Actually I watched some Longhorn videos about using Digital Signatures and how DRM is maintained throughout say a "mortgage signing" process and it was quite compelling. Longhorn is going to dispel the perception that DRM is here just to prevent you from listening to your music in multiple places. There are good and bad sides to every technology. What hasn't been fully explored is the benefits of DRM. Would a parent not want the right to institute a DRM policy within their own home that aligns with their morals.
Sounds like you're drinking too much of the Microsoft kool-aid.
Microsoft wants you to confuse DRM with secure document handling, wants you to think that all of the benefits of safely handling a mortage signing are one in the same with DRM, wants you to believe that they're making the computing world a safer place for all mankind.
I hate how whenever newscasters mention anything about Microsoft's DRM plans (which have on rare occasion come up on general TV news) all they do is parrot the PR brochures that Microsoft has fed them about protecting people from viruses, without doing one speck of research to look into it more. (Comments are generally something like "Microsoft's stock went up today on news that BigCo has signed on to partner with Microsoft on their Palladium platform, a technology which is designed to protect computers from viruses and other attacks."
Sounds like you're drinking too much of the Microsoft kool-aid.
Microsoft wants you to confuse DRM with secure document handling, wants you to think that all of the benefits of safely handling a mortage signing are one in the same with DRM, wants you to believe that they're making the computing world a safer place for all mankind.
I hate how whenever newscasters mention anything about Microsoft's DRM plans (which has on rare occasion come up on general TV news) all they do is parrot the PR brochures that Microsoft has fed them about protecting people from viruses, without doing one speck of research to look into it more. (Comments are generally something like "Microsoft's stock went up today on news that BigCo has signed on to partner with Microsoft on their Palladium platform, a technology which is designed to protect computers from viruses and other attacks."
Most of what I read indeed focused on the fact that MS is trying to confuse the terms as you say. The other trick is that this involves the whole "trusted computing" thing where you need compliant hardware for it to work.
The whole system also seems rather useless unless *everyone* is using it and MS admits as much when they say the whole thing needs about 100 million installations to work (I'll see if I can dredge up the link mentioning this).
It shows that Apple needs stronger DRM because what good is DRM that can easily be cracked?
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.
a) Real havent cracked fairplay ( at least they havent announced that ). I think fairplay is pretty good, and atm real cannot strip fairplay off of an itms track. They have worked out how to put fairplay _onto_ their own tracks, so that they can sell to the ipod market and still had DRM protection. Its a rather different perspective.
b) DRM sure is lucrative, and Im confident that the record companies will be very happy to have a competitor for itms on the most popular playback device. Competition will drive down costs, or rather, increase record company profits. They want to be locked into one supplier about as much as we do.
c) I absolutely agree that Apple needs all the income it can get to remain strong. However, Apple positions itms as a loss leader ( ver small profit last quarter ). Having Real selling for the iPod only helps to relieve one of the concerns that some users have about lock in. It may not help itms, but it may well help iPod sales, which is what Apple really wants.
Apple is in trouble with Fairplay when unlicensed manufacturers work out how to play it back. Then itms will be supporting devices other than the ipod. That hasnt happened yet. I also think that it will contravene the DMCA, so Apple should be pretty safe from such competition in the US. Apple needs a robust market to grow up around the ipod and itms. I dont mind them excluding real, I dont particularly like their business strategy ( fuck your customers ). Apple is taking steps in the right direction, but competing online stores to Apple's will promote iPods.
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.
Ah, yes, the oldest argument going. It's about 350 years old. Think of the poor artist, losing control of his work!
It's a straw man. It's always been a straw man.
First of all, it always "aligns with the desires of larger companies," because it reflects their desires. The publishers push for incredibly strict copyright laws, trotting out the image of the poor, broke artist being denied revenue by a liberal copyright law. They do this knowing full well that they'll make transfer of copyright a necessary condition of publication, so that they control a work for the lifetime of the author. This ends up hurting the author even more, on top of impoverishing the culture generally. But the company makes out well.
Second, and again not accidentally, this argument appeals to selfishness. It's not the job of law to take a system with three interested parties (artist, publisher, consumer) and slant it entirely in favor of one. Especially since artists are themselves consumers of art, and consumers are likewise producers of art. When you make a law like copyright that can have very profound and material effects on culture and education, which in a democracy or a republic both have immediate and tangible political and economic repercussions, you want to balance the interests of all concerned to the extent possible.
The old copyright law did this pretty well, although the balance started shifting pretty rapidly toward publishers in the '80s. Consider that the 1904 Congress, looking at the monopoly granted by copyright, considered it "evil" - that's the word they used - but a "necessary evil"). Consider that the original goal of copyright was to stimulate publication of works, with the end goal of enriching the public domain and actively promoting free speech (the Supreme Court once called copyright law "the engine of free speech"). The current law, if anything, has the opposite effect: Disney can sit on Mickey Mouse indefinitely. They have no incentive to come up with anything new, and the result is there recent track record of sitting on their laurels and churning out crap. Of course, from a publisher's point of view, this is a great palce to be, and that's why we're here.
The old law was aware of "de minimis" violations, which are technically copyright violations, but so common and so negligible in impact that there was no point in pursuing them; they fell under fair use. One of the explicit examples used by the 1976 Congress in formulating this part of the law was a music tape given to a friend.
DRM is an a priori restraint on use, which used to be a violation of copyright law! How things have changed...
I did a lot of thinking on the Apple/Real/Fair Play issue and have come to this conclusion...
In a sense, Real finding a way to get their music from their online store on to the iPod isn't a bad thing. It is them trying to get their music on as many places as possible and at the moment, the iPod is a very popular place to put your music. This can be seen as Real looking after their customers.
I have no problems for developers trying to find work arounds to make their software or technologies work better with others.
But there is also another side to Real's intention with "Harmony" that isn't ethical and something many don't bring up when discussing this topic. It is the fact that they want to actually license this technology to others. It's one thing to use it for themselves, but it's a whole other situation to sell it to others for a profit. This is Real looking out for Real and creating a new source of income.
If Real licenses Harmony to others, this hurts Apple's chance of licensing Fair Play themselves if they ever decide to. Companies may choose Harmony because it is licensed cheaper.
This is what I have a problem with.
Some might say that this situation is similar to Samba and reverse engineering Microsoft's networking protocols. Well, it might be similar but there are some differences.
- Samba is free and open source (no one is profiting off of it)
- Microsoft isn't actually licensing their networking protocols to other operating system to use.
I'm sorry. I didn't know that about Microsoft. Thank you for telling me.
But even though companies are still profiting from Samba, it is still a different situation. Samba is free and open source. Companies don't have to pay to use Samba. They are just entitled to give back to the community if they modify the source.
But my position on Real actually wanting to charge other companies to use Harmony still stands. This still hurts Apple if they decide to want to license their version of Fair Play.
Like I said before, this is Real looking after Real. They see that they can make money selling this technology that fools the iPod to play other online music stores' songs.
If Real was really doing this for their customers and trying to make the online music platform more friendly, they would do what Samba is doing.
Make their source code open source and allow others to use it.
Im confident that the record companies will be very happy to have a competitor for itms on the most popular playback device. Competition will drive down costs, or rather, increase record company profits. They want to be locked into one supplier about as much as we do.
This statement makes no sense. The record companies are not locked into Apple in any way, shape or form. Period. What "competition" do they care about here and why? Alls they care about is selling as many songs as possible. Apple is a music retailer just like Tower Records, Musicland and Sma Goody. Sure the record companies want as many outlets as possible and they have allowed for that to happen. But they don't care about competition to "drive down costs". Drive down who's costs?
Quote:
c) I absolutely agree that Apple needs all the income it can get to remain strong. However, Apple positions itms as a loss leader ( ver small profit last quarter ). Having Real selling for the iPod only helps to relieve one of the concerns that some users have about lock in. It may not help itms, but it may well help iPod sales, which is what Apple really wants.
Yes, but...here's where some longer term thinking helps. What happens if a company, say Real, is able to build a service that can play DRM protected music on any device (including iPod)? Well, suddenly you have no reason to use iTMS or iTunes and you are not locked into the iPod. Which is what Apple's desire is. The problem for Real is that there is no profit in selling only the music. Apple made sure of this by setting a market price that contains no profit. Apple can afford to do this, but a store selling only the music has to come up with something else. Apple really need to stay aggressive and wait out the inevitable...a few of these music-only store to run out of money. Some are close...Real certainly is.
Quote:
Apple is in trouble with Fairplay when unlicensed manufacturers work out how to play it back. Then itms will be supporting devices other than the ipod. That hasnt happened yet. I also think that it will contravene the DMCA, so Apple should be pretty safe from such competition in the US.
Well, if this happens, Apple will have the RIAA on their side too.
Frankly, I don't think Apple really cares about the DRM except that the record companies wanted it.
Ok people. I think my point is being proven on what seems to e a monthly basis.
1. Hymn strips Apple's DRM from AAC Protected files. Apple can't stop it.
2. Real reverse engineers Fairplay to allow anyone on the iPod. Apple can't stop it
3. "DVD Jon" cracks the Airport Express keys to allows more audio files to be streamed from non iTunes apps.
In each case the reasons for the cracks or reverse engineering are benign but the damage to Apple cannot be seen. I think Apple is beginning to realize that lax DRM doesn't work. Apple and every other company has a right to develop technology that they can benefit from. I could see if Apple hadn't licensed the technology , after it being available for quite a while, was still closed. Apple is not even getting a chance here and someone is encroaching on their territory. It's wrong and I wouldn't begrudge Apple modifying their views on this. It's a free market society if people don't like your price they don't have to purchase.
This isn't just about music. Personal Data files need to be protected with the same ferocity.
It hasn't proven anything. The terms of the DRM are lazy, but it's not like Apple implemented a scheme they intended to be breakable. You still don't seem to acknowledge the difference between protecting your own files and being protected from your own files.
That's because DRM encompasses both. To many on these boards DRM represents an evil that prevents them from doing what they want with their files. However, the flipside is DRM should be able to offer you the same benefits. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect their precious files across partitions or even computers.
Maybe my views of what DRM is are far too broad for most. But if we look at the Internet for what it is...just a large network and we view our computers as just another node on this network then it's plain to see that we need protections in place that go beyond just a firewall or virus program. We need security down to the file level.
Sure, but that's not what you're saying. You seem to be suggesting that breaking into FairPlay is bad for the industry...that it shouldn't be allowed. Isn't it good for the industry? It's showing the world just how bad it is at doing what it was designed to do.
I'm sure crackers like DVD Jon are itching for the next morph of FairPlay.
"DVD Jon" cracks the Airport Express keys to allows more audio files to be streamed from non iTunes apps.
He didn't 'crack the keys'... he published a method to identify the public key for the device you own. The public key is used to encrypt the data sent across the wireless network to the device... and all he's done is identify the key so that others can use it. There's no breaking of DRM here.
Quote:
In each case the reasons for the cracks or reverse engineering are benign but the damage to Apple cannot be seen. I think Apple is beginning to realize that lax DRM doesn't work. Apple and every other company has a right to develop technology that they can benefit from. I could see if Apple hadn't licensed the technology , after it being available for quite a while, was still closed. Apple is not even getting a chance here and someone is encroaching on their territory. It's wrong and I wouldn't begrudge Apple modifying their views on this. It's a free market society if people don't like your price they don't have to purchase.
This isn't just about music. Personal Data files need to be protected with the same ferocity.
The DRM will be attempted to be cracked in many ways whilst it's in the public eye, by both academics and hackers. Accept it.
Apple aren't responsible for protecting your personal data files (short of patching known methods of attack). The owner of that data is.
That's because DRM encompasses both. To many on these boards DRM represents an evil that prevents them from doing what they want with their files. However, the flipside is DRM should be able to offer you the same benefits. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect their precious files across partitions or even computers.
But the take away point that you seem to be missing is that DRM cannot *ever* work. The fundamental premise is flawed, so anyone scrabbling for DRM on their own 'precious files' is buying into an unachievable dream. DRM cannot, and will not stop people from copying your data. Cryptography can and does protect your own files but only from outsiders, not from the people you want to be able to read them as well.
It's all well and good that there are companies making a buck by scaring content producers and inconveniencing ordinary users by promising the moon, but to actuallly think any DRM has ever worked is laughable.
And even if it did work (which it doesn't) have you ever heard of the Analog Hole?
If it can get to your ears it can be recorded.
If it can get to your eyes it can be photographed and filmed.
DRM producers know all this, that's why they need to back up their pathetic technical precautions with heavy legal penalties for 'hackers' who circumvent these restrictions. (I say 'hackers' because sometimes it's as easy as holding down shift when you put in a copy-protected CD)
'Digital files cannot be made uncopyable, any more than water can be made not wet' - Bruce Schneier
That's because DRM encompasses both. To many on these boards DRM represents an evil that prevents them from doing what they want with their files. However, the flipside is DRM should be able to offer you the same benefits. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect their precious files across partitions or even computers.
Protect your files from what and whom?
Do you have some files that you want to protect right now? Go into your /Applications/Utilities folder, run Disk Utility, make yourself a nice 128-bit AES protected disk image file, and drop your files in there. You're files are now very safe from prying eyes, so long as you don't give anyone else your password. No matter what user account, partition, or computer you use to store this disk image, the files remain just as protected one place or another. Stick this disk image file on DVD Jon's hard drive and tell him you'll pay him a million dollars if he cracks it and (as long as you didn't choose a stupid password like "password" or your wife's birthday) your files are still very safe.
Suppose you want to give your files to someone else and keep those files safe. You ask that person for his public key, encode your files with his public key, and now not even you can look at these encrypted copies of your files (although you still have your originals that you can read, of course). Only the recipient can read the encrypted files, and once again, they are very safe so long as the recipient doesn't give anyone else his own private key.
Now, regardless of whether it's the RIAA or you personally wanting this kind of control for your own use, if what you think is "needed" is the ability to give someone else your files, allow that person to read/listen/watch/run/etc. those files (in other words, do something useful with those files other than storing them), yet somehow leave that person powerless to pass those files on to someone else -- that's the unworkable pipe dream.
In the sense that they've managed to figured out keys that they weren't already given in the first place, or figured out how to peer into encrypted data without using any key at all, people like DVD Jon have not truly "cracked" anything. All they've done is figure out the inherently weak tricks that DRM schemes try to use to give you the keys you need and try to hide them from you at the same time.
If you can read the words, THEY HAVE BEEN DECODED. If you can hear the music, it HAS BEEN DECODED. If you can see the video, IT HAS BEEN DECODED. You might find some ways to make it inconvenient for the recipient to pass what they can now read, hear, and see on to someone else, but the cat's out of the bag. You've given the recipient everything they need to decode the data you've given him -- if you hadn't done so, the data would be useless.
You don't seem to get this point.
Just to show how silly this gets, let's pretend that we are talking about a cat. A DRM-protected pet, sold to you on the condition that no one else but you can own this cat or play with this cat, and that this cat is never allowed to leave your home.
Well, there are now a bunch of conditions you have to meet in order to be allowed the great privilege of purchasing DRM Cat. First of all, you have to live in a DRM Cat-approved home, with all of the necessary sensors and locks on every window and door for detecting the approach of DRM Cat and sealing tightly before DRM Cat can get out.
Breaking a window to let DRM Cat out of your house, or sawing a hole through a wall if it comes to that, is of course possible, but under the newly passed DMPCA (Digital Millennium Pet Control Act) it is now illegal to break your own window, or to do anything to circumvent the locks meant to keep your cat in your house. Doing anything that would, or even could, circumvent these sensors and locks also violates the license agreement you signed when you purchased DRM Cat, leaving you open to civil liability as well as criminal charges.
Oh, and since no else but you is allowed to play with DRM Cat, the window/door sensors detect when anyone else enters the house, and a small electric shock is delivered via DRM Cat?s Virus Protection Collar (which is there, according to the DRM Cat manual, for the cat and the cat owner?s safety, of course) to chase the cat away until that person leaves. Removing or otherwise tampering with the Virus Protection Collar is also illegal under the DMPCA and a violation of your license agreement.
Since cat owners who do not live alone might find little time to enjoy DRM Cat under these conditions, for a small additional charge you can purchase a Family Pack license so that you and your whole family can enjoy DRM Cat.
Now suppose you want to take your cat with you to your summer home on vacation. No problem ? just provide MicroCat Corporation (the proud manufactures? err, breeders that is, of DRM Cat) proof that your summer home is also DRM Cat-approved, then purchase (at a very reasonable price, of course) an extra license for your DRM Cat for this other address, and then either convey the cat to your summer home via a DRM Cat-approved car (addition per-cat licenses required), or simply call MicroCat for their convenient (and also reasonably priced) DRM Cat Conveyance Service.
When, oddly enough, DRM Cat proves to be selling badly, MicroCat?s lobbyists (pleading for protection of the incomes of poor, independent cat breeders everywhere, just trying to make a fair living!) work to pass the DMPCA II, requiring by law that all new houses built starting in 2010 meet DRM Cat standards, that all other house be retrofitted by 2015, and making the breeding of cats which do not conform to UPC (Universal Pet Control) standards illegal.
Quote:
Maybe my views of what DRM is are far too broad for most. But if we look at the Internet for what it is...just a large network and we view our computers as just another node on this network then it's plain to see that we need protections in place that go beyond just a firewall or virus program. We need security down to the file level.
We already have security down to the file level, anytime we want it.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Actually I watched some Longhorn videos about using Digital Signatures and how DRM is maintained throughout say a "mortgage signing" process and it was quite compelling. Longhorn is going to dispel the perception that DRM is here just to prevent you from listening to your music in multiple places. There are good and bad sides to every technology. What hasn't been fully explored is the benefits of DRM. Would a parent not want the right to institute a DRM policy within their own home that aligns with their morals.
Sounds like you're drinking too much of the Microsoft kool-aid.
Microsoft wants you to confuse DRM with secure document handling, wants you to think that all of the benefits of safely handling a mortage signing are one in the same with DRM, wants you to believe that they're making the computing world a safer place for all mankind.
I hate how whenever newscasters mention anything about Microsoft's DRM plans (which have on rare occasion come up on general TV news) all they do is parrot the PR brochures that Microsoft has fed them about protecting people from viruses, without doing one speck of research to look into it more. (Comments are generally something like "Microsoft's stock went up today on news that BigCo has signed on to partner with Microsoft on their Palladium platform, a technology which is designed to protect computers from viruses and other attacks."
Originally posted by shetline
Sounds like you're drinking too much of the Microsoft kool-aid.
Microsoft wants you to confuse DRM with secure document handling, wants you to think that all of the benefits of safely handling a mortage signing are one in the same with DRM, wants you to believe that they're making the computing world a safer place for all mankind.
I hate how whenever newscasters mention anything about Microsoft's DRM plans (which has on rare occasion come up on general TV news) all they do is parrot the PR brochures that Microsoft has fed them about protecting people from viruses, without doing one speck of research to look into it more. (Comments are generally something like "Microsoft's stock went up today on news that BigCo has signed on to partner with Microsoft on their Palladium platform, a technology which is designed to protect computers from viruses and other attacks."
Most of what I read indeed focused on the fact that MS is trying to confuse the terms as you say. The other trick is that this involves the whole "trusted computing" thing where you need compliant hardware for it to work.
The whole system also seems rather useless unless *everyone* is using it and MS admits as much when they say the whole thing needs about 100 million installations to work (I'll see if I can dredge up the link mentioning this).
Originally posted by hmurchison
It shows that Apple needs stronger DRM because what good is DRM that can easily be cracked?
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.
a) Real havent cracked fairplay ( at least they havent announced that ). I think fairplay is pretty good, and atm real cannot strip fairplay off of an itms track. They have worked out how to put fairplay _onto_ their own tracks, so that they can sell to the ipod market and still had DRM protection. Its a rather different perspective.
b) DRM sure is lucrative, and Im confident that the record companies will be very happy to have a competitor for itms on the most popular playback device. Competition will drive down costs, or rather, increase record company profits. They want to be locked into one supplier about as much as we do.
c) I absolutely agree that Apple needs all the income it can get to remain strong. However, Apple positions itms as a loss leader ( ver small profit last quarter ). Having Real selling for the iPod only helps to relieve one of the concerns that some users have about lock in. It may not help itms, but it may well help iPod sales, which is what Apple really wants.
Apple is in trouble with Fairplay when unlicensed manufacturers work out how to play it back. Then itms will be supporting devices other than the ipod. That hasnt happened yet. I also think that it will contravene the DMCA, so Apple should be pretty safe from such competition in the US. Apple needs a robust market to grow up around the ipod and itms. I dont mind them excluding real, I dont particularly like their business strategy ( fuck your customers ). Apple is taking steps in the right direction, but competing online stores to Apple's will promote iPods.
Originally posted by hmurchison
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.
Ah, yes, the oldest argument going. It's about 350 years old. Think of the poor artist, losing control of his work!
It's a straw man. It's always been a straw man.
First of all, it always "aligns with the desires of larger companies," because it reflects their desires. The publishers push for incredibly strict copyright laws, trotting out the image of the poor, broke artist being denied revenue by a liberal copyright law. They do this knowing full well that they'll make transfer of copyright a necessary condition of publication, so that they control a work for the lifetime of the author. This ends up hurting the author even more, on top of impoverishing the culture generally. But the company makes out well.
Second, and again not accidentally, this argument appeals to selfishness. It's not the job of law to take a system with three interested parties (artist, publisher, consumer) and slant it entirely in favor of one. Especially since artists are themselves consumers of art, and consumers are likewise producers of art. When you make a law like copyright that can have very profound and material effects on culture and education, which in a democracy or a republic both have immediate and tangible political and economic repercussions, you want to balance the interests of all concerned to the extent possible.
The old copyright law did this pretty well, although the balance started shifting pretty rapidly toward publishers in the '80s. Consider that the 1904 Congress, looking at the monopoly granted by copyright, considered it "evil" - that's the word they used - but a "necessary evil"). Consider that the original goal of copyright was to stimulate publication of works, with the end goal of enriching the public domain and actively promoting free speech (the Supreme Court once called copyright law "the engine of free speech"). The current law, if anything, has the opposite effect: Disney can sit on Mickey Mouse indefinitely. They have no incentive to come up with anything new, and the result is there recent track record of sitting on their laurels and churning out crap. Of course, from a publisher's point of view, this is a great palce to be, and that's why we're here.
The old law was aware of "de minimis" violations, which are technically copyright violations, but so common and so negligible in impact that there was no point in pursuing them; they fell under fair use. One of the explicit examples used by the 1976 Congress in formulating this part of the law was a music tape given to a friend.
DRM is an a priori restraint on use, which used to be a violation of copyright law! How things have changed...
In a sense, Real finding a way to get their music from their online store on to the iPod isn't a bad thing. It is them trying to get their music on as many places as possible and at the moment, the iPod is a very popular place to put your music. This can be seen as Real looking after their customers.
I have no problems for developers trying to find work arounds to make their software or technologies work better with others.
But there is also another side to Real's intention with "Harmony" that isn't ethical and something many don't bring up when discussing this topic. It is the fact that they want to actually license this technology to others. It's one thing to use it for themselves, but it's a whole other situation to sell it to others for a profit. This is Real looking out for Real and creating a new source of income.
If Real licenses Harmony to others, this hurts Apple's chance of licensing Fair Play themselves if they ever decide to. Companies may choose Harmony because it is licensed cheaper.
This is what I have a problem with.
Some might say that this situation is similar to Samba and reverse engineering Microsoft's networking protocols. Well, it might be similar but there are some differences.
- Samba is free and open source (no one is profiting off of it)
- Microsoft isn't actually licensing their networking protocols to other operating system to use.
Just my two cents.
What do you guy's think.
Mike
Originally posted by MPMoriarty
- Samba is free and open source (no one is profiting off of it)
Lots of companies are profiting from Samba. To name a few: Apple, IBM, RedHat, Novell and Sun.
The FairPlay implementation that Real most likely studied to create Harmony is also free and open source.
- Microsoft isn't actually licensing their networking protocols to other operating system to use.
Incorrect.
Originally posted by Welder
Lots of companies are profiting from Samba. To name a few: Apple, IBM, RedHat, Novell and Sun.
The FairPlay implementation that Real most likely studied to create Harmony is also free and open source.
Incorrect.
Really.
I'm sorry. I didn't know that about Microsoft. Thank you for telling me.
But even though companies are still profiting from Samba, it is still a different situation. Samba is free and open source. Companies don't have to pay to use Samba. They are just entitled to give back to the community if they modify the source.
But my position on Real actually wanting to charge other companies to use Harmony still stands. This still hurts Apple if they decide to want to license their version of Fair Play.
Like I said before, this is Real looking after Real. They see that they can make money selling this technology that fools the iPod to play other online music stores' songs.
If Real was really doing this for their customers and trying to make the online music platform more friendly, they would do what Samba is doing.
Make their source code open source and allow others to use it.
This is just my opinion of course.
Mike
Originally posted by mmmpie
Im confident that the record companies will be very happy to have a competitor for itms on the most popular playback device. Competition will drive down costs, or rather, increase record company profits. They want to be locked into one supplier about as much as we do.
This statement makes no sense. The record companies are not locked into Apple in any way, shape or form. Period. What "competition" do they care about here and why? Alls they care about is selling as many songs as possible. Apple is a music retailer just like Tower Records, Musicland and Sma Goody. Sure the record companies want as many outlets as possible and they have allowed for that to happen. But they don't care about competition to "drive down costs". Drive down who's costs?
c) I absolutely agree that Apple needs all the income it can get to remain strong. However, Apple positions itms as a loss leader ( ver small profit last quarter ). Having Real selling for the iPod only helps to relieve one of the concerns that some users have about lock in. It may not help itms, but it may well help iPod sales, which is what Apple really wants.
Yes, but...here's where some longer term thinking helps. What happens if a company, say Real, is able to build a service that can play DRM protected music on any device (including iPod)? Well, suddenly you have no reason to use iTMS or iTunes and you are not locked into the iPod. Which is what Apple's desire is. The problem for Real is that there is no profit in selling only the music. Apple made sure of this by setting a market price that contains no profit. Apple can afford to do this, but a store selling only the music has to come up with something else. Apple really need to stay aggressive and wait out the inevitable...a few of these music-only store to run out of money. Some are close...Real certainly is.
Apple is in trouble with Fairplay when unlicensed manufacturers work out how to play it back. Then itms will be supporting devices other than the ipod. That hasnt happened yet. I also think that it will contravene the DMCA, so Apple should be pretty safe from such competition in the US.
Well, if this happens, Apple will have the RIAA on their side too.
Frankly, I don't think Apple really cares about the DRM except that the record companies wanted it.
1. Hymn strips Apple's DRM from AAC Protected files. Apple can't stop it.
2. Real reverse engineers Fairplay to allow anyone on the iPod. Apple can't stop it
3. "DVD Jon" cracks the Airport Express keys to allows more audio files to be streamed from non iTunes apps.
In each case the reasons for the cracks or reverse engineering are benign but the damage to Apple cannot be seen. I think Apple is beginning to realize that lax DRM doesn't work. Apple and every other company has a right to develop technology that they can benefit from. I could see if Apple hadn't licensed the technology , after it being available for quite a while, was still closed. Apple is not even getting a chance here and someone is encroaching on their territory. It's wrong and I wouldn't begrudge Apple modifying their views on this. It's a free market society if people don't like your price they don't have to purchase.
This isn't just about music. Personal Data files need to be protected with the same ferocity.
Maybe my views of what DRM is are far too broad for most. But if we look at the Internet for what it is...just a large network and we view our computers as just another node on this network then it's plain to see that we need protections in place that go beyond just a firewall or virus program. We need security down to the file level.
I'm sure crackers like DVD Jon are itching for the next morph of FairPlay.
Originally posted by hmurchison
"DVD Jon" cracks the Airport Express keys to allows more audio files to be streamed from non iTunes apps.
He didn't 'crack the keys'... he published a method to identify the public key for the device you own. The public key is used to encrypt the data sent across the wireless network to the device... and all he's done is identify the key so that others can use it. There's no breaking of DRM here.
In each case the reasons for the cracks or reverse engineering are benign but the damage to Apple cannot be seen. I think Apple is beginning to realize that lax DRM doesn't work. Apple and every other company has a right to develop technology that they can benefit from. I could see if Apple hadn't licensed the technology , after it being available for quite a while, was still closed. Apple is not even getting a chance here and someone is encroaching on their territory. It's wrong and I wouldn't begrudge Apple modifying their views on this. It's a free market society if people don't like your price they don't have to purchase.
This isn't just about music. Personal Data files need to be protected with the same ferocity.
The DRM will be attempted to be cracked in many ways whilst it's in the public eye, by both academics and hackers. Accept it.
Apple aren't responsible for protecting your personal data files (short of patching known methods of attack). The owner of that data is.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's because DRM encompasses both. To many on these boards DRM represents an evil that prevents them from doing what they want with their files. However, the flipside is DRM should be able to offer you the same benefits. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect their precious files across partitions or even computers.
Did you read the link shetline posted?:
Cory Doctorow's DRM talk at Microsoft
Read it and see why all the 'haters' are hating.
But the take away point that you seem to be missing is that DRM cannot *ever* work. The fundamental premise is flawed, so anyone scrabbling for DRM on their own 'precious files' is buying into an unachievable dream. DRM cannot, and will not stop people from copying your data. Cryptography can and does protect your own files but only from outsiders, not from the people you want to be able to read them as well.
It's all well and good that there are companies making a buck by scaring content producers and inconveniencing ordinary users by promising the moon, but to actuallly think any DRM has ever worked is laughable.
And even if it did work (which it doesn't) have you ever heard of the Analog Hole?
If it can get to your ears it can be recorded.
If it can get to your eyes it can be photographed and filmed.
DRM producers know all this, that's why they need to back up their pathetic technical precautions with heavy legal penalties for 'hackers' who circumvent these restrictions. (I say 'hackers' because sometimes it's as easy as holding down shift when you put in a copy-protected CD)
'Digital files cannot be made uncopyable, any more than water can be made not wet' - Bruce Schneier
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's because DRM encompasses both. To many on these boards DRM represents an evil that prevents them from doing what they want with their files. However, the flipside is DRM should be able to offer you the same benefits. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect their precious files across partitions or even computers.
Protect your files from what and whom?
Do you have some files that you want to protect right now? Go into your /Applications/Utilities folder, run Disk Utility, make yourself a nice 128-bit AES protected disk image file, and drop your files in there. You're files are now very safe from prying eyes, so long as you don't give anyone else your password. No matter what user account, partition, or computer you use to store this disk image, the files remain just as protected one place or another. Stick this disk image file on DVD Jon's hard drive and tell him you'll pay him a million dollars if he cracks it and (as long as you didn't choose a stupid password like "password" or your wife's birthday) your files are still very safe.
Suppose you want to give your files to someone else and keep those files safe. You ask that person for his public key, encode your files with his public key, and now not even you can look at these encrypted copies of your files (although you still have your originals that you can read, of course). Only the recipient can read the encrypted files, and once again, they are very safe so long as the recipient doesn't give anyone else his own private key.
Now, regardless of whether it's the RIAA or you personally wanting this kind of control for your own use, if what you think is "needed" is the ability to give someone else your files, allow that person to read/listen/watch/run/etc. those files (in other words, do something useful with those files other than storing them), yet somehow leave that person powerless to pass those files on to someone else -- that's the unworkable pipe dream.
In the sense that they've managed to figured out keys that they weren't already given in the first place, or figured out how to peer into encrypted data without using any key at all, people like DVD Jon have not truly "cracked" anything. All they've done is figure out the inherently weak tricks that DRM schemes try to use to give you the keys you need and try to hide them from you at the same time.
If you can read the words, THEY HAVE BEEN DECODED. If you can hear the music, it HAS BEEN DECODED. If you can see the video, IT HAS BEEN DECODED. You might find some ways to make it inconvenient for the recipient to pass what they can now read, hear, and see on to someone else, but the cat's out of the bag. You've given the recipient everything they need to decode the data you've given him -- if you hadn't done so, the data would be useless.
You don't seem to get this point.
Just to show how silly this gets, let's pretend that we are talking about a cat. A DRM-protected pet, sold to you on the condition that no one else but you can own this cat or play with this cat, and that this cat is never allowed to leave your home.
Well, there are now a bunch of conditions you have to meet in order to be allowed the great privilege of purchasing DRM Cat. First of all, you have to live in a DRM Cat-approved home, with all of the necessary sensors and locks on every window and door for detecting the approach of DRM Cat and sealing tightly before DRM Cat can get out.
Breaking a window to let DRM Cat out of your house, or sawing a hole through a wall if it comes to that, is of course possible, but under the newly passed DMPCA (Digital Millennium Pet Control Act) it is now illegal to break your own window, or to do anything to circumvent the locks meant to keep your cat in your house. Doing anything that would, or even could, circumvent these sensors and locks also violates the license agreement you signed when you purchased DRM Cat, leaving you open to civil liability as well as criminal charges.
Oh, and since no else but you is allowed to play with DRM Cat, the window/door sensors detect when anyone else enters the house, and a small electric shock is delivered via DRM Cat?s Virus Protection Collar (which is there, according to the DRM Cat manual, for the cat and the cat owner?s safety, of course) to chase the cat away until that person leaves. Removing or otherwise tampering with the Virus Protection Collar is also illegal under the DMPCA and a violation of your license agreement.
Since cat owners who do not live alone might find little time to enjoy DRM Cat under these conditions, for a small additional charge you can purchase a Family Pack license so that you and your whole family can enjoy DRM Cat.
Now suppose you want to take your cat with you to your summer home on vacation. No problem ? just provide MicroCat Corporation (the proud manufactures? err, breeders that is, of DRM Cat) proof that your summer home is also DRM Cat-approved, then purchase (at a very reasonable price, of course) an extra license for your DRM Cat for this other address, and then either convey the cat to your summer home via a DRM Cat-approved car (addition per-cat licenses required), or simply call MicroCat for their convenient (and also reasonably priced) DRM Cat Conveyance Service.
When, oddly enough, DRM Cat proves to be selling badly, MicroCat?s lobbyists (pleading for protection of the incomes of poor, independent cat breeders everywhere, just trying to make a fair living!) work to pass the DMPCA II, requiring by law that all new houses built starting in 2010 meet DRM Cat standards, that all other house be retrofitted by 2015, and making the breeding of cats which do not conform to UPC (Universal Pet Control) standards illegal.
Maybe my views of what DRM is are far too broad for most. But if we look at the Internet for what it is...just a large network and we view our computers as just another node on this network then it's plain to see that we need protections in place that go beyond just a firewall or virus program. We need security down to the file level.
We already have security down to the file level, anytime we want it.