Android 4.3

[Posted July 24, 2013 by corbet]

Google has announced the existence of Android 4.3. It includes a host of new features, some of which may be more welcome than others. "To meet the needs of the next generation of media services, Android 4.3 introduces a modular DRM framework that enables media application developers to more easily integrate DRM into their own streaming protocols, such as MPEG DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP, ISO/IEC 23009-1)." There is no word on general availability or when this code will be available through the Android Open Source Project.

to post comments

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 24, 2013 17:37 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (101 responses)

If we want free software, we have to start giving a much stronger preference to copyleft-licensed projects. Otherwise, we're doing gratis work for projects that promote proprietary software and DRM.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 24, 2013 18:15 UTC (Wed) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

Agreed, however I'm noticing a larger push for licenses that offer less protection. It would be a shame if we have to re-learn why licenses like the GPL are so valuable.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 24, 2013 18:57 UTC (Wed) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link]

well said. i've never felt that the end product of android qualified as open source, merely based on some open source. DRM anywhere in android should surprise no one.

android is not the end game. its a bit of leverage to keep apple from taking over the world so a non-apple ecosystem of hw vendors can survive long enough to provide the basis for something open later. in this, it is succeeding. mobile is young, we'll get there.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 24, 2013 20:26 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (98 responses)

Uhm, it's perfectly possible to make a DRM system using only GPL-licensed software - TiVo does this.

Also, by now DRM is useful for end-users - it allows stuff like movie rentals.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 24, 2013 23:20 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (13 responses)

Uhm, it's perfectly possible to make a DRM system using only GPL-licensed software - TiVo does this.

GPLv3 plugs this loophole. Unfortunately result was opposite to FSF's expectations: instead of opening the devices GPLv3 killed GPL.

GPL went from something companies accepted after some grumbling to something they try to avoid as much as possible. GCC was prime example of almost-indespensable GPL software. Today... people are talking about when they will drop GCC. Not if!

Situation with other stuff is not better: Android went to great pains to drop bluez, for example (iPhone had about two years of head-start with Bluetooth SMART), etc.

GPL was quite clever scheme to boil the frog¹), but GPLv3 added too much heat and now frog is out the pan²).

I'm not sure yet if it's good or bad thing, but it's a fact we need to keep in mind.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
¹) covert the whole industry to the copyleft principles.
²) industry revolved.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 2:25 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

I agree with you, but my two cents on this is that what is old is new and what is new gets old again. Eventually, the non-copyleft will be taken by the likes of Apple and Microsoft and closed. And embraced, extended, extinguished. Then Free Software developers old and new will panic and flock to copyleft licenses again, even including GPLv3.

GPLv3 pushed no one away

Posted Jul 25, 2013 8:33 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (11 responses)

> GPLv3 plugs this loophole. Unfortunately result was opposite to
> FSF's expectations: instead of opening the devices GPLv3 killed GPL.

Actually, the companies complaining about GPLv3 had already parted
company with free software by blocking the running of modified
versions. The freedoms of the GPL had already been killed. The
decision FSF was left with was whether these non-free companies should
be able to continue to use GPL software in their non-free DRM devices.

In this context, FSF's decision was obvious.

Those non-free companies try to place the blame on FSF (with some
success, unfortunately), but they actually abandonned free software
before GPLv3 existed.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 10:12 UTC (Thu) by oshepherd (guest, #90163) [Link] (10 responses)

Companies like TiVo aren't the ones who complained about the GPL3. How many notable open source contributions have TiVo made? Certainly none of them have ever made it to my news feed... Whatever complaints they may have had, they fell upon deaf ears

No, it was companies like Apple. Apple, who had a copyright assignment agreement on file with the FSF for their branch of GCC. Does that sound like a company that hated the GPLv2 to you? It doesn't to me. To me, it sounds like a company who were OK with the GPLv2; who, certainly for "infrastructure" pieces of software were absolutely fine working under that license and, as mentioned, assigning the copyright on their GCC works to the FSF.

The GPLv2 was a license that everyone, even the BSDs could begrudgingly agree on. The GPLv3, in a lot of people's world views, was a step too far; and I think you'll find, for a lot of people and companies, it's not the anti-"tivotization" clause that is the problem: it's the anti-patent-licensing clause.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the GPLv3 was the FSF's gift to the BSDs. Today, they're approaching having a GPL-free base system. 10 years ago I don't think anyone expected that this would be the point we were at today.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 12:17 UTC (Thu) by Jan_Zerebecki (guest, #70319) [Link] (7 responses)

Apple hated the GPL since the beginning. They were the first to violate the GPL. They changed GCC to implement Objective C but couldn't get away with not distributing the source. Starting on slide 7 of that presentation http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html more details are explained.

I don't think the fact that they had a copyright assignment for GCC in place contradicts their hatred for the GPL. IMHO it just shows that the GPL was successful for some time in forcing them to contribute once they got caught violating it. That is until they had the resources to rewrite the software they needed from scratch.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 18:20 UTC (Thu) by oshepherd (guest, #90163) [Link] (6 responses)

If Apple were so hell bent against the GPL2, why would they go through the effort of signing a copyright assignment agreement with the FSF?

You portray things as if Apple/NeXT were hell bent against the GPL and contributing to GCC - if they were that hell bent, why did it take them 18 years (From the Objective C compiler's release in 1989 to Clang being open sourced - by Apple) to even start replacing it? Why did it take them until the dawn of the GPLv3 to begin heavily contributing to LLVM? Why do they, to this day, ship (GPLv2) versions of GNU Coreutils, Bash, Make, etc, if they despise the GPL so, when the BSDs could give them viable equivalents?

Lots of GPL zealots try to make it out that Apple are some sort of open source pariah; yet they have invested lots of effort into LLVM and Clang with no requirement that they release their work as open source. They have invested lots of work into WebKit, with no requirements that they support any platform besides their own, and yet it has become the worlds' most ported browser engine under their watch. They continue to give away things like libdispatch (Apache2), their variant of the DCERPC library (BSD), the ALAC codec (Apache2) and their CalDav/CardDav server (Apache2) without anybody so much as asking

Yeah, I have issues with Apple too. I think it goes without saying that they're definitely no saint, but it's disingenuous to claim that they hate the GPL.

I can think of far, far more toxic companies. Oracle spring to mind.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 20:53 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

They have invested lots of work into WebKit, with no requirements that they support any platform besides their own, and yet it has become the worlds' most ported browser engine under their watch.

That one is direct result if GPL. LGPLv2 to be precise. WebKit was born when people complained about lack of Safari's source code. And it was always separable from Safari exactly because Apple knew that they will be forced to release source code.

IOW: Apple (and many other companies) accepted GPLv2. They were not happy, but they accepted GPLv2 "tit for tat" principle. When GPLv3 arrived with it's "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." approach they rebelled.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 20:53 UTC (Thu) by Jan_Zerebecki (guest, #70319) [Link] (4 responses)

Signing the copyright assignment seems like a logical next step because it saves them effort in maintaining the fork. Liking or hating the GPLv2 doesn't enter into that equation because the code in question was already GPLv2 licensed.

AFAIK, GPLv2 Bash, Make and so on are not shipped in Apples mobile devices. I suppose those are just not that important nor substantially modified.

I don't think Apple wants to avoid the use of copyleft software at all cost. I do think that the Apple of today hates the general idea of being forced to publish their written/changed software by copyleft more than they did back then. I also do think Apple hates the GPLv3 more than the GPLv2, because the Anti-Tivo clause makes the GPLv3 incompatible with them locking down their mobile hardware.

> The GPLv3, in a lot of people's world views, was a step too far; and I think you'll find, for a lot of people and companies, it's not the anti-"tivotization" clause that is the problem: it's the anti-patent-licensing clause.

If the explicit patent-licensing clause were in general a problem for Apple why do they use the Apache2 license, which has a similar clause?

If Apple likes the GPLv2 why do they prevent developers from using it for mobile Apps in their Appstore legalese?

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 21:54 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

They are afraid to trigger the "derived work" clause and be forced to disclose at least parts of iOS source code.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 26, 2013 14:52 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

> the Anti-Tivo clause makes the GPLv3 incompatible with them locking down their mobile hardware.

I think this was handled poorly by the GPLv3 design committee, a public relations failure as much as a technical legal one. ISTM the way to handle anti-TiVoization is to make the lock-down keys user-modifiable or provide a tamper switch to stop the boot check, the way that the Chromebooks work. You can either run the vendor-supplied firmware with DRM and whatnot or you can, with some small amount of effort, replace it with your own without the DRM.

The whole thing where it was said that you needed to divulge your private keys to make signed firmware images was a huge black eye and has done much to prevent uptake of the GPLv3 by device makers. This perception should have been fought tooth and nail both with extensive propaganda and supporting changes to the legal text.

That's just my opinion though.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 30, 2013 17:44 UTC (Tue) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think this was handled poorly by the GPLv3 design committee,

The what?

> ISTM the way to handle anti-TiVoization is to make the lock-down
> keys user-modifiable or provide a tamper switch to stop the boot
> check, the way that the Chromebooks work. You can either run the
> vendor-supplied firmware with DRM and whatnot or you can, with some
> small amount of effort, replace it with your own without the DRM.

This is one way to comply with the so-called anti-TiVoization
provisions of GPLv3.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 30, 2013 19:16 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

>> make the lock-down keys user-modifiable or provide a tamper switch to stop the boot check, the way that the Chromebooks work.

> This is one way to comply with the so-called anti-TiVoization
provisions of GPLv3.

Yes and this was poorly advertised and promoted. Even today people commonly claim that the only way to comply with the GPLv3 is to provide the private signing keys or that the GPLv3 is fundamentally incompatible with any kind of boot time checks. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why Linus and many Linux developers don't like the GPLv3 and why many large projects are GPLv2-only or don't pick a GPL-family license at all. I think that we now have less Free Software using the GPL-family after the GPLv3 than before its introduction, which seems like a disaster to me.

I don't see much other than the Google devices which even try to be open, and the Android team didn't even chose the GPL because they believe it is incompatible with their business interests. Whether that is true or not, the fact that the meme is out there and so strong it its own problem that should have been avoided.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true

Posted Jul 25, 2013 16:34 UTC (Thu) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link]

Considering that for Xcode they had to parse xml output from gcc to avoid linking... that would certainly be a motivating factor :). Also, GCC missed the idea of compiler integration/service for other tools instead of a simple batch processor. And for this GPL vs. LPGL matters quite a lot.

GCC wouldn't even consider any kind of plugins/library approach until LLVM came along.

GPLv3 and fragmentation

Posted Jul 31, 2013 8:03 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> The GPLv2 was a license that everyone, even the BSDs could begrudgingly agree on. The GPLv3, in a lot of people's world views, was a step too far; and I think you'll find, for a lot of people and companies, it's not the anti-"tivotization" clause that is the problem: it's the anti-patent-licensing clause.

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the GPLv3 was the FSF's gift to the BSDs. Today, they're approaching having a GPL-free base system. 10 years ago I don't think anyone expected that this would be the point we were at today.

Interesting theory, I'm looking forward to the next decade to see how this all ends up.

One thing you can't argue with is: whereas the GPLv2 is only a software license, the GPLv3 is a complete, "forced freedom" package. What about people and companies who only want a software licence?

Fortunately the FSF cannot remove the GPLv2, meaning it cannot remove people's and companies' freedom to use only the software licence. Unfortunately the fragmentation between GPLv2 and GPLv3 looks deadly for both.

I personally do not mind about tivoization. It still leaves me the freedom to buy from a competitor who copies all the GPLv2 code from TiVo. If there is no market for such a competitor because consumers all prefer tivoization (at least for the moment) then so be it. If consumers don't want software freedom then it should not be shoved down their throat.

I do mind silly software patents but again I don't like the idea of shoehorning a patent fix into a licence, these are different issues that should be treated independently.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 2:38 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (79 responses)

Movie rentals aren't useful. Renting a file is an idiotic idea in its core. And if you can't back it up - it's already bad.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 6:38 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (78 responses)

Why would I need to back up a rented movie? I can simply redownload it during the rental period.

And renting is totally fine - I don't wish to pay the full price of a movie that I'd most likely watch only once.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 14:30 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (5 responses)

Renting makes sense for physical objects since there is a clearly defined action of "take and give", but doesn't work well for files, since there is no good way of "taking the file back". Either those who lend should rely on honesty of the renter, or they'll turn to sick methods like DRM (malware) to remove those files. I'm OK with the first one (honesty of the renter), but digital distributors aren't, that's why I said that renting in the end doesn't make any sense, since malware is not an acceptable method.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 14:53 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

Honesty of the renter? Ha. People immediately upload all the DVD releases to the PirateBay.

And please, don't overstate the invasiveness of DRM - in most cases it amounts to one binary-only module. And there are plans to remove even it.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 16:29 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (3 responses)

That's my point. People do it despite any DRM - i.e. those who do it, break the DRM and upload etc. DRM hinders only the legitimate users, not the pirates. So as I said, renting doesn't make any sense, since these services can't come up with renting method without DRM, and DRM is bad by default.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 16:34 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

Again, DRM for rentals hinders mostly illegal activities - like saving a rented movie permanently. Otherwise it's hard to imagine the problems with them.

Rentals are usually made from a device which is going to be used for watching. So no problem with cross-device compatibility, etc.

Well, DRM is also used for subscription-only services like Spotify.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 11:05 UTC (Fri) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (1 responses)

"Again, DRM for rentals hinders mostly illegal activities - like saving a rented movie permanently."

I think the point is that it doesn't hinder illegal activities. If you're just going to ignore the law, you don't rent from a legal service in the first place - you go straight to the Pirate Bay et al. The only effect of DRM is to get in the way of people who've already made an active choice to try to co-operate with the media owners.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 12:17 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And it HEAVILY penalises legitimate users.

Just look at the Sony DRM for example - which would install and activate even if you told it not to! I believe that was responsible for trashing my system many moons ago.

Plus it laid the system wide open to malware ...

Cheers,
Wol

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 14:37 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (71 responses)

If you think about it, the whole concept of renting files doesn't really make any sense. Renting entitles reusing which is normal for physical objects. Reusing the file is not a logical concept - information is anyway copied every time anew, it's not reused. The only thing that makes sense is selling files. Why would you care to buy, rather than rent? Because you don't want to depend on time limitations of the DRMed content, you want to access it anywhere you want, and don't want it to disappear when DRMed distributor pulls the plug.

Also, don't mix the convenience of streaming from the "cloud" with renting. These have nothing to do with each other. Some video service can offer streaming, while at the same time providing an option to save the video. That's a normal DRM free distribution. Anything that uses DRM to prevent backups is already wrong.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 15:30 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (70 responses)

> If you think about it, the whole concept of renting files doesn't really make any sense.
It does. You're paying for a temporary license to view certain content. The fact that it physically is represented by a file on your disk is irrelevant.

And please, "but MAFIAA would force everyone to use DRM and would control everything and my cat!!!!!!1111" is getting obsolete. Most content these days is available for sale, where you get a permanent license along with non-DRM-ed data.

And please, no crap about "backups". They are simply not useful for rented content with a lifetime of 1-3 days.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 16:33 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (69 responses)

> It does. You're paying for a temporary license to view certain content.

No it doesn't since there is no way to ensure the temporary nature of using a file without resorting to sick malware / control freak / big brother methods. Therefore file renting is a failed by default idea. It will die out in the future, being an artifact of the dying DRM trend.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 16:37 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (68 responses)

Sure. And there's also no way to ensure that people don't misuse GPL or BSD.

That's not the point. Modern DRM is used to make illegal activities more complicated than finding pirated movies on TPB. That's it.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 17:48 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (67 responses)

Finding pirated material is trivial and it always has better usability than any service with DRM. So a DRMed service won't be able to compete with pirate DRM-free "services". Only DRM-free legal services will be able to, since they'll have a common baseline - absence of DRM.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 18:20 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (66 responses)

>Finding pirated material is trivial and it always has better usability than any service with DRM.
Wrong.

Renting a movie is literally one click in iTunes, Google Play or NetFlix. And I get a movie in my language (if I want it) with correct subtitles and closed captioning. It's then delivered from a fast CDN and is ready for viewing in a minute, no need to wait for slow peers.

And all of that for about $1. That's below the threshold for pirating for most users.

What would a DRM-free service offer me in addition to this?

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 19:34 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (64 responses)

What's wrong? That there is virtually everything distributed by pirates and it's easily discoverable? That's a fact. As well as it's a fact that no DRM service will ever be able to compete with pirates. DRM implies crippled usability. Always. Whether because of device / OS limiting factor, or because of inability of backups and time shifting. It will always have downsides. Those who come to their senses and drop all idiotic DRM from their offerings can compete with pirates.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 19:38 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

LOL. You might have drank Stallman's brand of KoolAid, but the reality is quite simple.

Users like movie rental services. These services are exceedingly popular and they get more users each year. And piracy actually falls in the countries where these services are introduced exactly because they are easier to use.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 22:16 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (3 responses)

> And piracy actually falls in the countries where these services are introduced exactly because they are easier to use.

What does it have to do with DRM? They can be easy to use and DRM free. There is no reason for them to use DRM, since it's not the DRM that reduces piracy, it's as you yourself said - the comfort of the service. DRM adds nothing to the comfort (it only hinders it), as well as it doesn't stop piracy. So what's the point in using it?

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 0:07 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (2 responses)

First things first: I agree that the use of DRM constitutes Sufficiently Advanced Incompetence. (grr license servers grr)

Nevertheless, there is a reason: it makes them feel warm and fuzzy that their copyrighted content is "protected". It's not a good reason, but it's certainly a reason.

The fact that a certain kind of freeloader has been treating content protection schemes as a challenge - even when they don't want the actual protected content - since the days of 6502 and Z80 home microcomputers is not on the radar of the people making the decisions, and the engineers who could say "no, go away, don't be stupid" find themselves ignored in favour of the ones who say "oh all right then".

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 2:19 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

> there is a reason: it makes them feel warm and fuzzy that their copyrighted content is "protected"

I think they aren't that stupid. Most these days realize fully that DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. DRM is used for different reasons IMHO. Firstly to control the technology advancement (there were a few articles about that). Secondly as an excuse for incompetence. I.e. if some publisher doesn't do well having poor sales, they can always blame the pirates, and say - "at least we weren't sitting idle, we put the DRM on it!". Of course they won't say that they attempted to sell something that few people want to buy to begin with and that's what's causing their poor sales.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 2:22 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

> The fact that a certain kind of freeloader has been treating content protection schemes as a challenge... is not on the radar of the people making the decisions

Yes, a very good point. Existence of DRM itself only motivates pirates to strip it and redistribute the content. It's not exciting for them to pay attention when something is DRM free to begin with.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 21:06 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> As well as it's a fact that no DRM service will ever be able to compete with pirates.

You hatred of DRM makes you have a very serious denial of reality problem.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 21:08 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (57 responses)

As well as it's a fact that no DRM service will ever be able to compete with pirates.

Can you please stop? That happened years ago. Even if you'll assume that all Bittorent/P2P activity is illegal (and I certainly hope at least some of it is legal... I download Ubuntu that way) you still can see that it was surpassed by DRM-protected video-delivery years ago. And please don't start this "but you should only download file from P2P once" nonsense: DRM works exactly because people want to want most things one time and one time only.

Those who come to their senses and drop all idiotic DRM from their offerings can compete with pirates.

Care to offer some examples to discuss? I know some (for example Yandex offers free MP3 soundtracks) but these are usually loss-makers which are used to attract people to different facilities. Most companies which tried to offer DRM-free video died.

I agree that as it becomes easier and easier to copy files DRM becomes less and less efficient, but even text files (easiest to copy format, right?) can't compete with usability of Kindle and Nook.

You may dislike DRM (I know I don't like it), but as long as you stay in denial people will ignore you. DRM works. Sure, it works less spectacularly then MPAA and RIAA would like, but it works.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 21:30 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (7 responses)

> Care to offer some examples to discuss

See examples in the gaming industry, where GOG (a huge digital distributor) discuss piracy and using the nonsense of DRM in general. Another *obvious* example is the music industry which dropped DRM for good. The only one that still heavily uses this idiocy is the video industry. DRM has no valid reason to be used for distributing digital goods, ever.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 23:38 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (6 responses)

GOG (a huge digital distributor) discuss piracy and using the nonsense of DRM in general.

And how much it sells when you compare with things Like PlayStation3 or XBox360? Or even Steam?

Another *obvious* example is the music industry which dropped DRM for good.

Puhlease. Rental services like Pandora are still using DRM. And it's not clear which way situation will go. Music industry "dropped" DRM when it found out that DRM actually puts Apple in change, not them. I'm pretty sure pendulum will swing the other way at some point.

The only one that still heavily uses this idiocy is the video industry.

And again you state your wishes as facts.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 2:13 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (5 responses)

As GOG users and what they think about DRM. Most of them have no respect for DRMed services (this subject is often discussed in GOG community section), and GOG is smart to utilize that to their advantage. I.e. they compete on being DRM-free. Others aren't smart enough to do that.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 10:39 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

I.e. they compete on being DRM-free. Others aren't smart enough to do that.

Yet others are much, much, MUCH bigger then GOG. Does not it say something about number of people who will support some endeavor because it "DRM-free" vs number of people who will support alternative which is heavily DRMed but more convenient?

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 15:19 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (3 responses)

> Yet others are much, much, MUCH bigger then GOG.

GOG is much younger. It will grow, don't worry.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 22:49 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

GOG predates both Google Play Store and Amazon Play Store yet it's much smaller then either of them. And iTunes Store started offered apps at about the same time as GOG started offering them. So your argument does not fly.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 27, 2013 0:12 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I know you can come up with a better argument than that, GOG doesn't share a platform with either of those so it's not a fair comparison.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 6:09 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

As raven667 pointed out, your comparison is not valid. GOG's area is PC gaming, not mobile applications. So it's valid to compare GOG with other PC gaming distributors.

Here is a more appropriate example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOG.com#Market_share

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 21:33 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (13 responses)

> DRM works

For what? For messing up customers who actually pay for what they use, and for hindering technological innovation? Yes, it works for that. But it surely doesn't work for stopping any piracy - same stuff which is DRMed is distributed by pirates almost right away after it comes out.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 23:41 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (12 responses)

But it surely doesn't work for stopping any piracy - same stuff which is DRMed is distributed by pirates almost right away after it comes out.

Sure. But the goal is not to jail every last pirate. Goal is to make sure people will accept DRM and will pay money for the stuff which is provided only with DRM protection.

And that goal is nicely achieved: people accepted DRM (except for a few babblers) and as new technologies make it less invasive it's used more, not less.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 2:10 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (11 responses)

> Goal is to make sure people will accept DRM and will pay money for the stuff which is provided only with DRM protection.

This is some weird perverted goal. Can't the goal be simply just to sell something to people? Did you notice any DRM in that sentence? No, because it's nowhere needed. Just sell it, that's it. No DRM please. Those who don't want to buy and want to pirate, will do it no matter DRM or not. As others pointed about DRM can even motivate pirates to break it and redistribute, out of sport interest and rebel spirit. They are less likely to do that with content which is sold DRM free.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 10:51 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (10 responses)

Can't the goal be simply just to sell something to people?

No, because you can only do it once. DRM ensures that you can sell the same thing dozen of times (once for NES, then for SNES, then for PlayStation, then for PSP, then for Android). Take a look on list of platforms here and notice that Android or iTunes is still bringing them good money.

Music industry lost and was forced to drop DRM because they did a mistake 30 years ago when they started releasing digital copies without DRM. They are pretty much unique in this regard - few other industries are in similar position.

Those who don't want to buy and want to pirate, will do it no matter DRM or not.

Right, but these people are not very interesting. You want to make life harder for them by to reduce their population, but it's hard to receive money from them. DRM ensures that Joe Average will continue to pay - and it does that nicely.

They are less likely to do that with content which is sold DRM free.

Really? How many games can you name which was were put on TPB because it was DRM-free? How many games sold by GOG were spared because "it's not even a challenge"? Puhlease.

If anything music industry story showed that sale of DRM-free digital content makes it hard to sell DRMed content later, nothing more, nothing less.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 12:09 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (3 responses)

Music industry lost and was forced to drop DRM because they did a mistake 30 years ago when they started releasing digital copies without DRM. They are pretty much unique in this regard - few other industries are in similar position.

As we all know, the music industry made several attempts to reintroduce DRM, which obviously doesn't "protect" music already released on CD, but it quite clearly had the potential to "protect" newly released music. Unfortunately, the industry made several mistakes: incorporating rootkits, making non-standard media that wouldn't work in various devices, releasing some works with DRM in some regions and not in others, to name but a few.

It doesn't help that the people in charge of the music industry had their business practically running by itself without any need to exercise any serious judgement - that's what you get when you have a state-enforced revenue stream and free advertising on state-funded media - so that when the time came to make important decisions that would have a serious impact on their future, they were arguably not competent enough to execute a coherent strategy.

There are plenty of other reasons why the music industry has imploded, notably in retail. Specialised music retailers have effectively retreated from music, tried to sell games and DVDs, and where I live have mostly gone out of business. Many of their former customers will not have switched to unlicensed downloads but will have gone to online retailers who offered the choice and convenience that the physical retailers used to do, albeit in their traditional clumsy fashion.

You can see the same phenomenon with book retailing. People still buy books and they can't easily copy and redistribute those books. So why are physical retailers failing? Because they can't offer the choice and convenience of online retailers, even though they can offer the immediate acquisition of the goods. What have many of these retailers done? They have pared down the choice, emphasised blockbusters and things like travel literature, introduced toys and games and other things. Does that draw in the customers they have been losing? Of course not: those people were not interested in toys, games and travel books. And so those retailers will continue their cost-reducing, revenue-reducing strategy until they give up as well.

But notice that DRM is not a credible excuse for the book business. I would argue that it isn't much of an excuse for the music business, either. Customer convenience has been the decider in both businesses, and the traditional custodians of those industries have failed to understand this. But for the music business, DRM is the quick fix that executives hope can bring back the glory days. Well, those days are gone forever.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 12:29 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

> But notice that DRM is not a credible excuse for the book business.

Indeed, books have a long, long history of being The Way of Conveying Information that DRM on them easily maps to well-known instances of dystopias (nineteen eighty-four (revising published books is much easier when e.g. Amazon can recall the old edition, delete your notes and you can't save the old verision), Fahrenheit 451 (You no longer have permission to read this book), etc.)

Movies are sufficiently recent that they don't carry as much cultural cautions that have grown around books (book burnings, libraries, censorship).

Unfortunately, many libraries seem to be abdicating their responsibilities on the DRM front, as are the general public.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 12:32 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

Fahrenheit 451: also, they had only vapid TV shows and electronic magazines (iirc). Indeed, all physical books were banned.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 27, 2013 18:39 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Fahrenheit 451 was about more than a dystopia where books get burned; there was a lot of nostalgic and Ludditic feelings expressed in it. Physical interaction was described as inherently better and as being a lost part of the family workings (in 1953!). I think the vapid TV was more a statement that *all* TV is vapid compared (not just reality shows, but also the news, documentaries, etc.) to books and newpapers, family time, and other activities of old.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 15:22 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (5 responses)

> DRM ensures that Joe Average will continue to pay - and it does that nicely.

DRM doesn't ensure that. If anything, DRM reduces the number of people who pay. As I said, availability of convenient services makes for people easier to pay. DRM does nothing to increase the amount of paying users - it does the opposite (decreases that amount).

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 22:50 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

That's nice theory, but it does not pass the reality check.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 6:16 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (3 responses)

What reality check is that? Care to share some numbers that demonstrate that DRM reduces piracy? You can't because there aren't any.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 15:24 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

Maybe to explain this another way, the extent to which DRM actually reduces piracy is not terribly important, the _belief_ that it does so by the content distributors _IS_ very important. As long as they believe that DRM is necessary to prevent rampant fraud they will continue to use it and it will be used on the legitimate store fronts for content.

Also, no everyone is comfortable with pirating content at all. I got into Linux and open source so that I could use the best software in the world legally with the appropriate licenses and with a clear conscience.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 22:19 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

Instead of believing in ephemeral benefits of DRM which they can't even evaluate they should pay attention to the very practical and concrete issue of quality and usability which are reduced by DRM. I thought those are business people and not some wild gamblers who make their decisions based on random beliefs.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 22:22 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

But I think they aren't so dumb as to cripple their own products based on some fake beliefs. There is more reason to assume that they use DRM for different purposes which have nothing to do with piracy. And those purposes can't possibly ever be good for end users.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 22:13 UTC (Thu) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (31 responses)

> but even text files (easiest to copy format, right?) can't compete with usability of Kindle and Nook.

I didn't understand that part. In order to improve their usability, one needs to strop DRM from Kindle only content, so for example to convert it into normal ePUB. Then you can view it anywhere besides Kindle (not everyone has it). Kindle itself can be a comfortable device to use for sure. But it has nothing to do with DRM. And DRM on top of Kindle (i.e. Kindle only content) *reduces* usability.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 25, 2013 23:29 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (30 responses)

And DRM on top of Kindle (i.e. Kindle only content) *reduces* usability.

Yet somehow there millions of Kindle users and over 90% of them use it in unmodified form. Strange, isn't it. If it's really super-ultra-essential to strip DRM from Kindle only content, then why so few people actually do that?

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 2:02 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (29 responses)

Obviously it's essential for those who don't use Kindle and get some Kindle only e-books. An argument that Kindle device is a prerequisite for comfortable reading is bizarre. As I said, Kindle can perfectly work without any DRM providing comfort for those who use it, and not denying users of other systems an ability to use e-books without spending time of stripping the DRM garbage off them first. So far I see nothing that contradicts the idea that there is no reason to use DRM, except to annoy [part of the] paying customers and to slow down innovation.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 3:07 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (28 responses)

> Obviously it's essential for those who don't use Kindle and get some Kindle only e-books.

and who aren't willing to use the free kindle software that is available for most platforms (including a browser-based cloud version)

this is also only needed if the publisher of the book insisted on using DRM, and if the publisher is doing that, they are probably also putting DRM on their epub version of the book as well.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 3:21 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (27 responses)

Why should reading an e-book be limited to one application or cloud service? User should be able to read it with any decent reader. And not each potential system has a Kindle application (for example Plasma Active doesn't), and cloud can be inaccessible precisely in cases when one can spend time reading, such as in a subway. Anyway, DRM does nothing good for the user.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 10:37 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (26 responses)

Sometimes people lose sight of the forest for the trees, but you went far, far, far beyond that. You are losing sight of the forest, you are losing sight of the tree, instead you are concentrating on some small part of tree root and ignore everything else.

You may howl as much as you want but the fact remains: for each person who've managed to crack Kindle or Nook there are dozens of users who didn't do that and use Kindle and Nook as they were intended to use - DRM and everything. This means that it's more usable for them then TPB or other P2P sources. And DRM is not bad enough impediment to rebel.

As DRM becomes less and less invasive it becomes more and more acceptable and as distribution becomes simpler it becomes less important. In the end there are always a balance - but only as far as end user is concerned. On platform level situation is much simpler: platforms with support for DRM lives and platforms without such support die. It's as simple as that. For one simple reason: very few users will tolerate the situation where they are deprived of their valuable content because creators of platform are spurning DRM "for their own good".

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 11:29 UTC (Fri) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (22 responses)

I think you're equally guilty of losing sight of the forest - you're setting up a completely false dichotomy between convenient DRMed systems, and inconvenient 'pirate' ones. The third possibility is convenient DRM free systems, for example, Amazon's MP3 store.

DRM doesn't make a Kindle any more convenient to use, so if I'm going to buy a Kindle and buy Kindle books because it's convenient, then I'd still do that if there were no DRM, and while you're right that modern DRM is often fairly unintrusive, but when it does intrude, it only ever makes things worse.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 13:23 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

If the book you want to read if published by a company that won't make their work available without DRM, then yes, the DRM makes it more convienient for the user, they have the choice of getting the DRM version on the kindle (hardware and software), or go buy the paper copy.

just because there are books from other authors and publishers available doesn't make them replacements.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:04 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

The remark about books from other authors is amusing. To take an example of something approaching this, apparently people are so fed up of the Norwegian publishing cartel that they're happy to buy Norwegian literature in electronic form in English (and other) translations for substantially less money than they would pay to read the original versions in their own (and the readers' native) language. Who is making things hard for whom, exactly?

When some industry will only participate on their own terms and nothing short of those terms, you can't claim that those terms facilitate customer convenience, justifying it by noting that otherwise there would be nothing to buy at all. Especially when people can probably track down an "illegal" copy more easily than going through whatever excruciating purchasing experience the publishers have in mind.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 15:29 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (16 responses)

> you're setting up a completely false dichotomy between convenient DRMed systems, and inconvenient 'pirate' ones.

That's exactly my point. DRM never increases usability, it *always* reduces it. Always. A very simple and obvious rule. It's ridiculous to say that some service is convenient because it's DRMed. Add this to the fact that DRM doesn't prevent piracy and the only sane resolution is - DRM is a junk that's not needed. The fact that it's still used leads one to conclude that it's used for completely unrelated purposes, and it's always bad for the end user.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:12 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (9 responses)

>That's exactly my point. DRM never increases usability, it *always* reduces it. Always. A very simple and obvious rule
Here is your error - this statement is simply wrong.

DRM allows users to trade some freedoms (like freedom to resell or freedom to backup) in exchange for other benefits. If such an offer is bad (like, "pay $20 for DRM-ed album that you can't listen on your CD-player") then users simply don't accept it. If the offer is good ("listen to any song in our collection of hundreds of thousands of songs, any time on any supported device") then it's a different story.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:59 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (8 responses)

I don't think you understood my statement above. Imagine any service with DRM, and measure its usability level. Then imagine the same service but without DRM. All the same convenience as before, plus convenience to back up, device shift, time shift, etc. etc. Bingo, the second one has higher usability. That was my point. DRM *always* reduces usability.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 17:01 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (7 responses)

>Then imagine the same service but without DRM.
That's extremely easy: "No service at all".

Usability is also perfect - since there's nothing to use.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 17:19 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

Why no service at all? DRM free services exist. The general trend is for DRM to die out. Music, gaming and e-book publishing industries move away from DRM. My point was the logic that any publisher and distributor should evaluate. I.e. publishers and distributors who use DRM reduce usability for their users. They increase it if they decide to drop it. Improved usability reduces piracy (as others pointed out, the better the service is, less likely some pople would pirate the content). And it doesn't affect those who would pirate either way (DRM or not). So, why don't publishers stop using DRM then? Surely not because they care about good services, and not because they worry about piracy.

Combine it with the fact that DRM is an unethical preemptive policing prone for privacy and security risks and it's easy to see that DRM has no useful and legit applications at all. All its applications are anti-user and nefarious ones.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 18:14 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (5 responses)

Right, the reality is that the choice is between a service with DRM controlled by content distributors or a service without DRM which is fought tooth and nail by the content distributors and can't legally obtain content to sell. The video content distribution industry isn't so enlightened as to sell or rent DRM-free so we need to adjust for the reality we find ourselves in. In the long game maybe they will feel secure enough to reduce or remove the need for DRM but that day isn't today.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 20:21 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (4 responses)

You can't consider such situation bad while accepting the terms. Publishers need users not any less than users need publishers (probably even more). Vote with your wallet and ignore services which use DRM. This will make publishers change their minds much quicker than any other arguments.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 20:51 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

Vote with your wallet and ignore services which use DRM. This will make publishers change their minds much quicker than any other arguments.

Really? If 1% of anti-DRM zealots will stop supporting publishers then DRM will go away? Newsflash from you: if DRM will increase earnings from "normal" users by mere 2% then this will more then compensate loss from anti-DRM zealots.

Publishes do need users - but they don't need you, personally. Any other user will wallet will do. And since there are many times more users than publishers... DRM stays, sorry.

And as long as DRM stays any platform which does not support DRM automatically becomes second-class citizen: smaller selection of stuff, often higher cost, etc. Individual publishers and/or creators can try to play anti-DRM card and try to attract some users this way, but if platform owner does that said platform quickly goes down in flames. Joe Average cares about ability to watch Netflix today more then s/he cares about availability of stuff tomorrow.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 21:13 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (2 responses)

No reason to explain that this issue depends on users. And if users have no clue - they won't make an educated choice. That wasn't my point. My point was about those who know, and still support DRM. They can start with themselves. I.e. the fact that many users aren't educated about this issue is not an excuse to support DRM.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 22:40 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

Pick your battles. When you protest against some particularly nasty problems with DRM implementation you can be heard by others (content providers included), but when you scream: "DRM? Over my dead body! the only thing reaction you can reasonably expect is "Noted. We'll see if we can organize said dead body".

Situation is similar to discussion about copyleft: push too much and the only thing will be write off of your platform/community/etc as hopeless. Instead of someone who can influence future direction of industry you are written off and can not do anything at all.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 6:22 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

Situation is different from copyleft, because saying "use copyleft everywhere" is a tough proposal for those who can't come up with working business based on that (let's say it's hard to sell a game which is 100% open source including artistic assets). Business models which work for some open source projects don't work for every possible product.

DRM however is different, since it has completely no logical reason to exist, literally in any product. Therefore it's completely reasonable to propose to drop DRM everywhere.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 16:12 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (5 responses)

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point as the practical effects in the real world have been for content distributers to fight any systems that they can't control, where control is often achieved through DRM schemes. As the control of the distribution channels is solidified the need for technical measures such as DRM is lessened.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 17:06 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (4 responses)

> practical effects in the real world have been for content distributers to fight any systems that they can't control

Not, they can't control the channels. Piracy is a counter proof to that - totally out of their control regardless of any DRM. But they can control the progress of technologies. DRM slows down advancement of storage solutions (why do we still use 20 year old tech such as DVDs?) and many other aspects of technology. It's another reason to fight DRM and to boycott services which proliferate it.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 21:13 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

Not, they can't control the channels.

Well, that's kind of raven667's point.

Piracy is a counter proof to that - totally out of their control regardless of any DRM.

Sure. That's why they fight it using different means. Including but not limited to DRM.

why do we still use 20 year old tech such as DVDs?

That's easy: because they work. We still use 30 years old tech such as CDs which contain no DRM at all.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 21:22 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (2 responses)

> Sure. That's why they fight it using different means. Including but not limited to DRM.

Do you see any logic in your statement? It's like saying, that in order to prevent fires, a building has to put handcuffs on each visitor. If asked that it didn't reduce fire rates, you'll answer that they fight fires with other means too, including but not limited to using handcuffs. What was the point of handcuffs then? Same thing with DRM. "They fight piracy with other means, including but not limited to DRM", it's just that DRM doesn't do anything to help that fight. Wonderful.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 22:58 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

"They fight piracy with other means, including but not limited to DRM", it's just that DRM doesn't do anything to help that fight.

Again: the goal of DRM is not to stop illegal activity completely, it's to make it less widespread. For illegal activities which only 1% of citizens perform there are an adequate remedy: police and jails. But it only works if 99% of citizens obey the rules. And DRM is great help there.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 6:29 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

> Again: the goal of DRM is not to stop illegal activity completely, it's to make it less widespread.

It doesn't even do that. In vast majority of cases DRM is broken, and those digital materials are pirated ever since. You can argue that DRM reduces piracy on the period from when it's introduced to the point when a way to break it is found. But it's a bad justification, since it's a very negligible gain in comparison with crippling the experience for legitimate users. And in most cases DRM is broken pretty fast.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 21:07 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

DRM doesn't make a Kindle any more convenient to use

It does. Large selection of books is available on Kindle because it supports DRM. And this is one the most important characteristics of usability for bookreaders. Kindle is better not because it's interface is more convenient then, e.g. Cool Reader. It's better for one simple reason: it's much easier to buy book if you want to read it on Kindle. It also supports synchronization between devices and other similar goodies. And all such properties are directly related to the DRM. Yes, DRM is not an advantage for user, it's a price - but for that price user gets other advantages.

If I'm going to buy a Kindle and buy Kindle books because it's convenient, then I'd still do that if there were no DRM

But this is exactly the choice you don't have and will not have for the foreseeable future! Compare Lulu's catalog to Kindle's or Nook catalogs! It's not even a contest...

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 21:17 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

I already explained above what I was talking about - about equal comparison (which should be evaluated by the publisher). Your comparison is not equal, i.e. you aren't talking about DRM vs no DRM, you are talking about existing services which use DRM on publishers' terms. I'm challenging the sanity of these terms, you ignore them and say that service has good usability as is. That wasn't the point.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 23:13 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

in all of this, it's worth pointing out that there are some publishers who publish on the Kindle store who do NOT require DRM, and their books are on kindle devices without DRM

DRM is a publishers option, If publishers didn't want to use DRM, nothing on the Kindle would change, except for the content.

Baen is one publisher who doesn't use DRM (and hasn't, ever since they started publishing e-books over a decade ago)

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 29, 2013 9:48 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> Sometimes people lose sight of the forest for the trees, but you went far, far, far beyond that. You are losing sight of the forest, you are losing sight of the tree, instead you are concentrating on some small part of tree root and ignore everything else.

So, why do you keep feeding the troll?

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 31, 2013 1:33 UTC (Wed) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

No better arguments to present?

Prove your assumption

Posted Aug 3, 2013 16:29 UTC (Sat) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]

That those who use download DRM'd files would NOT download non-DRM'd files. The choice isn't DRM or piracy, it's DRM, piracy, or no DRM legitimate.

DRM is known to drive away some people. Pirates will pirate with or without DRM (all DRM is essentially useless, as you have to give the person the encrypted content, the key, and the algorithm, so they can decrypt to read/listen/view). The two questions are: will those who legitimately download DRM'd files STOP downloading if it becomes non-DRM? will those who don't download DRM'd files (either pirate it, or just don't download) download non-DRM'd files?

So far the results from the music industry are that removing DRM actually increases the customer base for the companies that legitimately distribute music.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 4:58 UTC (Fri) by ras (subscriber, #33059) [Link] (2 responses)

You may dislike DRM (I know I don't like it), but as long as you stay in denial people will ignore you. DRM works. Sure, it works less spectacularly then MPAA and RIAA would like, but it works.

Yes, the statement that DRM is useless is unreasonable. But to be fair, the demands from the media owners are also unreasonable.

As you observe below, DRM doesn't have to be unbreakable to work. In fact music currently demonstrates no DRM at all works if it more convenient to buy content than pirate it.

It may be true the video needs something better because you pay $5 for a video instead of $1 for a song to the incentive to pirate is higher. But nonetheless demands by the content owners that the browser provides disk to display encryption is completely over the top. A weaker form of DRM (eg, pure software - like Flash) + a decent distribution channel would and indeed has worked just as well. Breaking the "display the content anywhere" nature of the web and insisting the user pay for extra hardware just beef up DRM that will be broken just as inevitably as the pure software DRM is just as unreasonable as asking for the world to abandon DRM.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 26, 2013 5:35 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (1 responses)

> Yes, the statement that DRM is useless is unreasonable.

How can it be useful? Not only it's unethical, it's not even effective against piracy, unless such crazy form of DRM is used, which reduces usability to the point where people get extremely annoyed by it (like always on-line console DRMs and so on).

So it's not unreasonable to say that DRM is useless and should be gone altogether.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 28, 2013 20:31 UTC (Sun) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]

It has been very efficient in game consoles.

Some of us knew this 30 years ago

Posted Jul 27, 2013 10:03 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

None of the options you list even work for me, so ease of use is 0. Downloading the pirated stuff just works. I'd prefer it if the legal options were actually an option for me.

Perspective

Posted Jul 25, 2013 8:47 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

So, for the sake of the 20th century movie rental business model, everyone's computers should be controlled by a small set of companies?

Perspective

Posted Jul 25, 2013 9:16 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

Why "controlled"? Nobody is trying to make unbeatable DRM on general-purpose computers anymore.

Modern DRM designed to make copying more difficult than simply dragging-and-dropping of files. I can beat iTunes or NetFlix DRM easily to get my rentals. But then why would I? They are available on TPB anyway if I feel like pirating.

Perspective

Posted Jul 27, 2013 23:35 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

If those DRM systems are so easy to beat then their business model is already based on an honour system, so there's no reason for any DRM system that excludes free software.

Perspective

Posted Jul 28, 2013 9:11 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Certainly. Spotify works just fine on CyanogenMod devices. Removing DRM completely, though, is not worth it for companies. The number of hard-core anti-DRM users is so small, that it's not worth it.

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 17:49 UTC (Wed) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link]

Easier integration of DRM? No thanks.

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 18:14 UTC (Wed) by hpro (subscriber, #74751) [Link] (6 responses)

But full SELinux MAC is noteworthy. But maybe someone with better understanding than me will explain that it does not really change anything?

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 18:18 UTC (Wed) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]

> maybe someone with better understanding than me will explain that it does not really change anything?

I'm sure Spender will do this for you :-)

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 19:40 UTC (Wed) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link] (2 responses)

if they use SELinux in enforcing mode, the primary thing it will give is that malware from the store will have a harder time breaching their permission boundaries.

Against exploits... SELinux is not really designed to stop those (it may however stop a successful exploit from escalating further if the stars align).

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 19:47 UTC (Wed) by mr_bean (subscriber, #5398) [Link] (1 responses)

If they use SELinux in enforcing mode rooting the phone might get you precisely diddly squat.

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 23:26 UTC (Wed) by spender (guest, #23067) [Link]

Apparently the false view has been repeated so much by those with authority that even if the proper place of SELinux is now mentioned by higher-ups (Arjan here above), the ignorance stubbornly remains pervasive (as evidenced by the parent comment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0FXZUsLuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llqxbMgIztk

-Brad

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 23:41 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> But maybe someone with better understanding than me will explain that it does not really change anything?

I think SELinux changes everything. It's:

1. So fine-grained that it's extremely complicated to configure == impossible for mere mortals to configure correctly or even just audit
2. Designed by the NSA

Reach your own conclusion!

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 27, 2013 1:17 UTC (Sat) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link]

Running 'getenforce' on an Android 4.3 system with an adb shell shows that SELinux is not configured to run in enforcing mode.

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 24, 2013 19:59 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

The code is up there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/android-building/...

Android 4.3

Posted Jul 29, 2013 4:01 UTC (Mon) by jay83 (guest, #92124) [Link]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=392082767570103&set=oa.173187716194570&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf surfaceflinger. s3c-fb-vsync phone is hacked by more than one person. one ie trying to get me to sync my fb acc and fone the other keeps stopping me HELP