new form of drm. dpp

[ahammer]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-property.ars

found this one slashdot

dont see how this would stop the files from being copyed(or put onto ptp) but who knows if anything will amount of this.

most customers would not be to mad about this setup I think

[Shaggy]

It sounds kind of useless to me. Enforcing the whole idea behind only one person being able to have a copy of the key at a time is going to be really difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Not to mention that most of the time the way DRM gets broken is that the encryption is removed. This method is just as susceptible to that as any other DRM.

People like this need to learn that there is no such thing as a DRM scheme which cannot be broken. Unfortunately, they keep trying to come up with a "better mousetrap" and ignore the fundamental reality that the mouse can not be caught.

[Elfwreck]

It's a step in the right direction--we need legally transferable digital property. However, it looks like it has all the problems of server-based DRM: if the host site disappears, so does your access.

it imposes no restrictions on copying (except for those that arise naturally from fear of loss).

Sounds like, "you still can't extract text to quote from the ebook for your thesis; you'll have to retype those sections."

[acidzebra]

The idea is to make it a "rivalrous good," one that, after being taken, deprives someone else of something.

Massive fail for digital content right there. Artificial scarcity = BS.

[Moejoe]

Anybody or group that comes up with another one of these stupid schemes should be taken out and slapped roundly in the face with a haddock until they get some sense.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Anybody or group that comes up with another one of these stupid schemes should be taken out and slapped roundly in the face with a haddock until they get some sense.

I don't so much blame the groups coming up with these schemes as I do the industry that keeps buying in to them. After all, if the Music/Movie/Book industry is offering to pay companies to come up with new DRM methods, there will be lots of people out there willing to sell them snake oil.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't so much blame the groups coming up with these schemes as I do the industry that keeps buying in to them. After all, if the Music/Movie/Book industry is offering to pay companies to come up with new DRM methods, there will be lots of people out there willing to sell them snake oil.

How do these people live with themselves though? They're obviously talented to some degree, and they're wasting that talent selling the Emperor's New Clothes to dinosaur industries who are ignoring the oncoming comets. It's all very, very sad.

[Elfwreck]

The more I look at this, the less sense it makes.

The playkey, unlike the title folder, can't be copied—but it can be moved. To give your friends and family access to the file in question, you can send them a copy but must also provide a link to the playkey. Under the DPP system, though, anyone who can access the playkey can also decide to move it to their own digital vault—in essence, anyone can take the content from you

The playkey "can't be copied?" Can only one user access it at a time? And how do you arrange a computer file that "can't be copied?"

this system solves most consumer problems with DRM: no Internet tether on files, no online authentication servers that could go dark, and the unlimited ability to backup files and share them with others. Want to send a song to fifty friends? You can. Want to back it up online, on DVD, on your NAS, and on 3.5" floppy disks? Knock yourself out. Want to resell DPP files by transferring the playkey to a new owner? You can. You just can't share with the entire world—or someone will steal your purchase.

Can't be copied, can be used by family & friends, but isn't tied to the internet? Can someone who speaks better geek than I explain what kind of file this could possibly be?

The creators of the system posit that releasing a playkey into the wilds of the internet will quickly get it stolen... obviously, they've never heard of bugmenot. I suspect there are indeed jerks who would steal playkeys. I suspect there are also rather large numbers of people who would just exchange playkey location lists.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

How do these people live with themselves though? They're obviously talented to some degree, and they're wasting that talent selling the Emperor's New Clothes to dinosaur industries who are ignoring the oncoming comets. It's all very, very sad.

There are people out there who are only interested in taking the money, and don't care about the rest.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Can't be copied, can be used by family & friends, but isn't tied to the internet? Can someone who speaks better geek than I explain what kind of file this could possibly be?

Imaginary? I speak geek, and no, this doesn't make any sense.

The creators of the system posit that releasing a playkey into the wilds of the internet will quickly get it stolen... obviously, they've never heard of bugmenot. I suspect there are indeed jerks who would steal playkeys. I suspect there are also rather large numbers of people who would just exchange playkey location lists.

I suspect that most people would just strip the DRM and share the unencrypted copies, like what most people already do on filesharing sites.

The whole idea is BS. They're basically saying that to stop piracy, they'll come up with a way to discourage people from sharing their PIDs. The problem is, that's not how piracy works. People don't share PIDs, they strip the DRM and then share the files. This new method doesn't stop that from happening, so it's basically uselsess.

I'm sure it sounds like a brilliant idea to some industry executive, so these guys will probably get funding from somewhere. It's essentially just fancy sounding snake oil though.

[Hellmark]

The only way off hand I can think of something that "can't be copied", is to require some third party to transfer the playkey through. You have your app for managing the files, tell it to send the playkey to a transfer service (which if some sort of common standard and system is setup, it wouldn't have to be only one place), and then when it does that, it breaks the file locally. Then on the receiving end, you enter in the "link" (remember the article specified link), and it downloads it and imports it from the link (which is the only way to import it into the manager). This way it wouldn't be tied to the internet, in the sense of having to phone home, or authenticate from the same server. However, there would be ways to break that or get around it, such as setting up a server that doesn't properly follow the guidelines and lets multiple transfers happen, or cracked versions of the manager.

Really, mousetraps only make it convoluted to those setting it up, and not to the mouse, who just happens to have a college degree in engineering and a blowtorch.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Imaginary? I speak geek, and no, this doesn't make any sense.

Thank you. I was trying to wrap my head around "can't be copied," so I translated that to "won't work in a different location because it attaches to registry or something," and then got to "can be moved," which reads to me like "our customer service reps will be up to their eyeballs fixing download glitches that killed the only functional copy of the playkey," and then I read "no internet tether," which, umm, I'm just going to ignore and back away slowly.

I suspect that most people would just strip the DRM and share the unencrypted copies, like what most people already do on filesharing sites.

Well, yes. And in addition to that, there'll be legitimate share sites that count on trust to keep the playkeys working. Which large groups of hackers often manage to arrange... but can't be done by libraries.

Way to go; more DRM that utterly fails to allow the most well-known free use of pbooks.

I'm sure it sounds like a brilliant idea to some industry executive, so these guys will probably get funding from somewhere. It's essentially just fancy sounding snake oil though.

Of course they'll get funding. New code! New DRM that will fix our problems! We'll issue the content in two parts--the file with the content, which anyone can copy, and the key, which will be just like your house key: if you've misplaced it or someone else has it, all copies of content are worthless!

I'm sure people will be lining up to buy that version!

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Really, mousetraps only make it convoluted to those setting it up, and not to the mouse, who just happens to have a college degree in engineering and a blowtorch.

i wonder if they'll every catch on to that "tiny detail" ?

i'm with elfwreck, i can't for the life of me understand how this is supposed to work (on a technical level, i mean. it just sounds impossible) and the whole thing seems ridiculous.

[Hellmark]

You know it will never turn out exactly as they say it will.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It sounds kind of useless to me. Enforcing the whole idea behind only one person being able to have a copy of the key at a time is going to be really difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Not to mention that most of the time the way DRM gets broken is that the encryption is removed. This method is just as susceptible to that as any other DRM.

People like this need to learn that there is no such thing as a DRM scheme which cannot be broken. Unfortunately, they keep trying to come up with a "better mousetrap" and ignore the fundamental reality that the mouse can not be caught.

You sure about that? No one's done Topaz yet....