×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Important Is Protecting Streaming Media?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the mo'-content-mo'-problems dept.

Encryption 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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

The last one (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625037)

Or do you blame the authors of stolen content for leaving the security of their material in somebody else's hands

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 (5, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625491)

security thought who-the-hell-would-have-thought-of-implementing- something-as-dumb-as-that

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 (4, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626267)

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?

Nobody is to blame (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625045)

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:Nobody is to blame (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625063)

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:

Keep in mind that there are other companies that are using protections that are being more successful. For example, iTunes videos are truly encrypted by DRM technologies that no one (with the exception of tunebite which again is a screen recorder software, not an actual decrypter or catcher) except the most skillful hackers can bypass. The tools are truly underground, because Apple took action to ensure that the tools required to crack the DRM in the files was not readily available on the internet. (In fact I can't even find them online anywhere, but I know they exist.) All the sites that were known to host these tools had them removed due to Apple's actions to protect their technology.

Now, I don't know for sure what his problem is. Judging from the thread he's a newbie and might have made a mistake somewhere. 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.

Re:Nobody is to blame (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625077)

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:Nobody is to blame (4, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625081)

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 (3, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625323)

There is no defense against an intelligent hacker with a soldering iron.

Re:Nobody is to blame (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625379)

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 (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625487)

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 (4, Interesting)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625657)

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.

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:Nobody is to blame (1)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626641)

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 locations? But Joe SixPack wants to see one person kick another while they are down, and Hollywood is giving them just that. Now if they had Mob Rules, with the mob overthrowing their oppressive government and tasering a bunch of goon cops, I'd like to participate, not just watch.

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.

Personally, I think of music having more value than any other art, as I can enjoy it again and again for a lifetime. I'm sure that those that value other forms of art agree if the content they are enjoying is what they are interested in. But how do we really break the mold and keep the artist fed while keeping them out of the hands of the evil overlords, the media conglomerates? Figure that one out and you just become another evil overlord I think, unfortunately.

Re:Nobody is to blame (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625739)

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:Nobody is to blame (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625767)

And once they control all recording equipment ( not today, but someday is their goal ) what will you record it with?

Re:Nobody is to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626043)

Today's recording equipment. We've already reached near-perfect quality recording (audiophiles notwithstanding) - as evidenced by the fact that the last mainstream medium shift that resulted in quality increase was from (cassette/vinyl) to CD. Even though we've mostly transitioned into compressed digital formats, MP3 and it's ilk are rarely available in higher quality versions than "CD Quality" (~220kbps) - because CD quality is near-perfect. Since we already have digital copies of almost all of todays' music, plus the equipment to encode any new music to perfect quality digital, we should be fine for the foreseeable future.

Re:Nobody is to blame (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625603)

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:Nobody is to blame (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625801)

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:Nobody is to blame (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626235)

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 observer will usually pay and authors need to understand that their 'children' aren't the 'angels' they think they are.

Re:Nobody is to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626667)

You can fool some of the people some of the time ...

DRM doesn't have to be 100% effective for everyone all of the time. As long as it can prevent most cases of piracy it will be advantageous for the producers.

My advice to the enlightened minority: keep your mouth shut and enjoy the free ride.

Re:Nobody is to blame (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625787)

Anyone who knows anything about encryption should be aware that encryption can never serve as copy protection in this context. You want to show the user your video so at some point so you have to decrypt. PCs are a wide open architecture so there is bound to be someplace where a program can siphon of the decrypted content. Once this such a program is written and made public it is going to be "an easy to use tool". Unless you control the hardware and have a very restrictive operating system "content protection" will just not work. On PC/Windows thats just not the case and any company claiming otherwise is comitting false advertisment.

By the way, has anyone tried using a technique similar to what FRAPS does with games? I would think that just recording the contents of a window would be a very generic way to rip anything without having to muck about with the respective player software.

Re:Nobody is to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626759)

There are a wide number of screencapture programs - a good F/OSS one is CamStudio. The problem with it is it requires A LOT of computing power to capture at decent quality/framerate/size.

Re:Nobody is to blame (5, Interesting)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625229)

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:Nobody is to blame (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625423)

I like how you equate growing up to becoming a selfish, cynical bastard. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Nobody is to blame (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625457)

That's all well and good, but you've still not returned that $20 bill I dropped in '98.

Re:Nobody is to blame (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625837)

I personally think that people returning a lost bill are a little stupid. Just consider the logistics of the thing. How can the person that has lost it prove it's his? Would he even consider going to the police? Would the police officer even file it properly or just send you on your way and pocket the 20? Anyways, you have a clear case of "everything was so much better in the old days". World War Two anyone? Soviet Russia? Vietnam and Korea? Nixon in drag? Watergate? If you just became jaded in the last few years then you haven't been paying attention before. I doubt there ever was a truly innocent age.

Re:Nobody is to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626143)

I'm not going to dispute what you wrote (because it's a fair assessment of how things are) but I think there's been a slight disconnect.

I read it as being "as children we see the world as such; as we grow up we realise that it isn't"

So yeah; everyone has a case of "everything was so much better in the old days" to some extent, but it's more a case of people believing it when they're younger, and the reality getting to them as they get older. Thus, they're less likely to do those things which they would have done in their youth in the belief that things would be done honestly and properly.

Re:Nobody is to blame (3, Insightful)

Strake (982081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625341)

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.

DRM is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625049)

DRM always has been and always will be broken. If you can watch it, you can record it, end of story.

Macrovision, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625053)

See wikipedia article for more information.

Could we extend "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.," to recording streaming video online?

[I will not argue that it is okay to record Pay-Per-View, or certain premium content.]

the way it works (1)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625055)

once you put it out where anybody can freely access it you have given up control of it.

you put your flash file on your web site and someone likes it they will make a copy of it, that's jsut the way it works.

goes the same for every other file on the net.

you can put out as many DRM and copy protection mechanisms that you want, they will just keep being broken faster than you can release them.

Re:the way it works (1)

ssintercept (843305) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625261)

Exactly, as soon as someone streams the media (broadcasts, hosts or whatever) into my house. i can make a copy. if the copyright holder doesnt want to take a chance- dont stream it (or host, broadcast or whatever). this argument is so old it farts dust. been thru it with recording radio and using vcr's for tv and probably with some dude copying cuniform against the kings wishes.

not exactly (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625433)

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 property, do not claim as your own, but otherwise, have fun' type license, most people will watch/listen to it and move along, not bothering to download it to keep because you haven't added the 'forbidden fruit' enticement of DRM.

They may even be willing to pay you for a super HQ version, streamed direct to them from your servers with no interruptions. Provided you don't irritate by piling on restrictions (this is the two second attention span internet after all).

Nature cannot be encrypted (5, Insightful)

six025 (714064) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625057)

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.

Re:Nature cannot be encrypted (1)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625169)

Setting up a microphone and recording the output from the speakers might be the last resort and the lowest quality

No need. There are 100s of tools that can capture audio stream and record it for you without losing quality.

Once contents are decrypted and audio stream is available, it can easily captured with a small program. For one of the project my client was stuck with third party conferencing tool, which did not have session recording feature. We managed to record the audio stream and feed as one of the input to mixers, while replaying.

Re:Nature cannot be encrypted (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626777)

Newer computers are starting without the pcm recording device for anti-piracy. Or at least my new thinkpad did. Lenovo actually disabled the Intel chipset's pcm in in hardware.

Interactivity defeats the analog hole (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625465)

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:Interactivity defeats the analog hole (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625601)

Yes, and when more publishers focus on products based on delivering an experience, versus current products that deliver content alone, consumers may sufficiently value the offering not to attempt to get it for free.

Note also that many of the most valuable musical offerings are already interactive in that no two live performances are ever the same, and also that recordings of such performances are worthy of being made and purchased.

-M5B
(captcha: muffles)

Re:Interactivity defeats the analog hole (1)

dodecalogue (1281666) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625883)

I agree except for the very last bit:

Note also that many of the most valuable musical offerings are already interactive in that no two live performances are ever the same, and also that such performances are worthy of attending.

there, fix'd

Re:Interactivity defeats the analog hole (1)

juiceboxfan (990017) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626151)

What happens when the work that makes the sound waves is interactive? In that case, the instructions to make the sound wave don't ever need to leave the player.

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.

Capturing the sound wave just captures one playing of the work, and replaying that over and over can get boring.

Boring? There are a lot of films [imdb.com] , TV shows [time.com] , and even more so [npr.org] music [rollingstone.com] that people watch watch/listen to over and over again.
And there are enough people driving cars while interacting over their cell phones that I wouldn't want to see what would happen if they were also interacting with the music.

Could be wrong but I think "boring" non-interactive forms of entertainment will always be the the norm.

Re:Nature cannot be encrypted (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625771)

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.

troll much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625065)

is this supposed to be a troll or something? this is slashdot, protecting media with DRM is seen as bad around these parts; you'd have to be a moron to think you were going to get anything other than a flamefest out of this one

Start at the beginning... (0, Troll)

chrylis (262281) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625083)

I blame the copyright holders for sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming about "protection" when what they mean is demanding perpetual control over how anyone ever uses the material.

The authors, for expecting this to be possible (2, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625085)

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?

Re:The authors, for expecting this to be possible (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625113)

> Adobe isn't at fault for "not making a better encryption". It's not possible.

Because it's impossible - and Adobe should know that - then they're wasting money tilting at windmills. Adobe being a crap company for this reason - as well as other reasons, such as bloating their PDF reader into a huge intrusive monstrosity which bugs the user with pointless repeated requests for upgrades which offer nothing (except an even larger footprint), buying up great third party software and neutering it and the whole Sklyarov affair (which they only backed down on because it was making them look ridiculous) - is why I never consider their software. Bibble makes a perfect, cheap and superior replacement to their ever expanding (both footprint and price) Photoshop suite.

http://bibblelabs.com/ [bibblelabs.com]

Faux security for the dead presidents (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625399)

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 (5, Insightful)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625121)

Idealism of liberal copyrights aside, if Adobe is selling a product that is intended to keep people from copying your wares, and it is in fact it's not stopping them, then it's pretty clear who is at fault. It's a faulty product, the blame lies with Adobe. Of course if they had any brains they'd know that what they want to do is impossible, but since they're selling the product, it needs to work as advertised.

Re:You Blame Adobe (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625313)

To be fair though, when was the last time you heard of a company that makes flawless products that always work as advertised? If you think the quality of Adobe's product is substandard, then don't buy it. But I wouldn't blame them for people futilely wanting to encrypt their content. They're a business trying to fill a market need.

In fact, hasn't every DRM scheme been cracked at some point?

Re:You Blame Adobe (3, Informative)

quetwo (1203948) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625559)

The only one that I've been told that hasn't been cracked is Motorola's motoQAM MPEG encryption used by their Set Top Boxes. Of course, they make people go through background checks just to get sales calls about the encryptor (DAC 6000).

Blame? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625133)

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?

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 up one day with the head of a dead horse in their beds.

If your a customer or a shareholder than you certainly BLAME ADOBE for creating an inferior lock, trying to pass it off as superior, then have no limits on what they will do to hide the truth. The fact is, that there is practically no content author out there that also possess the requisite skill sets for providing protection for their content. People specialize. You might as well blame people who get their appendix out through a surgeon instead of taking it into their own hands one day in the kitchen. Of COURSE content authors have to put trust in somebody else.

That is what always bothered me about Adobe. Don't admit the protection does not work and learn from your mistakes and create a better method of protection. Create security through legal threats.

Re:Blame? (1)

quetwo (1203948) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625589)

Of course, anything I send down to your computer can be cracked. Just thinking of a product that is supported on all the major operating systems, and many of the obscure (Flash Player) that is supposed to support anything encrypted makes me think that the smart kids will break it. All of the 'encrypted' streams have been broken. Apple's was the quickest, lasting all of a day or so, and Microsoft's didn't last long (even though they tried to protect it by making it only available to Windows users). Adobe's RTMP-E at least lasted just over a year before it went down. We knew it was going to happen, we were just hoping it wouldn't for a while. FWIW, RTMP-E is the encryption of the stream, with the assumption that the media streamer would be able to dictate if and when it can be 'recorded'. RTMP-E is also used to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.

Re:Blame? (2, Interesting)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625805)

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 someone else sell it and then sit back and rake in the royalties for the rest of their descendants lives.
Now that is being a thief.

Now if the band were to get mugged as they were leaving a concert and all their takings were stolen, I would have some sympathy, but complaining because they "might" be losing out on an extra $1M somewhere due to filesharing is just plain greed, and deserves no respect.

"better protection" isn't possible here. (1)

arete (170676) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626263)

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 it from RAM on your machine.

Letting people watch something and pretending you still have control over that is an INSOLUBLE problem - and it's also one where Adobe is too large a company to be TOTALLY forthright about the limitation, because they can't be saying "our product doesn't do that" when compared to a competitor's product.

Are you accepting blame them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625143)

..for having your car broken into?

what? (0, Troll)

gregbot9000 (1293772) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625155)

The solution is: if you can take it, you can have it. This format has worked for me thus far, I see no reason why it needs changing.

It's the same old story (2, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625173)

The media companies are not content with the amount of profits they are making and even if they could stop piracy, it would cost them a huge amount of money to do so. Consequently, an easier way of making more profits is to make the honest buyers pay more, and a good way of making them pay more is to enforce a rental model on them.

So they go to the software companies to create the mechanisms that allow the creation of DRM (="Media with a built in time bomb) delivery mechanisms and of course it's great for Adobe and others to be able to put their logos up alongside Disney's or Paramount's.

But because no software is perfect, the DRM gets cracked & it's back to the drawing board.

As long as DRM is around, this cycle will just keep repeating itself because this is no longer about corporations giving consumers what they want but waging war on them. So DRM will fail.

All I'm waiting for now are for Apple to find the guts to drop DRM completely in iTunes (if they really are the "nice" company all the people on here say they are) and I think that will be the final death knoll for DRM.

RTMPE (4, Interesting)

MassEnergySpaceTime (957330) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625191)

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:RTMPE (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625361)

I think you are right in that it's just a transmission encryption but I think the idea is to use it as another link in the DRM chain (the other being access control via SWF hashing ).

Re:RTMPE (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626047)

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 (5, Interesting)

blowdart (31458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625193)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625339)

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:One view of importance (2, Interesting)

blowdart (31458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625649)

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 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; it's just thankfully a minority of people.

Re:One view of importance (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625345)

Sounds like something a virus writer would do... How'd you do it? Buffer Overflows and logic bombs?

Re:One view of importance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626199)

I'll accept DRM when it's free. I won't accept it on things I pay for (I'm already aggrieved that I spent money on Audible products which are a pain in the backside, but then I stopped subscribing because of it)

The "free for a limited period" thing, especially when it's promotional/for a good cause is one of those situations where I see DRM being an acceptable solution.

The people complaining are quite frankly freeloaders of the worst kind, and since they wouldn't have been contributing to the charity aren't people you should even have to worry about keeping happy.
It's one of those situations where you should feel free to call them thieves outright; they're stealing from people who are in a bad situation. We're not exactly talking about taking from a faceless corp here, so even that excuse doesn't really hold up.

Re:One view of importance (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626657)

Why should DRM be looked at differently when it is a charity? Wether it is Sony, Greenpeace, EFF or my goldfish who needs an operation is irrelevant.

They downloaded it so it is theirs. Just like I download a song from wherever. The fact that one asks money for it and the other doesn't does not matter. It is then not up to you to deactivate it, even if it was announced for whatever reason. Not because the time has expired, not because I don't have the right software anymore.

Freeloaders? Most likely yes and that is the same identical argument the RIAA and others are making.

This is not about wether the DMA is right or wrong. It is about the fact that there is no difference. What you are saying with in a lot of cases I'd agree with you; but when is actualy: I agree, exept when it affects me (Or something I believe in).

Does it really matter? (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625207)

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? (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625359)

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:Does it really matter? (1)

quetwo (1203948) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625631)

But remember, you don't have ANY rights until you are granted them. Do I have the rights to take your car simply because I saw it in the parking lot? Not unless you granted them to me. In the same, I can't go to a library and photocopy a book, and sell it under my name. I was never granted the rights to do that. These are not effective rights you are talking about -- these are GRANTED rights. You were granted the rights by purchasing this media to view the content. You are granted rights by the fair use doctrine to make a backup copy of it (although the fair-use doctrine doesn't talk about streamed media, only publicly available media, which RTMP-E may not be considered). Has this generation gotten so use to getting everything their way that they don't even understand the basics of copyright and piracy? Has the MPAA/RIAA made everybody so jaded that people don't respect any copyright anymore? my god.

you don't have ANY rights until you are granted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625799)

including copyright. Which was a contract between the public and artists. But the artists (actually, the corporations who are stealing the rights from the artists) broke that by extending it without paying anything back.

And when a party breaks the contract, they lose their rights.

There's no natural right to copyright.

Screaming into the ether. (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626605)

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.

DRM is impossible (1)

cthart (163073) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625245)

When will those trying to concoct DRM schemes realise that DRM in an open environment is impossible?

You can't give someone something and at the same time not give them something.

You can't stream media to a PC and at the same time restrict what will be done with it (unless they can control all other variables, which they can't as soon as the data leaves the server).

Re:DRM is impossible... (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625333)

...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...

Re:DRM is impossible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625389)

...until they force this trusted all your spying are on done by us computing on us by legislation.

Please tell me that's not what you meant to write. WTF does it mean?

As a result of all of this (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625253)

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.

Wrong Metaphor (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625263)

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? (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625265)

Who is to blame?

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.

Morality of the situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625387)

It's really very simple. If you take something that does not belong to you, you are a thief. The person doing the taking is in the wrong.

The idea that failure to 'protect' your valuables makes it OK to steal them is wrong.

If someone leaves their keys in their car, and someone steals the car, the car owner is guilty of stupidity but you haven't broken any moral laws - but the thief is a thief.
-Popgun

Ignore blame. Q-Negligence and personal use. (1)

QuestorTapes (663783) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625441)

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 this case you merely failed to use some possible protections over and above a base amount (locking the doors and closing the windows).

The first case involves negligence, the second would probably not be considered negligent.

> According to Applian.com's Legal FAQ, the RIAA will not come after you if you make a recording
> for your own personal use.

Not quite true. The RIAA probably can't WIN such a case, and probably wouldn't TRY, but they CAN AND HAVE persecuted the innocent, and will until they are completely stopped.

And win, lose or draw, it's not something you'd want to go through. The DMCA makes a crime of circumvention; it includes no out clauses for personal use.

If you want to use something to bypass the protections, whether Applian's or other, go ahead. Just don't expect that a debate on blame is going to protect you in court. Keep your head down and cover your tracks.

Waitaminute... (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625471)

Recording live streams... Wasn't there something called the Betamax Decision [wikipedia.org] that had something to do with that? Oh, wait, the Broadcast Flag really went and fucked that up.

Oh oh oh! Pick me! Pick me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625503)

You should blame yourself for putting the blame on companies that blame you and the customers for blaming them in blaming that their DRM is faulty.
No DRM is perfect. If you want to protect your media, just encode it into a shittier quality (to the point where nobody wants it), distribute it to the masses and keep the original for yourself, or just don't distribute it at all.
EXTREME FOR EXTREME. THERE IS NO LATTER IN THIS >:C

car theft fault? (3, Insightful)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625523)

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 (2, Interesting)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625551)

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

Re:Since we're discussing analogies (1)

fluffykitty1234 (1005053) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626363)

In your case you are talking about theft. The **AA are talking about copyright infringement. Two different things, although **AA would like you to think they are the same.

The Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625595)

I personally find it clear enough, even if there was no DRM involved:

If the content owner states "Do not copy this" and you do it (with special software or not), you are to blame.

This is of course not Legal POV but Moral POV.

Todays EFF Article On DRM Death (1)

illectro (697914) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625625)

Eerily relevant is todays EFF Article [eff.org] pointing out that the Free Ad-Supported music sites imeem.com [imeem.com] and lala.com [lala.com] both stream unenctrypted mp3s with the blessing of the record business. Indeed it was revealed that Warner Brothers Music invested millions of dollars in both of these (although their imeem investment looks a whole lot better). There are some speed bumps to filling your iPod with the music that fans have uploaded to imeem, but it's only sufficient to keep the honest people honest.

Canada! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625637)

Blame Canada!

Kinda bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24625709)

so if a woman doesn't carry mace, a gun and a taser was she asking to get raped. Does the same go for people who are mugged? I'm all for exploiting protocol weakness and downloading anything I can get my cheap hands on but this argument of not being able to prevent a crime does not make it their fault. Its not just about keeping others from breaking the law forcefully through encryption or other matters it's also about them having the good nature not to commit those crimes in the first place.

The only solution (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625711)

In school I learned a few basic things.
  1. If you snitch on someone, you'll get your ass kicked & you learn not to snitch anymore
  2. If someone bullies you out of your lunch money you kick their ass as best as you can and they learn not to mess with you and move on to someone else
  3. If you steal the batteries out of the teachers assisted speaking device because you think it's funny & get caught your dad will kick your ass and you learn not to steal

From these 3 simple things I learned in elementry school you can clearly see that the only viable solution is to make sure nobody can kick your ass.

Blame the content producers (0, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625731)

That's who I blame for their false claims of ownership for something that cannot be owned, and their mad desire control it for a near infinite period of time. We steal nothing from them. We "lend" them this monopoly of control for a very limited time. And the greedy bastards want ever more. They are the ones stealing with their bought and paid for laws. It's time for them to realize that they are not special and deserve no special privileges. They must realize that each work is nothing more than an ad or promotion for their next work. It's time to bring them back to earth and have them do their work the same way the rest of us do. The time of "artist as king" is over.

Re:Blame the content producers (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625737)

The time of "artist as king" is over.

Scratch that. The time of publisher as king and gatekeeper is over.

Re:Blame the content producers (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626345)

Troll

Ooops. My bad for not limiting the discussion to the tabloid angle. Number rule about the truth. We don't dare speak the truth.

We can blame greed... (4, Insightful)

m2bord (781676) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625759)

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.

DRM is money wasted. (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24625901)

Every dollar spent on DRM is wasted. I don't know how to be more blunt than that.

Gah. (0, Flamebait)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626137)

1. There will always be people who refuse to pay for content if they can find a way to get it for free, regardless of what you do to "protect" it, because they're wired that way.

2. There will always be people who pay for content regardless of whether they can get it for "free" through some technological means, because hey're wired that way.

3. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT, EVER, SO FUCKING GIVE IT UP ALREADY AND ACCEPT THE FACT, WORK AROUND IT!!!

Don't blame consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24626253)

A few points:

1) The piracy argument often speaks of "lost sales." This is a spurious argument: it is impossible to know how many people would actually buy the material whether it available for sale or not. Piracy helps artist promotion because it often gets their content to people who would otherwise not spend the money anyway. And as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. Are you an artist because you want to make money? Are you an artist because you want to express your creativity? While the answers to these questions are not necessarily exclusive of each other, nor are they necessarily bound to each other.

2) On the futility of streaming: Don't blame consumers for gathering bits and bytes that flow through their computer. It's simple: if you don't want content captured, don't release it. And if you do take the chance and release it through a stream, don't cry foul because the economic model is more constrained than the distribution model.

demonstrated intent is important (in cars, tents) (1)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 5 years ago | (#24626475)

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, anyone (and specifically, cops) can look in and see what you have. Tent flap closed and they need a search warrant, same as if they wanted to look into your house or the closed trunk on a car. Tent zippers are no real deterence, but it's enough to change the legal status.

So DRM isn't just about preventing unauthorized use, it's about -demonstrating- a reasonable effort to prevent unauthorized use. The original infringer will have a hard time claiming that 'I didn't know' if he had to use sophisticated to crack the DRM -- same as trying to claim that somebody didn't mind you going into their house since their locks were easily broken with a set of lock picks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...