DRM thoughts

[Chayak]

With more and more companies pushing for DRM, and some getting sued for it *cough* Sony and their rootkit. What is your view on it? I know some will say most against it are pirates but I have an ipod and I buy music off of Itunes. I can only play it on 'authorized' computers and my ipod. I don't like this as I can't put it on my linux systems so I removed the DRM with availible tools. It's part of my Fair Use to be able to play it on any medium I wish and I will take what means are necessary to do so. There are cases now the EULA's are being ruled against by courts as they place more and more restrictions on users. Sony's latest is a prime example. Thoughts?

[openmind]

It'll be interesting to hear any defence of DRM.

Presumably those people would be happy with car manufacturers making cars that only work for the registered owner, or house locks that only allow the entry of the Lease Holder, food that is poisonous for everybody but the purchaser, books that only the buyer can read. (The end of Libraries!). All of these would stop/cut down on criminal activities.

Yeah, it'll be interesting.

[poptones]

Everything on my pc is encrypted.

everything.

Do you have a password on your machine? Do you log in as root? If not, why not?

DRM is a tool. It needs to be better, but it needs to be. I cannot wait until encryption is a universal part of our systems.

Individual possession of encryption technology is illegal in China. Wonder why?

[xaque]

The difference between DRM and encryption is simply who the keys belong to. With encryption, they belong to the owner of the encrypted material. (i.e. you.) With DRM, the keys belong to the media companies. They're just letting you borrow their material.

[Chayak]

Encryption to keep your data private is good. I agree with it 100% as it protects your privacy rights. DRM I don't like because there companies are restricting your rights. I use encryption all the time with hardware tokens. Take my computer will you? You won't decrypt it during your lifetime or your children's children's.

[poptones]

You GOTTA stop thinking in terms of "media companies." DRM can be used by anyone. What's preventing this now is simply that DRM mostly doesn't work.

DRM built into the hardware would be a boon to shared computing projects. It doesn't have to isolate people, it can just as easily be used to construct shared communities that are not tied to one group of servers. You could have server farms that exist only as shared resources pooled over a hundred machines - it would be virtually impossible to ddos such a machine or for a government to take it down.

You cannot do this now because people will inevitably cheat. DRM built into everyone's machines would allow those willing to participate to do so relatively secue in the knowledge they will not be made vulnerable to attacks because of it.

[23meg]

DRM built into the hardware would be a boon to shared computing projects. It doesn't have to isolate people, it can just as easily be used to construct shared communities that are not tied to one group of servers. You could have server farms that exist only as shared resources pooled over a hundred machines - it would be virtually impossible to ddos such a machine or for a government to take it down.
But the big boys who built it into your hardware can, right? "The Man" is no longer the government but the big boys, or let's put it in exact terms, the TCPA in that scenario. Thanks, I won't buy it, and I'll do my best to let everyone know the possible consequences of adopting such a vendor lock-in.


DRM built into everyone's machines would allow those willing to participate to do so relatively secue in the knowledge they will not be made vulnerable to attacks because of it.

DRM is already kind of built into everyone's machines; every major motherboard and every laptop to come out in the last six months has a TPM in it. And since "everyone" isn't aware of another OS than the one that ships with their computer, namely Windows, which in its upcomig version works in conjunction with the TPM to do all sorts of nasty things (http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html), they're locked in.

As the saying goes these days, "I'll manage my own digital rights, thank you".

[Jussi Kukkonen]

It'll be interesting to hear any defence of DRM.

Oh, I think DRM as an idea is extremely cool -- then again so is communism, and I haven't seen a working example of that either...

DRM could be great, since it would allow the copyright owner to sell different rights for different prices (or rather allow them to enforce that decision). Imagine if you could buy music with these choices (and dozens of others):

unlimited personal use
personal use, unlimited for one year
personal use, play ten times
personal use, only on a non-hifi device
play once for a party of 200 people (ok, this is a little over the scope of any DRM, but you get the idea)

In the best case this would mean more choices for the consumer, lower prices (as consumer more often gets exactly what he wants) and more sales for the rights owner -- which in turn would mean even lower unit prices.

In the end I'm not optimistic though. My guess is that DRM (on the scale needed for it to work) is never implemented, or that it is broken to the point of countering all that is good about the idea. It might, and probably will, also lead to just tightening the copyright restrictions instead of offering more choices. Again, see communism...

[poptones]

"Vendor lock-in" means a monopoly on supply. TCPA is a platform supported by MANY vendors - no "lock in" there. Are you sure about the "every" part? I've been planning a new motherboard purchase, I'd like to make sure I get one that has this built in so I can develop code for it.

And no, tcpa doesn't mean "the man" has your keys. "The man" only has your keys if you allow it - and you choose "the man."

The next CPUs are going to have virtualization built into the core. That means VMWare functionality at the bios level. I fail to see what there is to complain about with that sort of feature - make one machine "uber secret" if you like and keep all your pr0n in there...

[23meg]

"Vendor lock-in" means a monopoly on supply. TCPA is a platform supported by MANY vendors - no "lock in" there. Are you sure about the "every" part? I've been planning a new motherboard purchase, I'd like to make sure I get one that has this built in so I can develop code for it.
Many vendors, both software and hardware, all "bought" by Microsoft and Intel, to create one huge closed monopoly. Almost every major vendor is in there, and that's exactly why it's a lock-in; it doesn't provide a multitude of solutions, and it doesn't have a serious alternative other then FOSS.


And no, tcpa doesn't mean "the man" has your keys. "The man" only has your keys if you allow it - and you choose "the man." That's the exact reason I'm not choosing it. I won't ever put my private data on a machine running Windows Vista or Mac OSX Panther +1 that has a TPM in it. But millions will. And they won't even be aware of it, because they won't even know what a TPM chip is, whether and why DRM is built into their CPU and motherboard and OS. The climate of computing worldwide will change into one huge Big Brother scenario where those pointing the obvious facts ignored by the masses are called scaremongers.


The next CPUs are going to have virtualization built into the core. That means VMWare functionality at the bios level. I fail to see what there is to complain about with that sort of feature - make one machine "uber secret" if you like and keep all your pr0n in there...Those CPUs also have features that let any "system administrator" format your HD without you knowing about it, even when your computer is off, and the TCPA DRM scheme itself is built into the CPU as well as the TPM. Running a closed source OS on a system with such a CPU is like driving a bomb rigged car with its hood welded shut and handing the remote trigger to someone else before getting in it.

I believe I've made my stance clear enough, and so have you, by reducing sensitive personal data to "pr0n". It's this belittling "stash your pr0n" attitude that is unaware the true importance of sensitive personal data and independent, open source, non-locked-in encryption that will make the TCPA and its likes thrive. It's a bleak picture in which I won't take part, and I'm out of this discussion as well.

[poptones]

Many vendors, both software and hardware, all "bought" by Microsoft and Intel, to create one huge closed monopoly.

Man, and people think my tinfoil hat's wrapped too tight...

I'm sure the CEOs of Sun and AMD will be interested in hearing how they now work for intel...

Those CPUs also have features that let any "system administrator" format your HD without you knowing about it...

This is absolute FUD.

...even when your computer is off, and the TCPA DRM scheme itself is built into the CPU as well as the TPM.

ROTFL. TCPA makes your computer into Colossus! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/) Run away! It's nuclear war!

Jeezus man, get a grip.

[Kvark]

Right now Copyright and Digital Rights Management feels more like Copyrestriction and Digital Restrictions Management and many users dislike it because of that.

But is the general idea good or not? I think it depends on if you see information as property or not. If information is property then you should definately be able to decide how people use your information. If you want your song to be played only 10 times by someone or your movie to be on someone's computer for only 2 days or your program to be installed max 3 times. Fine it is your information after all, you do whatever you want with it and there should definately be DRM to make sure nobody uses your information in a way that displeases you. On the other hand, if information is not property then there is no need for any of that.

What I would really like to see (and think we will see if libre software and content becomes well known to the average guy) is some good concurrance between propriarity programs and content with all the special deals truly secure DRM would make possible and libre programs and content that anyone can use, study, modify and share. I think libre information would be supperior because anyone anywhere can improve on it (now thats a lot of potential contributors) and concurating libre products can share solutions (many different distros uses Gnome for example). But the propriarity side would also come up with a lot of very sweet stuff to stay alive.

[Stormy Eyes]

You GOTTA stop thinking in terms of "media companies." DRM can be used by anyone. What's preventing this now is simply that DRM mostly doesn't work.

The only crypto I am willing to trust or tolerate is the crypto I myself install and choose to use, like ssh and gnupg. If somebody else installs crypto on my machine, I will disable it post-haste, because I cannot trust anything more complicated than the BIOS that somebody else installed.

The TCPA has the digital right to go bugger itself. Let's see if it can manage that.

[23meg]

This is absolute FUD.

It's not FUD, because it's not a speculation; it's an existing technology whose consequences can be devastating in terms of privacy and basic rights of ownership in the wrong hands. http://www.intel.com/technology/manage/iamt/

Over and out.

[BoyOfDestiny]

It's not FUD, because it's not a speculation; it's an existing technology whose consequences can be devastating in terms of privacy and basic rights of ownership in the wrong hands. http://www.intel.com/technology/manage/iamt/

Over and out.

Agreed.
Anyone who thinks it gives you privacy is missing a big aspect of DRM.
It would be the same as having a rootkit.
You have to trust those who have the keys to your pc.
To monitor what you run, what you have, and pay to play isn't far away.

If you think DRM is pro consumer, well your tin foil hat is full of holes. Censorship, renting software, I just don't plain like it.

[BWF89]

I voted for DRM is Bad, infringing on my rights!.

Although I do find it funny that the same people that illegally download their CDs, DVDs, & serial numbers off of BitTorrent & Limewire are the same people that complain when the media companies try to fight back by useing DRM.

[xequence]

DRM (in its current use, and what it is supposed to do in then next couple years) is bad, very bad, and worse.

Basically its this - The people who buy music from iTunes and/or an accual music store get binged by DRM while the people who pirate it have it in mp3 for lossy and flac for lossless.

I can manage my own digital rights, thank you very much.


Although I do find it funny that the same people that illegally download their CDs, DVDs, & serial numbers off of BitTorrent & Limewire are the same people that complain when the media companies try to fight back by useing DRM.

Honestly it doesent have as much of an effect on us downloaders then the people who buy music. Someone will always crack the DRM, though it might take awhile. Music buyers wouldent know how to get the DRM crack, and if they did they would probably be the one downloading it for free.

I saw a website where someone had an ipod and a pocket pc. One plays AAC, one plays WMA. They would have to buy each song twice of an online music store, doubling the already high price.

[poptones]

It's not FUD, because it's not a speculation;

Yes, it is. In fact it's absurd speculation; a machine that is powered off has no access to the hard drive. Probing nonvolatile storage while "off" is entirely different than reformatting a hard drive that is not under power. It is also ludicrous to speculate on the evils of remote management software that allows pretty much exactly what we can already do. Hell, I can even turn my computer on from another computer on the internet! OH NO! I HAVE BEEN HAXORED!

This is technology nearly a decade old. So turn it off in the bios, or get yourself a decent router, or just pull the plug from the wall.

[Chayak]

Many vendors, both software and hardware, all "bought" by Microsoft and Intel, to create one huge closed monopoly. Almost every major vendor is in there, and that's exactly why it's a lock-in; it doesn't provide a multitude of solutions, and it doesn't have a serious alternative other then FOSS.

That's the exact reason I'm not choosing it. I won't ever put my private data on a machine running Windows Vista or Mac OSX Panther +1 that has a TPM in it. But millions will. And they won't even be aware of it, because they won't even know what a TPM chip is, whether and why DRM is built into their CPU and motherboard and OS. The climate of computing worldwide will change into one huge Big Brother scenario where those pointing the obvious facts ignored by the masses are called scaremongers.

Those CPUs also have features that let any "system administrator" format your HD without you knowing about it, even when your computer is off, and the TCPA DRM scheme itself is built into the CPU as well as the TPM. Running a closed source OS on a system with such a CPU is like driving a bomb rigged car with its hood welded shut and handing the remote trigger to someone else before getting in it.

I believe I've made my stance clear enough, and so have you, by reducing sensitive personal data to "pr0n". It's this belittling "stash your pr0n" attitude that is unaware the true importance of sensitive personal data and independent, open source, non-locked-in encryption that will make the TCPA and its likes thrive. It's a bleak picture in which I won't take part, and I'm out of this discussion as well.

Somewhat true and some not. You can't format a HD if the computer is off, but when it is on and if someone has the proper login it's possible.

[23meg]

Yes, it is. In fact it's absurd speculation;I'll have to come back in and say you're the one creating the uncertainty, playing with words to defend yourself in a situation where you don't have to, since nobody including me is disrespecting your right to use whatever technology you want here; and that keeps me coming back to point to the simple facts again and again.

a machine that is powered off has no access to the hard drive.

You can't format a HD if the computer is offYou're stating the obvious. What IAMT allows the remote admin to do is turn on your computer first, and then do whatever they want, including format a drive.


It is also ludicrous to speculate on the evils of remote management software that allows pretty much exactly what we can already do.
Again, obvious, and exactly what I'm saying: you can do this today, this technology is available today, it's not some future dystopia that we should all be paranoid about, it's just something we should be aware of and act accordingly at present. Plus, this is not just "remote management software"; it's a whole scheme that includes the OS kernel, software, the TPM and the CPU-embedded part of IAMT.


Hell, I can even turn my computer on from another computer on the internet! OH NO! I HAVE BEEN HAXORED!

This is technology nearly a decade old.

Manipulating facts again. The technology that lets you turn on your computer remotely is indeed an old one; what's new here is this technology being integrated into the core of the CPU, where it's able to bypass your OS and your other peripheraps, and aligned with the ownership paradigm of the TCPA, which is the sign of possible danger.

So turn it off in the bios, or get yourself a decent router, or just pull the plug from the wall.Or better, use a free / open source OS such as our beloved Ubuntu that doesn't give a dime about the TPM, right? That way I don't even have to turn it off in the BIOS, which still wouldn't be a 100% effective precaution anyway. I agree that unplugging a Windows system is a good solution; whenever I have to use Windows, I do that.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I voted for DRM is Bad, infringing on my rights!.

Although I do find it funny that the same people that illegally download their CDs, DVDs, & serial numbers off of BitTorrent & Limewire are the same people that complain when the media companies try to fight back by useing DRM.

Glad you aren't generalizing there... DRM seems to affect legit users primarily. Ask a pirate if he had any problem with sony's cds or windows registration?

As a [albeit somewhat] legit user, DRM will be great if it doesn't allow me to rip my cds anymore (I could see Finland enforcing that someday). Then I could spend cash on renting music instead. Owning is over rated.

:rolleyes:

[poptones]

I'll have to come back in and say you're the one creating the uncertainty, playing with words to defend yourself in a situation where you don't have to, since nobody including me is disrespecting your right to use whatever technology you want here; and that keeps me coming back to point to the simple facts again and again.

Since when is over the top zealotry and FUD "fact?" You still have not provided any proof or demonstration of technology that would allow a machine that was powered off to reformat its hard drive - not under remote control nor even local.

fact: the stuff you spewed in that post makes RMS sound like Charlie Rose on Prozac.

...use a free / open source OS such as our beloved Ubuntu that doesn't give a dime about the TPM, right?

Until some jackasses (like me) start writing code to support it...

Ok,
there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to
just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my
asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable.

I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!

There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on...

I've had some private discussions with various people about this already,
and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way
to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by
some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it.

In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software
patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like
it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow".

And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM
myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I
refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for
whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily
personally approve of.

The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't
limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just
another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have
no ideals.

[ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly
better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other
people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer
who wants to make the best OS possible. ]

In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself
indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the
tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came
that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a
binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one
behind it, and that _you_ trust it.

And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can
disallow anybody else doing so.

Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the
first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by
refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key)
is required too.

But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something,
and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the
scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like
that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on
the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of
the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license.

That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open,
because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act
of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure
that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done.

I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your
kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't
see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers.

Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end
I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it.

Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private
keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build
process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys
without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have
been part of the kernel build itself.

So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is
applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one
is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that
such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel).

Linus


http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sws/papers/mswm03.pdf

[23meg]

Since when is over the top zealotry and FUD "fact?" You still have not provided any proof or demonstration of technology that would allow a machine that was powered off to reformat its hard drive - not under remote control nor even local. You're either still not reading carefully enough, or you're out of words: I'm not talking about proven cases, I'm talking about the potential of security threats and privacy breaching brought on by this technology. Security measures are taken when security flaws are spotted, not after they "prove" themselves by doing damage, same should go for privacy and basic rights. If you call this zealotry then you haven't seen zealotry; I've just linked to Intel's site where you can read about it if you noticed, and the specification is out there for all to see, the facts are there, and like I've said before, it's everyone's own decision what to do with it, or about it.


Until some jackasses (like me) start writing code to support it...
Not really. I know all about Torvalds finding nothing wrong with DRM being integrated into Linux, and it can be, why not? This is the open source world, remember? If my distro ships with a kernel that has DRM/TC built into it (and I doubt Ubuntu ever will choose to do so), it will take me nothing more than a few hours' work to grab the source, strip out the dirty stuff you jackasses wrote and recompile my kernel. I have that option, but closed source OS users will not.

[poptones]

**Intel® Active Management Technology requires the platform to have an Intel® AMT-enabled chipset, network hardware and software. The platform must also be connected to a power source and an active LAN port.

Quite a chain there.

This ain't magic, man.

[23meg]

Right, it doesn't cast magic to lift the plug off the ground and plug it into the wall outlet, yet.

[ThirdWorld]

DRM is just other way companies can lock consumers in their products and technologies. So if you want an ipod you have to use it with itunes. The future is uncertain becuase you will not be able to play your music in any player you want, or watch you dvd movies in your favorite DVD palyer just becuase the content and the hardware use diferent DRM technologies.

[BoyOfDestiny]

DRM is just other way companies can lock consumers in their products and technologies. So if you want an ipod you have to use it with itunes. The future is uncertain becuase you will not be able to play your music in any player you want, or watch you dvd movies in your favorite DVD palyer just becuase the content and the hardware use diferent DRM technologies.

Indeed, there is emulation or cracking the protection... That has legal issues.

I think some exceptions are made for things that should be in the public domain (i.e in the future you'd need to crack copy protection to use the software if keys or the technology is no longer available).

So I would like an exception for fair use. It should be legal to use decss to watch my dvd's. It should be illegal to use it and burn DVD's and sell them out on the street. Although this is what happens in a certain part of the world...

Anyway as for old software don't laugh, just yesterday I played crossfire from online-systems (1981). Works like a charm on breezy 64 (with dosbox ;) )

At least some are pushing for it:
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/dmcrahandout.htm

It's pretty hard to push something fair with all the lobbying though. Best of luck to 'em

[blastus]

DRM-enabled software or media is of no use to me. It restricts my legitimate fair use of the software or media. If I buy a CD or DVD I'd like to be able to play on it my DVD-player and on my computer (on Linux inparticular.) However, DRM places control into the hands of the vendor/manufacturer who may strip my ability to use the software or media. DRM has absolutely no benefit to me personally.

I do not and have never pirated music or videos. I have only pirated software out of necessity; namely Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft Office 2000. But since I have Windows XP and use OpenOffice.org, I have no pirated software or media on my computer anymore.

[Felipe_U]

I just bought I Digital Book on saturday. Big surprice, I can't read the pdf in Acrobat Reader 7 in Ubuntu because the file has DRM protection, and I can't print it because I don't have that option if I open the file in windows. Amazon should have warned me that the DRM would only work on Windows, If I had know that I wouldn't have bought the book...

Greetings,
Felipe

[Kvark]

Felipe_U, tell them you can't read the book with Acrobat Reader 7 in Ubuntu and demand a useable book or the money back.

[Felipe_U]

Felipe_U, tell them you can't read the book with Acrobat Reader 7 in Ubuntu and demand a useable book or the money back.
I'll see what can I do. I still can boot on windows and read, but its a killer since my XP is soooo slow compared to Ubuntu.

Greetings,
Felipe

[23meg]

I just bought I Digital Book on saturday. Big surprice, I can't read the pdf in Acrobat Reader 7 in Ubuntu because the file has DRM protection, and I can't print it because I don't have that option if I open the file in windows. Amazon should have warned me that the DRM would only work on Windows, If I had know that I wouldn't have bought the book..
I had two audio CDs, one Sony and one EMI, that I couldn't play or rip in Linux at all, and could only listen in Windows if I connected to the internet, since they requested to "download a certificate". I refuse to connect to the net with Windows, so I had no way of playing them, and I took them back to the store and got a full refund after some debate.

Although I do find it funny that the same people that illegally download their CDs, DVDs, & serial numbers off of BitTorrent & Limewire are the same people that complain when the media companies try to fight back by useing DRM.
But complaining about piracy when you can't provide a legal alternative is just ridiculous. The current state of things is that if you want to play a Sony / EMI CD on your computer, you have to be using Windows and be connected to the internet. I do not accept this, and it's my right not to. I will not buy a single Sony / EMI CD again. I don't want to be feeding a system that does this.

If you want to play your CDs and read your ebooks that you've paid for under Linux in the future, oppose DRM in its current state. You should do this if you have the slightest belief in Linux being a serious desktop platform in the near future.

[Felipe_U]

If you want to play your CDs and read your ebooks that you've paid for under Linux in the future, oppose DRM in its current state. You should do this if you have the slightest belief in Linux being a serious desktop platform in the near future.

As I said before I'll see what I can do. I'm looking in amazon to see whom should I email.

Greetings,
Felipe

[BoyOfDestiny]

I had two audio CDs, one Sony and one EMI, that I couldn't play or rip in Linux at all, and could only listen in Windows if I connected to the internet, since they requested to "download a certificate". I refuse to connect to the net with Windows, so I had no way of playing them, and I took them back to the store and got a full refund after some debate.

But complaining about piracy when you can't provide a legal alternative is just ridiculous. The current state of things is that if you want to play a Sony / EMI CD on your computer, you have to be using Windows and be connected to the internet. I do not accept this, and it's my right not to. I will not buy a single Sony / EMI CD again. I don't want to be feeding a system that does this.

If you want to play your CDs and read your ebooks that you've paid for under Linux in the future, oppose DRM in its current state. You should do this if you have the slightest belief in Linux being a serious desktop platform in the near future.

Sony recalls infected CDs, to offer exchange program
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5573.html

It's pretty neat that the patch to remove the rootkit opens further security holes. Wouldn't it be neat if DRM was legislated so all hardware had it? I bet nothing like this would happen. Nothing could or would go wrong as history shows. Right? Won't it be sweet to have big bro looking over your shoulder too?:p

[Chayak]

I voted for DRM is Bad, infringing on my rights!.

Although I do find it funny that the same people that illegally download their CDs, DVDs, & serial numbers off of BitTorrent & Limewire are the same people that complain when the media companies try to fight back by useing DRM.


I buy the media that I use, but I also want to be able to use the media that I buy. A serious pirate is just going to crack it one way or another. DRM only harms legit users.

[matthew]

I'm no pirate. I just want to be able to make a copy of my music from a cd or the soundtrack of a dvd so I can listen to it in the car or on my headphones. That falls under fair use, but it is a PITA to do so sometimes. What do I do about it? If I have trouble with a company's products, I don't buy that company's stuff in the future. If I get around to it I let them know why as well.

[poptones]

Quoth the prophet, J Lydon...

There's unlimited supply
and there is no reason why
I tell you it was all a frame
they only did it 'cos of fame -
Who? EMI

Unlimited supply
EMI there is no reason why
EMI I tell you it was all a frame
EMI they only did it 'cos of fame
EMI I do not need the pressure
EMI I can't stand the useless fools
EMI unlimited supply
EMI Hallo EMI goodbye...

[losslesshead]

Personally, I HATE DRM. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT! When I was a Windows user, I had to go through so much friggin trouble with Microsoft about WMA DRM files. It was so annoying. Most of the DRM stuff is really anti-consumer, and does not stop pirates- so there is really no point. I am just gald all of my music is in an unprotected mp3 files so I can pretty much play it anywhere, anytime, on anything! And for music store lovers there is allways eMusic (unprotected MP3 files for download, but only independant aritists).:D

[poptones]

eMusic is the RIAA labels, dawg... you're hypin' tha man.

[xequence]

Personally, I HATE DRM. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT! When I was a Windows user, I had to go through so much friggin trouble with Microsoft about WMA DRM files. It was so annoying. Most of the DRM stuff is really anti-consumer, and does not stop pirates- so there is really no point. I am just gald all of my music is in an unprotected mp3 files so I can pretty much play it anywhere, anytime, on anything! And for music store lovers there is allways eMusic (unprotected MP3 files for download, but only independant aritists).:D

If I couldent P2P, id use allofmp3.com :P Its legal in russia, so american laws dont apply there. It almost makes it worth not having the lossless WAV of a CD ;)

[Omnios]

I hate to say this but this may be the rebirth of the cloan computers without DRM or even some higher end computers playing or rather counting on DRM to give it a nice chunk of the Pirate market. But this goes beyond pirating, Im all for pertection to an extent but have fears that they might try to wrongfully impose restrictions for burning. Say you buy a legal cd they might try to make it so that if you want a copy for your mp3 player that you will have to buy an additional copy just for your mp3 player similar to only being able to install one copy of a program.

Now there is no evidence to this but the record companies are getting desperate there income has continued to dwindle over the years, there still making good money but not as much as they used to. Do you think there selling $0.99 songs online because they like you, there even trying to break the online radio where they want royalties. A friend of mine was doing a live 365 Jungle station and said he could not do certain tracks because they want radio royalties. Im expecting the worse and hoping for the best but this is not being put inplace for the hell of it there is a reason and just cant figure out what there up to but needless to say from following what has been said and done in the past it will probably deal with money comming out of your pocket.

[BoyOfDestiny]

http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/

Seems this drm even contains some lgpl & gpl code... uh oh... sony is in more trouble...haha

[xequence]

Do you think there selling $0.99 songs online because they like you

Why would 1$ per song be because they like us? That is overcharging. By alot. We get a file we can barly do anything with and is only decent quality.

[Vlammetje]

Well I agree to what's been said before: DRM harms legit users a lot more than it has managed to harm pirates so far. So obviously, DRM in its current shape is NOT the answer. Shame the bigger companies (hollywood, micro$oft, and so on) so not seem to grasp it yet.

Shame that putting your customers at risk (Sony BMG anyone) is considered good practice until somebody blows the whistle. Shame that the paying customer, the one who eventually pays the salary of all these big guys out there, is the one being put at risk, literally.

I don't mind copy protection, as long as I can make myself a legal back up. I never have original CDs in my car, it's too risky. As long as the bloody protection stays on the CD and does not harm me or my devices in any way, or hinder the CDs performance on any of my players. I do believe the artist, if indeed the actual copy right holder, should have the final word in it though (which is not currently the case, at least not always). I don't mind protection, as long as it does not interfere with my rights, as end user.

But as a matter of principle: I despise DRM in its current form. Why? Because the current DRM enforcement prohibits me from sharing music between my iPod, my cell phone, my hifi system, my car system and my Linux PC. This annoys me, and as a paying customer I consider one payment made for one product plenty. I will not *ever* buy duplicate songs or CD's... I'd rather not buy any and save myself the hassle. But what annoys me even more than that is that the media companies and co treat me as if I am the criminal. As if by default, everybody who purchases music, will continue to rip, copy and sell it on. No exceptions. Deplorable attitude. And one that will make me take my business elsewhere.

[poptones]

It's simple: don't share DRM music. If you want to change things, you won't do it by proving the suits in Hollywood are right.

Share free music. There are scads of fantastic artists out there who are known only locally or not at all and the internet can only help these folks overcome if we support them instead of republishing Madonna and Snapp-d-whatever against their owner's wishes. The ultra-cool Gogol Bordello (http://www.gogolbordello.com/) was even on Conan the other night! These artists need incentive to remain free of the corporate hype machine.

[poptones]

BTW...

Now there is no evidence to this but the record companies are getting desperate there income has continued to dwindle over the years,

This is complete propoganda and the fact you're quoting it just proves how effective they are. The truth is the music industry is making more money than ever... visit the RIAA website and see for yourself.

[chestnut1969]

hmm, after trying DRM, I've been driven back to buying CD's... more of a tangible product, with the flexibility of creating better quality media files for computer/player personal useage, how and when I want.

DRM sucks big time. In one instance, after using my 'allowed' 3x burn allowance on 3 unsuccessful burning attempts, I'm left with next to useless low quality music files on my laptop.

I have no problem paying for music (which all of my vast collection has been), but I feel DRM just punishes honest users.

Being a musician, I am constantly 'educating' those who I come accross who pirate music, and the damaging effect it has on peoples livelihoods. That I feel is a more effective remedy to the issues at hand.

[xequence]

hmm, after trying DRM, I've been driven back to buying CD's... more of a tangible product, with the flexibility of creating better quality media files for computer/player personal useage, how and when I want.

DRM sucks big time. In one instance, after using my 'allowed' 3x burn allowance on 3 unsuccessful burning attempts, I'm left with next to useless low quality music files on my laptop.

I have no problem paying for music (which all of my vast collection has been), but I feel DRM just punishes honest users.

Being a musician, I am constantly 'educating' those who I come accross who pirate music, and the damaging effect it has on peoples livelihoods. That I feel is a more effective remedy to the issues at hand.

Maybe something you could try is burning to a virtual drive, which would probably make an ISO file, which you could just open up with any archiving program and take out the unrestricted WAV files and burn them as many times as you want/until a burn accually works.

[prizrak]

Current DRM is based on current Copyright Laws and current Copyright Laws are very bad and outdated. The time restrictions on the stuff are nuts, in today's world even a 7 year patent is wayyyy too long to be used for its original purpose, which is to give people incentive to invent. The DRM issue comes out of that and nothing else.
Poptones,
Supporting indy artists is fine and good but what if I happen to like Snoop Doggy Dogg or even Madonna? Why should I be stopped from keeping a copy of the same CD in my car, on my .ogg player or not be able to play it in Ubuntu Linux because RIAA doesn't want me to? Historically the same record (tape, CD, w/e) was allowed to be played on anything that will support it and it was more or less understood that many people would make a copy of a tape/CD for their car so that they don't have to keep the originals there or remember to bring one all the time. Why is an mp3 file any different? Doesn't do anything a vinyl record didn't still plays music. The ONLY reason is that RIAA is able to extract more money out of me, they don't give a damn about my rights and the DMCA helps them do that. Most people who buy stuff don't go around distributing it, they bought it they are obviously not pirates. Pirates don't give a damn they got resources to crack or circumvent that protection.
The point here being is that it's not the DRM itself that is broken and evil, it is the law upon which the DRM is based. Current law protects ONLY the producers and not the consumers there needs to be a balance between the two.

[rocknrolf77]

Bringing this thread back to life. Was searching around the forums and found that 3 people has voted that drm is good. Can't understand why.... Drm is just for the record companies executives, so they can make even more money. And it's really the opposite against free software, because drm will never work in linux.

Give the power back to the artists and not the record labels. My 2 cents :)

Not every record labels, but the big ones that are members of the riaa monster. Magnatune etc. is great. Give the artists what they deserve :)

[ElvesBrew]

Everything on my pc is encrypted.

everything.

Do you have a password on your machine? Do you log in as root? If not, why not?

DRM is a tool. It needs to be better, but it needs to be. I cannot wait until encryption is a universal part of our systems.

Individual possession of encryption technology is illegal in China. Wonder why?

The only reason it isn't illegal here is that the intelligence community have cracked or have back doors into everything commonly available to the public. If everyone here in the USA had bullet proof encryption the NSA would have a hissy fit.

Don't be surprised if the DRM (that is being built into motherboard chipsets, gpus, harddrives, and cpus) has code to insert backdoors into all types of encryption or simply store keys in a hidden area of your hard drive for anyone with the proper knowledge to access.

The only reason to include DRM into hardware is to remove the decision/choice from the owner of the hardware and place it in the hands of those wishing to control what we can and can't do with "OUR" computers.

EB

[KiwiNZ]

Very old thread long since put to rest .

Closed