Open Source DRM 328
Clyde writes "The different worlds of DRM and Open Source have come together under OGG-S, a project that just recently went to beta with their Open Source DRM toolkit. The project license in GPL and uses OpenSSL for its encryption engine. It will be interesting to see if this project helps to spread the acceptance of Ogg Vorbis."
Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:2, Interesting)
How about PGP? Strikes me as rather wrong, making it hard to read any message I put on my computer. Definitly against the tenents of Free Software.
Re:Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The encryption IS wanted. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)
Hunh? What, Libre Software stands for making sure any and all content should be available without compensating the creator of the content in any way, shape or form? We use a license [gnu.org] that restricts how your code is used, yet you want no restrictions on how the creations of others is used? *Rhetorical Question* Are you after a free ride, or Freedom?
I understand that you want fair use rights, as do we all. IMHO, if someone wishes to release thier creations with DRM, they are free to do so. I am free to ignore thier creation due to the DRM if I wish. Libre Software providing the freedom to release your creation as you want, and being compansated if you wish, is a good thing as it provides more freedom.
Until someone comes up with a viable way of compensating creators for thier content without restricing how that content is used in any way shape or form, restricted content is going to be reality, unfortunately. Using OSS tools to provide such restrictions, though distasteful, seems to be almost acceptable. At the very least, it shows that some proponents of Software Libre are sensitive to the needs of content creators, and so offers an olive branch to them. That should show we're not after a Free Ride, but Freedom.
Soko
Re:Please (Score:2)
Re:Please (Score:3, Interesting)
But of course, that's not how it really works.
Until someone comes up with a viable way of compensating creators for thier content without restricing how that content is used in any way shape or form, restricted content is going to be reality
What about books? They aren't 'restricted content' except in that the law prevents unlicensed copying. They are only restricted in this very limited sense.
You seem to think DRM is a 'harmless technolog
Re:Please (Score:3, Interesting)
If I have a product that I only want to distribute over a pair of drm headphones, and there's a market to buy it, it'll sell. You ARE free to ignore DRM. Content is a product, not a necessity.
NSYNC could release their next album on a copy proof (hypotetically of course) CD. It would still sell. The value to the consumer isn't that they can copy it or back it up, it's that they can listen
Open Source DRM a GOOD THING (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also another benefit to open source DRM. If the current content providers continue to aggressively lock their material down, it may provide an option for those of us who want to see Free (as in Speech) content develop and become a viable mod
Re:Please (Score:2)
Admire the hilt on this pig sticker. (Score:2, Interesting)
How does the client prevent piping of the decrypted output? Without that, you might as well skip the encryption. With that you get right back to the nasty non free world of files you can't write and someone else owns your computer.
DRM is an attempt to prop up and extend the whole dead tree publis
A good thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because it would be implemented in, obviously, an open manner with publically defined protocols and specifications. Therefore, anybody who wanted to build an infrastructure to support DRM could do so without locking people into a single vendor or implementation.
Somebody asked why couldn't you just change the libraries to let you bypass it? Well sure, if you can change the code on the machine, you *may* be able to bypass protections, depending on what they are. For example, if the file (text, sound, media, etc.) is encrypted and requires a decrypt key, mucking around in the code isn't going to help it decrypt itself.
Now.. what about extracting the protected media after the decrypt step? Well, thats a bit harder. In fact, that was how people broke Microsoft's first WMP protection.. they wrote a null sound driver that just dumped the output to a file. Works pretty well. Don't think that they didn't notice, when all of their drivers need to be signed these days..
Anyway.. there are different parts to Digital Rights Management. Step 1 is access.. can you access a file or not. Crypto protects that, and no open or closed source will change that. Step 2 is decrypted control. Who can manipulate the decrypted bytes of the media? That is up to people to implement and protect as they see fit.
Remember that an OSS DRM solution could provide an open source platform for building closed source clients and devices.. You have the advantge of an open standard combined with actual devices using it.
Re:Please (Score:3, Funny)
Serves you right, you smart-ass kids.
---
g0d
Is this possible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this possible? (Score:2)
Fight the Man! (Score:3, Funny)
Open Source DRM is an obvious ploy by the Illuminati to spread "acceptible" DRM to the resistant open source community. Once they have us eating out of their palms their world domination plan will advance another great step forward.
Where's my tin foil hat?
Uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)
"It isss OGG, so it isss good! Yes!"
"Nooo! DRM! Hateful it is!"
etc.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:4, Funny)
another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:2, Insightful)
And on top of that they try to create good emotions for their products by basing it on other people's work and calling it "open source". The only catch is that you have to pay them to distribute binaries?! WTF? Neither openssl nor ogg nor vorbis require this, why do they?
This smells very bad to me.
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:3, Informative)
I hope that is not unreasonable, and you understand this cost only subsidizes our development tools and web hosting.
Plus, we will give 10% of your purchase to the EFF to help protect everyone's digital rights online.
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not give the ten percent to the Xiph.Org Foundation? After all, we make the codec that makes your product remotely valuable.
While you're at it, why don't you choose a name for your DRM scheme that isn't so closely identifiable with one of our trademarks?
Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.Org Foundation [xiph.org]
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that 10% of our proceeds should go to Xiph.org; tonight I will update the web page so that 10% of a purchase will go to Xiph.org as well as the EFF. The reason this change was not done sooner was because at the time OGG-S started, Xiph was not a non-profit organization (charging for the fixed point decoder).
Also, if you believe the name of OGG-S could cause any consumer confusion please feel free to email me at rsage@sidespace.com and I will work on changing our site accordingly. Since OGG-S has been mentioned on the Vorbis mailing lists in the past, I had assumed this name would not cause any confusion.
Sincerely,
Ryan @ SideSpace
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds great, thanks!
Also, if you believe the name of OGG-S could cause any consumer confusion please feel free to email me at rsage@sidespace.com and I will work on changing our site accordingly. Since OGG-S has been mentioned on the Vorbis mailing lists in the past, I had assumed this name would not cause any confusion.
The fact that someone would package Ogg Vorbis with DRM was inevitable (and welcome, as is any derivative work based on our stuff); The only issue I have with this implementation (as I'm unaware of the technical aspects of it as yet) is that it uses the name 'Ogg.'
That being said, I would very much appreciate it if the name of this product were changed. I'd rather avoid confusion sooner rather than later. After all, 'Ogg Vorbis' was only a project codename, and was never expected to take off. :)
Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.Org Foundation [xiph.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:2)
Until TCPA arrives, GPLed DRM technology serves no purpose.
Source won't help decrypt the files (Score:2, Informative)
Of course you could trojanize the source and try to get a limp version of the binaries to proliferate, but the chances of that working are very close to zero. If I were a publisher I'd test whether the encoding and DRM encryption worked before I were to sell my media to the world.
Re:Source won't help decrypt the files (Score:3, Informative)
Re:another thinly veiled attempt to make money (Score:2)
Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:2)
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:2)
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:2, Interesting)
This was done because we (and I am sure others) believe that DRM should be an add-on option that content providers or users can choose; not something that is forced upon consumers.
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought so (Score:2)
It's funny how these folks claim to care for people's fair-use rights (see the FAQ on their site). Protect fair use rights by establishing obstacles to fair use? Riiight.
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:5, Informative)
I assure you that SideSpace is in no way, shape or form affiliated with the Xiph.Org Foundation, who make Ogg Vorbis and other royalty-free multimedia codecs.
Emmett Plant
CEO, Xiph.Org Foundation [xiph.org]
Re:Independent and Unsanctioned? (Score:2)
Just because something is free as in speech does not make it free as in beer.
The source code may be open and free (unless modified under SideSpace Solution's commercial license), but content that is saddled by DRM restrictions is not free in the "freedom" sense of the word.
I'm Hopefully... (Score:2)
Re:I'm Hopefully... (Score:2)
Re:I'm Hopefully... (Score:2)
Re:I'm Hopefully... (Score:2)
Me Too (Score:2)
I'm hopefully... but doubtful also.
Re:I'm Hopefully... (Score:2)
How can they make this work? (Score:2, Interesting)
if(hasRights) {
decryptMusic;
}
to:
if(true) {
decryptMusic;
}
Re:How can they make this work? (Score:5, Interesting)
DecryptMusic(Key);
Can't do squat without the key.
However, preventing you from changing it to
DecryptMusicAndSaveAsMP3(Key);
is a lot harder, if not impossible. Of course, it does guarantee at least one sale to get that key. Not enough to make it worth it though.
Re:How can they make this work? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How can they make this work? (Score:2)
Nobody should crack any sort of DRM for the next 15-20 years.
Re:How can they make this work? (Score:2)
The difference being one usually doesn't want others to get into their bank account. However, if person A didn't mind sharing their key, person B could have a modified version of the code that didn't look in the approved place (or whatever) and use pe
So... (Score:2)
Vaseline (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to prevent this is for users to boycott Digital Restrictions Management technologies. As such, anything which makes it easier for DRM technologies to integrate with any software is a bad thing.
This project may comply to the letter of Open Source, but it entirely contradicts the spirit of open technology.
Re:Vaseline (Score:4, Insightful)
LGPL contradicts the spirit of open technology also? After all, you with an open source library could make propietary programs.
I think that this could be possitive. It could make open source access more information, to have more things that can be used with it, not less.
Re:Vaseline (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vaseline (Score:2)
I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
RTFA! (Score:2, Redundant)
Please note that OGG-S is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by Xiph.org or Ogg Vorbis.
Don't expect this to become anything big any time soon.
Orange
Say what? (Score:2)
Open Source DRM - isn't that like the ultimate digital oxymoron?
Coming Soon! (Score:4, Funny)
Breaking your leg for dummies!
<really fast>Only $29.95</reallyfast>
Re:Coming Soon! (Score:2)
I can hook you up with a really good publisher. [slashdot.org]
From the FAQ (Score:2)
If a company wishes to use OGG-S to protect their content, SideSpace Solutions highly recommends purchasing a binary distribution license. Under this license, any modifications to OGG-S (such as a change of encryption engine or private keys) do not have to be released.
Know the truth: There is no such thing as a remote trusted computer. Encryption has nothing to with DRM.
Re:From the FAQ (Score:2)
Encryption allows you to send someone a secret. It does NOT allow you to dictate the use of the data. DRM schemes use encryption to hide the fact that DRM is a computer science impossibility. Look at the "embed" bit in truetype fonts for an example of DRM that doesnt use encryption. All DRM schemes, encr
Question about GNU... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If OGG-S is open source, how can the encryption be secure?
If a company wishes to use OGG-S to protect their content, SideSpace Solutions highly recommends purchasing a binary distribution license. Under this license, any modifications to OGG-S (such as a change of encryption engine or private keys) do not have to be released."
OK....
Under GNU, do you have to release any private encryption keys you may have used with the code?
Encryption keys would seem to fall under content/data and not code. It is my understanding of the GNU license that you must redistribute the source code, not any data that your created and feed into the application. As long as you provide sample data (in this case another encryption key) to allow the application to run properly when compiled.
I don't see how they can force people, under the GNU, to release any private keys.
Someone please explain.
I don't see how they can
Re:Question about GNU... (Score:2)
Re:Question about GNU... (Score:2)
Re:Question about GNU... (Score:2)
Re:Question about GNU... (Score:3, Interesting)
The first is the actual meaning of the word, as in protecting computers and communicating parties from attack by malicious parties. By all accounts, open source software is at least as good as proprietary software at that (or maybe at worst as bad...).
The second, is the media industry "lets highjack a term that has a positive conotation" doublespake meaning of "secure". That is about making sure that users are not in control of their own computers, so that somebody e
There isn't a way (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that it's just technologically impossible; it's logically impossible. A billion years of technological advances can't change that.
Upon analysis, this will either be shown to not really work, or it will turn out to just be "mostly" open, but with at least one opaque component.
Re:There isn't a way (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference between these two scenarios is the physical location of the CD. This
Re:There isn't a way (Score:2)
False. This is allowed under Fair Use. Making a copy for a friend is allowed, publication isn't. If you're not sure which it is, it's probably publication, but don't just give up hard-won rights for sheer laziness!
Re: There isn't a way (Score:2)
This was the very comment I was going to post -- logically, an Digital Rights Manglement module is a symbolic language [that assumes the end user cannot be trusted]. So how do you open source that language -- thus letting the [supposedly untrustworthy] end user alter it at their whim -- while guaranteeing that it still does Digital Rights Manglement?
You can't. The w
This could be good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like an arms race. If everyone's got it, nobody is at a disadvantage. "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." The same is true of TIA, btw.
Re:This could be good. (Score:2)
Open Source DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
So let me get this straight:
This is a project that is part of a free intellectual property movement which is designed to protect intellectual property from being used by people who have not liscensed it?
What the hell?
Okay, so it's going to be released under a liscense which allows anyone to modify, copy, and distribute the source, as long as they DO distribute the source. And the point of it is to make it impossible for someone to modify, copy, or distrubute the source
Re:Open Source DRM? (Score:2)
Having DRM might well be useful. Being required to use it probably isn't. But I don't have any problem with people being able to exchange data securely. I just have a problem with their requiring that I participate. If people want to make IP act like bricks and mortar, then they will find their IP is quickly made obsolete. But that's OK with me.
I don't buy copy protected software, except games, anymore. Onc
short sighted (Score:3, Interesting)
How many think xbox mod chips should be legal, because just because they can be used for piracy, they have other legal uses?
Now, how many think DRM should never be implemented, because it can be used to restrict what you can do with a CD you bought?
To me its the same issue. Technologies arent inherently evil, it's the uses they're put to.
DRM technology with SSL strength security has some good uses.
A content producer can have all his stuff locked tight with DRM while it's still in production, or use it on the screener films he sends to reviewers. If it isnt for sale yet, you have no right to any of it. It's merely protecting a trade secret.
It can also be used to verify the authenticity of footages, lets say the doctored photo in Time magazine yesterday.
It could be used to prove that the footage you see on TV is what was filmed by the digicam.
It can be used in court to prove that the security footage from the 7-11 hasnt been altered in any way.
It can be used to keep your nephew from stumbling across your pr0n collections.
It already exists anyways. Noone stops anyone from streaming a netradio over an SSL tunnel, or archiving their files with a password.
In short, preventing consumers from excersizing legitimate rights to use something they own is bad. DRM is not 'bad', DRM is a technology.
Re:short sighted (Score:2)
DRM is a technology people use. It isn't bad.
DRM is a technology preventing the use of other technology (and that is it's sole purpose). => DRM is bad.
So either I'm making a mistake here or there is no way to make your argument stick ( logics first semester if you can prove something to be right and wrong with a certain set of assumptions, the argument cannot be used (under a "complete" set of assumptions this cannot happen) )
Now, as others pointed out, DRM itself is a logical impossibi
Re:short sighted (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd NEVER suggest outlawing it. People should feel free to encrypt content as an aspect of their right of free speech.
HOWEVER, I will fight tirelessly to DISCOURAGE it. For example, we could revoke the copyright of any work that the author et al released in an encrypted format.
And we can refuse to legislate that people cannot break the protection; in fact we can offer them bounties for doing so, much as there is public financing of other sorts of information gathering such as diggi
Open Source, but not free source. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the site:
Purchase of this product enables you to modify OGG-S decryption or encryption code and release your binary modifications to your users.
Re:Open Source, but not free source. (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh... (Score:2)
Cleaning up the image of open source (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will be the impetus necessary to make Linux relevant on the home desktop front, as content providers will be able to deploy their music and video without having qualms about the ease with which their material could be distributed ad infinit
What does "OGG-S" Stand for? (Score:3, Funny)
Open Source and DRM are fundamentally incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, OSS and DRM are mathematically incompatible. The purpose of DRM is to keep the user from being able to make a copy of the media in question. In order to do that, it must use encryption keys to hide the 'plaintext', and carefully control those keys. This is the core of what DRM is.
In order to plug the equivalent of the 'analog hole', all existing DRM implementations are binary-only, and carefully control and conceal the data path between the encrypted data and the finaly output hardware, so that it's 'impossible' for the user to get the plaintext.
As soon as you go Open Source, *anyone* can take the code appart, take the decryption routine, and get the plaintext right out of that. There is nothing 'forcing' the data directly into the hardware. At that point, the plaintext can be distributed, and the DRM has failed.
More important than that even is the fact that open-source licenses guarantee that you can redistribute your modifications. It will be a grand total of about 2.37 hours between initial release of the software and someone releasing a version that will export the plaintext. Guess how popular the original release will be?
No, I think the results of this little experiment will be mixed good and bad:
Good: it will prove that DRM is mathematically impossible
Bad: it will 'prove' that the industry *must* use binary-only distributions of such software in order to make it work
It remains to be seen which of these will take effect first.
binary-only is not enough (Score:2)
Re:Open Source and DRM are fundamentally incompati (Score:3, Interesting)
First, while software released under a free license, like the GPL, has to be redistributed under specified terms, the data such software processes does not (in general -- there are a few exceptions where output of a GPL program contains GPL code, thus restricting redistribution of compilation of that code without the rest of the source -- which usually comprises
Re:Open Source and DRM are fundamentally incompati (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source and DRM are fundamentally incompati (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point of encrypting with known algorithms is that it is very hard to decrypt without the keys. I think you must have used a very weak algorithm. You don't release the keys anywhere, they must be hidden away as best you can. Of c
Maybee... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybee the same will be true for music...that once every commercial song comes with a pricetag, listeners will finally begin to see Creative Commons/Open Audio License/Public Domain music as a better value. Once the audience is there, musicians will surely follow.
We have to stop perpetuating this myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so it's mostly Microsoft who spreads this one, but even some Slashdot users fall for it.
You think product activation stopped XP piracy one iota? Think again. Cracked copies were floating around before it even hit retail shelves. Service pack 1, you say? Once again, within days of that debacle, a workaround even my parents can handle was available.
People get their warezed XP the same way they got their warezed 2000, ME, 98, etc. Kazaa and its ilk are making it even easier.
Know who product activation hurts? Not pirates, that's for sure. It hurts those of us who do anything more than install XP once, on one system, ever. Want to mirror your desktop's contents onto your laptop? Sorry. Have to re-install Windows? Sorry. Bought a new computer? Sorry. If you're lucky, you're only forced to upload some data to Microsoft. No internet? Hope you don't mind sitting on hold for a while. Past what Microsoft considers an acceptable amount of re-installs? Oh well, hope you have another $300.
The University I attend gets free copies of Windows and Visual Studio for its CS students. I can get as many license keys as I want without paying. But, I still have to deal with Microsoft's insane activation scheme if I want to use XP. Instead, I just use 2000. One CD, and *I* get to choose how I use it.
Know what most students are doing, to get around the hassle of activating XP so many times? That's right, downloading the cracked version. Guess what they're going to do once they're out of school and want the latest version of Windows?
Re:Maybee... (Score:2)
Anyone care to bet (Score:2, Interesting)
...that the open source DRM solution will quickly prove to be the best, most effective implementation of DRM?
FINALLY!! Spyware-free DRM! (Score:2)
My big issue with M$'s DRM solutions is the fact that they are closed source. This means that I can't check what happens to my personal information or whether the system contains any hidden "features" that I don't like.
Open source DRM enables digital publishing for profit AND the user gets the peace of mind that there is NO SPYWARE or other fishy stuff going on in the background.
Huh? (Score:2)
An alternate open DRM solution (Score:2)
Not truly open source, but perhaps better than Windows of Real DRM,
DRM in the free software spirit (Score:2)
I think an advisory DRM system, combined with micropayment would be a nice thing, especially for free software. For example, your mail user agent could ask, "You are about to send this song to a friend. The artists suggest you donate them $0.50. Do you agree?". Too far-fetched? Maybe. But it's much mo
Re:Isn't this a new kind of oxymoron? (Score:2)
That is just plain incorrect. One of the primary attributes of good encryption is that the algoritm is published. The entire method is published and scrutinized by the entire encryption community.
The security comes from the key, not the algorithm. The algorithmn's only purpose is to enforce the key, whic
Re:Like some others said... (Score:2)
Re:Like some others said... (Score:2)
Re:Why isn't Redhat 9 iso's on KaZaA? (Score:2)
Besides, you should give them money. It's not like it costs very much to get the early download rights.
I only object to paying for data under the following conditions:
1) when it's a sucky overpriced product that I'm forced to use because some other jackass bought it and keeps sending me fricking documents.
2) when I hate the company that produces it, and I want to see them DIE DIE DIE.
3) or when they, in the slavish hu