new form of drm. dpp

[Hellmark]

LRX hasn't either. How much work is being done on them? Maybe it just because people don't think it is worth the effort.

[igorsk]

Both just don't have high enough of return vs effort ratio.

[CleverClothe]

Here is the key to the story:

To access the content inside, however, you'll need the playkey, which is delivered to the buyer of a digital media file and lives within "tamper-protected circuit" inside some device (computer, cell phone, router) or online at a playkey bank account.

In other words, there is a trusted piece of software (online service) or device (like a security dongle) that keeps the playkey safe [from you]. That software or hardware enforces the no copy restriction. Probably the playkey will be encrypted while in transit. So you could either break that encryption, or the encryption on the content.

If you play by their rules, you are either tied to the internet or some special hardware.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

LRX hasn't either. How much work is being done on them? Maybe it just because people don't think it is worth the effort.

Probably. However, I beg to differ. I'd cheerfully buy several books from Amazon, even if I had to do it indirectly (since I don't own a Kindle), if Topaz wasn't a factor. While the Topaz format may only be on a fraction of Amazon's files, that percentage happens to contain several books I can't find anywhere else, can't buy from Amazon, and even if I could, couldn't read them. Frustrating to the EXTREME!

I'd beg my friendly local programming genius, but I don't happen to KNOW one!

[Hellmark]

If Amazon was more open on their ebooks, they'd be getting a bunch of sales from me. I see a lot of stuff I want, that is just there. But, I didn't want their reader.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

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.

The whole idea is (theoretically) a good one. Is it possible technically? I doubt it.

I do like the idea of making digital content a "physical" good, which you can loan out, sell, give away, etc. It would solve a lot of problems with the current DRM schemes.

But I've no idea how they envision the execution of this plan. I doubt it's possible with the current way of automation. You are able to move but not copy??? (and let's just forget for a moment that people will try to crack any security scheme, just because they want to crach any security scheme).

[Who are you?]

The whole idea is exactly the same as the current forms of DRM. Encryption and a secret key, either hidden in a blackbox/secure environment or managed by a third party.

The idea has the exact same benefits and downsides as current DRM as it is exactly the same, it has only been renamed for cosmetic reasons.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

The whole idea is exactly the same as the current forms of DRM. Encryption and a secret key, either hidden in a blackbox/secure environment or managed by a third party.

The idea has the exact same benefits and downsides as current DRM as it is exactly the same, it has only been renamed for cosmetic reasons.

Not exactly. Let's forget for a second on how to implement something like this (because I doubt it's even possible) and only look at the basics of it.

current DRM: you can make as many copies as you want, but you can only read it on a certain amount of devices.

DPP: you can make as many copies as you want, but you can only read it on one device as the same time.

And there is the huge difference: with the current DRM you can read the book on several devices at the same time. So, how will I know if you deleted the book from your HDD when you sold the book to me? Which is why you're not allowed to sell the book.

In the DPP, you don't sell the book, but the key required to read the book. So, it doesn't matter if you deleted the book from your HDD, because you can't read it anymore anyway, you sold me the key.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

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

Yes, I'm positive. The basic idea behind DRM is unworkable from a cryptography standpoint. "yet" is the important word in your statement above. Any of them can be broken, it's just a matter of time/effort.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I do like the idea of making digital content a "physical" good, which you can loan out, sell, give away, etc. It would solve a lot of problems with the current DRM schemes.

I agree, but a lot of those "problems" with the current DRM schemes are intentional. IMO, you're being naive if you believe that the elimination of a digital "used" market was an accident by the content industry.

I don't see the content industry willingly adopting a system that allows for more fair use, when everything they have been doing up until now has been geared towards removing fair use.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

current DRM: you can make as many copies as you want, but you can only read it on a certain amount of devices.

DPP: you can make as many copies as you want, but you can only read it on one device as the same time.

That's not exactly how I understood it to work. My interpretation was more along the lines of:

DPP: You can make as many copies as you want and can read it on as many devices as you want, but anybody with a copy has the ability to permanently disable your access. So, you are (theoretically) motivated to only "share" it with people that you know/trust.

[Shaggy]

deleted

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

LRX hasn't either. How much work is being done on them? Maybe it just because people don't think it is worth the effort.

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Probably. However, I beg to differ. I'd cheerfully buy several books from Amazon, even if I had to do it indirectly (since I don't own a Kindle), if Topaz wasn't a factor.

I'd beg my friendly local programming genius, but I don't happen to KNOW one!

The issue isn't finding a friendly programming genius, but finding one with access to Kindle Topaz files--because the average geek who'd love to play crypto games with ebooks can't even buy Topaz books, can't view them to figure out where the holes are.

Topaz and LRX are likely to remain uncracked because Topaz doesn't have a large enough market share to attract the interest, and LRX is being retired.

[ahi]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...1&cid=29353577

Originally Posted by Weaselmancer (533834)

It's like when a five year old tells you he can't find his shoes because he lost them. But he doesn't want to get in trouble so he'll say a gypsy took them. And you know the kid is lying but when you press him - he'll start to describe the gypsy. "He had purple pants, a gold shirt, and a moustache. He had a little monkey with him."

Much the same with DRM. They've lobbied for it, they've pushed it, they've gotten people to buy it and then yanked the key servers and left them high and dry. It can't be a swindle, they just haven't found the correct solution yet! So we go around and around with the industry talking about how to do this the right way. The truth is that there is no right way. The truth is that DRM is a lie. It can't work. Ever. Whenever you hold both the lock and the key, it stops being about cryptography and starts being about how to game the system.

Read up on how people beat DRM systems. Like DVD Jon. He's not a gonzo cryptographer. He didn't break DVD by his sheer mathematical skills. No. He was a kid with a machine code monitor who found the decrypted key in memory.

But like any good lie, you have to keep telling it once you start. Because the minute you say "well as it turns out there wasn't any gypsy" that's when you get in deep trouble. Imagine the class action lawsuits that would result! No, telling the lie over and over is much cheaper. So let's hear it for DRM2. I'm sure it'll buy the industry at least six more months before the next bored kid from the Netherlands comes along.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I agree, but a lot of those "problems" with the current DRM schemes are intentional. IMO, you're being naive if you believe that the elimination of a digital "used" market was an accident by the content industry.

I don't see the content industry willingly adopting a system that allows for more fair use, when everything they have been doing up until now has been geared towards removing fair use.

I don't see the content industry willingly adopting a system that will put their content online in a digital form...

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's not exactly how I understood it to work. My interpretation was more along the lines of:

DPP: You can make as many copies as you want and can read it on as many devices as you want, but anybody with a copy has the ability to permanently disable your access. So, you are (theoretically) motivated to only "share" it with people that you know/trust.

You only "share" it with people you trust because people might not give back the key to you (aka "move it to their own private store from the "shared store"). At least, that's how I read it...

Originally Posted by ahi

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...1&cid=29353577

I completely agree that any DRM scheme is bound to fail. And is also bound to cause harm to the industry and create frustration amongst the innocent buyers.