Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Real DRM 290

Posted by michael from the one-drm-to-bind-you dept.
Cinematique writes "C|Net is reporting that RealNetworks has released a format-independent Digital Rights Management software called Helix DRM. Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper. And this is groundbreaking how? More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real DRM More

Real DRM

Comments Filter:

  • Obnoxious (Score:4, Troll)

    by Ponty ( 15710 ) <awc2 AT buyclamsonline DOT com> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:36AM (#5046921) Homepage
    Real has been moving toward this sort of thing for a long time. I don't know why anone sticks with them: their player is crap, they're just an obnoxious company, and they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

    • Re:Obnoxious (Score:5, Insightful)

      by march ( 215947 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:43AM (#5046983) Homepage
      Actually, I don't know why the parent got modded down.

      The poster is actually correct. Real has been ticking off everyone I know for quite some time now (go ahead - try and find the free player on their site - it's hard!). The player rarely works, and when it does, it stutters. Firewalls? Forget about it...

      For one of the premire streaming media tools of the past (and the only one for linux back then), they have really gone down hill.

      As much as I would love to support them, it is becoming harder and harder. For them to put DRM restrictions on their player, well, that kind of put them over the edge for me...

      • Re:Obnoxious (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ponty ( 15710 ) <awc2 AT buyclamsonline DOT com> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:57AM (#5047085) Homepage
        I think the most annoying thing they do is make the link to the free player a tiny, light grey string at the top of the page with the ad for the $40 (or whatever) player takes up the rest of the page. I've had to explain to two very smart people that there _is_, in fact, a free Real player.

        And I say that as someone who used their software back in '98, '99 to run a very popular, linux-based streaming audio app. It was great then, and I still appreciate what they made available for free. I understand that they need to make money, but it's possible to make money without being awful about it.
      • I agree, Real obviously works hard to make their player as intrusive and pushy as possible. RealOne periodically reminds you if you have made associations to a different media player, asks you if you want to switch them to RealOne and makes it very difficult to say no. If it weren't for Major League Baseball games I wouldn't have it on my computer. Windows Media Player is far more pleasant to use.

        • Re:Obnoxious (Score:5, Informative)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:03AM (#5047133)
          I've had no such problems with RealOne and I've had it installed for probably 6+ months, of course the first thing I did was go in and turn off all annoying features like that and disabled startcenter, or whatever they called it in this release. RealPlayer has always been somewhat annoying by default, but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).
          • ...doesn't mean it isn't obnoxious to nearly everyone else. I like how you said you have had no such problems, and then went on to describe the hassle of reconfiguring Real's default install. I don't care how patient you are (or how much of an apologist you are), there is NO DOUBT that Real employs tactics that treat their users like idiots. The fact that you are willing (and happy) to be treated in that manner is something you really have to wonder about.

          • Re:Obnoxious (Score:5, Funny)

            by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@gmai l . c om> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @02:04PM (#5048535) Homepage Journal
            >but if you take the time to go into the config menus you can turn almost all of it off (otherwise I would have uninstalled it).

            So, you went through these steps then?

            - Tell it you don't want to register
            - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
            - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
            - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
            - Stop the automatic stuff from playing
            - Tell it not to play the automatic stuff again
            - Tell it you don't want start center enabled
            - Tell it you really wanted to do the above
            - Tell it you don't want the "latest" version
            - Tell it you don't want to register
            - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
            - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
            - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real
            - Tell it you don't want to register
            - Tell it you don't want it to eat your screen up with ads and such
            - Tell it you don't want to it take over your file associations
            - Tell it you don't want it to send your personal data to real

            Yup, that's right, you have to redo a lot of the steps if you want to keep your realplayer private.

            Anyways, I'm sorry, but I get paid too much per hour to go through that trouble again. And on one job I'm only a dollar an hour away from minimum wage! They can keep their trash.
      • I'm most annoyed by RealOne Player automatically registering the MIME type of a file I opened with it to itself, even after setting the option not to "periodically check for file associations" for me. The only thing that keeps me from blinding hatred for Real is that they release their code a version after it's obsolete, keeping my complaint down to a low grumble.

      • Actually... (Score:3, Informative)

        by griblik ( 237163 )
        ...the free player [real.com] is the blue link in the middle of the page saying "Free RealOne Player".

        Fair enough, it's not the most obvious thing on the page, but it's not exactly hard to find, and you can't blame them for pushing the pay version.

        • Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ponty ( 15710 )
          Check out the US [real.com] version. The big orange link in the middle tells you that its free, but its a link to the 14 day trial (as listed below.) That would make me (as the person who's never been exposed to the company or their software before) think that, while it is free, it's limited to a 14 day trial. The link to the actual free player is off on the side, and is half off the page (as displayed on my reasonably-sized browser.)
    • This isn't a great post but it is NOT trolling.

      The player is CRAP. I use on my windows xp box an older version of Real Player because I got tired of the RealONE player hijacking my system. You turn the fscking thing off and reboot and back it came asking to FIX my associated files.

      And the free player is buried about 4 to 5 webpages deep. Real pain in the butt to find for a install on a new system.

      • I don't download the player from real anymore, I just let netscape install the one that ships with it. IIRC, when I installed Netscape 7.01 the other day, it installed a non-RealOne version of their player. I do agree with the grandPARENT though: Real is getting annoying as hell. Plus, I just love when it goes out on it's own to the web. I just re-installed my system a couple weeks ago and this morning both real and google toolbar got busted by ZoneAlarm for looking for a net connection. At least WMP has the decency to only do it when it's running...

    • Re:Obnoxious (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by jericho4.0 ( 565125 )
      Troll=4, Insightful=1, Informative=2, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=3, Total=12.

      What a fantastic collection of mods!!! You must be very proud.

      For those of you who appear not to know. This post is 'offtopic'. The parent was not a troll, although it wasn't very polite. And this is not a flamebait, jerkass!!!! Ok, now it is, but it wasn't until then.

      Why can't you people mod up instead of down??

    • Yes, it's all true. Their software is an obnoxious piece of crap and I'm for one won't take it anymore -- I'm uninstalling it as we speak. The only thing I ever used it for is listening to Cartalk on NPR.com. If some site you like uses it, tell them you won't be returning until they get rid of realplayer for something else like streaming mp3.
      • I agreee with you, but I would also point out that their Mac OS X client isn't all that bad. None of the "take over your system" traits as on the Windows side. And i still need it to get my C-SPAN fix; it's either that or Windows Media. Talk about rock and hard place.
    • The parent post most certainly is NOT a troll and is dead on. Let us not forget this is the same company that got caught installing spyware with their product even AFTER they claimed they had removed it. This company and their product is crap.

    • Re:Obnoxious (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Eccles ( 932 )
      Real has been moving toward this sort of thing for a long time. I don't know why anone sticks with them: their player is crap, they're just an obnoxious company, and they make it _really_ hard to download the free player.

      But what about their open source initiative? [helixcommunity.org] Can one make a more tolerable player with that? (I tried sourceforge, but they're too busy for a search at the moment.)

  • parallel concept (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:38AM (#5046936)
    "Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper." Candy-bars have wrappers too, and they are typically removed, then the candy-bar is consumed.

    • Re:parallel concept (Score:5, Funny)

      by medscaper ( 238068 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:44AM (#5046988) Homepage
      Candy-bars have wrappers too, and they are typically removed, then the candy-bar is consumed.

      Yeah, but most of the time when I unwrap a candy bar, I expect (and usually get) some _real_ content. In this case, it's just more Real(tm) crap.

    • Can DRM ever work? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SniffleBoy ( 630941 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:21AM (#5047281) Homepage
      I must agree with your opinion that wrappers are easy to remove. I am amazed that companies continue to attempt to do this. It seems to me that for media to be usable, at some point is must be in a format that my sound card or graphics card can process. At this time I can grab the bit stream and the DRM wrapper is violated. For something like DRM to really work, you would need to go in and make custom hardware so that users are unable to pull information that is headed in its direction. But this would be a bit of an engineering feat, and hard to sell to the public. So why do this companies keep trying?
      • Hush, you.

        Everyone knows that the only safe media is media that can't be played or watched. And eventually the Companies who know what's Best for us will find a way to make that an appealing thing to purchase. And we'll all be Happy.

      • Re:Can DRM ever work? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 7-Vodka ( 195504 )
        No offense but that's the way it USED to work.

        Now we have Microsoft's Palladium. Both Intel and AMD are supporting it in their upcomming chips. It will take control of your computer and completely prevent you from grabbing the stream in any of the unencrypted digital forms.

        And you thought you owned your computer? uh huh.

        Now if you want to copy the audio, you will have to do it analog. But wait, when you upgrade your computer once more, who's to say Palladium2 won't require speakers with Palladium2 in them. Then you won't even be able to capture an analog stream. You will be forced to play it through the speakers, and record it on a microphone. At which point they have won.

        • Re:Can DRM ever work? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rseuhs ( 322520 )
          Now we have Microsoft's Palladium. Both Intel and AMD are supporting it in their upcomming chips.

          Such as?

          I mean, yes Intel is "commited", AMD is "commited", but did they actually release a TCPA-product? No. Has Intel or AMD actually announced a chip with TCPA-functionality? No. Is TCPA showing on their roadmaps? I didn't see it.

          Recently, it has become so quiet around TCPA (well it has been quiet around the TCPA-group, the anti-TCPA groups are loud and active) that I don't expect it to become a reality anytime soon if at all.

          Let's face it: People love to pirate software/videos/music and will not buy anything that will try to prevent them doing that. Seems like Intel/AMD have realized that.

    • I think than in a few year, you will find some EULA of the wrapper:
      By unwrapping the present wrapper, you agree to be bound to the following agrement:
      This product come with no health garanties.
      You agree to not sue us for bad touth or obesity.
      In the case where you put the candy in your mouth without first removing the wrapper, or employ other such derivative mesures to access the content without unwrapping it first, you must be warned that our candy contains bacteria encoding digital informations. This make you a DMCA violator, and you will be prosecuted to the full extend permitted by the law of our choosing.

  • Real and my PC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheReckoning ( 638253 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:41AM (#5046961) Journal
    I've successfully kept any and all Real software of my machine for two years now, and not felt the least bit sad about it.

    At least on Windows machines, installing their software means you've installed a LOT of registry keys everywhere, plus you get several programs that default to starting with Windows.

    Even uninstalling it leaves crap everywhere. And their ad-ridden players are massively annoying.

    Quicktime is getting worse in the same way, but I'm more likely to download a Quicktime video than a Real one anyday.

    So do whatever you want, Real. I'll be happily counting the days until your extinction.
    • Amen to this!

      Mpeg-4 is more useful (real's codec is too bad to be useful) and more standardised. And not only that, I want to choose my player, and then play whatever format I want in it. I don't care a dime about anything real player makes, because I will rather live without the content than use their worthless software.
    • Even uninstalling it leaves crap everywhere. And their ad-ridden players are massively annoying.

      Spyware...you forgot to mention that RealPlayer is spyware (unless every configurable option is scrutinized and disabled appropriately).

      It's amazing how many programs try to peek in on what people are doing. PkZip did it for a while, Windows XP & Media Player, RealPlayer, Netscape Download Manager, websites that use cookies--all of you marketeers just need to mind your own business!

  • This Just Goes to Show... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zech Harvey ( 604609 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:41AM (#5046963)

    It's not about what's good for the customer -- It's about what is good for the competitor. Something like: "Who cares if the little guy wants this or not, Microsoft will make their DRM work and we need to have something even more DRM-ish to compete!"

  • Real's business model. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:43AM (#5046974) Homepage Journal

    1. give out free player and charge for server
    2. lose market share to every other game in town
    3. come up with proprietary protection that no one will use.
    4. ???
    5. no profit
    6. bankruptcy!

  • As much as I hate DRM.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stephenisu ( 580105 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:44AM (#5046985)
    At least this is being made by a company with a history of providing some linux clients. If their DRM tools are more popular than Microsofts stuff we might be able to actually buy online media with anyones OS of choice. I do realize that Microsoft is making efforts in that field, but I don't like there stuff on my box. Just a personal rule.

  • Helix 2 or "Double Helix" as it becomes known.

    The year after they patent "double helix" as a term in the scientific community. Then the sue everyone who dares to publish double helix material.

    Twelve months on they go bust.

  • Analysts usually manage to miss the point... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by altgrr ( 593057 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:47AM (#5047008)
    "That this can support MP3 and MPEG-4 is significant because up until now you haven't seen adoption of these formats by major content providers because they lacked digital rights management,"

    It's not significant in the slightest. The reason MP3 and such formats are popular is because they're open. Just because Real are adopting open standards and making them closed doesn't mean that consumers will benefit from it.

    However, the PHBs will love it, because it contains both MP3 (popular with consumers, but see above) and DRM (popular with the accounts department).

    (I know that MP3 isn't totally open as there are patent issues, but I think my point remains.)

  • Real keeps trying... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ogrez ( 546269 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:47AM (#5047012)
    To push anything that will get all producers and all consumers using their product, its a desperate grasp to finally get market share. After you download the most recent real player, you have to download a pre-release patch to view the DRM demo, Im sure that to use the DRM, the content producers will have to use Real producer, forcing the consumers to (for now) at very least use the free player...

    If Real can convince enough content producers to switch to protect their interests (people stealing their content), they will force consumers to switch, and then they have both sides paying whatever ransom they want.. and when someone trys to make another player that supports the format, they run screaming DMCA! DMCA!... its garbage...

  • It is my personal opinion that Real Network doesnt choose to listen what the consumers want in a media client. This is why they are loosing in the market. Personally, I gave up using Real Player during 7.0 and it was tedious using their client back then. Now they have added DRM to their bloated clients. Real Media is heading in the opposite direction, if they intend to grab some of their market share back. I hope this aint going off topic, but I read on Reuters that Microsoft intends to release their DRM software on the Linux Platform, providing the Linux Community does steal the code for their own benefits. Would this mean just the DRM component or will we see Media Player 9 for Linux Distributions? Time will only tell..... Nevertheless I am really enjoying using Mplayer, since it can play any formats imaginable.

  • The main benefit... (Score:2, Informative)

    by mmoncur ( 229199 )
    The main benefit of this (if DRM can have a benefit) appears to be that it would simplify things for hardware makers who want to support multiple formats.

    Of course, consumers don't seem to want anything but the MP3 format, and they don't want DRM at all... it's just a press release. If there was any real consumer demand for it we'd be hearing about it from its supporters before the official press release...

    For what it's worth, here's Real's Technical Details [realnetworks.com] about Helix DRM. It's a bit light on the specifics, though.

    • Re:The main benefit... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by debrain ( 29228 )
      There is no end-consumer demand for digital rights, per se, but there is certainly content producer demand for digital rights. I suppose content producers are consumers as well; as such, they want to protect their content, and in turn create demand for digital content restrictions.

      There may be indirect demand for DRM insofar as it procures an environment conducive to content that consumers demand. In other words, without DRM there there may be less digital content produced under high demand.

      We will see, I guess.

  • More like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Amsterdam Vallon ( 639622 ) <amsterdamvallon2003@yahoo.com> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:50AM (#5047033) Homepage
    Fake DRM.

    There's a reason Apple Computers has yet to enter the DRM market on a serious level, and it's because their CEO knows a bit about programming and realizes that, aside from NP complete-type problems, there's nothing a computer can't solve in a short amount of time with enough hardware thrown at it.

    Apple knows that DRM is futile, so they don't waste billions of dollars making some half-assed version of content management. Yet they still continue to profit.

    I advise M$ and Real to both "get real" and stop trying to convince the content makers that there actually is DRM code that works.

    • Re:More like... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isorox ( 205688 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:02AM (#5047130) Homepage Journal
      They did get real. They know that any "protection" they put on their "content" will be no more complex then ROT13. However they have the DMCA - doesnt matter if the DRM stuff is any good, as long as it's illegal to own or distribute a tool that can be used to break it. 90% of people that currently nab mp3's and divx's off edonkey wont when they have to go to the trouble of installing a non-DRM signed program-to-break-drm onto their computers. Especially when any efforts to do this will be reported to the FBI, department of religious purity, department of homeland security and Microsoft Marketting.
    • We can only hope that the content providers are stupid enough to believe in this (or any other) fake DRM. Then they release their contents, and if the "hackers" can restrain themselves long enough, it can all be copied anyway.

  • DRM - Digital rights monopoly (Score:5, Informative)

    by !Squalus ( 258239 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:50AM (#5047034) Homepage
    DRM is only meant to maintain the rights of the RIAA and MPAA and nothing else. The digital formats for music have been under attack simply because the mguls had not figured out any way to successfully squeeze every dollar out of the digital scene. DRM is a non-starter, but unless we stop governance by the body corporate, we may have no other choice to obtain music other than enlightened artists who want to reach a different auidence.

    Make a difference - support EFF, or write your Congress jerk. Ask them to stand up for the rights of citizens over the rights of the corporations for a change.

    DRM and corporate greed. It's all about selling out to tell you what entertainment should be. This announcement brought to you by the good folks at the RIAA who remind you that you don't own music when you buy a CD - didn't you read your EULA.

    Where can you listen tomorrow?
    • we may have no other choice to obtain music other than enlightened artists who want to reach a different auidence.

      here you go [iuma.com]

      turn off your radio, and get away from your CD's and kazaa..

      sit down for 1 week and listen only to IUMA music and you will find that with a little bit of effort you can get completely away from RIAA music and listen to some really cool and good music.

      you can do the same with the MPAA... watch only indie films. there are some really good producers and film-makers out there that are not in it to make a bajillion dollars. and yes the special effects are cheezy, but it's entertainment, if you are entertained, then it was successful :-)
  • it'll easy for them to enforce their DRM, since they've made a couple million computers their bitches after having installed RealPlayer...

    i guess we now know what those 94 "helper" processes that Real products always run on startup were, and what all those hidden registry keys were for :P

    and you figure that they've collected your e-mail address at least 66 times on installation.

    i wish they'd at least be honest with me and change their tray icon to a picture of Satan ramming me in the ass.

    (AND NO, I DON'T WANT TO AUTOMATICALLY FUCKING CHECK FOR UPDATES! CHRIST!) :P

    -fren

  • Are you sure it's legal to wrap OGG? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:53AM (#5047065)
    Isn't it's licence supposed to keep it wide open?

    Or is it so liberal that it lets anyone do anything they want with it?

    • OGG is a BSD-like license, IIRC, so I'd say no - you'd be free to not only modify the code any way you see fit, but surely the output of the program.

      But say it was GPL, do the terms of the GPL apply to the output of a program?! That's ludicrous. Would a graphic artist who uses Gimp have to give has work away for free? Does your tax return belong to Intuit because you used TurboTax?

      I don't think anything you do to an applications output has anything to do with the applications license.

      • Licensing summary (Score:4, Informative)

        by volsung ( 378 ) <stan@mtrr.org> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:23AM (#5047313)
        • The Ogg and Vorbis specifications (different than the code) are totally open for reimplementation in whatever license you want to whatever degree of compatability you want. (i.e. you can create the new Vorbis-over-Pigeon format if that suits your fancy. There is no requirement that you implement the spec completely or exactly as I've seen on some other formats. In fact, since there are no patents involved and the spec is public, I'm pretty sure there is no legal way to enforce limitations on how you use the spec, thankfully.)

        • The reference encoder and decoder libraries for both Ogg and Vorbis are licensed under a BSD license.

        • The reference tools are released under a GPL license. (Those who don't like these terms can easily write their own using the BSD-licensed reference libraries.)

        • There are no limitations placed on the output of any of these programs. Do what you want with your data. :)
    • So, it's illegal for me to record one of my songs in OGG, then encrypt it so I can put it on my website and still only have my friends listen to it? Wow, that's some license...

    • The codecs and the file format itself are open, true, but anyone (including RealWhatsitsface) can do whatever they like with the files once those have been created. So it's perfectly legal to compress, wrap, distribute or even sell the files themselves. However, Vorbis-encoded files with a DRM wrapper probably can't retain the OGG format extension, as this would cause unnecessary confusion and player incompatibilities.
    1. Unwrap the DRM wrapper.
    2. Copy the DRM-free digital media.
    3. ...
    4. PROFIT!!!

  • stone age license serving (Score:3, Interesting)

    by D0wnsp0ut ( 321316 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:59AM (#5047101) Homepage Journal

    If you check out Helix DRM's Specs, you find this gem:

    "We recommend that you upgrade to the latest stable Linux 2.2.x kernel, which is available at kernel.org. We do not recommend using any Linux 2.3 or 2.4 kernels, because RealNetworks License Server has not been thoroughly tested with these newer kernels."

    So we can expect 2.4 support around the time 2.8 comes out?

    • Is this from the server software for serving clients? IMHO it is not a bad idea to have a server dedicated to serving these streams and the use of an older kernel is not that bad for a single purpose machine if it truely is more stable. Now if this server is your all in wonder box answering for a majority of your /etc/services and used for local X sessions it may not be a stable stream provider regardless of what kernel you have.

      Just a thought..

  • Problems from a consumers point of view (Score:4, Insightful)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @10:59AM (#5047103)
    Supports multiple usage rights -- Content owners have the ability to issue licenses for playback of a specific duration, playback during a specific window of time, and to limit the number of plays for each media file distributed.

    Supports multiple ways to screw the consumer, how many times will companies try Divx before they realize this IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. People like unlimited use almost as much as free stuff, if you give them a decent product at an even somewhat fair price with unlimited use they like it, but even hint that they will lose their ability to enjoy something they bought and they quickly become unhappy. Think of the ISP market in the US, many many people could get by on one of the lower cost X hour/month plans but almost no one uses them because it's easier to budget for a somewhat larger amount than to pay for a smaller more reasonable piece and pay for overflow once in a while.

    Helix DRM enables a wide range of Consumer Electronics (CE) devices to support multiple secure formats by offering two models for integration: native support or transfer to secure memory.

    You either need a device that already has some DRM built in that Real blesses as secure or you need a new player probably with an expensive "works with Real" liscense. Got an iPod? Too bad go away you can't view our content, mp3 cd player, too bad, etc.

  • The conversation (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ogrez ( 546269 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:01AM (#5047119)
    Real salesman: Okay, we are going to sell you the software to produce secure content using our digital rights management for 2 hoojillion dollars, BUT!, you will make 3 hoojillion dollars more knowing that nobodoy is pirating your content. AND! We will provide the consumers with a free player to make things easier for you.

    Content Producer: But what happens when all the consumers give you the finger and nobody looks at my content..what happens when you try to sell me "patches" and "upgrades" to realproducer once im stuck using the format..what happens when people get tired of your crappy "client"...

  • This is exactly what Liquid Audio always has been: some stupid closed-source wrapper around AAC files. Has anyone seen Liquid innovating on top of that? But they are supported by the content industry. As a result, they have even more cash than they'll ever make themselves! If I were Real, I would be stupid if I didn't want to compete with them this way - money is always welcome...
  • Provided I could keep my rights as a consumer.

    I'd like to be able to copy my cd's, make mp3 (or ogg) out of them, give a cd of good songs to my father and stuff like that.

    If DRM can let me keep those rights and still be accepted by the media companies, I'd accept it too.
    Atleast if the other option is that I lose all these rights through legislation and copy protected cd's that won't let me make mp3 or copy them.

    .haeger

  • Well now this just makes it Real easy! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ahknight ( 128958 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:12AM (#5047203)
    Think about it: one DRM for a ton of formats (indeed, this sounds like any file). Tons of people putting this on MP3, Real, WMA, AC3, etc.

    This is a GOOD THING.

    Break one scheme and get tons of formats for free! ;)
  • More importantly, do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this?

    Yes.

    Otherwise they wouldn't have invested the time, effort and money into producing such a thing.

    (Come on, you don't need an MBA to figure this one out)

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:26AM (#5047331)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • By which i mean to say, not a technical description at all. Anyone else click those links? Read like marketing materials -- can't imagine why. God forbit they should expose the slightest bit of their architechture.

    Maybe i'm missing something but using the phrases 'secure container technology' and 'encryption algorithms' doesn't seem like a tech doc to me.

    Really, fuck Real anyway. It's been a long time since i used their product and even then it was mostly for wasting time with humor clips.

    I'll change my mind (maybe) when i see some details.

  • Real DRM (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Gline ( 173269 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:33AM (#5047391) Homepage
    ...as opposed to that nasty fake artificial DRM.

  • is... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by m1chael ( 636773 )
    this the one place where its good not to have a standard? drm fragmentation is good.
    • No, DRM fragmentation is not good.

      DRM is coming, whether we like it or not, and when it comes, it will be beneficial for all (consumers) concerned if there is a single standard. That way, you can buy any media and any media player, and be sure that the two will work together. For the more nefarious amongst us, that will also give a single DRM standard to (try to) break.

      If there are a number of different, incompatible implementations, then you'll have to be careful about what player you buy - will it work with the songs that your favourite artist releases? Will you pick the wrong one, that uses a DRM scheme that dies out like consumer-grade Betamax did? That will render all your media useless when your player finally breaks, unless the company provides a way to change the scheme used.

      • Re:is... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @01:47PM (#5048434) Homepage Journal
        DRM may be coming, but there won't be a standard. It is impossible for there ever to be a DRM standard, because one of the basic requirements of all DRM is that it can't be free to implement. If it is free to implement, then there's nothing to stop anyone from implementing a player that ignores the restrictions.

        The only way to "buy .. any media player" and still have it be able to play the content, is if the content lacks DRM.

  • Dont Care. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deathlizard ( 115856 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:40AM (#5047450) Homepage Journal
    Real Has been dead to me since they released Realplayer G2. Realplayer 5 was reliable, simple, small, and unintrusive. Since they released G2, it's been a downward spiral of overbloat, Adware and Spyware.
    • > Real Has been dead to me since they released Realplayer G2. Realplayer 5 was reliable, simple, small, and unintrusive. Since they released G2, it's been a downward spiral of overbloat, Adware and Spyware

      Does anyone have an actual list of all the (current and historical) DLLs for all the Real codecs?

      I'd like to have a complete list of what codecs are out there, or a way to figure out what codec is required by a specific .RM file.

      I'm pretty sure you can just shovel new codecs into the appropriate subirectories of C:\Program Files\Common File\Real\ and continue to use Realplayer 5.

      Problem with this approach is that every few months, they make their encoder require a new codec. No real quality improvements that I've seen, but any files created with the encoder produce the lovely "I need to 0wn0r j00r b0x0r to play this file" message that doesn't even tell you what codec it wants. (Upgrade? No frickin' way, just gimme the damn DLL!)

      The larger problem is that the encoder comes from people who've drunk RealKoolAid. So of course they "upgrade", and as a result, everyone else has to follow along. *sigh*

      (I suppose I could just install 'doze and Real on an expendable drive, but that's a lot of work if someone reading this already has a complete list of codecs ;-)

  • /dev/dsp emulation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by koinu ( 472851 )
    I wonder how long it takes until someone gets the idea of grabbing the sound and storing it again without any restrictions.

  • Awesome! (not) (Score:3, Informative)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:50AM (#5047529) Journal

    This is just what consumers have been waiting for. DRM is going to take off like hotcakes now!

    Now, how are they going to distribute DRM'd media? Oh, that's still a problem.. then why not figure that part out first?!

  • They were "progressive" once. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:50AM (#5047533)
    I remember reading about them in "Architects of the Web" [google.com]. They were originally founded as Progressive Networks, and their stated mission was to be good citizens first and then good businessmen. They moved - proudly - into a low-rent neighborhood with the goal of helping to clean it up, and sought to provide useful tools with interesting applications. Then they had an IPO.

    According to their website [realnetworks.com] they still donate five percent of their income to charity. Rob Glaser is still their CEO (he founded it in 1994). But the President and Cheif Operating Officer is Larry Jacobson former President and COO of Ticketmaster (see here [realnetworks.com]).

    Personally I think that they have a right to develop the technology in the same way that we have a right to avoid it like the plague that it is. I'm curious to see how long it takes before they invoke the DMCA.

    Whether they do or not, it seems that things have changed since they had that IPO.

  • Is "Content Ownership" Backed by Law? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rdmiller3 ( 29465 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @11:53AM (#5047556) Journal
    Did anyone else notice how in the very beginning of the PDF describing this "Digital Rights Management" product they take for granted that there can be such a thing as a "content owner"?

    A DRM is supposed to manage copy-rights. Precedent has established that those rights (to copy the stuff) can be owned, but not the content itself.

    That's why we have fair use; because when you buy a copy of a book, CD, or video, you own that copy. You can enjoy it as many times as you wish. You can lend it to whomever you wish, as many times as you wish, as long as you don't ask for money in return. You can sell it too, if you delete or destroy any fair-use copies you may have... because you own it.

    Is this idea of "content ownership" a DMCA thing?

    I'd like to see them explain to us why we should not be allowed to loan out our favorite music CD or play a recorded Simpsons episode during a party.

    And how does "content ownership" apply to broadcast media like TV and radio, whose audience doesn't pay and isn't accountable to the broadcaster in any way? I expect these DRM supporters will be trying to plug that hole real soon now.

    -Rick

  • I went to Real's DRM page and click the button for the demo. It asked me to download the latest player and provided this link [real.com] which I clicked, and Galeon asked me if I wanted to save it or open it with something. I copied and paster the URL into my RealPlayer and it said it was loading. Absolutely nothing happens. If this is the quality I've to expect from them, I don't think I'll be bothering to try their new products. I'll stick with Real Player (Unix) 8.0.

  • DRM won't work because it _is_ the major flaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alpharoid ( 623463 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @01:21PM (#5048238)
    Windows Media was the first DRM format to really catch on. It comes along with Windows and it's the default media format for anything produced by Microsoft software. (Ever try digital ripping through Media Player? Only wma, not even wave output!)

    Anyone wonder why, after years of pressure and usually successful MS pushing of their formats, it still loses to good old MP3 by a ridiculously large margin in user preference? Three letters: DRM.

    When you download a DRM-enabled wma file, it's far from obvious to the regular user. So when the file expires or the user upgrades his computer and tries to listen to his files burned onto an old CD-R, that'll be his last experience with the format. And voilá, another wma hater.

    Not to mention wmv's and their 'features', such as popping up web links embedded into the media file. Irritating, to say the least!

    And that's what DRM is all about. Even if Big Media backs it up, and even if it'll be the only way to get 'hot new content' (whatever that is), users will always revert to the best free media alternative when they have a choice.

  • DRM in OGG???? (Score:3, Funny)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchase@hotmailCHEETAH.com minus cat> on Thursday January 09, 2003 @01:23PM (#5048248) Journal

    >Real states that MP3, AAC, and even OGG can now be released with a DRM wrapper.

    Filthy, tricksy hobbitses!

  • Consumer gullbility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Skevin ( 16048 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @02:02PM (#5048515) Journal
    > do they expect content producers and consumers alike to really adopt this? It's amazing what your average consumer will do. I can't even begin to count the number of machines I've seen with BonziBuddy(tm), Gator(tm), and any number of other spyware/spamming packages... all because the user clicked "yes" when asked if he wanted to install such-and-such. The beautiful (and ugly) thing about the browser plug-in market is the Field Of Dreams approach: "If you write it, they will install." Real only needs to release a "new version" of their player to suddenly make a bunch of users switch over. Hey, it's been working for Microsoft for years now. On the content provider side, it takes a little more incentive to make the switch. As programmer for a web development firm [cybercanics.com], I can attest to unreasonable licensing schemes on Real's part.
  • Analysts say that the development is particularly positive for content owners who want to publish to devices that support industry standards but have long been afraid of digital theft.

    "That this can support MP3 and MPEG-4 is significant because up until now you haven't seen adoption of these formats by major content providers because they lacked digital rights management," said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Jupiter Research.

    Ok... How can MP3's be played back in industry standard devices (such as the Archos Jukebox), and yet remain protected? Am I missing something large, or isn't the point of wrapping an MP3 in such a layer to prevent it from being understood?

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robla ( 4860 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @04:47PM (#5049788) Homepage Journal
    I guess I had hoped we would receive a little bit of credit where credit is due, but I guess not.

    I'll take off my RealNetworks hat for a sec. I'm not a big fan of DRM solutions. I've seen the days of hardware dongles and other silly solutions that don't seem to go anywhere, and have not had a personal interest in being involved in that sort of thing. Many DRM systems are intrusive, and as I sit here on my Linux box without the ability to play back our DRM content, I understand why the community gets frustrated.

    That said, you'll notice that I still work at RealNetworks. I feel that, as a whole, the company wants to do the right thing, and I'm hoping I can enlist the community's help in that.

    As for the criticism of "ooo, DRM is bad bad bad, and anything associated with it is bad bad bad", here's my response to that:

    • I think what RealNetworks is doing with open source in the Helix Community [helixcommunity.org] could really change the landscape for the better.
    • As for DRM; I'm not personally involved in our DRM efforts, and don't plan to be, but I see it as a necessary evil. To really be in our business these day, one has to provide a solution (mind you, our business is not only software production, but content distribution through our RealOne SuperPass [real.com] service). And I don't see it as immoral (as some do), just silly.
    • As for the legislative efforts relative to DRM, I'm told we are on record as opposing the broadcast flag provisions (still investigating). At any rate, I think we've been pretty good citizens when it comes to our positions on legislation.
    • This is a win for open formats. Transcoding is an ugly process, and DRM systems need to get their content from somewhere. If the input (and output) of a DRM system is an open format (e.g. Ogg Vorbis), then content providers can decide to go with that format, confident that should they ever need to protect that content with a DRM system down the road, there's a solution for them.
    As for the other criticisms here, see my earlier posts [slashdot.org]. We realize we're not perfect, but we're hoping the community will still give us a shot.

    Rob Lanphier
    Helix Community Coordinator [helixcommunity.org]

  • Download links (Score:3, Informative)

    by bedessen ( 411686 ) on Thursday January 09, 2003 @08:21PM (#5051484) Journal
    FYI, here is the link to real.com's site where you can download any previous version [real.com]. I recommend using RealPlayer (v8), it was the last one before RealOne. Yes, you have to disable some things during the install and in the settings dialog. But it's not that hard and once you've done that, it will not take over any file associations, nor will it load any helpers at startup. Most of the complaints that I've seen about Real's crap is related to RealOne player. If you must use their junk, use RealPlayer. Heck, you could even download RealPlayer v4 if you wanted a pre-evil version.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close