How Important Is Protecting Streaming Media? 182
spaj writes "In the ongoing battle with the MPAA and RIAA, there seems to be an ongoing argument about who is to blame. If you leave a $20 bill on the sidewalk, can you report it stolen when someone takes it? Of course you can, but will you be taken seriously by the authorities? When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals. So, who is at fault when it comes to users abusing their right to capture streaming media for personal use? According to Applian.com's Legal FAQ, the RIAA will not come after you if you make a recording for your own personal use. I have often been torn on this issue, and I am looking for input. Adobe recently released a new format of their widely used streaming protocol, RTMP, that includes 128-bit encryption (RTMPE). I can only interpret this as an attempt to prevent capturing of the streaming media content for personal use. However, Applian has already circumvented the RTMPE protection, and you can read about it on Adobe's forums, where some users seem quite dissatisfied that their content is not protected enough by Adobe's technology. I think the main question boils down to: Who is to blame? Can you blame Adobe for not making a better encryption? Or do you blame Applian for bypassing such security features? Or do you blame the authors of stolen content for leaving the security of their material in somebody else's hands?"
The last one (Score:2)
Yeah, that one, because although content authors are probably not experts on digital security, they can all roll their own protection and rely on security thought who-the-hell-would-have-thought-of-implementing- something-as-dumb-as-that (for the first few weeks anyway).
Re:The last one (Score:5, Insightful)
Any DRM scheme falls under this heading. If I can play it on my computer (or another electronic device), I can copy it.
OK, well, I probably can't, but there are lots of smart guys on Slashdot who could.
Re:The last one (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately that is what the recording industry wants to stop. In order to stop it they would have to have all recording devices regulated, and under that scheme the big boys would once more be the gatekeepers to mass media.
You did look at MS's "trusted" computing platforms? Who do you think is going to be trusted? Who do you think is not?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because us geeks have absolutely no way whatsoever to tamper with hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh. Exactly.
DRM is an exercise in futility. Protecting streaming media is exactly as important as protecting radio broadcasts, i.e. not at all. Completely unimportant. It's a waste of time and money that could be better spent making higher quality programming. It does nothing to prevent people who are determined to capture the audio program, and no matter what they change in the DRM tech, it cannot prevent it).
Unfortunately, it does do lots of harm in other areas; it causes unavoidable compatibility p
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because us geeks have absolutely no way whatsoever to tamper with hardware.
According to the DMCA, we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It may get put into the law books, but that doesn't make it enforceable - in reality, if it's in my house then I can tamper with it to my heart's content (unless it has some way to notice tampering and call the police on me, up until the point where I disable that function)
At the moment, any media that can be seen can be captured, because we control the computer. If they try to control the computer the
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that is the larger problem, and the one which makes me laugh at this.
Let me direct you to a small scam which claims to "encrypt" your HTML: HTML Protector. [html-protector.com] You know, this actually used to be hard... These clowns just wrap everything in big "unencode" calls, and run some Javascript before the page is loaded to try to block "unauthorized" access. Surprise, surprise, they block Firefox -- Firebug made this trivial to crack.
Anyone will sell you a product which claims to "protect" your content from being
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops. That should be:
These clowns just wrap everything in big "unescape" calls...
Re: (Score:2)
Trivial to break. Thirty-four lines of Perl to do it right, though I'm sure somebody could write something much simpler using "map" that would also work with reasonable probability.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I only needed the last one. I actually did it with wget, Firebug, and JQuery.
Re: (Score:2)
To avoid a DMCA violation, the unescape function is left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: the hex function converts hex to base-10 integers, and printf can be used to convert numerical ASCII values into the corresponding characters....
Two minor mistakes. To avoid losing the initial prior to a block of actual JavaScript, you need to insert this line:
after:
Also, while this is only a prob
Re: (Score:2)
D'oh. To avoid losing the initial <script language="javascript">....
Forgot to do the < thing in that sentence. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
One more error. Wrap the "$skip = 1" with an else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not difficult at all, fire up Audacity and set the recording source to "What U Hear", hit record.
Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this drone on and on about assigning blame.
This just isn't sensible because DRM can't work ever. It's just not mathematically possible.
Right, now you can go back to trying to stop people "stealing" images off web pages with crappy bits of javascript. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM doesn't have to be perfect to work, and if you'd read the thread you'd see that the guy who is complaining recognises this fact. He doesn't care if it's merely difficult to extract the stream. He cares that it can apparently be done using easy, cheap, off the shelf tools that require no expertise. Key quote:
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
if i can't bypass DRM on something i want without a lot of work, i'll just go to (choose one of virtually infinite methods of sharing files here).
It only takes one break in the chain for the pirates to get hold of it, so all it takes is one compromise of the DRM at any point in the chain, and nobody else has to bother with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Informative)
There is no strong or weak DRM. At some point the data is decrypted, and at that point you extract it. End of story.
It just takes one person to make it into a "cheap off the shelf tool that requires no expertise", and there will always be at least one programmer out there scratching their own itch.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:4, Informative)
There is no defense against an intelligent hacker with a soldering iron.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:4, Informative)
There is no strong or weak DRM. At some point the data is decrypted, and at that point you extract it. End of story.
Imagine a CPU that can apply AES encryption to sensitive blocks of RAM. In that case, you'd have to tap the CPU's L2 cache (not likely without expensive tools) to extract anything decrypted.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
You can have a completely secure chain from the music store to your speakers, but as soon as it gets to your speaker wires it's in a form where someone can record it.
Back in the '90s, CDs came with an early form of DRM. Each CD had two flags, a copy and a copyright flag. You were allowed to make digital copies of copyrighted CDs, but not copies of copies of copyrighted CDs. I recall reading a review of a CD recorder which enforced this. It had a single cable connecting the two drives together. If the copy and copyright flags were both set, it would flip a DAC and an ADC into the circuit (one at each end). Even back then, the resolution on these was sufficiently high that in listening tests no one could tell the difference between an analogue and a digital copy of the music.
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the old analog copy protection for VHS? The VCR would mess with the blank space between frames, which TVs ignored, but another VCR would gag on it and you would get a garbled signal. It would be unable to sync the frames. Without any encryption or anything sophisticated the manufacturers were able to stop VHS copying (at least until people found a way around it). Remember, this was the "last mile" so to speak, the last part of the chain going to the output device.
I think the whole idea is silly. I would leave the whole chain wide open, and rather than spend money on ineffective copy protection, I would invest in more, better movies; better television shows (I canceled digital cable partially due to time, partially due to the shitty quality of 95% of what is on it); and making customers happy. By providing customers with DVRs (which most cable companies do) that have features customers want, by providing high definition movies on demand for a reasonable price, customers will be more likely to spend money with the cable company (and to the content providers by proxy) and less effort on copyright infringement because they will be less motivated. I for one am willing to pay for these services if the cost is reasonable, even if I could get the same thing for free.
As for music, I think the middlemen (e.g. iTunes) are moving in the right direction by selling albums and songs in digital format with or without DRM (preferably without). If I can get a song for free via file sharing or spend a dollar to get a good quality version and "do the right thing," I will spend the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole idea is silly. I would leave the whole chain wide open, and rather than spend money on ineffective copy protection, I would invest in more, better movies; better television shows (I canceled digital cable partially due to time, partially due to the shitty quality of 95% of what is on it); and making customers happy. By providing customers with DVRs (which most cable companies do) that have features customers want, by providing high definition movies on demand for a reasonable price, customers will be more likely to spend money with the cable company (and to the content providers by proxy) and less effort on copyright infringement because they will be less motivated. I for one am willing to pay for these services if the cost is reasonable, even if I could get the same thing for free.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think just blurting out produce better content will produce higher earnings is only ringing true with those of us willing to pay for content, which is intelligent, thoughtful human beings, i.e. the minority of humans. Most art that sparks thought and discussion is unwelcome to the masses of the global population as uninteresting, but what they do want is this new genre of reality. What is real about a group of people doing unreal tasks in unimaginable loca
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a completely secure chain from the music store to your speakers, but as soon as it gets to your speaker wires it's in a form where someone can record it.
You're talking about the analog hole. An author can plug the analog hole by making his work interactive, as I explained in another comment [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And once they control all recording equipment ( not today, but someday is their goal ) what will you record it with?
Re: (Score:2)
We've already reached near-perfect quality recording
Of audio, as you mention. What about of video? Or interactive environments? And what happens should developed countries' governments start to regulate ADCs more capable than 16-bit 44.1 kHz the way they regulate prescription drugs: to be used only by a licensed audio technician?
Re: (Score:2)
If its encrypted, then it has to be decrypted to be viewed.
There is the flaw.
If your sending it to the video card to be decrypted there then you can just pull it from the video memory.
Also the keys need to be stored unencrypted somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If its encrypted, then it has to be decrypted to be viewed. There is the flaw.
The solution is to put the decryption chip behind the optic nerve.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You don't have room for all that in your skull? Pfft, small-headed surrender monkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Because the decrypted content needs to go somewhere for it to be useful, no ?
If it's sound it has to ultimately go to the soundcard, then to the speakers. Speaker-coils don't understand AES, they need raw, uncoded, plain signals, free for anyone to tap.
If it's pictures, similar logic applies; they eventually need to get to the graphics-card, and on to the screen. Screens -can- accept encrypted input, but they too need to ultimately decode the signal before they're in a position to DISPLAY it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I can eventually see it, it's broken.
I've never paid to see the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel yet I know what they look like.
This whole DRM or protected media is an antiquated idea about protecting the venue.
If you want to see the alligator lady, you go the the barkers tent at the local circus, pay your 50 cents and you get to see it; at least that's how it was 100 years ago.
Content is much easier to share today and authors need to come to grips with that.
If content is worth a value for the observer, the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if it's true that encrypted video streams can be dumped using an easy to use tool then the guy has a point. Adobe aren't doing as well as some other companies are.
And we should be glad.
Do you know why iTunes does a better job?
It's not because iTunes has better or stronger encryption. (Remember, it has to be able to run this encryption on an iPod, and it drains battery life as it is.)
It's not because iTunes is smarter or trickier about how it hides its keys. (Remember, they have to hit RAM at some point, barring full TCPM, which iTunes doesn't require.)
It's certainly not because people care more about ripping things from YouTube than from iTunes.
It's much simpler:
App
Re: (Score:2)
Key quote:
That's a load of crap. Apple's FairPlay DRM has been successfully cracked. Requiem 1.7.3, which is available through Freenet and various torrents, will strip the DRM from purchased music and videos, leaving the video and audio streams completely intact. It even continued to work with the most recent iTunes 7.7.1 update.
It's also the easiest DRM stripping utility I've ever used; it certainly doesn't take an expert to use it. Just drag and drop the offending files onto RequiemDroplet.app, wait for it to fi
Re:Nobody is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM may not work, but that's just the band aid. The problem the content providers really face is that we all grew up. When we were children, if we found a $20 bill on the sidewalk, we would have handed it in. We believed in doing the right thing. As we grew up, we watched our heroes (eg; the people we looked up to) throw away their ideals in the name of pragmatism. We watched wars, and death, and crime, and no one seemed to be punished for doing "bad" things.
The problem that content providers face is that we don't care anymore. Times have changed. We have watched them rake in money for thirty years, and now they want to give us toys, make us pay for them, and then take them back. That isn't going to work. We don't value them that much, and if we feel a small twinge of guilt at keeping it, then that is oh so easily justified by the way in which we have been treated.
How's that for a hypothesis?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like how you equate growing up to becoming a selfish, cynical bastard. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And when you grow up a little bit more, you'll realize that just because someone doesn't "seem" to be punished for doing bad things that it doesn't mean they aren't. When people realize that their soul/spirit/conscience/karma suffers from doing "bad" things, and take steps to stop doing those ba
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather longer than 30 years and these same companies are continuing to rake in money. Maybe just not quite as much. But compared with many other industries they are doing very well.
and now they want to give us toys, make us pay for them, and then take them back. That isn't going to work.
It isn't going to for for the simple reason that it's generally underst
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it is clearly stated that this is a loan, rental, lease, etc at the outset.
Which is exactly where the *AA is dragging us. I mean, if they actually let us keep the stuff we pay for, then they have to keep coming up with new stuff to make sure we keep paying them.
The real problem is not piracy, it is that the artists have found a way to bypass them and deliver directly to us.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can go further than this. The underlying philosophy of DRM and the DMCA is that of 'self help,' something that previous generations would have called vigilantism. The law is so messed up, the theory goes, that when I don't like someone - a thief, a customer, whoever - I should just go right ahead and shoot them. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: when, as a customer, I see my supplier going, 'f*** you, I'm going to lock you out of this thing that you bought because, le
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Cryptography is a method of ensuring, among other things, that a message sent from one party to another cannot be read by an attacker. However, in the case of DRM, the recipient and attacker are the same person; therefore, DRM is essentially a trivial case of cryptography, which is basically equivalent to sending the data in the clear, if somewhat more inconvenient for the movie viewer or music listener.
It's all about Luddite Media Owners (LMOs) (Score:2)
Imagine the most tech-ignorant person you can imagine asking "is it encrypted so people can't copy it".
Now imagine people trying to answer that question without saying "no".
See the problem?
Will it go away? Of course not.
Nature cannot be encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound waves cannot be encrypted - where there is a will, there is a way. Certain people will always take pleasure from using whatever means necessary to make copies of music, or almost any art for that matter. Digital systems just make it more convenient and therefore it occurs on a massive scale.
Setting up a microphone and recording the output from the speakers might be the last resort and the lowest quality, but people will go to these lengths if it is the only way they can get something for nothing / they are not supposed to / what other people have or even because they like the technical challenge of getting the best recording they can using the tools and techniques they possess.
Interactivity defeats the analog hole (Score:3, Interesting)
Sound waves cannot be encrypted - where there is a will, there is a way.
What happens when the work that makes the sound waves is interactive [wikipedia.org]? In that case, the instructions to make the sound wave don't ever need to leave the player. Capturing the sound wave just captures one playing of the work, and replaying that over and over can get boring.
Re: (Score:2)
So, that would involve turning all movies, TV series, and songs into games? No doubt there will be some of that format in the future but can't see it being the preferred method of generating (or consuming) content.
No, but it does mean that the video game industry has already surpassed movie theaters in revenue.
coming soon! (Score:3, Funny)
New Microsoft One Time Pad(tm) for WMA!
Re: (Score:2)
And neither can light.
If they try end to end encryption somebody will invent a "hood" to put over the front of an HDTV to capture it, and within a couple of generations of development I'd bet the resulting copy will look great.
The authors, for expecting this to be possible (Score:3, Insightful)
If you send a video stream to someone, they'll be able to record it. The VCR proved that once -- do these authors think digital media will be any different? Or should be any different?
Adobe isn't at fault for "not making a better encryption". It's not possible. You have to send someone the key if you want them to watch the video, and once they have the key, they can decrypt it for any other purpose. No amount of programming can evade that basic logic.
Applian isn't at fault for making a program that decrypts the stream, either. They're the VCR manufacturer of this era, making a tool that people can use to time-shift videos. What's wrong with that?
Faux security for the dead presidents (Score:2)
Because it's impossible - and Adobe should know that - then they're wasting money tilting at windmills.
Except there's money in tilting at windmills, from plenty of proprietary publishers who will pay to have some DRM in place "to keep honest people honest". It's like any other kind of security theater [wikipedia.org]: it doesn't work all that well for its perceived purpose, but organizations will offer large sums of money for it.
You Blame Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, hasn't every DRM scheme been cracked at some point?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they're relying on security through obscurity. All you'd need to do to crack it is bribe someone who has passed their background check to give you one of the chips for analysis.
Blame? (Score:2)
If your Adobe you make a shitty lock that anybody in the world can bypass and then you get the FBI to your dirty work for you by trying to make the guy disappear when he comes to your country to show just how shitty the lock is. So Applian is just asking to wake
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of COURSE content authors have to put trust in somebody else.
The key word there is "trust".
Basically, you have on one hand some people trying to extract as much money out of their "creation" as possible for the least cost. And on the other hand you have somebody that says they can help you do that, for a price.
There is no honour amongst thieves.
OK, maybe thieves is a bit strong, but the music industry isn't exactly "a fair days work for a fair days pay" is it. There is no DRM at live concerts, but that's too much like hard work, they want to record a song, let someon
"better protection" isn't possible here. (Score:2)
Not to say I support the sometimes attorney-heavy decisions they made about PDF, but "better protection" isn't possible in the context you're talking about - if you can see it you can save it.
RTMP has had an SSL option for a long time. RTMPE is supposed to be faster and work better through some firewalls. But either way it's real, legitimate job is to protect all that content from a middleman. If your computer is compromised, or YOU really want the data, and encrypted transport doesn't matter; you'll get
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
RTMPE (Score:5, Interesting)
After searching around, it looks like RTMPE is nothing more than a transmission encryption that prevents a stream from being intercepted by a "middle man", analogous to wifi encryptions that prevent others from capturing your wifi network packets. If my understanding is correct, then this doesn't actually have anything to do with "stolen" content, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most common way of intercepting data traffic on a single computer system is to create a dummy API layer that replaces one or more of the API's in use (sockets, OpenGL). For the function calls that you are uninterested in, you just call the real API. For the functions that you are interested in, you log the parameters sent and data received.
Encrypting the data at a higher level is one way of trying to defeat this, but then you just replace the API layer that does the encrypting/decrypting.
One view of importance (Score:5, Interesting)
7 years ago now I worked for a streaming media company in the UK who did pretty much all the promotional streaming for the labels. We'd put pre-release music on-line weeks before it was due for release; and, if the customer wanted it, made it available for download as well. All the tracks were free but DRMed to switch off on the day the record was released. Sometimes you'd have to enter some marketing details (although there was always an opt-out checkbox and we'd never pass details on if that was ticked).
One thing sticks in my mind. At the time Microsoft had just released the ability to DRM live streams and a particular heavy metal band wanted to play a charity concert with the proceeds going to a UK charity for a kids charity, I believe because one of them had a child afflicted by illness the charity was raise funds for. It was a small concert, tickets sold out partly because they have a huge following and partly because they were cheap, £5 if memory serves. The band knew there was a large audience for it; so they paid us (and we didn't take a profit on it) to stream the concert live. We discussed it with them and DRMed the live stream and made an archive of it available for a month afterwards. All at no cost to the viewer, not even marketing information, although at the end the band spoke about the charity for 5 minutes. When the month was up the band were going to release a DVD of the concert for sale; with all profit going to the charity. The DVD was pretty cheap too, I think around £8.50 including shipping.
The month expired and the streams were taken down, and the DRM kicked in (because stream rippers ripped the DRM as well *grin*). For the next month the band's official band bulletin board was filled with fans complaining that the streams they had ripped no-longer worked. It was pointed out the DVD was available, it was all for charity, and they'd had it free for a month, but no, lots of whining and sulking and demands that it should be free for ever.
Now you may argue that DRM is bad; and in a lot of cases I'd agree with you; but when it protects something that was free so after a while charities can make some money; well then frankly you can't complain and you're nothing but a freeloader.
Still annoys me now.
Re:One view of importance (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter for which higher and noble purpose DRM is used, people just don't like it. People want their computer to do what they tell it to do and not what some company wants. I want to be in control of what software runs on my computer, because it's my computer and I bought it from my money. That's the whole point.
DRM is like a brainchip that prevents you from doing certain things. You wouldn't like that, would you? Why should you accept something like that on your computer then?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh and that's fine; when you pay for it. I don't like DRM on games because when I'm working away from home I don't want to have to bring the darned DVDs with me. However when you're getting something for free then the restrictions placed on you shouldn't be complained about as much as some of the "fans" did. And of course it's their computer; but then they didn't have to watch, or use Windows Media player. The site hosting it and the band were very upfront about it; there was even a "warning" that the strea
Re: (Score:2)
The site hosting it and the band were very upfront about it; there was even a "warning" that the streams were protected and ripping them wouldn't do any good; but there's always someone out there who believes they deserve something for nothing
But they were getting something for nothing! If you decide to give out free video streams to everyone who asks for one, you've already conceded that you don't care about "protecting" your content: giving it away for free is the opposite of protecting it. You then have no leg to stand on if you want to complain that people are decrypting it.
Remember, the original purpose of the VCR was to record TV signals that people were already receiving for free. The studios didn't like that very much, but thankfully the
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something a virus writer would do... How'd you do it? Buffer Overflows and logic bombs?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is then not up to you to deactivate it, even if it was announced for whatever reason. Not because the time has expired,
That attitude is what'll be the death of copyright. It's the self-proclaimed right to rip off any subscription service, to copy all the movies you get from Netflix, the right to rip off every "30 day trial" shareware and so on. Because you once had it on your machine, it's your godgiven right to keep it even though it was announced and agreed upon that these would only temporary be at your disposal. Imagine that in the real world, if you leased a car for a month and when the company wanted it back you said
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't whether or not someone has the right to keep "rented" bits, the issue is wether or not someone who doesn't own your computer has the right to any control over your computer. The desire of copyright holders to enforce their copyrights and licenses and people's control over their own computers is conflicting. If preserving the later means the death of copyright, as you put it, then I'm all for copyright dying as quickly as possible. And I say this as a copyright holder. I'll take a world witho
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only person who's ever to blame is the one who's doing something illegal such as violating the content owner's copyright.
The person designing the security is generally trying to do the best that they can to balance security against annoyance of said security of customers, knowing full well that it's only a matter of time before that security is broken.
You can't blame the person breaking the security either as they may only being doing so to enable fair use rights that were taken away by the security. Likewise, anyone who uses the security remove technique could only be doing so for fair use reasons. Fair use may seem sketchy when talking about streamed video online, but if you want to use parts of the video to form a rebuttal video to the points or opinions expressed in the original video I believe making a copy of the stream would fall within fair use. Also I believe it's considered fair use to use any video if providing commentary on segments of the video.
You really can't necessarily blame the content creator either. In some cases they're not even responsible for their works being available somewhere on the internet. Someone violating their copyright may have uploaded it to a video streaming site. Is lack of security on a video streaming site the fault of a movie creator if someone rips the movie from DVD and uploads it to a website?
Blame copyright violations on the people who actually commit them.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
The person designing the security is generally trying to do the best that they can to balance security against annoyance of said security of customers, knowing full well that it's only a matter of time before that security is broken.
The users of DRM (i.e., content providers) use DRM to minimize the effective rights of the content consumer. Ever since the specs for the DVD were first developed (if not before), DRM stopped being about preventing people from making additional copies of something, and started merely pretending to be about that, while actually being about limiting the ways in which legitimate customers can use legitimately purchased content. Region Coding and User Operation Prohibitions (that's where your DVD player forbids you from skipping the FBI warning and sometimes even ads because the content provider said so) are not and have never been about piracy prevention, yet they are an integral part of the DRM that exists on DVDs. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD kept these "features", indicating that the content industry is still playing the same tune.
The creators of DRM, on the other hand, are selling a product to the content providers, and therefore they feel a motivation to create a system that doesn't "balance" security against annoyance, but rather one that provides the content providers with as many options as possible for limiting the content consumer's effective rights.
The content providers win, the DRM creators win, and (because DRM ultimately doesn't work) folks who pirate media win, while legitimate consumers lose. There's nothing balanced about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a straw man and a false analogy all in the same post.
To address the straw man: I wasn't talking about "getting everything my way" or simply not paying for stuff because I don't want to ("the basics of copyright and piracy"). I was talking about legitimate uses of legally purchased content, such as making a backup, offloading to an mp3 player, skipping advertisements on DVDs, or timeshifting TV content.
And to address the false analogy: Music, movies, etc., are not the same as property. They are inta
Screaming into the ether. (Score:2)
If you are going to scream into the ether, for whatever reason, then I should be able to record it for my own personal use.
Does linux have a DRM converter for Flash? (Score:2)
Does linux have a DRM converter for Flash?
As a result of all of this (Score:2)
I am going to write "The US Constitution for Dummies" as part of that series. However, I doubt that anyone will every buy it. Hell, on the Tonight Show, all the people they interviewed on the street a few weeks ago didn't even know who was the US VP.
Re: (Score:2)
Selective editing. We're dumb, but we aren't that dumb. Yet.
Wrong Metaphor (Score:2)
Its not so much a case of someone leaving a £20 note on the pavement as it is a case of handing someone a book to read, then expecting that they can't remember the plot afterwards.
Why do we always need someone to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we always need someone to blame? All the sides involved have their own valid way of seeing the situation...
The content creator wants to "protect" their work; The end user wants to keep a copy for a variety of reasons. The container/transport producer gets paid by the content producer (usually); and the crackers don't actually count as a separate group, they just reflect knowledgeable end-users who have the power to make sure they can keep a copy.
Who in that chain do we call "wrong" for what they do? The creator we can perhaps call "overprotective", thinking that once the baby grows up and leaves home they can still tell it what to do. The middlemen perhaps should perhaps advise their customers better, but at the end of the day they need to eat too. The end users should of course reimburse the creators for the content, but I would consider "free" the least of the reasons to have a local copy.
Or looking at it from a slightly different angle... At every step, the situation boils down to pure self-interest. And put bluntly, I value my interests above yours - just as you value your own interests above mine.
Ignore blame. Q-Negligence and personal use. (Score:2)
IANAL.
> In the ongoing battle with the MPAA and RIAA, there seems to be an ongoing argument about who is
> to blame.
Questions of blame are is boring, but there are a few points I wanted to address.
> When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have
> prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals.
True, but not relevant to the issue of blame. Unlike the $20 bill example, in which -no- precautions were taken, in t
Waitaminute... (Score:2)
car theft fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals. So, who is at fault
If you'd listen to the police, you'd realize they're giving you preventive measures you can take to lower the chance your car will be stolen. They're not blaming you, just trying to educate. You could've put a million dollars on the front seat, doors locked, and something stole it, the thief would still be at fault, but you would definitely be the laughing stock of the police station.
Since we're discussing analogies (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got one that relates to the RIAA. I had my storage locker broken into with literally _every_ box (a lot -- think Rubik's Cube with U Haul boxes) opened and ransacked in '06**, but since I could not think of even ONE THING in the whole mess that was _missing_, the police couldn't think of what crime to pursue. So when a file is copied, what is _missing_?
** an entirely different discussion in paranoia in the year of our Lord Dubya, but I digress
Todays EFF Article On DRM Death (Score:2)
The only solution (Score:2)
From these 3 simple things I learned in elementry school y
Re: (Score:2)
So basically we need to kick Bush and Pelosi's collective asses?
We can blame greed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay...let's look at this. Yesterday in my office, we had a conversation about a quaint method of distributin media that I had forgotten about....the public library.
The idea that a popular piece of media, in this case a book, has more than 300 readers or people on a waiting list to read a book indicates to me 300 lost sales for the book publisher. However, this notion of media distribution has long been supported by federal laws.
So we as a community need to ask, do the makes of music, movies, other media, work more than authors? Why are their works more protected than a lowly book that gets passed around like a drunken cheerleader with the publisher's blessing? There is only one answer that can satify this...greed.
Is this greed that has enveloped the movie and music industries likely to destroy this nation's information distribution system? Is the library a leak in the profit margins for book manufacturers? Do humans have an obligation to share information without profit for the continued growth of knowledge?
I think this was the original thinking behind the Open Source movement. People have tools, like computers, and need to be able to use additional tools, like software, to better ourselves. I believe that the same is true for media.
So guys...does DRM deny access to materials and put profit before the betterment of the species? (in the long term) And no, I am not saying things like an Ashley Simpson or Coldplay album can be used to help the human species evolve. Those items are best used for Olympic sports like target shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that a popular piece of media, in this case a book, has more than 300 readers or people on a waiting list to read a book indicates to me 300 lost sales for the book publisher.
I suspect a lot of those 300 would not read the book at all if not for the library. And that some of those readers actually went out and payed a bookstore for a copy.
I think it is likely a negligible difference is sales.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a legimate argument. It similar to the one that I've made for years regarding what I considered the trumped up stats the RIAA and MPAA and software companies toss out to say "this is how much piracy is hurting us"
I think in many cases, if something were not available in some free format, as many as 60% of end-users of a media would never own it. But that's just me speculating.
Ain't it sad though...?
DRM is money wasted. (Score:2)
Every dollar spent on DRM is wasted. I don't know how to be more blunt than that.
demonstrated intent is important (in cars, tents) (Score:2)
The car analogy is interesting since some of us have convertables. We -can't- secure our cars, anyone could take something from our car. (Or worse, leave something in our car if they need to dump something illegal fast.)
But the courts and insurances have an answer -- lock our doors. It's a clear demonstration of our intent to secure the car, even if it's of no practical value. Other than giving us full protection on our insurance policies, that is. :-)
Ditto tents, at least in Colorado. Tent flap open,
I don't think "Blame" is the right word. (Score:2)
I don't think "blame" is really the right word to use here, but since you did use it, and I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, I would say that the largest part of the "blame" goes to the content owner who somehow believes that they can somehow share their work without, er ...sharing it. If the end user has the ability to play a recording once, then they have the ability to play it a thousand times. There is no middle ground. If you can't accept that, you shouldn't be selling content.
Bey
Insurance issues? (Score:2)
>by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk
Isn't this an insurance requirement in the US? AFAIK it's a standard insurance requirement in the UK, at least for when stuff is stolen
Re:DRM is impossible... (Score:2)
...until they force this trusted all your spying are on done by us computing on us by legislation.
Then it gets really hard, although I guess not technically impossible.
Hmns a good analogy is: encrypt all my stuff give the cryptfile and keyfiles to my friends as a backup. I wonder if they're going to open it up and read it... um...
not exactly (Score:2)
You haven't given up your rights regarding ownership of it, just the ability to stop anyone else from downloading it for their own use, or for some sharing. The issue here is an unwillingness to understand the latter. The former has never been in doubt.
What I see as the main problem is the state of mind DRM brings about. Put simply, if you try to restrict access, there will always be people who will be interested in it simply because they want to break it.
Put it out there as is, with a nice complete 'my pr
Re: (Score:2)
uh. Inflation is around 4%. I get a raise of 4%. WIN-WIN