Digital Restrictions Management
From WhyNotWiki
Digital Restrictions Management edit (Category edit)
Also known (misnomerly) as: wikipedia:Digital Rights Management
Contents |
[edit] Links
Learning from Sony: An External Perspective, by Dan Kaminsky [Good writing (category)] [That's outrageous (category)] [Rootkits (category)] [Digital Restrictions Management (category)]
Welcome To Planet Sony | DoxPara Research [Rootkits (category)] [Digital Restrictions Management (category)]
[edit] Quotes
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Why_use_Metadata Why we have Creative Commons Metadata
In addition to making it easy for people to find the copyright licenses best for them, Creative Commons is working to provide simple RDF descriptions of these licenses. These descriptions will put the important points of the license in a way that makes it easy for machines to process and work from. Unlike Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, which tries to restrict use of digital works, Creative Commons is providing ways to encourage permitted sharing and reuse of works.
If you run a search engine, you might use license metadata to highlight public domain and generously-licensed works. If you write a public file sharing server, you might offer to search the user's hard drive for works that allow distribution. If you write a magazine, you might use a CC-enabled search engine to find pictures of candy bars that you can legally include.
By standardizing a way to describe this information and providing large quantites of RDF to build on, we hope to encourage new and innovative ways to develop the commons. Of course, this metadata only provides a first approximation of the license, for information use. Users are encouraged to read the full license to make sure it meets their expectations.
BadVista.org: Time to jump — BadVista (http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/article-from-the-fsf-bulletin).
DRM is open is it? i buy a car , you think the manufacturer is going to DRM me as to what goes in it and who rides with me as one person said. NOT.
take open document stuff. There are reasons china is giving 1 million laptops running linux to farmers(farmers?) it actualy is more secure, it actually is mroe stable, OH yah has no NSA FBI CIA holes hidden in it, open source cant hide that from you.
Geek To Live: Free your music from iTunes with iTunes Export (http://lifehacker.com/software/geek-to-live/free-your-music-from-itunes-with-itunes-exporter-280279.php).
mystech,07/20/07 10:00 AM
Raynar, people would buy music if the RIAA [were] SELLING music. Instead the RIAA would prefer we RENT DRM-filled hostage-ware.
[edit] On whether DRM should be allowed on streaming/rental videos
http://digg.com/tech_news/Tell_Netflix_No_DRM_2.
...
If I buy something it should be DRM free.
I like others support DRM on my rental media.
I will not participate in this campaign. I support DRM rental services.
I'm against DRM on the streams only because I hate DRM in general.. I can see where the producers would like to protect their films, however, if DRM continues here, it just gives it another starting point and it will end up elsewhere as well..
And this IE thing.. bogus, I use the fox and it makes me mad when this stuff doesn't work for me..
DRM, as with any other technology, can be used, and can be misused. Putting DRM on a DVD that I purchase and own is misusing it. Putting a broadcast flag on all broadcast digital TV is a misuse. Putting a rootkit onto every CD purchased by BMG is a misuse.
Putting DRM onto a video stream on netflix is an appropriate use.
I am firmly against all of the inappropriate uses I just stated. I am against them for one reason, and one reason only: they stop me from doing what I have a legal right to do. It is already clear that I don't have a legal right to store a copy of a NetFlix broadcast, period. I don't have that right, so NetFlix isn't taking any rights away from me.
The problem with NetFlix is the KIND of DRM they're using. It only works in IE, so, if I used NetFlix, it would indeed impede on my ability to use the product, and I am against that. But I am not against the DRM itself, only it's implementation.
Just like on all of the cases in my first paragraph, I'm not against the DRM itself, but the restrictions it places on me unjustly.
Even hardcore anti-DRM junkies could appreciate that.
You make a good point, that the problem with DRM is not "DRM" itself but the restrictions it places on you unjustly.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "just" implementation of DRM. The reason is that DRM and Free Software ( http://www.fsf.org/ ) are incompatible. If you have DRM, you can't have the freedom to change your program, because, if you could change your program, you could simply remove the DRM.
Let's take your case, for example. You believe that this DRM is unjust because it restricts you from using your preferred software. I agree, there's no good reason that a video stream should mandate the brand of software used to view it. But there is no alternative with DRM. DRM requires that every layer of software is trusted to not let data leak out, which means NetFlix *has* to specify what software, down to the version number, that you're allowed to use. You might be saying to yourself, "well, all they have to do is support my favorite browser, FireFox, and I'll be happy with streaming DRM". But then you're limiting your choices in the future. FireFox is Free Software and would never have become popular, and you never would have even tried it, if DRM had been commonplace on the Net when it was introduced.
DRM is not a good idea on streaming videos. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to steal said videos but about who can access them. Having DRM on streaming videos means you have to have software which may not be available to everybody -- this is quite similar to requiring that you use IE to access a site. Completely unnecessary in order to get things working.
DRM also doesn't make it harder to copy a movie that is being streamed. There are many ways of doing that regardless of DRM or not -- rendering the stream to a file backend, rather than an on-screen backend completely and utterly defeats ALL DRM technologies, and there just ain't no way around that. Unless of course you force people to use your software, but even then it's not guaranteed that no-one will figure out how to render to a file, by replacing a dll somewhere. Regardless of the success of this, if a company who streams videos wants marginal success with any DRM scheme, they will have to force their users to use their software, which means that not everybody will be able to stream their videos.
No, I fully support this. I just can't see why anyone would even want to use DRM in the first place. It's just a waste of effort, time and money.
It took me a little thinking for me to figure it out, but this campaign to wake-up NetFlix is worth supporting, even though DRM is slightly less evil when it's clear that you're renting the media. Before you digg me down, please hear me out.
I do not support "piracy". I believe that if a company wants to sell streaming movies as a service, that's their business. Streaming is just like watching a movie on TV --- just because the electrons have passed through a device you own, that doesn't mean that you own the movie.
As you may recall, the media corporations made a huge deal about VCRs when they first came out. Hell, they even tried to stop people from taping music from the radio. But in those cases it was shown that they didn't actually have the legal right to stop people from personally enjoying the stream in whatever way they want -- including recording it for later playback. They can only stop people from actually infringing on their copyright, for example by re-selling the movie.
DRM is just a new way of trying to do the same thing. Instead of cracking down on the actually illegal activity (redistributing the movies), they're imposing restrictions on the consumers.
Some people on this forum don't mind DRM on streams because they think it will prevent illegal activity, thus allowing more movies to become available. Unfortunately, DRM on streaming media does NOT do that. Ask any computer programmer -- if the bytes flow through a standard PC, then there's going to be a way to record them onto the hard drive. DRM does not stop "piracy", it just gives the media corporations a feeling that they're in control.
Actually, let me rephrase that. DRM is more than just a "feel good" move by corporations. Even if it successfully restricted people to what they're legally allowed to do with a stream, this DRM does too much collateral damage. DRM makes your PC buggier and more expensive. DRM restricts your control of the basic workings of your PC. DRM forces you to purchase Microsoft Windows, and to purchase upgrades whenever Microsoft tries to plug a hole in its DRM implementation.
In short, DRM sucks for consumers, even on streaming media.
Down with DRM in all its forms and manifestations! Accepting DRM in any case is condoning the practice.
Seriously, who would want to steal a .flv stream quality video? how many times are you going to watch it? if you like it you'll buy it. If you want to steal a movie, you can copy the DVD's they mail to you. Copying DVD's produce higher quality videos.
My major beef with DRM is that I use Linux and my web browser is firefox. People who follow the norm use DRM blindly without seeing it for what it truly is. DRM is a tool of monopoly. They want everyone to have windows, use internet explorer and to only watch and listen to multimedia using Windows media player (or itunes of course). You may feel like you have no choice but to follow and be submissive to the proprietary companies, but you do. Do some research and try out other operating systems, try out different media players and different media formats. There are people who come up with new types of formats and software all the time. Don't give up your freedom of choice by supporting companies who use DRM only.
If you think that DRM is ok, you should also consider that we can extend this logic to last a bit further than to piracy regulation to a general laws.
Extension is simple:
To make police happy and stop all crime forever, you all should be JAILED. Now! So, police can effectively apply proper restrictions preventing all crime. Will be you happy to live in such world? That's how DRM works, after all... it declares you pirate and criminal by default. How democratic!
[edit] Misc
Google Video DRM: Why is Hollywood more important than users? (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/14/google-video-drm-why.html).
With the introduction of its new copy-restriction video service, Google has diverged from its corporate ethos. For the first time in the company's history, it has released a product that is designed to fill the needs of someone other than Google's users.
Google Video is a new video-search and video-sales tool, through which users can download videos that have been uploaded by their creators or by others who have the rights to them, either because the videos are in the public domain, or because they are used in a way that satisfies the "fair use" defense in US copyright law.
Part of the Google Video offering is a store that sells videos. Some of these are delivered in a locked format of Google's devising that restricts how Google's users can play and use the videos they buy. This Digital Rights Management system (DRM) is like many of those used by Google's competitors in that it doesn't attempt to model any copyright system in the world, but rather reflects a one-sided vision of how copyright should work and imposes that unilaterally on Google's customers.
Here's how the Google Video DRM works: when you download a restricted video from Google, it locks that video to your account and software player. Every time you want to play the video, your player has to communicate with Google to determine whether you are currently permitted to play it; if the player doesn't get the answer it's looking for, it won't play the video. The specifics of how this works aren't available -- Google hasn't published any details of how the security is implemented, committing the cardinal sin of "security through obscurity."
...
[edit] To do
Find out more about "bad Vista".
