IEEE Working Group Considers Kinder, Gentler DRM

[kjk]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...entler-drm.ars

People don't like DRM in large part because it removes much of their control over things like e-books, music, and movies. Want to loan a DRMed song to a friend? You probably can't, even though sharing a physical item like a CD remains trivial.

A new IEEE working group has an ambitious plan to change this and return control over "digital personal property" to consumers. DRM's electronic tethers would be cut, but rightsholders would not need to remove all limits on sharing. Instead, digital personal property enables the same sort of private sharing that is easily possible with physical objects while still preventing worldwide mass distribution.

They have an interesting scheme, trying to balance the realities of content management-worth a read if you are interested in the whole DRM issue beyond the "it's pure evil" stance

[Worldwalker]

The words that come to mind are "cumbersome" and "fragile".

One of the things they just don't get: hindrance of use. I have, perfectly legitimately, a full copy of Adobe Photoshop. I also have, equally legitimately, an upgrade version of a later edition of Adobe Photoshop. However, because my original one is quite old, it isn't auto-detected by the upgrade installer, and every time I have to do a system rebuild (which has happened twice so far) I have to call Adobe to get a time-limited override code so I can install the thing. The entire process is entirely too much of a pain in the rear. Every time I face doing it again, I consider obtaining a cracked version of a product that I legitimately bought and paid for because the process of legitimately installing my legitimately-owned software is just too annoying.

If you make things complicated and annoying enough, users who would otherwise never dream of such a thing will eventually turn to illicit sources to get what they want, and when they've done it once, it gets easier and easier. That slope is not just slippery, it's got rollers on it.

As Baen has proved, if you offer a good product at a fair price, people will buy it. All else aside, people like feeling virtuous. Make your product inconvenient at best and borderline useless at worst, and sell it for an excessive (as compared to equivalent paper formats) price, and people will circumvent those things which inconvenience them. Which are, in this case, the DRM. Making the DRM more cumbersome and inconvenient, and even more fragile than it already is, will encourage even more illicit copying. Basically, it's a big step in the wrong direction.

[GeoffC]

Convoluted....

[Moejoe]

Pointless?

[DawnFalcon]

Sssh, let them waste their time on this, it's less damaging than a lot of other things they could be trying.

[kovidgoyal]

Their three words: "tamper protected circuit"

My three words: "Good luck Chuck"
Or
"Go Apple/Microsoft go"

[Shaggy]

A new IEEE working group has an ambitious plan to change this and return control over "digital personal property" to consumers. DRM's electronic tethers would be cut, but rightsholders would not need to remove all limits on sharing. Instead, digital personal property enables the same sort of private sharing that is easily possible with physical objects while still preventing worldwide mass distribution.

The stated goal of DRM "preventing worldwide mass distribution" has been nothing but a red herring from the beginning. That's the reason they tell the public they are using DRM in order to get the public to accept it. The REAL reason they are using DRM is to "give control over digital personal property to distributors".

DRM is useless for preventing piracy, but it does a great job of taking away fair use from legitimate customers.

This working group might have noble goals in mind, but it's pointless. If you take away the things DRM is really for (consumer rights restriction) and focus it on the things that it is completely unsuitable for (copyright protection), then you're left with nothing.

[EowynCarter]

What Shaggy said.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Basically, their system doesn't prevent someone from sharing their "link key" on a public web site, so it is no more effective than any other DRM system. They are depending on people being unwilling to share, according to fear of prosecution (assuming the key can be traced to the person who released it). We already know that assumption is a bad one.

This idea yawns. There are better ways to enact document security (think biometrics!).

<SJB:ducksAndCovers />

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This idea yawns. There are better ways to enact document security (think biometrics!).

<SJB:ducksAndCovers />

Now that is just scary!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Now that is just scary!

Why? Come on, we're all friends here (well mostly)... you can tell us!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This idea yawns. There are better ways to enact document security (think biometrics!).

Biometrics would be just as useless in preventing piracy as current DRM.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Biometrics would be just as useless in preventing piracy as current DRM.

Why is that, exactly?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Why is that, exactly?

Because the pirates would just strip out the code for the biometrics and have a clean copy.

[Elfwreck]

The playkey, unlike the title folder, can't be copied—but it can be moved.

Every time I read that, it gets more funny. Maybe they mean it can't be *used* when it's copied. (You can copy Kindle Topaz books onto a Sony Reader. Can't read them there, but you can copy them.) I think it's hilarious when tech orgs fail at basic computer terminology. Especially if they're doing it deliberately to appease corporate sponsors, and hoping that other techies won't bring it up.

(I'm not much of a computer geek. However, "can move but can't copy" hurts my head. If that's true, then they need to explain how the transfer is 100% safe--what happens if there's a power hiccup during the file movement?)

The entire system is predicated on the fear of loss; share with people you don't know, and at some point your playkey will probably be moved to someone else's control.

And publishers & media corps won't object at all to online "playkey share groups" that collect hundreds of playkeys into a digital library, which anyone *could* grab & keep, but most people don't. Authors won't mind reading groups springing up on Twitter, saying "who's next for this playkey?"

And of course, none of them will mind resale of playkeys on Craigslist & ebay.