PDA

View Full Version : Would DRM increase Linux's usability



ki4jgt
October 7th, 2011, 05:02 AM
I know DRM is something that a LOT of Linux users shutter to think about, but even Linus has said that Linux should be able to use it. I also know that no matter what you do, SOMEONE will find a way around it. My question is this: If a programmer builds a program utilizing a DRM (technique) which doesn't install malware or spyware on the user's computer, would this increase Linux's usability?

dpny
October 7th, 2011, 05:27 AM
DRM never increases usability. I can increase commercial viability, but never usability.

3rdalbum
October 7th, 2011, 05:49 AM
DRM always has the side-effect of making everything less usable and more complicated.

not found
October 7th, 2011, 06:40 AM
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/


404

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2011, 06:50 AM
DRM is a bad feature brought about by bad rules. However in order to play the game fully DRM is a feature that should be followed until the rules of the game are changed if commercial success is to be achieved. If not you end up tilting at Windmills whilst others are banking cheques.

ki4jgt
October 7th, 2011, 08:04 AM
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/


404


What is DRM? Digital Restrictions Management. DefectiveByDesign.org is a broad-based anti-DRM campaign that is targeting Big Media, unhelpful manufacturers and DRM distributors. The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by design".


DRM is a bad feature brought about by bad rules. However in order to play the game fully DRM is a feature that should be followed until the rules of the game are changed if commercial success is to be achieved. If not you end up tilting at Windmills whilst others are banking cheques.

How would one go about changing the rules of the game/making the product less restricted, but still maintain the ability to use only one product at a time?

We all know the pros of DRM (which in some cases is GREATLY needed).

Cons of DRM:

1 - Inability to Lend the item to others
2 - Inability to transfer ownership
3 - Inability to move between devices (owned by the same person)
4 - Remote control Author has over User

What other cons does DRM present?

BrokenKingpin
October 7th, 2011, 07:22 PM
I would choose not to use those applications, and would not use any distro that comes with them installed by default.

dniMretsaM
October 7th, 2011, 09:04 PM
We all know the pros of DRM (which in some cases is GREATLY needed).

We do? I honestly can't think of any pros to DRM. Unless you mean pros from the companies perspective. There are a lot of those. Like a legal monopoly on what player you can use. And as for some more cons to DRM, what else could there possibly be? The inability to do anything is pretty much as bad as it gets.

earthpigg
October 7th, 2011, 09:14 PM
If a programmer builds a program utilizing a DRM (technique) which doesn't install malware or spyware on the user's computer, would this increase Linux's usability?

DRM is malware by definition.

It prevents my computer from obeying my commands, and sometimes allows a third party to give commands without my consent that are then obeyed (1984 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html)). That is malware.

But yes, in certain circumstances malware can allow a user to believe he is accomplishing something he otherwise could not do. Hallucinogenics also have this property.

Dr. C
October 7th, 2011, 09:28 PM
What other cons does DRM present?

DRM:

Promotes the creation of eWaste and the release of greenhouse gases reported to cause global warming.
Is used to discriminate on the basis of ethnic and cultural background. (This is one of the results of DVD / Blu-Ray region encoding in the Canadian context).
Is used to suppress religious, political and many "controversial" thoughts.
Is used to interfere in the editorial independence of newspapers.
Is used to engage in anti competitive and monopolistic practices in the market place.
Has created serious security flaws in computer that in some cases could potentially hurt life and limb.
Is used to discriminate against persons with disabilities.

The list of downsides to DRM is endless.

Michael Geist in currently running a series on his Blog (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/) with a list of downsides to DRM. One new downside per day. The context is why the Canadian Government should allow the breaking of DRM or "Digital Locks".

And by the way it fails miserably at what it purports to do namely: Protect authors and creators from piracy. In fact in many cases it actually encourages piracy by penalizing legitimate users and not pirates.

dniMretsaM
October 7th, 2011, 09:31 PM
DRM is malware by definition.

It prevents my computer from obeying my commands, and sometimes allows a third party to give commands without my consent that are then obeyed (1984 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html)). That is malware.

But yes, in certain circumstances malware can allow a user to believe he is accomplishing something he otherwise could not do. Hallucinogenics also have this property.

To add to this, DRM is also spyware. With DRM, companies can know exactly what you're doing with your product. They know what you install, what you remove, and exactly when you do it. The company then acts in the way that best benefits them (see the "1984" issue). Similar to this is closed protocols (like Skype and others). They allow third parties to spy on your conversations.

Of all the books to remove, you would think "1984" would be pretty low on the priority list...


Michael Geist in currently running a series on his Blog (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/) with a list of downsides to DRM. One new downside per day. The context is why the Canadian Government should allow the breaking of DRM or "Digital Locks".

That looks like a pretty awesome blog; bookmarked.


And by the way it fails miserably at what it purports to do namely: Protect authors and creators from piracy. In fact in many cases it actually encourages piracy by penalizing legitimate users and not pirates.

Probably the second highest reason why DRM is bad.

EDIT @OP: I understand where you're coming from on this, but you're logic is flawed.

ki4jgt
October 7th, 2011, 10:05 PM
What about an open sourced DRM which allows it's users to see what it's doing and the code behind it?

dniMretsaM
October 7th, 2011, 10:14 PM
What about an open sourced DRM which allows it's users to see what it's doing and the code behind it?

If the DRM is open source, people could remove even more easily than a closed source DRM. It would completely defeat the purpose. Also, the point of DRM is to be restrictive, making it open source would be oxymoronic. And WHY would we want one anyway? You've yet to describe any benefits of DRM or any reason why we would want one.

Erik1984
October 7th, 2011, 10:21 PM
The whole idea of restricting a user in the usage of a product they buy (however sadly not own according to many EULAs) was my #1 motivation to drop Windows behind and give Ubuntu a try.

LinuxFan999
October 7th, 2011, 10:27 PM
DRM never increases usability. I can increase commercial viability, but never usability.
I agree with your post.

earthpigg
October 7th, 2011, 10:34 PM
DRM never increases usability. I can increase commercial viability, but never usability.

Indeed. Vista's built in DRM* on a brand new laptop is what made me dig up the old Ubuntu 7.10 CD that someone had given me many months prior and which I had promptly shoved into my junk drawer.



*Vista essentially told me that 1/2 of my DVD collection could not be used because I had to pick a region code and stick to it -- my DVD collection at the time was about 1/4 legally purchased while in North America, Middle East, and Europe, and 1/4 bootlegs I'd purchased in Iraq.

(Interestingly enough, the bootlegs had the greatest utility and where the superior product by not having region codes.)

The DRM was easily circumvented of course by installing VLC for Windows but I found it appalling that the built in media player was so intentionally crippled.... and it only crippled my legal DVD collection!

Dr. C
October 7th, 2011, 11:11 PM
Indeed. Vista's built in DRM* on a brand new laptop is what made me dig up the old Ubuntu 7.10 CD that someone had given me many months prior and which I had promptly shoved into my junk drawer.



*Vista essentially told me that 1/2 of my DVD collection could not be used because I had to pick a region code and stick to it -- my DVD collection at the time was about 1/4 legally purchased while in North America, Middle East, and Europe, and 1/4 bootlegs I'd purchased in Iraq.

(Interestingly enough, the bootlegs had the greatest utility and where the superior product by not having region codes.)

The DRM was easily circumvented of course by installing VLC for Windows but I found it appalling that the built in media player was so intentionally crippled.... and it only crippled my legal DVD collection!

This is precisely the kind of opportunity that GNU / Linux needs to capitalize on, by selling the lack of DRM.

ninjaaron
October 8th, 2011, 01:07 AM
And by the way it fails miserably at what it purports to do namely: Protect authors and creators from piracy. In fact in many cases it actually encourages piracy by penalizing legitimate users and not pirates.

This is certainly true in my case. I bought digital music, once upon a time. Then I bought one album with DRM. I promise you I will never do that again. Now, I find other ways to get my music, which include but are not limited to online streaming and the purcahse of physical media... And other ways.

el_koraco
October 8th, 2011, 02:27 AM
Hallucinogenics also have this property.

you sharing?

dniMretsaM
October 8th, 2011, 03:07 AM
This is certainly true in my case. I bought digital music, once upon a time. Then I bought one album with DRM. I promise you I will never do that again. Now, I find other ways to get my music, which include but are not limited to online streaming and the purcahse of physical media... And other ways.

This is why DRM actually hurts the company rather than help it. It makes DRM-free media more appealing, and people usually find that media from illegal sources. And since there are places to get DRM-free media, they are few. Especially non-music. Nowadays most legal music is DRM-free (even from iTunes, amazingly enough), but movies? Good luck. I usually obtain my media (mostly music and some documentories) by capitalizing on my timeshifting rights. I buy movies on DVD's.

Atamisk
October 8th, 2011, 03:07 AM
Stupid Question:

We're mostly fairly well versed on the evils of DRM. But, has anybody bothered to find a solution? How DO you properly protect the interests of an artist and their right to make money while still allowing users to fairly use their copies? Is there a 'happy medium'?

The day somebody answers this question will be the day Classical DRM will die a sudden and painful death.

vehemoth
October 8th, 2011, 03:11 AM
Stupid Question:

We're mostly fairly well versed on the evils of DRM. But, has anybody bothered to find a solution? How DO you properly protect the interests of an artist and their right to make money while still allowing users to fairly use their copies? Is there a 'happy medium'?

The day somebody answers this question will be the day Classical DRM will die a sudden and painful death.
Concerts?

dniMretsaM
October 8th, 2011, 03:16 AM
Stupid Question:

We're mostly fairly well versed on the evils of DRM. But, has anybody bothered to find a solution? How DO you properly protect the interests of an artist and their right to make money while still allowing users to fairly use their copies? Is there a 'happy medium'?

The day somebody answers this question will be the day Classical DRM will die a sudden and painful death.

People will pirate digital media nomatter what protection is put on it. Period. The best (and only) answer to your question is to not try to protects artists "rights" other than with copyright. Honest users won't have a problem obeying the (copyright) law and will get the benefit of actually owning what the pay for. Digital pirates won't give a crap either way. They will continue their illegal actions whether there is DRM or not (digital piracy might actually go down because of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post).

thatguruguy
October 8th, 2011, 03:17 AM
According to Lyle Lovett, the reason he tours so much is because he has never made anything off his albums. The money all goes to the record producers, the publishing company, etc.

ninjaaron
October 8th, 2011, 05:37 AM
According to Lyle Lovett, the reason he tours so much is because he has never made anything off his albums. The money all goes to the record producers, the publishing company, etc.

this is true for any artist on a major label. That's why the advent of consumer-level DAW software and digital music distribution has revolutionized the way music is made, and many people are publishing their own music (and giving Apple 30% or so of their profits, which is pretty bad, but much better than the 100% that most major lables take).

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 06:14 AM
OpenDRM (This is merely an idea. If you don't like it, make suggestions or shoot me)

Publisher is the entity creating the software which is used to access the author's work

Software is publishers software wich is used to read file

Author is the person who created the work

File is individual copies of work (not work itself but each individual copy)

Work is work LOL

key is gpg

OpenDRM Protocol 1.0

Each software program has the publisher's public and private key coded into the program itself (updated every release)

The author creates a key for each file. The rights given to the user are placed into the header of the document.

The software then encrypts the file header with the publisher's private key.

The Author encrypts the entire file with the file's private key, appends a header to the new fie (the file's public key) and then delete's the file's private and public key (the public key is in the header and the private one is no longer needed.)

Basically:

. . .Plain Text. . .
[Header - File's public key]
. . .Plain Text. . .
===Encrypted via file's private key===
---Encrypted via publisher's public key---
[Header - Rights to user]
---Encrypted via publisher's public key---
[contents]
===Encrypted via file's private key===

Because the software has both the publisher's public and private keys, it can decrypt the rights which was encrypted using the publisher's public key.

If a file is to be transferred between devices, the device is to have a database of devices which meet the publisher's security standards and is to verify file transfer between devices using the device's (publisher's) public key which should also be in the database on the current device. If this makes any sense, please comment, tell me some ways to make it more freely available while maintaining author's rights.

ninjaaron
October 8th, 2011, 06:53 AM
This idea has ki4jgt written all over it.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you want to create proprietary software, there are already a variety of methods at your disposal to protect your work. Software that restricts the rights of the user totally goes against the spirit of open source, so there isn't any point to trying to find loopholes in the definition. If you want to make money off or your software and do not have an open-source model that accomidates that, then use a mixed model (with portions of the code open and portions closed, like Google often does) or a fully closed, propritary model. You're just playing word games.

Atamisk
October 8th, 2011, 06:58 AM
As a side thought, i wonder how artists feel about DRM? Do they like it or not?

Also, i have to say i love services like bandcamp that have an option to let users set their own price on DRM free music. it really promotes the idea of supporting artists you like rather than being charged money for the 'right' to hear their music. To me, it's a whole different mentality. If the artist is just starting out, and if i know adding a few bucks to the optional price helps them out, I'll do it. I'm brutally cheap, so if a service can get me to *Volunteer* money, it's doing something special.

--Aaron

el_koraco
October 8th, 2011, 07:53 AM
A good number of countries have made provisions for piracy by introducing levies on every piece of removable media sold (CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, Micro SD cards and so on). The proceeds are funneled to artists' organizations, which distribute the cash. DRM is largley an American phenomenon, arising from an unwillingness by the government to impose further taxes. I don't see why that particular model would have to be applied to the whole world, since Linux is much more popular outside of the US.

mendhak
October 8th, 2011, 08:01 AM
Has anyone mentioned Steam yet? Steam is DRM. But it is very popular because it's non-intrusive for the most part. By making games a convenience for users, it helps achieve the goals of the selling company. Again, for the most part. There are always ways around things.

Would that be an example of DRM done right?

earthpigg
October 8th, 2011, 09:28 AM
A good number of countries have made provisions for piracy by introducing levies on every piece of removable media sold (CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, Micro SD cards and so on). The proceeds are funneled to artists' organizations, which distribute the cash.

...how the heck do you figure out which artist gets how much?

That sounds like a system just begging to be gamed. Introduce that around where I live, and I will become an "artist" in a heartbeat. And if you determine who gets how much by legacy-format sales? I'll sell my CD's for $0.50 a pop, not a problem. And if you go by revenue? Ill purchase one CD that I produced for $500,000,000, problem solved.

And also: the vast majority of copyright infringers have no use for CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, or Micro SD cards for their copyright infringement. But, of course, the very elderly gentleman that wrote the legislation wouldn't know anything about that.

Series of tubes, but music is to thick for the tubes, so the 'pirates' must be using dee-vee-dee right?

el_koraco
October 8th, 2011, 11:16 AM
...how the heck do you figure out which artist gets how much?

That sounds like a system just begging to be gamed. Introduce that around where I live, and I will become an "artist" in a heartbeat. And if you determine who gets how much by legacy-format sales? I'll sell my CD's for $0.50 a pop, not a problem. And if you go by revenue? Ill purchase one CD that I produced for $500,000,000, problem solved.

It's divided among music artists who are part of the association responsible for distrubuting the proceeds. It's not just the delivery devices, every bar, restaturant, shopping mall, any place that plays radio or TV channels, has to pay the levy. Which comes to a considerable amount. I'm not saying I agree with the legislation, but as far as piracy is concerned, it pretty much covers stuff. Also, the majority of high level musicians get proceeds from royalties, and most of them have their own teams listening to radio stations and watching TV channels all over the world.



And also: the vast majority of copyright infringers have no use for CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, or Micro SD cards for their copyright infringement. But, of course, the very elderly gentleman that wrote the legislation wouldn't know anything about that.

Series of tubes, but music is to thick for the tubes, so the 'pirates' must be using dee-vee-dee right?

I didn't say pirating is done via physical media, I'm saying a small chunk of the sale of physical media (and other stuff) is funneled back to the associations. It's indirect piracy compensation. Hell, in my country it's not even illegal to download or be in possession of copyrighted material, you are just not allowed to redistribute it (which makes torrenting music and video pretty funny. Software companies, for instance, are still allowed to disable services they find to be running pirated material). The artists' associations are happy with the money they're getting, and the state doesn't need to waste money and resources in bringing piracy cases to court. There was a push to prosecute p2p and other stuff in the big European countries in the late 90s/early 00s, but that came to a pretty epic fail.

The European Comission is completely irrelevant in this. Lol, they've been repeating the same stuff about DRM for 10 years, and have not come up with a single enforcable directive (which is not surprising, we're talking about an institution that has been drafting a battery-disposal directive for over 10 years now). Some European countries are adopting DRM, but that's not the norm, and you see the "pirate parties" actually gaining popularity and local council seats, which is ridiculous to an extreme point.

As far as the relationship of big software companies and DRM goes, Apple has been keen to adopt it in order to make money and have control of content, and Microsoft did it to adapt to the market, but they kept it at a reasonable level, because they don't want to set too high a penalty on running pirated copies of Windows in poorer countries, most likely fearing a massive shift to free operating systems.

I really don't see why Linux should adapt to the broken model of DRM (I'm talking about the technical aspect, not the ideological one), just because it's hip at the moment.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 02:39 PM
This idea has ki4jgt written all over it.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you want to create proprietary software, there are already a variety of methods at your disposal to protect your work. Software that restricts the rights of the user totally goes against the spirit of open source, so there isn't any point to trying to find loopholes in the definition. If you want to make money off or your software and do not have an open-source model that accomidates that, then use a mixed model (with portions of the code open and portions closed, like Google often does) or a fully closed, propritary model. You're just playing word games.

That's why I presented it here. I don't want it to be proprietary. This model would give users the options to transfer files, to own files. The open source model is not dying and WILL NEVER die. I don't want to restrict users, yet I want them to be able to enjoy software at the same time. This is why I wanted this DRM to be completely open (So people could attempt to remove restrictions which were placed on them (besides the unwanted copying of material) DRM techniques currently have a ton of flaws, but DRM itself is just an idea. Wouldn't there be a way to correct flaws in the idea to make it better for everyone (Even open source people)

EDIT: The reason I'm pushing this, I go to a public library where we are allowed to download audio and digital books from the Library. The books are in DRM, and there's no Linux support for DRM. They're FREE to check out, but they expire after so long. Also, Netflix states that it doesn't want to deal with us b/c of DRM. This is why I'm asking for a compromise. One which will give the user the most amount of freedoms (overcoming all freedom issues with previous DRM models) but will retain the file's rights. I'm sorry, but for non commercial uses, I see this as a plus for education. A professor writes a book that he is willing to FREELY share with his class during the semester. Then that book expires. I'm not trying to make a profit off this. I mean, it would be used in video games to purchase items which are supposed to dissapear after a bit or to pass data between two players so that they can't cheat each other. I mean, that's the fun of Open source in my opinion. You hack the protocol and make it better. I don't know, but I do know that I'm not trying to make money from this idea. I had an idea to make money. I was even going to keep quiet about this, but the need to do this extends WAY beyond the corporate market. A need for it even exists in the open source community.

thatguruguy
October 8th, 2011, 02:48 PM
This is why I wanted this DRM to be completely open (So people could attempt to remove restrictions which were placed on them (besides the unwanted copying of material)

That's like saying, "I didn't want the prisoners to feel overly constrained, so I made sure that they had the keys to the jail cell within easy reach at all times." An open-sourced DRM, which the user could turn off at whim, is nonsensical. It's not DRM if it is user-controlled.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 03:59 PM
That's like saying, "I didn't want the prisoners to feel overly constrained, so I made sure that they had the keys to the jail cell within easy reach at all times." An open-sourced DRM, which the user could turn off at whim, is nonsensical. It's not DRM if it is user-controlled.

No, not that they could turn off, more like, introducing a method of reporting a guard for prisoner abuse. The prisoners would still be in jail, but the jail would have to give them rights instead of imposing upon them.

I've even though of applying a no commercial use policy to the protocol. There are other needs for DRM besides commercial.

EDIT: even an open source video game where users could purchase items that only last for some long. A DRM would REALLY help there. It would make it where the users wouldn't be cheating the rest of the video game players.

thatguruguy
October 8th, 2011, 04:39 PM
I've even though of applying a no commercial use policy to the protocol. There are other needs for DRM besides commercial.

No, there aren't.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 04:51 PM
No, there aren't.

What if you want to send a message to someone, but want it to expire so that they couldn't prove you sent it?

el_koraco
October 8th, 2011, 05:16 PM
What if you want to send a message to someone, but want it to expire so that they couldn't prove you sent it?

you make it like in Mission Impossible: "This message will autodestruct in five seconds..."

thatguruguy
October 8th, 2011, 05:30 PM
What if you want to send a message to someone, but want it to expire so that they couldn't prove you sent it?

Why would I want to do that, exactly?

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 05:32 PM
you make it like in Mission Impossible: "This message will autodestruct in five seconds..."

That's DRM. DRM isn't a specific protocol. It's the idea that you have control of information after you give it to the user. I know Open Source is generally against it, but it is needed in certain cases. Misuse of it (to restrict the free flow of information) is never good, but say you told someone a secret about your life (you did something illegal) and didn't want them to give it to other people, you DRM it and then after so many days/minutes, it expires. The method which commercial entities use DRM is the problem, not DRM itself. DRM is merely an idea. How you accomplish that idea, and which protocols you use to do so are what's evil.

waveOSBeta
October 8th, 2011, 05:54 PM
Ah, DRM. how Apple deleted the "free music downloader" app I had on my iPod.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Ah, DRM. how Apple deleted the "free music downloader" app I had on my iPod.

Though that is the general idea. It's not behind an open DRM platform. An open platform would Insure that users get the right to decide what standards a publisher is compliant with. NO application removal, unless the user decided to do the program on a trial basis. It would be no different than any other shareware. Except that the author would only implement it into their own programs and nothing else. The Linux kernel and ALL of the rest of the OS for that matter would have nothing to do with the DRM. It would just be the program itself.

EDIT: In fact, if we wanted to extend this, ANY FORM of encryption is DRM

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 06:22 PM
That's DRM. DRM isn't a specific protocol. It's the idea that you have control of information after you give it to the user. I know Open Source is generally against it, but it is needed in certain cases. Misuse of it (to restrict the free flow of information) is never good, but say you told someone a secret about your life (you did something illegal) and didn't want them to give it to other people, you DRM it and then after so many days/minutes, it expires. The method which commercial entities use DRM is the problem, not DRM itself. DRM is merely an idea. How you accomplish that idea, and which protocols you use to do so are what's evil.

You don't tell someone a secret if you do not trust that person to keep a it. DRM is totally useless in this scenario.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 06:32 PM
You don't tell someone a secret if you do not trust that person to keep a it. DRM is totally useless in this scenario.

If your friend's computer gets searched though, he wouldn't have to reveal your secret. His computer would.

thatguruguy
October 8th, 2011, 06:34 PM
If you tell a friend that you did something illegal, and he doesn't tell anyone, he is now a criminal as well. It's called being an accessory after the fact.

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 06:37 PM
In fact, if we wanted to extend this, ANY FORM of encryption is DRM

It is fundamentally different. Sending an encrypted message over an untrusted network to a trusted recipient who then decrypts it is not DRM.

The key difference with DRM is that the recipient is not trusted, but still has to be provided with the decryption key. The "solution" is to hide the decryption key among that person's personal effects and then try to control that person's life in many invasive ways in an attempt to prevent that person from finding the decryption key.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 06:37 PM
If you tell a friend that you did something illegal, and he doesn't tell anyone, he is now a criminal as well. It's called being an accessory after the fact.

There's also a time limit in which you can be presecuted and then society looks down on you if they find out. Without the file, there's no proof. So, if my friend's friend uses his computer, I can be sure he doesn't see my secret because the file is now gone. My friend's friend (our mutual friend) doesn't look at me in a negative manner and we're all happy.

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 06:43 PM
If your friend's computer gets searched though, he wouldn't have to reveal your secret. His computer would.

No all he needs is to encrypt the information. Ubuntu does that with the /home partition. There is no need for invasive DRM here. It comes down to the basic question: Do you trust your friend to keep the secret?

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 07:15 PM
It is fundamentally different. Sending an encrypted message over an untrusted network to a trusted recipient who then decrypts it is not DRM.

The key difference with DRM is that the recipient is not trusted, but still has to be provided with the decryption key. The "solution" is to hide the decryption key among that person's personal effects and then try to control that person's life in many invasive ways in an attempt to prevent that person from finding the decryption key.

Digital Rights Management - You're controlling who has the right to access digital information.

dniMretsaM
October 8th, 2011, 07:19 PM
I must say, this whole idea is absolutely ridiculous! DRM itself if bad, why? Because it restricts the user, no matter what form it is in, it takes away your freedom. DRM is not an idea, it is a means to an end (the end being control). The idea is controlling the recipient. I don't know about you, but being controlled isn't my favorite pass time. So basically, DRM is bad in ANY form. Period.


Digital Rights Management - You're controlling who has the right to access digital information.

Wow. Just wow. Someone's thinking is totally messed up. Digital Restrictions Management does nothing but harm the honest user. Anyone wanting to remove it can (so it's not "protecting" anyone or anything). And again with the controlling, why is that a good thing?

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 07:29 PM
Digital Rights Management - You're controlling who has the right to access digital information.

Digital Restrictions Management - You are attempting to control how people use the devices and computers they own.

It have been called many different things over the years since the days of "copy protection" and the practice of deliberately creating bad sectors (defects) on 5.25 in floppies the 1980's. The fundamentals however remain the same.

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 07:33 PM
The key difference with DRM is that the recipient is not trusted, but still has to be provided with the decryption key. The "solution" is to hide the decryption key among that person's personal effects and then try to control that person's life in many invasive ways in an attempt to prevent that person from finding the decryption key.

The key is placed in the file itself (in my model).

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 07:36 PM
The key is placed in the file itself.

and the file is placed where?

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 07:40 PM
and the file is placed where?

Defaultly in the program directory, but may be exported to other devices/places. The file doesn't get deleted until another program plays it and notices that the expire date has been exceeded. With my model. The program has no further access to the user's computer than the file itself. It's NOT inside Linux or any part of Linux, b/c the program is what manages DRM.

EDIT: The user installs the program too. It's not installed by viewing the file.

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 08:02 PM
Defaultly in the program directory, but may be exported to other devices/places. The file doesn't get deleted until another program plays it and notices that the expire date has been exceeded. With my model. The program has no further access to the user's computer than the file itself. It's NOT inside Linux or any part of Linux, b/c the program is what manages DRM.

EDIT: The user installs the program too. It's not installed by viewing the file.

The programs that read / play the file are they FLOSS or propriety?

ki4jgt
October 8th, 2011, 08:04 PM
The programs that read / play the file are they FLOSS or propriety?

Either one. Since the protocol itself is open, the program can be open or closed. Although to use GPG (GPLd), one must keep the program open.

Dr. C
October 8th, 2011, 08:43 PM
Either one. Since the protocol itself is open, the program can be open or closed. Although to use GPG (GPLd), one must keep the program open.

This is in fact a fairly typical approach to DRM that has already being used many times in systems where the user has root or administrative access. Microsoft Windows XP and earlier versions of Microsoft Windows come to mind.

If the application is FLOSS it is trivial to defeat. One simply modifies the application to get rid of the DRM and releases the modified version under a compatible FLOSS license. Since it is FLOSS this is done with the permission of the copyright holder.

If the application is propriety on the other hand the DRM has a little chance before falling. It comes down to finding that elusive key, by reverse engineering the program and the file. Sort of like finding a needle in haystack. The more hay the harder it is to find the needle. The key here is that only propriety bits count as hay, FLOSS on the other hand does not since it is all in the open.

One can soon see why GNU / Linux is such a horrid platform for this kind of DRM when compared to Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows has many order of magnitudes more propriety software namely hay than GNU / Linux in which to hide the needle. One can also see why DRM is many times compared to malware. DRM software has to hide itself from the owner of the computer just like malware does and by the necessity of design has to use many of the same techniques.

This kind of DRM has already been broken on Microsoft Windows. It does not stand a chance on GNU / Linux.

earthpigg
October 8th, 2011, 10:03 PM
Digital Rights Management - You're controlling who has the right to access digital information.

It's quite simple, you only give the digital information to people you trust.

In your "this message will self-destruct" scenario above, there is still no means to defeat me holding a camera up to my computer screen. Which brings us back to square one: Why are you sending the message to someone you don't trust?

If you trust them, traditional encryption works just fine.

If you don't (or if your trust is misplaced), the DRM won't change anything except to falsely communicate to the recipient that they aren't trusted - which can potentially be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The most compelling example of this, in the modern age, would be naughty pictures that one would later like to deny sending (just because it's an easier example than something criminal):

If the recipient turns out to be trustworthy, then the issue takes care of itself via traditional 'plausible deniability (http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability)' double passwords if you really want to go that far.

If the recipient turns out not to be trustworthy, then they will press the good old "Prt Scrn" button for their own viewing convenience or to use against you later.

All of the above is true with or without the DRM being Open Source.

Chame_Wizard
October 8th, 2011, 10:30 PM
DRM would only make Linux worse.

HoKaze
October 8th, 2011, 11:27 PM
Saying that DRM will improve usability is like saying that attaching a ball and chain to my leg will make walking easier <_<;
DRM needs to die a slow, painful and overly horrible death amidst much fire and explosions. It doesn't benefit honest users, it doesn't hinder the criminals and it doesn't even benefit the big companies as it just pushes otherwise honest users into piracy.

ki4jgt
October 9th, 2011, 12:16 AM
This is in fact a fairly typical approach to DRM that has already being used many times in systems where the user has root or administrative access. Microsoft Windows XP and earlier versions of Microsoft Windows come to mind.

If the application is FLOSS it is trivial to defeat. One simply modifies the application to get rid of the DRM and releases the modified version under a compatible FLOSS license. Since it is FLOSS this is done with the permission of the copyright holder.

If the application is propriety on the other hand the DRM has a little chance before falling. It comes down to finding that elusive key, by reverse engineering the program and the file. Sort of like finding a needle in haystack. The more hay the harder it is to find the needle. The key here is that only propriety bits count as hay, FLOSS on the other hand does not since it is all in the open.

One can soon see why GNU / Linux is such a horrid platform for this kind of DRM when compared to Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows has many order of magnitudes more propriety software namely hay than GNU / Linux in which to hide the needle. One can also see why DRM is many times compared to malware. DRM software has to hide itself from the owner of the computer just like malware does and by the necessity of design has to use many of the same techniques.

This kind of DRM has already been broken on Microsoft Windows. It does not stand a chance on GNU / Linux.

The programmer merely withholds his software key for his program any modified software can not run read the file because though it has the file key, it does not have the software key of the program's programmer.

Dr. C
October 9th, 2011, 03:01 AM
The programmer merely withholds his software key for his program any modified software can not run read the file because though it has the file key, it does not have the software key of the program's programmer.

So now we encrypt the file that contains the key to the content, with another key hidden in a blob of software somewhere else. All this does is hide another needle in the haystack that tells me where the first needle is. It really does not matter how many keys are in the chain. Ultimately there is one key in plain text that opens the chain hidden somewhere in the computer, and sooner or later root will find it.