Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Oh come on. Could you please post an example of somebody who believes there are not abusive uses of that technology? That is not where the disagreement lies.
Similar in spirit?
Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:19 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
For DRM you have to realise that ALMOST EVERY major hardware maker is pro-DRM. They see it as a way to attract content providers to the computer so that they can finally say that they have truly 'multimedia' PC.
They want to make the PC the hub of the electronics in people's living rooms.. As the television, stereo system, games, dvr, etc etc. The whole nine yards.
Sure today the 'Tivo' is used as a example. But now EVERY computer you buy is going to have trusted computer stuff on it. Now this have a viable security use, but in reality it's #1 purpose is DRM.
The is the main reason why we now have extensions like VT and Pacifica to help with VM! Back when Microsoft was touting 'Paladium' the idea was that with Paladium you would have a sort of mini-system seperate from your host operating system. The VM would provide the division to protect the data stream from being tapped software-wise, and the trusted computing modules ensured that you were unable to tamper with the VM or the software in it.
Now this stuff is in every PC your going to buy. It's a good thing for Linux (better VM, better security), but it's bad because of what it was and is going to be used for.
Now the DRM provisions in GPLv3 is bothersome for embedded developers who want to make their devices 'user proof' to cater to major copyright controllers of media. (they can easily work around any free software restrictions by doing a palladium-vm of their own anyways for media playback.. which I expect a number of people are already looking into)
HOWEVER the DRM issue is a problem for _all_of_us_. Not just users of embedded devices. Because the same restrictions (or better then) restrictions that are present in a TiVO is present in all PCs, in all servers.
So don't think a second this is just about embedded devices or some anti-tivo rampage.
The difference between 'GOOD' trusted computing (the kind that you can use to fight off rootkits) vs 'BAD' trusted computing (the kind that allows people like Sony to install rootkits which are illegal for you to remove) is weither or not you hold the keys to your own computer.
If you hold the keys, then all this stuff is great. The DRM provisions are attempting to protect your right to have control over your own hardware.
Weither it is in your DVR, your 'open source' router, your PC, your server, or whatever else.
I don't think that you're correct
Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:04 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 16:05 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Manufacturers DO want to be able to play the content that their customers want access to and they DO want to be able to build devices that talk to services that their customers want to use, both of which often require some kind of DRM, so you could say that manufacturers support having hte ability to DRM when producing such devices.
In more general terms, manufacturers aren't crazy about DRM. It raises the cost of their hardware, increases the complexity of their designs (and, therefore, the development and maintenance cost of their products), and creates downstream user problems. You say "Customers have to replace their products for newer versions of the DRM" the manufacturer says "I have to redesign my product more often." Manufacturers love it when they can use the same design over and over, for years and years; it builds margins.
On the other hand, manufacturers generally would like to be able to keep consumers fingers out of the insides of their products, because it adds support costs and potential civil liabilities. Even if you say "Modifying this device voids your warranty.", in practice, people STILL expect to get support in that case. Also, when a modified device breaks and causes damage, either to the user or to a network or a content provider, the manufacturer STILL can get sued, both for direct liability and for negligence in not preventing the user from making the change. It also offers opportunities for bad PR - when cell phone batteries explode it is virtually always non-manufacturer batteries that are involved, bu the press usually just uses the manufacturer's name in the story.
And, remember, the number of people who want to change their software is a tiny fraction of the total device market. So, the manufacturer has to spend money and accept risks to support a community that has no real impact on the market for the device. Those costs end up factored into the price of the devices, so people who have no interest in the freedom to modify the device end up paying something to support the wishes of the small group that do want that freedom.
It's just not a simple equation...
Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:48 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:58 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Do you know what the anti-DRM stuff in the license is even designed to do?
It's not designed to stop DRM or stop free software used for DRM. What it does is prevent people from using DRM to effectively make the software you use unmodifiable.
It does that for the same exact reason why the GPLv2 forbids people from taking the code and using it in closed source software.
It's designed to keep software free. Right now DRM is used to make GPL'd software unmodifiable by it's end users. Tivo is the most famous example of this, but there are others.
It doesn't stop people from using encryption. It doesn't make it illegal to playback WMV10 on your computer or anything like that. It doesn't stop people from using trusted computing to make their systems more secure. It doesn't even stop people from using GPL'd software to create, distribute, or playback DRM'd media.
It only stops people from using DRM to make GPL'd software unmodifiable. That's ALL it does. That's it.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:21 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942)
"The Free Software Foundation has declared October 3, 2006 a "Day Against DRM" with demonstrations in New York and London. Also today, the Free Software Foundation Europe launched DRM.info. "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level. "DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data," explains Georg Greve, FSFE's president."
Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:59 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888)
Perhaps you agree with Peter Lee, an executive at Disney, who said in The Economist: If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed,?
Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:19 UTC (Thu) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)
I think you're misreading the statement, which is just saying that unless DRM is near-invisible to the typical consumer, or if the "consumer experience" is made unpleasent because of DRM, then DRM will have failed. It's making the technical point that DRM will fail if it is something the consumer needs to be aware of. And that is the big problem DRM faces: consumers are happy with CD-quality sound and DVD-quality video, and they're not going to trade restrictions in what they feel they can legitimately do for relatively minor quality improvements. And that is the fundamental problem the "DRM industry" faces.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 13:22 UTC (Thu) by jneves (guest, #2859)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:34 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942)
I have no problem with this statement. Do you think that selecting benign statements out of my post and trying to embarass me with them is a debate in good faith.
> Perhaps you agree with Peter Lee, an executive at Disney, who said in The
> Economist: If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it
> works, we've already failed,?
Ooooh, big bad Disney. I have the utmost respect for Disney, there are few corporations in America that express the true heart and soul of the American people as well as Disney does. My kids grew up on Disney, and they are better people for it. How many companies can claim that? I am sure this statement is taken out of context to promote an agenda.
The part I have a problem with is
"DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data".
This is FUD, that has no basis in fact, nor does it have a basis in law.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 5:48 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
This is FUD, that has no basis in fact, nor does it have a basis in law.""
What exactly do you think DRM does? Have you taken a look at the DMCA ever?
""The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on May 14, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.""
All 100% fact.
What this effectively makes it completely illegal to attempt to, or tell people about, or distribute programs or software, that circumvent any sort of digital copyright protection scemes IRREGARDLESS of the user's intention.
So what DRM does is provide a way to control what software you are and are not allowed to run on your computer by wrapping it in the notion that these restrictions are intended to protect copyrighted material.
For instance you have 'FairPlay' versions Windows Media Video 10. These are DRM encrusted media files we are told are intended to protect the copyrights of various artists who produce music.
Now effectively due to the DMCA it is ILLEGAL to play these files on Linux. Because in order to do that you have to break the DRM encryption to do so and if your a 'pirate' you could use the same software that plays back music to copy music. Thusly enabling support of FairPlay in Linux with open source software is a U.S. Federal crime.
Now this DOES NOTHING TO STOP PIRACY. People have found easy ways to work around DRM restrictions and provide content on the internet. Once one copy is out there then anybody can find it and download it. Effectively DRM delays music being 'stolen' by a matter of minutes.
What it does accomplish though is it allows Microsoft to try to convince folks like the RIAA to sell music under their Fairplay DRM. Once people purchase the music then Microsoft, protected by the U.S. Federal Government, can now dictate to these people what software and operating systems they are allowed to use to to play back the music they purchased and what sort of other audio devices they are allowed to use.
Apple does a similar thing with their DRM'd Itunes service. They restrict people from licensing their DRM technology for MP3 players and such and they don't let other people create software to play it. If somebody from another country with no DMCA-like restrictions creates a compatable player or software then Apple will change the format of the DRM to effectively break their software or hardware. It does not have anything to do with protecting from piracy because Apple themselves allow end users to burn cdrom copies of music with no loss of fidality. The time it takes for a new song on Itunes to appear on the internet in a P2p site is measured in _minutes_.
So this does NOTHING to stop piracy. However because Apple says its a digital encryption intended to protect copyright then they now are protected by government law and can now control what software, what operating systems, what media devices, you are allowed to listen to music you purchase from them.
Basicly they are using DRM to make return customers of Ipods.
Same thing with the HDCP from Intel and friends.
HDCP is 'high definition copyright protection'. It is a encryption sceme for hardware they claim intended to 'protect' High definition content from being copied. HDCP, however, seemed to be a rather weak encryption method and was cracked years ago.
So it accomplishes absolutely nothing in preventing real piracy. Remember once you get one or two copies of unencrypted data on the internet it's easily aviable to millions and millions of users. For people with high speed internet it's easier and quicker to steal ex-drm'd content off the internet then it is to go down to the store and buy a new dvd.
However what it effectively does is this. That when you go out and in the near future by a High-Def or Blueray DVD it will probably have HDCP protections.
In order to legally play it back you will be required to purchase a special DVD player (no suprises), purchase a motherboard with a 'encrypted media path', purchase Vista 64bit (32bit won't work), purchase a new video card that support the protected media path, and purchase a new video monitor that supports HDCP.
Even though in other countries you can buy devices to circumvent this and allow older hardwar to work, in the United States it is illegal to produce or distribute or buy or use those devices because they could possibly be used to circumvent the 'protections' and allow 'piracy'.
OR if you want to use a HD dvd, if you got one now it probably won't work with HDCP protected content. You'll have to buy a new one.
It won't work with any HD television you may own right now either.. You'll have to by a new one.
It's a huge freaking scam. Over and over and over again any time you see 'DRM' it turns out to be almost exactly like the above.
HOWEVER NOTHING IN THE GPLv3 does anything about that. Nothing at all.
As far as Dinsey and 'Americanism' goes.. Disney sucks. I am proud to be American and am pretty freaking conservative.
It's just a snow job that they are for family values and such nowadays. That was over in the 60's. The Disney corporation owns many many major music recording, television, and movie studios. A lot of it produces the most vile anti-american, anti-family, BS you ever heard. And they'll happily do it as long as it sells and it doesn't get associated with the Disney name. It's not that they are anti-anything, they are just very pro-money. They do what sells. Now I am pro-money, pro-profit, pro-capitolism and all that, but I like to think that I am somewhat moral about it how I go about it.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 6:08 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I'd give them about a C- :P
Posted Oct 5, 2006 9:25 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Do you have any objections if I send it to a few doubting friends of mine before the subscriber-only period expires?
Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:17 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It's no wikipedia article :-p
Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:19 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Ya sure, go ahead.
Just keep in mind that it's only my own personal opinion and accuracy is not garrenteed.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:46 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
But it's not getting into the GPLv3 as you may think. Look at it for yourself.
In the GPLv3 the DRM provisions are there to preserve the right of the end user to modify and run GPL'd software. Nothing more nothing less.
"" Can you also explain this to me then.
"The Free Software Foundation has declared October 3, 2006 a "Day Against DRM" with demonstrations in New York and London. Also today, the Free Software Foundation Europe launched DRM.info. "DRM.info is based on the idea that people should be informed and involved in decisions that will affect them on a very personal level. "DRM technologies are based on the principle that a third party has more influence over your devices than you, and that their interests will override yours when they come in conflict. That is even true where your interest is perfectly legitimate and legal, and possibly also for your own data," explains Georg Greve, FSFE's president." ""
Did you pull that out of the GPLv3 license? I think not.
Again. The FSF has a anti-DRM agenda. So do most sane people once they realise that DRM is designed to control end users not designed to control piracy. (Look at DRM implimentations and how they apply in the real world. It's obvious that it has less to do with piracy and everything to do with market control and manipulation)
HOWEVER the dispute is over the GPLv3 license, not FSF's stance on DRM in general.
The GPLv3 license is a ATTEMPT to ensure that you as a end user and you as a developer will always be able to freely modify and run modified GPL'd software.
It has no language against using GPL'd software to play, create, or distribute DRM'd content. If somebody figures out a clever way (Sun is working on it) to have a open source application that play/distribute DRM'd content with strong protections legally, while still being modifiable, then there is no reason why a person can't license it GPLv3.
From the FSF point of view the lack of DRM language in the GPLv2 is effectively a loophole that provides a way for people to effectively make GPL'd software behave as if it was closed source. If you can't modify the software and still run it.. is it realy Free/Open source software?
To them, No it's not Free software anymore and thus is a violation of 'the spirit of the GPL'.
That is entire the point of it of the GPLv3 DRM language.
Weither or not it's needed I haven't decided yet... Also it may have unintended consequences.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 8:06 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Moreover the "Day Against DRM" is about fighting the attempts to make DRM mandatory and protected every possible way by the law. Even if it is hugely successful it won't outlaw DRMs (Tivos for example existed well before the drastic Hollywood DRM laws started being written.
Your argument don't stand
Posted Oct 5, 2006 3:49 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888)
> A manufacturer has every right to incorporate any kind of technology into his device and offer it for sale, as long as it does not break any laws.
Certainly. And software developers have every right to refuse to allow their software to be used in such devices.
>[DRM users] as evil abusers of rights that you do not have
I have a right to purchase a copy of a work, hold on to it for 95 years (or whatever the current limit is), and then make free use of that work in any way I choose. DRM curtails that right.
I have a right to copy limited portions of a work still in copyright for use in a review or research. DRM curtails that right.
I have a right to privacy. Spyware embedded in a device sold for an entirely different purpose, which does not permit me to remove the spyware without damaging the device, curtails that right.
I have a right to the peaceable enjoyment of a system which I own. Certain DRM measures, such as the Sony rootkit, can and have curtailed that right.
These are all rights encoded in existing law, which (bad) DRM threatens.
Can you honestly defend Sony's rootkit malware as "NOT an abusive use of" technology or the general public? Didn't think so.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 5:03 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942)
Ok, this is just making me angry, and I have to disengage. I apologize for offending all of you to the point where I am now called names. I deny this charge, I am not a troll. I don't work for one of the companies all of you consider to be evil. I am not paid to annoy you. I simply disagree with you.
I certainly wish you all the best with your fight against DRM. Freedom is a great thing and you deserve the freedom to fight against your perceived evils.
I guess I need to go back to the fold of proprietary software developers. I do miss their professionalism and I think that I have just grown to the age where I can no longer relate to the ideals of the Free Software movement. You all just seem so radical to me now. I sure never thought I would join the establishment, but, they do have a whole lot more money, and I hear they are looking for evil coders. Now, where is that old Windows/CE manual.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 7:32 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
The debate about the issues surrounding DRM systems does have to occur in the open/free communities, but your narrow presentation and slicing don't help. You may not be a troll by intention, but you have achieved trolling by result.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 9:27 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
If that's 'professionalism', I'll take the free software community. I prefer amateurs anyway: they have more enthusiasm (and more competence).
Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:47 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 22:46 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Everyone I know does not believe in the DRM consipiracy theories either, so I am not alone.
DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSF
I for one, would like to know what percentage of people in the real world would consider DRM a problem.
There is nothing wrong with DRM.
A manufacturer has every right to incorporate any kind of technology into his device and offer it for sale, as long as it does not break any laws.
But, do not characterize legitimate, law abiding, job providing, and upstanding members of our society as evil abusers of rights that you do not have.
Posted Oct 6, 2006 1:56 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
I just see way too many posts in way too many threads where "FUD" and "troll" are used to mean "You disagree with me." The particular example where it was applied to Sombrio felt to me like such an example.
Posted Oct 6, 2006 8:39 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:36 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
Posted Oct 13, 2006 8:06 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525)
In Germany, being "professional" has two meanings, which are actually
the same - doing it for money. The second meaning therefore is
"prostitute", they are doing "it" for money, not for love. And then,
"amateur" is the right opposite, since that's a french word meaning
"lover". Most prostitutes are actually enslaved in some way or another
(and it seems to be that this is true for other professionals, as well,
who are wage sclaves ;-).
Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:35 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
I have a right to purchase a copy of a work, hold on to it
for 95 years (or whatever the current limit is), and then
make free use of that work in any way I choose. DRM curtails
No, it doesn't. At that point you are free to circumvent the DRM, because the work is no longer under copyright. Copyright does not require them to provide you with a copy when the copyright expires, it just bars you from making your own copy in the meantime.
"I have a right to copy limited portions of a work still in
copyright for use in a review or research. DRM curtails that
Yes, you have a right to copy limited portions of a work. However, the copyright owner is NOT required to provide you with those portions. If you make a copy (say by videotaping a TV playback) to use in a review or research, that is not infringing. But there is nothing in the law that requires that you be able to copy such excerpts from a piece of licensed media that you own.
"I have a right to privacy. Spyware embedded in a device sold
for an entirely different purpose, which does not permit me
to remove the spyware without damaging the device, curtails
Now that's a good argument. That's one to take to your representative and ask for legislation that specifically protects consumers against such reporting. It has, however, nothing specifically to do with DRM.
I think DRM makes content less desirable. People should object to it and push back on the content owners to not use it, just as consumers once successfully marginalized copy protection on software. I wouldn't mind seeing a mandatory licensing law that barred DRM and required payment of a small royalty on blank media, as consumers and device manufacturers also once successfully demanded. I would also love to see the DMCA repealed.
I just don't think the anti-DRM language in GPLv3 draft 2 will accomplish anything other than causing some amount of fracturing within the community.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 16:40 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
That's not the problem. No one says the copyrightholder has to provide the specific portions. The problem is that the reviewer is not legally allowed to copy those portions. To break the DRM to copy them is illegal.
This DRM restriction is like saying it is legal to print anything you want but it is illegal to own a printing press or any other means of printing.
It may be legal to have a copy of something, but you have to break the DRM, and thus the DMCA law, in order to get that copy. That's what is wrong with DRM.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 19:38 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
All fair use says is "if I use a copy of a brief segment of the work in a review, the owner may not sue me". You have basically the same recourse for electronic video that you would have for photographic video - capturing the video as it is played back.
Fair use does not give you any special rights with respect to your physical copy of the work, it only gives you protection from claims of infringement with respect to the underlying work. Your right would be exactly the same if you did not own a copy of the work or if the work was not available for private purchase (say, a movie).
Fair use does not in any way require that there be a way for you to make a copy; it is just a defense to copyright infringement. If you think that it should (which sounds good to me), lobby for legislation to support that.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:00 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Before, you had the right to copy certain things, and you could buy or build devices which did the copying. Today those copying devices are unlawful. Your intent doesn't matter; circumventing technical measures that protect copyrighted works is illegal, even if you do it to copy your own holiday pictures. Since DRM is based on those technical measures, you are screwed no matter what it protects. You don't have any recourse.
Posted Oct 6, 2006 2:08 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Your point about your holiday pictures is wrong. It is not illegal to circumvent if you have the copyright holder's permission. Presumably, for your holiday pictures, you are the copyright holder. [In fairness, I had the same belief until I looked at the law again today.]
DRM didn't take away any rights you had [though the DMCA did]. The copyright holder always had the right to make it difficult or impossible to make copies.
DRM does take away rights
Posted Oct 6, 2006 4:45 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
Even if the key is not lost, if it is not available for someone who merely wants to exercise fair use rights, it effectively bans fair use. This destroys the balance of granting copyright for a limited time in exchange for fair use.
The average person should not have to jump thru hoops to exercise fair use rights. DRM requires that, even if the DMCA were to be repealed.
Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:27 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
If you think it should be (I wouldn't necessarily disagree), then you need to get the Act modified.
Posted Oct 12, 2006 16:54 UTC (Thu) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569)
You have to remember that in those days the right you had as an auther either did not exist or followed the english model (IIRC) where the protection was absolute and for eternity.
It was recognized that neither was really any good because if you have no protection what incentive do you have in doing any original work? Somebody can just copy it 5 minutes after you put it on sale. But the other way around didn't work either because it stifled cultural and scientific progress.
So that's when they thought that a time-limited protection would be a good idea, I think it was only something like 7 years in the beginning? The idea being that in those years you could make enough money of your work but also recognizing that the term shouldn't be too long because again, what would be the incentive to make new work if you could live the rest of your live of a couple of good works? (In those days there was still a strong feeling that you actually had to work for a living)
But 7 years can still be a long time if you talk about scientific discoveries or about new important cultural developments. So in their wisdom they included, exactly, "Fair Use". With Fair Use you couldn't copy wholesale for publication or claim a work for your own but you could copy parts of it _for_publication_. You see, I'm not even talking about the possibility that you were able to extract part of the work, but you were even allowed to use it in your own works! That was considered to be a _very_ important part of the Copyright Act and can not be seen seperate from it or as being "tacked on" somehow.
In the end the Copyright Act was never about the authors, but about society: how to keep authors producing while preventing them from having a monopoly on their works and thereby depriving the society as a whole from learing and profiting from it.
But DRM is threatening to change all that. If you say that the Copyright Act says nothing about copyright holders being obliged to allow Fair Use you are exactly right, but you also have to remember that until now it was never _impossible_ to use your Fair Use rights given to you by the Copyright Act. And these protections are ever lasting as well, who is to say that in 90 years we're actually able to "crack" the DRM? Would we even be allowed to? Who knows existing work will still use the same DRM so it might still be illegal to crack the DRM because it would make existing work vulerable as well.
So yes, the best thing to do if you want to keep the spirit of the Copyright Act is to change it to include some limitations on what copyright holders can do in their crusade to prevent piracy. But with the kind of power the media companies have nowadays it's going to be a tough battle.
Posted Oct 13, 2006 6:54 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Posted Oct 6, 2006 6:50 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
It is not illegal to circumvent if you have the copyright holder's permission.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that [...] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
DRM didn't take away any rights you had [though the DMCA did].
Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:25 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Posted Oct 6, 2006 13:34 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Oct 6, 2006 17:10 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
Posted Oct 5, 2006 18:40 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (guest, #15888)
> Now that's a good argument. That's one to take to your representative and ask for legislation that specifically protects consumers against such reporting. It has, however, nothing specifically to do with DRM.
In the TiVo case, it does. Tivo's argument for locking down the box is that the content industries are demanding it, so that one can't use the Tivo for anything but time shifting (explicitly allowed under the Betamax decision). Hence, a DRM measure. That lockdown also conveniently prevents users from disabling the piece that records your recording/viewing habits and occasionally phones home with them.
In other words, the manufacturer is using DRM as a convenient excuse for preventing the disabling of spyware.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 19:51 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
DRM sometimes (but not always) relies on some kind of TC mechanism to make sure that the software accessing the content is trusted. In other cases the DRM and content acces are bundled in a separate module so that the controlling software is unable to access the decoded content, in which case no TC is needed.
It's reasonable to expect that as hardware with built-in TC is commoditized, use of TC to simplify DRM implementations will become more common.
Note, however, that situations such as you describe (where "spyware" is in the trusted software) are typically service situations, where your contractual relationship with a service provider probably dictates that that software be used, anyway. [Not that there aren't exceptions.]
Most Tivo devotees say that the device's ability to track and predict their use is the primary reason for preferring a Tivo to a generic DVR. What you consider "spyware" is a critical product feature to them. Don't like it? Buy a different device.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 11:16 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)
The majority of iPod owners, for a start, judging by their avoidance of it.
However, as far as I can see the FSF isn't banning the use of DRM; they're simply requiring that GPL'd software can be run once it's compiled, which could be done by providing a signing key for each machine that only works on that machine, or a GPL'd signing program that could do the equivalent - as far as I know, the GPL is silent on the *right* to distribute universally-runnable binaries, merely setting out the obligations of those who do. So try as I might, I simply cannot see how the FSF is doing anything other than making explicit what was previously implicit, in the face of a situation where it would not otherwise be possible.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 18:33 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
I find it hard to take you seriously. If you are trolling, I'm sorry I'm contibuting.
There are many examples of DRM abuses. Look a ebooks, defunct music downloads which no longer work because the company went out of business, etc.
If people had no problem with DRM, why do DRM devices always go away when there is a non-DRM version with the same features? Sony had to give in. Their portable music players wouldn't play non-DRM music so nobody bought them.
The GPL is not law, it is a license. If people don't want to abide by its rules they don't have to. But then they can't use the software. You can't incorportate other people's code into a product just because you are "job providing" or "upstanding". You have to have their permission.
Posted Oct 5, 2006 20:35 UTC (Thu) by mrfredsmoothie (subscriber, #3100)
They take the operating system which includes my work, and sell it back to me , unchanged by them except wrapped in DRM inside their wireless router, and I want to alter the kernel or the configuration of said to block my teenage child's access to porn sites.
Now, it may not be "illegitmate" or illegal, but it violates the spirit of the license of my work which they're using, without compensating me in the only way I cared about: ability to run modified code. You may not consider that to be a problem; I certainly do and I suspect many others do too.
Posted Oct 7, 2006 4:51 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
I'm really not big on conspiracy theories, but you'll have to admit that by shifting the trust from the user to the software or device, the "who can do what" shifted with it as well. Sure, there are good uses of DRM, as people pointed out - like in medical and safety equipment etc. But claiming that technology cannot be abused in factually untrue.
> DRM is a problem manufactured by the FSF
A think a more accurate statement would be that FSF pointed out to some potential problems with the use of DRM technologies.
Posted Oct 7, 2006 16:34 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Unfortunately, this is Richard's license, and in my humble opinion, the "Year of Debate" is a dog and pony show.
But the fact that the situation is tense enough to elicit an outburst from you (I've been reading LWN for years, and your comment above *IS* an outburst... for you. That's a compliment, BTW.) speaks volumes to me.
This new license version is poison to the community. We can't afford it.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds