“I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!” Read Linus Torvalds’ statement regarding DRM on Linux, over at PCLinuxOnline.
Linus Torvalds: ”DRM is Perfectly OK with Linux”
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I always appreciate Linus way of seeing the kernel as an engineering task rather than a way to take over the world with GPL-imposed/derived politic views. I don’t understand RMS focus on _software_ to fight for a kind of utopian socialist world. Why should the use of software change the way people interact? This emphasis clearly misses what’s important to everyday people (no, it’s not to help your neighbour with a printer driver problem).
Sometimes people confuse a plain license with a religion.
The GPL license doesn’t have anything to do with the FRM issue.
DRM is not something bad by itself. Why not allow it?
DRM, like beans, is not inhierently evil. It all depends on what is done with it.
No, no, no.
It isn’t true that Linus is not playing politics. He is. As the smart man that he is, he is being extremely coy about it. There is no better way to play politics than to say, “let’s leave the politics out of this”. How many times have you heard a politician make a partisan speech by claiming to do the opposite? You see, the issue of freedom in software becomes moot when economies of scale tip the balance in favor of “signed kernels”.
Undersstand this: once TPCA-signed kernels become the norm, you do not have as much choice to roll your own. The next step is that the TCPA-signed kernels or those providing them will recognized their-signed packages as the only legitimate ones. Once this happens, Linux as a platform is on its way to become as proprietary as Win32. It won’t be so technically, but in every meaningful and practical way, it will be.
This is no different from the way Microsoft pursues TCPA. They argue, but you could turn it off. The issue is that if you do, you will not have access to a host of applications that you do want to use. Eventually, as Professor Anderson has cogently argued, those that choose not to use the TCPA-enabled kernels will be left out in the cold. Sure, they will have the freedom to do so, but not much choice in terms of what software to use.
Why in the world would Linus do this to the free software community is beyond me. Free software means nothing to me if its only victory is technical merit. I left Windows because free software offered an alternative that respected individuality and that allowed me to build my own kernel and have it be just as good and worth as much – I am speaking here in terms of social capital – as Red Hat’s or whoever is given the authority to sign kernels by the entertainment industry.
This is bad. It is wrong. Linus, you have sold us down the river.
In mourning,
Gonzalo
Your software choice is only directly affected if your computer vendor (or your MoBo/BIOS vendor) does not allow you to install the kernel of your choice. As long as you can, you are free to install any kernel or OS with whatever policy for signed binaries you want. It certainly may be possible that if you buy, for example, a Dell that Dell will prevent you from installing any other OS. But I doubt that mainboard vendors in general will stop you from doing so, it would hurt their sales in the geek market. It is quite important that free OSes have a large-enough market share though, because otherwise there will be no incentive for vendors to support them by allowing unsigned OSes.
The much larger problem is content: signed content may be only viewable with a signed application, which in turn would require a signed OS. This is required for DRM to work, if the OS or the app would not be trusted you could convert the content into a non-protected format. So it is not unlikely that in the future you wil have the choice whether you want a completely signed environment and watch protected content, or whether you want to have a unsigned system and thus can only view free/unprotected content.
BTW, just to catch a few flames, you file sharers (you know who you are
are the main reason why all this trouble is happening. If people would just do the right thing and either buy stuff or dont download/view/listen to it, all this would not happen. File sharers are the bad guys, not those who want to protect their business (even with not-so-friendly methods).
Linus saying so 🙁
This is bad :^)
DRM IS BAD.
nothing more to add.
> Why in the world would Linus do this to the free software community is beyond me
This is laughable. You assume that Linus is a hardcore GPL zealot. HE IS NOT, and he NEVER was.
Linus is an engineer, he is a coder. He is not a politician (like RMS is these days), and he doesn’t want to be one.
The fact that he chose the GPL license instead of a “Linus License” was because GPL looked good enough back then when he did that choice for his kernel. That doesn’t mean that he is a Free Software advocator in the way you want him to be. He is just a coder who have picked the GPL for his kernel because it was suitable at the time.
You ask Linus to be something more than he is in order to fulfill your own fantasy-land perception of him: a Free Software Hero battling the bad MS guys.
Sorry, but Linus is not what you want him to be. He is a realist and a coder. This is why you feel so “sad” by his message. You thought that Linus is someone else, in a imaginary land, a hero fighting the bad guys.
Come back to real world now.
What I am trying to say is that Linus is a kernel coder. Nothing more and nothing less. If TCPA/DRM/WHATEVER is what will *enable* his kernel to *work* on *future* computers, then this is what he will have to implement. Politics and ethics are not part of a piece of code. It is just code. Coders are coding so they can see their programs working on machines. If they require to code some extra stuff in order to enable their programs to work on these machines, then this is what they will have to do and they will do it.
You really need to see the Linus “issue” from high up to understand the logic, instead of putting yourself into politics and get “sad” and “confused” as to why Linus said what he said.
politics appears to be a distasteful word, something not mentioned at the dinner table or in polite circles…
but seriously – everythign you do is political. when you puto n your nike or your clarkes its a political statement. when you chomp on your croissants or your corn flakes, its a act soaked through with political intent. intended or otherwise – you can’t escape it. its nouse saying “i’m not political” – you can’t escape.
and so i agree with that chap who suggests Linus is being coy about his political act.
A hammer or a knife can kill someone but we don’t forbid them.
The same for DRM. It will be great to protect your document with hardware help.
I worried more about Microsoft bitch and their palladium. DRM can be helful if the control is the hands of users.
Conpagnies and monopolies are going the wrong way. The winner will be the organisation that give DRM to user (IBM ? Apple ?). MS/RIAA/MPAA are shooting themself.
…trying to find out what DRM is. Everyone is using lots of words like DRM, FRM, TCPA, RMS… Can someone please tell me what they stand for? Like writing the whole meaning the first time in a paranthesis or something? This discussion is probably not very interesting for me since I’m a beginner, but…
“The much larger problem is content: signed content may be only viewable with a signed application, which in turn would require a signed OS. This is required for DRM to work, if the OS or the app would not be trusted you could convert the content into a non-protected format. So it is not unlikely that in the future you wil have the choice whether you want a completely signed environment and watch protected content, or whether you want to have a unsigned system and thus can only view free/unprotected content”.
This reason why this issue is important both from a coding and ethical perspective is that one of the reasons for the success of Linux as a platform is that merit alone was the final arbiter of all contributed code, rather than whether one had made the very POLITICAL decision to obtain certification from whoever the content providers designate as a trusted certifying authority.
This system effectively, if not explicitly, hands the keys to your computer to the entertainment industry. Of course, you can run anything you want, but most people will not want to do so if it becomes really inconvenient.
Linus will be responsible for creating a system in which some applications are worth more than others -not because of their technical merit, but rather because some software vendors are going to have the ability to “certify” their applications against a “Dell or RedHat” kernel.
My kernel or my desire to run an application that I have created in a kernel that “I TRUST” will render my application and me a pariah in terms of software choice.
This is a bad design decision as it will decrease the number of people willing to contribute. Let’s say that I code a program and obtain a certificate for it, which may involve monetary costs to me for something I am giving away. Now some guy in Australia sees my program, gets the source and makes some awesome changes. I have to go and recertify again in order to ship my program. This is a bad design decision, no matter how you look at it.
I know it has been a few years, but when I toiled away at earning a communications degree, we were taught to ALWAYS give the proper name before using the Acronym. So what is DRM? Perhaps more people would pay attention to all these issues if software coders, critics and reviewers would consider a wider audience.
DRM = Digital Rights Management
What I am trying to say is that Linus is a kernel coder. Nothing more and nothing less. If TCPA/DRM/WHATEVER is what will *enable* his kernel to *work* on *future* computers, then this is what he will have to implement. Politics and ethics are not part of a piece of code. It is just code. Coders are coding so they can see their programs working on machines. If they require to code some extra stuff in order to enable their programs to work on these machines, then this is what they will have to do and they will do it.
[QUOTE]
You really need to see the Linus “issue” from high up to understand the logic, instead of putting yourself into politics and get “sad” and “confused” as to why Linus said what he said. [/QUOTE]
Eugenia, I have a think skin and nothing much bothers me these days. I see how you respond to posters here and I believe that your standing in the OSNEWS community would be much higher if a) you stayed out of the discussions, which b) would allow everyone to see you as a fair moderator and not a party with an interest in the discussion; c) if you must participate, try to word things carefully. This is one of the first times I post here, although I have been a long-time reader, and if I did not know better, your comments would appear to be patronizing to the point of insult.
I do not “REALLY” need to be told how to see things as if you had some way to tap into Linus’ psyche that I lacked. I interpret things and provide a rationale for the way that I do so. I encourage you to do the same.If you want to engage in dialog with me, do so by rebutting my rationale.
Now to some of your points:
“Coders are coding so they can see their programs working on machines.”
Coders code for all kinds of reasons. Linus is not just a coder. He is a vey shrewd guy who is trying to let this one slide by with the least amount of discussion. Most coders that I interact and work with are very much aware that software is a tool. They also care about their own freedom and how the software is used. Of course, there are all kinds of coders, but the ones that code for open source are not as naive or apolitical as you claim. Most of them have a stake in the type of operating system that is created through their work.
Hell, Alan Cox will not visit America because of the damn DMCA.
Software is architecture. All architecture is politics. Politics is not a bad word. It is, in the traditional sense, a struggle over who gets what. I think what is happening here is that some people are witnessing the truly empowering nature of free software and getting scared by it.
But this development is one that Linux can not change. It is a result of the desire, especially by content producers, to protect their content for various reasons. Assuming that DRM succeeds (for Tom: Digital Rights Management, use Google) Linux would be relatively useless for most people, unless it supports DRM. It is more likely that this would cause the death of Linux than the end of DRM. The only way to get rid of it is to make buyers ignore it. If DRM results in a measurable decline in sales, one that larger than the loss of sales caused by piracy, content producers will not use it. That’s why I actually *hope* that content producers will go too far and use mindless restrictions on their content, only that will make consumers aware of the problems. It may also help free media and software as a side effect which is even better. When suddenly people who need to use fair copying, like teachers, will be prevented by doing so, when peple in offices can’t forward articles because of DRM without paying (and getting a budget approved for that), then people will value freedom and turn to free media.
Gonzalo, you have my support. Sorry, Eugenia, you really sounded extremely patronizing.
>Sorry, Eugenia, you really sounded extremely patronizing.
Sorry Tired_of_BS but that was my opinion. Most people see Linus as a hero. Patronizing or not, this is the situation today.
“BTW, just to catch a few flames, you file sharers (you know who you are
are the main reason why all this trouble is happening.”
The problem is much deeper than that. Computers are
built to copy, process and replicate information
reliably and as fast as possible. It’s no coincidence
they are this way. And now, the very same industry that
built these machines is trying to “close them up” because
they realize that data can be more important than hardware,
and fast replication is not a good business practice.
Now, are you going to blame it on file-sharing people,
or in congressmen and businesspeople that don’t really
know a lot about the issue? Sure, the “warez” scene
is the trigger, but it’s just the result of software
companies trying to sell something that can be obtained
as easily as air. Sooner or later people see “the easy way”,
and know that, for the time being, they can get away with
it. Can you really blame it on average users? I would not.
” If people would just do the right thing and either buy stuff or dont download/view/listen to it, all this would not happen.”
This is not totally incorrect, but it’s like saying
‘if people would just love each other or at least
not try to kill each other, then war would not not happen’.
… IMHO your line of thought is a bit naive.
” File sharers are the bad guys, not those who
want to protect their business (even with not-so-friendly methods). ”
File sharers are bad guys, but not THE bad guys.
Tim,
I agree that this is a delicate balance. In striking that balance, we must be mindful of the long-term consequences of our decisions today. What I am concerned with, and I have explained why in the prior two posts, is the effects that Linus’ decision will have on software development, which means the availability of open source productivity and learning tools. I do believe that if people firmly and strongly oppose DRM-enabled hardware, it will go nowhere. We do not have to engage in defeatism. It is a matter of becoming informed and informing those around us.
The TCPA process is not transparent. There is no governance. Certifying authorities and the statutes by which they operate will likely not be open to public scrutiny. At a time and age, when more and more of our productive and cultural activities have come to depend on software, it makes me laugh that people think there are no politics in software or that we should all be apathetic and not care.
We have no guarantee that a dictatorship in a given state will not become a certifying authority and be able to decide who gets to read what by dint of whether they are licensed/certified to use a specific device or piece of software. This, along with the chilling effect that I believe this will have in the production of more free software, is the real issue.
On the much broader issue of copyright infringement, I am old enough to remember vinyl records and how cassettes got passed around. Kids sharing mp3s are doing the same thing. They are time is free, so downloading stuff is cheap. As your receive better remuneration for your time, spending an hour or two downloading music becomes expensive. They will grow out of it. I don’t have the time to sit around waiting for a program to download something. It is “cheaper” for me to go to the store and get it.
Anyway, I believe that discussing the economic model of the recording industry is a little beyond the scope of the article, but if anyone really wishes to talk about this, we can.
Talking of time, I should be working on my book and not taking part in debate. On the other hand, I think this issue -and Linus’ casual note- deserves very serious thought.
Software is a tool that can make us freer and more productive or one that can take our freedom and our privacy away. We get to choose and we do so everyday.
Linus will be responsible for creating a system in which some applications are worth more than others
;-)))
Have you really proofreaded before posting ?
Somebody may argue that Linus is _yet_ responsible for creating a system in which some applications are worth…
-not because of their technical merit, but rather because some software vendors are going to have the ability to “certify” their applications against a “Dell or RedHat” kernel.
Is this a problem ? Try a rpm from Suse to Redhat, or an ebuild to Debian, and so on and so on ( and please, no more infamous lies on apt-rpm ).
But you may answer than a simple rpm form 7.x will never be been instable on a 9, or very more simply an ebuild is strictly incompatible with it’s own distro…
Clearly, nobody needs this DRM stuff to raise the incompatibility a step further ;-)))))))))))
( the same for Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, and so on, and so on… )
Eugenia wrote, “Linus is an engineer, he is a coder. He is not a politician (like RMS is these days), and he doesn’t want to be one.”
Oh well, just read how my dear countryman writes. He has a very clever way of putting his words in a way that is closer to politicics than anything else.
You people just don’t know how twisted-minded we Finns are. 😉
The DRM issue had to come up with Linux sooner or later – you can’t hide from it. In and of itself, DRM is neither “good” nor “bad” – it depends how it is used. While it has many good uses, sadly, it definitely will also be used to try to limit access and enslave consumers… this is just the facts of life. But guess what – THERE IS NO DEFENCE AGAINST IT. You cannot simply wish the issue to go away, and to me, forbidding it on Linux is first of all not fully possible, and second, it would end up limiting the use of Linux.
The only defense we consumers have against the BAD use of DRM is the same defense we have against the bad use of laws, against the war, against abuse of power by any company or individual such as MSFT or Apple or Red Hat or Mother Theresa. That defense is: VOTE, use the democratic process – vote in politicians who pass sensible patent and copyright laws, politicians who are less subject to being bribed by the “bad guy” of the moment, and vote with your dollars to not support MSFT _if_ they step out of line. If the public does not get involved NO TECHNICAL SOLUTION WILL HELP.
DRM can be safe only if the consumer is aware. Failing that, nothing Linus does or does not do will have any consequence. We as VOTERS AND CONSUMERS in a _democracy_ have only ourselves to blame if MSFT or anybody else abuses their power or bad laws are passed.
That said, I give Linus credit for one thing: he at least brought the issue out into the open. You know, if he was just a guy who is ONLY interested in spreading linux as far as it will go, he’d WAIT with debating DRM for as long as possible, to hold onto those developers who will definitely disagree with his DRM position and stop contributing. By coming out with it NOW, before he is FORCED to deal with it, he gives all developers FAIR warning: here is where I’m going, if you don’t feel this is ethical, you have the opportunity to stop contributing NOW, and not feel like I took advantage of your work for evil purposes. He could have waited until he squeezed out as much as possible from ALL developers. Instead, he came out early and said: here’s where I’m going – don’t waste any effort if you don’t feel I’m ethical. Your choice. Give Linus that much credit – right or wrong, he is at least fair.
I do not believe Linus is being political at all, he’s just saying this is technology and technology is not in itself good or bad.
DRM != DCMA
But who is this going to effect?
It means RedHat and the likes can sell systems to corporations with an extra bit of technology so as to prevent unauthorised programs being run. It’s more secure and companies like secure.
On the other hand this isn’t going to effect normal geeks. if you don’t want DRM in your kernel just compile it out, if you don’t want to sign your application don’t get it signed.
Will all applications need to be signed? No. Commercial ones will get signed to stop piracy but that doesn’t effect home developers.
It’s a technology, and your choice if you use it.
“He is not a politician”
“Politics and ethics are not part of a piece of code. It is just code.”
You know, I really think Linus agress with you. The comparison he made between himself and Oppenheimer really drives that home. And I really think that you, and he, believe that your are right about this. But you aren’t.
Every technology is political because technology conveys and bestows power. Fire, the wheel, stone tools, gunpowder, and the modern automobile — all of them make people more powerful. And anything that makes people powerful is political and ethical in the extreme by the very nature of what it is. And I think a quick study of history might show you that modern technologies have been extremely politicized both in terms of who had access and in terms of who they were designed for. You might be surprised to find out, for instance, that the early automobile industry was geared completely towards men and discouraged “incompetent” women drivers. Ever see an original Model T? Must have been nice to climb over the stick in a skirt to get into the driver’s seat.
I understand quite well that technocrats like Oppenheimer, von Braun, Linus Torvalds and yourself would really love to believe that technology isn’t inherently political. Technocrats have always looked at technology with one eye shut, as “just a tool” or “just science” or what-have-you. But it’s false, and if you’d stop for half a moment to look at the historical development of technology in the past hundred and fifty years, you might realize that any decision regarding how it is to be designed and used is by nature a matter of ethical and political choice. Of course, if scientists and engineers stopped to think about that, they might have to ask themselves some uncomfortable moral questions, like “how does the way I live my life affect the people around me?” You know, the sort of normal ethical questions we should all be asking ourselves all the time.
Well, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest…
Yeah, Linus is wrong, but it isn’t like he can do anything about this issue. The GPL is irrelevant here, and slapping restrictions on what people can *DO* with the software is a horrible slippery slope.
Software is architecture. All architecture is politics. Politics is not a bad word. It is, in the traditional sense, a struggle over who gets what. I think what is happening here is that some people are witnessing the truly empowering nature of free software and getting scared by it.
I agree, computer has become too powerful for the media industry to feel safe to release unprotected/unsecured product, but they choose to go in the defensive way instead of offering more incentives for purchase.
The TCPA process is not transparent. There is no governance. Certifying authorities and the statutes by which they operate will likely not be open to public scrutiny. At a time and age, when more and more of our productive and cultural activities have come to depend on software, it makes me laugh that people think there are no politics in software or that we should all be apathetic and not care.
Again I agree on this one, when you have to connect to the outside world via internet, you have to comply with some standard, and that compliance is politics.
By coming out with it NOW, before he is FORCED to deal with it, he gives all developers FAIR warning: here is where I’m going, if you don’t feel this is ethical, you have the opportunity to stop contributing NOW, and not feel like I took advantage of your work for evil purposes. He could have waited until he squeezed out as much as possible from ALL developers. Instead, he came out early and said: here’s where I’m going – don’t waste any effort if you don’t feel I’m ethical. Your choice. Give Linus that much credit – right or wrong, he is at least fair.
Well, I agree this is fair for Linus to put this out early this way, and it may very well help Linux to make it thru to run on DRM-required system. But the way Linus plays shrewd (especially his word and tone) on this one might strongly causes his creditability in questions (well he may not realize he has such a strong influence power in the community but he does have). The strength of software is its ability to change and modify, but the DRM thing starts from the opposite. It is very probable it will alter the way (free) software will be developed in the future. Eugenia said software is not about politics, but a TCPA compliant Linux kernel will only serve to get more and more politics into it. I rather have it implemented in the form of user space apps, because with the kernel, its impact can become too deep and far reaching in the future.
I agree with you, but…not about Eugenia staying out of the arguments. I think everyone should yell as loud as they can and have all their cards out on the table. But hey, I love arguing.
A better solution might be to have more than one moderator. It might lead to an increased feeling (and reality) of fairness. It might also lead to moderation of posts that should be getting moderated and aren’t.
“BTW, just to catch a few flames, you file sharers (you know who you are
are the main reason why all this trouble is happening. If people would just do the right thing and either buy stuff or dont download/view/listen to it, all this would not happen. File sharers are the bad guys, not those who want to protect their business (even with not-so-friendly methods).”
I’m sure it has NOTHING to do with poor business decisions on the part of those businesses. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that I can PURCHASE a copy of Lord of the Rings with a running time of 3+ hours on the day it came out for roughly the same price as a CD with a runtime of < 1 hour. I’m sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact that some of the mp3s I have are from CDs no longer in print and thus gives me no option to purchase the disc even if I were so inclined. On the rare chance that I can find the CD in the store I need to pay 15$+ and ofter closer to 30$ ( imports ) and then find out there’s only a couple of songs worth bothering with.
Nope. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that most of what is in the music store costs 15-20$ and has one or two songs on it worth listening to. See, paying 5$ a song is too much and THAT is why the CD Single has disappeared. It’s got absolutely NOTHING to do with corporate greed whatsoever. Nope, not at all.
Funny how I go out and actually *gasp* PURCHASE the PC games when they finally hit a reasonable price point which to me is ~30$. Ever wonder how many more would sell if they sold at 30$ to begin with? What if the 50$ game came with 5 license keys so if you went in on it as a group you’d all be legit.
Of course, with software things are different as it’s actually in your favor to price things higher so that you don’t have as many “legitimate” users to provide support for. Didn’t buy the game? Sorry, don’t bitch to us for a patch for our buggy product. They’d probably make more money at lower prices, but then there’d be that many more people screaming at them when it inevitably needs to be patched and it might hurt them badly if they can’t figure out the problem. Different economics at work here.
Don’t complain about poor business choices. Most people when given the chance to buy something will choose to do so if it is REASONABLE in price ( not always easy to determine ), OR you make it far less aggravation to purchase than to share, burn, swipe ( insert verb of choice here ).
DRM is nothing more than corporate Greed rolled into forced compliance. Why bother? Why not fix the pricing model? You can make far more money by pricing it where people will actually buy things instead of bootlegging them. As far as music goes, try going into 3 different music stores in a mall. Do a quick check on some of the bands available. Want to be that the vast majority of the inventory will be identical? Care to guess how often I’ve actually found the music I listen to in the Mall? At Tower Records, Strawberrys? It’s a lack of choice and stupid pricing that’s hurting the music industry and it’s self inflicted. It’s also funny how the music industry took a dive right after they killed Napster. Maybe people want to find out what they’re paying for first, BEFORE they waste their money…
If the community really doesn’t like the DRM code the may eventually get embedded in the kernel they can fork it and maintain their own DRM free kernel. They might even change the name to just GNU at that point. Who knows.
I’m not affraid. For all those in Redmond, it is already too late.
Good or bad, DRM is not going anywhere, and I think it is only a matter of time before most/all hardware is DRM-enabled, and there is NOTHING that Linux and the community can do to stop it.
So, the Linux community currently has two choices ..
1. Embrace DRM and actually have some relavence after DRM is in full-force, when you’ll need a DRM-enabled OS to work with all new CPUs and motherboards being sold.
2. Resist the DRM for all its worth and use your current OS until your hardware dies, then go back to using typewriters for writing letters and pen & paper to send snail mail.
My philosophy is this: If you don’t agree with the whole DRM thing, then don’t by DRM-enabled products/services. If that limits your ability to use/enjoy certain things, tough shit – if you want a free meal, then make your own.
And for those people who suggest that pirating swapping can be fixed by adjusting prices to be more reasonably, I say your full of shit – I’ve seen people pirating $5 shareware apps. The simple truth is that greed works both ways and it is NOT just the corporations – if people can get something for free, then they will.
You tell them man, you have my support.
Remember that the people whining most about DRM are those that do the stealing which makes DRM necessary.
An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?
He wronged me so I should (hehe)”Borrow” his stuff.
In all your rant whatever happened to the word “No”?
No! I will not buy your product, and I will tell you in no uncertain terms why. And if I can I will buy elsewere.
[ a (IP: —.iplannetworks.net) ]
“Sure, the “warez” scene
is the trigger, but it’s just the result of software
companies trying to sell something that can be obtained
as easily as air. Sooner or later people see “the easy way”,
and know that, for the time being, they can get away with
it. Can you really blame it on average users? I would not. ”
Obtained, yes. Created, no.
The “easy way” has been many the ruin of a person. Why shouldn’t one hold people responsible for their actions. Or has that simply fallen out of fashion as of late?
How easy it is to disregard the potential abusers of DRM and just call everyone anonymously a thief?
Here’s what TCPA is:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/lucky
Let’s consider how this is going to play out and why having this discussion about DRM and TCPA is important.
Ask any non-geek intelligent friend of yours whether they have heard of TCPA.
Most of the computer users that I know cannot tell me what OS they use, what type of processor is in their computers, let alone the difference between SCSI and IDE drive, etc. This is not because they are stupid. Between their jobs as secretaries, doctors, teachers, paying their mortgages and raising children, they are not bound to find the time to understand the long-term repercussions of the technology they use. By the time, they do it might be too late. Why do I speak of these users? Because they are the silent majority that buys a computer each Christmas and will turn TCPA into a de facto standard for the rest of us.
Those that point that there will be ways around to turn DRM/TCPA off are right. You can also hold on to your hardware for as long as possible and there might be a hardware company or two that caters to this market, but life in Syberia is not too pleasant, is it?
Syberia feels cold and isolated: what happens when you are sending your resume to a prospective employer who cannot read it because your documents have not been created in a TCPA-enabled computer? How do you explain to your uncle Joe that you cannot send him all the pictures of your wedding because you are running the Pariah hardware/software of your time?
But wait, it gets worse: what happens to you if you are a government worker in a developing country who wants to blow the whistle on human rights violations or corruption and your only access to computers is at your place of work? Lets say that your memo is found. Your manager/boss decertifies the document and it becomes unreadable quickly. Not only that, but if the government is particularly brutal, you may just have written yourself a ticket to visit Andy Warhols paintings on the other side. When we create ghettos, the Internet loses much of its potential to act as a peoples commons.
I have only spoken about the hardware side of things. The basic question here is: why can you not own the data that you create? [b/] For the same reason that we haven’t had openly documented file formats up to now and for the same reason that we are unlikely to see them. Faced with the prospect of a thriving community of independent musicians that would distribute their wares over the internet, DRM appears as an attempt to secure monopolistic cartes before these independent initiatives are allowed to take off.
Where did the media companies learn their tricks? Let’s take a walk down memory lane and review the history of proprietary file formats? What do we see? We come to see that if software companies competed on the features and strength of their software, they should make it easy for you to own your own data, rather than to lock it into their proprietary file format. Its your data after all, is it not? Why couldnt you have a universal XML-file format and have Word, Staroffice/OpenOffice, Abiword, Wordperfect, compete on the stability and quality of their products?
Because it is easier to lock users into a technology and create de facto standards that compel other users to use the same technology if they do not want to move to Syberia and freeze themselves out of the digital world. One of the most common remarks I hear sometimes from users who want to demonize open source software is look, StarOffice cannot even open all of my word files. Forget it. While StarOffice does a splendid job of opening such files (I exchange files with footnotes, tables and complex formatting daily), there are times when there is a slight loss of formatting. Rather than blame the company who holds their data hostage, they blame the competing product that is trying to provide an alternative to the existing de facto standard. File formats should be open, well-documented and implemented by independent bodies where all players have a chance of being heard, but none has the power to impose its solution.
So I stand by my effort to sound a note of caution about the many nefarious outcomes that DRM/TCPA technology can produce, because it is nothing but a rerun of what we have seen in the last 10 years.
all of the people that are saying “DRM is bad” etc. it will go away if it sucks plain and simple. people will find work arounds, the indistry will evolve. I dont really like drm that much but i am not really worried at all. If it is as much pain in the ass as you say it is, then you dont have to use it. drm will not stop piracy either. people are not stupid.
I also would like to add that there is nothing wrong with companies trying to protect their work, but I also believe that software and technology is outpasing the industry. I just simply think that the business structure has to change a little and drm isnt the answer either. anyhow time for coffee.
useless rant.
“Remember that the people whining most about DRM are those that do the stealing which makes DRM necessary.”
this is plain wrong. just because you’re not a terrorist doesn’t mean you shouldn’t worry about the restiction of human liberties. on the contrary, it is the criminals who are the least likely to worry or debate about the merits of DRM – if you want to steal – you will.
the issue at point here is this: legitimate users will be inconvenienced, if not restricted, in what they can do. The so-called free market (and that includes software production, not necessarily the vending of it) will be distorted.
and i believe, as do most progressive minds, that the distortion of any market by a one-sided force with only one agenda (profit protection) is a bad thing in the long term.
i can buy a book and photocopy it for my own needs. whether i can do that with a DVD is debatable. it should not be.
let me finish by saying this: the coming century will see Information, and the systems that process it, as the new medium of Wealth. And so we must act now to prevent a small number of interested parties from establishing an exclusive and suffocating stangehold on it.
“mark my words”, as they say.
>>”Sure, the “warez” scene
>>is the trigger, but it’s just the result of software
>>companies trying to sell something that can be obtained
>>as easily as air. Sooner or later people see “the easy way”,
>>and know that, for the time being, they can get away with
>>it. Can you really blame it on average users? I would not. ”
>Obtained, yes. Created, no.
>The “easy way” has been many the ruin of a person. Why >shouldn’t one hold people responsible for their actions. Or >has that simply fallen out of fashion as of late?
I think you missed my point. I’m not saying (and i think i
made myself clear) that people that copy software illegally
is innocent in any way. What i meant is: You cannot
blame it on the consumers if they *think* there’s an
easier, problem-free, and cheaper way than paying for
stuff.
I could start preaching you guys to death since
i did give this matter a lot of thought lately. But
i’ll just say one thing: The warez scene seems to be getting
bigger and bigger in spite of whatever efforts these
big corporations make. IMO this means that the software
industry lies on a flawed structure (again: people always
find the cheaper/easy way) and will fall apart
eventually. Unless, of course, that all the DRM/DMCA/Fritz
crap spreads really quickly, which, i think, may not happen
at all.
And when that happens, it will not be the consumer’s fault.
>A better solution might be to have more than one moderator.
We have 6 moderators.
BTW, just to catch a few flames, you file sharers (you know who you are
are the main reason why all this trouble is happening. If people would just do the right thing and either buy stuff or dont download/view/listen to it, all this would not happen. File sharers are the bad guys, not those who want to protect their business (even with not-so-friendly methods).
Yeah right! like drm is going to stop anyone from downloading mp3, divx or the latest game iso’s.
So, the Linux community currently has two choices ..
1. Embrace DRM and actually have some relavence after DRM is in full-force, when you’ll need a DRM-enabled OS to work with all new CPUs and motherboards being sold.
2. Resist the DRM for all its worth and use your current OS until your hardware dies, then go back to using typewriters for writing letters and pen & paper to send snail mail.
Wow, I hope you don’t really believe this. This is the reason DRM scares the crap out of me. I don’t use filesharing tools or warez and couldn’t care less about those not beeing possible anymore. In fact, the one thing I would love to see would be the death of software pirating. Because then people would actually consider weither they spend thousands of dollars for a commercial software to create a picture for their private homepage or support a free software project instead.
Proprietary software would have to rethink their pricing for the private market or loose a lot of share. So this is really not what I’m worried about.
What I’m worried about is beeing restricted in my choice of (free!) software and I see this happening much sooner than the death of pirating.
So read my lips… (fingers): I will not ever buy DRM enabled hardware if it has any chance to restrict me on running certain software. If this means that I will have to revert to pen and paper in 20 years, so be it! But knowing the greed of the corporate world, I would be VERY surprised if someone would miss out on the possibility to sell me expensive hardware. And I’m not the only one thinking like this.
“Yeah right! like drm is going to stop anyone from downloading mp3, divx or the latest game iso’s.”
1-Downloading is one thing. Playing back is another.
2-DRM (much like any security) doesn’t have to be perfect.
A lone voice crying “I can play it” doesn’t help.
It would seem to me that Linus’s point is simply that there’s nothing in the GPL that prevents someone from making a build of the Linux kernel that supports some kind of Digital Rights Management, as long as that build of the kernel follows the GPL (i.e., if it’s available publicly, all the code is made available as well). Legally, it would seem to me that he’s absolutely right.
He explicitly said that he doesn’t like DRM; he simply said that he’s not going to make a political stand with this by advocating a more restricted kernel license. Sure, that can be seen as political in itself, in just the same way that not voting is as much a political statement as casting a vote for a specific candidate is (as the lyrics go, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”). But it’s a choice to support the GPL as written. The GPL, in fact, prohibits placing restrictions on code licensed under it that aren’t inherent in the GPL itself: you can’t deny someone the right to use GPL code for political reasons. And, even if a future version of the GPL granted that right, the GPL also guarantees the right of authors of GPL code to continue using earlier versions of the license–future restrictions can’t be imposed retroactively.
So where does this leave the rest of the world?
Oddly enough I find it annoying that at some point in the future I may be lumbered with a piece of hardware that has built-in controls essentially designed to protect American big business.
With American companies being the major designers/manufacturers of hardware it would be difficult (If not impossible) to simply stop using it, and by using it we effectively surrender the right of 7 billion people, who may one day want to use a computer without this hardware, into the hands of a mere 250 million or so. And it isn’t even 250 million, or 10 million, but perhaps a few thousand people in the upper echelons of these businesses who are going to profit from this.
For crying out loud, we go on and on and on about Microsoft’s monopoly of the computer. This is NOTHING compared to the monopoly movie studios and record company’s possess. They command us what to eat, what to wear, what’s cool, what’s not, who’s in, who’s out, who to hate, who to admire, which version of history we should believe. We don’t like to think they do, we say to ourselves “Nah, we’re smart enough to see through that”, but these things are pervasive and often subtle, you can’t catch them all.
It’s another case of the minority attempting to protect their own selfish interests to the detriment of the majority. Problem is (For the minority) that their knee jerk reaction to the problems of piracy is one of adding controls. Unfortunately for them they’ve reached the wall, beyond which further controls are pointless. Either they adapt to the new environment which the internet represents or they will slowly fail, control simply isn’t an option.
In short I don’t like it. So if you’re country has a say in putting this crap together then stop it, make your voice heard, write a congressman or something. Law should serve the interests of the many, not the pampered few, so should computers.
In any case, it probably isn’t going to matter much. Once these chips are there, they are a static target for any cracker who feels like taking a shot at them. Give it a week or two and the whole thing will be circumvented anyhow, the odds of someone not working around it are just too low.
“Though I cannot see the bars, or touch the walls, still I feel the cell.”
Sorry for the rant, got pushed one Hollywood remake too far (“The Ring” if you must know).
[quote] The only defense we consumers have against the BAD use of DRM is the same defense we have against the bad use of laws, against the war, against abuse of power by any company or individual such as MSFT or Apple or Red Hat or Mother Theresa. That defense is: VOTE, use the democratic process – vote in politicians who pass sensible patent and copyright laws, politicians who are less subject to being bribed by the “bad guy” of the moment,[/quote]
Yeah, vote all you want, like someone is going to care ! Governments don’t really exist anymore, let alone in the next 10 years.
Our so beloved *Global* companies hold the real power now, and they care so much about us, consumers, that they will be very carefull not to abuse their power.
>(
Coders are coding so they can see their programs working on machines. If they require to code some extra stuff in order to enable their programs to work on these machines, then this is what they will have to do and they will do it.
>>>>>>>>>
My my. Don’t we have a closed view of the universe. The minute we forget ethics and morality (and yes, being ethical and moral often requires being political) is the minute we lose our humanity and become machines. Pragmatism taken to it’s logical extremes can be a dangerous thing.
[quote]Wow, I hope you don’t really believe this. This is the reason DRM scares the crap out of me. I don’t use filesharing tools or warez and couldn’t care less about those not beeing possible anymore. In fact, the one thing I would love to see would be the death of software pirating. Because then people would actually consider weither they spend thousands of dollars for a commercial software to create a picture for their private homepage or support a free software project instead. [/quote]
Again I believe this is what the free software stands for. Open source saves billions of dollars and helps poor people to bridge the gap of digital divide. To access the web becomes a must with everyday as information are increasing controlling life in our society. I agree the warez traffic should be stopped because we do have a choice to use free alternative, but this DRM thing will give away your rights more than not sending/downloading from P2P network.
[quote]The GPL, in fact, prohibits placing restrictions on code licensed under it that aren’t inherent in the GPL itself: you can’t deny someone the right to use GPL code for political reasons. And, even if a future version of the GPL granted that right, the GPL also guarantees the right of authors of GPL code to continue using earlier versions of the license–future restrictions can’t be imposed retroactively.[/quote]
The GPL perhaps does not clarify such grounds – but the way Linus came forward to clarify such ground is his choice of wording and _his_ acceptance of DRM. If he said he can do nothing about it rather than saying OK on this one, at least people will begin to think more what this DRM is about. Now the company can say, “see? Linus is OK with it, it must be not that bad.” But who can say what a DRM binary kernel module can comprise of in the future? What if it has more and more control related code to be embedded?
“And for those people who suggest that pirating swapping can be fixed by adjusting prices to be more reasonably, I say your full of shit – I’ve seen people pirating $5 shareware apps. The simple truth is that greed works both ways and it is NOT just the corporations – if people can get something for free, then they will.”
What’s your point?
Those people were never going to pay for it anyway.
Free, 1$, 5$, or 100,000,000$ it doesn’t really matter at that point. Did you buy your OS? Or did you download it? Or did you just use your current one and not pay for it ( assuming MS OS ), in which case you just stole it.
Secondly I will admit to downloading games to try them out. Why? I can’t try the damned thing out and return it. I’m not able to vote with my wallet. The demo is NOT an acceptable way to see if I like it when I get one level to check it out. Stores won’t accept returns on software or music just because the product sucks. That shows me enough eye candy, but not enough of the flaws. As I said before, WHEN the price drops to a reasonable level I go buy it.
To say I’m full of shit is insulting at best. I purchased the damned product. In fact, since I purchased it at the store, the software company has gotten full payment when the store bought it wholesale from the distributor. The store may have gotten lower margins on the product, but they are not losing money that I can see since I will typically purchase some DVDs along with it. If I can purchase a new DVD on its release week at 18$ including tax ( and I doubt they’re taking a loss since that’s when they sell the most of that title), then purchasing them later at 22$+ leaves them at least 4$ pure profit. They aren’t losing money on the deal.
However, my point is that I want to see a simple, secure method of payment with, excellent customer service. Something that will allow you to click, enter your PIN, and download. Like that song? Click and pay. Make it easy, and secure, make it responsive to the consumer and TRUSTWORTHY, and without any aggravation. Then try pricing your stuff reasonably and see what happens. This might even make a good model for song purchases, but I initially ran across this for shareware. ( I don’t claim this as my idea, so don’t sue me for IP reasons )
As it is, every time I’ve tried to order reasonably priced software/shareware, it’s been a complete pain. I basically have to fill out all kinds of forms and give all that info so they can charge my credit card, OR I need to set up yet another epayment type account somewhere. This needs to be fixed. Paypal just doesn’t cut it, too many horror stories with them for me to want to trust them with my cash.
And again…
“- if people can get something for free, then they will.”
There will always be these people. I’ve seen some people go to great lengths to avoid payment just on general principle. For example, avoiding the Mass Pike and taking Rt 9 to the Western part of Massachusetts just to avoid the toll. You waste far more time and money in gas than just paying the stupid 2$ toll, but people do it. This is the same crowd of “everything MUST be GPL and cost nothing” I see from time to time. I don’t mind paying for something, but I don’t see the point in being screwed over it. Maybe you have lots more money to throw around, I don’t.
What’s your point?
Those people were never going to pay for it anyway.
Well, that was my point exactly
It was to refute people who say “Well, if it was only cheaper ….”
Screw that. A lot of people (and I’m talking about the ones with no anti-MS sentiments) wouldn’t pay $10 for a legal copy of MS Office if they can get it for free. Maybe they would actually buy it if it were only $5, as that would actually be slightly easier than just downloading it. (Although not by much – you can find the program for download in less than 2 minutes if you know where to look.)
One thing I got from reading your post is that a possible benefit of DRM is that if it actually succeeds in preventing people from making copies of stuff (which it probably won’t), then you might actually be able to return shitty software/movies back to the store. It would be like hardware – something you could not pirate. They’d have no reason not to take it back
Gone would be the $9.99 bargain bin apps that just suck all to hell.
“One thing I got from reading your post is that a possible benefit of DRM is that if it actually succeeds in preventing people from making copies of stuff (which it probably won’t), then you might actually be able to return shitty software/movies back to the store. It would be like hardware – something you could not pirate. They’d have no reason not to take it back
Gone would be the $9.99 bargain bin apps that just suck all to hell.”
I’d be all for that.
I just suspect the downsides are far more than that one upside.
Robert Oppenheimer was no impartial fan of nuclear weapons. Linus invokes Oppenheimer totally out of authentic context and in a manner that is ultimately diametrically opposed to Oppenheimer’s actual views on nuclear weapons.
On creating the bomb:
“We knew the world could not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: “I am became Death, the destroyers of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”
On why technology must remain open:
“The open society, the unrestricted access to knowledge, the unplanned and uninhibited association of men for its furtherance – these are what may make a vast, complex, ever growing, ever changing, ever more specialized and expert technological world, nevertheless a world of human community.”
On open information and freedom of inquiry:
[i]”There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.”[i]
DRM makes an open society and unrestricted access to knowledge impossible. DRM’s very goal is the OPPOSITE of what Oppenheimer would have wanted to create. DRM can only be used as access controls — shackles of the digital age. DRM is the digital implementation of an endless multitude of Berlin Walls, each designed to remove some element of human freedom and opportunity.
The rest of what Linus has to say seems incredibly contrived and comes way out of left field. Why DRM now? Please tell me, Linus, as you are obviously hiding something. Tell me WHO is asking for DRM in Linux? Tell me why you want to put into Linux the capability to close down access to information?
I find Linus to be one of the most arrogant ‘engineers’ around. To claim just to be an engineer is ingenuous. Everything matters in the world. No one who created the atomic bomb tried to use such an immature brush-off of the real issues involved.
DRM is not technology that belongs in any creation that supports human freedom. So Linus has better decide what he believes in right away. No one can weapons that implement slavery and then say they were only doing their job. Well, I should say, only an amoral evil bastard like Bill Gates would do such a thing. And that is why Microsoft is at the forefront of every kind of DRM known to mankind. Why does Linux have to go down this Microsoft road?
Is one _less_ MS OS running!
There’s really nothing to be upset about. All what happens
is that a Linux kernel might contain a signature that
validates it. This _can_ then be used by DRM aware software to unlock certain DRM’ed media.
Will this stop me from watching my good old analog TV?
No.
Will this stop me from listening to my radio?
No.
Will this stop me from copying my current collection of CD’s and mp3’s?
No.
Will this stop me from compiling and running my own programs?
No.
Will this stop me from making my own music and record it?
No.
It’s really no big deal. It’s only able to prevent me from watching/listening to new content that is only released on DRM’ed media.
And unless each and every piece of analog equipment is destroyed, there’s always a way to make a DRM-free copy of perhaps a slightly less quality. And however you look at it, DRM will have to compete with that.
And if it ain’t cheap enough and easy enough to use, it just won’t be able to compete and will go down the drain.
Another thing is that there’s always going to be a market for DRM-free hardware, so someone is going to deliver it. I don’t care if it’s Intel or some Chinese or Japanese company.
So, don’t be scared.
Smile, listen to the good old radio for free and vote with your wallet.
Okay, let’s try and stick to the basics:
1. Who wants DRM in Linux in the first place?
2. What benefit is there to the customer?
3. Who will bear the increase in prices due to DRM?
4. Why is Linus coming out of nowhere to support DRM?
5. Why is Linus lying about Oppenheimer’s neutrality?
6. Does the majority of the Linux user base want DRM?
7. What are the upsides and downsides of NOT doing DRM?
Linux does not need DRM to be successful. I think it’s about time for Linus to wake up and remember that most Linux users chose Linux because it is not Microsoft. Making Linux into a Microsoft-clone is not serving the Linux community.
This choice of DRM or no DRM is not about money. It is about what is in the true spirit of the values espoused by the Linux community. DRM prevents everything that Linux was made to do. It is an ethical betrayal of Linux’s core values. And it must be stopped.
Imagine a server that only executes binaries that you have signed with your own private key. That would make hacking the system much more difficult as long as you do not have the private key on the system.
Sure, this is not what the music industry had in mind when they called for DRM, but it will be useful nonetheless.
The problem begins when there are some laws that say that DRM must be *mandatory*. As long as this is not the case, people will never buy hardware that restricts them. Why should I buy hardware that does not do what I want?
So if you want to do something about the problem, send money to the ACLU or the EFF or write your congressmen. Mandatory DRM is a political problem, not a technical problem.
“Who wants DRM in Linux in the first place?”
Users who need DRM to work with protected documents? Kernel developers who will enable users to work with protected content?
“What benefit is there to the customer?”
There is none. The benefits go to some big companies.
“Who will bear the increase in prices due to DRM? ”
The customer of course, who else?
“Why is Linus coming out of nowhere to support DRM?”
Mr. Torvalds doesn’t support DRM. He stated clearly that he doesn’t like DRM or TCPA at all. He said that it is okay for him to have DRM support in the kernel. There will be people for whom DRM support in Linux kernel will be mandatory to get their work done.
“Why is Linus lying about Oppenheimer’s neutrality?”
Maybe you should sue Mr. Tovalds.
“Making Linux into a Microsoft-clone is not serving the Linux community. ”
Mr. Torvalds speaks about Linux, not Linux. When a kernel developer says “Linux” he means usually the kernel whereas you mean distributions. Do you really mean that there are plans to make the linux kernel a longhorn kernel clone? Also, I think Mr. Torvalds is not interested in serving any Linux fanatics. He is interested in building a good kernel.
“Does the majority of the Linux user base want DRM?”
My expierience shows that most Linux users don’t know what DRM is.
“Linux does not need DRM to be successful.”
This is not true for all cases. Where DRM will be mandatory, Linux does need DRM to be even usable.
“DRM prevents everything that Linux was made to do”
According to the inventor of Linux (who should know a little about why it was made) not.
I think it’s about time for Linus to wake up and remember that most Linux users chose Linux because it is not Microsoft. Making Linux into a Microsoft-clone is not serving the Linux community.
How incredibly naive. Most Linux users did NOT choose Linux because it did not come from Microsoft. Most chose it as a less expensive alternative and stayed when the alternative was successful. I have yet to find a Linux distribution that is pefect for my uses, but I never found a perfect Microsoft solution either.
I use Linux (currently Lycoris and ELX) because those distributions work with my Windows OS (Win2K and WinMe) in the least obtrusive manner possible on my particular hardware platform. I do productive work in all the operating systems. The biggest problem I have is a lack of sound card driver with one Linux and the Win2K operating systems.
The idea that making a Microsoft clone is bad is also naive. Microsoft copied its basic interface, year ago, from Apple. Apple in turn copied it from PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) of the Xerox Corporation. The basic interface has NOT changed. From the original GUI, most new development efforts are, at best, changing just enough to keep from getting sued. Notice that this has not been entirely successful. Xerox sued Apple and lost; Apple then sued Microsoft and lost.
The GUI interface is what the majority of the world is comfortable with. Designing something radically different is an exercise in self-gratification unless it is radically more efficient than the current GUI methods. Notice radical efficiency; it will have to be a measurable order of increased efficiency before it will be successful.
If you want the Linux community to continue as a small hobby group, ignore the world and its use of GUI interfaces. If you want the world-at-large to embrace and use Linux, make it easier. If easier means it is more a Microsoft-clone, so be it.
DRM prevents everything that Linux was made to do.
The Linux kernel was made to get a passing grade. That is all. The Linux operating system was made as a UNIX-clone that runs on an x86 architecture. That is all. The KDE and Gnome interfaces were made to provide and alternative to the CLI (Command Line Interface.) That is all.
This is not a religion and Linux is not a new Prophet or Messiah.
Which society(ies) will be the one(s) that delivers the certificate for a certain content !!!!!!!!!
Thats the only thing that makes me get really afraid right now, because of the immense power such a situation will generate for this person / society !
(sorry for my bad english)
oh well, we’ll always have BSD
I’m sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know there were any moderators other than you.
Here I come.
We all knew this sort of thing would happen sooner or later. Torvalds is no Richard Stallman. Maybe now HURD will start getting more attention. So long NJ, hello MIT!
Also, Gonzalo, thanks for fighting the good fight.
I’m pig-ignorant about this, so bear with me. How exactly does DRM work?
How will my PC be any different with a signed kernel than without? If I download (legitimately or otherwise) a DRM-protected video (for example), how does it ‘know’ whether or not I’m entitled to play it? Does it need to check with, say, a Warner Bros. server to see if they have a copy of my public key? Or when I purchase the movie, does it come pre-encrytped using my public key (which is presumably uploaded to Warner Bros.).
To be honest, I don’t see what all of the fuss is about, even taking into consideration the more nefarious maybes. People got themselves worked into a tizzy when Intel introduced the processor ID and that turned out to be a damp squid.
I came acroos this and thought I would share it. It certainly provides a bit of historical perspective.
[/QUOTE] Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don’t pay for the software,” he said. “Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
– Bill Gates, July 1998 in a c|net article [/QUOTE]
Quote can be found here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legacy=cnet
I’m pig-ignorant about this, so bear with me. How exactly does DRM work?
Read this:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
I thought DRM was about the movie industry going out of business due to file trading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/technolo…logy/26DVD.html
Digital Rights/Restrictions Management is about external agencies controlling access on what can be done on YOUR computer. This control is implemented via digital keys, digital signatures, private key caches that you cannot access, encrypted permission protocols, etc.
Thinking moral people recognize DRM as anti-freedom and anti-individual and will not stand for it.
Amoral greedy people (like Linus) want to put DRM into Linux so that Linux can be used against people. Linus wants to make Linux into an information technology weapon.
Linus is no Oppenheimer that is for sure. He has not studied history and has no perspective on why some forms of technology should simply never be developed, or if developed, never used. DRM is a slippery slope that leads to hell.
it’ll never happen. DRM can not be forced upon people when they have access to the source code. There will be easily downloadable hacks for any system implementing this. And many alternative OSs that will choose not to implement it.
“it’ll never happen. DRM can not be forced upon people when they have access to the source code. There will be easily downloadable hacks for any system implementing this. And many alternative OSs that will choose not to implement it.”
Unfortunately, DRM will eventually implemented at the hardware level and so long as the DMCA exists, it will be illegal to bypass it.
Yeah, I know I’ve read all that, but seriously, what’s it mean? Pretend I’m a complete thick and explain it all.
I mean OK, so I won’t be able to install a commercial app because my kernel won’t be preloaded with the app’s publc key. Who cares? I’m using Linux, chances are that I’m not using commercial apps anyway. I won’t be able to watch DVDs? Boohoo, I can barely do that now.
I mean, if everyone’s processor, kernel, OS and app is signed, how are the content-creator’s going to determine who’s legit and who’s not?
The content (music, video, ebooks, software, etc) of the future will all be encrypted. And to decrypt it you will need special programs that will look at the signatures/keys for the kernel, OS, etc. If these keys are not there, the content will not be usable.
The laws are being changed as we speak to make non-copy-protected content illegal. So Linux will be only be able to play new content (that falls under the new law) illegally.
As you know, if you create any sort of code to circumvent the encryption, you will be prosecuted under the DMCA and sent to prison.
Linus is opening the door for other people to control Linux. Not by controlling the kernel or the source code but by controlling what can legally be done with the code.
DRM is a weapon, plain and simple. It is used to control people by controlling what they can do and then monitoring them as they do and reporting this information back to the authorities.
If Linux had no DRM in it, then content vendors would be forced to look at alternative strategies other than putting access controls in YOUR computer and monitoring what you do on YOUR computer.
Fair enough, but I’m guessing that if you have these things (movies, audios etc.), you are the legitimate owner, so being required to have DRM isn’t a major problem.
Also, Europe isn’t America; laws that apply in America don’t apply here. At all. Some are analogous, but that’s not the same thing.
Again, I’m not trying to flame, I genuinely want to make sense of this and perhaps as a European I don’t entirely understand how far-reaching this is.
“The laws are being changed as we speak to make non-copy-protected content illegal.”
Examples please.
[dermot (IP: —.dbln.cable.ntl.com)]
One of the things about DRM that bothers people is the possability of losing their Fair Use rights.
[This space cleaned of rant so Eugenia doesn’t have to change name of site to “Disgusted with… Online”]