What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
23 Comments
- gonz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, I mean sure, it'll probably benefit from being developed that way but it seems so out of touch with the spirit of open source or at least free software.
Ah, well. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Really? The spirit of opensource software is that content should also be free? In fact, I'm quite certain that is _not_ the spirit of open source software as the point of open source software is that you can do whatever you want with it. If I write a novel with OpenOffice, should I be forced to give my book away for free? Of course not.
There is a difference between open source and mooching. - durandal2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't want to sound like an apologist for the RIAA/MPAA (because I'm not), but I think an open DRM system is a good idea. Think about it: the main reason DRM schemes suck so much is because you can't mix and match them: you can't put music bought on iTunes on a Napster device, and vice-versa.
If the software vendors and hardware manufacturers are all working with a common spec that doesn't require an arm and a leg in royalties, you can use your media on a whole range of devices. It seems like a win-win scenario to me: we (the consumers) get to use our media everywhere, while the content providers are appeased with copy protection. - SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seumas, think of it this way:
First off, no one is implying that you should give your work away for free. We argue, instead, that most traditional DRM systems are necessarily closed source, and making an opensource implementation is difficult at best, and of questionable legality. Furthermore, DRM hardly deters any pirates who actually cost you money, while it causes all kinds of problems for your legitimate users.
So, you're spending money to develop something that must be proprietary, and will ultimately not protect you from piracy, but rather alienate your customers and cost you more money.
The only way to make a DRM system that could have source code available, and be even a bit of imagined security against pirates, is to introduce hardware. As soon as you get into "Trusted Computing", the software is no longer truly "open source", even if it's GPL'd. Only the "official" version of mplayer, running on an "official" Linux kernel, will play DRM'd DVDs, assuming mplayer and Linux are even supported. The spirit of open source is to let any user who has a piece of software edit and tailor that software for their own use -- but with Trusted Computing DRM, changing one line of mplayer will mean it no longer works on your DVDs.
Now, I'm not as religiously open-source as most -- I appreciate a good proprietary program, if it gets the job done. There are things that it makes sense for, and there are levels of DRM that I'd put up with. But, since DRM is such a bad idea for everyone involved, you'll forgive me if I don't suddenly love it because it's "open source". - sirber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OpenSSL is open source, what prevent you to cracking it? ;)
- Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you should read this
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2878 - caudron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know there will be the inevitable DRM is teh suX0rs and Sun is teh eVi1 for making it, but the Sun model is different enough to warrant a second look:
http://www.sun.com/2005-1025/feature/
I'm NOT a fan of DRM---including Sun's---but as DRM goes, Sun's is less honerous than most. Read the details before commenting, as they may surprise you. They address some of the more common complaints about DRM.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/technology.html - chembro84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think that any kind of "television-style programming" over the internet would be considered IPTV, but don't quote me on that.
- swaggadocio, on 08/20/2008, -2/+3Nah. It will make it stronger just as we have seen in crytography where algorithms are openly scrutinised so bugs can be fixed
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The DRM debate is an interesting one. I believe that companies have every right to protect their assets and to sell music/video files with DRM. They must; however, realize that traditionally customers have bought Cd's, and have been accustomed to using the music files in any way they pleased. Too much DRM makes your customers feel like trash.
All I'm saying is that there is a fine line that must not be crossed. - hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like the idea of open source DRM very much. If we are going to have DRM (which is the way the world seems to be going right now), I would rather have Open Source DRM. The content would be blocked, but at least, we would not have to deal with damaging rootkits etc. Also, if it succeeds, then no one company would be able to make deals with some hardware vendors and content providers thereby forcing you to buy their own software and hardware.
- datagod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3DRM Sucks. Death to DRM!
You want to be in the business of selling us your movies, games, music, whatever, but you are obsessed with controlling how and where we watch/listen/play? Get bent. You don't deserve my money. You will toil away and perfecting your DRM machine, but you will never accomplish it.
Information just wants to be free. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have a question bout IPTV. Is FiOS TV IPTV?
Sorry for being off topic - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hopefully this open source DRM actually does what it's suppose to.
- XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course DRM reduces the utility of the content so it will be worth less.
Also I believe all costs of DRM should be shouldered by the content distributors. These guys want DRM SW and HW incorporated into all the products we buy. They should pay all these costs! It's their content the DRM infrastructure is protecting... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@sirber - Well, I was think ing of the scenario in the way turing explained.
The problem is that your computer has the 'answer'. You have access to the code generating the 'answer'. (answer being how the media is decrypted, or the actual decrypted media).
Using your OpenSSL example, yes, I can 'crack' it if my computer knows the is envolved in the encryption/cipher.
Why are people assuming that OpenDRM would be any different? - gonz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Open source DRM? Isn't that somewhat of a paradox?
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yep there is definately a fine line. On one side DRM is a violation of fair use rights and should not be tolerated. On the other side DRM is an anti consumer technology that should never be tolerated. Yeah its pretty vague.
- turing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"OpenSSL is open source, what prevent you to cracking it? ;)"
With OpenSSL, you've got 3 people in your crypto scenario. Alice, Bob, and Eve. Alice (say, a bank customer) is trying to communicate with Bob (her Bank), and not let Eve (an evil eavesdropper) listen in on their conversation about her bank account for, well, obvious reasons.
Now, take that same standard crypto scenario, and make Eve and Bob the same person. Now, Alice (the media producer) is trying to communicate with Bob (the customer), and prevent Bob from getting the communication. Bob and Eve are one and the same in this example, and it's an inherent flaw in trying to use cryptography in DRM. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I kind of have to agree with the first post. If it's open source, what's to stop you from recompiling a version.
The program would at some point have a version of the unencoded media in memory. It would seem to be a simple acting of dumping that to a file. All you'd need is to have permission to run the file once.
Can someone else enlighten me? - slapout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That's a dream alright--a nightmare.
- CrackHappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Seumas - Thanks for enlightening him. Concise and understandable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Free information thinks anthropomorphism is silly.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is