| |||||||||||||
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica)Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica)Posted Oct 14, 2009 10:05 UTC (Wed) by oever (subscriber, #987)In reply to: Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) by freealter Parent article: Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica)
These two freedoms are at odds. To establish this 'chain of trust' or to name it better 'chain of
user control' one needs to run signed binaries. These binaries are provided and signed by the content providers or a representative of them. The owner of the device has no control on the content of these binaries. At best it is possible to replay the exact method of creating the binary and verifying that it was created from a certain set of sources. Tooling to do this verification does not currently exist.
DRM from boot time removes all the freedoms FOSS promises the user of the device. It does
(Log in to post comments)
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) Posted Oct 14, 2009 13:12 UTC (Wed) by freealter (guest, #4335) [Link]
No, it is a user choice (at least for the Nokia device). Either you wish to be able to modify, change, ... software, and you can (that's what I understood from the article) and then, ok, you will not be able to see the DRM protected content, or you want them and then you have to stick with the software configuration.
In fact, in an ideal world, what should be signed would be : the kernel, the X layer (or equivalent), some libraries and the display software, it would be enough. It may be easier to sign a full partition.
Once again, we may regret that, but we can not blaim content providers to try to protect their content. And with software it is really difficult and complicated (impossible ?). So "chain of trust" and DRM is the best bet so far.
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) Posted Oct 14, 2009 13:52 UTC (Wed) by viiru (subscriber, #53129) [Link]
Uh? What do you mean we can't blame content providers for using DRM? They aren't doing it because the law requires them to...
DRM might be the best bet so far, but it doesn't actually work, and can't actually work. Any content which can be seen or heard by the user can also be copied. Always, no matter what. All that DRM can do is make it more complicated and/or inefficient to do it. (proof: what stops me from pointing my video camera at a tv showing a DRM'd movie?)
How about we just keep working on getting rid of the lie that is DRM and use our horrible illegal dvd players while the madness passes.
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) Posted Oct 14, 2009 14:07 UTC (Wed) by freealter (guest, #4335) [Link]
Yes we can blame content provider for using DRM. I absolutely agree that it is a technical dead-end, that it has no meaning, that it is idiot, ... I used your exact argument (if you can see it ...) 12 years ago in Thomson Multimedia. But the DRMs are there. They are used, and for video I think that they are going to stay for long. Even if the DVD protection system is dead, it is still used and will continue. So the DRM for streaming are very common and will stay.
So if we want to have linux users having access to these contents, and it becomes to be very important, we must have a legal, technical answer. As Nokia does.
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) Posted Oct 14, 2009 14:44 UTC (Wed) by viiru (subscriber, #53129) [Link]
As long as the answer means giving up all the advantages of free software, I can't say I'm very interested. Then again the model described in the article would allow the user to choose either DRM or freedom, which is acceptable and much better than the alternative case in which complicated jailbreaking and reverse engineering efforts are needed to get to use the hardware.
Next-gen Nokia Linux devices will get multitouch and Qt UI (ars technica) Posted Oct 15, 2009 0:33 UTC (Thu) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Uh? What do you mean we can't blame content providers for using DRM? They aren't doing it because the law requires them to... No, they are doing it because of massive unlicensed use of their copyrighted works. Sure, you can blame the "content providers" for DRM, but you should also blame those sucking down torrents of unlicensed works. In the face of that, content providers feel forced to do something, even if that something doesn't work. As for content providers having the wrong business model for the digital age, that is true. But the content providers would have got the hint sooner if their sales had plummeted without the excuse that sales were being drained off by unlicensed copies.
|
|||||||||||||