Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
GStreamer to support DRM
GStreamer is an extensive
support library for the creation of multimedia applications. Audio and
video applications can be constructed as a series of pipelines; there are
graphical tools which can be used to help put all of the pieces together in
the right order. GStreamer has been used as the back end for a number of
common applications, including Totem, Amarok, Banshee, and many others.
The project recently celebrated the release of GStreamer 0.10,
which improves the system in a number of ways.
According to GStreamer hacker Christian Schaller, future releases of GStreamer may contain a feature which is less welcome to many: digital restrictions management (DRM) support. There are, says Mr. Schaller, clear reasons why one might want to support DRM-enabled GStreamer modules:
Because they give you access to playback things you wouldn't
otherwise. Many music stores only offers DRM'ed WMA files for
download, and without a system supporting Windows DRM these files
are useless on your Linux system. DRM also includes stuff such as
the protection mechanism on the upcoming high-definition DVD's.
It appears that any DRM features would be packaged into separate modules, making it easy to install a DRM-free GStreamer in the future. Distributions could put the DRM modules into a separate package - or leave them out entirely. So, it is claimed, the implementation of DRM in GStreamer would not place any restrictions on current or future uses of the system. Some skepticism on this claim would appear to be warranted. Any DRM module which is to gain the trust of the entertainment industry (much less avoid DMCA suits) will have to prevent the user from capturing an unencrypted stream. To that end, GStreamer will have to be able to create "secure pipelines"; DRM modules will then refuse to connect to modules which cannot be "trusted" with protected content. If GStreamer is to retain its current power and flexibility, many of its standard modules - and certainly those concerned with the actual playing and display of media - will have to be reworked to participate in secure pipelines. Either that, or significant parts of the GStreamer will have to be duplicated in a "secure" mode. It is hard to see how the entire GStreamer pipeline could be made to be secure without affecting people who have no interest in DRM-enabled content. There is also the obvious question of how DRM can be done securely in an environment where source is available. Mr. Schaller points at Sun's "Opera" project as a possible example of how things could be done, and notes:
There might be some ramifications of being free software which will
make the resulting system have conditions for use that makes it
painful, like a requirement for being online when playing back as
an example, but its definitely not impossible.
Still, anybody who can hack on the source can obtain an unencrypted stream from a GStreamer DRM module. So it seems clear that such modules are expected to be shipped in a binary-only mode. Even then, though, one should remember that the Linux kernel is free software too. So even if the GStreamer pipeline is entirely secure and uncrackable, a quick kernel hack will still make the capturing of unrestricted streams easy. That suggests, in turn, that the people looking to put DRM code into GStreamer envision operating in environments where users cannot install their own kernels. The TPM chips being put into an increasing number of computers may make that kind of restriction possible, but the real target is probably elsewhere: embedded systems. The use of GStreamer to make non-hackable, Linux-based media gadgets will be nothing new; various companies are creating such devices now. But the incorporation of DRM capabilities into our free system seems like a step in the wrong direction. Features like secure pipelines represent a loss of control over our own systems - the very control that drives many of use to use free software in the first place. So users and distributors may want to think long and hard before allowing DRM-enabled GStreamer near their systems. (Log in to post comments)
Will GStreamer developers be bound by any contract? Posted Dec 12, 2005 23:16 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] What I would like to see is the ability to play as many formats as possible without GStreamer developers entering any agreements with content providers. If GStreamer can use existing DRM modules (e.g. Windows DLLs), that's fine. If GStreamer developers are going to be bound by any agreement regarding what they can or cannot do with the GStreamer code, I won't trust their software regardless of the license. I'll prefer different software even for non-DRM files.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 12, 2005 23:20 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Something like DeCSS.
That brought support for the DRM on current DVDs to Linux. (And it's not as odious as the DRM that's being stacked onto future media formats and future DVD formats, but it *is* a form of DRM, even if mainly directed at player developers rather than at users.)
If we had DRM support that explicitly had the purpose of breaking the DRM so that you could play the media with fully free software, well, that could only be a good thing.
-Rob
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 1:24 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well...
At first I was like 'ok, that's weird, but the real solution is not to give money to people that use DRM'... which is the most correct stance I figure.
But later I though, 'well, should we realy be helping these people out? (think of the RIAA/itunes/etc) If they want DRM in Linux, then let them deal with it.' They don't need any help from OSS community to make it more acceptable to people. That is what keeps those advertisers in business.
But then I remembered that DRM type stuff can actually have legitimate uses.
Like gstreamer isn't just a multimedia _playback_ it's for multimedia creation, programming, and modification. So then with gstreamer-enabled programs like recorders or transcoders or whatnot then DRM has limited use for individuals protecting themselves and their privacy.
A couple for isntances are: Protecting recordings of confidential conversations. Like if you'd want a lawyer to keep a recording of meetings with yourself for criminal proceedings and be able to send those recordings to a colleague to a guy half way around the world.
Or encrypting VoIP stuff for a business... or being able to send 'sensitive' personal stuff from/to a girlfriend or stuff like that.
DRM by itself isn't going to keep it safe forever, but it's another layer of security that may be helpfull.
People use encrypted drives and loopback files for storing stuff, or used encryption in emails and such.. this is the same thing, but with audio/video.
People also use encryption for websites and plenty of free software supports that.
Now if that was to 'break' drm, then that is wonderfull... but Fluendo can't hardly support that since they'd get busted under the DMCA or at least they wouldn't be able to distribute anything in the USA and no propriatory codec creating company (Microsoft, Apple, etc) would have anything to do with it or Fluendo.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 2:49 UTC (Tue) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] This makes no sense.
Look at what DRM actually is: A system whereby the "owner" of content can *trust* that any random machine that intercepts their data stream will be able to decrypt it, but will refuse to do things with it.
Its a security idea based on a nonsense - the idea that you can have a trusted client. DRM can *never* work even medium term : you are giving out the algorithm, the cyphertext, *and* the key. There is no way this can be secure against any vaguely capable attacker, ie people doing corporate espionage, commercial pirates, or dedicated warez groups.
What it can do is inhibit the free market in consumer electronics and software, and greatly inconvenience the average user. It will expressly not be suitable for any security other than these idiotic trusted client schemes.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 3:33 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well I never thought about it like that.
I always assumed they would finally create a sceme that worked reasonably well. Something based around hardware keying or whatnot. Or like were you are encryption a with a shared private key or something like that.
But if it is always going to be like what I say it is, then how can DRM possibly work? Are they depending fully on something like the DMCA to stop US citizens from having access to decryption tools?
The Sun Opera thingy is completely worthless?
As far as trusted computing goes.. I figure anything that allows me to have higher control over my bits and my computer is good; anything that is used that allows control by a external person/group is bad.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 14, 2005 10:34 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] I always assumed they would finally create a sceme that worked reasonably well. Something based around hardware keying or whatnot. Or like were you are encryption a with a shared private key or something like that.Most people never thougth about it. But the grandparent is rigth: DRM is, in it's essence, nonsensical. Bruce Schneier said it best: Trying to make bits non-copyable is like trying to make water not wet. You want literally millions of devices to be able to play the DRMed media. This means they must posess all the nessecary information to decrypt it. The algorithm, *and* the key. Yet, at the same time one assumes that *none* of these devices will ever do anything the publishers want. Display on screen ? Ok. Save unencrypted on disc ? Not ok. Output through headphones ? Ok. Output through digital-out ? Not ok. Output through headphones-connection that happens to be connected to the audio-in on another device capable of recording ? Not ok. Notice that it's *not* enough to stop most of the people most of the time. They need to stop all of the people all of the time. If 1 in 10000 people are capable of ripping, mp3ing and uploading the newest Tittney-album, then the other 9999 people can download it like they do today, totally unaffected by the DRM. Infact they'd be *more* likely to download it than they are today because the downloaded drm-free mp3 will work on "all" devices (and give all freedoms) whereas the drmed crap will work on "many" devices and give you exactly those rigths (i.e. near none) that the publisheer wishes to give you. Today, a good rip and an original audio-cd is equally good. (for most practical purposes anyway) In the drm-world the good rip is a lot *better* than the original plastic-thing-that-looks-like-a-cd-but-isn't.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 16, 2005 9:06 UTC (Fri) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] "How can DRM possibly work?" Fear, of course... fear of being plundered and pillaged by professional plunderers and pillagers: teams and teams of lawyers.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 4:21 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] DRM is not nonsense--it was never meant to protect against well-armed attackers like commercial pirates or dedicated warez groups. It only has to be good enough to defeat the typical college student who knows enough to flash a new firmware or solder a mod chip onto a board. There are few enough commercial pirates and warez groups that they (or their distribution channels, including P2P) can be shut down with legal measures, at least in developed countries. In the long run, DRM+lawsuits will probably eliminate 99% of unauthorized copying of popular content, and that sounds awful good to the major content owners.
Software-only DRM is pretty dumb, though, if that's what you were referring to.
Not good enough then Posted Dec 13, 2005 7:38 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It only has to be good enough to defeat the typical college student [...]Then it's no good, since anyone can connect to the internet and download instructions / software written by the non-typical geeky college student who can crack it. You can frighten the guy so he will not make the software public, but then Ed Felten or someone like him will pick the story up, host the software and defend the case in courts. And since code is a manner of speech, and free speech must be guaranteed by the US constitution, he will win. Or a similar story in Europe. In the end it's hard to ban free speech. Software-only DRM is pretty dumb, though, if that's what you were referring to.DVDs were a combination of hardware + software, and they failed. Since software is infinitely flexible, it can simulate any hardware.
Not good enough then Posted Dec 13, 2005 11:03 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] DVDs were a combination of hardware + software, and they failed. Since software is infinitely flexible, it can simulate any hardware. You can't simulate reading a disc with a specific gap length, for example. All you need to do to "protect" your content is to make sure other people don't build the same things (eg. putting them in jail, invading their country etc.). In practice you probably use protection bits or encryption keys because they are easier to control with laws. Sure, that's easier to bypass in software, but you can't simulate yourself out of jail.
Quite bad Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:34 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] You are right. However, these laws are just making it clear that digital restriction measures are too draconian. Putting people in jail because they distribute a prime number which unlocks a DVD you purchased is hard to justify. If only people just cared a little bit more about things around them...
Not good enough then Posted Dec 13, 2005 16:13 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] anyone can connect to the internet and download instructions / software written by the non-typical geeky college student who can crack it. Assuming a software-only crack is possible, yes. I don't think that's an assumption that will always be valid. DVDs were a combination of hardware + software, and they failed. Since software is infinitely flexible, it can simulate any hardware. CSS was designed, what, 10 years ago? It was implemented in dozens of software-only products and yet it took five years to break? CSA was standardized in 1994 (two years after the AHRA, in which a "copy-disallow" bit was considered state-of-the-art content protection) and it took until 2002 for even the algorithm to be fully understood. All publicly-available attacks still require a source of key material; it can't be brute-forced like CSS. The media companies have learned their lesson, and can also rely on a decade of hardware advances to design more secure protection schemes. I don't know if I would be so smug about their inevitable failure.
Not good enough anyway Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:29 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Good point. And yet remember that secrets cannot stay secret for ever, however well you guard them. One leak is enough to break any encryption scheme; and once in the open, you cannot recall all devices and media in the field to change them. Therefore, these restrictions systems are inherently brittle.I think legal threats (as job outlines above) are more credible. And more scary.
Not good enough anyway Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:15 UTC (Thu) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] DRM can require players to phone home (or provide an Internet connection that the GPU in your video card can use to phone home) for firmware updates on a regular basis.
Some of the proposed DRM schemes disable *authors* or *players*, not media. Some of the proposed media types require someone to sign (and therefore approve) every author's or player's key. Playback hardware (which doesn't have an unencrypted native data format, not even on the PCI bus) will refuse to accept the data unless it comes with a valid, unrevoked signature.
The idea is to force everyone trading things on the net to have their keys signed, then have video cards that can receive lists of revoked author keys, and refuse to play anything that came from someone who displeases their DRM masters.
Can't require phoning home Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:37 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] No way can DRM manufacturers require or even expect that all units will phone home regularly. iPod? Car system? Even trying to convince people to plug their home stereo into a phone is problematical. Can you imagine when Joe Sixpack sets up his new stereo, he won't read the manual, he'll plug it in, plug in speakers, put in a CD and hit the play button ... and nothing will happen. He's going to get mad and frustrated when he can't make it play his CD, he's going to take it back or call the 1-800 number, and he's going to really come unglued when they tell him his stereo won't play a CD unless it is connected to the Internet.
Even if only 1% of the Joe Sixpacks demand a refund, the message will come through loud and clear.
Can't require phoning home Posted Dec 15, 2005 17:49 UTC (Thu) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] Don't be so sure. An average iPod is fairly often connected to an Internet-connected PC of some kind, which can act as a conduit for control messages from Apple.
It's not actually necessary to phone home if the device listens to broadcasts from home. Plastic discs (even blank recordable media) can come with embedded directives to the players from the DRM vendors. A DVD holds 9GB of data but many movies are much smaller...each one could contain a million author/player revocation certificates. These can easily reach the home and car stereos. The car stereo can also receive updates via its radio receiver.
Can't require phoning home Posted Dec 22, 2005 18:58 UTC (Thu) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] I have difficulty seeing many users going along with "you must plug your ipod into a computer every N days or it will stop playing your music"
Can't require phoning home Posted Dec 23, 2005 21:18 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] I think it would be more like "if you want to put more music on your iPod, you must plug your iPod into a computer." At that point it can require Internet connectivity to its DRM masters since the whole point of the exercise is to transfer data from the same DRM masters to the iPod. The user experience might be "sometimes when you put new music onto your iPod, it stops playing some of the old music any more."
Of course if someone writes a free version of the software on the PC that talks to the iPod, there's no way they can fail to notice that for some reason the wire protocol to the iPod involves bouncing blocks of unintelligible bits back and forth to some Internet site that nobody has ever heard of.
On the other hand, if Apple starts embedding iPod DRM directives into standard formats (e.g. MP3) as audio watermarks, then Apple still owns the iPod unless you are a guru of stenography countermeasures.
Of course this doesn't do anything useful if the only data you put into your iPod comes from clean sources (e.g. ripped from standard audio CD's or analog sources by unencumbered DRM-free software) with no network access, but at this point you're maintaining a firewall around the iPod--if you ever stop paying attention or loan your iPod to someone who does, your iPod could escape its confinement and update itself.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 11:58 UTC (Tue) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] Yes, the only thing that can work is the *legal measures*. This has nothing to do with DRM, or technology. Any DRM scheme, in a market without braindead laws like the DMCA, would immediately lead to multiple vendors selling hardware not respecting the scheme.
The thing that is protecting the 'content providers' is the laws, not the technology. DRM from a security standpoint is a joke. If you can play it you can copy it.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 14, 2005 10:39 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] DRM is not nonsense--it was never meant to protect against well-armed attackers like commercial pirates or dedicated warez groups.If the dedicated warez-groups can crack the drm, then the undrmed media will continue to float freely over the internet, like it does today, probably in a better anonymized network. And they've gained nothing. There are few enough commercial pirates and warez groups that they (or their distribution channels, including P2P) can be shut down with legal measures, at least in developed countries. First, I very much doubt this is true. Secondly, even if it was, this still wouldn't help. It would only mean that the neweest Tittney-cd became available maybe an hour later, since it'd get cracked it some non-developed country and thereafter spread over the networks exactly as it does today. Third, you seem to assume that all people are either amateurs or comercial operations. This neglects the large group of people who have lots of skills and expertize, but no interest in doing pirating comercially. These are a lot harder to catch than the comercial pirates, because the latter can be caugth by following the money-trail. If I *don't* require any payment, it's pretty easy to make some file available to the world in such a way that it's pretty darn hard to proove it originated from me.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 4:32 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] A couple for isntances are: Protecting recordings of confidential conversations. Like if you'd want a lawyer to keep a recording of meetings with yourself for criminal proceedings and be able to send those recordings to a colleague to a guy half way around the world. So encrypt it with gpg and send the thing. DRM isn't going to help you here... and a fully free-software solution will. -Rob
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 4:42 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] good point. I fogot the drm stuff would probably be closed source.
gpg encryption is pretty much the same thing, just without the buzz-word-ness. (drm is essentially a buzzword, or so it seems to me)
I was thinking along that that line, except something that is designed as a standardized encrypted media format instead of more general encryption. Something you could stream with or something that you could play directly into a media player (hardware based or software based) without decrypting it and making multiple copies first.. and having a standardized way of dealing with keys and such.
but what your saying probably makes more sense.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 13, 2005 10:54 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] gpg encryption is pretty much the same thing, just without the buzz-word-ness Not really. Encryption is about you hiding your data so unauthorized people can't view it. DRM is about some people deciding what you are allowed to do with their data (and the abstract idea that they can give you some data while they retain ownership). This is typically something you do with laws. If there is encryption involved it's either just for show or something useless the lawyers require.
Here's the DRM support I could get behind Posted Dec 31, 2005 18:20 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] The only form of DRM that is acceptable is one that is opensource and you have the choice to use or not personally i think it should all be scrapped instantly it only serves one purpose that is to make money for the likes of the RIAA and friends .
We should not be bieng controlled by the lokes of them We should be Controling Them and if the music industry and co dont like it we as they say "suck it in " , And lets not make a mistake here it IS the Music and Film industries that are the Main protagonists in all this crap ..
Pete .
No kidding Posted Dec 13, 2005 5:57 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > But the incorporation of DRM capabilities into our free system seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Yeah, a giant _leap_ in the wrong direction, IMHO. It's not like FOSS has to to help "poor" Hollywood and recording "artists" grab even more money from unsuspecting public. These people keep bringing in record profits and screaming about being ripped off at the same time. A little bit like banks, down here in Oz - every year more and more billions are taken away from people and yet they keep slamming us with even more fees, claiming it's costing them more money to run the banks (complete nonsense, of course).
It would appear that the entertainment (i.e. this is supposed to be about having fun) industry is taking themselves way too seriuosly these days.
No kidding Posted Dec 13, 2005 9:02 UTC (Tue) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link] There are artists out there who are feeling severe pain due to illegal copying. I know of at least one starting group that has basically given up on professional music: as soon as they became popular their CD's were copied so often that they didn't sell worth a dime anymore. On a bigger scale with settled bands and record labels, the problem lies (imo) with record labels and similar companies as well as distributors that first take at least 50% of the money (if not a lot more), pass a tiny fraction over to the artists and then start complaining they're not making enough money due to illegal copying. Most bands, as far as I know, are not at all in favour of making it hard to listen to or otherwise use a CD you've bought by introducing DRM measures.
No kidding Posted Dec 13, 2005 14:53 UTC (Tue) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] On a bigger scale with settled bands and record labels, the problem lies (imo) with record labels and similar companies as well as distributors that first take at least 50% of the money (if not a lot more)...For more information on how bad the music industry really is with regard to treatment of artists, read The Problem With Music, written by respected indie recording engineer Steve Albini.
No kidding Posted Dec 14, 2005 0:02 UTC (Wed) by jeaton (guest, #34521) [Link] OK, folks, as an indie recording artist AND experience SW engineer, I'll tell you that it is not a question of whether an indie or signed artist is in favour of making it hard to listen to or otherwise use a CD you've bought by introducing DRM measures. Whether you all want to believe it or not, the recording industry really IS being impacted financially by people ripping and copying their music from CDs, which directly impacts signed artists who have a right to get paid for their art and impacts indie artists particularly who now find it a LOT harder to get signed since labels aren't in a financial position to sign as many new artists because it costs tens of thousands of dollars to produce, master, manufacture, market and promote. From my producer and other artists that KNOW the industry, I can tell you that huge numbers of staff have lost their jobs over the last few years as a result of people making copies of other people's CDs rather than for out the cash themselves. Friends, this is nothing short of theft. You can paint it any color of rose that you want...it's still theft. In the vinyl and early CD days the recording industry made money on the fact that every person that wanted to make copies of vinyl or CDs had to accept a copy with degraded audio fidelity by recording to tape. Now with the ability to make digital copies of music on CD with virtually equal fidelity with ease, CDs are being copied in vast numbers resulting in MASSIVE dip in CD sales. So, in summary, as an indie artist, I'm in favor of technologies that can prevent people from ripping me off by allowing others to get my hi-fidelity music for free by copying CDs or MP3s. What you are all talking about has nothing to do with free speach or consumer rights.
No kidding Posted Dec 14, 2005 0:29 UTC (Wed) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] I can say with a fair amount of experience that your views don't represent the majority of indie artists. In fact, many of my favorite labels sell CDs and vinyl only slightly above *cost* (Touch & Go, No Idea), because they do it for the love of art, not to make a buck. Likewise, I actually *buy* their products because I respect them and their non-profiteering stance. I also go to see their shows and buy t-shirts and other merch, which is where the artists really make a living.
Maybe you should tour more; your fans surely will support you through tickets and merchandising, right? If not, well...
No kidding Posted Dec 14, 2005 1:58 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Friends, this is nothing short of theft. You can paint it any color of rose that you want...it's still theft.
According to copyright law in the US and many western countries, it is well short of theft. It is called copyright infringement and generally speaking isn't a criminal offence (unless certain conditions are met). That's legally speaking.
Morally speaking, why do some people think that it is OK for them to work once and make money on that forever? I have to go to work every day if I want to make a buck. So does an actor that acts in a theatre, for example. Why should some other people be privileged not to put an effort in every single day?
No kidding Posted Dec 14, 2005 2:27 UTC (Wed) by jeaton (guest, #34521) [Link] Yea, like I said, you can paint it any color of rose you want...
If the music and movie industries are not fueled with funds, they'll simply dwindle away under a model you desire. The demise, however, will not be for lack of demand for the product. It will simply be due to a lack of people with integrity. Businesses, after all are all about making money.
No kidding Posted Dec 14, 2005 4:48 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Yea, like I said, you can paint it any color of rose you want...
It is a matter of law that conditions exist for copyright infringement to become "theft" (a crimial offence, actually). Just because you think it is "theft", it doesn't make it so. You are just painting it in your colours, while I'm trying to point out the reality (US & Oz):
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
> If the music and movie industries are not fueled with funds, they'll simply dwindle away under a model you desire.
Quick, save the world! Oh, while at it, make sure open source is forbidden too. All the signs show that the "software industry" is already suffering because of those pesky FOSS lovers.
I certainly hope that human existence isn't about "survival of industries". Because if it is, we'll never do anything better than what we know today.
To dwindle away... Posted Dec 15, 2005 5:44 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > If the music and movie industries are not fueled with funds,> they'll simply dwindle away under a model you desire. Now that would be a rosy outcome! No longer will record companies be able to profit by signing bands into indentured labour, throwing up some glossy posters and videos then pressing the 'copy' button at $15 a pop. More likely is that these industries will adapt to a different business model that offers what the real market -- the consuming public, which happens to have taste and duplicating machines of its own -- demands, instead of demanding draconian enforcement of new artificial monopoly rights. People have already started spending less money on prerecorded mass-market CDs and films and more on live entertainment, concert merchandise (including indie recordings, often on CD-R, at a reasonable markup) and art objects -- a direct financial return to numerous individual artists. No-one here is advocating the abolition of copyright. We *are* decrying the attempt to keep general-purpose machines out of the hands of the general public. > The demise, however, will not be for lack of demand for the product. It would be for a lack of demand for the product *at the inflated price* it's offered for. I have no problem paying $20 for a disc if it cost $10 per disc to make the music. I simply don't buy music at those prices if it has already amortised a million times -- unless it's *really* good (I confess, I did buy a couple of Beatles albums at full price a year or two ago).
No kidding Posted Dec 15, 2005 0:18 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] It is not, let me repeat not, an artists right to get paid for their work. That may be trivially true, but I still feel it's important to stress the point since it is one of the most often repeated untruisms (if that's a word).
The right lies solely with the customer. It is my right to buy whatever stuff I like. And I don't like revokable licenses to listen to songs on approved equipment. I do buy CDs from time to time, but never DVDs.
No kidding Posted Dec 15, 2005 8:07 UTC (Thu) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] "the recording industry really IS being impacted financially by people ripping and copying their music from CDs"
That is most likely true. Some data suggests the impact is a positive one for some parts of the industry, but whether positive or negative it's extremely unlikely to be exactly zero.
The recording industry seems to be suffering as much if not more from their own paranoia and bad business decisions than from illegal redistribution (note that ripping and copying per se have no financial impact on the recording industry whatsoever unless there is also distribution).
People who don't buy CD's today are basically the same people who weren't buying CD's ten years ago--they still listen to music, but now they can listen to music more easily, reliably, and with higher audio quality than ever before. If we magically made it impossible for these people to listen to music without purchasing a CD, they wouldn't listen to music at all, or they'd revert to some technologically backward behavior like singing to each other. About the only way the recording industry is going to extract money from these people is if they get a grant from the government.
New artists are adapting to changes in their environment. Signing up with a major record label is fairly far down the list of likely outcomes even at the best of times, but now one could get oneself featured in a game or TV commercial soundtrack, or run a website with a PayPal donate button to cover studio expenses without intending to make a living from music performance.
Why pay tens of thousands when a cheap laptop, some specialized audio gear (which you can often rent), and a web site or a popular blog is all you need to reach a worldwide audience? This is the *real* threat to the recording industry--not that individual consumers will rip off artists, but that the artists and consumers will figure out that they only need each other, and stop signing contracts with the recording industry.
This is why DRM targets media player vendors, and why consumer electronics vendors find DRM so fascinating. DRM prevents consumers and artists from connecting with each other without the approval of a third party. A widely deployed DRM system can put the recording industry under the control of the DRM systems vendor, at which point the recording industry is pretty much irrelevant--the recording industry will still carry all the risk, but the DRM system can raise fees or pull the plug any time the industry doesn't contribute enough back to the DRM system vendor.
Assuming we are not all forced to implement DRM, most good artists are not really going to notice when the recording industry implodes (or at least drastically restructures itself to cope with reality). By that time the artists will know where the audience is and have the technical means to reach them, and vice versa, so the benefits that a traditional recording industry can provide just won't matter any more. The recording industry is not going to go away, but it is going to have to change quite a bit to focus on the remaining useful things it does do well. One of the first things the industry has to do is stop trying to accelerate its own destruction with DRM...
No kidding Posted Dec 15, 2005 13:34 UTC (Thu) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] The reports I've seen - the independent ones, not the ones paid for by the RIAA - conclude that the impact of copying is at worst negligible, and at best positive, and that the sales reduction is primarily due to bad decisions by the record companies.
If you have credible evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
Yes, the *recording industry* Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:47 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Very specifically, the bureaucrats and hangers on who spend way too much time and money on dubious projects, dubious studio time, dubious marketing. The artists themselves are not suffering nearly as much as the incompetent bloated middle layers. The *recording industry* will adapt, sooner or later, to the modern age and eliminate the bureaucrats and hangers on who pollute the artists' world. In the meantime, the Internet is exposing more clearly than ever how inefficeint that industry is, and voting with its ears to ignre their squealing.
No kidding Posted Dec 22, 2005 21:32 UTC (Thu) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link] "artists who have a right to get paid for their art"
I see this assertion often, yet it is false. Artists do not have a right to be paid for their art. If you have an employment contract or a sales agreement, sure, you can enforce the agreement. Art in general? No. Society does not owe someone money because they create art.
If you create art, you have certain limited rights to control its replication, performance, association with your name, etc. For a while. If you cannot monetize those rights in the alloted time -- say because you produce lousy art, or are a lousy salesperson, or made the mistake of locking it inside a DRM scheme -- that is your problem.
Customers broadly understand that failure to pay will eventually result in production drying up. They'll pay for stuff. Most people are honest buyers of stuff priced at reasonable-seeming prices (i.e. not ever-rising prices when production and distribution costs are obviously falling).
People are not going to buy something "because you wish it so", or think you have a right to it. You have to be selling something a customer wants, at a price they like. If DRM turns out to be "sorta sucky", people don't have to buy it. They can buy a skipping rope, or put their money in a jar.
Here's a list of "sorta sucky" aspects of various DRM schemes which will drive potential customers away:
- no ability to timeshift
All these things make the DRM'ed content unappealing from a sales perspective. They are not "sellable" features. Customers will not ask for them. Some customers might tolerate them, if you're the only game in town. But a certain number will just decide that your art sucks, isn't worth the hassle. They might go to your non-DRM-selling competitor. Or, if you're a real jerk and have legislated all non-DRM-selling customers out of business, your customers may just go play a video game. Or go for a walk. You have no right to their money.
No kidding Posted Dec 25, 2005 16:01 UTC (Sun) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Thats another issue.Let me put it very succinctly. If I am required to run some kind of junk that you folks put out to listen to music, I won't. This industry may be your bread and butter, but it is in no way a necessity to me. I really don't care about your business model. If the music attracts me in a format that I can stomach, you will get my money. Let me repeat. It is not my concern whether you eat or not. My concern when it comes to music is my enjoyment. Your sense of entitlement and the drive to make it difficult for me to enjoy music is making me not want to support you. Derek
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 11:11 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] How ironic to limit the users freedoms using free software. What will Stallman say about that? (The few who still haven't read "The Right to Read" should do so. A dystopy ten years ago, when no one knew how bad reality would turn out.)
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 13:55 UTC (Tue) by jrigg (subscriber, #30848) [Link] An important point usually gets missed in these discussions about DRM. It isn't designed to stop large scale commercial piracy (pirates just copy the copy-protection along with the content). It's designed to restrict what legitimate purchasers can do with what they have bought.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 15:18 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] DRM is also ultimately aimed at preventing independent artists, authors and creators to distribute their work without paying a toll to MS/the majors.
Once only DRM-enabled media will be readable, independent artists will have to go to MS/the majors to get their works approved for DRM, which they will not do for free (if at all).
The real threat to MS is not unlicensed copies of Windows, but the independent softwares like GNU/Linux that are possible due to the Internet.
In the same way, the thread for the recording industry is not uncontrolled copying, but the risk that artists use the Internet instead of the traditionnal distribution channel and bypass the recording industry.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:54 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Once only DRM-enabled media will be readablePlease go to the nearest hardware store and pick up a DVD reader that doesn't read CDs or a unencrypted DVDs. Seriously, let's deal with realistic threats first. There are enough of them.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 15, 2005 0:23 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] It's not unrealistic at all. Part of the original DVD designs hard wired area of the disc was a special bit that should make sure you could not play home made movies in stationary video players. This failed together with the region coding scheme only because the DVD Alliances control over the keys were to coarse. They will not do the same mistake again, I'm afraid.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 15, 2005 16:12 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] Actually, there are (or at least were -- don't know the status now) DVD players that won't play CDs that you've burned yourself. That includes music that you've created and recorded yourself, so it doesn't apply solely to copyright-infringing discs.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 31, 2005 18:27 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] >Please go to the nearest hardware store and pick up a DVD reader that doesn't read CDs or a unencrypted DVDs.
Thats a piece of cake a friend of mine has a fairly new june 2005 combined dvd/video machine it refuses point blank to read audio CD's also wont read VCD's and it cost enough ..
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 14:39 UTC (Tue) by darrint (guest, #673) [Link] Look, before we all rush to judgement, how do they intend to go about "supporting" DRM? The article says little about this. Have the authors weighed in on the details of their approach?
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 13, 2005 15:21 UTC (Tue) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link] I am not sure whether the "G" in Gstreamer refers to GNU, but the official Gstreamer FAQ states that "many of our hackers consider themselves also to be members of the GNOME community." Gnome (still) stands for "GNU Object Model Environment" and is (still) an official part of the GNU project. I wonder how DRM support can possibly be implemented in the name of GNU. Perhaps the FSF should talk to the Gstreamer and Gnome developers.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:00 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think DRM can be implemented in free software if the code is not intended to impose limitations on the users, or, in other words, if anything that limits the user is not a part of free software.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:27 UTC (Tue) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link] It was clear to me that DRM support can be implemented as free software aslong as the code is free. But that a program is free software is one thing. It is yet another thing if this program officially belongs to the GNU project, i.e. if it's not just being GPLed or LPLed, but part of the FSF's official GNU software stack like Gnome is. In the latter case, DRM support would contradict GNU's stated philosophy and politics.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 14, 2005 5:37 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Indeed, GNOME states that it's a GNU project and includes GStreamer, version 0.8.3.Anyway, I think there is no need to contact GNU and GNOME until a DRM enabled version of GStreamer is actually released. Many stated intentions never materialize.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 15, 2005 7:25 UTC (Thu) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] DRM support in free software is easy. Just write a bunch of code like:
if (event.key == BUTTON_FAST_FORWARD) {
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 22, 2005 19:03 UTC (Thu) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] What law would that be?
I'd have difficulty seeing that work in a GPLed product.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 23, 2005 21:18 UTC (Fri) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] Whichever law they're (ab)using now to prevent mass-market DVD players that can fast-forward through all video sections of the disc.
Actually that wasn't such a good example, since fast-forwarding is not copyright infringement--you only agree to not fast-forward when the disc tells you to in your implied acceptance of the DVD player's shrink-wrap license.
Suppose the example instead checked the resolution of the output port (as in the new analog hole bill) and refused to emit output without authenticating whatever's connected to said port. All software-based DRM systems boil down to basically the same code as in my example. The only difference between most of the systems in the field and a GPLed DRM-encumbered player is that you can grep the source code for the GPLed DRM-encumbered player and easily circumvent the restriction (although apparently sometimes this is illegal). Of course, such GPL code wouldn't survive very long without removing the restrictions, since users of GPL code don't really tolerate people trying to tell them what they can't do with their own machines.
Gstreamer and GNU Posted Dec 24, 2005 17:12 UTC (Sat) by ofranja (subscriber, #11084) [Link] What if I dont care to "US Laws" and they do not affect me?
Unix to support DRM Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:06 UTC (Tue) by wingo (guest, #26929) [Link] I think the statement that "GStreamer will support DRM" is a bit misleading, inasmuch as GStreamer does not and, to my understanding, will not have any DRM components in it. You might as well say that GTK+ supports supports global warming, if General Motors happens to have any applications based on GTK+.
The thing is, if a distro wants to support decoding Windows Media Video files in a product sold in the US, they need to have the licenses. I don't think Microsoft licenses WMV decoders without the requirement that there be some kind of restrictions management system in place. Ergo if a company (Fluendo) wants to sell a WMV decoder, it has to make an honest attempt at DRM.
That's what Christian is talking about. Not an evil scheme to put some DRM structure deep in the core of GStreamer -- that's stupid on many fronts.
Finally I'd like to mention that I'm frustrated at this juxtaposition of GStreamer and DRM. We've been working crazy hard all this year on the GStreamer 0.10 release. All of the developers are extremely pleased with our current status. But the first thing that LWN highlights is a couple of entries from Christian's web log. I hope that people can see beyond one company's plan to make some money off of the project.
Disclaimer: I do work for Fluendo.
Unix to support DRM Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:43 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well to be fair to LWN.. This is the _second_ thing they picked up from the Gstreamer release.
I don't think that it's actually about the gstreamer release much.. it's more about the idea that gstreamer (being free software) can be utilized to restrict freedoms. It's what people have been paraniod about for a while now (with IBM and Sony and such getting more interested in Linux stuff)
The release announcement for Gstreamer 0.10.0 at LWN is at http://lwn.net/Articles/163637/
It's quite unbiased. :)
Congratutions btw. I've been looking forward to this release. Hopefully it solves most, if not all, of the limitations in the 0.8.0 series stuff. (I wonder how long till it hits Debian Sid..)
Unix to support DRM Posted Dec 15, 2005 12:29 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] I think the point is that if codec licensors require a joke DRM scheme now, that is trivially defeated, do you really believe that they *won't* start requiring a hardware assured pipeline at sometime in the future?
At that point, will you throw up your hands and give up?
Or will you incrementally add things at the request of the licensors, to the detriment of the users control of his own machine?
This is a pretty dangerous road to go down, as it sets up an expectation that you will support any arbitrarily nasty DRM scheme that comes along, and some of those *do* require that you architecture is based on user-distrust.
Of course, none of them actually have any security value, but hey, who cares?
correction/edit Posted Dec 14, 2005 13:48 UTC (Wed) by jabby (guest, #2648) [Link] So even if the GStreamer pipeline is entirely secure and uncrackable, a quick kernel hack will still make the capturing of unrestricted streams easy.I think you meant to say restricted streams. Capturing unrestricted streams should be easy without having to hack the kernel. :-)
correction/edit Posted Dec 15, 2005 5:53 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > a quick kernel hack will still make the capturing of unrestricted> streams easy. > I think you meant to say *restricted* streams. To use the proper terminology -- the correct word is cleartext.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:44 UTC (Thu) by rrw1000 (guest, #31035) [Link] Sounds like a good thing to me - frankly, if people are going to sell me DRMd content, I'd much rather play it under an OS I can hack to get the MPEG stream out than under an OS I can't :-). It's a bit like adding support for 40-bit crypto to Navigator back in the day - it's stupid, expensive, and it doesn't work, and everyone knows it's stupid, expensive, and doesn't work.
The only reason anyone does it is to humour the content providers, who want the warm fuzzies before they release any of their precious content. We're going to win eventually, but in the meantime this may relieve those of us with the know-how of some of the pain.
GStreamer to support DRM Posted Dec 17, 2005 7:48 UTC (Sat) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] The author wrote:The TPM chips being put into an increasing number of computers may make that kind of restriction possible, but the real target is probably elsewhere: embedded systems. Again and again we see this battle between the consumer and the vendor in certain industries, and every time it happens, the notion is put forth that somehow, because a feature is attractive to the vendor, it will be prized by the customer. Nothing is further from the truth in the case of features such as DRM. It's clearly best simply to not buy set-top boxes and embedded consumer electronics systems with industry-sponsored DRM—but it does seem as if this is a war the vendor can't win. Watching the promo for one of those "weekend movies with features interspersed" on one of the satellite cable channels, I noticed that the topic, on this program viewed by millions or hundreds of thousands of users was, "how to copy your friend's music collection to CD as a thoughtful gift." I'm struck by the collision between the world views of the entertainment industry, which sees this sort of flexibility as a temporary setback, always about to be corrected in the next generation of products, and the consumer, who sees it as the only reason they'd ever buy consumer entertainment technology in the first place. It's important to stay vigilant, and to fix the brokenness of IP law, but maybe we're not about to lose this battle.
|
|||||||||||||