or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HTPC - Linux Chat › DRM and eBooks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DRM and eBooks - Page 3

post #61 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

The problem is an authentication mechanism will be required if P2P technology is used to distribute legit content.

It's much harder to prevent unauthorized reproduction on a distributed system than a centralized one.

That's beside the point I was making, WB isn't using a distributed system and yet they are still using DRM.

I wouldn't be prepared to pay anything for content downloaded with a P2P system, since in that case my own upload bandwidth is used for the profits of the content mafia.
post #62 of 92
I just sent the following letter (with modifications in some cases) to all the major political party leaders in Canada. Hopefully, they'll listen.


Quote:


I was wondering your party could present this proposal as an
alternative to the measures in Bill C-32. It would be a great way to
show the Liberal Party's opposition to the "digital locking" in Bill
C-32 while providing an alternative palatable to everyone.

-----

The only way to extend copyright to embrace the distributed nature of
the Internet is to extend the "web of trust" to cover media. The "web
of trust" would merely be an extension of copyright, restricting
publication *not* use and access. This would be an open and
distributed way to prevent unauthorized republication of content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust

The problem is that copyright in its current state doesn't extend well
to the Internet, as anyone has access to the means of publishing
content. There is no way of preventing unauthorized publication of
digital content without utilizing encryption. However, ideally, both
the means of encryption and the means of access should be an open
public good.

Within the "web of trust", you would buy a key to the content, not the
content itself. You would also be able to resell this key,
transferring your rights to use and access the content to another
person. It would be within in the rights of the consumer to break the
web of trust if, and only if, the key has been lost or rendered
non-functional and they wish to access the content. Consumers would
always have the right of fair use. Under no circumstances, however,
would consumers have the right to redistribute their key, as this
would result in the republication of the content.

The effects of this "web of trust" would be very similar to the clause
you see in books where you can not sell a book without its cover. This
stipulation does not effect end users but it does force *publishers*
and *vendors* to obtain permission to republish and resell the
content.

Media can never be free. Because if media was free, there would be no
economic incentive to produce it. Media, however, *can* be made open.
And there is every economic incentive for media to be made open.

-----

In depth technical specifics are available here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=43

Thanks,
Ryan Oram


PS I am the maintainer of a Linux distribution called infinityOS.
infinityOS was created due to a belief that the software used to make,
distribute, and enjoy your media should be completely free (as in
freedom) and open. It was this belief that lead me to come up with
this digital content authentication system.
post #63 of 92
DRM is broken by design.

The music industry abandoned DRM, and they haven't gone bankrupt. I've never purchased any encrypted music, but I've purchased plenty of unencrypted mp3's (and CD's, which have never been encrypted). I know many people who feel the same.

I would be more than willing to buy movie downloads if they were available unencrypted, full quality (not downres'd), and at a reasonable fee (I don't believe $20-$30 is). But as it is now, I have no desire to give them any of my money. Again, I know many people who feel the same.

The media mafia should be going after the people who mass-pirate the content, not individuals who might make a copy for a friend. Of course, the mass pirates aren't slowed down by DRM, never have been, never will be, no matter what kind of scheme you cook up.

It has been shown that all DRM does is piss off the legitimate users, and does nothing to stop the mass pirates.

I don't know why anyone would write to their lawmakers and actually asks for any kind of DRM. Please Mr. Lawmaker, pass more laws that will restrict my rights even more than they already are, and will do nothing to slow down the real media pirates.
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by k_ross View Post

I don't know why anyone would write to their lawmakers and actually asks for any kind of DRM. Please Mr. Lawmaker, pass more laws that will restrict my rights even more than they already are, and will do nothing to slow down the real media pirates.

Those are exactly my thoughts too, I didn't bother to reply directly as darkphoenix22 appears to be fixated in his ideas, and also because I'm sure his mail will get no attention at all (unless he included a cheque for at least a 6 figure sum... donation to the party obviously not a bribe... )
post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Those are exactly my thoughts too, I didn't bother to reply directly as darkphoenix22 appears to be fixated in his ideas, and also because I'm sure his mail will get no attention at all (unless he included a cheque for at least a 6 figure sum... donation to the party obviously not a bribe... )

Things work a little differently here than in Italy. It's not perfect, but it's not bad.

Plus how exactly does the system above restrict any user?
post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Things work a little differently here than in Italy. It's not perfect, but it's not bad.

Money talks everywhere, I don't have experience of Canada, but I know from experience that in the homeland of your Queen almost everyone with any significant power has a price, so I would be surprised if it's much different in Canada.
(and I don't even want to mention the power of the lobbies in Washington...)
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Money talks everywhere, I don't have experience of Canada, but I know from experience that in the homeland of your Queen almost everyone with any significant power has a price, so I would be surprised if it's much different in Canada.
(and I don't even want to mention the power of the lobbies in Washington...)

We have lovely things called contribution limits. And corporations and lobbies can't contribute at all to a political party, only individuals.

The political parties are also paid by vote via taxes, as long as they meet a certain number of requirements.

Our political federal districts are also drawn up via a third party non-partisan group to prevent gerrymandering. This is the same with the provincial districts in many provinces, but there are exceptions (*cough* Alberta *cough*).
post #68 of 92
My MP has told me that he is looking into my proposal.

My letter has been published in my local newspaper:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...aspx?e=2616726
post #69 of 92
I'm considering organizing an old fashioned protest later this month in Queen's Park.

With the following message:

"09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

All digital locks should be free and open technology. The people should hold the keys to our media."
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

My MP has told me that he is looking into my proposal.

Standard answer, don't hold your breath.
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Standard answer, don't hold your breath.

It's better than no answer. :P
post #72 of 92
Interestingly, I didn't get the standard form answer from anyone I sent my proposal to.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5109/125/
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post


It's much harder to prevent unauthorized reproduction on a distributed system than a centralized one.

You can never prevent unauthorized reproduction of ideas. Nor should any commercial or government entity have this power over private citizens.

Note to content owners: DRM doesn’t work
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/96

Quote:
* Any DRM that involves offline key storage will be broken. It doesn’t matter if that key is mostly stored on protected hardware, either, because sooner or later one of those gets broken too. And if you want your content to be viewable on most PC’s you will have software viewers. They get broken even faster. So, even if you try to protect every single analog pathway (my favourite is the push for encrypted channels between the hifi and the speakers!) someone, somewhere will get raw access to your content. All you are doing is driving up the cost of your infrastructure – I wonder what the cost of all the crypto associated with HD DVD/BluRay is, when you factor in the complexity, the design, and the incremental cost of IP, hardware and software for every single HD-capable device out there.
* The alternative to offline key storage is streaming-only access, and that is equally unprotectable. The classic streaming system, TV broadcast, was hacked when the VCR came out, and that was blessed as fair use. Today we see one of the digital satellite radio companies (Sirius or XM, I think) being sued by content owners for their support of a device which records their CD-quality broadcasts to MP3 players. Web content streaming services that don’t allow you to save the content locally are a very useless form of protection, easily and regularly subverted. And of course not everyone wants to be online when they are watching your content.
* It only takes one crack. For any given piece of content, all it takes is one unprotected copy, and you have to assume that anyone who wants it will get it. Whether it is software off a warez site, or music from an MP3 download service in Russia, or a file sharing system, you cannot plug all the holes. Face it, people either want to pay you for your content, or they don’t, and your best strategy is to make it as easy as possible for people who want to comply with the law to do so. That does not translate into suing grannies and schoolkids, it translates into effective delivery systems that allow everyone to do the right thing, easily.
* Someone will find a business model that doesn’t depend on the old way of thinking, and if it is not you, then they will eat you alive. You will probably sue them, but this will be nothing but a defensive action as the industry reforms around their new business model, without you. And by the industry I don’t mean your competitors – they will likely be in the same hole – but your suppliers and your customers. The distributors of content are the ones at risk here, not the creators or the consumers.

Why DRM won't ever work
http://www.zdnet.com/news/why-drm-wont-ever-work/152278

Quote:
Trying to make Digital Rights Management (DRM) work in the real world is like asking engineers to do "Star Trek" style magic, rather than real engineering. DRM simply cannot work. For less technical readers who might be wondering what I'm going on about, DRM is the attempt to control copying on a digital file, or sometimes even to add a restriction on how many times such a file can be copied. It's usually applied to online music or movies, but it's never sold to the consumer for what it actually is, an added restriction on what can be done with something they've paid for. DRM is always explained as the "wonderful new technology that will help protect your medical records from thieves." The truth is, it can't even do that.


Pushing the impossible


Quote:
Movie studios believe they can create the perfect copy protection system. But it would be easier to go faster than the speed of light, says Cory Doctorow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology.../04/lightspeed

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt


Why DRM Doesn’t Work…

Excellent example for books (audio or otherwise)

http://bradcolbow.com/archive/view/t...k/?p=205<br />


Some sovereign nations that think for themselves kinda "get it"

French court bans DRM for DVDs

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/23...t_bans_dr.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...22230&from=rss
post #74 of 92
WTF!

I originally started this thread on 06/05/10. I now see that there is another post inserted before my original post. This post is by a JerryW, and dated 05/29/10!

I also am no longer listed as the "Thread Starter"! Now this JerryW is credited with creating this thread.

I object to my posts and threads being treated this way.

If we had DRM for thread posts, we could prevent things like this from happening!
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post

WTF!

I originally started this thread on 06/05/10. I now see that there is another post inserted before my original post. This post is by a JerryW, and dated 05/29/10!

I also am no longer listed as the "Thread Starter"! Now this JerryW is credited with creating this thread.

I object to my posts and threads being treated this way.

If we had DRM for thread posts, we could prevent things like this from happening!

My fault, waterhead- sorry about that!

While doing housecleaning on the Steam thread, I asked the mod to move posts from there to threads with appropriate subjects. The post with "DRM" was moved here, and the forum software just inserts in date order, automatically updating the thread starter to whoever was earlier. I was unaware of this behaviour of the forum software, and agree that the thread starter should be retained when merging posts.
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

My fault, waterhead- sorry about that!

While doing housecleaning on the Steam thread, I asked the mod to move posts from there to threads with appropriate subjects. The post with "DRM" was moved here, and the forum software just inserts in date order, automatically updating the thread starter to whoever was earlier. I was unaware of this behaviour of the forum software, and agree that the thread starter should be retained when merging posts.

I figured that was the culprit. I'm not really all that upset, that is why I added my smart-assed comment about forum DRM. But I did want to vent, and point out an apparent problem.
post #77 of 92
I agree with the idea that closed digital locks are inherently pointless. Closed digital locks all rely on the assumption that users will never get access to the keys.

But we do...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...screenshot.png

So why not just give the keys away in the first place (ala PGP) and restrict their unauthorized publication through the law? Distributing the key would be like distributing the license and the rights provided by it. There would be no real fair use argument for publicily distributing these keys, like there would be for distributing the content, making these laws much simpler and easier to enforce.

-----

In order for legit P2P to be viable, we will have to separate the license from the content itself. This way you would be able to freely distribute the media without distributing the rights granted by the license.
post #78 of 92
Heh. The recording industry has begun to astroturf to get support for Bill C-32 and the digital lock provisions.

http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca/
http://www.facebook.com/balancedcopyright

The Minister of Heritage has also called everyone against the bill "radical extremists".

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ter-moore.html
http://video.itworldcanada.com/?bcpi...d=101481423001

-----

The response of a Canadian author (who has released all his novels under Creative Commons: Attribution Non-Commercial) on "radical extremism" and copyright: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/23...authors-p.html

A great overview of the technology behind digital locks and the problems with digital media that need to be resolved: http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.shtml

-----

Note: The following was originally posted by me on the Balanced Copyright for Canada Facebook page.

-----

Rights and freedoms are not radical or extremist.

Consumers have just as much of a right to freedom of use as the artists have a right to compensation.

Besides, closed digital locks do not help artists as they do not prevent piracy. In fact, they encourage it as the free "pirated" media doesn't have the limitations of the DRMed pirated media.

The closed digital locks serve only to protect the jobs of the middlemen in the media industry, as they force the artists and consumers to rely on them for media creation and distribution.

-----

Copyright in its current state doesn't extend well to the Internet, as anyone has access to the means of publishing content. I agree that there is no way of preventing unauthorized publication of digital content without utilizing encryption. However, both the means of encryption and the means of access *must* be an open public good.

The current DRM systems are not designed to protect artists. They are designed to restrict use and access to our media and hardware. The media companies want to force us to buy multiple copies of their content, even though there is no technological reason to do so. So they have, in earnest, created one out of thin air. This is the reason why we can not play a video bought off of Xbox Live on our iPods.

The only successful content authentication system will be one that is universal to every device AND completely open source, utilizing open standards for the delivery, the container, and the encryption. This is because such a system is the only system the public will accept, as it will be a system under *our* control.

In the end, the people are never going to give up control of our bought and paid for media and hardware so media companies can line their coffers. And we will do everything possible to keep that control, even if that means we have to break a few locks along the way.

-----

I think it's telling that it's web developers who are the most vocally opposed to this system.

We are the people who understand the technology behind these systems as we work with it every day. The Internet is built on open standards and specifications. We want the system currently place to be extended to support media. Closed DRM is fundamentally against the principles of universal use and access on which the Internet was created.

To the media industry:

When in Rome, it's best to do as the Romans do. Work with us and respect our principles and values and we will likely be willing to work with your industry to protect your content.

It's your call.

-----

Technology can not fix societal problems. Piracy, as a black market, is a societal problem. You can never prevent people from pirating, as a few will ALWAYS find a way. You can only attempt to influence people to buy through efficient and productive technology.

I think it's pointless to attempt to make an uncrackable system as the reason why people crack DRM is mostly because they want to get around the restrictions present in the media. Making a system that doesn't restrict users in this way is a much more productive way to solve the problem, rather than trying to implement endless layers of DRM that will end up being hacked eventually anyways.

Mind you, there needs to be at least something in place to *deter* people from republishing the content without the author's permission. So let's just make that something using secure open parts, put in as few restrictions as possible, and call it a damn day.
post #79 of 92
The US government has announced a "massive piracy crackdown".

-----

More Info:

Obama tries to kill off internet piracy: http://www.techeye.net/internet/obam...nternet-piracy

Releasing the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...property-theft
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

The US government has announced a "massive piracy crackdown".

-----

More Info:

Obama tries to kill off internet piracy: http://www.techeye.net/internet/obam...nternet-piracy

Releasing the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...property-theft

Pffffff.....

It'll never happen. If they try to go all "China" and "Iran" on us then we'll scream bloody murder and put people in office that will change it back. And that's the only way that they can keep us from using sites like "The Pirate Bay" because those sites are not under U.S. jurisdiction.

They're just putting on a show to keep the RIAA and MPAA funds coming in.
post #81 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythmaster View Post

They're just putting on a show to keep the RIAA and MPAA funds coming in.

It's a lot easier to kill it before it happens, rather than trying to kill it once it's implemented.

Contact your congressman and senator and stop the stupid before it spreads.
post #82 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Contact your congressman and senator and stop the stupid before it spreads.

Politicians (at least those that have real power) only understand the language of money.
They are all in the pockets of their masters.
post #83 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Politicians (at least those that have real power) only understand the language of money.
They are all in the pockets of their masters.

If the voices are loud enough, they will be forced to empty their pockets.

Self-defeatism accomplishes nothing.
post #84 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

It's a lot easier to kill it before it happens, rather than trying to kill it once it's implemented.

Contact your congressman and senator and stop the stupid before it spreads.

Trust me, it will never happen.

If some idjut committee (entertainment industry shills) drafts up a bill to censor which sites we can visit then all hell will break loose. NOBODY, whether Democrat or Republican, would let it pass. It goes against every principle of personal freedom that this nation was founded upon.
post #85 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythmaster View Post

Trust me, it will never happen.

If some idjut committee (entertainment industry shills) drafts up a bill to censor which sites we can visit then all hell will break loose. NOBODY, whether Democrat or Republican, would let it pass. It goes against every principle of personal freedom that this nation was founded upon.

Freedoms can be very easily taken away if they are not actively defended.

Look at the DMCA. :P
post #86 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Freedoms can be very easily taken away if they are not actively defended.

Look at the DMCA. :P

True but at this point it's way too late for the kind of active defense you are suggesting, writing letters will make no difference anymore, even street protests of millions of people make no difference anymore.
If it wasn't for the fact that the system is in full-irreversible self destruction mode already, I'd be suggesting much more incisive forms of freedom defense.
post #87 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Freedoms can be very easily taken away if they are not actively defended.

Look at the DMCA. :P

Not in this country. While most of our politicians are narcissistic jerk-offs that vote for the highest bidder, even THEY know that there are some things that they can't possibly get away with, and internet censorship is DEFINITELY one of those things.

As for the DMCA, it is completely irrelevant. I could download most any movie or song from practically any torrent site without repercussions.
post #88 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythmaster View Post

Not in this country. While most of our politicians are narcissistic jerk-offs that vote for the highest bidder, even THEY know that there are some things that they can't possibly get away with, and internet censorship is DEFINITELY one of those things.

As for the DMCA, it is completely irrelevant. I could download most any movie or song from practically any torrent site without repercussions.

Not all digital locks are media-related.

Through the use of digital locks on their hardware, Apple is trying to stop developers from developing cross-platform apps that work on both Android and the iPhone. They are using Flash as an excuse to get all the fanboys behind them. They have also banned Google's application ad platform (AdMob) on iOS4 solely so they can launch their own ad network without meaningful competition. This kind of anti-competitive behaviour, enabled by the use of digital locks, is completely unacceptable.

The groups making the tools used to jailbreak iPhones are very closed in terms of contact and must host their websites outside of the US. Companies will issue takedown notices under the DMCA to websites hosting these tools, and if the website is hosted in the US, they are forced to comply.

Under legislation like the DMCA and Bill C-32, I can't circumvent the digital lock preventing me from installing programs not directly approved by Apple on my iPhone. If we don't take a stand, one day, these locks *will* extend to our PCs and restrict what applications we can use and what websites we can visit.
post #89 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Not all digital locks are media-related.

Through the use of digital locks on their hardware, Apple is trying to stop developers from developing cross-platform apps that work on both Android and the iPhone. They are using Flash as an excuse to get all the fanboys behind them. They have also banned Google's application ad platform (AdMob) on iOS4 solely so they can launch their own ad network without meaningful competition. This kind of anti-competitive behaviour, enabled by the use of digital locks, is completely unacceptable.

The groups making the tools used to jailbreak iPhones are very closed in terms of contact and must host their websites outside of the US. Companies will issue takedown notices under the DMCA to websites hosting these tools, and if the website is hosted in the US, they are forced to comply.

Under legislation like the DMCA and Bill C-32, I can't circumvent the digital lock preventing me from installing programs not directly approved by Apple on my iPhone. If we don't take a stand, one day, these locks *will* extend to our PCs and restrict what applications we can use and what websites we can visit.

Umm...shouldn't you have expected that before buying an iPhone? Do you know nothing about Apple? Have you been asleep for the past 30 years?

No "locks" will ever stop me from using any apps on my own PC, because guess what? I can write my own God Damn apps.

As for censoring websites, see my above posts. IT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
post #90 of 92
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5180/125/

Quote:


The proper balance among these and other public policy objectives lies not only in recognizing the creator's rights but in giving due weight to their limited nature. In crassly economic terms it would be as inefficient to overcompensate artists and authors for the right of reproduction as it would be self-defeating to undercompensate them.

I see no merit to the idea that personal copies are a violation of the artist's copyright as no profit is involved. This is further complicated by the fact that all digital data can be copied 1-to-1, making unauthorized reproduction trivial and hard to discourage. Digital locks are not a solution as they can be trivially broken in virtually all cases.

Reformed copyright laws should instead focus on disallowing unauthorized *republication* of the artist's work, as this is much easier to enforce as it signifies intent to deny the artist compensation for their work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC - Linux Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HTPC - Linux Chat › DRM and eBooks