use unapproved of methods for converting the TiVo file to MPEG so I can burn it to DVD using the tool I want to. Honestly I'd love to skip that step because it more than doubles the time involved in putting a show on DVD.
necessary evils (Score:5, Informative)
DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the availability of the technology is a separate issue from the use of the technology - something bittorrent whoring slashdot users should understand easily, but apparently seem to have a brain-freeze when applying the concept to DRM.
Just as we don't accept the argu
Re:DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
What you describe is fundamentally impossible to do.
You can wrap it with ten tons of DRM Snake oil, but if the recipient can read it, it can be copied. Accessing = copying.
Re:DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, if I am a commie spy, and you send me a DRM'd double-super-secret document that becomes visible on my screen, such that it can be seen and read, well, I can utilize some archaic technology to circumvent the DRM, in fact, this is a classic commie spy technique: I can write it down on paper or take a picture of the screen with a camera.
This public service announcement was ju
Re:DRM support good. DRM on consumer product bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you want to do that? If you don't trust the person on the receiving end not to copy the document... well, you're screwed, because if it's that important and they can see it, they can copy it.
Every other form of information hiding is different from DRM because you are worried about an unintended third party viewing your message. Even then it is extremely difficult to
Re:necessary evils (Score:2, Insightful)
this probably is not the only guy doing this. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:this probably is not the only guy doing this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
No wait, that would involve too much thought and judgement. Black and white is so much easier.
Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM, by design, takes away your ability to access/modify/distribute data.
Data is, by definition, there to be accessed/modified/distributed.
There can only be slightly less braindead DRM, and braindead DRM. DRM will ALWAYS get into your way sooner or later (it's designed to do that) - even when you limit your usage to what fair use allows you to do.
Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
With computers, when you are accessing the data, you are making a copy of it. If nothing else, you are copying it to the framebuffer of your videocard for display.
Any 'effective' DRM that tries to prevent you from copying the data will affect your legal, fair-use rights to access the data.
Until all your own hardware talks to each other and phones home to the DRM makers, there is aboslutely no practical way to DRM something to work only on 'your' hardware. The hardware doesn't know who owns it, and if you are asking for access on multiple hardware platforms, you are asking for copies. One copy = unlimited copies. No matter how you obfuscate, limit or mangle things, it boils down to a simple fact; If you have bunch of data on your hard drive or RAM, in order to do *anything* to that data, you are making a copy of it, and any piece of code designed to prevent that is going to prevent legimate uses (or alternatively the DRM is so weak its irrelevant and you can make unlimited copies)
The whole idea of DRM is so braindead - until they have DRM code running in your brain, it's always circumventable, and to make it hard to circumvent, it will inevitably get into way of legimate uses, as numerous legimate uses *require* making of copies of the data.
Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the data, you need to prevent huge number of scenarios where you access the data - many of them quite legal.
The only difference between 'making a warez copy of the data to be distributed for all mankind' and 'making a backup copy in case the original dies' is *intent*. And no DRM can dechiper that.
There is no way to 'secure' identification of an 'authorized user' to 'unlock' data. Once an authorized user unlocks it legimately, he can make copies (or if he can't, then DRM is in the way).
I dunno.. for decades we had this analog rights management system called 'the Copyright Law' that ensured that 'talented individuals' got their 'appropriate compensation'. Content business was huge before the term DRM was even invented, so additional protection seems pointless. Now if your business model cannot survive unlimited digital copying, maybe it's time to rethink the business model? Because you cannot possibly prevent it - once you have a digital copy, and you allow an user to access said digital copy, it's possible to make a perfect digital copy of it. It's so fundamental that any DRM is doomed to fail, and on the way there it will piss off paying customers that just wish to legally access the data they paid for.
Mix, Burn, Rip, why Apple's DRM works... (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is acceptable when it's just strong enough to remind you that this isn't freely redistributable content, but not strong enough to actually prevent you from breaking it when you need to.
That's what Microsoft doesn't get. That's what Michael Gartenberg doesn't get. Strong DRM will inevitably screw you over. If Apple used strong DRM in iTunes I'd have been really pissed when I ran out of authorizations due to a bad disk that forced me to reinstall my OS a couple of times... because even though Apple was willing to reset all my computers AGAIN, it took a while, and having all my music burned onto audio CDs meant it wasn't actually held hostage by the DRM...
That's why Apple's DRM works. Because it doesn't. If it did, it wouldn't.
Re:Mix, Burn, Rip, why Apple's DRM works... (Score:4, Informative)
There's no legal, click-wrap contract, or other issues of force or coercion involved here. Apple explicitly permits you to make non-DRMed backups of your music. In fact they encourage it [apple.com].
If even touching a DRMed format is enough to squick you, if very idea disgusts you, then that's your trip.
But where you see DRM, I see nothing but a facade.
Re:Mix, Burn, Rip, why Apple's DRM works... (Score:3, Interesting)
But where you see DRM, I see nothing but a facade.
Maybe tinfoil hat material but did you ever wonder if iTunes DRM was intended to "manage" your rights to use a competing player more than to "manage" the copying of the files?
Re:Just maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
If he's a believer in the DMCA and similar laws, he should explain whether or not he believes that he should be jailed for his actions, and why. If he's not a DMCA advocate, he should explain how DRM could work without the force of law backing it.
But I can't be bothered to read through a years worth of blog to find out if he discusses that issue.
Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/itunes/burn.html [apple.com]
Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
1) They have to have an 800#
2) They have to have a good database
3) They have to provide you with a new key or your money back
4) They have to do all the above within 10 minutes of the time you call (no forever hold)
Put the burdon on them.
Re:Just maybe (Score:4, Informative)
The Librarian of Congress has made four exceptions [copyright.gov] to circumvention prohibition:
Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
errrrr..... so... why the HELL was Dimitry held in jail?
Acts != devices (Score:3, Insightful)
so... why the HELL was Dimitry held in jail?
The LoC's exemptions to 1201(a)(1) cover circumvention acts, not circumvention devices. Dmitry was held for the latter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
So, using your amazing powers of "thought and judgement", describe for us an unobtrusive form of DRM.
Well?
Any thoughts?
Didn't think so.
Most of us would have no problem with the idea of DRM, if any possible implementation didn't inherently either totally deprive us of anonymity (just because I bought a CD doesn't mean the **AA should suddenly know my complete medical history
Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh ho ho... we've gone from praising DRM to circumventing it, haven't we? This is exactly the problem with DRM, when the DRM is so bad it restricts the legitimate use of the media it's protecting. I like how he praises DRM but says it's a "necessary evil" and is willing to circumvent it when it inhibits him.
Sorry Mike, you can't have your DRM and circumvent it when it's in the way too y'know.
Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:2)
The problem with DRM is not that it's somehow immoral or something. It's that there is a DMCA. Get rid of the DMCA, and the market would decide whether or not DRM is a good idea. Keep the DMCA, and the market doesn't get a vote.
Point being, his rationalizat
Re:Can't have your cake and eat it too... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly where he should've stopped. If he were at all consistent he would've exercised his right to free speech on the matter but never have tried to crack the DRM.
Unfortunately this moron believes that HE gets to be the one who decides whether or not some subset of DRM is 'good', and if it doesn't meet HIS standards then it's okay to crack it. He's essentially said that his own personal beliefs supercede the law and are justification for breaking that law.
This makes him no different than any other 'pirate' out there, just a little slicker at convincing people that what he's doing is actually okay.
Max
So can we report him... (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally, a GOOD use for the DMCA... putting people behind bars that support the DMCA.
Mod me flamebait, if you want... but DON'T mod this funny! I'm being serious...
Re:So can we report him... (Score:2, Funny)
Too late, I've already patented that use.
Re:So can we report him... (Score:2)
Don't you mean "putting the people that BEGIN TO DOUBT their support of the DMCA, behind bars"? Nice help, compadre!
On the other hand... in Farenheit 451, wasn't Montag's persecution what led him to his full conversion against the system?
Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the second one, last sentence. "Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions."
He didn't make a 180 degree turn on the issue. He was critical of this particular implementation of DRM (and the general cluelessness of Microsoft tech support when it came to his esoteric issue).
It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a small step for him in a better direction, perhaps, but he hasn't changed his position from reading those remarks.
Yep. He's still an asshole.
Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I think the law is stupid, and getting people thrown in jail (or at least fined) for what is apparently a perfectly reasonable behaviour, is the only way to make people realize that the law needs to be changed.
-paul
Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe then will he appreciate what he advocates.
How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
This madness has to stop!
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
And if we get really effective DRM, you won't even have the choice of breaking the DRM, because the DRM won't be breakable. The only reason this guy was able to break the DRM was because it was crappy DRM. Which, frankly, is the best kind, because really effective DRM renders the product unrecoverable if the access key is lost.
I haven't ever broken the DRM on a piece of iTMS music that I've purchased, but one of the things that makes me comfortable in buying iTMS music is that I know the DRM is breakable, so in the event that iTMS goes away, I am not shafted.
Re:How ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you advocating demands that Apple Records provide free music DVDs to everybody who bought Yellow Submarine on 8 Track? If I bought a copy of Ping (book about the duck) and go blind am I entitled to a free copy on tape?
Now on to my real points.
1. This clown needs to be prosecuted for DMCA violations. Not only did he circumvent DRM but he told everybody else how to do it. This blatant recommendation of a tool is nothing short of advocating the theft of copyrighted material.
Unreasonable? Yes, but will the law. It is only through the prosecution of people like this will they start to advocate reasonable positions on DRM. It is the easiest thing in the world to advocate enforcing laws when you aren't subjected to them yourself (which is why Congress and the President have no real incentive to fix social security, for example). If this guy is sued with the same zeal as grandmothers who have 15 year old visitors who installed kazaa on that newfangled box then maybe there would be a louder voice calling for reason.
2. With regards to backup, so long as there exists a legal right to back up digital works (as there should be) then -no- DRM is acceptable for the very reasons mentioned by the OP. If the companies force DRM onto their product then they should be forced to provide replacement media, for free, on demand in perpetuity. The concept of "you don't own the copy of the song you only license it" is BS: the copyright holders can sell you the song with any restrictions they like, just as I can sell you a 5 acre parcel of land with a deeded restriction that you can never build more than a single house.
But so long as people like this guy can advocate DRM yet violate it on whim without consequence and as long as people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something with which they are not completely satisfied then nothing will change . Ever. There is no motivation for the companies to do so, so they will not.
Priceless (Score:3, Funny)
Blogging about your own circumvention of it - $10
Getting caught in the act, and ridiculed by the millions that view Slashdot - Priceless.
Did this guy just break the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sure looks like the did the sort of thing that folks do, that can get them in huge trouble -- he attempted to circumvent a technological device there to protect Copyright.
Is he really so dumb as to blog about it?
Amber LIT is also illegal-- (Score:2)
Re:Did this guy just break the DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)
He said in his blog that he circumvented the DRM.
He provides a link to the tool he used to do it.
He still does not get it (Score:5, Insightful)
What he does not get is that DRM *has* to be intrusive to work. DRM is based on having someone other than the owner of the machine control the data on that machine. If you want to move that data to another machine, you have to request permission and it had to be hard to get pewrmission, otherwise people will take advantage of you and copy the data more times than allowed.
DRM is all about control. Control does not work unless you show them who is the boss early on.
An interesting side effect of this is what it is teaching Americans. It is teaching them that they only way they can do what they want in society on a day to day basis is to break the law.
Contemptable laws generate contempt for ALL laws.
Or as Macalypse the Yonger put it...
"Imposition of order = Escalation of Disorder".
Hypocricy? I don't think so. (Score:2)
Did he? (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as I read this, he read content that he legally owned. He did use a different piece of software than the "correct" s/w, but that required him to own a copy of the correct software. He did not redistribute it.
Is this really a violation?
It's certainly a poor advertisement for MicroSoft. Apparently security isn't their only weakness. ;-)
Re:Did he? (Score:2)
Re:Did he? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately in current US law, the mere circumvention of a "copy protection" mechanism by the end user is illegal, whether your doing so violates ordinary copyright or not. There are exceptions made for libraries and research institutions, but not for ordinary end users.
This "well thought out" piece of legislation is called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) [ucla.edu].
Re:Did he? (Score:2)
Re:Did he? (Score:2)
Can't have your DRM and remove it too (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh ho ho ho, it's about time he got a taste of his own medicine. Now he knows what it's like to be on the recieving end of DRM that restricts the legitimate use of media, media that customers paid for.
Notice how fast it the DRM was defeated as well. From TFA, it took Michael only a few minutes to convert the DRM-ed eBooks over to PDF. Compared to the tech support nightmare that he went through, it's obvious why DRM is and always will be, a doomed technology.
DRM does nothing except hinder the legit and paid-for use of media by honest customers, and mildly thwarts those who are determined to break it. Hopefully (but don't count on it), this will be a wake-up call to anyone seeking to implement a DRM system. When one of DRM's great apologists breaks out the "illegal" tools, you know there's a problem.
My mother.... (Score:2)
And don't give me the "implemented wrongly" line. DRM's purpose is to preven
So if I read the article right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad DRM = Bad. It's good to circumvent it if you need to.
Um, so who gets to decide what's good and what's bad?
In the words of Homer, "Ummn, I don't know, the Coast Guard?"
One useful link for you. (Score:3, Funny)
https://tips.fbi.gov/ [fbi.gov]
Let him get the taste...
Zonk and blogging stories (Score:2, Troll)
Consumer or Foe? (Score:2)
DRM is a tool to create a physical market out of a purely abstract one. DRM lets the companies make media you bought be impossible (in theory) to copy and only be at one place at a time. It can place all kinds of fictional physical boundaries up.
I think using DRM is l
Encouraging Piracy (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope he goes to jail... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hypocrisy is everywhere (Score:3, Interesting)
Your Prize is Waiting, Michael (Score:3, Funny)
You can both discuss common life experiences together -- like hypocrisy!
Very unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Get ready for office!
MS Reader is a terrible DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
I was also employed as a Windows Media DRM expert for several years.
I have to say, Microsoft's eBook DRM is probably the worst DRM I have ever encountered. I frequently buy eBooks, but now I have books I can't use. There is no way to de-activate an old piece of hardware from their hardware list, so after 5 equipment changes (and as geeks we update our PCs and PDAs reguarly) you're screwed.
They promise another activation every 180 days or something on their. But that's a total lie. A complete falsehood. It says you can mail support and ask for more activations, but you just get denied every time.
The reason their technical support knows nothing about the DRM is because the whole MS LIT/MS Reader project appears to be abandonware. The reader app hasn't had any non-critical updates in years.
MICROSOFT! PLEASE! We just want to read the books we bought! *sob*
I've had some bad experience with Adobe's DRM too - it won't let you re-flow DRM'd books so I can't read them on my PDA. I have to remote desktop into my PC from my Pocket PC to read them in bed.. and that's just a total scroll-fest then.
Don't make me have to go back to using tree-based books...
My DRM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Witness blackbirds in England who have taken to include the sounds of car alarms in their calls... (After all this could be another bird trying to muscle in on their territory).
The attempted enforcement of DRM on all current "Bit Manipulating" technology sums up how shallow, unimaginative, uninteresting and shite our 21st century culture currently is. Working "uncrakabull" DRM (which will never occur, trust me) is the ultiate masturbatory fantasy of the utterly untalented who only seek to catch and control the output of the inspired (who will do what they do regardless of reward) In the long term all it will mean is that large parts of DRMd culture will be forgotten. And quite frankly it's for the best.
Any good artist will do what they've always done... i.e. make a living by performing their art live or doing custom work for willing patrons.
Watching the retard "media crowd" arguing over who owns the "rights" (sic) to pimp the inspired work of artisits reminds me of nothng more than flies arguing over who owns the right to the dung of an elephant.
In't booze grate ????
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Re:RTFA !! (Score:2)
There is no 'acceptable' 'good' way to implement DRM
DRM takes your rights away. Rights to copy, modify and even just access data (with computers, reading data = copying data anyway).
No matter how you implement it, it will restrict you, at which point it's called 'braindead'. The only non-braindead way to do DRM is not to use it at all.