What is Digg?65 Comments
- MarvinMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32They can dress it up and make it dance, but it'll still be lame restrictive technology.
OH WOW IT IS OPEN SOURCE I MUST LOVE IT NOW GHHHHHH - michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@ Lumiras:
You don't really get the point of DRM, do you?
It's meant to keep you from distributing copyright files, not reduce platform usage. That's just an unfortunate side effect sometimes. - diehard2k5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23There is not such thing as good DRM. End of discussion.
- m99stump, on 07/29/2008, -0/+16More often then not, DRM is employed for vendor lock in or not allowing it on multiple devices. They want to charge you for viewing the media per device. see PSP movies, iTunes downloads, etc, not have one master copy and let you make your own.
That is what I will not tolerate. - leszek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19if i understood correctly, if i want to modify an opensource drm software i have to pay someone to check it and let it work (if he want to).
Then it is no more opensource.
No thx i still hate drm.
I now understand the need for gpl v3 - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I'm still not buying anything DRM'd. This is what you call Tivo-ization, and it's the reason GPLv3 is adding a DRM clause.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You guys have this all wrong. We here at sun like to call it "Freedom rights management" Sun is commited to providing our users the best copyright experience. We want to keep you free from confusing file formats like MP3, OGG and XVID. We feel our consumers are threatened by a plethroa of free, open, formats. Our new "freedom rights mangement" will help you sort through all the confusion while still paying your dues to our corporate overlords. Thank you for your time, -Scott McNealy.
- rpdillon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8No, its fundamental purpose is to prevent you from giving others copies of copyrighted work that you paid for.
The "perfect" DRM would be DRM that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with it, until someone else tried to take it home and use it without paying, in which case it wouldn't work unless I transferred the rights to them. That, I think, is fair. This would allow people to make unlimited copies to play on portable devices, laptops, home theater systems, whatever. You could even play it for friends or whoever happened to be around when you played it...they just couldn't take their own copy with them. For that, they would have to pay.
The problem is that there is no way to implement that kind of DRM. So, in theory, DRM isn't evil at all, but in practice, it always is. - firefoxguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Open source+DRM=Oxymoron
- diehard2k5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Also, open-source does not automatically ensure that it is a good product. There have been many lousy open-source projects.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nope. I'll watch a movie in a theatre, and that's it.
- cyrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wouldn't really classify the PSP's UMD format as DRM, proprietary yes. But if there were other UMD players out there, they would be capable of playing them.
- aluminumpork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This actually seems like a step in the right direction. I honestly have no problem with DRM, just as long as it doesn't hinder my use of content I've purchased. I don't have a problem with paying for content, the content creator deserves their cut. Even if it's the evil RIAA that I'm paying, it's still a business and it's still right to pay them. Once again, as long as the DRM doesn't hinder my use of content I've purchased. I mean, if I'm the only using it, and I've paid for, I can doing anything I want with it. This sounds excellent, I don't expect free music or free content. I just expect fair use. *Applauds Sun for efforts*
- natch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sun's DReaM becomes a nightmare when I try to share protected content with others. Let's say I work at a restaurant and the crew likes to listen to a certain tape, and the person who made the tape isn't always there. Possible under DReaM? No.
Let's say I live in a dorm, and my friend wants to borrow a few tapes for his party while I'm out of town. Possible under DReaM? No.
Let's say I have a wonderful music collection that my children enjoy growing up with, and suddenly I die. Can my kids just keep on enjoying that nice music? No.
Can they copy the music so when they each move away to different towns they can enjoy the music of their childhood memories? No.
Let's say I'm a government bureaucrat in an Islamic regime. I want to make sure that only proper, Islamic tapes (readings of the Koran, etc.) are played in my country. Music is banned under Islam, as everyone knows. I'll just require that any device imported into my country have the proper key, so it will only run content signed by my Office of Moral Rectitude. Possible with DReaM? YES. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Free software+DRM=Oxymoron.
All open source means is that you can see the sourcecode, so DRM very well can be open source. Free Software, on the other hands, means that it's meant to guarantee the users' freedoms, so DRM can't be free software. - bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Leave it to Digg to make big news of a concept that was announced over 7 months ago. (http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-08/sunflash.20050822.2.xml)
THIS DOESN'T MATTER, because we have a monopoly in both online music and portable music players - Apple. By remaining closed, they don't have to compete on price or quality, and unwitting consumers who buy from their popular music store will find it problematic to replace their iPod with anything else. Notice Apple wasn't mentioned as one of the 'players' that attended the Open Media Community Workshop? There can be no standard DRM without Apple, and Apple has the most to lose from standard DRM.
The rest of the market has already pretty much standardized (on WMA), and that's done nothing to equalize the market. - wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Be it open or close sourced, in the end it's all about enforcing people to something. And then more you do it, the more illegal activity you recieve back.
- jamief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5>I'm still not buying anything DRM'd.
Really? No DVDs, no DVD players, no PS1, PS2, no Xbox, no DVD drive, no DVD playback software? That's pretty extreme, if true. - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Wow, with this amazing new open source DRM I can listen to music on whatever platform I want! That's amazing! "
Yet you do not have the luxury of downloading new content form any terminal. You compromise by having to expend more time and energy to obtain it. In the future, all digital media will be DRM'd at that point you want the most open one available.
Dont ignore the inevitable. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's fundamental purpose is to prevent you from using content you've purchased however you please. Therefore, it is guaranteed to be a lousy project, no matter how well it accomplishes its intended purpose.
- memodude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Open source DRM would be mostly self-defeating, since most DRM systems rely on security through obscurity, right?
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3^ note thats free as in freedom and not as in freeware ;)
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you give up fair use rights, it's still NO DEAL from me. Screw 'em.
I pay for my music, but I won't buy anything with DRM. - teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DRM is pointless, i too have no problem paying for my content but the "pirates" will always crack whatever protection there is so why even bother? To hassle the guy who pays for it!?
- jayman16, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Chill, until DRM ultimately fails open source is better than non open source.
- mcbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I call that not missing much !
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've got a crazy new idea for music distribution. You take the tracks you want to distribute, you press them in raw audio format onto a CD or DVD, and then you put them on store shelves, just like that. Not only is it almost entirely hassle free for consumers, but I have yet to run into a CD player, MP3 Player, or new computer that wouldn't be compatible with it!
- natch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The "DRM can be cracked" argument against DRM is a red herring.
If you think it's easy to crack a closed system, please point me to a free ringtones site that has free full copies of all or most of the ringtones available for sale from the all or most of the major cell phone carriers' web sites, and instructions for downloading them onto all or most phones.
What? Can't do it? Why?
I guess the answer is that they go beyond security through obscurity. There's nothing to say that DRM can't do the same thing. - natch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How about DRM that enforces other restrictions the rights holder places on you? How do you feel about that?
What makes you think you will be able to "buy" music, anyway? The price may be out of your reach. Your purchase of music may be tied to your membership in an organization, or the school you attend, or your current Internet provider, or your geographic location, or your utility company, or even your political or religious affiliation.
What makes you think Sun is doing this only to enable your convenient purchasing of lifetime, unlimited, unrestricted rights to music?
They are doing it to enable new business models, and to better enable current ones. Not necessarily consumer-friendly ones. - rafgar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DRM and open source are, and shall ever remain, polar opposites. I don't think piracy is right, but it's a hell of a lot closer to being right than what RIAA has been doing to consumers for the last couple decades. Besides, from the figures I've seen, DRM and the public reaction to it have cost the music industry more than piracy ever has.
- Meshyf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DRM is still crap.
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's always print screen.
I myself don't bother with that crap really. Stuff I design and usually post on forums have no watermarks or some other ***** to prevent copying because I find it plain stupid. I know I made it, and it's good for me. And if someone does copy it.. I take no regret as apparently it was good to be copied, which I take as a compliment.
If someone needs to copy your work, they will no matter what, even if it has watermarks. And if one is so bloody paranoid of someone copying your stuff, the best thing to do is not showing it at all... - coding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't really open source any particular DRM system that runs on a users system. These systems rely on code that will pick up some kind of secret key and do a decryption process. Most DRM solutions have convoluted CRC checking on the DLLs that hold the code that get this key and use it to decrypt software. That code is also CRCd. It ends up being this long trail of convolution that eventually leads to a key, a decoding/decryption. Making any of this convoluted code open would make it easier to instantly remove DRM or write DRM removal software.
This article is discussing an open source rights tracking system, not an open source DRM (as we see them currently). - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 Wow, how bizarre. It's like "1984" comes closer to reality every day.
Thank you sir for restricting my access to my own "content" (I hate that word now). I never knew how sad I was with all that freedom.
There is only one reason for DRM; the owner doesn't trust you. - aragon127, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd love to see the look on Richard Stallman's face when he heard abou thtis.
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know why this got -dugg. It's a good point. Why in the world would a person who is against DRM in any form (no matter how open) be especially happy about yet another DRM system? And why would they love it?
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am not unhappy with Apple's DRM. I can burn CDs and re rip if I need it else where. I can have them on 5 computers at a time. And if I want an MP3 player, the iPods are pretty affordable now.
Unlike the movie downloads announced today, at least apple's DRM works on both Mac OS and Win. - pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow, with this amazing new open source DRM I can listen to music on whatever platform I want! That's amazing! Amusingly enough, I do that already. Of course, I do miss out on all the DRM goodness. What a shame.
Is this open source DRM better than existing solutions? Almost certainly, if it's as compatible as the article implies. Current DRM methods leave a lot of room for improvement. That's certainly no reason to love it though. Especially if you disagree with everything DRM is about. - MirandaJanell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with the author, the fair-use provisions absolutely need to be mandatory. The idea of assigning the rights to the individual as opposed to the device is definitely a major plus. It's almost there, but unprotected content still wins in my book. It's easy enough to buy a CD and rip and then transfer to my various devices. Since I only use cheapy ear buds with my mp3 player i don't have a dramatic need for the higher bitrates that I like on my home computer since it's hooked up to a stereo system. Protected content with out fair use provisions wouldn't allow this freedom. Also decryption of the protected content require computational power which decreases battery life in portable devices. It gets a Digg because it's better than the current systems, but it's just not there yet.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3While DRM is indeed totally pointless, as you can pirate as long as there is output, open DRM is better than proprietary, I think.
- toad3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What is the point of using drm on an open source player. If you can see the source you can rip it.
- kevogod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@bieber
You might want to read http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1815768,00.asp about digital cinema. - jamief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I doubt that this will succeed for two reasons.
First, proprietary DRM exists because vendors are still treating DRM and media formats as a winner takes all scenario, trying to squeeze out competing vendors and become the de facto standard. They want to end up as the toll collector and/or the player who controls the market for devices. Apple doesn't want the iPod to play Real or OGG content for this reason. Sony doesn't want the PSP to play iPod video content for the same reason. Neither wants an open source DRM system because that makes them just another endpoint or just another middleman.
Second, the open-source-ness of a DRM scheme might appeal to end users (yay, I'll probably be able to find a player for my licensed DRM'd content on my favorite device!) but content publishers probably won't go for it. The more out-of-control the devices are, the more likely that an infringer-friendly (or just plain sloppy) device will exist. They're still under the impression that compiled software is a black box, because without that misconception, DRM "protection" is immediately recognizable as snake oil. An open source DRM format would almost instantly be broken, so why bother? Movie piracy is rampant yet CSS DRM is ubiquitous; why would a less opaque "black box" scheme be more appealing than one that has already failed utterly? - Jag197, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well said that man!
- muyuu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder why have I been minus-ed. Is there a vote-down-when-disagree policy in here?
Sorry for replying myself - for some reason digg doesn't let me reply any comment (I'm fairly new to digg).
This has nothing to do with monopolies. In fact, piracy kills the competition: the big fish gets the corporate sales (because those get audited) and the smaller fish barely get any sales, worsening with piracy levels.
Guess how many people in Europe would switch if they were REALLY forced to pay 100€ for Windows XP pro or Vista? 50€ for Windows XP Home? that or be forced to upgrade your whole computer?
Competition with O.S. software (usually also free as in beer) would be pretty tough. Basically they would be forced to quit fixing prices and milking home users this badly.
And I don't care about the RIAA anyway. Do you think you have a God-given right to listen to crappy rehashed music for free? It doesn't matter anyway because ripped, un-DRM-ed versions will hit the net in no time. Which BTW is also bad because it favours the rule of a few, just like in software only that I don't care.
Stallman is pretty often dead-wrong. Not everybody can or wants to be a University professor. He just doesn't live in the real world, you can't blame him. Not EVERY software has to be completely open. I prefer it open, but I just don't see a need to IMPOSE this to developers. That is a totalitarian way of thinking. Same goes for formats - I prefer them open, and most people would if it's a general-use format. This is of course as long as they don't patent competition out of the league, so we can just choose the open one.
I believe the infrastructure should be open. Formats the general public need should be open. The Operating Systen has to be open (through not by law mind you). Specific software doesn't have to be open, why should it be? of course if there's a good open option, I'd go that way, but there is no sane reason for asking specific software to be open or free (open, non-free-as-in-you-have-to-shell-out software is second best for me). Software Engineering doesn't have all to be a charity and we're not all government workers. Think Larry Wall-ish view on software, he does have an experience out of University.
That said, I believe fair use provisions should be mandatory, and companies imposing a DRM where there are such provisions should get sued much like Sony with their rootkit.
I'm all for a DRM that allows me to do anything I want with my files as long as it's legal. Not that it's an easy task, mind you.
>In reply to bieber (again, digg doesn't let me reply him)
Free trade doesn't have anything to do with entertainment. It appears as narrow thinking to me that you think of entertainment first, when EVERYTHING else is also at stake.
Exercise free trade by not buying DRM-ed music, if you so wish. Count on me doing it.
In reply to your other post, Free Software doesn't have to guarantee anything about the "freedom" in files or protocols it uses. GPL v3 software does. Most Open Source licenses don't. Thank you, but I don't take your definition of Free Software (or Stallman's for that matter) as law. - snozle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've always been against DRM, but if this new system does as was proposed by the article and does not restrict my usage in any way then fine. I do think that there needs to be some restrictions on copying, we have become disgusted simply because the Movie/Music industries have imposed overkill DRM schemes on us (look at the sony "rootkit" for example). If the "MAFIAA" (previous digg article) would have realized the potential in online distribution and embraced the new technology instead of fearing it and attempting to hold on to their old ways we may have seen less restrictive DRM schemes.
To end my rant, the only reason I don't use iTunes is because the files are encoded at 128kb/s AAC, I intend to archive all of this music and I don't want it to become obscure. I like ripping my music in higher bitrates or downloading from sources which allow me to specify a bit-rate. Until there are higher-bitrate offerings online with less restrictive DRM schemes i'm not going to jump ship. - aragon127, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doh! Why can Digg have an edit feature but no delete feature?
- aragon127, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0;-)
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Cyclotron:
I wouldn't be happy if I had to burn my music to a CD and re-rip it to move it elsewhere, could only listen to it on five computers, and had to get an iPod to take it on the go. Those all sound like tremendous hassles to me.
Of course I'm happy to see that there's a more open DRM system around. If it's going to be there, I'd prefer that the media it restricts at least be accessible on every platform. That doesn't mean I like DRM though. I don't think it's at all inevitable that all digital media in the future will be DRM encumbered, and I don't think it's desirable either. It's possible that it will happen, but I don't think there's any way to make an accurate prediction at this point. Even if everyone does try to cripple the digital media they sell, given DRM's track record, it's not likely that it will remain undefeated for long. If DRM does pervade, then I'm willing to make the effort it takes to get clean media. - pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@natch:
As a matter of fact, your argument is a red herring. The crackability of any DRM system has nothing to do with the crackability of a given closed distribution system. Additionally, you're assuming that if a system were easy to crack, then there would be a web site offering the creatively acquired media for free. On top of that, you're assuming that ringtones aren't obscure. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is