Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Music Apple

Father of MPEG Replies To Jobs On DRM 234

Posted by kdawson
from the way-forward dept.
marco_marcelli writes with a link to the founder and chairman of MPEG, Leonardo Chiariglione, replying to Steve Jobs on DRM and TPM. After laying the groundwork by distinguishing DRM from digital rights protection, Chiariglione suggests we look to GSM as a model of how a fully open and standardized DRM stack enabled rapid worldwide adoption. He gently reminds Jobs (and us) that there exists a reference implementation of such a DRM stack — Chillout — that would be suitable for use in the music business.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Father of MPEG Replies To Jobs On DRM

Comments Filter:
  • Completely Moot (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:05PM (#17963970)
    It has already been established that DRM is bad. It doesn't work and it hurts everybody.

    So frankly, who cares about this small part of Jobs' argument?

    His main point -- that there shouldn't be DRM -- is correct.
    • Re:Completely Moot (Score:4, Interesting)

      by truthsearch (249536) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:16PM (#17964064) Homepage Journal
      Another big influence in the market thinks differently. According to Microsoft [forbes.com]: "Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."

      So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen.
      • Re:Completely Moot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:38PM (#17964240) Homepage
        "Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."

        That's an interesting opinion to have. If party X is in charge of dictating the restrictions and policies in your product, isn't party X your real customer?
        • Re:Completely Moot (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalkerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:00PM (#17964386) Journal
          But the thing is, if Microsoft says, We are going to implement Y system which has XZ restrcition capabilities. The content owners only have XZ as options. But MS choose to have as many restriction capabilities as possible.
        • by msobkow (48369)

          I think the "moot" drops back to a quote from the article:

          Since its introduction 5 years ago some 90 million iPods and some 2 billion iTunes tracks have been sold. The numbers look impressive but simple math tells you that for each iPod sold only an average of just 22 tracks have been purchased.

          In other words, only 1-2 CDs worth of track per iPod are sold by iTunes. The rest of the music people are playing just use regular MP3's. I know I'd be ripping my 1200+ CDs before I'd be spending $1/track, which

        • by Blakey Rat (99501)
          TV networks creating compelling programming so that viewers will watch it. They all compete to give maximum ad value to advertisers (lowering the price of ads, increasing the viewers to the network, etc.) Which group (viewers or advertisers) is their "real" customers?

          Point is, lots of industries serve as middle-men between different customers. Apple isn't doing anything new or revolutionary.
      • by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:14PM (#17964476) Journal
        What should we believe? Microsoft's claims -- that they favor and aim to provide an open platform --, or our lieing eyes, which are currently witnessing a thing called "Zune" which is the exact opposite of open.
      • "Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."

        "Our view is it's our job to provide the weapons and the warlords can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that." Where's the difference?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by JazzLad (935151)
          Well, shoot, when you put it like that MS/other DRM creators seem in the right ...
          • by tepples (727027)

            Well, shoot, when you put it like that MS/other DRM creators seem in the right ...

            Two issues here. First, Microsoft is using its monopolistic weight to require that all input and output hardware drivers allowed to load on Windows Vista are compliant with its weapon technology. The certification process can be cost prohibitive for hardware developed and sold by small businesses or non-profit organizations. Second, the ten members of the MAFIAA (Bertelsmann, WMG, Vivendi, EMI, Sony, Time Warner, Disney, NBC Universal, Fox, and Paramount) are using their oligopolistic weight to keep the pu

      • Re:Completely Moot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by node 3 (115640) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @04:22PM (#17964996)

        So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen.
        When I buy a song from iTunes, I know *exactly* the rights and restrictions applied. Everything in my iTunes library has exactly one of two restrictions: the FairPlay DRM set and none.

        With Windows Media Player, I have no fracking clue. Will this track self-destruct in 3 plays? Will this track play indefinitely? Can that track only be used while my subscription is active? Can this one be burnt to a CD?

        MS's approach to DRM is the same as their approach to Windows PC technology and is the exact reason their ecosystem, while vast in scope, is also vastly inferior. It's precisely this issue that has led MS to go with the more vertical approach with the Xbox and Zune. It's interesting to note that these two markets where MS is the underdog, where they must woo the consumer with a superior experience if they are to have any hope of success, they take the more controlled, limited approach (the type of approach, in fact, that they deride Apple for taking with their PC hardware and their iPod).
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by davester666 (731373)

          When I buy a song from iTunes, I know *exactly* the rights and restrictions applied. Everything in my iTunes library has exactly one of two restrictions: the FairPlay DRM set and none.

          Actually, this isn't completely true. A year or two ago (possibly more) Apple changed the number of computers you could authorize at one time and the number of burns you could make of a given group of songs. Since they can't legally [IANAL] change the rights of music you have already purchased, you may have Fairplay music

          • Actually, this isn't completely true. A year or two ago (possibly more) Apple changed the number of computers you could authorize at one time and the number of burns you could make of a given group of songs. Since they can't legally [IANAL] change the rights of music you have already purchased, you may have Fairplay music with two different sets of 'rights'.

            i don't think you're right on that. i have some itunes store music that was bought before the change to the drm terms of service that gave you 5 activ

      • by Fred_A (10934)

        Another big influence in the market thinks differently. According to Microsoft: "Our view is it's our job to provide the technology and the content providers can tell us what kind of restrictions and policies they want to apply to that."

        Which is exactly what has structured the market so far. In Europe at least, when you look at downloadable content available for sale (or rental) movies or TV series, they are always wrapped in MS DRM. The services even typically have a little note up saying that they apol

    • by zappepcs (820751)
      As long as you have the complete understanding, could you please go explain this to Mr. Gates and that man with the chair?
    • Re:Completely Moot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:20PM (#17964108) Homepage
      He's right that redefinitions of digital "rights" "management" to suit the speaker is pernicious, but in my opinion it's because the people trying to implement the stuff are almost always being deceptive.

      If "management" *could mean (as TFA suggests) just attaching stuff to your work that indicates what you think your rights are, I'm all for it I guess. Attach it, be honest, and I'll avoid most of your crap like the plague.

      But what many technologies do is actually digital rights *enforcement (i.e. of what your rights are) on people who might not share that opinion; in a great many instances, the federal government agrees with the *recipient about what is allowable.
    • by martin (1336)
      I agree, until the DRM algorithms get implanted in the brain there's always a way around it - microphones!

      Waste of time and effect.

      In fact the current situatuio is worse than no DRM, as the music co.s think they some "security" when they in fact don't.

    • It has already been established that DRM is bad. It doesn't work and it hurts everybody.
      Not true! It doesn't hurt the snake-oil-salesmen who peddle the DRM technologies! They're getting rich off of selling a product they can't possibly believe will work for more than a few hours. I don't get how anyone falls for it anymore, but I guess Barnum was basically right, even if he had the frequency a little low.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kripkenstein (913150)
      It has already been established that DRM is bad. It doesn't work and it hurts everybody.

      Also, Chillout isn't the only open-source DRM project, Sun has (had?) their DReaM [wikipedia.org] initiative. But none of these attempts seem to be gaining any traction. The only widespread DRM scheme is Apple's, and Jobs himself says they would rather not be using it at all. The media companies should listen to him and finish the entire embarrassing affair.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kosmosik (654958)
      > It has already been established that DRM is bad.

      It is somekind misleading for me. DRM itself is not bad per se - it is only a product, a technology. Same as with knifes - knifes are not bad. It is bad to kill somebody with knife but not bad to prepare delicious meal using knife.

      So using DRM to take their rights from users is bad. Not DRM per se. DRM as a way to control information is neutral. It would me nice to have The Good DRM in your use. F.e. in organisations that proces confidential data - to con
    • It has already been established that Comic Sans is bad. It makes it hard to read and hurts everybody.
      So frankly, who cares about this small part of Leonardo Chiariglione's argument?
      My main point -- that there shouldn't be comic sans on the internet -- is correct.
    • Established by who, a bunch of filthy dweebs on some Internet news/discussion forum? I know you freaks engage in a lot of groupthink, but it has certainly not been established that "DRM is bad".

      DRM is a tool, and it has positive (for the producers and indirectly for consumers) and negative (for same) aspects. The key is to get it done right, or not at all.

  • by LM741N (258038) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:18PM (#17964086)
    Despite disliking DRM, GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc. Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked- unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.

    Yet it is the most widely used wireless personal communication standard in the world. Woe are the hackers and crackers who try to attact it directly. But like any encrypted system, the weak points usually lie elsewhere. Those would be the point of attack.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sidz1979 (993099)
      Despite disliking DRM, GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc. Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked- unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.

      However, it is important realize that there isn't as much motivation to crack/hack a communications protocol as there is to
    • by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:31PM (#17964188)

      GSM is very secure, but is a communications protocol, not a DRM protocol. GSM allows Andrew and Betty to talk, without Charlie hearing. As has been stated often before, in DRM, Betty and Charlie are the same person.

      • It's hard to tell, but he seems to be talking about the DRM that is built into many cell phones (to stop people sharing ringtones, downloaded video clips, etc.) rather than the GSM encryption protocol itself.

        This only works because most cell phones are limited-capability devices tied to a particular service provider. Similar schemes can be used with set-top boxes, but not with PCs unless the PC's functionality is also drastically limited so that it becomes more like a phone than a computer. (The iPod is sim
    • by Mr. Shiny And New (525071) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:21PM (#17964530) Homepage Journal
      Looks like the implementations of GSM encryption are known to be weak:

      http://www.gsm-security.net/faq/gsm-a3-a8-comp128- broken-security.shtml [gsm-security.net]
    • by iamacat (583406) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:28PM (#17964582)
      I don't know if you would call 40 bit encryption [hackcanada.com] a lockdown, especially since it doesn't protect your conversation from the phone company, even if you are calling the other person with a GSM phone. Furthermore, they weaken or turn off encryption in most countries. Sounds like a typical effect of a DRM scheme on users all right.
    • by Rich0 (548339)
      Well, I'm sure GSM has a bunch of optimizations to be more suitable for voice communication over wireless, but it isn't like there aren't really strong encrypted communications protocols out there (such as openssl). As others have pointed out only the wireless portion of the conversation is encrypted at all.
    • by vadim_t (324782) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:42PM (#17964700) Homepage
      There are briefcase-sized portable systems that allow easy eavesdropping on GSM communications. IIRC, the encryption is weak, and the tower can be actually told to turn it off anyway.
    • by arminw (717974)
      ....and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc.....

      There is a major difference in protecting an on-going communication system and a write locked, read-only system, such as recorded entertainment material. In a communication system each recipient gets a unique temporary key for that one time. For recordings the key has to be tied to the recording or the device or some combination. Once that is done and the secret of the key is out, the key can be used on all recordings using that key.
    • Perhaps I am in error, but I doubt the standard itself has ever been cracked

      Early versions of some encryption "algorithms" were "cracked" and soon replaced by updated versions. BTW, those encryption algorithms are proprietary and not officially part of the specification: only the encryption protocols are. The new algorithms used for 3G are based on standard algorithms (AES, SHA-1) and were designed through an open process.

      unless via law enforcement with the complicity of the companies involved.

      "Lawful Int

    • GSM is insecure (Score:4, Informative)

      by this great guy (922511) on Sunday February 11, 2007 @12:08AM (#17968872)

      GSM is the most sophisticated communications protocol that I have ever seen. I have read the standard (dispite getting a headache in 5 minutes) and it is totally locked down using encryption, session keys, etc.

      I am shocked to see this statement so highly moderated ! You are obviously not qualified to comment on the GSM standard. GSM is riddled with flaws and makes use of particularly weak ciphers that are known to be so poorly designed that communications can be decrypted in a few seconds with a stantard PC. [technion.ac.il]

  • DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is, which is his main point. He's also saying also that a standard unencrypted mp3 can have DRM merely by being bound by a license agreement; it's once you start employing a digital means to enforce those terms that DRM begins to become intrusive. Chiariglione goes on to talk about open DRM standards and how the music industry should adopt one to promote interoperability. The problem there is that not everyone will adopt the standards,
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is, which is his main point. He's also saying also that a standard unencrypted mp3 can have DRM merely by being bound by a license agreement; it's once you start employing a digital means to enforce those terms that DRM begins to become intrusive.

      Mr. Chiariglione differentiates between DRM (management), which would be that unencrypted MP3 with license notice attached, and DRM (protection) which enforces.

      Chiariglione goes on to talk ab

      • Will I still have my fair use rights? Will I be able to take a 3 second fair-use sample and attach it to my research paper multimedia presentation on vulgarity in contemporary culture?

        Under United States copyright law as interpreted in the DeCSS cases such as Universal v. Reimerdes, fair use doesn't have to be convenient or full quality in order to be constitutionally sufficient. Line-out is still available.

        • by Fred_A (10934)

          Under United States copyright law as interpreted in the DeCSS cases such as Universal v. Reimerdes, fair use doesn't have to be convenient or full quality in order to be constitutionally sufficient. Line-out is still available.

          From what I gathered analog line out is disabled in Vista when you play protected content. Of course you can always record the sound coming out from the speakers or film the screen.

          Until recorders recognise the embedded signatures in content of course...

          In other words, a lot of pe

          • From what I gathered analog line out is disabled in Vista when you play protected content.

            It's the fcuking headphone jack. Cleartext digital audio outputs have been turned off for some restrictions-managed content since Windows Millennium Edition, and high-definition video outputs may be degraded to enhanced definition if they are not digital and encrypted, but this has never affected analog audio outputs to my knowledge. Please cite your sources.

            Until recorders recognise the embedded signatures in content of course...

            But then you really get into constitutional issues. The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stated that without the possibility

    • by div_2n (525075)
      DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is

      The very intention and implementation of DRM is unfair. DRM is a fancy way of saying "We're going to do our best to force you to abide by copyright laws even while potentially interfering on your rights because we care more about our rights and/or think our rights are more important."

      You cannot conceivably enforce DRM without infringing on the rights of consumers. Period. This is because the process of copyright infringement--copying
  • by rs232 (849320) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:29PM (#17964164)
    "he uses the term DRM without defining it"

    If I was on Usenet I would assume the OP was doing the meaning of the word shuffle. Pretending to misunderstand what the other fella meant and addressing a made up meaning instead.

    "while it makes sense to claim, based on empirical evidence, that protected music does not sell, it remains to be demonstrated that managed music does not"

    What's the difference between 'managed' and 'protected' in relation to Jobs meaning of DRM and your version of DRM.

    'That would be like saying that the Creative Commons movement is a hollow shell'

    False analogy and strawman .. :)

    "Curiously Steve Jobs restricts his analysis to just one option: how can Apple safely license its DRM technology to other manufacturers and be able to keep its obligations vis-à vis the record companies"

    Well he can only speak for Apple after all.
    • The problem is that the Jobs missive simply looks to be a pass-the-buck scenario. Jobs doesn't want to share Fairplay, based on the claim that it's too hard and makes it too insecure.

      Jobs also seems to ignore the possibility of an industry standard system as well.

      Being unwilling to compromise and blaming others for the problem when a reasonable solution exists is not what I call the mark of a reasonable person. Maybe there are

      The letter also ignores the fact that much of the issue the Norwegian consumer g
  • They are scared. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:36PM (#17964224)
    The content industry wants one universal DRM. Everyone thought that would be MS and they were happy. When Apple won the battle, they were not happy. What you are seeing by calls for Apple to license their DRM is this frustration made public and an attempt to allow MS to embrace, extend and extinguish Fairplay. Jobs called their bluff and they realize they just may well be fucked on this. Interesting times.
    • by dch24 (904899)
      I for one welcome our new DRM-removing overlords, reality distortion field and all.

      No, seriously. This can only be good news, regardless of Jobs' motives. Thank you for a great post.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mehgul (654410)
      Yes exactly!
      And frankly, as a Mac user, Steve Jobs has done a much better job for me than any consumer rights group: he has allowed for Mac users to be able to buy music online, something they could not do if there wasn't an iTunes Store. Because almost everything else is under a Microsoft format unreadable on a Mac.
      And I say this as someone who never bought anything on the iTunes Store. But at least I have the option. Something Norwegian Mac users won't have in a few months when Apple is forced to close
  • by JAFSlashdotter (791771) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:42PM (#17964272)
    Mr. Chiariglione suggests GSM as a model of an open standard that everyone has been using for years to perform sophisticated DRM. I don't know much about GSM, but when I enter into a service agreement with a communications provider, I am doing so for live communications. Perhaps the market is morphing to providing content on mobile phones, but the success of GSM was not built on that model. I pay my mobile phone service provider monthly for access to their network, and if my phone was to stop working because my provider locked me out of their network, I would stop paying them. The agreement would be at an end, and there wouldn't be any content locked in the DRM that I want. I'm not paying them for the right to use their network in perpetuity. On the other hand, I purchase CDs and DVDs so that I may enjoy the content FOREVER. I do not pay them monthly to keep listening to the music or watching the movies, and I am not willing to enter into that sort of agreement. DRM on my music or video content is locking ME away from the content I have legally licensed, especially if the vendors disappear. So while the DRM in GSM might be acceptable, it is not acceptable on the content I purchase.
  • by jhealy (91456) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:46PM (#17964306)
    People... PLEASE unabbreviate your abbreviations at first mention in an article. To those that don't know what TPM or GSM are (isn't GSM for cell phones?), this article appears completely ridiculous. I thought it was a joke at first.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hogfat (944873)
      At least I wasn't the only one who felt the GSM reference seemed completely unsupported. While I know what GSM is, I have no personal familiarity with the GSM stack or how it has anything to do with restrictions on the use of digital content in computers. Why can't the author explain those things? Simple journalism: who, what, where, why, how.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by PhxBlue (562201)

        Why can't the author explain those things? Simple journalism: who, what, where, why, how.

        You seem to be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The reason the author brings up GSM is because it has some similarities with iPod DRM: Devices have a key, the key authenticates the device to the network, and there is encryption support for content. However, there are lots of major differences:

        1. with GSM, your "key" is in your SIM, which means you can take it with you from device to device.
        2. Wtih GSM, you only need the key to access a particular network. To switch networks, you throw away the old key and buy a new key. Now that the US (and soon Can
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Emetophobe (878584)
      You forgot to mention MPEG, which is also an abbrivation, but apparently you don't mind that one.
  • by arose (644256) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @02:50PM (#17964330)
    The author simply uses "digital content protection" where we would use DRM, and DRM as an all encompasing term for encryption, digital signatures, computer readable copyright licenses and probably a bunch of other things he didn't directly meantion. From this he concludes that DRM is both widely used and accepted. Now whether he is trying to convince poeple that the fight is allready lost and we should work on interoperable lockdowns or is just confused himself I don't know.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Grail (18233)

      The TFA uses the classic technique of misdirection - changing the topic of the argument and using the differences between the redefined topic and the original topic to attack the original argument.

      DRM means Digital Rights Management, and the term applies specifically to software intended to restrict the use of a particular document (be it a sound file, movie, or PDF). What TFA is talking about is copyright notification, which is already supported through ID3 tags. The author of TFA needs to read up on def

  • OMA DRM (Score:5, Informative)

    by kevinbr (689680) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:01PM (#17964390)
    Is a bag of shit. Most phones only implement OMA DRM 1.0 - forward lock. OMA DRM 2 - I doubt it will catch on. How many phones have implemented it and how many content providers are using it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:11PM (#17964458)
    If music were priced at its real cost plus the same small profit that all other manufacturing enjoys, it would cost $1.00 an album. After all, production costs have already been recouped for 99.9% of popular music, hundreds of times over for anything in the top 40.

    And with such low pricing, people wouldn't even think twice about buying every new album that comes out in their genre. Youngsters have no money anyway, so asking them to cough up inflated prices is just completely ridiculous, and counterproductive since kids create much of the music buzz. They'll eventually purchase all the CDs that they really appreciate once they've grown up anyway --- just have patience!

    You wouldn't need DRM not only because very low cost would make non-market acquisition pointless, but also because everybody would have all the music they want --- there would be nothing left to copy, in one's area of interest!

    [The argument that pricing music logically would make new music cost hundreds of dollars per album is bollocks: like in all industries, development of a new product should be funded from past profits, and amortized across projected future sales. Music should be no exception, and the fact that currently the income from sales of age-old music is pure untouched profit and not reinvested to fund new production just shows the extent to which greed has distorted the music industry.]

    DRM is only an issue today because of the artificial scarcity created by artifically high pricing --- greed.
    • by soliptic (665417)
      If music were priced at its real cost plus the same small profit that all other manufacturing enjoys, it would cost $1.00 an album. After all, production costs have already been recouped for 99.9% of popular music, hundreds of times over for anything in the top 40.

      LMAO. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't work or operate in the music industry at any level from the top 40 / big 4 end to the grassroots scene.
  • is even more egotistical than Steve Jobs.

    He pretty much restates the overall theme of Jobs' point, in a manner that sounds condescending because we "stupid" people don't understand that DRM can apply to multiple facets of information and technology.

    What a prick.
  • I'm sure I could read up on the difference between protection vs. management.
    It doesn't seem like one could be much different than the other.

    There are two types of people. The RIAA see's customers and priates. The truth is there are customers and meme-speaders. Most people at times perform both roles. While it's great if people want to buy your stuff, the 2nd best choice is to have your stuff be made popular by the meme-spreaders.

    If I want something from a store (brick, "e," or otherwise); I have to pay..

    Pe
  • by eebra82 (907996) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @03:49PM (#17964746) Homepage
    Did anyone read the open letter to Steve Jobs over at the Inquirer?

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 522 [theinquirer.net]
    • Good link.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Many of us bought their first iPod long before iTMS came out let alone available the the country we live in. Canada did not get iTMS until December of 2004. I had bought a 2nd generation iPod in 2002. How did I manage to get music? I bought CD's and tried out eMusic for a bit.

      I see that TPM has been mentioned. While my MBP has a TPM module, there are no drivers for it and the updated MBPs do not come with TPM.

      Consider this, DRM costs Apple money to implement and update whenever someone cracks it. They a

  • The problem we face is many existing players have DRM or have no framework to allow for new open DRM to be added.

    Of course, manufacturers can write new firmware, but I'm sure that would only be done for current models.

    The only way forward is to have no DRM to allow for 100% compatibility.
  • Interesting Times (Score:3, Informative)

    by dr.badass (25287) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @04:11PM (#17964880) Homepage
    It's a little bit strange that when the head of a company with the most successful DRM platform says "No DRM is better than interoperable DRM", people seem to be getting more supportive of interoperable DRM.

    It's also a little bit strange that "the father of MPEG" is how Leonardo Chiariglione is described, rather than the more relevant "father of SDMI".
  • DRM costs Apple money to implement and update whenever it is cracked. Apple has make their best effort to update the DRM scheme because it is part of their contract with the labels. Apple would save money if they did not have to use DRM and they would not have to update iTunes so often. It is often forgotten that many iPods were purchased long before iTMS was available in a particular market. Many also forget that many people own iPod but purchase little or no music from iTMS.

    MSFT earns revenue from DRM t

    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      The WMA DRM has the added benefit of a platform lock in for the windows OS.
      Not only that, but Microsoft could (and will, IMHO) use it as a forced upgrade method.

  • You would think after 30 years of companies trying to protect their products--be it software, music, movies--via digital encryption of one sort or another, they would realize they're just wasting money. Blu-ray and HD-DVD were "uncrackable", until they were released to the public. How much did Sony and Toshiba waste on developing those encryption technologies? 10 million USD? 50 million USD?

    A universal DRM that everyone uses? Yeah, right. Companies won't go for it, it'll cost too much, and it'll be br
  • worldwide or not ?

    we do not care about different drm abilities or possibilities or easy adoption or whatever - we just DONT WANT DRM.
  • Chillout seems to be meters and meters (in screen space) of specifications how one might represent various things that one might want to represent. That part of Chillout is complete overkill for what Apple wants.

    What it doesn't do is specify (except for a reference to "users using smartcards") how to handle the problematic parts: How do I make sure that someone who isn't a legitimate user cannot pretend to be an existing legitimate user. How can I make sure that nobody can fake a permission to play music. H
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @06:46PM (#17966508) Homepage
    L. Chiariglione got my back up immediately when he defined DRM as "a means to manage rights with digital technologies." Well, no.

    The most obnoxious thing about so-called DRM is that it allows content owners to manage any arbitrary restrictions. There is absolutely nothing about DRM to ensure that those restrictions are, in any way, aligned with rights the manager actually holds, and in practice DRM users invariably overreach.

    A famous example was Adobe releasing an eBook version of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," which is well and truly in the public domain, with restrictions prohibiting its use with text-to-speech converters... and compounding the error by presenting this with unfortunate wording, which said, not that they were preventing the electronic conversion to speech, but that the user could not "read it aloud."

    Adobe has insisted that it was all a mistake, as it may well have been, but nevertheless DRM allowed them to exercise "rights" they did not possess.

    Now, since nothing about intellectual property is obvious, and most likely not even a lawyer knows what the law is until there is a court case, there probably is no way at all to implement a technology that actually manages "rights." In practice, DRM manages whatever the content vendor believes or wishes its rights were, not what those right may actually be.

    In practice, content rights owners opinions of the extent of their own rights are, at the very least, expansive and optimistic. The RIAA believes, for example, that when I copied my collection of vinyl LP's to CD-Rs, and the moment when I threw away the LPs I lost my right to listen to those CR-R's. Without DRM, such beliefs are no more than a curiosity. With DRM, the content owner becomes judge and jury, and the DRM techology becomes the executioner.
  • by argent (18001) <peter.slashdot@2006@taronga@com> on Saturday February 10, 2007 @07:04PM (#17966694) Homepage Journal
    Look, I used to refer to myself as a "hacker". By that, I meant that I was really good at programming. That's what most people who used the word meant. Then people started talking about guys who broke into computers as "hackers" and pretty soon I had to give up using the word the way I was used to.

    What Steve was talking about was content protection technologies - restricting the ability of the user through technical means. That's what people mean when they say DRM. Anything you have to say about Steve's letter that doesn't have
    to do with that face of DRM is, well, it's got nothing to do with Steve's letter.

    Yep, a DRM system that didn't restrict a user's abilities wouldn't get any pushback, Steve wouldn't be writing about it like this, it'd be great, but it also wouldn't exist. The only reason to statically encrypt a published document, song, or movie is to restrict the abilities of the person who buys it. Without region coding, there would be no CSS. Without the restrictions in iTunes music, there would be no Fairplay.

    GSM is a red herring. GSM is a communications mechanism. It's not using a broadcast model, the call is point-to-point. Using encryption for authentication and privacy has nothing to do with anything the music industry wants out of DRM. Take out the restrictons on the end user, and there's no point to it.
  • We must hurry... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IBitOBear (410965) on Saturday February 10, 2007 @08:02PM (#17967128) Homepage Journal
    "We must hurry to create the prison cell we think is comfortable for fear that someone else will create a prison cell we don't."

    This is a false dichotomy, as in both cases we end up prisoners.

    Instead of "rushing" to create or accept a single form of Illegal Prior Restraint (often misspelled "DRM") we need to rush to prevent any such Illegal Prior Restraint.

    A side effect of this Prior Restraint is that, when combined with the DMCA (in the U.S. and its puppet regimes), is that even as we speak "technologists" can create untested, arbitrary technologies which, at them moment of their initiation have the force of law. That is, if you read the law it basically says "anything created within [these bounds] immediately functions to create a new body of criminal estate, and in so doing may immediately and retroactively reclassify existing technologies and inventions as illegal."

    Consider, I produce a tool that does stenographic analysis on images; this tool specifically analyzes an arbitrary image to identify the best ways that the picture _can_ _be_ used to store hidden information. (That is, it identifies the best places and means to encode information. e.g. it tells you that you _could_ fit 2kbits in the sky-part, while you could put 8kbits in the ocean part of a given image before the image is degraded enough to start showing visible signs of manipulation.) This application is completely legal. Then some guy produces an "effective content protection mechanism" that uses the "album cover" image as a Illegal Public Restraint key vector. When he does that, my existing program is "automagically" reclassified as a criminal-grade circumvention tool. It's legal magic!

    So, again, here we are being encouraged in a race to the bottom, fueled by technologists who think that just because a thing can be done (half-assed-ly at best) it really ought to be done.

    Just say NO to Illegal Prior Restraint and any technology that is being sold to you as a "kinder, gentler" IPR.

    Whenever someone proposes something outlandish they are just hoping you will fight them back to "a reasonable compromise", which will seem "not so bad" but which if you mentally went back to before the whole debacle you would see for what it was. A Really Bad Idea.

    Enough Already. The continuous questions of the "what if we make it shaped like a bird? What if we make it taste like pancakes?" form are just telling them how to focus their marketing while lulling you into a sense that there _simply_ _must_ be a configuration that you could live with. It's emotional manipulation. You begin to feel unreasonable because you don't want IPR "even if" thy go to the trouble to make it strawberry shortcake IPR with medical care attached lovingly by your grandmother.

    You don't want it. You really don't. No matter how palatable they try to make it.

    How bout this? I'll cut off your leg and use it to beat your children to death. But I'll give you ice cream... how about that?

    IPR is just as self defeating.

    The ONLY REASONABLE ANSWER is NO Illegal Prior Restraint.
     
  • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Sunday February 11, 2007 @04:18PM (#17975012) Homepage

    Here's a summary of his argument:

    "DRM IS NOT BAD ... if you redefine "DRM" to include stuff like Creative Commons licensing and xpdf's implementation of the PDF permissions system."

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Working...