If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   After thinking about it, someone realizes DRM's purpose has nothing to do with piracy and is actually very good at its true purpose (Hint: It involves money)   (yro.slashdot.org) divider line 44
    More: Interesting, DRM, copy protection, first sale, free softwares, vlc, open source software, The Pirate Bay  
•       •       •

6606 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Mar 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-20 08:41:22 AM
www.myfriendthetv.com
'I can't honestly decide whether to say "duh" or "doy" or a very sarcastic, "Oh, really?" '
 
2013-03-20 09:25:05 AM
That is simply one of the most idiotic things I have ever read

i23.photobucket.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-20 09:30:58 AM
This is related to a point I've made before: Much of the arguing over free flow of information assumes we have relatively open hardware and networks, because a world where you can't boot your own Linux is unthinkable to the people making the arguments. But the government could put all sorts of restrictions on hardware, such as prohibiting the ability to boot unauthorized software.
 
2013-03-20 09:46:26 AM
Done in one.
 
2013-03-20 09:47:31 AM
img191.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-20 09:49:50 AM

MacWizard: Done in one.


And you read it in his voice/cadence, too.

// "You. Girl's name. C'mere."
 
2013-03-20 09:49:55 AM

cman: That is simply one of the most idiotic things I have ever read

[i23.photobucket.com image 640x480]


Actually its mostly true. Yes the writer is an idiot. But the purpose of DRM is for legal purposes, not so much for the purposes of controlling the end user. If I'm a distributor like Amazon, and I want to distribute DRM free MP3s, I've got to get an legal agreement with content producers to do so and pay a higher royalty. For content that Amazon encrypted and sells though a DRM system, the agreements are simpler and the fees are lower. The DRM can be as brain dead as possible, it doesn't matter, they just have to show that they tries. But what the author is talking about is the legal framework of licensed playback devices. This is another issue, you can then patent your playback system and require that everyone buy a license to use your enclusive end to end system. Whereby if you don't encrypt the content, you control none of the system. It doesn't matter how brain dead your DRM is, just that its there and protected by a patent.
 
kab
2013-03-20 09:50:03 AM
Pretty dumb assessment, considering that DRM affects (and has been attempted) for far more than DVDs.

It's in place to ensure that the folks who create the content get paid for their services.  Fairly simple.
 
2013-03-20 10:01:43 AM
Leave the legal ecosystem and your possibilities are endless.
 
2013-03-20 10:04:08 AM

kab: Pretty dumb assessment, considering that DRM affects (and has been attempted) for far more than DVDs.

It's in place to ensure that the folks who create the content get paid for their services.  Fairly simple.


Yup, and in principle there's nothing wrong with that.  The problem lies in shiatty implementations making products (either the ones in question or something else in the viewing software/hardware) unusable, paradigms based on the harassment of legitimate users, and so on.

Note that basically nobody anywhere has a beef with, say, Steam's DRM scheme, where you can't be banned and the DRM is linked to another useful service (game updates, chat, friends lists) and the aspects which could cause trouble are disabled easily enough (offline mode) even without real computer savvy.

Meanwhile, you also have shiat like battle.net and Diablo 3....

//Well, in principle, when Steam crashes I yell obscenities in three languages at it as loudly as I do when a bit of lab equipment or a part of my car craps out.  But that's more cursing luck, not the system itself.
 
2013-03-20 10:20:05 AM

Kuroboom: [img191.imageshack.us image 642x380]


I would if I could download one.
 
2013-03-20 10:26:35 AM
I enjoy poking fun at some of the folks on Slashdot (a word which, oddly, seems to be included in the Firefox dictionary by default) and pointing out that their beloved CHMOD in Linux is, in fact, DRM. (CHMOD is file permissions for *NIX for those who aren't familiar with it.) It's funny to watch them try to justify their hate of ALL things DRM when you point it out to them. DRM isn't a bad thing, how it is implemented or why it is implemented can be bad. And, no, I only do it to those who are zealots and start with insisting that all DRM is bad and/or those that use DRM need to die from an overdose of nerd rage.
 
2013-03-20 10:29:21 AM
The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices

And the effect of DRM is that consumers create blacklists of content providers whom they are less likely to do business with than they are a syphilitic whore with leprosy.
 
2013-03-20 10:33:54 AM

Kuroboom: [img191.imageshack.us image 642x380]


You don't know me!
 
2013-03-20 10:43:22 AM

UnspokenVoice: I enjoy poking fun at some of the folks on Slashdot (a word which, oddly, seems to be included in the Firefox dictionary by default) and pointing out that their beloved CHMOD in Linux is, in fact, DRM. (CHMOD is file permissions for *NIX for those who aren't familiar with it.) It's funny to watch them try to justify their hate of ALL things DRM when you point it out to them. DRM isn't a bad thing, how it is implemented or why it is implemented can be bad. And, no, I only do it to those who are zealots and start with insisting that all DRM is bad and/or those that use DRM need to die from an overdose of nerd rage.


The only people who try to justify their hate of all things DRM are children, and you are wasting your time talking to them.  They'll get it when their balls drop and they have to start paying for their own hot pockets. As you say, the problem is in the implementation.
 
2013-03-20 10:45:07 AM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-20 10:49:59 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [i46.tinypic.com image 642x380]


I would after I downloaded in her.
 
2013-03-20 10:54:27 AM

Robots are Strong: you are wasting your time talking to them


I disagree. It isn't wasted time. It is time invested, true, but it is time invested in my own entertainment. I have a great deal of fun antagonizing them and don't actually expect to change anybodies mind. I'm not sure if anyone has actually ever had their mind changed due to an internet argument. It is strange really. The internet was made for porn, to swap lies, and to argue. Billions of arguments have been had online and I'm not sure if a single one has ever resulted in someone changing their mind.
 
2013-03-20 10:56:11 AM
I think DRM is really more about explaining why the piracy boogeyman won't be a problem to executives and investors that don't really know much about computers
 
2013-03-20 10:58:16 AM

ZAZ: But the government could put all sorts of restrictions on hardware, such as prohibiting the ability to boot unauthorized software.


While the DMCA is a first foray into this, I think there'd be serious constitutional issues with trying to enforce a restriction like that in the US. The idea that "software is speech" wouldn't be hard to float past even the biggest business-friendly Supreme Court. That's before you get into the technological challenges in enforcing that.
 
2013-03-20 11:12:18 AM

Kuroboom: [img191.imageshack.us image 642x380]


Yeah, but I might download pirate plans for one and print it using a 3D printer (a couple decades from now).
 
2013-03-20 11:14:45 AM

UnspokenVoice: Robots are Strong: you are wasting your time talking to them

I disagree. It isn't wasted time. It is time invested, true, but it is time invested in my own entertainment. I have a great deal of fun antagonizing them and don't actually expect to change anybodies mind. I'm not sure if anyone has actually ever had their mind changed due to an internet argument. It is strange really. The internet was made for porn, to swap lies, and to argue. Billions of arguments have been had online and I'm not sure if a single one has ever resulted in someone changing their mind.


I will concede this point to you, you've changed my mind.
 
2013-03-20 11:16:46 AM

t3knomanser: ZAZ: But the government could put all sorts of restrictions on hardware, such as prohibiting the ability to boot unauthorized software.

While the DMCA is a first foray into this, I think there'd be serious constitutional issues with trying to enforce a restriction like that in the US. The idea that "software is speech" wouldn't be hard to float past even the biggest business-friendly Supreme Court. That's before you get into the technological challenges in enforcing that.


Software (specifically video games) has already been determined to be speech by the Supremes (Brown v. Entertainment Software Association).  It is illegal to make a law regulating the sale of violent video games to minors (let alone adults) due to this ruling.
 
2013-03-20 11:24:56 AM
I thought DRM was solely there for the purpose to make everything run super laggy and crap out half way through a disc, therefore pissing off everyone who actually bought the product in the first place and making sure they don't want to buy anything else.
 
2013-03-20 11:29:48 AM

ZAZ: This is related to a point I've made before: Much of the arguing over free flow of information assumes we have relatively open hardware and networks, because a world where you can't boot your own Linux is unthinkable to the people making the arguments. But the government could put all sorts of restrictions on hardware, such as prohibiting the ability to boot unauthorized software.


Sure, they could but would it matter? It's not like there's gobs of people all over the world who would enjoy the challenge of breaking whatever restrictions there might be. All it takes is one person to figure out how to do it and publish it and suddenly anyone can do it. There's people who take apart hardened cryptographic hardware for fun and profit, everyday consumer electronics wouldn't be terribly difficult.

Would most people bother? No, but it only takes one.
 
2013-03-20 11:56:46 AM
1. Am I correct in that the link goes to a message board post that links to a Google+ status update?  Or is the Google+ post just a reprint of an article that is somewhere else?

2. Did I wake up in 1989 and the console wars are just heating up?
 
2013-03-20 12:19:02 PM
Can someone use small words to explain what DRM is? I thought it required you to be online to play even single-player games so that it can communicate back to the publisher.

I'm probably way off, though.
 
2013-03-20 12:22:48 PM

cman: That is simply one of the most idiotic things I have ever read

[i23.photobucket.com image 640x480]


Lolwut? Microsoft's stated direction is to always-on, cloud-centric computing. It's eminently believable that their next game console will have a preferred mode of always-on (with a contingency for offline use).
 
2013-03-20 12:23:08 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [i46.tinypic.com image 642x380]


Holy f*ck.

i lol'd.
 
2013-03-20 12:23:37 PM

Carousel Beast: cman: That is simply one of the most idiotic things I have ever read

[i23.photobucket.com image 640x480]

Lolwut? Microsoft's stated direction is to always-on, cloud-centric computing. It's eminently believable that their next game console will have a preferred mode of always-on (with a contingency for offline use).


Oops, wrong thread.

/Apologies sir
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-20 12:36:18 PM
heypete

You're making assumptions about the implementation, specifically that it can or will be hacked by a single person in such a way that a small amount of data allows the whole world to break security. But let's suppose the boot signature key gets stolen. That means everybody needs to take in a computer to the service center to get a new boot key. If you hang on to your hackable hardware you're in the same position as the guy who couldn't let go of his Traci Lords underage porn collection after it became illegal. Possession of an insecure computer could be like possession of child porn or a gun with the serial number filed off.

I don't see any serious legal problem with a law regulating what software can be run, absent some use of it to suppress protected speech. We already have it. OS makers have had to change their operating systems to meet ADA regulations, for example. You would have to make an "as applied" challenge to show that it really harmed your right to free speech.

The next step is trickier to pass.

What I want as the hypothetical evil overlord in charge of content regulation is a prohibition on unapproved, non-snoopable internet connections. For example, SSL keys could require a license. To get a license you prove that you keep good records and turn them over to the government on request. Banks would be granted licenses as a matter of course. Fark would get a license if Drew convinced the feds that the servers stored encrypted network traffic in a form the government could get at. Some random Tor endpoint would get an armed raid and the owner lots of prison time.

But that's going to be hard to get by American courts because it is obviously restricts legitimate anonymous speech. Maybe with a bandwidth limit -- you can have an encrypted voice quality connection, but not a video quality connection. Or maybe we get Clipper Chip again (an early 1990s proposal to standardize on an encryption method that the government could crack but third parties could not).
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-20 12:49:27 PM
One more observation on free speech and hacking. One of the questions a court asks to decide free speech cases is, is a restriction on speech narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest? Let's say only booting signed operating systems is upheld under that standard. Some hacker comes along and cracks all the boot keys, breaking the system. Now the government can say it needs a broader restriction on running software because it tried a narrow rule and that didn't work.

Winning a battle can cost you the war.

In the 1990s some guy in Montana went to the state Supreme Court and got the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit invalidated. The legislature responded with a specific speed limit that was much lower than the old one. He beat a speeding ticket, but he didn't do drivers any favor.
 
2013-03-20 01:22:29 PM

ZAZ: You're making assumptions about the implementation, specifically that it can or will be hacked by a single person in such a way that a small amount of data allows the whole world to break security. But let's suppose the boot signature key gets stolen. That means everybody needs to take in a computer to the service center to get a new boot key. If you hang on to your hackable hardware you're in the same position as the guy who couldn't let go of his Traci Lords underage porn collection after it became illegal. Possession of an insecure computer could be like possession of child porn or a gun with the serial number filed off.


I suppose I am making some assumptions, though I don't think they're terribly unreasonable ones: I'm basically considering UEFI's "secure boot" being used in an evil way.

There's plenty of people who possess and use illegal things on a daily basis. Some of them get caught, but most don't. I don't really see a similar situation arising from the mass criminalization of commodity PCs. Drugs and illegal guns are already heavily restricted with severe penalties for importing, distributing, or using them, and yet they're still easily  accessible to those willing to break the law to get them.
 

I don't see any serious legal problem with a law regulating what software can be run, absent some use of it to suppress protected speech. We already have it. OS makers have had to change their operating systems to meet ADA regulations, for example. You would have to make an "as applied" challenge to show that it really harmed your right to free speech.

[citation needed]

To the best of my knowledge, OS vendors provide utilities for disabled people because it's the right thing to do and widely expected, not because it's required by law. I'm not an expert, but the ADA puts accessibility requirements on physical things like buildings, airplanes, etc. and services like phone companies and doesn't directly regulate software.

The next step is trickier to pass.

What I want as the hypothetical evil overlord in charge of content regulation is a prohibition on unapproved, non-snoopable internet connections. For example, SSL keys could require a license. To get a license you prove that you keep good records and turn them over to the government on request. Banks would be granted licenses as a matter of course. Fark would get a license if Drew convinced the feds that the servers stored encrypted network traffic in a form the government could get at. Some random Tor endpoint would get an armed raid and the owner lots of prison time.


Yeah, restricting math isn't really going to work.

How would you "license" crypto when it's already "out there" and there's no real way to put that genie back in the bottle?

Creating self-signed SSL keys is easy (I use them with my OpenVPN server.). Getting them signed by non-US CAs is also easy.

Sure, running a Tor exit node may result in certain consequences, but what prevents one from running it on a server in a different country if they're really concerned?
 

But that's going to be hard to get by American courts because it is obviously restricts legitimate anonymous speech. Maybe with a bandwidth limit -- you can have an encrypted voice quality connection, but not a video quality connection. Or maybe we get Clipper Chip again (an early 1990s proposal to standardize on an encryption method that the government could crack but third parties could not).

Yeah...that's pretty unlikely. That ship's already sailed. The restrictions in the 1990s were pretty absurd, particularly when they didn't apply to the whole world. PGP was export-restricted for a bit, but books are Constitutionally-protected and not export-restricted. Phil Zimmermann printed out the source code as a book (legal), two Norwegians came over, bought the book, took it to Norway, scanned the code, compiled it, and distributed it from there. The government realized that particular fight was futile and gave up on it. I don't really see any feasible way of them ever reversing it.
 
2013-03-20 01:53:18 PM

kab: Pretty dumb assessment, considering that DRM affects (and has been attempted) for far more than DVDs.

It's in place to ensure that the folks who create the content get paid for their services.  Fairly simple.


So, money?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-20 01:55:20 PM
heypete

If crypto is licensed the network must block anything that isn't obviously legitimate. Otherwise the ban serves little purpose. Sneaking encrypted content through along with legitimate-looking data (steganography) provides low encrypted bandwidth, which is good enough if the goal is to prevent people stealing movies and stuff. You can also carry removable media, but then you have to do work. If I am trying to keep people from stealing my high definition movies I may be content to raise the bar from "ask my computer to download all new movies" to "carry the bits around and worry that the new guy in my face-to-face sharing group is an MPAA agent."
 
2013-03-20 02:12:53 PM
i was excited about the new SimCity, but since it blows dog, i'm glad i didn't run right out and get it.

however, i'm needing assistance now in what to go with & would appreciate any help or guidance

i'm also a  steam virgin, but about to buy one of the following games tonight:

SimCity 4 deluxe edition

or

Civilization V

or

Caesar  III

my biggest question:  are Civilization V  &  Caesar III like Halo Wars?  in that you just play a "match" and then are done and start again

or are they like SimCity: on going but with warfare ?

so confused

thanks!
 
2013-03-20 02:51:00 PM
Do people who say "It's about money, not piracy" know what piracy means?
 
2013-03-20 02:58:25 PM

inner ted: i was excited about the new SimCity, but since it blows dog, i'm glad i didn't run right out and get it.

however, i'm needing assistance now in what to go with & would appreciate any help or guidance

i'm also a  steam virgin, but about to buy one of the following games tonight:

SimCity 4 deluxe edition

or

Civilization V

or

Caesar  III

my biggest question:  are Civilization V  &  Caesar III like Halo Wars?  in that you just play a "match" and then are done and start again

or are they like SimCity: on going but with warfare ?

so confused

thanks!


There is a demo of Civ 5 on Steam. That'll give you a good idea of what the game is. There is an expansion to Civ 5 called Gods and Kings that I would consider essential. If you do decide to purchase Civ 5, do yourself a favor and get the "gold edition."
 
2013-03-20 03:19:58 PM

UnspokenVoice: Robots are Strong: you are wasting your time talking to them

I disagree. It isn't wasted time. It is time invested, true, but it is time invested in my own entertainment. I have a great deal of fun antagonizing them and don't actually expect to change anybodies mind. I'm not sure if anyone has actually ever had their mind changed due to an internet argument. It is strange really. The internet was made for porn, to swap lies, and to argue. Billions of arguments have been had online and I'm not sure if a single one has ever resulted in someone changing their mind.


Well,I changed my mind - but the new one doesn't work any better than the old one.
 
2013-03-20 03:21:11 PM

Need a Dispenser Here: inner ted: i was excited about the new SimCity, but since it blows dog, i'm glad i didn't run right out and get it.

however, i'm needing assistance now in what to go with & would appreciate any help or guidance

i'm also a  steam virgin, but about to buy one of the following games tonight:

SimCity 4 deluxe edition

or

Civilization V

or

Caesar  III

my biggest question:  are Civilization V  &  Caesar III like Halo Wars?  in that you just play a "match" and then are done and start again

or are they like SimCity: on going but with warfare ?

so confused

thanks!

There is a demo of Civ 5 on Steam. That'll give you a good idea of what the game is. There is an expansion to Civ 5 called Gods and Kings that I would consider essential. If you do decide to purchase Civ 5, do yourself a favor and get the "gold edition."


gracias !!
 
2013-03-20 04:18:38 PM
And what is the purpose for linking to slashdot instead of linking to the article?
 
2013-03-20 06:04:14 PM
I burn every movie I get from blockbuster. I suppose DRM works, by delaying me 20 minutes while I remove the copyright.
 
2013-03-20 06:53:40 PM

robbiex0r: And what is the purpose for linking to slashdot instead of linking to the article?


To piss you off. Well worth it, too.
 
2013-03-21 12:46:33 AM

UnspokenVoice: I enjoy poking fun at some of the folks on Slashdot (a word which, oddly, seems to be included in the Firefox dictionary by default) and pointing out that their beloved CHMOD in Linux is, in fact, DRM. (CHMOD is file permissions for *NIX for those who aren't familiar with it.) It's funny to watch them try to justify their hate of ALL things DRM when you point it out to them. DRM isn't a bad thing, how it is implemented or why it is implemented can be bad. And, no, I only do it to those who are zealots and start with insisting that all DRM is bad and/or those that use DRM need to die from an overdose of nerd rage.


Yes, when you take the term completely literally "Digital Rights Management" could be interpreted to include file permissions. However that is not what DRM means and you'd have to be either completely dishonest or completely retarded to try to include Linux file permissions in that category.

DRM refers to measures taken by digital content distributors to restrict the ways in which the consumer an use that content. Chmod is a linux command which allows you to change settings controlling who can do what with a file on a machine you have some level of access to.

For the benefit of the terminally stupid
1) Encrypting video so that it can only be viewed using approved software/hardware is DRM
2) Restricting write permissions on a document in your home directory so that only you can edit it is not DRM
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report