Sun Spearheads Open DRM 579
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?
Oh good grief... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM doesn't work. Unless you are using a TCPA platform.
Open sourcing it will only make it harder to break.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
As with software, if you disagree with the terms and conditions music is sold under, then don't buy it and support what matches your philosophies. Support artists that sell non-DRM MP3 files on bleep.com or similar sites. Support live music.
Just don't take a moral position that's like saying you believe in free / open software and then running pirated Microsoft apps.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
Get off your high horse. Some people simply want to listen to their pop idols or certain songs. What do they do then? Pay someone with unoriginal songs whose style is directly copied? Who
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
I pirate Microsoft apps...but money has been paid
So if I pay money to Ferrari for a hood ornament, I have the right to steal the whole car?
I disagree with their "terms and conditions"
So don't use MS's software. No one is forcing you.
And I do believe in free/open software
Actions speak louder than words. You can go around saying you support FOSS all you want, but if at the end of the day you sit down in front of your computer running Windows (be it a pirated copy or otherwise), you really aren't supporting
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because without those artificial limits, too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends.
So now we have a point between "anyone can copy it as many times as they want and give it to as many people as they want" and "no one can copy it at all". Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?
In short, too many abuse the system illegally. And yes, you pay for it, just like you "pay" for the security cameras, sensors, and guards at Best Buy. If no one shoplifted, then those "costs" would not need to be covered by those who did not.
BTW, the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices. Personally, I kind of like the idea of signing/encrypting downloaded digital work with the name and credit card number used to purchase it.
Yes, you can loan it to friends you trust... but they'd better be friends you trust.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
The revolution starts with me. Worrying about "the majority of people" is senseless, because you have no control over them.
when almost all knowledge and media of any sort is locked down and you have the choice between.... oh wait - no you won't have a choice.
Won't happen as long as people who DO care are vigilant and work not simply to pirate things but to provide knowledge and media that are free.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:5, Insightful)
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. To refuse to buy the DRMed material and refuse to listen to or watch it is to agree with the concept that the people who put the restrictions of the use had the moral authority to do so. You are agreeing that culture can and should be denied to people now and in the future for arbitrary reasons.
If you disagree with DRM and its implication that media and culture can actually be owned, then by all means beg, borrow, copy, and steal the material on the encoded media.
Remember these guys stole the public domain by paying off the politicians to indefinitely extend the copyright lengths. They therefore have no claim to any material that can be placed on digital media. Anything they say can not be trusted.
Copyright is basically a pricing issue. After an agreed period of time, the material goes out of copyright and into public domain. Preventing material from entering public domain is the real theft. These people are the real thieves. And in a civilized society, thieves don't get to decide what the property laws are going to be.
These guys plan to use DRM to deny forever any material entering the public domain. We have a duty to future generations to remove the DRM from any material encoded on any digital format, regardless of how old or new it is or who believes that they 'own' it.
These guys don't control the information age; we control the information age. Because we created it. If we don't want DRM, DRM won't exist.
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why community wifi projects are so important (and so vehemently opposed by corporate interests).
Death of filesharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is much larger then just some lame p2p copyright infringement idea.
DRM will effect the very way we retain our knowledge as a society. The "keyholders" will dictate what information is acceptable and what is not.
Re:Death of filesharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't new, what you see, hear and read is all controlled anyway. New tools, but same old tactics.
This is what makes the web (and filesharing in particular) very interesting. People are free to do as they please, without any of the usual controls. People reject the "keyholders" terms of use, piracy (I *hate* that word) is rife. The fact you can buy blank CDs i
Re:Oh good grief... (Score:4, Insightful)
We're looking at the death of file sharing as we know it...
Correction, we're looking at the death of illegal file sharing. You can still share all of the music, movies, pictures, etc that you want...so long as it's not violating copyright. (Like photo's you've taken, or indie music)
How can a person be prevented from file sharing and still be able to use the file anywhere they want? When I buy music I don't expect nor will I buy a license to play it anywhere I want whether it be on my stereo or computer at home, on my stereo in my car, and another one to play it on my walkman or iPod. If I have to buy a license for each one then I won't buy at all. Simply if drm prevents sharing then it also prevents portability between devices.
FalconIf you can't beat 'em ... (Score:2)
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?
If you can't beat 'em, and you can't join 'em, you might as well head them off at the pass.
Decisions, Decisions... (Score:2)
Object to it on moral grounds.
Will the media companies buy in? (Score:2)
Wait-a-minute (Score:2)
Until those conditions are met; I'm not wasting another second on this one.
broken DRM to break (Score:2)
Would one not prefer a broken DRM scheme that we can break, rather than build our own perfect prison?
That said, remember another thing about DRM: to work, it has to be a complete chain, starting at the DRM'ed media file. It'll won't prevent you from playng a non-DRM file*. So speak with your wallet, folks, and don't go around making the marketers believe people will accept DRM. (iTunes)
*Except of course if the device will only play that type of file. But who'd be stupid enough to buy o
I Object! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have to be an idiot to want to help in this. It would be like being asked to build a prison that is going to be used to lock you in. Even more than that, Sun are asking you to help them make this prison better, and for free. Normally people will do objectionable things for enough money (sadly), but hopefully no-one is stupid enough to do this for free.
Why would you want to help them build shackles for you!
Re:I Object! (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, however, I think the concept of DRM as Free Software (or even Open Source) is even sufficiently self-contradictory to prevent this from working.
For example, if I download this Open Source DRM software, then I have access to the source code, and I can have it, say, strip out the DRM, transcode it, and save it in a digital form on my hard drive. Because FOSS places the ultimate trust in the users of the software, and DRM is based on distrust of the users of the software, I have real trouble seeing any corporation contributing.
Re:I Object! (Score:3, Insightful)
The bank owns the safe the box is in, and credibly promises to safeguard it, and I own the contents of the box. And promise not to store dead fish in it (;-))
--dave
"Open DRM"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if you mean openness of only the software itself, you can't go much farther than Microsoft Shared Source -- the "look but not touch" way. What is source worth if you can't even compile it and have it working?
Will F/OSS support make it work? (Score:3, Informative)
"is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?"
Open-source developer support or not, I don't [nanocrew.net] think [lemuria.org] it matters [eff.org].
Sun has difficulty with open projects (Score:2)
Possibly this is a silly question... (Score:2)
ofcourse... (Score:2)
I don't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibilities of Open DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
In an open DRM system, anybody could create their own DRM "universe" by generating their own set of keys to initialize the system -- this opens the possibility of using DRM to do different things than today's systems, such as protecting privacy: Sun is quite interested in providing storage records for medical records and such, and some kind of DRM would help with HIPPA compliance. (But when I look at the privacy policy I get from my Doc, there are so many people that can see my records that she could save money and just leave them on the curb.)
It's hard to picture media companies getting behind Sun, but other companies that want to build their own systems for protecting information might get on board -- Sun hopes that this will help them sell storage systems.
I actually like this <flame suit> (Score:4, Interesting)
A DRM technique that (a) I can leverage as much as the "big boys" to protect my own content, (b) preserves more of my fair use rights, is better than one that doesn't.
These techniques, generally involve encrypted content together with decryption keys possessed, but inaccessable to the end-user ("inaccessable" being a matter of effort, of course). In a flexible system, the user would be able, to transfer those keys, or a limited number of copies of them to playback devices, in a secure mechanism -- taking encrypted content to play at a friend's house should not be a hassle, for example.
Of course, given that key possession ultimately means that they can be discovered, to be effective, such a system would require content to be personalized to keys that an end-user already possesses, so cracking one does not crack the system. Given electronic delivery of content, this is not far-fetched.
Where open source DRM shines, though, is the ability to change the access mechanisms that playback or other decrypting devices offer. Fair use is not a static set of rights, but an ever-changing set: VCR-based timeshifting was "new" recognized fair use, for example. When "code is law", and the law is subject to change, it must be possible to change the codew as well.
Naturally, changed code to be loaded on a device that handles encrypted content would have to be signed by an authority the device trusts (or only be available to deal with content encrypted by the device owner), but this would open up community development of DRM code that respects new fair use rights (assuming the rest of the hardware supported them) -- I'm thinking of a fair use right to, for example, decrypted 720p analog video output where the previously permitted resolution was 480p), testing thereof, leaving only signing required to allow its widespread adoption.
The big current weakness in all DRM schemes is that while they may allow for preset fair uses, they can not anticipate and allow for future ones. I'd envisioned that the "DRM Carrot" should come with the "Fair Use Stick" -- manufactures of devices that use DRM should be obliged to modify them to support new fair uses as they are recognised, at their expense, in a timely fashion. Open sourcing the code makes this a lot easier.
Re: Possibilities of Open DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of like a built in 'dongle.' Its an impossible task. In all likelyhood they will just end up passing laws and trying to put people into Jail because you can not give somebody an encryption system that will be encryptin and decrypting things, and expect that they can't decipher it.
Hmmn, If it gives me MAC it might be cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be used to grant strictly controlled untrusted access to downloaded content in general, included downloaded content ranging from cookies to SETI at Home.
The OS that supports that will need to be somewhere arround B2 security, something I know Linux, BSD and the commercial Unixes can and have acheieved, but which I strongly suspect VMS and Windows can't reach.
--dave (biased former securitroid) c-b
Done right? (Score:2)
To me, if it's done right, I still have complete control over my system. Can anything be done to "protect content" in that environment? It doesn't really seem so. I just don't want someone else to control my stuff - if you think thats somehow a moral issue, you're quite misguided.
**AA just need to make their own special players that they trust and keep their hands off broadcast television and my computer. It's
will the media barons buy in??? (Score:2)
Free DRM? Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a DRM framework is available to implement as free software, then how can people be prevented from modifying the software to leak the cleartext of the work and then using the modified software?
Any idea how this would be effective? (Score:2)
With it being completely open source, how could this be implemented so that the DRM cannot be reverse-engineered to just bypass whatever checking mechanism is put in place?
If it's using some kind of connection to the file's creator or some kind of authorization agent, then I can't see it being reliable enough to make the DRM'
OpenBSOD (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun must be pretty hurting . . . (Score:2)
Darn, that will knock out my backdoor. (Score:2)
Yeh, its closed source, you can't know...
An alternate site covering DReaM (Score:2)
Not a tough call (Score:2)
As a distributor of media, DRM doesn't do anything for me - it just makes my stuff less accessible, so I'm not interested and I won't waste my time, even if the protocol is open.
Other distributors of media may want to use DRM, and that's fine. They are within their rights to do so. To me, it's a way for them to put a big red flag on their stuff telling me to avoid it,
Maybe just not to follow created hype? (Score:2)
So, simply forget it. There is no fishes to fool in this pool. It is just hype of coorporative droids to create a market which RESISTS to exist.
Why help? (Score:2)
Why do it right?
If you do it right, all the DRM'd media will eventually appear on the open standard, and everybody will be able to use it.
If you let them do it wrong, there will be multiple competing closed standards for DRM, and companies that adopt only one or two of these standards will have their support costs raised by dozens o
Does it work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does it work? (Score:3, Informative)
No DRM, thanks (Score:2)
Flawed prospectus (Score:5, Interesting)
If DRM is the future of controlling our media files
There is no 'our' media.
DRM is coming
Look, all of this is a nonsense. Really the world is splitting into two directions; those who believe passionately in freedom and control over their own lives and those who haven't quite woken up to the value of, or understood what that means.
There is nothing else. DRM is haxx0r bait to be circumvented and stamped on. It's there to protect the traditional structures, the big corporations primarily. Some smaller outlets may find a use for it occasionally, but it's not there for them. There is so much good media out there with no DRM and those outlets manage to survive and thrive so I think that reveals quite a lot.
Forced DRM is not compatible with any concept of normal use or freedom or control over one's own systems and files as far as I can ascertain.
As far as Sun goes, to be honest it's preferable in the sense that an open standard is probably better than a closed one, but all said it's working under the erroneous presumption that some sort of wooly, cowering compliance and affection for DRM is about to take over the world, which it won't.
I don't object to DRM on moral grounds... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I object to it on consumerist grounds. DRM just doesn't provide enough value for what I'm paying for.
Despite owning a Mac, I have yet to buy anything on iTMS but will still happily buy dinosaur digital audio (a.k.a. "Compact Discs"). Why? Compact discs provide me with several things that DRMed digital audio can't:
Considering that a digital album costs about the same as a CD on Amazon, the decision is a no-brainer.
DRM is scary, period (Score:2)
DReaM (Score:2)
Open DRM? (Score:2)
Embrace, but not for the reason they think (Score:3, Interesting)
One advantage (Score:2)
DRM is here, but the problems are just starting (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, an OpenDRM is worse than regular DRM and should be resisted as strongly as any other DRM. It will only make it easier to for everyone to push DRM because of the common platform. At least there's the chance that competing DRMs will piss off enough people to ALL fail, or that the competition alone will force less restrictive models (a la Apple vs. Microsoft currently).
Object (Score:2)
I'll happily object on moral grounds. (Score:2)
I (personally) do not want to contribute to software designed to attempt to strip my rights to fair use of material I purchase and prevent digital backups etc.
Not to mention, I doubt even the most ingenious of open-source engineers could come up with reliable *software* DRM which automatically allows public-domain type rights to any given media when that media's copyright expires.
Media sans DRM please.
"open source DRM" in an oxymoron (Score:2)
This is a wonderful dilemma (Score:2)
Hackers rejoice. If this project gets off the ground it will be smashed to pieces and rebuilt time and time again until we have the most stable software on the face of the Earth or we have proven that 'security' such as this is a mathematical impossibility.
It actually is a good thing ! (Score:2, Insightful)
The perfect union! (Score:2)
That old (Score:4, Insightful)
It's on my computer I paid for, with software I paid for or have an exclusive license for. It'll be a cold day in hell when I buy something and then don't have exclusive rights to it. I'm not leasing software; in any way, shape, or form.
People keep saying DRM is here!! OMG!! I'm scared mommy! Stop acting along the lines of a bitch and realize that the power in the consumer/media conglomerate relationship lies with the consumer.
With my consumer hat fully locked into place. DRM can come, stay, go, do whatever it wants to. Simply, not on my personal hardware. If it means not having the ability to use or watch media because the majority has spoken otherwise. Then so be it.
You can either tow the line with a statement and action you believe in. Or, join em. This segues right into the reason society has faltered when it comes to most anything involving standards, morals or simply standing up for ones self. There is a lot less beating, and a whole lot of joining.
Re:That old (Score:3, Interesting)
That _*IS*_ DRM. In your scenario the Firefox team have implemented DRM, only in a proprietary half-assed easily-busted way. The intruder simply needs to modify the Firefox executable - either on-disk or in-memory - and the DRM implementation you propose is busted.
I would personally love to have DRM in Linux. For example, right now I
that's easy (Score:2)
It's better to object on moral grounds. Next question?
Shouldn't corporations be required to use DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. should never appear in plaintext and managing who has what rights to read/copy/write files with sensitive data seems like a job for DRM. For example DRM would also help when a company uses a 3rd-party provider (e.g., your employer hires another company handle payroll). DRM would let the 3rd-party access the data on a one-time use basis. Any attempt to copy the data or read the data outside the specified application would fail. This type fo DRM would help reduce the chance of a rogue employee trying to sell the data.
It seems like DRM could have valuable applications for helping maintain privacy.
A few equations (Score:2)
Closed DRM = Moronic
I don't see how an open DRM solution could allow someone to play a media file they've purchased while simultaneously prevent them from copying and/or distributing the media file.
On the other hand, I don't see how closed DRM which has had millions invested into it has ever stopped anyone either.
Interesting move (Score:2)
We shall see whether the open model continues to do it's magic an
Open DRM (Score:2)
Although DRM is a double edged sword, it's benefits to privacy far outweigh the *AA uses for it. Having a open DRM scheme that everyone can use will just make the adoption more streamline and easier for the end user.
Sun Micro announces open-source DRM project (Score:2)
Morals? (Score:2)
I say this is a positive development.
Object it. (Score:2)
Just because of that, DRM is bad.
I believe the focus should be on keeping non-DRM alternatives viable.
Even letting the big consortiums make their own DRM is good, because they have failed miserabily in the past, and the least help they can get, the better.
As long as they come up with shitty solutions, there will be room for non-DRM stuff.
As long as they develop a convenient DRM solution, non-DRM hardware and content is at much bigger risk.
DRM diametrically opposed to Free/Open Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Software can never implement any Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology. Why? Because, a piece of DRM-compatible software must take an encrypted content file, decrypt it, and pipe the output to a user interface such as a speaker or monitor. At the same time, the software must prevent the user, at any point in the above pipeline, from copying the unencrypted content to a file. This is a fundamental problem which all DRM schemes must solve. With Free Software or Open Source software any user can modify the source code so that the unencrypted content is saved to a file, thus breaking the DRM. Therefore, Free Software can never truly implement DRM. Conversely, any system which correctly implements DRM can never fully be Free Software.
I realize that Sun is talking about open standards, which are very different from Open Source or Free Software. However, their stated aim here is to make open standards which will allegedly be friendly to Open Source. However, I think I have already proven that this is bunk, because the concepts of DRM and Free Software/Open Source software are diametrically opposed.
Therefore, what is Sun's real goal here?
I vote for objecting to it on moral grounds (Score:2)
Next...Slashdot uses DRM to eliminate posts (Score:2)
Open DRM? (Score:2)
Just skip the code that prevents you from unlocking the file, and you're done.
D
Finally making sense (Score:2)
DRM is the REALITY- because the studios (music/movies) are going to insist upon it.
In the future, if you want to view the content, you will have to play by their rules. And it is only fair that they make rules, because they are making the content.
DRM will be a reality- unless you want to watch a continuous stream of non-DRM'd ballet recitals and birthday parties.
Almost noble, but... (Score:2)
we'll have to (Score:2)
I hate the whole idea behind DRM, to me as a Free Software guy the whole idea seems just wrong.
But... Open Standard DRM feels a lot better than Apple-only DRM or Windows-only DRM...
You're right. It is a tough call.
But one thing's for sure: if DRM is coming, and we want to continue moving the "ordinary user" over to open source systems, we
Plan (Score:2)
2) Add hidden flaw to code
3) Let media companies standarize on Open DRM
6) Wait
7) Use flaw to free content
8) ???
9) Profit!
DRM is a waste and ultimately will fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, for the masses it will continue to affect them but for those who have just a bit of savvy and can use the tools that others produce, DRM will be nothing more than a minor annoyance.
Open source developed or not, a DRM is just a hurdle.
The "moral" problem is actually one of legality. It is one thing to introduce an obstacle to certain ways of using content, but to make it criminal merely for bypassing the DRM regardless of your right to the actual content is where the moral problem lies.
Why choose? (Score:2)
Do both, that way if you can't get what you want, at least you'll have some control of it.
Poisoning the well (Score:2)
Do it right (Score:2)
DRM is unavoidable if desktops are going to support playback of future media models. If Linux and other OSS systems are to compete for the desktop, there must be a reliable OSS implementation of DRM.
Unfortunately there is a good chance that there will also be a push for "certified" or "approved" DRM, which may well lock out all but the largest OSS distros.
Hmm. (Score:2)
A mere test (Score:2)
--dave
It will be better if we do it... (Score:2, Informative)
Currently the geographic community is working with in the OGC [opengeospatial.org] to develop DRM for geographic products. The plan is to get in early and define a standard to prevent cosy vendor mapping agency tie-ins.
So if we all get behind an open source open standard method of DRM then may be we can avoid the problems which are dogging DRM in the music industry.
Ian
DReam? (Score:2)
No thanks, I think I'll stick to libre stuff.
-paul
It's better to reject. (Score:2)
I'd glady prefer to see them gladiating themselves to (hopefully mutual) fatality on some standard of DRM.
The only acceptable DRM is no DRM at all.
Sun calling a nightmare a "dream" only adds to the hypocrisy.
Sun must be pretty hurting . . . (Score:2)
Is it really a tough call? (Score:2)
DRM itself (like patents or the copyright system) is not a bad thing per se. However, the potential to abuse and misuse it is a bad thing, and so it seems that the smart thing to do is to get in on the process and try to keep the end product from being overly restrictive. I don't know if such a thing is possible in the long run, but it seems to me a far better thing to try to realize such a product than to leave it up to people who might not give a damn about yo
Oxymoronic (Score:2)
Adoption (Score:2)
I think that the only way to get a single, universal DRM mechanism is to make encoding free - if content producers can restrict their content for free, then they will do it. So long as they have to pay a royalty, then (barring monopolies) there will be competing DRM technologies, and so a universal DRM standard will be hindered.
Therefore I hope that there is never an open source r
Better to object to it ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dlugar
Does it use TPM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I don't think that DRM has much use anyway, but where it does "work", it generally does so through obfuscation. I can't see the content providers springing for this. On the other hand, they've already been sold snake oil by other DRM vendors, so just maybe...
Realistically, though, the only way I can see open source DRM working at all is if it uses TPM in some way.
DReaM on.. (Score:5, Insightful)
DReaM on, Sun. The Open Source community isn't about writing your code for you, open standards or not.
Many of us vehemently object to DRM on its face, because it goes counter to the beliefs of the Open Source community; fostering learning and growth and a strong sense of community through sharing and improving our creations.
DRM doesn't play into that, even if your "customers" demand it. Creating an Open Source initiative to try to get the Open Source community to write the code for you, so you can lock it up under the CDDL for your customers' use, doesn't play into that.
Find another sandbox to play in, this one is ours.
Security Model? (Score:3, Interesting)
could be a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
An open source DRM standard would make a method of controlling content widely available. The more widely available it is, the more players we can utilize in playing our DRM'd music, movie, etc. Hopefully, with Sun behind this, enough media executives will start to trust an open DRM.
Pros:
1. High level of transparency/accountability.
2. The standards will be open to everyone. (Now Joe Schmoe can write a player that can read CheapoMP3z.com's DRM'd music.)
3. It's Sun - hopefully, all the music/movie execs will recognize the name and trust them and their products.
Cons:
1. Vaporware? (open DRM is a nice idea, but when's it gonna get here? we'll not hold our breath, thanks [java.net].
2. It's Sun - do we trust them and their products?
Nah (Score:3, Insightful)
How about work create a lot of different standards done wrong, so the whole thing gets scrapped once people get frustrated with the stuff just not working.
Who is the "root authority"? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least an open standard form of DRM could put everyone on equal footing, rathern than locking in the big media company's control over the industry. If independant producers have the same access/right/privileges as the big players, it makes for a much better solution.
Personally, I am all for a good system of protecting the rights of content producers. But, the last thing I want is that system being used to lock in the power of big business and the garbage that they peddle.
Re:Who is the "root authority"? (Score:3, Interesting)
This software / there files only work if you have a Trusted Computing compliant computer. The Trusted Computing Group is the "root authority" for this hardware. It is impossible for ANYONE to create working interoperable hadrware without the Trusted Computing group's approval and getting their cryptographic signature to actvate your hardware. So this Trusted Computing Group has absolute power and control over the industry.
Th
Open DRM probably good (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with DRM isn't the concept itself, it's the one-sidedness of current implementations: the existing DRM systems enforce the rights the media companies want enforced, but they don't enforce the rights copyright law grants to copy-owners. An open DRM system at least offers the ability to lay down within the system all rights including the ones copyright law grants that the media companies don't like. If we lay down the standard with reference to relevant statute and case law, we can change the playing field so the media companies have to argue why a DRM system shouldn't comply with the law when they object to things like time-shifting and personal-copy rights.
Re:Object (Score:5, Insightful)
What was called copyright way back should have been called 'sellright' or 'publishright' - and should only protect against false authorship claim, and against actually selling (eg for money) copies unless you were the rightholder. It wouldnt have hurt to make the whole thing non-transferrable and non-assignable too - eg the actual author/artist of a work holds permanent rights, even if he contracts with a publisher to actually distribute and sell copies on his behalf.
Of course, they will never use any DRM which can have any Open implementation, becuase anyone would be free to implement it and add or remove whatever features they wanted in their implementation, including an option to allow use that the persons issuing the DRM'ed content would want to prohibit. The only way that any 'Open' DRM would ever succeed is if the DRM-pushers are too ignorant to realize that.
Re:Moral objections? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's implemented by a machine, and machines cannot know the intent of someone using the material it protects, a DRM system cannot tell the difference between infringing and non-infringing uses. Therefore the only way for a DRM system to stop copyright infringement is to stop all copying, which stops the *legal* kind, as well as the *illegal* kind.
In short, it's objectionable because it screws people out of their rights.