Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Aug 2010 18:49 UTC
Internet & Networking Not too long ago Adobe started a "We love Apple" campaign, as a response to Apple's continuous negative remarks about the company. With Flash 10.1 slowly but surely appearing on more and more mobile devices, it seems like the company just doesn't care about it any more. Adobe's CEO Shantanu Narayen has said they've "moved on".
Thread beginning with comment 437110
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Why would releasing the Flash source code mean removing DRM? They can go GPL, write there own license or adopt any other OSS license that has no issue with including DRM be it a clised binary addition or open source itself. Heck, if they release the DRM source also then they stand to gain from people improving it; DRM sucks but it's still a security mechanism that can only benefit from transparency.

Reply Parent Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Why would releasing the Flash source code mean removing DRM?


Actually, the problem is - DRM of this type simply doesn't work. Everything needed to decrypt the file is provided to the client machine. In order to display the video on the screen, it has to be decrypted by the player - and once decrypted, it can simply be streamed to a new file without the encryption (I wouldn't be surprised if this can already be done with existing Flash player software via screen-scraping software, but I haven't investigated whether anyone has attempted to so so). Thus, an open source DRM-enabled flash player would essentially allow anyone to modify it and make a perfect digital rip of DRM-encumbered content.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That is the other issue with it and one that can't be held against any platform since it affects all of them. Security on the local machine that does not trust the local machine owner just doesn't work. It's the very definition of security theater; mean to feel safe rather than be safe.

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

(I wouldn't be surprised if this can already be done with existing Flash player software via screen-scraping software, but I haven't investigated whether anyone has attempted to so so).


There is screen capturing software for video but it is expensive and requires a high-end machine. The plug-ins for Flash that exist only work with unprotected video. An open source flash would allow a 'make local copy' checkbox which would encourage casual piracy.

The other problem is that you could re-write the player to detect advertisements or stream and remove them.

Now of course you can argue that content producers should just ignore all this and release naked video anyways but that isn't a compelling argument when Flash has a 97% install base. You need to provide a technical advantage or increased market size for the producers. That's the big problem with HTML5. It not only has a smaller install base but the technical advantages are really for the users. Even Silverlight has technical advantages for both sides but still can't compete with the install base of Flash.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Why would releasing the Flash source code mean removing DRM?


When you are talking about DRM you are really talking about encrypting data and limiting access to the end user.

You can't release this type of encryption scheme along with keys to the data. It's like giving away keys to a house with a note that says please only use if you have permission.

Reply Parent Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It's like giving away keys to a house with a note that says please only use if you have permission.


Actually, the current situation is pretty much like hiding the keys under the door mat and praying nobody figures that out.

Slightly more secure, but not really.

Reply Parent Score: 4