We need Fairplay DRM version 2.0
The Real DRM fiasco has made one thing abundantly clear. Apple needs to protect their assets from more than just end users but from unethical companies as well. I think or rather hope that they are working on a Fairplay ver 2 DRM that is far more robust than today?s Fairplay.
Like it or not DRM is the future. Unfortunately consumers aren't always benevolent in nature and the Internet makes file transfer far to easy. What Apple will need to do is create or buy a very robust DRM policy that cannot be reverse engineered and can be infused within OSX at every level. DRM data must be able to flow through the OS with no loopholes or weak points.
This isn't just about protecting Hollywood or the Music Industry this is about allowing even the smallest business a way of protecting their own IP and data whether it be on a LAN/WAN.
Apple simply will not have power to negotiate future deals if the 3rd party senses that their DRM is weak. I'm beginning to think that OSX 10.5 may be the first OS will extensive DRM support. If Apple can empower everyone from the largest company to the smallest with a viable DRM option they stand to make a lot of money and bring a lot of technology to our platform.
Like it or not DRM is the future. Unfortunately consumers aren't always benevolent in nature and the Internet makes file transfer far to easy. What Apple will need to do is create or buy a very robust DRM policy that cannot be reverse engineered and can be infused within OSX at every level. DRM data must be able to flow through the OS with no loopholes or weak points.
This isn't just about protecting Hollywood or the Music Industry this is about allowing even the smallest business a way of protecting their own IP and data whether it be on a LAN/WAN.
Apple simply will not have power to negotiate future deals if the 3rd party senses that their DRM is weak. I'm beginning to think that OSX 10.5 may be the first OS will extensive DRM support. If Apple can empower everyone from the largest company to the smallest with a viable DRM option they stand to make a lot of money and bring a lot of technology to our platform.
Comments
I know that DRM is a necessary evil but on the other hand it is a very evil tool to allow IP owners to force on you whatever using rights scheme they want (and change it anytime they choose - as witnessed when Apple changed the 10 copies/3 computer scheme).
There needs to be a guranteed minimum of user privileges. And IP owners should be forced to use all the potentials and special characteristics the internet offers (e.g. offering your catalog internationally - at least for new releases -, offer 'out-of-print' rarities, higher - lossless - quality etc.)
The 'benefits' of DRM should not be one-sided. Establishing fair user rights would definitely help gaining acceptance.
Exactly TCPA has been designed to "favor" Big Business. Microsoft is keen on protecting the rights of large companies more so than their individual users.
We all should know by now that DRM isn't going way. What Apple needs to do now is counteract Microsoft's DRM policy with something that scales from the smallest company to the largest. I do not begrudge anyone creating something unique wanting to protect their assets. Apple has to hit Microsoft where it hurts. Beat'em on the DRM front. Make it affordable and pervasive. Microsofts path should be clear..they will align with those that can pay the most money. Apple needs to align with everyone.
Shitty user-hostile DRM is what makes Sony (the previous 800lb gorilla of portable audio) unable to compete with tiny Korean no-name brands and other total outsiders, like Apple!
Locking audio into balkanised formats is exactly what MSFT wants, because it can easily beat everyone individually, so Apple should continue playing the open formats card.
None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to
protect digital content.
?
Locking audio into balkanised formats is exactly what MSFT wants, because it can easily beat everyone individually, so Apple should continue playing the open formats card.
As long as you can burn Red Book Audio CDs there will never be fear of balkanization. Apple's better to craft their own DRM policy rather than have MS or someone else do it for them.
None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to
Sony's done fine with SACD encryption. Meridian has done fine with DVD-Audio. Digital data is easy to steal. We "all" need protection from intruders and digital thieves. Unless Apple increases the robustness of their offerings they will not be able to compete in future arenas where DRM is necessary.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think or rather hope that they are working on a Fairplay ver 2 DRM that is far more robust than today?s Fairplay.
There's no such thing as robust DRM, unless it's so robust that you can't hear or view the protected content at all.
Some very good reading: Cory Doctorow's Microsoft Research DRM talk.
There's something about DRM which has always bothered me, and Doctorow has a wonderful way of stating that really clarifies the issue:
Cryptography -- secret writing -- is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker... In DRM, the attacker is also the recipient... Alice wants Bob to buy Pirates of the Caribbean from her. Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.
Hilarity ensues.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sony's done fine with SACD encryption. Meridian has done fine with DVD-Audio.
and the DVDCCA was doing fine with CSS until DVD became popular.
Being alive doesn't mean one is immortal.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Who said:
"None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to
protect digital content."
?
Steve Jobs?
Originally posted by Bancho
I don't think Apple needs to go too crazy with pervasive DRM. They only need to keep it evolving to prove their committment to security. There is no foolproof DRM and it is unlikely there ever will be.
Yes but there is DRM that will prevent all but the most diligent from attempting cracking. DRM is becoming synonymous with Security. As for music nothing needs to change. The present policy is fine but the Fairplay DRM is just in shambles. When Real and some unknown hacker(Hymn) easily thwart your system it's time to go back to the drawing board. Consumers may want easily defeatable DRM but IP owners do not.
Think about it this way people. Forget other people and think about what protections you'd want in place for your own personal unique creations? From the POV it's likely many of you want a way of protecting your data that aligns with the desires of larger companies as well.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes but there is DRM that will prevent all but the most diligent from attempting cracking. DRM is becoming synonymous with Security. As for music nothing needs to change. The present policy is fine but the Fairplay DRM is just in shambles. When Real and some unknown hacker(Hymn) easily thwart your system it's time to go back to the drawing board. Consumers may want easily defeatable DRM but IP owners do not.
Think about it this way people. Forget other people and think about what protections you'd want in place for your own personal unique creations? From the POV it's likely many of you want a way of protecting your data that aligns with the desires of larger companies as well.
Going overly crazy with DRM is a bad move IMO.
The trick is that those "most dilligent" will do the work and break the DRM for the sake of breaking it. Fairplay is fine and working as intended. When it is updated Real is screwed until it is broken again. It is an arms race and this was fully to be expected.
I am wholesale against the level of DRM some people propose. It is absolutely *not* in the interest of consumers at all at any level. It is protection of business plain and simple.
DRM is evil. Apple's version is less evil but not something I would ever want applied even to my own work.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes but there is DRM that will prevent all but the most diligent from attempting cracking.
There are more than enough diligent people cracking away, however, who will sell cheaper bootleg copies of DRM-ed originals, or even give free copies away over file sharing services, that the non-diligent, non-technical masses don't have to worry about being able to crack DRM. Someone else will always do it for them.
As a company Real have to find some way to survive, and jumping on the iPod is one way. I dont mind Apple not selling them a license, but other than that they dont appear to have done anything wrong. A clean room reverse engineer of fairplay is both legal and feasible.
Certainly, Real's implementation might be buggy and fragile ( and considering their other software, it is ), but to go further than saying that is an over reaction. How does this event show that Apple needs stronger DRM? It doesnt. This has nothing to do with breaking DRM. It doesnt show that Fairplay is weak. Fairplay hasnt been broken, its been applied. It shows that the iPod is popular, and people want on that wagon.
Certainly, Real's implementation might be buggy and fragile ( and considering their other software, it is ), but to go further than saying that is an over reaction. How does this event show that Apple needs stronger DRM? It doesnt. This has nothing to do with breaking DRM. It doesnt show that Fairplay is weak. Fairplay hasnt been broken, its been applied. It shows that the iPod is popular, and people want on that wagon.
It shows that Apple needs stronger DRM because what good is DRM that can easily be cracked? Fairplay is indeed weak a bit too weak for industries that are growing quite nervous about unauthorized file sharing. I think Apple initially thought that they could go "easy" on the DRM and play the "buddy" but iTunes is just over a year old and they've had Hymn and now Real disrespect their technology. That's not a good sign. The iPod is popular now but no one can guarantee it will be popular in 5 years or even 2 years. Apple surely has to be realizing that selling music is just one avenue out of many that will soon be ushered in via the "Digital Age".
When the competitors have finally caught up to Apple their saving grace is going to be their ease of use, synergy and DRM. Like it or not DRM is lucrative and when there are attempts to subvert this DRM it has a definite impact on the earnings potential from licensing the DRM.
This issues goes beyond iPods, it affects what the very direction that Apple can take. It affects them being able to craft a Digital Hub Ecosystem they way they've planned. And it it affects Apple financially then it affects all of us because a healthy Apple means better hardware/software for all of us.
Originally posted by hmurchison
It shows that Apple needs stronger DRM because what good is DRM that can easily be cracked? Fairplay is indeed weak a bit too weak for industries that are growing quite nervous about unauthorized file sharing. I think Apple initially thought that they could go "easy" on the DRM and play the "buddy" but iTunes is just over a year old and they've had Hymn and now Real disrespect their technology. That's not a good sign. The iPod is popular now but no one can guarantee it will be popular in 5 years or even 2 years. Apple surely has to be realizing that selling music is just one avenue out of many that will soon be ushered in via the "Digital Age".
When the competitors have finally caught up to Apple their saving grace is going to be their ease of use, synergy and DRM. Like it or not DRM is lucrative and when there are attempts to subvert this DRM it has a definite impact on the earnings potential from licensing the DRM.
This issues goes beyond iPods, it affects what the very direction that Apple can take. It affects them being able to craft a Digital Hub Ecosystem they way they've planned. And it it affects Apple financially then it affects all of us because a healthy Apple means better hardware/software for all of us.
Fairplay only needs to be strong enough to satisfy Apple's agreement with the record companies and no more.
Where DRM stops the *law* can take over.
DRM is only able to prevent casual copying and I do not think anyone can claim better. In that regard it succeeds. There is no way at all that DRM can be foolproof. To overdo it will eventually put undue burden on the consumer and have negative effects.
DRM is only able to prevent casual copying and I do not think anyone can claim better. In that regard it succeeds. There is no way at all that DRM can be foolproof. To overdo it will eventually put undue burden on the consumer and have negative effects.
You are sadly mistaken. This is a myopic view of what DRM really is. DRM is a vital component of comprehensive security. Apple has 2 yrs to a good DRM policy in OSX or the closest they'll come to the Enterprise market is selling clustered Xserves. Businesses need to be able to securely "sign" digital documents, without DRM you expose vital documents to unauthorized eyes. Tiger is not Longhorn...where Tiger is weak Longhorn is strong. Apple must shore this area up.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You are sadly mistaken. This is a myopic view of what DRM really is. DRM is a vital component of comprehensive security. Apple has 2 yrs to a good DRM policy in OSX or the closest they'll come to the Enterprise market is selling clustered Xserves. Businesses need to be able to securely "sign" digital documents, without DRM you expose vital documents to unauthorized eyes. Tiger is not Longhorn...where Tiger is weak Longhorn is strong. Apple must shore this area up.
I should hope Apple does *not* implement anything on the scale MS intends for Longhorn (but will probably backpedal on).
edit - Businesses do not need that level of Orwellian "security" supplied from MS. That would be like asking a mouse to watch all my cheese.
Trust me this has been tough for me. I am still leery about DRM but I realize that we'll be ok as long as MS isn't monopolizing DRM outside of their platform. iTunes success isn't just in pushing AAC but also pushing a different flavor of DRM that wasn't as restrictive as MS DRM. That was a win in and of itself. Apple can do the same for OS DRM. Kind of makes me wonder why Quicktime 7 is taking so long. Could Apple be infusing DRM right to the core of QT? Sounds plausible as we're going on 2 years since the announcement of QT6.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You are sadly mistaken. This is a myopic view of what DRM really is. DRM is a vital component of comprehensive security. Apple has 2 yrs to a good DRM policy in OSX or the closest they'll come to the Enterprise market is selling clustered Xserves. Businesses need to be able to securely "sign" digital documents, without DRM you expose vital documents to unauthorized eyes.
DRM and secure document handling are two different things.
As long as sender, recipient, and attacker are indeed three different parties, we have very good security technologies right now, security that can already be done on a Mac, and security which doesn't need Longhorn or Palladium or any special software or hardware platforms to be implemented.
Only DRM, not general secure document handling, needs to treat the recipient and the attacker as if they are both one in the same, and only DRM needs to play the game of trying to give someone something without really giving it to him.