When Sun trumpeted its ‘open source DRM’ last month, no one at first noticed an unusual name amongst the canned quotes. Lending his support to the rights enforcement technology was Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation board member, and Software Freedom Law Center director, Professor Lawrence Lessig. A name usually associated with the unrestricted exchange of digital media. Debian activist and copyright campaigner Benjamin Mako Hill noticed, and thought this was odd. “The fact that the software is ‘open source’ is hardly good enough,” he wrote, “if the purpose of the software is to take away users’ freedom – in precisely the way that DRM does.” And on a related note, here are some photos from inside the FSF headquarters in Massa Massat Mass.
StarForce is on the decline and Ubisoft was slapped with a 5 million USD lawsuit. They dumped StarForce DRM.
What the games industry needs to do now is “self-regulate” DRM just as they self-regulate age ratings and content.
Boxart on the front and highly visible indicating what DRM the game is using. Installers.. The installer should detail what the DRM is installing and a clean FULL uninstaller for their choice of DRM. It must get approval BEFORE it is installed.
Where is this “self-regulating” games body now when we need them?
What we need is “accountability” (something software houses avoid by all means – just read the EULA’s), “Visibility” and “responsibility”.
Good idea. That way if I look at the front of the packaging and if it says it’s got DRM I can go home and fire off an email to their PR department explaining why I decided not to purchase their horrible product.
I recently purchased TESIV Oblivion (and although it has eaten my life) I’m grateful to Bethesda Softworks that there is not copy protection, just a disc check on startup. I was able to rip the DVD to an ISO and run it under a drive emulator under windows. No disc spin and wait, no taking my Collector’s edition disc out of the package no dodgy anti-cd cracks, just double-click and play.
That’s the way it should be.
I dont see DRM as evil in and of itself, its only evil if it restricts my ability to do things. For example, if the DRM allows me to convert to any format, burn CDs/DVDs. If it allows me to watch it on my computer, TV, iPod, back of my eyelids, etc, and all it prevents me from doing is copying it to someone else, then that DRM isnt evil. Its actually doing what its supposed to do (preventing piracy) without interfering with my fair use of the product. Now thats a scheme I could get on board with.
I realise the infrastructure isnt even close to being there for somethhing like this, as all your players and whatnot would need to be compatible with this DRM, but if such as thing were to exist, I think it would need to be open source, so it could be more easily accepted. No licensing fees would go a long way toward making it ubuquitious, and I think its something that, done correctly, could be of benefit to both the consumer and the **AA.
Not that I’m foolish enough to think they would ever even consider such an honest and even-handed scheme.
The fact that the software is ‘open source’ is hardly good enough,” he wrote, “if the purpose of the software is to take away users’ freedom – in precisely the way that DRM does
The purpose of DRM is to restrict users in what they can do with content. The whole idea feels like the exact opposite of the philosophy behind open source (GNU style). But look closer:
The point of open source (software) is to let users have CHOICES: what to include, how to combine parts, what patches to apply, when to upgrade, etc. Or even to hack on it yourself. Providing ALL users with source code is a means to that end. Read: to enable users to make their own choices.
I don’t see a conflict between that, and open source software to support DRM features(!). To go further: if DRM features become popular in common software, it would be nice to have some open source implementations. Why? Because (as with open source in general) it leaves the final choice to users.
A user could then decide to accept DRM restrictions for content (officially supported music/movie downloads come to mind), but still use open source software to process the data. Accept that content is locked up, but still have the option to examine the lock mechanism.
Right now it looks like an all-or-nothing debate. Open source implementations of DRM features could break open some middle ground, and give each end user more room to decide where they draw the line.
Not that I care, btw. DRM-restricted content is content that I will spend no money on. So if a company wants me to have content that only allows specific actions (like read, but not print): fine. No problemo. But if you want me to pay $$$ for your content, ditch that DRM crap. Money from me: no DRM. DRM: no money from me. Period.
I hope enough people will feel the same, and make it clear to companies that DRM features will sink their profits. But we’ll see. In the meanwhile, I have no doubt that the latest music, movies, etc. will be available in DRM-free formats for a long time to come. One way or another.
A user could then decide to accept DRM restrictions for content (officially supported music/movie downloads come to mind), but still use open source software to process the data.
Yeah, that’s the pragmatic approach that Lessig seems to be taking too. I think I fall in this camp. I hate the concept of DRM and I’m glad there are good people like Stallman fighting tooth and nail against it, but ultimately I want choice.
There is a small parallel with ActiveX. I regard ActiveX to be so dangerous that I won’t use IE even when I’m using Windows. But at the same time, I resent not being able to access web sites that depend on it.
If you criticise any Opensource you get the templated responce “if you dont like it you can modify the code”, bullshit. The end users are not developers and they dont give a toss about the code just how the thing works. Thats the typical reply towawrds GIMP users, they are artists, not developers! LOL
The end users are not developers…
True, but someone who is a developer probably didn’t like it either, so the average guy can just go to sourceforge and search for a replacement. BTW, sourceforege lists a boatload of plugins for the GIMP.
Did you bother to read the article? Your post says ‘no’.
I think DRM exists to stop or minimize piracy. like the opensource GPL guys don’t like their source code to get ripoff, well also the companies don’t like their work to get ripoff neithier. before, there was no DRM, or other software protection system. But a lot of people began to ripoff companies by promoting piracy. now we have to pay big time with DRM and other kind of anti-copy protection systems
DRM has nothing to do with curbing “piracy.” That’s the excuse the companies use to justify it. DRM has NEVER prevented a SINGLE thing from being pirated, and never will. It’s a fact.
DRM is SOLELY for the purpose of keeping the majority of legal purchasers of the product from making a backup in case of failure/loss/theft/aging/etc of the product. These people are FORCED to purchase another copy when there was no technical reason for them to do so.
Anyone with kids or pets or bad roommates will attest to this. You don’t DARE use an original DVD. You put out a copy for them to destroy. Once they have destroyed it, you make another copy.
As was discussed in a previous article ( http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13406 ), DRM is just as much about screwing other companies. As you say, DRM doesn’t prevent consumers from copying stuff. But coupled with the DMCA, it prevents non Apple players from playing stuff bought on iTunes, it prevents iPods from playing stuff bought at Sony’s online store and so on and so forth.
It is used by companies as a tool to lock legitimate users who want to play their material into their hardware as well. Whoever gets tha largest catalog of music in their proprietary DRMd format will win the hardware war by virtue of having the only player legally able to play their catalog.
In short, nothing to do with piracy (at least not with entertainment media)
Sinclair programs, that brought back memories.
It must seem really bizarre to quite a few folks that programs used to be distributed on cassette tape and they took 5 minutes to load in 20KB or so into a system with 48KB RAM (yes, that’s KiloBytes).
Another method programs were distributed was as listings in magazines that you had to type in, they often ran to several pages.
I somewhat miss the magazine part (the cassette tapes I can leave behind without much regret…), except in my case it was books you’d buy with “monster arcade games” or whatever, with multiple listings of various iterations of BASIC (commodores, apples, trs80, etc) that you’d type in to run. Mind you, I often found they didn’t work (or I was a bad typist (not improbable as I was in grade 2-3 or so), and the end result wasn’t exactly arcade quality. But man was it fun (I still have some of those books). I kind of wish there was something similar out there today to get my oldest son (7) started on.
One cool thing about the tapes though, you could of course just pop one into a regular cassette desk and experience your program on a different level 😉
As much as I dislike DRM as a philosophy, and even more for pragmatic reasons (ever installed a game with StartForce protection? yikes), I think it’s an enabler of digital content distribution in general.
Without going into a debate whether the artists get their money or are completely ripped off by publishers/studios/labels (they’re getting ripped off unless they’re in top 0.01%), you have to understand that publishers envy their content and got burned badly with the easiness of copying the 1st generation of digital content (CD/DVD/etc).
Eventhough the wide spreadth of digital content on the internet might have caused more users to legitimately buy more music/content. They still fear. That doesn’t take anything from theyr greedyness, but there is genuine fear there for loss of control on content which they legally own.
DRM is something that ALLOWS digital content to be distributed more freely, and especially, online (vs hard distribution like CD and DVD). If there’s a DRM scheme around, publishers will feel better about releasing their content for online distribution, and that would be better than having to order your “copy” of every content you use. Most DRM schemes will probably be hackable anyway (for fair use of course).
So, the questions on this matter are 2 IMHO.:
1. WIll there be a standadized DRM scheme that will allow the user to move her content relatively freely between readers/viewers/players?
2. Will the FSF et al understand that DRM does have its usages, and come up with a sort of consortium which includes publishers that defines the user rights on any DRM scheme. Then, publishers that distribute their content with DRM will be able to add “FSF User-Rights Approved” stamp to let the user know that their DRM is trying to balance the user rights with the publisher needs.
Interesting future we have, but with the right people involved, it might not be as bad as it seem.
avih
1. I doubt it. Those with the power to make a DRM scheme popular do not want that.
2. I hope not. Whether a sane DRM system is created or not, it will definitely be against the philosophy of the FSF–mainly that any DRM goes against the idea of the copyleft. The EFF, however, might be moderate enough to do just such a thing.
Sun’s main DRM strategy states:
“DRM-Opera — A DRM architecture implementing standardized interfaces and processes for the interoperability of DRM systems, independent of hardware, OS, and media formats. Will theoretically enable user-based rather than device-based license provision. The DRM-Opera homepage is currently a “new project” default template, suggesting the project may not be very far along.”
I still dont agree with this. I might be able to play the media on several different players but I still can’t modify copy or redistribute it; meaning sell or share it. Now I can sell and share my old video game cartidges or movie videos at a garage sale.
So, regardless of beding able to have ‘choice’ or ‘freedom’ it’s more about a strict term like ownership.
About freedom, I am more for the right to be a real proprietor and not have someone elses propiety overlap my own. So this is about real ownership then about freedom. Freedom can be taken in allot of different ways.
DRM is putting limits on YOUR devices which is different then, for example, putting barricades in front of a vulnerable building that I own to protect me from you (I am not managing your rights here but the buildings or what I own, not what you own; I would think what you own would have to be in-defensable at some point for access). There are different types of preemptive staratagies and this is too invasive.
Why is it working for them? Because your computer, IPod and DVD devices have restricted hardware that you don’t own and don’t see the specs for (notice HP’s printing scam last year where they track your paper with invisable ink; only could have been done with closed chips). So they consider that legally their property and then pre-empt that hardware under that law. If I buy an opensource OpenSpark or OpenRISK chip it would be almost impossible for a software or hardware DRM restriction related to that chip because it’s more your property. So this could be a Sun (good)scheme to get people to prefer their opensource hardware hence be released from the shackles of DRM and Sun makes more money or at least gains market share
Free OpenSource hardware is the key.
This SunOpenDRM is just a starting point to get people to switch to their OpenSPARK platform I think.
DRM is here to stay whether we like it or not. The open source community can do one of two things – shun DRM as much as possible while other companies develop the technology surrounding it. Or they can participate in the devlopment of an open standard and have some say in the direction of DRM. An open standard could enable content to run across multiple devices, rather than just be tied to one (like the iPod).
Many television companies are interested in making their content available online – they won’t do it without DRM. If there is no reputable or reliable open source option, they will simply go to a commercial vendor that offers them a complete and satisfactory (but proprietary) DRM solution.
This isn’t a very convincing artile in the sense that it comes from a writer on the Register who has been behind some grubby and unpleasant attacks on Linus Torvalds. In addition, when distinguished law professors start getting in a twist, and the FSF’s own board has difference of opinion as a result, you know that DRM is much more complicated than it might appear on a black and white basis.
There is a good article in the curent UK Observer newspaper (see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1754504,00.html ), which points out that the recent Chinese “Redberry” scam really drives a coach and horses through the notion of DRM. More than a billion folks in SE Asia are in a system where there is little regard for or understanding of intellectual property, and where the overwhelming majority base their computing on non-legit Windows installs at a buck or two each. If they like something, they will pirate it or (as in the case of Blackberry) copy it. While DRM will be used to tie us in knots in the West, it will be circumvented and ignored on a massive scale elsewhere in the world and the results fed back to us. Talk about a losing game!