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!

A Brief History of Failed Digital Rights Management Schemes

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the file-formats-rule-the-world dept.

DRM 149

antdude points out this article at opensource.com on the "graveyard" of digital rights management schemes — the death of each of which has left customers out in the cold. An excerpt: "There are more than a few reasons digital rights management (DRM) has been largely unsuccessful. But the easiest way to explain to a consumer why DRM doesn't work is to put it in terms he understands: 'What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?' It was one thing when it was a theoretical question. Now it's a historical one ..."

cancel ×

149 comments

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

What happens? (4, Funny)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959678)

'What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

Answer: It PlaysForSure (TM).

Re:What happens? (3, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959784)

It's one thing to stop selling music with a certain DRM scheme. It's quite another to tell customers that they won't be able to play it again. How this is even fucking legal is beyond me. Either keep your damned DRM server up or give users alternatives, ie, a legit way to strip the DRM or the exact same music in a different format.

Re:What happens? (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959794)

Of course there's an alternative. You can always buy the music again in a different format.

Re:What happens? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959880)

You can always download the music in a different format.

FTFY

Re:What happens? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960020)

Exactly like I did with Star Wars.

I bought it on VHS.
Bought it on LaserDisc too.
Bought the special edition on LD.
Then came the DVDs, bought them too.
Now BluRay... guess what... Fuck You George Lucas and Fuck You media industry.

I now downloaded all my media and buy it when it hits a price I agree with.
Movies.. less than $5 in HD or $3 in SD.
Music.. no more than 10cents per track.
TV shows & anime.. under $1 per episode.
If the price never gets that low I dont buy but either way I'm happy.
That is my EULA and if you dont like it you know where you can shove your opinions media industry.

Re:What happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960250)

Except no-one flipped a killswitch on your Star Wars DVDs. They'll still work just as well as they did the day you bought them if you haven't wrecked them.

Re:What happens? (4, Informative)

VitaminB52 (550802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960498)

They'll still work just as well as they did the day you bought them if you haven't wrecked them.

Some of the first CD's I bought have become unplayable due to CD rot. Contrary to what the CD manufacturers want you to believe CD's won't last for ever. Nor will DVD's.

Re:What happens? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961114)

DVDs have DRM (ineffective as it is) called CSS AND they have region coding.
Region coding is just as bad as DRM. I do not accept artificial limitations on commerce created purely to create artificial scarcity and increase profits.
If its available anywhere I have the right to obtain it at its lowest price. They can try to stop me if they can.

Re:What happens? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961228)

Up until relatively recently you had to buy a new copy for technological reasons. At least when they went from DVD to BluRay they tended to give something extra. The ones that don't get extras end up not being purchased by me.

Re:What happens? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37962636)

Extra? Whats extra? The story is unchanged.
All they've done is add irrelevant data. Its still the same movie.

Paying more for HD makes as much sense as paying more for a 320kbps MP3 instead of a 160kbps.
Or paying more for for a car because the speedometer shows your speed in hundredths of a mph.

Re:What happens? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963120)

The story is unchanged, but the quality discs have all sorts of features, like they did with DVDs, but more extensive. The Princess Bride, for instance, had not just a remastered film, but a game and several rather long featurettes about how the film came to be.

Unlike in your example, you can definitely tell that it's higher def, assuming that it was done by technicians. With the MP3s, you'd never notice the difference regardless of how well the technicians did their job.

Re:What happens? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961588)

Thank you, thank you, thank you for using 'price' instead of 'price point'.

By the way, try "Harmy's Star Wars Despecialized Edition". It's an HD (720p) version with all the scenes restored to the original (Han Solo shoots first!).

Re:What happens? (0)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962640)

Wait, why are you modded Informative? No-one made you go out and buy Star Wars on LaserDisc - what, they came round at night and smashed up your video player? No-one then made you go out and buy the Special Edition. Did Lucas have a kill switch on the original LD versions? No-one made you go and buy the DVDs, either. Surely you could have just watched the LaserDisc? You're conflating media unusable because of broken DRM with... someone quite happy to make money from people like you who keep on buying the same damned films on new media and then, bizarrely, complaining about it. You could have carried on watching your VHS. It's my understanding that format switching in the USA hasn't been subject to the same legal grey status as it has in the UK, so you could have digitised your videos perfectly happily. What the hell are you complaining about?

Secondly, you - you, an anonymous coward on Slashdot who for all we know knows as much about media and the entertainment industry as Coco the Clown knew about CPU design - are seeing fit to declare to the entire entertainment industries fair prices. With the number of people who would buy an episode of a TV show, for all you or I know, it cannot be done for less than $1 an episode, not if they want to keep production values up. The same goes for movies, eBooks and music. Sure, the companies are currently making a hefty profit and I've no doubt things could be one hell of a lot cheaper than they are now and still give them a reasonable income, but demanding absurdly low prices and stating "if you don't like it you know where you can shove your opinions" is pretty unhelpful.

And besides that, so you don't like the prices the entertainment industry demand. That's your prerogative - so don't buy. But why on Earth do you still assume you've got the right to download it for free? You can surely understand why they take an extremely dim view of you going and downloading their products for free.

Re:What happens? (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963058)

But why on Earth do you still assume you've got the right to download it for free?

Why on Earth would he assume he doesn't?

Re:What happens? (1)

Mike610544 (578872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962704)

I now downloaded all my media and buy it when it hits a price I agree with.

I was going to accuse you of just being a cheap bastard, but I thought about it, and I'm just as bad in a slightly different way.

If I can't download/stream a thing legally, I'll usually get the torrent. I really don't care what it costs (within reason).

It's annoying when I want to give a company money for their content, and they don't let me do it.

Re:What happens? (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959824)

Its probably legal because like steam they would have stated in their ToC that they are just giving you a licence to play the music, which can be revoked at any time

Re:What happens? (0)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959840)

I meant ToS/TnC reddit can manage edits, so can yahoo answers and the stackexchange network: when will /. manage to provide that feature

Re:What happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959898)

Consider it DRM.

Re:What happens? (1, Insightful)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960052)

/. intentionally disallows edits so people can't trick others into strawman attacks.

Re:What happens? (0)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960104)

A stackexchange like system would help prevent that

Re:What happens? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961602)

Allowing edits while there are no replies (and warning people who had already started a reply that the contents had changed) wouldn't have such problems, though.

Re:What happens? (1, Offtopic)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960064)

It's deliberate - /. tries to force you to spell-check and proofread your posts before posting them. To quote the FAQ:

No. We believe that discussions in Slashdot are like discussions in real life- you can't change what you say, you only can attempt to clarify by saying more. In other words, you can't delete a comment that you've posted, you only can post a reply to yourself and attempt to clarify what you've said.

In short, you should think twice before you click that 'Submit' button because once you click it, we aren't going to let you Undo it.

It's still rather common to see someone make a foolish mistake, like using BBCode instead of HTML, or using the wrong SI prefix on something.

Re:What happens? (0)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960112)

Unfortunetely, a real life system kind of allows you to append to your original speech. posting a reply to yourself has the potential to start 2 different threads, IRL you would have the same thread

Re:What happens? (0)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960654)

It is poor. What SHOULD happen, if this was truly their goal, is for there to be an "edit line" beneath your post. Here's an example of what it could look like, but you'd want the edit line to be part of the formatting, and not have the possibility of it being simulated or expunged via text:

-A- -A- -B- -B- -C- -C- -- ---POSTPENDLINE-- -C- -C- -B- -B- -A- -A-

Then your existing stuff would be added to your post here.

Re:What happens? (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960042)

What? Are we supposed to both read and understand those legal documents?

Re:What happens? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961244)

I take it you're being sarcastic, but I for one don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on attorneys fees each time somebody wants me to agree to their ToS. That would literally require me to have an attorney on retainer for each end every single site I do business with.

At some point, we need to just admit that the whole thing has gone ridiculously far out of control and needs to be fixed.

Re:What happens? (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961624)

The fix is to have strong consumer protection, like plenty of EU directives provide. Any EULA terms that violate them are invalid, so you as the user don't need to worry about them.

Re:What happens? (1)

spyowl (838397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962440)

This type of thinking is akin to straightening the ship that's sinking on one side by drilling a whole and sinking its other side too. How about enforce laws equally for everyone to start with? Would Sony be contractually liable if you sent them your own version of EULA in the [e]mail? Would you be able to take that piece of [e]mail to the court and argue against Sony? How about your bank? Facebook? Amazon?

Re:What happens? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962906)

Only if they were the end-user of some software or service I was providing. Do you even know what EULA means?

Licence to music (1)

stooo (2202012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960058)

>>It's one thing to stop selling music with a certain DRM scheme. It's quite another to tell customers that they won't be able to play it

They don't sell music any more. They sell temporary licenses to listen to music.

Re:What happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960180)

It's one thing to stop selling music with a certain DRM scheme. It's quite another to tell customers that they won't be able to play it again. How this is even fucking legal is beyond me

You say that as if you're surprised. Yet each time a new DRM scam came out over the years, this very forum would be full of posts predicting that very scenario.

The bottom line is that big business can never be trusted. And the penalty for a big business intentionally violating trust should be the hanging of their senior executives.

Re:What happens? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960810)

It's funny how an individual whose child downloads a few tracks without paying becomes public enemy number one but when a company gets paid but stops providing the tracks, it's just business as usual.

And they wonder why more and more people are coming to see law and the courts as morally bankrupt.

Re:What happens? (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959994)

It sounds like you're screwed and your music collection is no longer accessible. MSN Music Store, Yahoo! Music Unlimited, Wal-Mart... FTFA it sounds like when each one of these services was discontinued, the customers were warned that all the music they purchased would no longer be accessible. This is why I crack the DRM off every ebook I buy from Amazon (I know I should go to the B&N Nook) and why I won't "buy" streaming movies from them that get stored in their cloud.

Too bad the article only covers music. There are so many half-brained lessons from the history of DRM in other media. Remember DIVX [sfgate.com] from 1998 the DVD you bought and then had to pay each time you wanted watch it? And don't even get me started on video games, where DRM has condemned so many great titles to the graveyard of unplayability.

Better Answer: Don't buy DRM'd music (2)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960098)

I buy only mp3 for this very reason. Once I have it, it's MINE. Just like the CD, cassette, or record I used to buy. I can play it on whatever player I want: car stereo, computer, whatever. That's the way music purchasing has always been... until DRM came on the scene.

I personally thank Amazon for their mp3 music store. They made it worthwhile for the artists to make tracks available in mp3 so Amazon gets all my music $.

Re:What happens? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960396)

We should stop thinking of DRM as controlling music/video. DRM is actually about controlling the software you can run.

Software plays the music and the video. DRM is all about ensuring that only authorised software is allowed to access certain data. Once you have that level of control in the hands of IT companies (see also Trusted Computing, Trusted Platform Module/TPM, UEFI), it's game over for privacy and consumer rights.

Re:What happens? (2)

nightfell (2480334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960468)

No, Answer: not a damed thing.

Music isn't sold with DRM anymore. The whole argument is moot, you're fighting a past battle. You are trying to convince non-nerds to rally against DRM, and the best example you can come up with is one that isn't even relevant?

The problem is you are trying to convince people to hold an opinion that they simply have no reason to hold. You're grasping at straws. Sure, they are plenty of reasons for a subset of computer geeks to be strongly opposed to DRM, but there are very few reasons for regular people to. For them, DRM is mostly invisible.

DVDs, Blu-ray, cable tv, Xbox, PS3, Wii, iOS, Android... These all contain and extensively use DRM, and most people don't even know it's there, because it works so well.

The premise of this story is false. DRM hasn't been largely unsuccessful, it's been wildly successful. There are only a few edge cases where there have been notable issues and failures.

Re:What happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961158)

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over my 5 DVD writers (including 2 Blu-ray writers) churning out data with DVD Fab HD Decrypter, my Xbox 360 with modified DVD firmware, my softmodded Wii, jailbroken iPhone, and Cyanogen-modded EVO.

Re:What happens? (1)

nightfell (2480334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961590)

In other words, all your DRM-enabled equipment. Got it.

Successful DRM (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959686)

There's one highly successful "DRM" that can't be circumcised and what game companies have been started doing lately. It originates from Asia, where piracy has always been a problem, but only recently has been started gaining support in western markets. Many people hate it, many love it, but it's a direct result of piracy, and also what more and more companies will start using. It's free2play games, and other multiplayer games, and means dark times for single player gamers.

I think Valve succeeded with f2p in Team Fortress 2. It doesn't get too much in the way, and users can still get everything without paying lots of money. But there is incentive to do so. But then there's also all those Facebook games and other shitty free2play games which practically require you to pay lots and lots of money. It also means one can buy advantage in the game. But in the end, it is result of the widespread piracy and companies adapting to the situation, just like people always said they should do.

Re:Successful DRM (3, Funny)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959742)

I assume it can't be circumcised because, as conceptual business model, it lacks genitalia.

Re:Successful DRM (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960068)

Dark times for single player? I think there are plenty of (indie) game developers happy to fill the void.

Re:Successful DRM (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960170)

TF2 is the only F2P game ive ever played where i dont feel a constant tug on my wallet. I think the crates are fucking genius.

Re:Successful DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960238)

If you'd like to provide some proof that cash shops are a direct response to piracy instead of, say, people realizing people will pay to win/for convenience/for more shinies to play dolly dress-up with, feel free to share.

Easy (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959724)

What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

No music for you!

NEXT!

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960612)

What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

No music for you!

NEXT!

Close, but no cigar. What happens is "Lawsuit!".

If the company goes out of business on the other hand, you're screwed.

Some changes were quite good ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959776)

What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.

Re:Some changes were quite good ... (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959848)

What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.

You left out the part where we had to pay 30 cents a song for the privilege.

On the other hand - even now, Apple still supports the original DRMed files if you choose not to upgrade - so this case isn't really a good example of a company "changing its mind" a la PlaysForSure.

Re:Some changes were quite good ... (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959940)

You left out the part where Apple used it's market dominance to essentially force the record companies to offer the music at minimal prices compared to what would have been charged otherwise. And then forced them further to permit free-and-clear downloads which they had vowed to never allow.

      Brett

Re:Some changes were quite good ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960434)

What happens to the music you paid for if that company changes its mind?

Well in the Apple iTunes case the audio quality was improved and the DRM was also removed.

You left out the part where we had to pay 30 cents a song for the privilege.

On the other hand - even now, Apple still supports the original DRMed files if you choose not to upgrade - so this case isn't really a good example of a company "changing its mind" a la PlaysForSure.

If you are a user of iCloud there is no charge for the upgrade.

What is the point of this list? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959828)

The list shows gravestone icons both for those cases where companies stopped using DRM and left their users out in the cold, and for those cases where they stopped using DRM and let users get DRM-free tracks instead.

One is loss for the users, one is a win. Why are both presented as the same thing?

Re:What is the point of this list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960070)

Because removal of DRM wasn't free in that case. 30 is too much to get my music to play everywhere.

Re:What is the point of this list? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960100)

That pricing has long since changed. And the list contains other events too without any pricing complications.

What do you mean it didn't work? (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959852)

What do you mean it didn't work? DRM schemes such as Microsoft's "Play Anywhere" are abandoned and then the customer who paid good money for the music has to buy it again if they still want it,. DRM works exactly as planned and intended/

Re:What do you mean it didn't work? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960964)

This is because you didn't buy it in the first place! It's information! In can not be owned bought or stolen, just as you can't go north of north pole, as the terms make no sense in this context. That's why it says "license".

Why don't people get this shit? (I blame the propaganda of the organized crime.)

You paid for a set of rights, with rules attached that you are in practice not physically able to comply to: Not passing it on to third parties.
Something that already happened when it passed through every router on the way from them to you. Something that happens every time you have friends over any play the music to them. Something that happens whenever you remember any bit of the song and communicate it to somebody else in any way.
In other words: Utterly unrealistic "rules". But that's the point, as they are part of what is essentially just a racketeering scheme in sheepskin.

Ok, I'm preaching to the choir here... ;)

No SDMI? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959860)

I am surprised that SDMI is not listed. It was a complete failure and is utterly pointless now, yet many CDs still have SDMI watermarks and CD players still check.

Correction (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959912)

SDMI was not deployed, I was thinking of a different system (Macrovision). Time for that afternoon coffee (nap?).

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37963138)

With respect to SDMI, a number of DRM schemes (Apple's "FairPlay", Microsoft's "PlaysForSure", Microsoft's Zune DRM, Sony's "MagicGate") took its place. It should be noted that the industry launched SDMI after the RIAA lost their court suit against a MP3 player vendor, and that based on the court ruling that format shifting was legal Fair Use, there was absolutely no justification for any sort of copy protection or DRM at all. Yet that was their first reaction.

MacroVision was inflicted on VHS tapes and DVDs. Originally someone must have observed that if they put a defective signal on a tape, they could break VCRs. Later, they baked it into the DVD standard (so that the players would generate the defective signals to break the VCRs). They also got it cooked into the DMCA so that VCRs MUST break when they detect such signals.

There was a "CD" DRM plan involving secret auto-play installation of a root kit, which was there to "protect" other unwanted software, which prevented the lawful owner of a CD from extracting digital audio from a CD for use on an iPod, MP3 player, etc. Many of the CDs had really interesting titles, too, like "The Invisible Invasion", or "Paranoid In Suspicious Times" !!!

Excerpt misses the point entirely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959892)

The consumer who has given it so much as the slightest bit of thought has always understood why to avoid DRM. It's the asshole proponents of such systems, and those who would support them, that need it broken down into small words and colorful drawings so that they may understand why we say "no" to DRM.

Re:Excerpt misses the point entirely. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959986)

And if it's anything like the subset who are video game fans, it's a hopeless cause. Apparently, to these twonks, everything up to and including raping their mother with their father's disembodied head is forgivable as long as $Incremental_Release_N+1 comes out, eventually.

Easily recognized on gaming forums as they are declaring "game of the year!" about games that haven't even been pre-released to critics yet (and far too often for all of them to have been beta-testers).

Solution: Suggest construction of a new B-Ark.

history goes back much further (1, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959996)

TFA only goes back to 1998. The history of DRM goes back much, much further than that, the only difference being that it was called "copy protection" rather than DRM. In the early 1980's, there was the first wave of mass-marketed personal computers: Apple II, TRS-80, etc. Software houses often sold games, for example, on 5" floppies in a format designed to make it possible to play the game, but to make it hard to copy the disk using the OS's standard tools. Computer users voted against copy protection with their feet. For one thing, there was no other backup format besides those unreliable 5" floppies, so if you couldn't copy it to another floppy, you were basically just paying to be able to run the software for as many years as the floppy was readable. Software houses started to realize how much users hated copy protection, so they stopped doing it.

Now we're just going through all the same stuff again, but with a new name, "DRM," and a new generation of computer users that hasn't wised up yet. They need to have their first experience of losing their investment in software, music, or whatever, and then they'll realize that they don't want to touch DRM with a 10-foot pole.

Re:history goes back much further (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960150)

TFA only goes back to 1998. The history of DRM goes back much, much further than that, the only difference being that it was called "copy protection" rather than DRM

The author of the article knew the difference between DRM and Copy Protection. Given the context of the article being about content no longer playing, wanting a history of copy protection in this article is like asking for an article about unpopular cars to include a history of the horse-drawn carriage.

Re:history goes back much further (0)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962632)

The author of the article knew the difference between DRM and Copy Protection. Given the context of the article being about content no longer playing, wanting a history of copy protection in this article is like asking for an article about unpopular cars to include a history of the horse-drawn carriage.

I'd claim that the only significant difference is the name. In 1983, I could buy "content" (software), it would stop working when the floppy died, and I'd be out of luck, because I'd have no way to back it up. In 2011, I can buy "content" (which could be software, music, or a book), it will stop working, and I'll be out of luck, because I have no way to back it up. Your point would be more persuasive if all copy protection used to work a certain way, and if all DRM currently worked a certain way, which was different -- but that's not the case. For example, some people distribute PDF files that are supposed to be viewable but not printable; this is pure security through obscurity, just like a typical copy-protection scheme used in the 80's.

Re:history goes back much further (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962770)

Not working due to media failure != not working due to lack of permission. Note the use of the term 'rights' and not 'copies'.

Quite percussive.

LoL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960004)

"DRM" the one thing in this world that turns me to breaking the law by using torrents. I bought it, ITS MINE. end of.

You cant stop the signal Mal.

little known fact... (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960018)

DRM actually stands for "Digital Retard Monetization", because let's face it, you'd have to be daft to buy something with restrictions when the free and unlocked versions are even easier to obtain.

Constitution of USA (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960072)

US federal Constitution was a pretty significant attempt at trying to keep the corruption out of politics. It was eventually cracked (it was cracked a number of times, a few times the problems have been fixed, but eventually it was cracked for good.)

The way they cracked it finally is by ensuring that not only Congress and Senate and White house had trojans introducing viruses, but they also broke the court system, especially the Supreme Court.

They used a distributed denial of law attack from all levels of government, including the Supreme Court and they were able to introduce all of the necessary 'back orifice' style tools into the system to make sure it cannot be patched again. They appealed to the self interest of the majority (employees) in order to pass legislature that at first only undermined the rights of minority (employers), allowing the government to grow faster and to take up more resources. They eventually used these back doors to grab enough power that they couldn't be stopped. They redefined money, government power, introduced regulations of businesses that were unauthorized allowing to sell more power to the highest bidders, destroying competition and creating monopolies/oligopolies. They violated every law that there is, every human right, every bit of Constitution and every bit of law.

Eventually the unavoidable thing happened, the resource consumption became 100% of what was available and the system started spreading its disease around the world, forcing/letting other systems (nations to pick up the slack of processing power - useful production). The system is now poisoned, no more useful production can happen in it, it's impossible to reform the existing government and it has to be formatted and reinstalled but it also needs a lot of patching, to ensure that the next version is less penetrable to these sorts of attacks.

Unfortunately the current batch of coders (the population) is so deaf blind and dumb it can't understand even what happened, never mind understanding the necessary steps that must be taken to fix the problem.

Re:Constitution of USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960266)

project gutenburg was started in 1971 for a reason. interpol went after copyright in 1977 for a reason.
i lost my mind in 2006 for a reason.
don't try to make me explain the best have looked at me, and i really only see that which i can handle.
here is a hint though 'all it needs is a patchy' i(this me) haven't revealed that before but it has been on my mind for a few weeks now.

Dig's up old wmvhd disc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960090)

Requires internet to play. Wonder if it still works?

Re:Dig's up old wmvhd disc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960178)

Even the Current games do not work if you can only use dialup. Too much data being sent back and forth. I ttimes out and "you don't have an internet connection" style errors pop up.

supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (4, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960106)

Several years ago when I first learned of HDLC, I posted here into a thread about the "new" high-definition technology warning that there was a new connector coming (it became HDMI) and a new nasty form of DRM going along with it (HDLC) and that people should hold off because the early adopters were going to get screwed. The response was a lot of angry posts telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about, early adopters told me that their expensive TV sets could play HD just fine, and I was modded down, apparently so people considering buying an early set without HDMI and HDLC would not see my warning.

Now people who bought those amazingly expensive early "monitors" can't watch HD content from a Blu-Ray player or on-line streaming service on them (although they can enjoy grainy 480 line service). Why? Apparently we can get angry enough when a bank tries to charge $60 a year to spend our own money via a debit card, but we are not able to get angry enough with the content providers when they screw us and make it clear their intent is to buy congressmen to subvert the intention of Copyright as stated in the U.S. Constitution. So the content providers are going to keep screwing their customers. I'm sure that they would like to screw more people, but so far they have only figured ut how to screw the artists and the customers, aside for some random lawsuits that assume if you are not signing up for the screwing then you mist be a criminal.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960346)

Several years ago when I first learned of HDLC, I posted here into a thread about the "new" high-definition technology warning that there was a new connector coming (it became HDMI) and a new nasty form of DRM going along with it (HDLC) and that people should hold off because the early adopters were going to get screwed. The response was a lot of angry posts telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about, early adopters told me that their expensive TV sets could play HD just fine, and I was modded down, apparently so people considering buying an early set without HDMI and HDLC would not see my warning.

Despite popular belief, Slashdot isn't a hive mind. You probably ran into the Audiovisual Enthusiasts, these are the people who like their movies and TV so much that they spend thousands on the so-called "Home Theatre" systems with big-ass HD TV, Dolby Digital decoders and so forth. When you've invested so much money in consuming the products that Hollywood cranks out, being told that Hollywood are a bunch of dicks who don't care about you and are trying to force more cash out of your wallet through planned obsolescence tends to be an upsetting notion.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960350)

HDLC? What are you going on about? I rather presume you mean HDMI, but there's no way to be sure.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960466)

probably means HDCP

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960722)

Agreed, but we're guessing.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960484)

There's no way to be sure? Maybe you could actually READ the post you replied to: ...there was a new connector coming (it became HDMI) and a new nasty form of DRM going along with it (HDLC) .. The poster was pretty clear that he was "going on about" a technology that became known as HDMI. Congratulations on failing 6th grade reading comprehension.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (1, Flamebait)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960718)

You're an idiot. HDLC is High Level Data Link Control, a serial data protocol. There was never a DRM by that name, except in poster's mind. Maybe you mean HDMI. Here's an idea. Before you make an ass out of yourself, make sure you know something about the subject.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961480)

He means HDCP.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961522)

OP probably meant HDPC (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection). No need to jump him over it...

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (1)

kbg (241421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961572)

I believe the poster meant HDCP. Which is the DRM in HDMI

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960518)

Thanks for proving GP's point.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961264)

I'm pretty sure he meant HDCP. Looks like he just got his acronyms mixed up . Happens all the time.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961444)

I suspect the poster meant HDCP [wikipedia.org]

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960448)

I waited a few years before buying into HD.

My 50" LG Plasma has a Linux OS driving it, it's hooked up to my Pioneer AV amp and my Pioneer BluRay player along with my Linux HTPC system that streams 1080P HD movies from my Linux home server with full DTS dolby Digital audio to my 7.1 Wharfedale speaker system, everything runs over HDMI interconnects including the audio.

I don't have any issues with DRM but maybe that's because none of my system has any DRM left in it to cause me issues....

It doesn't matter what they do, if it has to be decrypted at the point of playback then the DRM scheme can be cracked, the thing is I have purchased every film and CD that I have, I consider it my god given right to format shift my DVD's, BluRay's and CD's onto my home server, luckily the UK government agrees with me and they are giving consumers the legal right to format shift, pretty much giving the music/film industry the finger in the process....

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (2)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961518)

Many people seem confused by your use of HDLC to decribe a form of DRM over HDMI.

I think you meant HDCP [wikipedia.org]

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961822)

Apparently we can get angry enough when a bank tries to charge $60 a year to spend our own money via a debit card, but we are not able to get angry enough with the content providers when they screw us and make it clear their intent is to buy congressmen to subvert the intention of Copyright as stated in the U.S. Constitution

When one moves banks there is a knowable amount of effect. It is trackable.

If one stops consuming content - the content producers think you are still using the content at the same rate, now just not paying for it.

I stopped going to movies, buying CDs and DVDs once the DMCA got passed. The RIAA/MPAA's position is now I'm a pirate when in reality I just stopped consuming the content. The audio 'void' was filled with NPR and now podcasts. The video - meh. Most of it was crap before and I've been told is still crap.

Re:supposedly inteligent people don't want to know (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37963198)

HDCP (not HDLC) was on the 22" LCD monitor I bought in 2006, I have bought two new displays since then, but that monitor is still very capable of playing encrypted Blueray content, although I would rather use my 52" TV for that. I think early adopter types who had bought a monitor before that, would have upgraded more times than me.

You appear to be really indignant about this, but in practical terms, early adopters buy because it is fun to play with new stuff. Same reason women often buy too many shoes. It's called "consumerism", and the folks who enjoy it don't care about your warnings, which sound even stupider in hindsight.

How can it be brief? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960166)

It should contain every DRM scheme ever.

Streaming Video Has Same Problem (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960312)

Anyone notice the games with content availability that go on with streaming Netflix? It's far worse than the few losses on content that have occurred with DRM.

As a result I only buy physical media (CDs, DVD, BD) or unencumbered digital files like MP3 or FLAC, or rent physical disks.

The idea of paying for a streaming service that you hardly know day to day what is going to be available is for the birds.

Re:Streaming Video Has Same Problem (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37962676)

Out of interest, what FLACs can you buy commercially and where? If I buy music it's always on CD except in the rare cases where it's a digital-only release in which case I get the highest bitrate DRM-free AAC I can get and if that doesn't exist, the highest bitrate MP3. I'd probably buy more digitally if someone was actually selling lossless copies of something I wanted to buy.

Copyright is bad and should be abolished. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960318)

Because of copyright, stupid crap like this exists. It's time to get rid of copyright.

Re:Copyright is bad and should be abolished. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37960600)

Book related. [dklevine.com]

Apple's FairPlay didn't "fail" (4, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960322)

It's insane to call Apple's FairPlay DRM a failed system, as the item for this says. The system did exactly what it was supposed to do. It allowed Apple to start legally selling something that the record labels wouldn't allow without it and then it was taken away when the labels agreed to go without it. The system worked as advertised. It achieved the goals of building a market for legal music. And then it went away. It was very successful and then it was retired when it was no longer needed.

Re:Apple's FairPlay didn't "fail" (0)

mveloso (325617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960838)

FairPlay still exists for video, if I remember right. FairPlay was never cracked.

Audible's drm scheme also is still going strong.

Re:Apple's FairPlay didn't "fail" (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961746)

FairPlay was never cracked.

Hmm... [slashdot.org]

DRM rapes your paying customers in the ass. (0)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37960996)

Without lube.

Further analysis would simply be tautological.

License management tools: good, bad, or ugly? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961018)

From 2001: http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/df4b4363d544f766/ [google.com]
"My question is: should software tools, protocols, and standards play a role in easing this required "due diligence" license management work (at least as far as copyright alone is
concerned)?"

Still not really answered...

Traditional answer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37961224)

"It's capitalism! It's about profits! Companies are not obligated to anything. They can be evil."

This is the kind of talk that makes me want to buy from capitalist companies from another, more ethical country. If DRM worked, it would still be a very bad thing.

Missed one (2)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37961500)

DIVX [wikipedia.org] - the reason I stopped shopping at Circuit City.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>