Misunderstanding of embedded system designers [LWN.net]

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 16, 2006 23:40 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
In reply to: Misunderstanding of embedded system designers by karim
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

You are correct that the FSF intends not to support the particular set of embedded systems designs you describe (those that implement DRM). If the free software developer community accepts this concept, then yes, it is true that engineers that have the job of building such systems will have to either write their own software, or buy proprietary software. And that's OK: the free software world doesn't owe these people any free help.

But systems that include DRM are currently a very small subset of all embedded designs. Most embedded systems could continue to use GPLv3 code.

The terms you use ("They just need to build a product that protects the belongings of others") suggest that you're taking the DRM side in the coming war, and that you aren't just a neutral open source journalist. DRM protects "rights" that copyright holders do not have, by, for example, making it near-impossible for scholars and reviewers to include portions of the work in their reviews, a fair use right protected by law. They also protect unilateral take-aways of user rights, as restrictions are added to works that weren't in place when the customer paid for the right to enter the DRM jail.

Maybe we'll see a split among the Linux kernel developers on this issue: many hate DRM, others (like part of the audience for your book) may be eager to build DRM systems out of free software. We'll see.

(Log in to post comments)

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 0:04 UTC (Tue) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

First, I would like to say that I contest the idea that DRMed systems
are but a subset of devices out there. I would say, in fact, that
DRM is increasingly found everywhere. Heck, some would even like us to
watch TV on our cell phones ... In as far as "consumer devices" go,
then for sure they're all on the DRM road already in some way, shape,
or form. What portion "consumer devices" has in "embedded devices"
is another debate altogether. Not that other "embedded devices", such
are your car's brake controller, don't need to be "protected" from
the person receiving the software (i.e. the consumer).

With regards to the cause of DRM, I'm really not much of a conspiracy
believer. The reason DRM can fly is because someone, somewhere is
afraid he'll stop making money. Whether others retrofit this to other
uses, including some which you hint at, is another issue altogether.
Note that I don't believe the latter could hold if the former did not
exist.

In as far as my position goes vis-a-vis DRM, please read my other
posting which explains the real thrust behind DRM. If you want to
kill DRM, then don't by DRM'ed products.

Karim

Getting embedded system designers fired

Posted Jan 17, 2006 0:28 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

So some engineers waste their time and efforts building stupid restrictions into devices. So for some reason (other than avoiding crappy hardware) we should care about them by making their jobs easier; and then altogether getting them fired by not buying the result of their work.

Sorry, but I don't feel that way about members of the free software community. Either I want to help them, and then I want them to have good jobs; or I don't want them in the community. In my case, I don't want free software near e.g. the nauseating LIBRIe. It would give people the wrong message about free software and copyrights: that sharing information is wrong.

[OT] Librie

Posted Jan 18, 2006 9:39 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]

Librie was "liberated" by SONY long ago -- by providing all the tools to produce unencumbered texts -- apparently after they have found no one bought the device without it.

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 5:14 UTC (Tue) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link]

"If you want to kill DRM, then don't by [sic] DRM'ed products."

You suggestion only addresses the demand side of the problem. Yes, once manufacturers realise that people don't demand DRM they will stop bundling it.

Another mechanism to slow-down DRM is to look at the supply side of the problem. The intent is to make it more expensive to develop products which have DRM in then.

Hopefully entertainment expenditure is price elastic, in that as the price of entertainment (and associated equipment) rises less people purchase it. When manufacturers see less demand (because things are now more expensive) they are less likely to continue producing those items.

If we want to counter DRM successfully I think it is vital to address both the demand and the supply side of things.

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 13:41 UTC (Tue) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> I would say, in fact, that DRM is increasingly found everywhere.
...
> If you want to kill DRM, then don't by DRM'ed products.

Sounds like some kind of cognitive disconnect... If it's everywhere, then
how can we avoid buying it? Unless you suggest we not buy ANYTHING?? And,
that's not a very realistic suggestion, of course... So, either your first
statement above was extreme hyperbole or your "Just don't buy it!" strategy
isn't very realistic/effective... I tend to suspect a bit of both... But,
I think your first statement is indeed indicative of where things are
headed, even if we're not quite there yet... So, in such a world, I think
we need to find a much more realistic and effective method of killing DRM
than simplistically saying "Just don't buy it", something which is being
made increasingly impossible to do...

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 9:47 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Furthermore, of course, even if the DRM vendors were trying to protect fair use rights and the like, they couldn't. It is impossible to build DRM that constrains users in one country to obey that country's laws without constraining users in other countries more than their law allows, and some countries have laws that vary dependent on your intent when copying, or even on your profession. There's no way that any software could verify that.

(of course IANAL, I just typed stuff up for them and am related to some)