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!

Sun DReaM Finds Home In IPTV

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the someone-likes-the-idea dept.

68

An anonymous reader writes "The Register has a story reporting that Sun's DRM will find a home in a Korean IPTV system. From the article: "This week Sun released the source code for two components of DReaM, its DReaM-CAS (Conditional Access System) and DReaMMMI (Mother May I) the underlying mechanism for always asking a central resource for permission to access content. In papers that Sun put out this week it has described both of these processes. DReaMCAS or D-CAS currently only manages access to content in the MPEG-2 format."

cancel ×

68 comments

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

FIRST TROUT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15132974)

I AM A FISH!

Re:FIRST TROUT! (0, Offtopic)

PhoenixPath (895891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133727)

And then he passed out.

Better luck next time, Rimmer.

Re:FIRST TROUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15136231)

Bah!

No sense of humor.

Catch-phrase (4, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15132979)

I hope their catch-phrase isn't going to be Keep Dreaming.

Re:Catch-phrase (1)

Azreal (147961) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133321)

Seg^H^H^H Sun Dream-CAS "It's thinking..for you."

Good (1)

thePig (964303) | more than 8 years ago | (#15132991)

Hopefully, this kick starts the IP TV network.
This is good for the whole bubble in general, in that more bandwidth needs will sustain it for longer periods.

Re:Good (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133585)

Does IPTV stand for the "Intellectual Property" TV network? If so how appropriate.

Or else it could, during the mass subscriber exodus, become the IP (Freeley) Network

Cuteness overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15132992)

I feel like puking in my DReaM.

IPTV canonical error message... (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15132995)

> Error. Nothing for you to see here.

Please purchase a subscription to access the content.

DRM and GNOME (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133010)

Sun also has a "customer" in Fluendo... the company set up to develop GStreamer... the media framework in GNOME. Fluendo have committed to the whole DRM shebang. Locked down kernels, trusted computing, and DRM built in to Gstreamer (and hence, GNOME). And Sun, a full-blown member and devotee of The Trusted Computing Group with it's DRM hardware.

Lovely thought isn't it.

All that corporate involvement in GNOME was worth it, wasn't it? I mean... now that we've a got DRMed desktop that is completely controlled and developed by three corporations and a few small businesses around edges.

You Don't Get It (4, Interesting)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133038)

Do you?

No one in Sun "believes" in this DRM stuff. They just do it because theu have to to play in the pointy-haired Western markets. They make it Open Source to make a point.

When Digial Restrictions Management puffs and wheezes its last breath in a few months, Sun will calmly pick up from where it left off, as it has always done, as if it hadn't happened.

The enigineers in Sun know what they are doing, and they keep the PHBs beaten into shape. Mark my words.

This is just Sun playing ball with the suits in the short term.

In the mean time, I urge you Slashbots to learn how to use a compiler.

Re:You Don't Get It (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133077)

When Digial Restrictions Management puffs and wheezes its last breath in a few months, Sun will calmly pick up from where it left off, as it has always done, as if it hadn't happened.

No, *you* don't get it. DRM isn't going anywhere... you want to know why? It's because it has fuck all to do with music and video copying now. It did once, but not anymore.

DRM/Trusted Computing is about controlling what applications can run... and using the hardware to lock data to a particular piece (or pieces of code, "Trusted code" in fact). The technology companies know that how much power this will give them -- for a start, it gvies them the tools for perfect vendor lock-in, and the ability to run code in secret unanswerable to anyone. Furthermore, it allows them to virtually eliminate software piracy (apps are just DIGITAL (the 'D' in DRM) data to the operating system). It puts them in the driving seat and denies root access to the machines of the general public. It will give them an enormous and perpetual control over the entire computing infrastructure, should they get it implemented in its current form.

So no... DRM isn't going anywhere... and no... there's not a single tech company that is going to back off from this without a massive backlash.

Re:You Don't Get It (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133286)

They just do it because theu have to to play in the pointy-haired Western markets

Meaning that Asian markets are different? You may be right about that.

A workmate bought a bunch of DVD's back from china recently. He gave two of them to me because the dialog and subtitles turned out to be both in Mandarin, which my wife speaks.

One of the movies is a really cheap action movie with lots of planes being blown up and nukes being defused. At one point the protagonist confronts a stream of "encrypted data", we know this because it is labelled as such with a superimposed message. The encrypted data scrolling up the screen on the movie is the 3d matrix screensaver, as available on ms windows, not the 2d one you get on linux.

Re:You Don't Get It (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134432)

not the 2d one you get on linux.

you need to checkout glmatrix!

Re:You Don't Get It (1)

Cyno (85911) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133620)

No one in Sun "believes" in this DRM stuff.

Its nice to assume they're on our side, but I disagree.

I think Sun does believe in DRM. They believe in patents and copyrights, why wouldn't they believe in protecting them?

I want a list of all DRM-friendly companies, so I can avoid their products:

Sun
Microsoft
Apple
HP?
IBM?
Novell?
RIAA and members..
MPAA and members..
Creative Labs

anyone else?

I'm just going to pretend they don't exist. Maybe if I'm lucky, one day, they won't.

Any anti-DRM businesses want my money? Its right here. I got lots of it after taxes and almost nothing to spend it on.. ;)

Re:You Don't Get It (1)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135132)

Don't forget Intel and AMD. I look forward to never seeing you post again, after you've melted down your PC for scrap.

Re:You Don't Get It (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133738)

When Digial Restrictions Management puffs and wheezes its last breath in a few months

Well now, that's a nice thought, but I can't see it happening. Truth is that we've had DRM in one form or another on computers for at least 20 years, and it's not just going to disappear no matter how much you may wish it.

(For the purposes of this discussion, I am including copy prevention measures such as having to type in a given word on a given page of the manual, or using a hardware dongle, Elite's Lens-lok, etc - they're "Rights Management" in that they seek to enforce the copyright holder's right to be the only one prodcuing copies, and they're certainly applied to digital products)

Re:You Don't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135243)

Well now, that's a nice thought, but I can't see it happening. Truth is that we've had DRM in one form or another on computers for at least 20 years, and it's not just going to disappear no matter how much you may wish it.
Right. What we didn't used to have are DMCA-style laws that prohibited "circumventing" said measures. That was crucial since it was legal to break those measures if they got in your way of your legal rights.

Re:DRM and GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133380)

Except that GST itself doesn't have any DRMed code in it. Fluenda is a PLUGIN that supports some DRM schemes. The default gnome desktop contains NO DRM SUPPORT. PERIOD.

Re:DRM and GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133434)

DRMed plugin don't work unless the Gstreamer packages you have installed are signed by Fluendo -- i.e. that the framework is crippled and will not allow any processing to be used on the data. The Gstreamer packages will *have* to have this feature.

Re:DRM and GNOME (2, Informative)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133390)

DRM built in to Gstreamer (and hence, GNOME).
Somehow, I'm just having a very hard time believing this to its full extent. DRM needs a full chain of trust, complete down to the BIOS, to even stand a chance of being effective, and since GStreamer (and GNOME) are seldomly, if ever, run on "trusted" kernels, it just seems completely and utterly pointless to implement DRM in GStreamer.

That being said, I can't deny that the work is being done. If anyone's interested, here's a link to the announcement [gnome.org] . The short version seems to be that "we have no control over if people will be using DRM anyway, so we're implementing it in the hopes that it will never be used, just so that GStreamer won't be dumped over lack of DRM support".

Re:DRM and GNOME (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133472)

and since GStreamer (and GNOME) are seldomly, if ever, run on "trusted" kernels, it just seems completely and utterly pointless to implement DRM in GStreamer.

1. I've asked Fluendo this, and they will not talk about it. 2. This DRM is mostly aimed at stuff like Nokia Maemo, or other newer mobile phone systems (for the moment), which also run GNOME. 3. Fluendo are taking Free software (and others' work) and using digital signatures to lock it down and ensure that only their signed versions run, and implement DRM systems that take away users' rights. 4. In a comment on his blog, Christian Schaller was talking about the problem with kernels not being trusted -- and noted that there wasn't much they could do about it... except for the fact that Linux distros were working on a "solution" to this -- and again, he refuses to elaborate on the comment. Care to take a guess as to what exactly, and who, he was referring?

Which Linux distro is busy building a Microsoft-style protected media path... the dirty fucking turncoats.

Re:DRM and GNOME (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133707)

Trusted Linux? [ibm.com] Anything is possible.

Re:DRM and GNOME (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134406)

They want to make unauthorized copying just hard enough and socially unacceptable that few will do it. Ex. bittorrent is "bad." Buying itunes music "good."

Re:DRM and GNOME (1)

snaz555 (903274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133967)

Although a lot of the online chatter about DRM has focused on locked-down platforms, this is really not a key feature of DRM. The purpose of DRM is to protect contect, which it does through condition access to obtain a host-specific key, which is used in a secure decoder chip to play back encrypted content. In a nutshell.

The platform part is merely a marketing tool, if you're Tivo, or IPTV, or someone else and you sell subsidized hardware with the expectation of recouping it on service, with a liberal minimum contract requirement, then you don't want people to be able to take the cheap subsidized hardware and use it with a competing service. If this marketing tool weren't available, there would be no subsidized hardware. For the overwhelming majority of users, the subsidy is a good deal since they have no intention of using the box for anything other than it was intended for originally.

It's quite a stretch to extend this to a general-purpose desktop not marketed as an access device. Curiously, the greatest use is probably for online gaming, to keep cheaters from hacking the binary or spinning their own.

Re:DRM and GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134728)

which is used in a secure decoder chip to play back encrypted content. In a nutshell.

Yes... "secure decoder chip"... which outputs unencrypted content... which is then fed to a graphics/sound card. Unless the software in the chain is "secure" (ie, trusted, signed with development controlled centrally) it doesn't work. You cannot implement DRM without locking down all the software in the chain -- the BIOS, the kernel, the media player, etc etc.

The whole thing involves massive software lockdown, secrecy and control.

Re:DRM and GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134749)

It's quite a stretch to extend this to a general-purpose desktop not marketed as an access device

It's not a stretch at all. Read the specs for Trusted Computing -- that is exactly what it is designed to do, and Microsoft has been quite explicit about its intent to use DRM for everything, including emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets, text files... apps... anything and everything.

Re:DRM and GNOME (1)

alphamugwump (918799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15136041)

Good thing I switched to mplayer.

Open Source DRM is like... (2, Insightful)

Dr. Zowie (109983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133021)

... a car with a Plexiglass hood that's glued shut. You can see, but you can't fix.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133220)

Not a bad analogy. You'll be able to modify the DReaM code all you want, but you won't be able to load the modified code on your "certified robust" set top box. So it's open source, but not as we know it.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133303)

I think you are a bit confused in thinking that "open source" means "free to do what you want with it". Open source simply means that anyone may look at the code, not necessarily that you have complete rights to do anything with it. The license associated with the project generally will control what rights you have to the product.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (4, Informative)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133415)

Open source simply means that anyone may look at the code, not necessarily that you have complete rights to do anything with it.
I have no idea whence you got that idea, but the people who coined the term "Open Source" seem to think otherwise. From The Open Source Definition [opensource.org] :
3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133719)

DReaM appears to be exploiting what you might call a loophole in the OSD. You're allowed to modify the source code, but you're not allowed to run the modified code in any useful way.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134082)

CoreCodec [corecodec.com] do this... They found a clause in the GPL (clause 7) that states that if you don't have the patents/licenses to redistribute you can't. Since they are the only company with licenses they can release under GPL but nobody else can - single generation opensource, courtesy of the GPL.

I'm surprised others haven't exploited this hole.. it means you can take any GPL code, add your own licensed and/or code, and deny others redistribution rights. Sure, you have to give them the source, but it's useless to them.

Re:Open Source DRM is like... (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135876)

> you have to give them the source, but it's useless to them.

Only in countries which recognize software patents and this is not the case for Europe..

WHHYHHYHY! (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133023)

Why are customers paying for the extra costs of DRM?

How many times do these people have to be told, DRM can't work, at least not the way they want.

(shudder) to quote Bruce Schneier, you can't make water unwet, you can't make bits uncopyable.

STOP STOP STOP.

The only crypto should be authentication, as in, I the user want to be protected from fraud.

That and I don't really see the worth. Not a lot of TV is worth seeing once let alone twice.

Tom

Unfortunately you can (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133073)

I've got a machine in my kitchen that can make water into a unwet state

Re:Unfortunately you can (1)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133157)

awwww, you mean steam and vapor aren't wet?

Re:Unfortunately you can (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133174)

I was actually thinking of ice

Re:WHHYHHYHY! (1, Informative)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133146)

(shudder) to quote Bruce Schneier, you can't make water unwet, you can't make bits uncopyable.

Sure you can't make bits uncopyable, BUT you can make it very difficult for people to copy the bits. This is all that DRM attempts to do. Microsoft actually came out with an interesting paper on this several years ago. They called it the dark networks I think. It referred to the perpetual group of people that will copy software/movies/mp3s/etc without permission. This group of people is less than 5% of the population. The goal of companies that produce content that they would like to control the rights to, is to keep this group as small as possible.

Re:WHHYHHYHY! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134183)

It referred to the perpetual group of people that will copy software/movies/mp3s/etc without permission. This group of people is less than 5% of the population. The goal of companies that produce content that they would like to control the rights to, is to keep this group as small as possible.

I think it is understandable to want to restrict non-paying people from getting the media. If a person doesn't think it is worth money, then it shouldn't be worth the bandwidth either, IMO. Because I understand there is a lot of creative (and arguably non creative) work simply being ripped off, I'm not the type to completely shun the restrictions, but some of these attempts clearly do go too far.

Anyway, while any copy protection is easily defeated by someone with the necessary skills, the entire point is to keep the wanton duplication ability out of the hands of as many people as possible because individuals copying their friend's discs is still the majority of where copyright infringement happens.

MPEG-4 content, MPEG-2 transport (3, Informative)

bunkport (968528) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133065)

It will only work for MPEG-2 transport, not MPEG-2 content. The content will be MPEG-4 since bandwidth's scarce.

Iowa Public televison in Korea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133087)

what the hell are they smoking?

i DReaM of DReaMMMI (1)

Devon Nulle (963395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133121)

back in that fairytale land where nobody watches content without explicit permission and possibly the miracle of micropayments, i suppose Businesses wouldn't care about DRM-- but it seems like everyone is so terribly territorial over everything they might possibly be able to claim the credit for (or the IP of), so in light of *THAT* i think that non-device-dependent DRM is comparatively a good thing. Although this one does sound like it wouldn't be even remotely close to trivial to break, constant stream of keys along with the content? SIGH.

Although... on a separate point, and purely hypothetically... the people who would care enough to get all in a huff over the concept of DRM to start with are probably not the ones with the free time to sit around and watch TV on the internet *cough*cough* because we all know that geeks are all too busy coding, right? *looks innocent*

LOL, Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133798)

I think you may be on to something there. :D

People who actually pay for DReaM'd content are not the kind of people who have the patience to circumvent it.

yoU fail 1t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133281)

Avoid te knee-jerk reaction... (2)

caudron (466327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133341)

I know there will be the inevitable "DRM is teh suX0rs" and "Sun is teh eVi1 for making it", but the Sun model is different enough to warrant a second look:

http://www.sun.com/2005-1025/feature/ [sun.com]

I'm NOT a fan of DRM---including Sun's---but as DRM goes, Sun's is less honerous than most. Read the details before commenting, as they may surprise you. They address some of the more common complaints about DRM. Again, I'm still against it, but there's somethig to be said about being against it for the right reasons.

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/technology.html [digitalelite.com]

Re:Avoid te knee-jerk reaction... (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133657)

The important questions are these:

(a) Does the DRM system prevent users from making fair use of protected content? (Shifting content in time, space, format)
(b) Does the DRM system enforce additional non-piracy-related restrictions on the end user at the behest of the content industry? (Region codes, preventing use of things like track skip/fast forward/other remote control buttons)
(c) Does the DRM system continually depend on an external authority which, if it were ever to become defunct, would effectively revoke the rights of the user to access the content? (And, can that external authority track the usage habits of the end user?)

While (c) here is an implementation detail that has implications concerning things the content industry would like to be able to do, (a) and (b) are make-or-break issues which apply to all DRM. That is, if (a) and (b) are true, then the DRM system is just as oppressive (perhaps even more so) than the DRM we're already afflicted with, regardless of the platforms that the DRM is available on or the open-source-ness of the scheme. But if (a) and (b) are false, then the content industry won't use them.

From the article you linked:

We believe in content owners' rights to control their creations as they see fit. And consumers have the right that if those systems are onerous, they just don't have to buy them. So the fair usage issue gets sorted out by the market. - Glenn Edens, Director, Sun Labs

This is a foolhardy assumption. The entire reason that the content industry plays the way they do is to ensure that there is no consumer choice when it comes to DRM. They use the legislature to enforce particular DRM schemes on the public. They collude in I-can't-see-how-this-is-legal associations to ensure that whatever DRM scheme is used is burdened with licensing terms to prevent electronics manufacturers from making playback devices that permit the full scope of fair use or that don't impose non-piracy restrictions on the end user, and those licensing restrictions are given teeth by the even-more-broken patent system. Even the biggest duel of the new millennium - Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD - laid to rest the question of DRM fairly early when both format consortia announced they were using AACS. And none of this is motivated solely (or even primarily) by piracy - the real goals here are to be able to track the end user, to manipulate the international content market, and to force the end user to watch advertising.

Re:Avoid te knee-jerk reaction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134844)

drm is a big scam and any content provider that demands you pay a 3rd party to spy on you is as bad as those that install the software maliciously.
but its legal for them at the moment to do that , and spy ware is not , but interersingly drm does the reverse as it puts you as beeing guilty as you are the one paying them to spy on you and that makes you guilty of beeing the one responcable for spying
so even if your a honest person and buy all your software and never pirate anything , with drm you are guilty of installing spyware , and paying for the service to give the results to the author of the content you legaly own , so drm is only a way to make you guilty of doing there dirtywork
so there making there honest users guilty by tricking them into installing malware on there pc's and charging them for using it

so they are not legaly responcable for installing the spyware they want to put there but can not legaly do so , so they make you guilty of doing it for them and pay for all the spyware inferstructure and running costs that is needed to do that

ok so you buy your pc
buy the o/s
and go out and buy a dvd movie
and have and that is HAVE to have a connection to the
internet yet more $
but now have to pay a monthly subscription to a 3rd party
so that the DRM can get access to the keys

now ok so the pc and os you need anyway to play the movie
but having to pay a monthly fee to listen or watch content you own as well as letting them know what your watching and when

total cost over 3 years
pc $400
o/s $125
dvd video $30
internet connection $3120
and now the right to view and use what you have while letting others have full access to what you are using it for $5382

thats dubbel the cost of the equipment and current internet costs combined

so is this 3rd party DRM key subscription a TAX on what you are watching
and if so where did they get the right to charge you from , ho yes you need to get the key so you can watch what you already own so what service am i paying for with that
the right to be robed by the people who want to stop someone copying there content
the right for them to publish my viewing habits
the right for anything they want except be able to watch what i want , when i want because how is it going to request the key if im using the laptop mobile and do not have an internet connection

well what is the point in buying the dvd in the first place
if i can not view whats on it because the extra $5386 over 3 years is going to be more than i can afford in the first place
so DRM will loose sales because people cannot afford to pay for the service to get the keys to watch what they own

so since sony / whoever is fed up with getting there videos ripped off by a small number of pirates there responce to make every one pay for it except the pirates , so if you never owned a pirate cd/dvd in your life theres no get out they see you as guilty and force you to pay up while putting restrictions on it will only serve to make you buy the pirate version of it that you can watch without restrictions or letting them know when and where you are watching it , the next thing you know the pirates will be going to the movies with a video camara and recording the move on tape at less cost in trying to break the drm

what next, what will they want in future 2 way video so they can watch that you are acctualy looking at the video and not talking to your partner or worse not there

anyway if it lets them know when im watching anything is that not theft of my personal information , tracking where i am and monitoring what im doing at any time , thats spying without concent and a privacy violation ,, but then again we are just the public and all pirates in there eyes

is it going to be a knock on the door as they want to know what you where doing for a period of time where you was not sat infront of the tv , well i was at the movies officer they don't have DRM there you pay to go in !!!! , ho no we don't beleve you you must of hacked the drm and must of been watching unautarized content, you have no right's your the general public you must pay to view , and we know you where viewing something you have not seen before

so will a tax on remembering what you have watched will be there next big thing !!!!!
"you are guitly if remembering a clip from one of our movies and we demand you pay us for the use of that memory even though you have allready payed us for it in the first place"

so what happens when DRM gets put in software , will you have to buy the software and pay for the rights to use it also
"so tell me microsoft why do i have to subscrbe to your drm agent in order to use your free messenger service"

so will free software mean you don't pay the company responcable for writing it to use it but have to pay another company so it will run each time i need to use it
(interview with microsoft)

i"so this software is free"
m"yes "
i" but i have to pay to use it "
m"yes "
i" so its not free"
m"no it is free"
i" but i have to pay to use it so how can it be free"
m"well we built in a feature that means you have to pay them to use it"
i"ha so you pay to use it "
m"no its a free service"
i"so why do i have to pay to use it "
m" so we know that its a genuine version of our free program"
i"but if its free why would there be a non genuine version"
m" we dont know but it may happen and we may loose money because of loss of sales"
i"loss of sales but you say its free so how can you say sales "
m"well it may get pirated with the drm removed "
i" but if that happended would you be able to do anything about it "
m" no because there would be no drm to tell us "
i"so it would be free then"
m"yes i guess it would , didnt know why we did not think of that but drm is important as it protects you from pirated and malicious software "
i" what malicous software "
m" software like spyware that lets others know what your doing"
i" like drm dose"
m" yes i suppose it does but thats ok because its us that get the info and not some crucks that will use it against you"
i" like you do by spying on your uses habits "
m" thats not spying thats marketing "
i"like saying software that you have to pay to use is totaly free"
m"it is free , we don't own the company that charges you to use it but get information from them about the use of our free application "
i" isn't that evading the point in making it free by forcing uses to pay to give you there usage information "
m"no but the drm company needs to make money to work "
i"so why is there drm in your free software "
m"we need usage information on how when and why you use it"
i"is that spying on users "
m"we dont think so as most of them canot be trusted not to use pirate copies of our free software "
i" but its labled as free, but theres a charge for using it so that is not free use of it "
m" it is free use but you pay the drm company so they can give us info on how you are using it"
i"ha i get it the user dose not pay for the free software or its use but has to pay for the drm to spy on personal usage information about there usage habits to be given to you "
m" yes i guess that is how it works"

so its not the content you are paying for the privelage to view
you are paying for the priverlage of providing the content author with your personal information about what you are doing

so YOU HAVE A CHOICE !!!!

eather use pirate software and run the risk of beeing sued
for pirate software ownership

or

install legal software with DRM and run the risk of being sued for installing malware /spyware on the system
and pay for the privelage of not being a pirate in monthly instalments for something you allready payed for

so your stuffed eather way

 

Mother may I take three giant steps backwards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133344)

Yes you may.

What a lawsuit-prone name! (2, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133407)

"DReaM-CAS"? Where did I hear that before... *ahem* [wikipedia.org]

How "open source" can DRM be? (1)

laursen (36210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133481)

Both Microsoft, Apple and others have their more or less closed source DRM implementations in place. Microsoft provides their WMRM SDK's to developers so anyone can roll their own DRM system based on MSDRM. Apple's DRM system is exclusive for Apple only (correct me if I am wrong).

All of the current implementations are closed source - if it was possible for anyone to write players that could play/strip the DRM from the files then the whole DRM idea would fail. That is why I have a lot of problems seeing how any DRM system could be open source...

Re:How "open source" can DRM be? (1)

nvrrobx (71970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133615)

You're missing one important part - how things are DRMed can be open source, but that doesn't mean you have the crypto keys to reverse it.

Re:How "open source" can DRM be? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133709)

In other words it's not really DRM.. it's phone home subscription.

that is not really DRM.. it's subscription authentication.

Re:How "open source" can DRM be? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133679)

yeah and do we all have a 'lot of problems' seeing how any good crypto system could be open source?
the interesting tidbid is, that the open sourced drm will be harder to break as it cannot rely on simple security by obscurity.

Re:How "open source" can DRM be? (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133840)

Cryptography is slightly different than DRM though - a crypto system is just going to prevent users from reading a file unless they have the key, but a DRM system usually has different rules depending upon the license - can the user burn the item to CD, can it be played on X device etc, all of which need to (currently) be implemented in software.

If the DRM software is all open source (ie it doesnt need to be linked against closed source libraries to compile which actually contains the DRM parts), how can it prevent me from disabling the license checks for burning the media to disk, then using that feature on a DRM-infected file that doesn't allow that for example? The best it seems to me it can do is prevent me from accessing the content altogether, which pretty much just looks to me like plain-old encryption, or will need to rely on closed hardware, or software which I can't compile myself (which requires digitally signing).

Re:How "open source" can DRM be? (1)

snaz555 (903274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134051)

If the DRM software is all open source (ie it doesnt need to be linked against closed source libraries to compile which actually contains the DRM parts), how can it prevent me from disabling the license checks for burning the media to disk,

The software never sees content in plaintext, that would be utterly pointless.

A conditional access system needs to do all the backend work: interact with the subscriber and device databases, handle purchase requests, produce billing and audit data, look for fraud, revoke keys, assist with customer service, produce a gazillion different business reports, and of course issue keys. It needs to be tamper proof and self contained with a minimum of external interfaces. This is the space Sun has made an announcement in. They already had a framework to deliver the content plus the necessary client side support. On the client device that is requesting keys, managing keys, picking the right key out of a key block, and stuffing keys into or providing them to the secure decoder as needed. The delivery part is download or streaming.

Acronym soup! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133519)

DCAS also has another meaning in this field: (downloadable conditional access system)

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6303853.html [cedmagazine.com]

No sir I dont like it. (4, Insightful)

Bruha (412869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133661)

I dont want my content phoning home every time I play it. If I want to watch debbie does dallas 100 times a day that's my business and not theirs.

Next thing you'll know if you watch CNN too much you'll get republican are great email and snail mail and if you watch Fox News the democrats will be trying to swing you back.

Or if you watch only shows showing violence you'll be flagged for special security at travel terminals.

This can be abused way too much. Corporations do not protect our security if there's a dime to be made off selling your information.

Re: Welcome To.. (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134459)

The "ownership society!"

It's very disheartening to see righteous indignation like this consistently modded up. No mention of action, ever. It's okay to complain. But for dog's sake don't ever do anything that would label you a nut case.

go here: www.eff.org and give them some money, or figure out a way to volunteer some time.

Re:No sir I dont like it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134964)

thank you for registering you subscription to the drm key look up service for boringtv
as the drm agreement you accepted by the subscription and the key request for watching the movie
we are pleased to inform you that we are providing your usage information to any one who wants it
we have ensured that all telesales companies will know that you are now at home and avalable to accept there calls
enjoy the evening movie on boringtv
and remember buy buy buy our comertial sponsors depend on it there telesales will be in touch with you during the movie
--------------

or the letter ..

dear sir
as the software installer for this company we are disturbed to find that confidential company information is being leeked onto the internet to our competitors or anyone who wants it
namely what applications we are using and when and how we are using them
it turns out that this is dew to the drm software subscription service that agreed to on behalf of the company is responcable for this , it provides that information to anyone , that is not only making confidential information avaliable on the internet but we are also paying for that information to be made avaliable by an unrelated 3rd party , the fact that the staffs working hours and a log of what they are doing at any time is available to the rest of the world is against company policy and personal privacy is the reason why we hereby terminate your employment and are starting legal procidings against you for using company money to make this information globaly avalable to anyone
and knowingly setting up the account and software for the purpose of discosing confidential informaton to others
we found out this was happening when we got our own usage statistics back form the company that is providing the drm service that you agreed to subscribe to
since we wrote the programs you installed it informs us the authors what the users of this service are doing with our software
yours
bill gates

 

DReaM-CAS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15133689)

DReaM-CAS.

Sounds like DreamCast... the video game console that became infamous because its advanced and revolutionary disc copy protection mechanism turned out to be easier to break than swiss cheese.

Hm.

Re:DReaM-CAS? (1)

IndigoParadox (953607) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133970)

It had a copy-protect mechanism?

CAS is not DRM (0)

konfoo (677366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15133981)

I find it interesting that every single reply in this thread is a knee-jerk reaction lamenting about the evils of DRM and content protection simply due to the fact that the product name of this system is misleading.

"The system uses AES encryption, requires a constantly open two way IP connection and it sends encrypted keys to the content along with the content, and these have to be decrypted by an existing public key. Entitlement messages are delivered out of band in a separate communication using the Mother May I protocols. More D-CAS applications will generate the entitlement messages, and a Java smart card will be used for authentication, which will store and manage viewers rights and viewing history."

This is clearly a pipe protection CAS mechanism and not a rights management and persistence mechanism (DRM).

Oh, and as for the 15 months to market... if that is the case, other open source CAS products have already beaten these guys to market *cough* http://www.logici.com/content/prod/lines/encry/ [logici.com] *cough*

DReaM and Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134146)

This certainly offers an improvement over current systems, such as Apple's you can only access your music with our hardware and/or our software.

However, as others have pointed out, you obviously need to lock down the player for this stuff to work. Not too sure how it is suppose to work on an open source system with Linux, as it obviously can't do something like trust a custom compiled kernel...

Really, by open source they are talking about the openness of the standards and the reference implementation, not the fact that it is going to fit well into a front-to-back open sourced platform (in software libre sense of the FSF -- one in which the users are free to play with everything).

To quote the relevant part of their documentation:

http://www.openmediacommons.org/collateral/DReaM-O verview.pdf [openmediacommons.org]

2.7 Consumption

The DRM player will consume the content based on the conditions specified by the license. The DRM player must be secure such that unauthorized use of content is prevented. Typically, the player environment will have secure storage and execution environments, where keys and decrypted content cannot be accessed by unauthorized clients.

DRM monikers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15134303)

Someone at SUN must have a sense of humor, Mother May I? That is just too good :D

"assumed denial" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15134878)

Thats a bogus concept, forcing one to have a connecton of some sort to even watch a damned movie, o listen to a song.

Will my car have to have wifi ( and a subscription to a mobile internet service ) just to lisetn to the traffic report at some point? What about trying to read a book in the park on a nice day, once they outlaw paper books since they 'cant be controlled and monitored'?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?