IEEE Working Group Considers Kinder, Gentler DRM 236
slave5tom writes "An IEEE working group is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Its scheme will allow unlimited copying of encrypted content, which will require a playkey to activate. Trying to add a cost by making the playkey 'rivalrous' (what you take I lose) and rescuing the big content players from the brink of oblivion does seem futile, but it is entertaining to watch them fight the inevitable."
Re:lame (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it is more accurate to say at some point the game has to execute code locally on the user's computer. Where the user has full control of what runs and what doesn't run. Where the user can use a disassembler to reverse engineer the game and disable the DRM.
On a console it's harder because of the locked-down nature but the hardware running the code is owned by the user and they can get access to the system one way or another and decompile the code.
Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is DOA. The real "genie" has been out.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PS3 hasn't been cracked yet (Score:2, Interesting)
They have succeeded in making a very difficult to crack system or a system where the potential benefit is outweighed by the potential loss if you want to go the "it's expensive if it breaks" route. Either way, they pulled it off pretty well.
The Intractable Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure this has been articulated better by others but it's on my mind so here goes...
How do you get money from people who wouldn't spend it regardless of DRM. That's the core problem right?
Are these not the people that DRM schemes seek to deter? Are the people who buy things with restrictions feeling pressure to circumvent these countermeasures to fully enjoy the things they buy (LAN play with no internet type games, resale purchases, etc).
If this is so, then the only thing DRM has been successful at so far is creating an environment that encourages more non-customers.
Re:lame (Score:5, Interesting)
Console?
No, think iPad. Do you think a disassembler or virtualisation software will be allowed to enter the App Store? Me neither.
We are already starting to lose the hardware battle to Apple. Apple owns the hardware, not you. RIAA and MPAA owns the content, not you. Then they can make deals without bothering with pesky details such as customers.
The biggest threat to information freedom today is Apple and the iOS.
they really don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to buy some 50 albums a year. I haven't done that in a number of years. And it is not because I am stealing the albums now. The new music sucks. There is nothing I want from them. At any price. I will admit to buying used albums, but that is for 'missing' items from my collection.
Re:Sounds kinda like a shit sandwich (Score:3, Interesting)
Tamper protected might mean that it simply stops working if altered. That should be enough to keep 5 9s (99.9995) of the would be hackers at bay, and would probably be good enough.
If you buy something and it gets encoded to some key you own, you still want the ability to use that key on more than one device. (computer, smartphone, ereader, TV, etc), or authorize that media on every device you own.
That is where the problem comes in. Offering device flexibility without giving the game/ebook/song to every resident in the dorm.
Even assuming you could indeed create an un-duplicable play key, people want to read/watch/play on all of their deivces.
Do you put one playkey on multiple devices, on separate playkeys on each device?
The fundamental problem is that the means of duplication is in the hands of the masses. And playkeys will be JUST as quickly duplicated as the media is today.
Baring some form of quantum entanglement you can't make a key that someone else can't duplicate.
Re:lame (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is Apple actively tries to prevent that sort of freedom. They keep releasing firmware updates that block various jailbreak methods and won't just leave some simple method to accomplish that sort of thing.