DRM opinions

[pl@yer]

My opinion is that "the rule of law" for software and hardware need to be standardized so that they can be applied to any other hardware goods. If the rule doesn't make sense when applied to productA it should not be applicable to productB.

example:
If someone were to buy a Suzuki motorcycle and decided to take the engine apart, they might lose their warranty. Suzuki would not be going after the tinkerer unless he started cloning and selling parts.

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/01/12/sony-goes-after-geohot-and-other-hackers-with-lawsuit/

I'd like to here others opinions.

[Grenage]

It depends on the terms that accompany the product sold, not the ideals of the individual. That aside, didn't the individual 'take it apart' and then 'tell the world' how to get around a copyright protection system?

[pl@yer]

If you truly own something there should be no "terms", you should be able to do whatever you like to it.

I agree that if you are renting something then "terms" makes sense.

edit: using my example earlier if the motorcycle owner posted the exact measurements and procedure to mill a patented engine part could he be sued by suzuki?

[sydbat]

It depends on the terms that accompany the product sold, not the ideals of the individual. That aside, didn't the individual 'take it apart' and then 'tell the world' how to get around a copyright protection system?This.

I imagine if the "other" thread were not locked, this thread would be merged with it...

[pl@yer]

This.

I imagine if the "other" thread were not locked, this thread would be merged with it...

yep, I was going to post in there but it got closed

[pl@yer]

I heard on the news the other night where a store that was playing a purchased music CD was charged for copyright infringement.

What's next :S

[Grenage]

I heard on the news the other night where a store that was playing a purchased music CD was charged for copyright infringement.

What's next :S

When you buy music/films, the terms usually state that it's not for public use. Same deal with on-hold music; you're supposed to pay royalties unless the music is royalty free.

It sounds as though you might want to do some reading up on the subject. Not that it would be simple or interesting reading.

[sydbat]

I heard on the news the other night where a store that was playing a purchased music CD was charged for copyright infringement.

What's next :SI have been told (so take it for what it is) that in the US, stores and other businesses like taxi's cannot play the radio, which is free-to-air, because it violates the laws down there.

Not sure if this is true or just people being paranoid.

[pl@yer]

The intention of the thread was to express people's opinions of existing laws related to DRM.

I'm not arguing what is or isn't legal in terms of DRM. I just think it is a bunch of crap and wondered if I was alone.

....and apparently I am :D

[Grenage]

wondered if I was alone.

....and apparently I am :D

You're not alone, but product freedom and intellectual/copyright protection don't mesh together very easily; hence the numerous court cases. It's horrifically complicated.

[pl@yer]

I have been told (so take it for what it is) that in the US, stores and other businesses like taxi's cannot play the radio, which is free-to-air, because it violates the laws down there.

Not sure if this is true or just people being paranoid.

I saw on the news the other night where a restaurant was slapped with a huge DRM fine. There are apparently people being payed to walk around and look/listen. :)

[sffvba[e0rt]

Ridiculous...


404

[youbuntu]

It is high time the corporations at large, took a look at where they originally came from. If abuse of power = relentless lawsuit, then relentless lawsuit = ridiculous measures for evidence, which then = bad press for said entity, which then = bad reputation, and massive drop in sales.

I want the corporations to change their ways, not immediately crumble to the ground. Everyone is capable of change, they just need to see the light.

That is what should happen, in a logical turn of events.

[1clue]

Is it really all that complicated?

The same laws which ensure that Open Source software remains Open Source also protects the software which was released under a proprietary license.

This includes all DRM software, music, whatever.

I think it sucks that I can't get a DRM-compliant player for blu-ray on Linux, but that's how it is.

Buy hardware that isn't closed like that if you want it open. There's lots of it out there.

For that matter, you should all go read the licenses on all the software you have installed. There aren't that many licenses, and unlike most proprietary licenses most OS software licenses are pretty easy to understand, and they're pretty diverse too.

Whether it sucks from your point of view or not, if somebody breaks a law then they need to be prepared to pay the consequences.

[1clue]

Edit: The post I'm referring to here was edited to remove the part I was objecting to. I'm leaving this post alone other than adding a comment in order to clarify some of the discussion below.

@glossywhite,

Do you realize you are, as nearly as I can tell, expressing the exact same intent that Sony is expressing, only from the other end? Doesn't that make you every bit as unreasonable as Sony is?

I'm not telling you what to do or say here, but I will tell you this: Announcing intent to break a law violates the terms of use for this forum, which means you're about to have this thread locked down too.

[youbuntu]

@glossywhite,

Do you realize you are, as nearly as I can tell, expressing the exact same intent that Sony is expressing, only from the other end? Doesn't that make you every bit as unreasonable as Sony is?

I'm not telling you what to do or say here, but I will tell you this: Announcing intent to break a law violates the terms of use for this forum, which means you're about to have this thread locked down too.

Acted upon, thanks. Sorry guys - didn't realise this forum had SO many rules, but it has, so I have acted to prevent problems.

[pl@yer]

@glossywhite,

I'm not telling you what to do or say here, but I will tell you this: Announcing intent to break a law violates the terms of use for this forum, which means you're about to have this thread locked down too.

Where did announce he was going to break the law? I understood him to be saying that, by a company acting in a way the public disapproves the company may suffer by public boycot.

[edit]: oh I must'a missed it :D

[youbuntu]

Gosh, what a wimpy, politically correct place the world at large has become. We all want to stand up for what is right, but noone is willing to do time for it? Have some backbone, say what you think - revolutions don't happen through being P.C. I am not a provocative person, but what I am saying is that the whole world is scared of consequences... it is simply laughable. If you have strong beliefs, STICK TO THEM.

Only last night, I abandoned some highly paid work I was doing for an author (scanning and digitising his books - he is a friend) because the content of said books COMPLETELY flies in the face of what I believe, as a Christian, and it made a mockery of my religion, in no inobvious way, either! I told the guy I can no longer play any part in the conversion of said material, and that he will be re-imbursed duly.

Stand up for yourselves, just don't be foolish in respect to either side of the fence.

[1clue]

@pl@yer,

The rule of law pretty much IS standardized. It's set up to allow the producer of a product to set proper terms of use.

It allows Richard Stallman to release gcc and ensure that everyone can use it without charge forever.

It allows Apache to release httpd and ensure that everyone can use it for pretty much anything, forever.

It allows Microsoft to release Office, and ensure that everyone who uses it gets an unmodified high quality product for what to some people is a reasonable fee.

It allows record companies to distribute products on the Internet and still pay the bills -- and face it, getting it over the net is MUCH more convenient than going to a store to find it, especially if you listen to some of the fringe stuff.

It allows Sony to be ridiculously protective of the PS3. Which, incidentally, is why I don't have a PS3.

@glossywhite,

I'm not really your enemy here. It's not just Ubuntu forums which are "hyper-sensitive." Any publicly accessible forum (including web site, twitter, facebook, mailing list, etc) which tolerates the sort of thing which might even borderline on illegal can be considered legally culpable as an accessory to the commission of a crime.

I love free software, in nearly all of its many flavors. There's also a considerable amount of commercial software I like a lot too. The same exact laws protect the rights of both types. If you support either type, you need to be cognizant and respectful of both types if you intend to avoid hypocrisy. Or, for that matter, legal action by somebody who is outraged that you broke the license agreement.

[youbuntu]

Since when were modern laws regarding copyright, designed in favour of the consumer? They may masquerade to be, but anyone can see they pander to "the man". It is perfectly possible to make a profit from computer games - a massive one - without charging £40 for a volatile, scratchable plastic disc! Do you seriously think that corps care about their users over their bottom line in general? Seriously? Do you think that because words come out of someone's mouth, that they are actually in total moral agreeance with the noises that come from their voice box?

Open-source is a strange title, as it conveniently dodges the whole point and ethos of "free software", whilst pushing the convenience factor. People value convenience FAR more than freedom and their rights, and so it transpires that we live in a world of spineless, spoon-fed sheeple, just interested in the easiest way to get the next thing they want, and stuff the outcome and/or knock-on effect (eventual or immediate).

Have you visited the rubbish dumps in Africa, where all our crap ends up? My friend tells me it is not his fault that he buys a new shiny iPhone, as "they shouldn't have dangled the carrot in front of me". Spineless and weak willed, and yes, I am too at times.

They say humans are intelligent beings... :-/

[1clue]

This is starting to be a bit more interesting.

In a society where there is draconian law, or the whim of a dictator who doesn't consider himself to be bound by law, then open rebellion may be necessary.

In America and most of the world where there is free speech, there is no such problem. You CAN change the law by following due process. You CAN say that you disagree with a law because of this or that reason. You just can't violate any other laws while doing so.

There IS a mechanism by which you can try to bring about real change to laws which corporations as well as individuals must follow.

FWIW, if somebody took a copy of some GNU software, stripped the license off it, renamed it and marketed it as their own, surely the FSF would use exactly the same mechanism to defend their software that Sony is using to defend their PS3.

[sydbat]

Gosh, what a wimpy, politically correct place the world at large has become. We all want to stand up for what is right, but noone is willing to do time for it? Have some backbone, say what you think - revolutions don't happen through being P.C. I am not a provocative person, but what I am saying is that the whole world is scared of consequences... it is simply laughable. If you have strong beliefs, STICK TO THEM.

Only last night, I abandoned some highly paid work I was doing for an author (scanning and digitising his books - he is a friend) because the content of said books COMPLETELY flies in the face of what I believe, as a Christian, and it made a mockery of my religion, in no inobvious way, either! I told the guy I can no longer play any part in the conversion of said material, and that he will be re-imbursed duly.

Stand up for yourselves, just don't be foolish in respect to either side of the fence.You have answered your own question here.

There are rules on this forum. If you do not like it, there are many, many, many other forums, etc where you can go and have the type of discussions you want, with little or no need to self censor, or be censored.

Also, the owners, administrators and moderators of this forum have the right to close threads, send infractions, ban people for things that are against the CoC (such as political, religious, etc conversations) that you agreed to upon signing up here. THEY own it, not you, therefore THEY have the right to run it as they see fit.

[Grenage]

The rule of law pretty much IS standardized. It's set up to allow the producer of a product to set proper terms of use.

It sort of is; look at Apple and the ruling over 'jail-broken' iphones. Certain stipulations can be overruled by existing laws, and there will always be grey areas. As long as the judges who make the rulings exercise common sense, things generally work out.

Copyright laws are so important, for large companies and the self-employed alike; I agree.

[youbuntu]

You have answered your own question here.

There are rules on this forum. If you do not like it, there are many, many, many other forums, etc where you can go and have the type of discussions you want, with little or no need to self censor, or be censored.

Also, the owners, administrators and moderators of this forum have the right to close threads, send infractions, ban people for things that are against the CoC (such as political, religious, etc conversations) that you agreed to upon signing up here. THEY own it, not you, therefore THEY have the right to run it as they see fit.

In what way was ANY of what I said provocative, or interpretable as causing trouble? Are you deliberately trying to create a problem, or unduly draw attention to something, and inflame a response?

I am sure you are not. You wouldn't do that, that would not be kind. Thank you for drawing my attention to the rules - I wasn't aware there were rules, honestly - not after my other thread :roll:

[Grenage]

Déjà vu.

*runs from thread*

[KiwiNZ]

The answer is simple.

Don't like how Sony implement DRM on PS3 don't buy it. But if you buy, don't whine about how DRM is implemented after the fact. See not that hard really.

The purchase of a PS3 is not compulsory.

[KiwiNZ]

Oh and although Kiwi's are nocturnal creature , I is watchin this thread. Well at least until tomorrow.

[youbuntu]

Déjà vu.

*runs from thread*

No need to run, no need to hide; nothing "wrong" has been said or done. Come back!

Simply put, I disagree with corporate misuse of power, end of. That's all I have to say on it. Continue your thread, I am unwilling to get myself banned, and conceed defeat against my will. If I continued, I'd probably say a fair piece about a few people, and end up being banished - I don't want it/

Have a goodun guys :)


The answer is simple.

Don't like how Sony implement DRM on PS3 don't buy it. But if you buy, don't whine about how DRM is implemented after the fact. See not that hard really.

The purchase of a PS3 is not compulsory.

Eh? DRM is not just a Sony thing, and people can still disagree with it (I do), without owning a PS3. Surely you were joking?

[Grenage]

The answer is simple.

Don't like how Sony implement DRM on PS3 don't buy it. But if you buy, don't whine about how DRM is implemented after the fact. See not that hard really.

The purchase of a PS3 is not compulsory.

Absolutely; the most powerful 'tool' at the consumer's disposal is to simply not purchase. The fact that the PS3, Bluray, iphone et cetera are so successful is because most people aren't that concerned with DRM.


Come back!

I apparently did. ;)

[KiwiNZ]

No need to run, no need to hide; nothing "wrong" has been said or done. Come back!

Simply put, I disagree with corporate misuse of power, end of. That's all I have to say on it. Continue your thread, I am unwilling to get myself banned, and conceed defeat against my will. If I continued, I'd probably say a fair piece about a few people, and end up being banished - I don't want it/

Have a goodun guys :)

You are free to debate just not free to exceed, just remember the advice I gave.

[1clue]

Since when were modern laws regarding copyright, designed in favour of the consumer? They may masquerade to be, but anyone can see they pander to "the man". It is perfectly possible to make a profit from computer games - a massive one - without charging £40 for a volatile, scratchable plastic disc! Do you seriously think that corps care about their users over their bottom line in general? Seriously? Do you think that because words come out of someone's mouth, that they are actually in total moral agreeance with the noises that come from their voice box?

Open-source is a strange title, as it conveniently dodges the whole point and ethos of "free software", whilst pushing the convenience factor. People value convenience FAR more than freedom and their rights, and so it transpires that we live in a world of spineless, spoon-fed sheeple, just interested in the easiest way to get the next thing they want, and stuff the outcome and/or knock-on effect (eventual or immediate).

Have you visited the rubbish dumps in Africa, where all our crap ends up? My friend tells me it is not his fault that he buys a new shiny iPhone, as "they shouldn't have dangled the carrot in front of me". Spineless and weak willed, and yes, I am too at times.

They say humans are intelligent beings... :-/


Wow!

Are you really listening to yourself, or are you just blowing steam?

Modern laws DO protect the consumer. In every copyright law, specific rights are given to the consumer and to the vendor. The vendor has the right to say what sort of agreement there is, but the consumer has the right to choose not to use the product if they don't like the terms of use. They also have the right to approach the vendor to ask for different terms of use for their situation -- not likely, but possible.

So here's the rub that causes so many of you to be surprised by something unpleasant after you've already opened the box and started playing: Before you stick the disc into your player, you're supposed to READ and UNDERSTAND the conditions of use. By opening the wrapper, you have implicitly agreed to the conditions of use.

Re: revolution, from an earlier post:

A revolution is to throw out everything and start over from scratch. Do you REALLY want to do that? Is there absolutely nothing from the society you grew up in that appeals to you? Look at the world around you and ask yourself if you're likely to come out in a better place than you started in before trashing everything.

Why not choose evolution instead? Work to change the things that don't appeal through means which are put in place for exactly that purpose. This is a much smaller task and has a much higher chance of coming out with something you like better than what you started with.

Peace!

[KiwiNZ]

No need to run, no need to hide; nothing "wrong" has been said or done. Come back!

Simply put, I disagree with corporate misuse of power, end of. That's all I have to say on it. Continue your thread, I am unwilling to get myself banned, and conceed defeat against my will. If I continued, I'd probably say a fair piece about a few people, and end up being banished - I don't want it/

Have a goodun guys :)



Eh? DRM is not just a Sony thing, and people can still disagree with it (I do), without owning a PS3. Surely you were joking?

No I am not joking it is not compulsory to purchase DRM affected devices.

[youbuntu]

No I am not joking it is not compulsory to purchase DRM affected devices.

Yeah, but dude... oh, never mind :roll:

[sydbat]

The purchase of a PS3 is not compulsory.True, but can you tell my wife that an XBox is??

[1clue]

It's simple: Find somebody who wants an XBox. Agree to buy one for him if he buys one for you. Go home, tell the old lady it was a gift.

[KiwiNZ]

True, but can you tell my wife that an XBox is??

You need to join the KiwiNZ school of how to harass the wife into agreeing to purchase all the toys you want need desire.

[disabledaccount]

You are not alone:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org

Of motorbikes: you can easily copy some hardware to create spare part (eg. voltage regulator, piston rings -> can be made for You in specialized workshop, chains or belts, etc) - and <Suzuki> (or other manufacturer) can't sue You, because it's Yor business what You're doing with your own motorbike.

But, multimedia business claims that You are becoming criminal when You copying original CD/DVD (for having backup). They claims, that they have losses due to copying media contents, without telling what they understand behind "losses". In fact they are liars, because lack of gain is not loss of profit. It's really simple: they want more money, because private jets and boats have high maintenance costs.

There is also very important difference between real (hardware) product and multimedia:
Radio stations are transmitting only the best songs from new CD's, so when You buy one You have no warranty that other tracks are of equal quality or have same level of being "good". When You buy ticket for new movie You are fed with only best scenes in so called trials - So you are ivesting Your money without beeing sure that the movie is worth your time. The fact is, that illegal copies are making movies "famous" and "worth to see" and therefore everyone can have true choice what he wants to buy and what is not worth to waste the time.
Multimedia business is extremely greedy and has enough money to force necessary changes in law.

[1clue]

This is something prevalent in many Linux forums that I just don't get.

To take something you bought and change it somehow on EXACTLY your copy, chances are the manufacturer will neither know nor care.

In the case of the motorcycle, there aren't even any laws protecting the manufacturer from you building your own whatzit to attach to the bike. The only recourse is the invalidation of the warranty and that's restricted somewhat by the law too.

You are the ones who define your relationship with the vendor as adversarial. You are the ones picking a fight. You didn't buy a defective product and then get jilted on technical support, you changed the product to be other than what was sold to you.

Most manufacturers/software vendors will see that and just brush it off, saying "no more warranty" and wash their hands of you. And that's OK because you were the one who chose to change it and they can no longer be held responsible for it.

Sometimes it seems like you guys choose to break something and then blame the manufacturer for forcing you to break it.

If you don't like something then DON'T BUY IT!

[Starlight]

I think the laws regarding DRM and stuff like that should be simple: when Sony (or someone else) produces a PS3 (or something else) they can add as much DRM restrictions as they want. And when I buy the PS3, it becomes mine, so I can do what I want with it, including removing all the DRM, or turning it into a toaster. Right now the laws seem to work as if Sony is still the owner of a particular PS3 and the customer is just renting it. And I think it's wrong.

[1clue]

For the record, I think Sony is out of line here, except possibly the part about publishing an exploit of software, providing that exploit could be used against someone else's PS3 without the owner's knowledge. AFAICT that isn't happening, so I think people should have the right to entirely remove the firmware from Sony and add their own.

That may not be how the law reads, and we won't really know until after the dust settles around this lawsuit.

Most companies I've looked at simply say that putting non-approved firmware on a device voids the warranty.

FWIW I have all sorts of gadgets -- an iPhone, a Mac, several Blu-Ray players, etc. etc. all of which are networkable devices. None of them except the router has had the original OS removed. The router has dd-wrt on it, and I'm considering putting the original software back on because dd-wrt is so buggy.

IMO most appliances work fine right out of the box. Just because I CAN wipe it off and put my own software on it doesn't mean doing so will put me in a better position than I was with the stock stuff.

Buy the darn thing because you want a PS3, not because you want a Linux box. If you want Linux then go spend less money on hardware that's better for your purpose than the PS3 and THEN install Linux. On something that didn't come with an operating system, therefore doesn't have a silly requirement that you must use theirs.

[disabledaccount]

Most manufacturers/software vendors will see that and just brush it off, saying "no more warranty" and wash their hands of you. And that's OK because you were the one who chose to change it and they can no longer be held responsible for it.

Sometimes it seems like you guys choose to break something and then blame the manufacturer for forcing you to break it.

If you don't like something then DON'T BUY IT!It seems that You completely don't understand what it's all about.

btw, If You think that originall Linksys FW is more secure and less buggy than DD-WRT or Tomato, then You're wrong.

[Dustin2128]

Hat guy expresses my opinion.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sony_microsoft_mpaa_riaa_apple.jpg

[1clue]

It seems that You completely don't understand what it's all about.

btw, If You think that originall Linksys FW is more secure and less buggy than DD-WRT or Tomato, then You're wrong.

It could be that you're right, but I don't think so. I can read as well as anyone else here.

Regarding DD-WRT, having to reboot the router every couple hours argues against it on the stability part. As well, the resistance to using a proper test suite instead of just plugging it in and seeing if it works pretty much proves that it will NEVER be reliably stable or bug free.

[disabledaccount]

Regarding DD-WRT, having to reboot the router every couple hours argues against it on the stability part. As well, the resistance to using a proper test suite instead of just plugging it in and seeing if it works pretty much proves that it will NEVER be reliably stable or bug free.You have damaged hardware or power supply, not DD-WRT. I own and support several Linksys routers that are running 24h/365d/several years without turning off or resetting. I have 2 of them connected to different ISP networks at home - one running Tomato and the second running DD-WRT (WRT54GL and WRT54G with 64MB Ram working as proxy/file-server/web-server)

[1clue]

You guys are off topic here. I'm not asking for support on my router. I'm pretty sure that the router's stability has more to do with rarely used functionality than it does about damaged hardware.

Get back to the DRM discussion.

[disabledaccount]

It's You who mentioned about not original firmware being bad - short of memory?

[1clue]

I mentioned a buggy dd-wrt as a passing comment in an example, not as a support request. My router has nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with leaving the original firmware installed.

[KiwiNZ]

It's You who mentioned about not original firmware being bad - short of memory?

Stop the personal stuff now. Only warning.

[youbuntu]

The answer is simple.

Don't like how Sony implement DRM on PS3 don't buy it. But if you buy, don't whine about how DRM is implemented after the fact. See not that hard really.

The purchase of a PS3 is not compulsory.

I think you may have missed the point, I don't know why - it's pretty obvious really. Just because I don't own a PS3, doesn't mean I have no entitlement to an opinion on DRM. That is as ridiculous as telling me that I don't have any right to an opinion of how people are treated when they are slaves, as I am not a slave... what? :-/

DRM is plain wrong, and evidently a paranoia mechanism employed by "content providers" to ensure that you cannot have the right - the right to choose upon which device you play your music/video/whatever, when you wish, where you wish, and for how long YOU wish, seeing as you bought the "item" (really?). DRM is used to feign "security" for the content providers (like they even NEED this). If you treat your customers like criminals, then that is far more ammunition for them to say "what the heck" and behave like them - you evidently prove, as a vendor, that you do not trust anyone BY DEFAULT, ergo you tar them all with the same brush.

The prudent companies would just take it on the chin, accepting that some will ALWAYS illegally download and copy, so you can factor that into the equation. No matter what draconian (and nearly always crackable - read: "futile") protection schemes you employ, you will receive negative press because of it, as YOU are the one treating every potential customer as a criminal before they even start!

Customers respond well to being trusted - would you treat EVERY visitor to your shop as if they were a shoplifter? Maybe you would, and it might appear to work out well, but believe me - you have no idea what contempt is felt toward you for such measures. I just made some cheese on toast - the CHEESE - yes, CHEESE, had a security alarm tag on it! What?! It is worth about £1.50!

I put it to you that a guilty party will treat others with the same guilt they feel towards issues. Simple as that. Herein lies the reason for DRM - reflected guilt from the vendors.

Some people will *always* rip you off - it is a given, and a balanced, realistic company will simply accept that, and take the apt steps to factor it into their bottom line, instead of treating consumers with contempt, whilst at the same time dictating HOW they use the "item" the consumer (supposedly) "owns".

Would you sell me a lock for my door, and then tell me I can only open it at certain times of day? Would you sell me wine, and then tell me I cannot drink it with certain people? Far fetched? Think a little deeper.

DRM = Digital Wrongs Management.

PS: Maybe you don't see my point still - how about this - one day, I envisage computers that will be locked down so that you will find it almost impossible to use Ubuntu on them, because giant software vendors pay enough ££ to the manufacturers to ensure that the device simply becomes a giant marketing channel for their software alone, and you will not be able to install Linux on them, without a gigantic, ongoing struggle EVEN THOUGH YOU BOUGHT IT, AND OWN IT.

Why are people - mostly innocent people, forced into a corner, and told they cannot use X, Y or Z how they like? So they make a copy for their friends? It has been done for years and years with cassettes - noone died from it (yet).

I am passionate - please don't mistake the caps for shouting, they are for clarification. See my points?

:) thanks

[1clue]

@glossywhite,

I think I truly understand your points, I just don't exactly agree with them.

First, I think that DRM only prevents the "honest" people from copying content. In other words, it is just the latest fad in copy protection. I've been around since interactive computing involved a mainframe and a teletype (a printer with a keyboard on it, for those of you who don't know what that is) and ever a few years after computers became affordable to individuals for recreational use, there has been copy protection.

I don't think that DRM really affects normal people. They put the DVD or BluRay into the player and click play, or whatever else is the normal use of a DRM product. Frankly the only reason I think DRM is a PITA is because I would love to play BluRay on my Linux box, and while I technically can if I jump through a lot of hoops I figured it was easier to buy the #%$#( player separately and stick on another monitor.

TBH, I don't WANT to break copyright laws. Most of the terms of use I see as reasonable. I write commercial software for a living, and my income is therefore protected by copyright law. It's nothing you would use unless you are in accounting for a fortune 500 company, and we don't use DRM either. That probably slants me away from piracy, but I had made that decision long before I got in this position.

FWIW my ipod contains music that I scanned in from CDs. If something changes and those files aren't useful anymore I can scan them in again. If I borrow a disc to see if I want something, it goes into a special "not mine" playlist, and I won't let more than 2 albums get in there. I'll either buy the thing or delete those files before adding more. Technically a breaking of copyright law, but not a breaking of borrowing a physical disc, neither in technicality nor in spirit.

Getting back to the point, I see DRM as just more sophisticated copy protection, which is more like the radio key for your car. You still gotta put the key in the ignition and turn it, but in addition to the bumps and grooves on the key there's also a transmitter in the key that must be programmed into the computer in order to start the car.

Regarding the day when no Open Source is allowed, I think you're being paranoid. IBM's hardware supports Linux, and you can get Linux on all their platforms, including mainframes. Lots of other companies build hardware to an open standard. As long as there is an open standard there will be open software to run on it. As long as there is computer controlled industrial automation, there will be open hardware and open standards. As long as there is NASA and Los Alamos National Labs and similar sites, there will be Open Source running on Really Big Hardware.

[1clue]

Maybe I need another post to be a bit more concise.

First, I don't argue that you are unhappy about DRM. I'm not especially happy about it either, even though my intent is not to break copyright laws.

Second, I'm not trying to convince you that DRM is OK. I don't really like it either, but to me it's not automatically wrong. Just a pain in the butt.

Third, just to put things in perspective DRM is, to me, far less frustrating than when CNN plays a 30 second commercial in front of every video and there's nothing I can do about it. Not to mention that it's the SAME 30 second commercial EVERY TIME.

BTW, if I use all caps and it's not an acronym, I'm YELLING! :)

[NightwishFan]

Though this is for a game, an example of DRM that makes me angry, as there is no point.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_II#Controversies_and_criticism

[1clue]

So they required a constant Internet connection just to ensure you weren't pirating software? Ya, that seems to be utterly pointless and way out of control.

[Dustin2128]

Regarding the day when no Open Source is allowed, I think you're being paranoid. IBM's hardware supports Linux, and you can get Linux on all their platforms, including mainframes. Lots of other companies build hardware to an open standard. As long as there is an open standard there will be open software to run on it. As long as there is computer controlled industrial automation, there will be open hardware and open standards. As long as there is NASA and Los Alamos National Labs and similar sites, there will be Open Source running on Really Big Hardware.
He didn't say the day when no open source is allowed. Sure, companies might continue to use it on supercomputers, servers and the like 'cause it's a hell of an operating system. But can you install linux on your PS3 slim without some serious work? No. Does the hardware support linux (technically)? Yes. Can you install linux on the iPad at all? No, and I can't imagine it'd be difficult to have a custom ipad distro. Do both companies that put out these products still use linux internally? Yes. What he's worried about is the day when you can no longer install it on your desktop, and with the jobsian control I've seen leaking into electronics just in the past few years, I can't imagine that day is too far away. For OEM desktops, at least.

[mkendall]

I write commercial software for a living, and my income is therefore protected by copyright law.

Too bad every 1000 lines of code violates ~3 software patents.

[1clue]

The iPad use UNIX, not Linux. Apple is a BSD derivative, where Linux is System V based. Don't know what's in a PS3.

Open standards are every bit as beneficial for commercial interests as they are for open source folks. The extreme competition for PC motherboards is a prime example. Anyone who can make a board to the proper spec can compete, and adding extra features to that wins customers for the board manufacturer and options for customers.

There have been and will always be closed architectures, but there will always be open ones too, and I'm saying for every scale of device. It doesn't make economic sense to close everything down.

What I don't get is why, with so many really good options which are open architectures, you are focused on a PS3? Is it just the challenge of the thing, or is there some sort of hardware that a $400 video card can't beat?


Now we're talking about something I just plain don't understand. If it's the challenge you can't resist, that I get. But to insist on installing on something that's difficult to install on, when there's a huge amount of similarly priced, similarly capable hardware out there with no restrictions, that part is completely incomprehensible for me.

[mkendall]

What I don't get is why, with so many really good options which are open architectures, you are focused on a PS3? Is it just the challenge of the thing, or is there some sort of hardware that a $400 video card can't beat?

How about a different example? I go out and buy a cd. Said cd plays perfectly fine on my portable player, but when I try to play it on my car stereo, it doesn't work because the stereo is 20 years old and unable to handle the DRM formatting on the cd. Now KiwiNZ would say, "Tough titty. If you want to listen to music you purchased legally on your car stereo that you also purchased legally, you're just going to have to shell out even more money to legally purchase a newer stereo," because he's old and prefers everything to have a simple catchall solution rather than worry about all the messy complexities. And that's fine. I'm getting old, too, and don't want to have to worry about messy complexities, either. He just falls on the side of our new corporate overlords while I side with the wild-eyed, non-conformist misanthropes.

[wewantutopia]

...To take something you bought and change it somehow on EXACTLY your copy, chances are the manufacturer will neither know nor care.

In the case of the motorcycle, there aren't even any laws protecting the manufacturer from you building your own whatzit to attach to the bike. The only recourse is the invalidation of the warranty and that's restricted somewhat by the law too...

Most manufacturers/software vendors will see that and just brush it off, saying "no more warranty" and wash their hands of you. And that's OK because you were the one who chose to change it and they can no longer be held responsible for it...


This.

So if you buy a PS3 and flash it, ad parts, reprogram it to make toast (as someone else suggested) how/why can Sony care? It is YOUR device. It is not rented, it's YOURS. The law makes no sense.

Sort of like rooting/jailbreaking a phone. These guys figured out how to get around Sony's lock down. How is that different than people at XDA getting around OEM lock downs to flash custom roms?

[disabledaccount]

How about a different example? I go out and buy a cd. Said cd plays perfectly fine on my portable player, but when I try to play it on my car stereo, it doesn't work because the stereo is 20 years old and unable to handle the DRM formatting on the cd. Now KiwiNZ would say, "Tough titty. If you want to listen to music you purchased legally on your car stereo that you also purchased legally, you're just going to have to shell out even more money to legally purchase a newer stereo," because he's old and prefers everything to have a simple catchall solution rather than worry about all the messy complexities. And that's fine. I'm getting old, too, and don't want to have to worry about messy complexities, either. He just falls on the side of our new corporate overlords while I side with the wild-eyed, non-conformist misanthropes.It's all about money. DRM was designed to pull every posible dollar/euro from Our pockets - either by forcing to buy several copies of the same CD/DVD/movie/song and by additional costs bundled with every DRM-enabled hardware (licences, keys). DRM is wasting Your computer power (either electrical and computing) to control and limit Your ability to do what You want with Yours legally purchased media.
Fortunatelly, every lock can be picked and DRM is not exception - but this leads to more computing power and time beeing wasted.
It's not only My personal opinion that DRM is defective by design and effectively breaks fundamental human rights.

[wirepuller134]

Alright, we build and sell surveillance and media systems using open source software. But our bread and butter is automated control systems. Our SCATA's support High pressure pumps, ammonia compressor-engine rooms, product manipulation systems. We had an issue where a customer modified the firmware on a controller, and flooded their engine room compressors. The system did not shut down, and burst 3 ammonia compressors. After the investigation with the EPA and local authorities, we were cleared of liability. We were sued by several employees, and some of the surrounding residents. We were found not liable as the customer's employee bypassed the built in hardware safeties on the system, but it cost us a lot of money to defend ourselves and cost our customer a lot of money as well as hurt 2 employees and inconvenienced several local residents. This goes back to the DRM issue, we now lock the processors completely and according to our terms of service, the owner of the hardware has no rights to ownership of the software or rights to modify the firmware running on these systems. We have been called a lot of names for this which are not appropriate on the forum to say. The laws are there for a reason, some are abused by companies some are not, but for us we could not operate without them.

[disabledaccount]

:)
DVD wont kill anybody, unless someone chop it and eat. Then his family can sue DVD manufacturer, beacause victim haven't been warned that DVD media is not supposed to be eaten.

Your example has nothing to do with DRM - because in automation systems there are many possible ways to trigger catastrophy, eg. by cutting some high-pressure circuit or by trying to repair running machine. I've worked for big companies (like BOSCH) writting PLC software (S7 STL mainly with centralized visualization trough Profibus/Ethernet networks) - Every cautious client damands open source software for their PLCs and Visualisation projects, because this the only way to do diagnostics and allows future extensions/modifications to be made by concurrent companies -> removing the need for usually overpriced closed source support.

[pl@yer]

This is something prevalent in many Linux forums that I just don't get.

To take something you bought and change it somehow on EXACTLY your copy, chances are the manufacturer will neither know nor care.

In the case of the motorcycle, there aren't even any laws protecting the manufacturer from you building your own whatzit to attach to the bike. The only recourse is the invalidation of the warranty and that's restricted somewhat by the law too.

I think Linux attracts the type of people who like me are tinkerers at heart. I can remember taking my beloved bb gun apart to try and make it shoot better, knowing that there was a better than average chance I was not going to get it back together again. RIP 760 Pumpmaster :)

I think I should be allowed to do the same thing to anything I own.



You are the ones who define your relationship with the vendor as adversarial. You are the ones picking a fight. You didn't buy a defective product and then get jilted on technical support, you changed the product to be other than what was sold to you.

Most manufacturers/software vendors will see that and just brush it off, saying "no more warranty" and wash their hands of you. And that's OK because you were the one who chose to change it and they can no longer be held responsible for it.

Sometimes it seems like you guys choose to break something and then blame the manufacturer for forcing you to break it.

If you don't like something then DON'T BUY IT!

I didn't buy ipods for the kids I bought them nokia n800, which are pretty kool UMPCs. I do try to put my money where my mouth is.

[wirepuller134]

Actually it has a lot to do with it, it's the same laws in both cases. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Sony's position, but I understand it. If a customer does not agree with it, simply don't purchase the product.
We allow them read only access to the processors at this point. They can change settings, add or remove compressors/pumps, but cannot change the base firmware. Which was done in this case, removing all of the built in safeties that were keeping the engine room from starting.
Because of several law suits, a lot of companies have gone this way. Berry paw and Hench control to name just 2 off the top of my head.

The part I thought was relevant, was they modified the firmware to change the operation of the SCADA, thus we had to react and lock down the firmware on our devices. I don't see how this is any different, with altered firmware how can Sony guarantee the device isn't going to overheat and catch on fire?

[pl@yer]

@pl@yer,

The rule of law pretty much IS standardized. It's set up to allow the producer of a product to set proper terms of use.

It allows Richard Stallman to release gcc and ensure that everyone can use it without charge forever.

It allows Apache to release httpd and ensure that everyone can use it for pretty much anything, forever.

It allows Microsoft to release Office, and ensure that everyone who uses it gets an unmodified high quality product for what to some people is a reasonable fee.

It allows record companies to distribute products on the Internet and still pay the bills -- and face it, getting it over the net is MUCH more convenient than going to a store to find it, especially if you listen to some of the fringe stuff.

It allows Sony to be ridiculously protective of the PS3. Which, incidentally, is why I don't have a PS3.


It allows Apple to use Unix as their OS and benefit hugely from open source developed apps. At the same time making it nearly impossible to put music on your iphone from Unix.

There should be a limitation on GNU that any company can not do harm to *nix while profiting from it, or they are in copyright infringement...

[Grenage]

It allows Apple to use linux as their OS and benefit hugely from open source developed apps. At the same time making it nearly impossible to put music on your iphone from linux.

There should be a limitation on GNU that any company can not do harm to linux while profiting from it, or they are in copyright infringement...

Apple's OS isn't based on Linux.

[pl@yer]

Oops Unix ... doesn't really alter the point though.

[Grenage]

Oh but it does. ;)

Afaik Unix isn't open source, but sections of it were released under a BSD license. The BSD license does not require the disclosure of source code in further works.

The license is what matters.

[thatguruguy]

Since when were modern laws regarding copyright, designed in favour of the consumer?

See, here's the thing. People want things that work. There are some people who will strive to produce things that work for free. The majority of people want to be paid for their efforts. Modern copyright laws provide protection for those who want to get paid. It is not an anomoly that paid-for software often works better than free software. That's what the market predicts will happen.

[pl@yer]

See, here's the thing. People want things that work. There are some people who will strive to produce things that work for free. The majority of people want to be paid for their efforts. Modern copyright laws provide protection for those who want to get paid. It is not an anomoly that paid-for software often works better than free software. That's what the market predicts will happen.

I'm not against people making money. I don't agree with people pirating software.
My problem starts somewhere on the way to, some poor lady losing her house because she downloaded some music. Or some guy being extorted 30K because he had a purchased CD playing background music in his restaurant.

[ticopelp]

DRM punishes legitimate consumers and has little to no effect on piracy. It should be done away with, because it's fundamentally useless.

The biggest problem I see with DRM is that media companies have been trying for years to abolish ownership of media. They don't want you to own a DVD movie and watch it as many times as you like. They want you to "license" the movie and pay for it every time you watch it.

DRM sets the stage for that to happen. I'm not saying it will, because the various attempts to make it happen have consistently failed in the marketplace, but it's just another reason why DRM should be roundly condemned.

Mostly I just put my money where my mouth is -- I don't buy DRMed products and I do my best to support companies that offer non-DRM options.

[pl@yer]

Oh but it does. ;)

Afaik Unix isn't open source, but sections of it were released under a BSD license. The BSD license does not require the disclosure of source code in further works.

The license is what matters.

Okay you got me there :)

[1clue]

How about a different example? I go out and buy a cd. Said cd plays perfectly fine on my portable player, but when I try to play it on my car stereo, it doesn't work because the stereo is 20 years old and unable to handle the DRM formatting on the cd....

OK, and how about this one that takes your example a little bit further:

I by a CD. I don't have a CD player and never had a CD player, and don't intend to buy one, either as a separate device or as part of a computer. Why can't I listen to my music? I paid money for the CD, that gives me the right to listen to the music on it as much as I want, but the commercialism inherent in the corporate world requires that I spend SEVERAL TIMES the price of the CD just to get a player?


This.

So if you buy a PS3 and flash it, ad parts, reprogram it to make toast (as someone else suggested) how/why can Sony care? It is YOUR device. It is not rented, it's YOURS. The law makes no sense.

Sort of like rooting/jailbreaking a phone. These guys figured out how to get around Sony's lock down. How is that different than people at XDA getting around OEM lock downs to flash custom roms?

As I said before, I don't really get Sony's position and I think they're out of line. It's just a game console. On the other hand, before you buy one you need to make sure it can do what you want to do, or accept that you may not be able to do that. If I had an old console around (which a PS3 is obviously not) then wanted to try something with it, that would be an interesting diversion. But to buy the PS3 specifically, when you know what a PITA it will be, when there is so much other hardware out there with no such restrictions? You haven't made the point at all.


Alright, we build and sell surveillance and media systems using open source software. But our bread and butter is automated control systems. Our SCATA's support High pressure pumps, ammonia compressor-engine rooms, product manipulation systems....

This is a perfect example of proper use of DRM, and of license agreements, and also a perfect example of standards of reliability in software that a lot of Open Source guys I have talked to just don't understand.

For a PS3 nobody cares except Sony and whoever it is that's trying to rework it for their own purposes. But in wirepuller's case, doing so can cause injury or death. I'm betting the guy who re-flashed the software didn't think of any of that.

[1clue]

It allows Apple to use Unix as their OS and benefit hugely from open source developed apps. At the same time making it nearly impossible to put music on your iphone from Unix.

There should be a limitation on GNU that any company can not do harm to *nix while profiting from it, or they are in copyright infringement...

Apple is not and never was based on Linux. Apple has a valid license to modify and resell BSD Unix, the commercial version.

Apple does benefit from Open Source, but apple has also released much of their operating system as Open Source. Apple has violated neither the spirit nor the letter of the GPL or any of the other licenses in software they release. You can go to their site and download the source for the free parts of the operating system.

The closed-source portions of their software link into the open source portions in ways that do not compromise the proprietary license of Apple's software. Everything Apple has done with regards to this is above-board.

That doesn't stop them from being greedy filthy control freaks, but that's a different discussion entirely.


See, here's the thing. People want things that work. There are some people who will strive to produce things that work for free. The majority of people want to be paid for their efforts. Modern copyright laws provide protection for those who want to get paid. It is not an anomoly that paid-for software often works better than free software. That's what the market predicts will happen.

This is very close to my own opinion.

The premise behind Open Source is that, if you use open source software, you should support open source projects in some way in order to "pay" for your privilege to use the software. You can do that through writing software, through documentation, testing, giving money, or even support on a forum. Anything that helps out.

A whole lot of companies which sell commercial products also release Open Source products. For example, the same people who host the wine project also sell Crossover Office, which is a much more polished version of the same software.

A whole lot of Open Source software was sponsored by commercial interests. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a big corporation using Open Source to make money. If you think there is, then go read the GPL again. Then read the Apache license. Then pick 3 more at random and go read those.

[Hyporeal]

OK, and how about this one that takes your example a little bit further:

I by a CD. I don't have a CD player and never had a CD player, and don't intend to buy one, either as a separate device or as part of a computer. Why can't I listen to my music? I paid money for the CD, that gives me the right to listen to the music on it as much as I want, but the commercialism inherent in the corporate world requires that I spend SEVERAL TIMES the price of the CD just to get a player?

A CD requiring a CD player is obviously not DRM. Your scenario has no DRM in it and therefore is not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, your reductio is completely fallacious. A CD has certain requirements, but that does nothing to justify imposing a layer of artificial requirements as well.

Count me among the "wild-eyed, non-conformist misanthropes" (as mkendall bluntly put it) as well. ;)

[1clue]

OK so that was a bit extreme, but FWIW a first-generation CD player won't play most modern CDs even though they're still CDs.

And there are many DVD formats, and not all DVD players can play all DVD formats, even if you're just looking at movie formats.

My point is that DRM is just another one of those things. It may be applied in inane or downright stupid ways sometimes, and it can be a pain in the rear, but that doesn't make DRM inherently evil.

Don't blame DRM, blame Sony's @$$#073 lawyers.

If you're going in for heart surgery, would you feel safer knowing that the machine that is used to keep you alive until they finish was flashed by some guy over in the IT department who cooked up a special firmware? I sure wouldn't.

[ve4cib]

If you're going in for heart surgery, would you feel safer knowing that the machine that is used to keep you alive until they finish was flashed by some guy over in the IT department who cooked up a special firmware? I sure wouldn't.

Provided that the special firmware has undergone rigorous in-house testing under laboratory conditions and has been shown to work as well or better than the stock version for whatever purpose it is being applied to, I don't really see an issue with this. Hospitals are constantly inventing new procedures, new clamps, and new medical devices. Why should the software to power existing devices be exempt from this spirit of experimentation and advancement of medical science? If it wasn't for doctors trying new things we'd still be using bloodletting and leeches, and I'm pretty sure antibiotics wouldn't exist.

There are protocols in place to ensure patient safety whenever a new device or procedure is being tested. I would assume the same would apply for new medical device firmware.



Back on-topic, I've fortunately never really had to deal with DRM directly. I own DVDs and a DVD player, they're all from the same region, my CDs play fine, and I don't buy music online. Since I lack first-hand experience take what I'm about to say as a relatively uninformed opinion.

1- DRM on hardware (and the firmware on said hardware) makes no sense to me. As has been said several times, once you buy a phone/computer/gaming system/car/etc... it's yours and you should be allowed to do whatever you want to it. Furthermore, if you figure out how to modify your device to do something cool/different you should be free to post instructions on how to do this for others to follow.

The reason I include firmware in this exception is because customized firmware is often required to do anything with a particular piece of hardware. If we're going to allow people to modify their hardware we need to allow them to add drivers/modules/change register values on the CPU in order to take full advantage of their modifications.


2- DRM on software, like licensing keys for your OS, I can accept. The company makes money per copy of their product sold, and they want to make sure that people don't buy one copy and redistribute it. It's frustrating sometimes (especially if you reinstall your OS multiple times), but I can accept that as a necessary evil in the current world of the software industry.

However, licensing issues aside, I really don't have any problems with people tinkering with their software. Cracking open files to see what's in them, modifying a DLL here, figuring out how to add a plugin there, etc... And once they figure out how to do that I really don't have any issues with them publishing their directions and any modified/own code they've used to create their hacks. They're not redistributing licensed material. They're publishing step-by-step instructions on how to dismantle software X, and providing software they wrote themselves to allow the software to do some new task.


3- DRM/copy protection on media (CDs, DVDs, etc...). This is a little bit more of a grey area for me. The way the music industry is currently set up it's like software; they get paid per copy they sell. So copy protection to prevent redistribution makes sense from that perspective.

But I can also see the argument of "I bought this CD so I could listen to it. I happen to listen to music on my mp3 player, so I'm going to copy the songs off the CD, and copy them for private use."

When I buy a DVD of an Australian show I'd like to be able to watch it in North America without needing an Australian DVD player. It's a legitimate copy of the show, that I paid for, but the DRM is preventing me from enjoying it.

Given the overwhelming failure that copy protection has been at curbing piracy, and the fact that said protection often interferes with the enjoyment of legitimately-purchased media, I've got to side against it. It's an annoyance, and one we'd probably be better off without.

[JRV]

I view Digital Right Malware as a virus, and any company that uses it as no better than the Russian mob.

Why were the record companies unwilling to give me CDs at a much reduced price when I switched from records and cassettes?

I had already purchased the license.

[sydbat]

OK so that was a bit extreme, but FWIW a first-generation CD player won't play most modern CDs even though they're still CDs.Hate to pop your balloon, but this is simply not true. I have a couple of first gen CD players and they play brand new CD's just fine. The only thing they do not do is read the embedded metadata (song title, etc).


And there are many DVD formats, and not all DVD players can play all DVD formats, even if you're just looking at movie formats.I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is completely wrong. DVD format is DVD format. Blu-Ray is a different format, and not compatible with DVD. However, if you mean eg. DVDRW, etc, then you need specific DVD readers to correctly read those formats.

[1clue]

Hate to pop your balloon, but this is simply not true. I have a couple of first gen CD players and they play brand new CD's just fine. The only thing they do not do is read the embedded metadata (song title, etc).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc

I found out about that when I bought a high-definition music CD. Which did not work on the old player.




I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it is completely wrong. DVD format is DVD format. Blu-Ray is a different format, and not compatible with DVD. However, if you mean eg. DVDRW, etc, then you need specific DVD readers to correctly read those formats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_formats

Maybe you should research a bit before trying to deny factual information.

[sydbat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_formats

Maybe you should research a bit before trying to deny factual information.WOW! A link to the most reliable source online. Thank you for that. I will make sure to not randomly change any of the factual information I find there...

On a serious note, if you actually read what I wrote, you would realize that I DID mention the need for specific hardware for specific formats. However, I guess I did not make clear that the DVD format (as in, for movies) is the same today as it was 15 years ago. BLU-Ray is a different format altogether...wait...I did mention that...

EDIT - Thank you for changing your original post while I was quoting you.

[gnomeuser]

I wrote some thoughts on DRM a while back.

http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/is-there-an-acceptable-level-of-drm/

Since then I have actually found myself buying content with DRM, namely Audiobooks from Audible.com via their excellent Android application.

I really love a good audiobook and Audible has the biggest most easily available catalog around. Their Android application is just shy of perfection for the enjoyment of audiobooks (and the newest release cut memory use in half). I have expressed in several mails to their very responsive customer service department that I feel like I am being punished for doing things the legal way and outlined the issues their DRM is causing in my use of my content.

Most problematic is that unlike with off the shelf mp3s, audible enhanced audio files (.aax) do not play on my Ubuntu desktop. There is, obviously, no open source implementation of the decoder (nor as I understand any Linux and/or GStreamer version at all) nor are any specifications on the format are available.

That being said, I am very happy with Audible even if it makes a feel a little dirty. They are responsive on every issue I raised with them except the DRM one. They are always polite and their catalog is unsurpassed.
I wish they worked more like GOG.com or Magnatune on the DRM issue and I try to encourage it. I am also pleased to see that many of Audibles partners have gone DRM-free, even being an Amazon company, I am hoping they will see the light.

[1clue]

@sydbat,

It showed the information I wanted to show, so who cares? How much you want to bet that if I go to the Sony web site and wade through miles of documentation I find the same information there?

The only change I made to my original post was to extract what I said out of your quote. I edited for clarity, not content.

You may not have bought DVDs back when they were new, but I did. I recall going to a video rental store, renting a movie and not being able to play it because the DVD video player did not support the DVD format of what was in the rented case.

You are picking nits. Formats change, and if the device you bought does not support flashing new firmware then you're just out of luck. DRM is essentially no different from any of the examples I put down. You are like old people ranting about how it's never been the same since 8-track tapes went by the wayside.

DRM is here to stay until something else comes along. Live with it. There will also always be something which is NOT DRM, allowing people who want to give away content to do so.

[Dustin2128]

The iPad use UNIX, not Linux. Apple is a BSD derivative, where Linux is System V based. Don't know what's in a PS3.

Open standards are every bit as beneficial for commercial interests as they are for open source folks. The extreme competition for PC motherboards is a prime example. Anyone who can make a board to the proper spec can compete, and adding extra features to that wins customers for the board manufacturer and options for customers.

There have been and will always be closed architectures, but there will always be open ones too, and I'm saying for every scale of device. It doesn't make economic sense to close everything down.

What I don't get is why, with so many really good options which are open architectures, you are focused on a PS3? Is it just the challenge of the thing, or is there some sort of hardware that a $400 video card can't beat?


Now we're talking about something I just plain don't understand. If it's the challenge you can't resist, that I get. But to insist on installing on something that's difficult to install on, when there's a huge amount of similarly priced, similarly capable hardware out there with no restrictions, that part is completely incomprehensible for me.
I know that the ipad does not run linux, it runs a derivative of some older unix OS. What I'm saying is that the HARDWARE can handle it. However, apple won't allow you to install linux due to the draconian nature of the device. We all know the PS3 can run linux because until recently, you had the option to. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be surprised if/when ipad like controls start coming to the PC world. There will not necessarily always be open architectures in the PC world; what benefit do the corporations get from it? Think about it from their perspective, if they were able to lock you out of your hardware, instead of buying that 400$ graphics card, you'd have to buy a 1200$ new computer, from them and not the card manufacture. If there are no more open motherboards, people have to buy one of your computers because they can't home build easily. You can control and profit off of whatever software they use by extorting the devs to get into your app store. What advantages do they get from having an open architecture? Not many; it increases competition, allows home builds to compete with their gear, and allows people to upgrade OEM computers themselves absurdly easily.

By the way, I'd have to hazard guess that the main reason for obsession with linux on the PS3 is that it has an amazing cost to power ratio which makes it ideal for clustering, google it. Aside from that, there's always that want to spite sony for taking linux off the device in the first place retroactively by a near mandatory firmware update.

[1clue]

@Dustin,

There's a huge part of industry that supports open standards. Open standards did not come about because of a bunch of guys in their spare bedrooms hacking on some closed architecture. It came about because that's the best approach to doing things.

It's not the vendor that develops open standards. It's the consumer. In the cases I'm talking about, it's a large corporate industry.

Say you make industrial robotics for an assembly line. You don't have the technology or the desire to make computer motherboards, all you're interested in is a controller card. You wright down the specs:

Form factor.
Processor family, or specific processor.
RAM
Speed
Ports specification
Interrupt map
etc.


Now you publish that spec for motherboard manufacturers to bid on them. Whoever is interested fills out the form, makes a prototype and then submits that prototype. The consumer takes a look at what's out there, then chooses one or more as bid winners.

It's not done there. That spec was published, so it's public information. The guys who lost that bid don't necessarily lose out altogether, they start advertising that they have that board, what the spec is and what is interesting about their specific version. They sell it to absolutely anyone who wants some.


That same process happens everywhere there is capitalism. It happens from resistors and capacitors to computer boards to space shuttles to truckloads of cheese to jars of pickles, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE that is ever bought and sold. There are companies who approach vendors with a specific architecture that they want to be unpublished, like Apple and Sony, but by and large it benefits everyone to use public standards.

[youbuntu]

Alright, we build and sell surveillance and media systems using open source software. But our bread and butter is automated control systems. Our SCATA's support High pressure pumps, ammonia compressor-engine rooms, product manipulation systems. We had an issue where a customer modified the firmware on a controller, and flooded their engine room compressors. The system did not shut down, and burst 3 ammonia compressors. After the investigation with the EPA and local authorities, we were cleared of liability. We were sued by several employees, and some of the surrounding residents. We were found not liable as the customer's employee bypassed the built in hardware safeties on the system, but it cost us a lot of money to defend ourselves and cost our customer a lot of money as well as hurt 2 employees and inconvenienced several local residents. This goes back to the DRM issue, we now lock the processors completely and according to our terms of service, the owner of the hardware has no rights to ownership of the software or rights to modify the firmware running on these systems. We have been called a lot of names for this which are not appropriate on the forum to say. The laws are there for a reason, some are abused by companies some are not, but for us we could not operate without them.

Slightly outlandish argument for DRM. I love it when people use obscure, one-off cases to try and add weight to a flawed argument - it's amusing.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but exactly how do you intend to stop your customers from modifying the firmware? Firstly, they have EVERY right to do so - they bought the thing, therefore they own it, and besides - unless they report it as faulty, and you have to go fix it, how are you going to know? Are you also implying that they have no right to replace the firmware?

Just curious is all.

[wirepuller134]

What I was reading from this post, was a person modified the firmware on a devise, violating the manufacturer TOS. That is what happened to us. Yes at the time they did it, they had the right to. Now they don't. It wasn't an obscure argument, but dead on the original topic.
As far as stopping them, it doesn't really matter to me as long as we have done everything in our power to protect ourselves legally from any liability due to damage to human or process from the end user modifying the firmware or hardware.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

It's pretty simple. If there's DRM, I'm not using it, I'm complaining loudly, and I don't recognise the legitimacy of laws that prevent me from disabling the DRM.

[BigSilly]

I wrote some thoughts on DRM a while back.

http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/is-there-an-acceptable-level-of-drm/

Since then I have actually found myself buying content with DRM, namely Audiobooks from Audible.com via their excellent Android application.

I really love a good audiobook and Audible has the biggest most easily available catalog around. Their Android application is just shy of perfection for the enjoyment of audiobooks (and the newest release cut memory use in half). I have expressed in several mails to their very responsive customer service department that I feel like I am being punished for doing things the legal way and outlined the issues their DRM is causing in my use of my content.

Most problematic is that unlike with off the shelf mp3s, audible enhanced audio files (.aax) do not play on my Ubuntu desktop. There is, obviously, no open source implementation of the decoder (nor as I understand any Linux and/or GStreamer version at all) nor are any specifications on the format are available.

That being said, I am very happy with Audible even if it makes a feel a little dirty. They are responsive on every issue I raised with them except the DRM one. They are always polite and their catalog is unsurpassed.
I wish they worked more like GOG.com or Magnatune on the DRM issue and I try to encourage it. I am also pleased to see that many of Audibles partners have gone DRM-free, even being an Amazon company, I am hoping they will see the light.

Had no end of problems with Audible many years ago, when I didn't even understand what DRM was. I can't remember the direct problem we had, but the net result was the files would play OK on one portable music player, but not on any of our others. Then we found out you couldn't manipulate the files on your computer how you might like, such as using media players other than the Audible program to play the files. That was a no-go. As far as discovering exactly what DRM meant in everyday use, it was a real baptism of fire and we never returned to the company.

Now we just buy our audiobooks on CD and rip them as we please to put on any of our media devices. I think it's important for paying customers to take a stand against this type of cyber-herding, and buy better solutions. That's not a militant Free Software stance from me, but a simple fair use one.

It's funny how someone mentioned new audio CD's earlier and how they often don't play on older equipment. You or I might find that no problem, since our hardware might be up to spec, but I know many people who constantly return CD's because they don't play. It can be a massive inconvenience for those with slightly older systems. Is this a working idea? Is this a good thing for the paying customer? I don't feel so personally.

[disabledaccount]

What I was reading from this post, was a person modified the firmware on a devise, violating the manufacturer TOS. I suppose most of peoples here have no idea how big is the difference between PC and PLC software. Your customer can also modify the system mechanically, override safety circuits and sensors - software is only part of the system. Generally it's not a problem, unless someone will hire non-proffesionals to maintain expensive/potentially dangerous installations - because it's cheaper. Proffessional maintenance team after 2-3 years can teach installation manufacturer about what crappy solutions and software bugs he made - thats widely confirmed fact.

Besides, most PLCs cannot be fully locked - PLC manufacturer can rip-off the program for Your client, there are also some software methods.

And finally - DRM was designed to control multimedia - it is built of special hardware, software and enryption algorithms - so You haven't used DRM, not even close to that.

[KiwiNZ]

Slightly outlandish argument for DRM. I love it when people use obscure, one-off cases to try and add weight to a flawed argument - it's amusing.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but exactly how do you intend to stop your customers from modifying the firmware? Firstly, they have EVERY right to do so - they bought the thing, therefore they own it, and besides - unless they report it as faulty, and you have to go fix it, how are you going to know? Are you also implying that they have no right to replace the firmware?

Just curious is all.

How is it outlandish for them to try and stop them from recklessly changing the Firmware and putting peoples lives in real danger.

You really need to start to read and comprehend before you condescend, it is your arguments that are flawed.

[handy]

I like the following view, garnered from an unknown source:

Many believe that each and every human being has a right to the collected information of human culture, and that walling that garden is a tricky task that compromises maximum efficiency of the planets resource deployment.

This obligation of all to all derives from the non-linear function of culture-- that there is no starting point, and any particular idea is the result of all prior ideas and circumstance, and thus the pool of knowledge, which inspired the new development, deserves to be enhanced by the new piece.

I'm not saying there isn't room for individual acknowledgement, but that it must be tempered by the premise that all information must be shared for most effective survival of the most members such that their unique intuitive contributions may be stacked with the rest.

I hope that made at least an ounce of sense.

[Dr. C]

How is it outlandish for them to try and stop them from recklessly changing the Firmware and putting peoples lives in real danger.

You really need to start to read and comprehend before you condescend, it is your arguments that are flawed.

Not only is it outlandish to add DRM in this scenario it is also highly dangerous. It is the DRM and not the lack of it that can put peoples lives in real danger.

DRM will not stop someone from changing the firmware, given enough time, what it will do is slow them down. In the scenario where this system is operating normally the attacker has ample time to find the crack for the DRM, and recklessly change the firmware. It may take a bit longer but the end result is the same. From s safety perspective in this scenario the DRM has accomplished zilch.

Now consider this. What happens if an unforeseen set of circumstances requires an unconventional start of critical cooling systems as is currently the case with the nuclear plant in Japan? And what if the manufacturer is no longer in business? Is is right for workers to be risking their lives receiving high doses of radiation while officials are frantically searching though the torrents on TPB and similar sites for the crack to the DRM, in order to get the critical cooling systems pumps started? In this scenario DRM will slow the startup of the system long enough to cost lives.

This is not an unrealistic scenario if one allows DRM to infect critical control systems where lives are at risk if they fail. If the operators of these systems cannot be trusted to operate them safely, then the systems should not be sold to them in the first place.

DRM is most definitively not the answer here.

[disabledaccount]

This is not an unrealistic scenario if one allows DRM to infect critical control systems where lives are at risk if they fail.That's what I'm trying to say: DRM is not implemented in industry software solutions - that most propably not gonna ever happen. You peoples are messing definition of DRM.
There are solutions already implemented in most PLCs, known as "Know-how-protection".
There is no risk that nuclear plant runs out of control because of DRM - because even medium-sized factory have full access to their PLC software - this is a must, not an option.

DRM hits only multimedia - it was designed to limit user rights on using multimedia, and some games, nothing else.

[Dr. C]

That's what I'm trying to say: DRM is not implemented in industry software solutions - that most propably not gonna ever happen. You peoples are messing definition of DRM.
There are solutions already implemented in most PLCs, known as "Know-how-protection".
There is no risk that nuclear plant runs out of control because of DRM - because even medium-sized factory have full access to their PLC software - this is a must, not an option.

DRM hits only multimedia - it was designed to limit user rights on using multimedia, and some games, nothing else.

I am far from sure on this one.

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-introduces-first-known-rootkit-scada-devices

Let us not forget that Microsoft Windows contains DRM in the form of product activation / validation that can cripple the operating system if it is deemed to be non genuine. What is certain is that if Windows Vista or 7 interfaces with a SCADA system this DRM issue will certainly raise its ugly head.

[disabledaccount]

I am far from sure on this one.

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-introduces-first-known-rootkit-scada-devices

Let us not forget that Microsoft Windows contains DRM in the form of product activation / validation that can cripple the operating system if it is deemed to be non genuine. What is certain is that if Windows Vista or 7 interfaces with a SCADA system this DRM issue will certainly raise its ugly head.Well, you are partially right, but: this kind of software can be installed on PG (programming laptop) only by stupid, not-responsible guy, who should be fired and sued early after. Why? because he connected PG (programming laptop) to internet to download some porn movies.

About rootkit itself: They are talking about Siemens S7 PLC's. This software cant change "yellow" (safety modules) code, besides, You can take another (clean) laptop and easily fix the mess.

[Dr. C]

It does not need to be porn illicitly downloaded from the Internet. Something as simple as a music CD purchased form a so called "legitimate source" can compromise secure systems because of DRM. I am talking of course of the infamous Sony rootkit of 2005. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html
The rootkit has even been found on computers run by the Department of Defense What was particularly insidious about the SONY rootkit was that US based anti virus companies were well aware of this malware but did nothing about it for fear of being prosecuted under the US DMCA, effectively selling out their customers. It was F-Secure not based in the land of the DMCA that sounded the alarm to their credit.

This is a case where not only DRM deserves to be condemned as a threat to life and limb, but also also anti circumvention laws such as the US DMCA. The irony in this case is that if the music had been obtained from TPB rather than SONY-BMG the secure systems may not have been compromised. This only goes to show that DRM actually adversely affects only those who seek to do the right thing and purchase their content, as opposed to the pirates who are not impacted at all.

[Cracklepop]

I think the matter of ''right'' or not is secondary to the effectiveness of DRM.

DRM doesn't stop sharing or other infringing use, and is in fact just another black mark against legitimate software when making a decision between buying or sharing.

If you aren't convinced that is correct, think about what you would purchase if given the choice between two absolutely identical products (both legal, the same price, from the same company) except that one had DRM and one didn't: who in their right mind would choose the version with DRM?

Apple didn't remove DRM from iTunes for their peace of mind, they did it because it made good business sense.

[wirepuller134]

This will be an off topic post from the original topic:


Just for the record, I never stated we used any pre-built PLC's in the systems that I was referring to, that was assumptions made by other posters. A SCADA is simply a supervisory point to automate and/or monitor several processes. All of the hardware and software involved, cannot and will not stop a user from going to the MCC room or engine room and selecting "hand" instead of "auto" at the starter. These systems just interact with and combine several smaller systems to centralize control and monitoring. But cannot over ride or replace a human at individual pieces of equipment. But it does log when this happens, or at least ours do.

With that I'm going to consider my part of the conversation over, as it seems to be moving more towards media instead of hardware. Have a great day everyone.

[gnomeuser]

Had no end of problems with Audible many years ago, when I didn't even understand what DRM was. I can't remember the direct problem we had, but the net result was the files would play OK on one portable music player, but not on any of our others. Then we found out you couldn't manipulate the files on your computer how you might like, such as using media players other than the Audible program to play the files. That was a no-go. As far as discovering exactly what DRM meant in everyday use, it was a real baptism of fire and we never returned to the company.

Now we just buy our audiobooks on CD and rip them as we please to put on any of our media devices. I think it's important for paying customers to take a stand against this type of cyber-herding, and buy better solutions. That's not a militant Free Software stance from me, but a simple fair use one.

It's funny how someone mentioned new audio CD's earlier and how they often don't play on older equipment. You or I might find that no problem, since our hardware might be up to spec, but I know many people who constantly return CD's because they don't play. It can be a massive inconvenience for those with slightly older systems. Is this a working idea? Is this a good thing for the paying customer? I don't feel so personally.

It sounds like compatibility issues, which I could imagine would happen with devices like the Sansa Fuze which has Audible support.

Having only used the official app for Android this is not a problem for me but yes it is certainly a concern. It also means that now Audible has to provide an app or partner with who ever gets to provide the phone that gets to replace my Galaxy S one day.

I am not to worried, I can under Danish law legally break the DRM if it prevents me from accessing my content and it seems that solutions to do this are readily available. If anything one could likely just record the audio from line-out (I know this is what Cory Doctorow did when he switched to Linux).

I am not happy with the situation either, but I cannot find anything to complain about Audible outside the DRM. I am hoping they will like most vendors realise that DRM is unpopular and does not infact prevent piracy. For now I think I will voice my opposition as a paying customer and await their next move. If iTunes can manage to go DRM-free then surely Audible can as well provided we can help build confidence in the business model for them without DRM.

[pl@yer]

I like the following view, garnered from an unknown source:

Many believe that each and every human being has a right to the collected information of human culture, and that walling that garden is a tricky task that compromises maximum efficiency of the planets resource deployment.

This obligation of all to all derives from the non-linear function of culture-- that there is no starting point, and any particular idea is the result of all prior ideas and circumstance, and thus the pool of knowledge, which inspired the new development, deserves to be enhanced by the new piece.

I'm not saying there isn't room for individual acknowledgement, but that it must be tempered by the premise that all information must be shared for most effective survival of the most members such that their unique intuitive contributions may be stacked with the rest.

I hope that made at least an ounce of sense.

I like this, there are lots of inventions that are later discovered to have been re-inventions.
Also that an idea is somewhat owing to the "foundation of ideas" which made it possible.

[handy]

I like this, there are lots of inventions that are later discovered to have been re-inventions.
Also that an idea is somewhat owing to the "foundation of ideas" which made it possible.

Building fences around ideas/concepts is ridiculous. It is a real shame that Jungian psychology isn't taught in every law school.

[pl@yer]

*googles Jungian psychology*
collective unconscious...very interesting stuff.