Beta
×

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!

IEEE Working Group Considers Kinder, Gentler DRM

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the baby-steps dept.

Media 236

slave5tom writes "An IEEE working group is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Its scheme will allow unlimited copying of encrypted content, which will require a playkey to activate. Trying to add a cost by making the playkey 'rivalrous' (what you take I lose) and rescuing the big content players from the brink of oblivion does seem futile, but it is entertaining to watch them fight the inevitable."

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Palyers? (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580494)

Come on, at least get the spelling in TFS right.

Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (4, Funny)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580518)

On tasty artisan bread.

Still not terribly appetizing.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (4, Insightful)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580754)

From TFA:
To access the content inside, however, you'll need the playkey, which is delivered to the buyer of a digital media file and lives within "tamper-protected circuit" inside some device (computer, cell phone, router) or online at a playkey bank account. Controlling the playkey means that you control the media, and you truly own it, since no part of the system needs to phone home, and it imposes no restrictions on copying (except for those that arise naturally from fear of loss).

"tamper-protected circuit": you may gain some "ownership" of some encrypted media files, but you have to give up ownership of your device.

You can just as easily label what they still control as the "content" and the encrypted files on your device as the "key". Interchanging those labels is just semantics, since you still need both parts to hear the music. The end result is that you gain no additional control over the content, and you have sacrificed control over the hardware.

No thanks.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580954)

...give up ownership of your device.

Only if you give up ownership of the money I give you for use of your product. Or; in other words, not in this life.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (2, Insightful)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581156)

Sweazey argues that a truly non-rivalrous system makes commerce too difficult, even impossible, and that we need to create ways for the digital world to mirror the constraints of the physical one.

On a philosophical level, I am opposed to artificial scarcity for the sake of profiteering. It scares the hell out of me. However, playing devil's advocate for myself, it *could* work to allow sharing, resale, and the other benefits currently enjoyed by physical items.

However, as the parent poster rightfully states, the whole tamper-protected circuit notion is nice on paper but going to be impossible to implement while actually "giving" it to the same people who hold the data.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581378)

Those little shiny discs are fine as a medium of exchange and proof of ownership.

The only real problem here is that the content industries are bound and determined to make those shiny discs less useful.

A shiny disc that I can freely copy is MORE VALUABLE to the end user.

They can go into a media center or onto a PMP. Right now if you want an iTunes style video experience you need to do a lot of your own legwork. Or you can just pirate stuff.

The Pirate Bay should not be the more attractive option in terms of features and ease of use.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (2, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581434)

Tamper protected might mean that it simply stops working if altered. That should be enough to keep 5 9s (99.9995) of the would be hackers at bay, and would probably be good enough.

If you buy something and it gets encoded to some key you own, you still want the ability to use that key on more than one device. (computer, smartphone, ereader, TV, etc), or authorize that media on every device you own.

That is where the problem comes in. Offering device flexibility without giving the game/ebook/song to every resident in the dorm.

Even assuming you could indeed create an un-duplicable play key, people want to read/watch/play on all of their deivces.

Do you put one playkey on multiple devices, on separate playkeys on each device?

The fundamental problem is that the means of duplication is in the hands of the masses. And playkeys will be JUST as quickly duplicated as the media is today.

Baring some form of quantum entanglement you can't make a key that someone else can't duplicate.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581660)

Great. So the 6th 9 hacks it and posts a torrent. The cat is out of the bag.

Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580762)

It is still better than what's available, I guess - note that the DRM scheme doesn't just pertain to how/where you store the media but also issues controlling playback and how you can play it back. Being able to pass it around is all good and well and solves one of the issues.

One thing I am interested in is whether it would let you control how it is played - instead of making you wash the same shitty trailers every single fucking time you pop a DVD into the player.

I am also curious as to whether distributors would allow this kind of freedom, they'd probably balk at the prospect of not being able to charge different prices for the same item in different markets (since now you can buy it anywhere and just pass the key around).

Tanks for...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580582)

....the laugh.

lame (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580584)

Turn to page 5...paragraph 4, sentence 3, word 4. Write it in the box. Insert dongle to continue. Serial numbers, online activation, warder, blah blah blah, and the list goes on.

Guys, no matter how you want to fuck with the technology, you can't erase one simple fact: At some point it needs to be viewed by a human, listened to by a human, interpreted... by a human. That means that at some point the data comes out analog, and can be scanned, manipulated, copied, and everything else.

DRM will always be an excercise in fail.

Re:lame (2, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580724)

Actually, it is more accurate to say at some point the game has to execute code locally on the user's computer. Where the user has full control of what runs and what doesn't run. Where the user can use a disassembler to reverse engineer the game and disable the DRM.

On a console it's harder because of the locked-down nature but the hardware running the code is owned by the user and they can get access to the system one way or another and decompile the code.

Re:lame (4, Interesting)

m94mni (541438) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581258)

Console?

No, think iPad. Do you think a disassembler or virtualisation software will be allowed to enter the App Store? Me neither.

We are already starting to lose the hardware battle to Apple. Apple owns the hardware, not you. RIAA and MPAA owns the content, not you. Then they can make deals without bothering with pesky details such as customers.

The biggest threat to information freedom today is Apple and the iOS.

Re:lame (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581548)

Thank god you're on our side, Mr. Ballmer.

Re:lame (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580730)

User accounts that can only have 1 session logged in at once have worked very well.

People can still share the game, but they can't both play it at the same time. It's a good balance that lets people lend games if they want to, while still forcing most people to buy at least 1 copy.

However, this is only really effective for games that focus on a multiplayer element. Otherwise, one could share the login details and disconnect and both users could play the singleplayer aspect at the same time. Ubisoft tried getting around that with constant connections to their servers but it's had a very negative response.

All in all, there are DRM schemes that have been shown to work well enough to keep a game secure while giving it the leniency most users want. CD Keys are another one that has worked well (and still is).

Re:lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581738)

Depends.

I own a copy of Neverwinter Nights (Yes, old game), and the "premium modules" require you to have an online connection to play, even single-player. You can play the downloadable modules all you'd like, you can play the game and the expansion simultaneously, but the premium modules and multiplayer require you use your unique key(s).

Not much fond of online-required play, but at least this way you're not locked out of your game completely if you're not online.

Re:lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581148)

Not if we scan them all and put them on the game grid. Bwahahahahahaha!

--
MCP

PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580600)

There are examples of successful DRM out there. The PS3 is probably the most biggest. The PS3 has been out a long time now and it's looking like the DRM isn't going to be cracked anytime soon. The machine is definitely in the second half of its life right now and the most high profile attack was geohot's ultimately useless hypervisor hack.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580666)

So I bought one for GTA4 and use it for playing blu-rays now. That was a big win for them, 1 game sold. Great DRM.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (2, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580746)

Yea but Sony thanks you for your blu-ray purchases (or rentals).

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580808)

...Sony thanks you...

These words should never be together in a sentence.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581490)

...Sony thanks you...

These words should never be together in a sentence.

Sounds like the first half of a Soviet Russia joke, which given the wide scale piracy happening over there, doesn't seem too inaccurate.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581520)

I steal mine. Shoplifting FTW!

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (4, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580710)

Sony's DRM has succeeded mightily in stopping me spending money on their products. The Sony amp and speakers I bought in the 80's look embarrassed at the way their maker has pissed its good name away.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (3, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580782)

And for every disgruntled consumer that won't buy their system because it carries DRM, would you care to take a guess at how many non-disgruntled consumers are pressed into playing by Sony's rules?

I don't know the number, but I'm willing to wager it's a lot higher than you'd like it to be.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580900)

I don't know the number, but I'm willing to wager it's a lot higher than you'd like it to be.

Yea, the number is sitting at around 36 million at the moment. I'm sure execs over at Sony are losing sleep over the 8 guys on Slashdot who didn't buy one because of the DRM though.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (0, Offtopic)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581550)

I didn't buy one... not because of the DRM, but for two reasons.

  1. I have no need for a console
  2. If I did have a need for a console, I don't spend any money on Sony products, period. Sony management thinks that they can bork my machine at their pleasure.

I realize its minimal, but that's the only way I can punish Sony.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (2)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581048)

Meh, there is no accounting for human nature (see religion, sports, soap operas), there are likely 6 billion people eager to exchange their money (that Sony can do anything it wants with) for Sony DRM products ( with which they can only do what Sony wants ).
It is better to moan about DRM than to curse some candles in the dark. Or something.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580728)

Just because it isn't cracked yet doesn't mean its uncrackable. I think with the PS3 there just isn't any motivation to hack it. Its expensive if you break it, Cell is a pain to code for, and really has no use when compared to a Wii or even 360.

If there is no motivation, no one will crack it. Just like I can make Super Crappy Game 8000 with DRM built in but if no one buys my game or wants to crack it the DRM remains uncracked.

Really, what is there to do on a cracked PS3 that can't be done on a 360 or Wii aside from things that use the Cell Processor which only really does obscure mathematical calculations very well.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580834)

Just because it isn't cracked yet doesn't mean its uncrackable. I think with the PS3 there just isn't any motivation to hack it.

That's like saying no lock is unbreakable. I think you miss the point.

PS
Nice troll

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581000)

Oh yes, because what person -doesn't- want to spend hours slaving over a hack to let them do... pretty much the same thing you could have done on a Wii or modded 360. A hacked Wii can play just about every console up to PlayStation and doesn't play PS1 games very well. But wait... The PS3 plays them by default. Oh what about a Cell-based PS2 emulator? Well, Sony themselves tried that and ended up giving up. So where does that leave you? N64? (though I think there was a port for an N64 hacked Wii emulator but never tried it to see if it ran full speed or not...), Dreamcast? Gamecube? (But the Wii can play Gamecube games natively...).

As for a media center, the PS3 already does some of that and really for the price of a PS3 and the labor it would take to do this, you could buy a nice HTPC setup.

Look, there is no reason for anyone beyond saying "Look! I have a hacked PS3!" to really even bother trying to hack it.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

BoogeyOfTheMan (1256002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581246)

Except that I already own a PS3 and would have to spend ~$200 for a Wii or 360. Also, what effort is involved in turning the PS3 into a media server? All I had to do was install some software on my pc and tell it what I wanted shared. (PMS-linux on Ubuntu 10.04)

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (2, Interesting)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580984)

you can play bootleg versions of PS3 games without paying for them. Which is basically what everyone I know who cracks their systems uses it for. Playing free games for that system on that system. So unless you're going to claim that there are no games anyone wants to play on the PS3 (which is a bad joke at best and a played out attempt at trolling at worst. So don't bother.) there is motivation to hack it.

They have succeeded in making a very difficult to crack system or a system where the potential benefit is outweighed by the potential loss if you want to go the "it's expensive if it breaks" route. Either way, they pulled it off pretty well.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580998)

Really, what is there to do on a cracked PS3 that can't be done on a 360 or Wii aside from things that use the Cell Processor which only really does obscure mathematical calculations very well.

Play copied PS3 games. I think from Sony's point of view they have more than made back their investment on DRM for the PS3.

An example of a successful PS3 or XBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581088)

... is called Wii.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581344)

There are examples of successful DRM out there. The PS3 is probably the most biggest.

Absolutely. All you need for successful DRM is locked hardware. If personal computers are ever replaced by several additional lines of XBoxes, then DRM might start working as intended. Fortunately that cat is out of the bag...

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581368)

Yes, and so we might start seeing more DRM in our lives, so it worth standardizing.

The conversation on /. is often driven by those who reject DRM, but what about those of us who would accept it if it were done right (like me)?

Just like for formats and containers, we need royalty free standards for DRM. If I buy DRM'ed content I want to be able to take it to any phone, iPod, TV, car, etc. that I own. I do not want to buy multiple copies and I certainly don't want to get locked into a single supplier.

Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (4, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581578)

The big content producers mostly want you to be able to do this as well. The big problem is that they want to be paid for it.

The formula is simple: if some action has value (like format shifting), they want to be paid.

This is why I think "DRM done right" is not possible. DRM *is* rights management. It's all about stopping you from freely using the content in arbitrary ways.

How would you define "done right"?

At least there being honest (1)

moogied (1175879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580620)

From TFA:

Making digital goods act like physical objects might sound like a bizarre step backward. Didn't we gain quite a lot with the shift to digital, non-rivalrous items? We certainly did, but Sweazey argues that a truly non-rivalrous system makes commerce too difficult, even impossible, and that we need to create ways for the digital world to mirror the constraints of the physical one.

There argument is that its impossible to regulate the spread of there goods once they release a small quantity into public. They seem to of missed supply and demand.. if the supply is infinite, then no matter what scarcity is going to be low. With no scarcity, theres no real reason to pay.

Re:At least there being honest (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580812)

There are always ways to make money though even though people can get your content for free. Look at webcomics, videos like Homestar Runner, etc. if you are truly -good- at what you do, you can always make money because your fans will support you.

Yes, with no scarcity there is no reason to pay for all the crap coming from hollywood with generic plots, sub-par acting, etc. but if you are truly good at what you do, you are almost always successful.

Just about every artist or product "killed" by piracy wasn't very good to begin with.

Re:At least there being honest (0, Troll)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581014)

That is a stupidly naive position. Many small and independent movies won't be made thanks to piracy, as no studio will fund anything that doesn't have a chance at being a mega-hit. Even moderate hits like Zombieland are at risk: http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15074641#post15074641 [tribalwar.com]

You aren't hitting a bunch of Hollywood fat cats by downloading movies. You aren't Robin Hood, and you aren't doing what's "right". You are simply killing off adult drama. We won't see another era where absolute classics like Raging Bull, The Passenger, The Conversation, etc. are released in close succession, because no one will take a chance on such films. Instead, look forward to a cinema landscape that consists of Transformers and Twilight. Thanks.

Re:At least there being honest (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581200)

Right, because an internet forum is a great place to get accurate data...

Lets see here, Zombieland made $102,297,496 with a budget of $23.6 million (see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=zombieland.htm [boxofficemojo.com] ) . And that isn't even taking into consideration any sales from DVD sales. I'd say that is a lot of money made in profit. Note that they've made over 50 million dollars in -profit- not just sales but profit after they've paid everyone.

Can you show me a great movie/game/etc that really -has- been killed off by "piracy" and not just the fact that it didn't appeal to a wider audience or that the movie/game/etc was terrible?

Technology is coming along at such a fast pace that you don't need a studio to make a movie, you don't need theaters to make a profit. The internet is full of examples of this. In the '80s and earlier, yeah, you needed professional equipment, today? You can go out and buy a camcorder that will shoot HD video, a computer and programs that add in special effects, etc.

So go on, find an example of something "killed" by "piracy" that was truly killed by it.

Re:At least there being honest (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581020)

yes, the two guys who make homestar runner or the one guy who makes a comic can make a living for himself and his family off it. But an entire corporation or game company can't "rely on the kindness of strangers" as a certain streetcar might say and expect to stay in business.

Re:At least there being honest (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581288)

But the main question is, do we need a huge company to do all this stuff? Does having a $200,000 wardrobe budget really make the movie that much better? Heck, a lot of the stuff on YouTube is better than the trash on TV, xkcd and other webcomics are usually better than all the "professional" cartoonists with a "real" publisher and editors and the like.

And there are also ads and the like to generate revenue. Look at Google, it had a profit of over $6 billion last year, and yet it in essence gives away its chief product(s)! I don't have to pay $30.00 for a license to use Google's search engine, the majority if not all of their downloadable programs are free, the majority of Android save for a couple of Google created programs are open source, etc.

Again, there are very, very few people/companies that have been "killed" through "piracy" and had a good program that appealed to people.

Re:At least there being honest (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581454)

Think in terms of gaming though. Portal wasn't cheap to make and a small team without much funding couldn't have done it as well, same with team fortress 2 and HL2. They spent 10 years on that thing. that isn't cheap and the finished products are some of the best games ever made. Valve can't live on donations. And neither can Blizzard, Nintendo (well ok at this point Nintendo could pay YOU to take their games and still be in the black, but still)

As for movies. Does the huge budget make the movie better? not necessarily. But there's some amazing comedy troupes on youtube, beyond that though, Shaun of the Dead, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Terminator 2 and the Original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogy? Those weren't cheap to make, and small time people won't put stuff like that on Youtube. Trust me. They'll sue them if you try.

Re:At least there being honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581192)

Is that why Uwe Boll is suing people?

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/14/2136233/Uwe-Boll-Other-Filmmakers-Sue-Thousands-of-Movie-Pirates

No. This is BULLSHIT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580626)

There can NEVER be "kind" or "gentle" DRM. DRM is, by its very nature, a blight on consumers who have paid fair and fucking square for the content, and will ALWAYS infringe on their fair use rights (unless they've figured out how to put judges inside the media). It also violates the Four Freedoms.

IEEE needs to cut this shit out RIGHT NOW. No DRM, no way.

Re:No. This is BULLSHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580924)

Go back to bed RMS.

Re:No. This is BULLSHIT (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581424)

DRM is about screwing the consumer.

Your references to RMS don't alter this.

Yawn. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580630)

I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact proposal before. Of course it won't work, because it assumes it is sufficient to protect the playkey. It isn't; you have to protect everything-- the encrypted content, the keys, and the output. It can be done, provided the device you're playing your content on is a sealed box and the content can't be read from the box by some sort of capture device. Problem is, those sealed boxes keep getting unsealed and the capture devices keep getting better.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580948)

Of course it won't work, because it assumes it is sufficient to protect the playkey. It isn't[...]

Why not?

Re:Yawn. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581494)

Of course it won't work, because it assumes it is sufficient to protect the playkey. It isn't[...]

Why not?

Suppose I've got my magic tamperproof decryptor box which contains the playkey. I want to read my new copy of _1984_, so I use the tamperproof decryptor box to decrypt _1984_. Now I take the decrypted output and post it on the Internet. Oops. Not only does the playkey have to be protected, everything it decrypts has to be protected.

Re:Yawn. (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581608)

Of course it won't work, because it assumes it is sufficient to protect the playkey. It isn't[...]

Why not?

At some point some unencrypted content is going to be flowing in some memory for some video codec to decode... thats when you snatch it, and put it on bittorrent....

The only way to fight that now is to track content with individual watermarks and get the lawyers after the guys who are copying.... its going to end up being cat and mouse game to defeat the watermarks, but it would be a lot more scary for the copiers... you never know if you might have left some fingerprints when copying...

Makes no sense (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580638)

This makes no sense, you are trying to make digital copies behave like analog copies and creating artificial scarcity that is needless.

I can see no good coming out of this. The only "good" forms of DRM are similar to those in the Google Market on Android, it keeps track of payments so you can always retrieve back your programs.

Re:Makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581678)

trying to make digital copies behave like analog copies and creating artificial scarcity

Well yeah. That is what DRM is, and always has been, since long before the acronym "DRM" was ever used.

Artificial scarcity keeps wealthy people wealthy. It is also injust. Invariably, arguments about preserving incentive to create are used to justify it. Invariably, they fail to convince the majority.

Its just the same old song....

EOL (2, Informative)

jeti (105266) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580718)

So when the publisher is no longer interested in maintaining the DRM servers, I still lose my 'property'?

Re:EOL (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580774)

Of course not. The 'property' you have paid for is the right to access the content. You won't be able to actually _access_ the content, but you will still have the _right_ to do so.

Re:EOL (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581282)

Why can't we do the same with the money we give them?
They would have to right to getting our money but never be able to actually access the money.
Seem fair if you ask me.

This way I get my money back when they stop providing *the Right* to access the content.

Re:EOL (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581536)

So when the publisher is no longer interested in maintaining the DRM servers, I still lose my 'property'?

This is why I prefer DRM for rental instead of ownership. Renting movies and music on-line is cool. It's cheap and there's instant gratification. Purchase of content that way... yick.

Gentler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580722)

If I can't watch the movie that you're selling, then you're not really selling something yet, so I might as well torrent. That has been the problem with DRM up to now. If this scheme, despite restricting access to the key, allows mplayer, mythfrontend, etc access to the plaintext, then that's cool. That's how much gentler the DRM needs to be. I have to be able to play the movie, or else you're just not serious.

DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (2, Interesting)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580896)

DRM itself is like trying to put a genie back into a bottle. The original genie was let out with the LP vinyl album. They played on ANY record player and didn't need to "phone home" to get permission. Along came cassettes and then CDs. Back in the 80s, artists complained about cassette recorders making copies of their music. I also recall the movie industry crying about the VCR. ANY form of DRM is unwelcome on my devices. Why? Middlemen only get in the way. I like to make backups, just in case. I also like to play what I want, on any device I want, and I shouldn't have to ask permission to do it. I got that permission when I paid amazon.com $1 for the song.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32580926)

DRM has nothing to do with middlemen. Its to stop thieving cunts helping themselevs to everyone elses work.
get that into your fucking thick skull.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581018)

DRM is only implemented by Middlemen. Artists do not worry about encoding CD's, artists rarely make CD's. It is record labels (definition: middlemen) who worry about DRM. Some Independant artists make enough money doing live shows that they host their music for free.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581206)

Very few Independant artists make enough money doing live shows that they host their music for free.

FTFY. And of those very few, the ones who are making a living that's equivalent to even a 1st year helpdesk employee usually had help from a label at one point or another.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581382)

But I bet they enjoy making the music way more than that helpdesk employee.

There is no law (yet) that state any twit that can make music is entitled to be super rich. Middlemen even less so.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581568)

The gulf between "average independent musician income" and "super rich musician" is astronomically huge.

If you want our culture to have a rich music component, full-time musicians need to make a decent middle-class living. Currently the number that can is vanishingly small.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581730)

Very Few musicians make as much money as what you would attribute to rockstars.

However, there are PLENTY of musicians who are not on the top 40 list who make more than a helpdesk employee based on their independant label.

At least, here in Canada there is.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581036)

Its to stop thieving cunts helping themselevs to everyone elses work. get that into your fucking thick skull.

That's almost entirely what he's talking about. Reread his post Mr. Notthickskull.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581234)

bwhahahaha!

DRM does nothing of the like. all it does is make somebody THINK the content's protected.

if the work is WORTH paying for, people happily will. distributing a string of ones and zeros and calling that "your life's work":

that better be the best string of ones and zeros I've ever had interpreted by processor and converted into something I want.

if you want people to HAVE to buy something, then start selling something.
making an endless string of copies of your ones and zeros is NOT something, it's information.

Re:DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581448)

> DRM has nothing to do with middlemen. Its to stop thieving cunts helping themselevs to everyone elses work.
> get that into your fucking thick skull.

You're the one who's "thick".

DRM doesn't stop anything. All it does is inconvenience the PAYING CUSTOMER.

For any actual pirate, it isn't even ever noticed.

The DRM gets cracked long beforehand. It gets cracked because there's a planet full of hackers out there that like a challenge.

Playkey can't be copied? (1)

rfugger (923317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580902)

The playkey, unlike the title folder, can't be copied

Bwahahaha!!!

rivalrous? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32580938)

Your definition of "rivalrous" sounds like the more commonly-used "zero-sum".

Re:rivalrous? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581280)

Rivalrous is commonly used to mean something akin to "scarce". As in, like physical goods that can be lent, resold, or even stolen, unlike normal bits which can be copied infinitely.

Re:rivalrous? (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581352)

Rivalrous is an economics term. Zero-sum is a game theory term. Different, but related fields of study may use different terms for similar concepts.

Re:rivalrous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581654)

Rivalrous is an economics term. Zero-sum is a game theory term. Different, but related fields of study may use different terms for similar concepts.

And in some cases the same term could be used different things for different concepts. "Entropy" in thermal dynamics is something different than "entropy" in information theory / communications.

Language can be a funny thing.

Re:rivalrous? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581410)

binary semaphore

rights (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581026)

Who knows, it may yet work - if it manages all rights, not just the distributors rights. For example, I want my user rights to be just as important - if it fails, it has to fail "open". If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.

Treat my rights as a consumer as equally important as the rights of the distributor, and we can talk about DRM. It's probably still a stupid idea, but as long as the "R" in DRM is entirely one-sided, remind me why I should even consider it as an option?

Re:rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581262)

Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.

So it has to still run in 150 years?

Re:rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581296)

when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.

As if *that's* going to happen to any content produced since 1921 - Disney will buy up every Congressman they need to keep Mickey. They've already done it several times...

Re:rights (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581556)

For example, I want my user rights to be just as important - if it fails, it has to fail "open". If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.

According to the TFA (the claim is, the standard isn't written), it does "fail open" since you have both the key and the media in question even before failure. That seem to be a key ingredient in the whole scheme -- that you need not be connected to any network to play it.

Controlling the playkey means that you control the media, and you truly own it, since no part of the system needs to phone home, and it imposes no restrictions on copying [the media, not the key -- which can only be "moved", not "copied"].

Now, this scheme relies on magic tamper-proof hardware and so the usual caveats about DRM apply as always -- if it is possible to read a key it is possible to copy it. That said, it does appear (on its face) to give the moderate consumer (e.g. not the "all bits are free" people) just about everything they asked for. You can use it without phoning home (and hence fail-open) and you can loan it to your buddy or sell it on eBay.

As for the public domain stuff, I don't see any particular reason for that. Public domain doesn't mean they aren't allowed to sell it and you can just as well grab a free copy from wherever you want. Plus, I'll likely be dead by that point.

Re:rights (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581636)

If the company goes out of business, I must still be able to use the stuff I paid for. Likewise, it must automatically unlock/decrypt the content when the copyright term is over and the stuff enters the public domain.

And how about you must be able to circumvent the DRM if you're using it in a "fair use" situation?

Re:rights (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581638)

Who knows, it may yet work - if it manages all rights, not just the distributors rights.

Ugh. Imagine how much money they'll have to spend to develop and maintain that. As it is, these silly people have long-term support costs for every product they sell. Every time you ask for permission to play something, somebody they're paying (or a system they're paying to maintain) has to grant or deny it. This is not a problem DVDs, for example, have. Once it leaves their hands, that's it, they're done. This is why it's important for them to find out what the affect of piracy really is. They're going to spend all this money and energy and not find an extra $40 billion in their bank accounts.

different countries have different copyright laws (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581722)

How exactly do you "automatically unlock the content when the copyright term is over" when different countries have different copyright laws?

If you go by the copyright laws of the country where it is published, they'll just flock to whatever countries have infinite copyright terms.

Re:rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581726)

For example, I want my user rights to be just as important

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! -- (Big media meeting reading your comment)

Dear $CONSUMER (4, Funny)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581034)

From: Sony Media
To: $CONSUMER

Re: Unlawful copying of content

Dear $CONSUMER:

It has come to our attention that you are in violation of our copyrights, by making unauthorized copies of our BluRay content using a device known as a Hippocampus [wikipedia.org] . We are bringing suit against you for US$10,000,000.

And now you know why researchers are trying to create an artificial one [newscientist.com] ....

Hubris (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581054)

To access the content inside, however, you'll need the playkey, which is delivered to the buyer of a digital media file and lives within "tamper-protected circuit" inside some device

A "tamper-protected circuit". Oh boy! When did we invent these??

You'd think the IEEE, of all groups, would know better than to suggest something that stupid.

It doesn't matter how clever you think you are - if you can build it, someone can unbuild it. It's really just that simple. How many times have we seen this before? Someone says "aha this time, THIS TIME, it is absolutely unhackable!" And then two weeks later some teenager from the Netherlands puts the keymaker on P2P.

The best part - my favorite part - is that some idiot in the *AA will believe them. Sink a metric crapload of money into the company that has "the fix", and then get burned. Again.

I love watching this idiot's dream dry up over and over. It makes me grin when the stupid and the greedy get what's coming to them. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hubris (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581600)

in my version of The Dog and the Bone the dog sees the bone hit the water, observes the group velocity of the waves, estimates the depth of the bottom, and realizes he can retrieve the bone by waiting a few minutes for the tides to recede.

In the 'shadow and substance' version, the dog learns to swim, impresses a small pack of females on the shore, and shows them he has quite a bone after all.

In the Kalayamutthi Jataka the monkey does indeed lose most of his peas, but after eating the one he retrieved he gets violently ill, and realizes they were poison berries, not peas, and eating two of them would have killed him.

In the Fox and the Kite, the fox gains the loyalty of the kite, who appreciates the handout and helps the fox kill a chicken a day until they retire.

The moral of the story is: all risks require the application of analytic intelligence. You're a human being, not a dog, a monkey, or a fox. You can always precalculate the expected value of a risk, because when you know the advantage is in your favor nothing ventured is a bigger loss than nothing gained.

The Intractable Problem (4, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581072)

I'm sure this has been articulated better by others but it's on my mind so here goes...

How do you get money from people who wouldn't spend it regardless of DRM. That's the core problem right?

Are these not the people that DRM schemes seek to deter? Are the people who buy things with restrictions feeling pressure to circumvent these countermeasures to fully enjoy the things they buy (LAN play with no internet type games, resale purchases, etc).

If this is so, then the only thing DRM has been successful at so far is creating an environment that encourages more non-customers.

Somethimes I think ... (3, Insightful)

gerddie (173963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581212)

... IEEE members should read their own publication [ieee.org] more [ieee.org]

Zen (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581216)

DRM may last 5, 10, 50, 100 years, but eventually it will fade away. As networks bandwidth increases information spreads more quickly. If you look hard enough you can find anything you want right now. Eventually people will realize that we all benefit from having all information available on demand, and once that happens DRM will cease to exist.

Re:Zen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581438)

Thats the beauty of free markets, there will always be people stupid enough to pay far more then the market price for a product. In 100 years there will still be people who will voluntarily choose to be restricted by DRM, even if it has become completely unnecessary.

they really don't get it. (3, Interesting)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581322)

I used to buy some 50 albums a year. I haven't done that in a number of years. And it is not because I am stealing the albums now. The new music sucks. There is nothing I want from them. At any price. I will admit to buying used albums, but that is for 'missing' items from my collection.

Damn! I can't copy an image/sound/video file... (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581422)

...via the usual Mac OS commands, due to new and improved DRM?

SnapzPro and WireTap [ambrosiasw.com] to the rescue!

Again ? (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581486)

The exact same scheme was introduced last year... It had some other fancy name I think... Looks like its going nowhere....

New DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581540)

It will now require right-holders to give users a kiss before but-raping them!

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32581594)

I'm unimpressed. They have essentially reinvented the hardware dongle. I don't know why more software distributors don't use them.

My solution (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581616)

Digital REFUND Management. When my access to the content stops, their ability to use the money I paid for that access stops. Put whatever system you want into play, 'cuz if it breaks, I get my money back. Oh, my solution also allows me to determine what my money is spent on, and it defaults to preventing its expenditure on lawyers, lobbyists, hookers, drug dealers, and overly intrusive advertising campaigns.

Personally, I think it's fair. I might be a bit biased though.

Focus on Convenience and Experiece (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32581656)

DRM will never work. If you play it once, you can record it, and then you can copy it.

I can't believe they're still focusing on it as opposed to recognizing this simple reality.

People will pay for convenience and experience.

I still have cable. I suppose everything I watch is 'online' somewhere. Yet I have cable because I just turn on the TV and it's all there, no downloading, no decisions...

I still order on Demand Movies because again... my time is worth $5.00 of not browsing torrents, dealing with crappy streaming... People spend $5 on a coffee for gods sake. Make it easy for them to buy a movie online and they will.

Heck, Apple has ITunes. It works as a great experience.

Steam has DRM, but people use it for the convenience. Easily download games, no need to worry about losing a DVD...

Now you'll probably never capture the 'college nerd' market where people are cheap and they will torrent everything. Just accept that as a loss.
But other groups can and will spend money.

Even if we take say online newspapers, the main reason I don't pay now is that
1. I don't like signing up for a thousand different accounts and bills.

They should find a way to partner up with all papers and offer a package through the ISPs. $3.00 a month gets you unlimited full access to all news sites. A lot of people would buy into that. They can then split the revenues maybe based on page hits or something. Who cares.. that's for them to figure out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?