| |||||||||||||
Over the topOver the topPosted Jun 2, 2009 3:32 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)In reply to: Over the top by ncm Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions What's up is that I think other folks have rights too. What we're talking about now is a "soft" approach to rights management that can be disabled in a few clicks. If we don't let authors have that much, what is going to keep them from locking their works up so well that Open Source can't ever be used to view them. Sometimes we really do go too far. But putting up that soft, overridable not-quite-DRM, think some, violates their fair use rights. The reality is that fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right. You don't really have them the way you think. And that's less than optimal, I agree.
(Log in to post comments)
Over the top Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:59 UTC (Tue) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link] BrucePerens said:If we don't let authors have that much, what is going to keep them from locking their works up so well that Open Source can't ever be used to view them. Nothing. And nothing will stop them from fading into obscurity as no one can (or wants to) view their content.
Over the top Posted Jun 2, 2009 5:07 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Jamie Love has a list of the 30 ways in which iTunes still uses DRM. It's not fading.We aren't really winning this argument with the media-consuming public, not even considering the media makers. And look at what is on the horizon. Blue-Ray has much stronger security than DVD ever did. HDMI is a security nightmare, all implemented and waiting for enough saturation before the networks turn the really bad part on.
Over the top Posted Jun 2, 2009 9:37 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
This is confusing.
So on the one hand, you were arguing that the current state of things, with "semi-rigid", easily-circumventable DRM, is preferable to a future-possibility of "hard" DRM, in which free software would be precluded from much content (did I follow you correctly?). Your argument then is that we should honour this semi-rigid DRM because not doing so risks inducing the possible-future.
On the other hand, you're arguing that the bad, possible-future is already developed and in place, just awaiting activation (though, Blu-Ray security is already broken, isn't it?). If so, then this undermines your other argument - the media companies are not waiting to see whether free software will honour their flags or not...
Personally, I think (and I think the poster you responded to may have been trying to make the same point) that it has been shown that DRM will fall by itself. In 2 dimensions:
a) Deployments of DRM will be automatically market-bounded in how restrictive they can be. Media which does not allow customers to engage in common acts will lose out and will either fail, or the rights-holders will have to relent and loosen the restrictions. We have already seen this with iTunes and others, and a general DRM backlash in the industry.
While tech-nerd opposition may have helped spread the word, there is no good reason to think it was free software that was exceptionally involved in this demonstrated backlash, and free-software honouring flags certainly had nothing to do with it..
b) DRM schemes will technically always be flawed and fail. This means the content owners will never be able to fully ring-fence their content.
I just don't see how giving rights-holders a sop of semi-rigid DRM affects either of those dimensions.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Posted Jun 6, 2009 9:24 UTC (Sat) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
Blu-Ray's AACS key has been compromised since May of 2007.
http://www.bmeink.com/A70529/high/bmepb529722.jpg
HDMI's been compromised by the HDFury2.
Neat little hack, that. They used a laptop TMDS display transmitter chip's
Fully HDMI 1.3 compliant with embedded HDCP keys and CEA861 EDID extension
Perfect match for the Ambarella A2 chip in Hauppauge's HD PVR to capture
(Can you tell I'm a hardware geek?)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Posted Jun 6, 2009 16:23 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Well, this is very nice for existing discs, but my understanding was that Blu-Ray had multiple keys, and that they had planned for updates.There is also the prospect of HDMI 2.0. So, I hope we're as lucky in the future.
Over the top Posted Jun 3, 2009 15:20 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Nothing. And nothing will stop them from fading into obscurity as no one can (or wants to) view their content.
What colour is the sky in your world?
Over the top Posted Jun 3, 2009 21:10 UTC (Wed) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link]
> What colour is the sky in your world?
Quite blue most days, but sometimes greyish, and nearly black at night with little sparkly pinpricks of light scattered about. It's quite nice really. You should visit reality sometime and see what it's like! :)
Over the top Posted Jun 4, 2009 10:33 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
Okay, sorry. I'm just saying that I don't think it's realistic *at all* to expect content and its producers to 'fade into obscurity' simply for wanting to use DRM. The number of us who even know what that means may well be less than a percent of the general population, and the other guys just think we're wierd for caring about such things.
Over the top Posted Jun 4, 2009 16:21 UTC (Thu) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link]
One need not know what DRM is to be prevented from viewing content by it.
Many of my friends and co-workers have used iTunes in the past. Several of them stopped after catastrophic software failure or other calamity in which iTunes DRM keys were lost - preventing access to the hundreds of dollars of music they'd 'purchased'. Of course, when such things happen, these folks come to their friendly local computer guy, and we tend to show them the easiest way to replace all those music files - already bought and paid for - Arrrrr!
And that's how DRM fails - even for normal people.
|
|||||||||||||
