PDA

View Full Version : DRM and Linux



zapcojake
April 12th, 2006, 05:55 AM
Saw this post at slash dot today.
Baronvaile writes "ArsTechnica is running a story about RealNetworks VP Jeff Ayars at LinuxWorld Boston discussing the future of Linux for the consumer, if it does not support DRM." From the article: "Ayers has a few supporters in this issue from the Linux camp, as Novell, Linspire, and Red Hat spokespeople reportedly said they would be happy to add DRM to their distributions, but with some caveats. Novell, for example, is "currently in discussions with vendors who control proprietary formats" with the goal of supporting these formats in SuSE Linux. One can only surmise exactly which formats that would be, but recent rumblings from Redmond make it likely that Microsoft DRM solutions such as PlaysForSure could be among them." I am hoping to get some feedback about this to Ubuntu developers.

I for one don't like the idea of someone else telling me what I can and can't do with MY computer and therefore do not support DRM being included in Linux. To me Linux and open source technology mean that my computer can truly be what I make it and DRM is in opposition of that idea.

gabruo
April 12th, 2006, 06:19 AM
I completely agree, and am also curious as to Ubuntu's stand on the DRM issue. Being Debian based one would hope that they would honor their philosophy.

zapcojake
April 12th, 2006, 06:28 AM
Thats what I want to accomplish, making sure users weigh in with their opinions on this, also i would like to hear what Ubuntu thinks about it. Instead of Linux adapting to the way things are done it should demonstrate a different and better way of doing things is possible.

stoeptegel
April 12th, 2006, 06:34 AM
The first day Digital Restriction Management will be introduced in a distro i use, i'll wipe the system and search for a new linux distribution.

tom-ubuntu
April 12th, 2006, 07:50 AM
The first day Digital Restriction Management will be introduced in a distro i use, i'll wipe the system and search for a new linux distribution.
not only you...

helpme
April 12th, 2006, 08:58 AM
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060411

Kvark
April 12th, 2006, 11:37 AM
I'm sure we'll see some DRM on Linux since for example a closed source game would obviously have DRM even if it's ported to Linux.

But if DRM and open open source both apply to the same product. Then DRM and the 4 freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) of open source can not coexist. Still, to stop DRM technology from being applied on open source products altogether would be bad since the same technology could theoretically be used for something else that all involved parties agree to. But any well designed open source licence (GPL 3?) should make sure that the 4 freedoms overrule DRM and not the other way around whenever there is a conflict of interests.

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
One purpose of DRM is often to restrict you from using the program for purposes the author doesn't like so DRM removes this freedom.

* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
DRM hasn't stopped pirates so far because they can just make a cracked version that is adapted to their needs. If you get the source code and permission to modify then it's even easier to crack so this freedom removes DRM.

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The most common purpose of DRM is to prevent redistribution of copies to your neighbors so DRM removes this freedom.

* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You wouldn't have to choose the DRMed version if everyone has permission to legally release an improved/cracked version so this freedom removes DRM.

MenZa
April 12th, 2006, 11:44 AM
C.R.A.P. (http://reddit.com/info/3kf9/) + Linux/GNU/BSD/Whatever... I dunno, sounds weird in my head.

BoyOfDestiny
April 12th, 2006, 12:12 PM
One thing that makes me feel comfortable is that Ubuntu (and Linux in general) is something global.

If I was stuck using windows only, well I'd be ready to lose plenty of things we take for granted from a computer. Such as recording music, with garbage like secure audio path, being unable to watch videos at full quality without hdcp etc...

Some people are quick to say oh it's optional blah blah... It's not hard to imagine an ISP saying it's mandatory to have TPM on etc... For those with mactel, try turning off TPM and see if you can get into OSX [seriously I'm asking, I don't know if it would let you boot or not]...

I think most people realize it's not about piracy, but about control. I tell my pc what to do, not the other way around. Adding artificial barries to using things (and trust me in a decade or two it will be hard to get at this stuff without breaking the DRM). I have enough "fun" getting around copyprotection from 15-20 years ago, thank god there was no "phone home" protection.

Meanwhile, people will rip the content anyway, and provide it. Only legitimate customers will be inconvienced if they chose to implement restrictions with TPM. Best examples are windows product activation. In fact this was just adding to the "last straws" on the camels back. Once the sony drm thing came to light (showing how far companies are willing to go if they don't get caught...) I immediately went to Fry's bought a 300gig drive, backed up my data and wiped windows for good...

Anyway, as a U.S. citizen I do not think I can do much besides not buy any of this garbage. For cds and dvd's I buy used. To slightly misquote monty python, "I didn't vote for it". In regard to the DMCA, software patents, etc. If I want to watch DVD's with CSS or encode MP3's.... I call fair use.

Sorry this was such a rant, but I can kind of get a feel of the consequences this will have. I saw computers evolve quite a bit since I was 3 (can't remember anything before that...) The differences in hardware and what software could do are amazing. Seeing cga -> ega -> vga ->svga, pc speaker to soundcards, videocards with TV, from swapping floppies to big drives, etc etc. If software patents had been around, things would've stagnated.
Providing TPM provides a means for large corps to monitor what you do, and ensure only "licensed" usage... No thanks.

I'm behind Richard Stallman on GPLv3, but anyway I'm very happy with GPLv2. I can say without a doubt I would have lost interest in computers without the GPL and free software...

zenwhen
April 12th, 2006, 12:21 PM
If a package were available that allowed for you to play all of your purchased content from online music and video stores, your rights would not be inhibited. You would in fact, have more rights than before because you would be allowed to play any music you had chosen to purchase on these services.

You have a choice on whether or not you will purchase DRM'ed content. DRM is not some magical piece of code that makes your computer stop ripping CD's and being able to play movies you download from the Internet.

Why would it bother you if the OPTION existed to play DRM'ed media? DRM'ed media is not going away. It is only gaining in popularity and consumer acceptance.

I would love to see a day when DRM was wiped off the face of this planet and all files were non-proprietary. This day has not yet come, and we are currently lacking capabilities that we could have if we allowed ourselves to interoperate with those who do not share our values.

We have something to gain, nothing tangible to lose, and only stubbornness and paranoia stand in our way.

BoyOfDestiny
April 12th, 2006, 12:35 PM
DRM is not some magical piece of code that makes your computer stop ripping CD's and being able to play movies you download from the Internet.

Actually, it could be used in that manner.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

Doesn't mean it will though.
http://tech.blogs.eff.org/archives/000230.html

Anyway, people get a choice. If they want DRM'ed content they can buy it (iTunes), they can't sell it though (iTunes).

I don't want anything to do with it. But I won't stop them from doing what they want.

kahping
April 12th, 2006, 12:54 PM
If i bought DRM'ed content, would i be able to convert it into a format i prefer? Would that be considered illegal despite the fact that i paid for it and i'm only converting to my own prefered format?

Say i bought a song in AAC format and i wanted to convert it into Ogg Vorbis. It's not about which format is better here, but a matter of preference. Is there anything in the DRM'ed media that would prevent me from doing this?

Just some things i'm wondering. Does anybody know the answer?

Goatee
April 12th, 2006, 12:57 PM
DRM shouldn't be on the software
it's a harder for music though

BoyOfDestiny
April 12th, 2006, 01:43 PM
If i bought DRM'ed content, would i be able to convert it into a format i prefer? Would that be considered illegal despite the fact that i paid for it and i'm only converting to my own prefered format?

Say i bought a song in AAC format and i wanted to convert it into Ogg Vorbis. It's not about which format is better here, but a matter of preference. Is there anything in the DRM'ed media that would prevent me from doing this?

Just some things i'm wondering. Does anybody know the answer?

The answer is maybe. If they went out of their way it's possible. For something like iTunes you jump through a hoop. I.E. burn it to a disc, then rip it (there will be quality loss if you compress that once again). To rip it directly, using something like playfair to bypass the DRM. That would be illegal in the U.S. thanks to the DMCA... The goal doesn't matter (in your case fair use), any circumvention of copyprotection is made illegal by the DMCA (U.S. only I believe, maybe Australia too.)

Google "secure audio path" and see what you find.

Anyway, some of this hasn't happened yet, but Hollywood has some funky ideas. If they could make it mandatory for devices to have DRM (i.e. a camcorder), then it could block recording content with an "invisible" watermark.
Ideally they would love to plug the "analog hole". Whether it be holding a camera to a TV or what not.

Anyway here is a good article although 4 years old:
Hollywood Wants to Plug the "Analog Hole"
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000113.html

Here is one from december 2005
A Lump of Coal for Consumers: Analog Hole Bill Introduced
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004261.php

This stuff has been in planning for years, but really how shall I say, non-geeks and people who don't care about privacy haven't taken notice. It's one of those things that happens little by little I suppose...

prizrak
April 12th, 2006, 02:01 PM
I don't see how there would be a problem with putting DRM into Linux. Companies should just create Linux ports of their software if they want us to use their DRM'ed content. Look at the forums, look at how many people complain about crappy Flash or embedded a/v performance or the lack of support for w32codecs out of the box. Providing users with the ability to get content that is available to users of other platforms will help the adoption of Linux on the desktop. I have no problem with DRM on Linux or any other system as long as I have a choice as to whether it is enabled.

ComplexNumber
April 12th, 2006, 02:47 PM
If a package were available that allowed for you to play all of your purchased content from online music and video stores, your rights would not be inhibited. You would in fact, have more rights than before because you would be allowed to play any music you had chosen to purchase on these services.

You have a choice on whether or not you will purchase DRM'ed content. DRM is not some magical piece of code that makes your computer stop ripping CD's and being able to play movies you download from the Internet.

Why would it bother you if the OPTION existed to play DRM'ed media? DRM'ed media is not going away. It is only gaining in popularity and consumer acceptance.

I would love to see a day when DRM was wiped off the face of this planet and all files were non-proprietary. This day has not yet come, and we are currently lacking capabilities that we could have if we allowed ourselves to interoperate with those who do not share our values.

We have something to gain, nothing tangible to lose, and only stubbornness and paranoia stand in our way.
i agree 100%.

helpme
April 12th, 2006, 03:06 PM
I have no problem with DRM on Linux or any other system as long as I have a choice as to whether it is enabled.
But isn't it exactly the point of DRM that you don't have a choice? If you can disable it, what sense would it make, or am I misunderstanding you?

zapcojake
April 12th, 2006, 04:09 PM
The things that bother me most about DRM are: Control, I don't like the idea of a third party telling us how ANY portion of Linux will work. Its ours and we should do what we please with it. Also, some of the folks pushing DRM I regard as unsavory, I don't like them anywhere near Linux. There is an old saying in politics "If you can't beat them join them, or if you can't beat them lead them." I worry about big vendors attempting to compromise the quality of Linux. We have to remember DRM and "A trusted path to computing" are kissing cousins.
Also, I have read some stuff about DRM hardware DVD drives and monitors that will have to be compliant. Seems like that could be a way to drive costs up. To me the first and best use for a computer is the free and open exchange of information. I am not sure DRM and that idea can coexist.

prizrak
April 12th, 2006, 05:28 PM
But isn't it exactly the point of DRM that you don't have a choice? If you can disable it, what sense would it make, or am I misunderstanding you?
I didn't word it clearly enough. My point was more or less on the side of "If I want iTunes and to buy their DRM'ed content I can but I don't have to, to just play mp3's I have". Like I like to have a choice to get DRM content on my OS of choice but I don't have to install DRM software if I'm not interested in it. That would be the difference from Windows and OS X AFAIK (well upcomming Vista in any case) where DRM is built into the OS itself and your system COULD be locked out if you don't pay MS your monthly fee (well if they ever decide to go to subscription based)

John.Michael.Kane
April 12th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Don't know if this can be done.. I think they could just make the DRM like any other package that a user could apt-get if they needed it for music or some kind of game. they don't have to make it built-in.


Just my thoughts..

Donshyoku
April 12th, 2006, 05:43 PM
But isn't it exactly the point of DRM that you don't have a choice? If you can disable it, what sense would it make, or am I misunderstanding you?

I think that he is referring to the option to not download content with DRM in the first place.

If you know iTunes has DRM, and you don't want DRM, don't use iTunes... once you pay and use iTunes, you are stuck with the DRM, but it was your fault for making that choice in the first place.

helpme
April 12th, 2006, 05:46 PM
I didn't word it clearly enough. My point was more or less on the side of "If I want iTunes and to buy their DRM'ed content I can but I don't have to, to just play mp3's I have". Like I like to have a choice to get DRM content on my OS of choice but I don't have to install DRM software if I'm not interested in it. That would be the difference from Windows and OS X AFAIK (well upcomming Vista in any case) where DRM is built into the OS itself and your system COULD be locked out if you don't pay MS your monthly fee (well if they ever decide to go to subscription based)
Ah, I see, my bad.
However, I think you are underestimating what the proponents of DRM really want.
I think it's pretty clear that DRM can only be effective if you can't opt out of it, that is it has to be build into the OS and into the hardware if it is to be effective. This is certainly one thing I would not want and one thing that creates great problems for a free operating system.

prizrak
April 12th, 2006, 10:19 PM
Ah, I see, my bad.
However, I think you are underestimating what the proponents of DRM really want.
I think it's pretty clear that DRM can only be effective if you can't opt out of it, that is it has to be build into the OS and into the hardware if it is to be effective. This is certainly one thing I would not want and one thing that creates great problems for a free operating system.
Well I know what they want, but I doubt they will get it ;) I'm also sure Linux would never go that route that would be completely out of what the GPL stands for.

Virogenesis
April 12th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Ah, I see, my bad.
However, I think you are underestimating what the proponents of DRM really want.
I think it's pretty clear that DRM can only be effective if you can't opt out of it, that is it has to be build into the OS and into the hardware if it is to be effective. This is certainly one thing I would not want and one thing that creates great problems for a free operating system.
1) They will need to have. closed source drivers which will lead to them being reversed engineered after time
2) Code that exists in the kernel has to be open source as stated its part of the GPL
3) Third party media apps will have to be created
4) I believe what ever DRM comes out it will be hacked by the linux c community y