dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
67
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Better, but not enough.

While P2P is a way to go, DRM isn't. I doubt they'll use BitTorrent, since they will want to bring authentication obviously, as well as all their DRM junk.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

DRM is a needed evil at times. Don't be so heavy handed when it comes to it.

This is a good concept. They could set up seed farms on Cable modems, fios pipes and seed on their paid for pipes for all the providers, as well as serve portions of cache from computers connected to customers connections if the opt in.

Pretty good idea over long term.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

DRM is simply never needed. It's proven time and again. Anyway, even if Netflix are to drop DRM, BitTorrent still won't suit them, since it has no authentication, while Netflix doesn't want content to be shared with anyone besides actual customers who paid for it, so they'll have to build authentication into their P2P solution.

All I was saying above, that their P2P solution would be poisoned by DRM anyway, since Netflix doesn't show any sign of planning to get rid of it.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

encrypted cache solves this. Session keys for a period of time. Once invalidated the cache is nuked and rebuilt and distributed... many ways to do this and you do realize even auth is a form of drm right ?
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

No, authentication is not a form of DRM. Authentication is a form of ensuring that you are you. DRM is a way of limiting what you can do with the data.

To give an example of a service which is DRM-free but has authentication. Once you are authenticated (logged in, etc.) you can download the data which you can then back up any way you want and use as well (without the service being present or relying on its tools like client and etc.). That's perfectly DRM-free to me.
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M to shmerl

Member

to shmerl
agreed look at the simcity disaster lol
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl to BosstonesOwn

Member

to BosstonesOwn
Actually, thinking of it, if they drop DRM, they can go as far as avoiding using authentication as well. Humble Bundle does that for DRM-free games for example.

I.e. the logic would be, if users would decide to pirate it illegaly (redistribute to others), they can do it either way if it's DRM-free, so putting authentication in the client won't change much, except may be preventing outsiders from accessing it without insiders help.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn to shmerl

Member

to shmerl
DRM is just that ! Authentication. Learn how it works, it authenticates you are who you are to be able to assess your rights to the content. Same as an auth does
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

DRM is not authentication, please don't confuse different concepts. Authenticating that you are you means that others shouldn't access your account. DRM means that even if it's you (you already accessed your account), you can't use the data the way you want (for example for backing it up) and so on.

I already explained the difference in the example above, about a service with authentication but without DRM (GOG is such service for instance). I'm not sure what you didn't understand there.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to shmerl

Member

to shmerl
+1 Exactly what I learned in school about Authentication. DRM is different mechanism, but tangentially related.
jjeffeory

1 edit

jjeffeory to BosstonesOwn

Member

to BosstonesOwn
You're talking about authentication and access control, which are different but related topics. Two of the three A's in information assurance (the third "A" being auditing).
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
Yes, while authentication is perfectly normal, DRM is already unethical preemptive policing.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Agreed, and it's pretty rotten to the customers who have restrictions on how they may use a product that they paid for. It also puts restrictions on the transfer of a product, which the company will say is merely a license to use their product, but a customer will say that they bought a product and want to do with it whatever they are legally entitled to do. Big argument ensues and that's sorta the battle here.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
pure semantics..drm is a form of authorization/authentication, when you start to argue on semantics you have lost it already.

The fact is drm is needed, if not there would be people pilfering everything... Let's leave the doors unlocked always so theres no need, you know just because we don't want to find a better way to do this.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

It may be semantics, but it is an industry accepted semantic. Since words have meaning, it's what we go by... Authentication and Access Control are two separate animals.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

1 edit

shmerl to BosstonesOwn

Member

to BosstonesOwn
DRM is a form of preemptive policing (i.e. treating the user as a criminal by default). Authentication is not preemptive and it doesn't treat user as a criminal. There is a huge difference. The fact is, DRM is not needed. It's unethical and evil and it doesn't even prevent piracy with that. Don't compare DRM to doors on your house. Compare it to police camera planted in your house. I hope this will help you understanding the concept better.
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

DRM doesn't treat the user as a criminal and it is indeed needed. If that is the case then the door lock treats all visitors as a criminal as well !

DRM is needed just like a lock, to keep the honest people honest. Maybe if you worked producing software or a service then you would see this as well. I don't understand people here. DRM is needed but they need to work on it to make it manageable and make it so it is not in the way of the user. We don't just scrap it because it doesn't work for you.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

quote:
DRM doesn't treat the user as a criminal
It does. DRM means - all users are treated as potential criminals, so DRM (a preemptive policing measure) is deployed to supposedly address that. Treating all users as potential criminals is not just insulting, it's unethical in this case, because such preemptive policing is overreaching, violating users privacy, freedom of speech as well as preventing them from exercising fair use because of all kind of DRM derived garbage like DMCA 1201.

DRM is not like a lock which you place on your door to protect yourself. It's like a police robot placed to spy on you inside your house. That's because DRM is located in your private digital space (in the programs you run, on your computer and so on).

Preventing crime is OK. Creating a police state where all citizens are assumed criminals by default placing police cameras in each house and putting handcuffs on all people "just in case" is not OK.

DRM always stands in the way of the user, it's the definition of it. It's always unethical because it's overreaching. And it's not even needed because it never prevents piracy. All it does is crippling usability of the product for users who pay for it.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Also, DRM can often times be thought of as Malware, as it inserts itself into the OS in many implementations and spies on the user's other activities in order to enforce. It's bad shit.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Sure, DRM should be always seen as a security risk and should never be trusted. So it's a good reason not to use operating systems with inherent DRM (like Windows for example). Luckily there are options with DRM-free OSes. DRM should be viewed like some kind of sickness which should be avoided.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

I agree in theory, but Windows isn't going away and there are many tools available on Windows that just aren't on the DRM-free OSes around. For most of the average consumers going anywhere but Windows or OS X is a non-starter, especially for gaming or music. There should be more non-DRM options around, but this simply drivers people to pirate content. I could see where someone might buy a game, then get the pirated, drm-free versions and use that ( even though there are risks associated with that other than the obvious legalities). The choices are to not participate atoll, acquiesce, or pirate; non of which is an ideal choice for everyone.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

I'd say it's exactly the opposite. For most users ditching Windows is alright. I don't use Windows at home for quite some time already. Gaming on Linux improved by leaps and bounds in recent few years and continues to do so (this includes both Wine which improved a lot and native games).

About music I didn't even understand what you meant. Music is by large available DRM free and can be played on any OS - there are tons of players like VLC and etc.

It's some special cases that may still require Windows. For example developers who make cross platform releases, or users of special software like Adobe inDesign or etc. For common entertainment and Internet usage, Windows is not needed at all.

DRM wise, besides music, gaming is improving (with services like GOG starting to grow), but e-books and video still lag behind (with video being the worst when it comes to DRM). That's why it's important to support DRM-free distributors. Since they stand up for their users and reject goods from publishers who insist on DRM.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Steam is going to help with the gaming aspect, but if you want to play Dead Space 3, Sim City, or Assassin's Creed, you pretty much need a PC or a Mac. Linux isn't going to do it. What I mean for music is iTunes. I know you can get DRM free versions of songs, but so many people seem to want to use iTunes, especially if that have iCrap, that you need a PC or a Mac. So that's what I meant. The really popular games and platforms all require Windows or Mac, so DRM is there. I like GoG, but those are older games that many younger people may not care to use, but I like the service and have a couple of games that way.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

I never understood how people could like using iTunes which doesn't even allow using various codecs. Audiophiles for sure wouldn't even touch it, since it doesn't support FLAC for instance. Otherwise, music is easy to get DRM-free. Amazon sells tons of it.

Steam while helping the Linux cause is in itself DRMed, so it's a mixed bag. I personally don't use it because of that. Luckily GOG announced that they'll roll out Linux support later this year.

GOG isn't focused on old games anymore, they changed their strategy a few years ago. As you can notice, they add new games which are available DRM-free from developers, and there are more and more of these coming out. The company behind GOG (CD Projekt Red) are now strong advocates of DRM-free gaming, and release all their Witcher games (including upcoming) DRM-free.

A lot of Windows only games are playable in Wine. While it's not perfect (some games don't work), it improved immensely recently. I played many Windows games in Wine and never needed to go to real Windows (if some potentially interesting game occasionally fails in Wine, it's not a big deal to skip it).
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Great to learn that about GOG. I only have some of the old Ultima and Wizardry games. I hate itunes too. Steam is DRMed, but it is at least a gateway to Linux and Mac, and at least starts to get games away from Windows, which as you know we've been trying to get more games on Linux and Mac for a very long time. With SteamBox, everything is DRMed, but I haven't thought about the limitations of that system yet; maybe you can't transfer the software to another user easily? Otherwise, Steam games a cracked all the time; DRM must not be that robust.

I've tried Starcraft on Wine, and using applications on Wine, but it's awkward. Wouldn't the DRM be installed for games too under Wine? I mean, it may not work correctly, but they're a part of the install. I can't imagine an average user going through all the effort, but for those who want to be an anti DRM activist or anti-Windows, I supposed it's an option. I'm more concerned with an easy solution for the masses who are lazy and just want a DRM free solution.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

3 edits

shmerl

Member

Well, since I'm using only DRM-free games (either old ones from disks, or digitally distributed from GOG, Desura or Humble Bundle and etc.), there is no DRM installed in Wine for me

PlayOnLinux makes Wine usage much easier (it can automate installation and Wine tweaking for many titles), especially if you need to manage multiple versions of Wine. There is PlayOnMac for OS X Wine users as well. While Wine requires some learning, it's nothing extraordinary that average gamer can't figure out.

Of course, Wine is only a workaround, caused by the fact that developers didn't release their games for Linux. To get most user friendly DRM-free option there simply should be more native Linux games. This is already happening. Ironically, Valve is probably one of the main drivers behind it. And while they are more pro-DRM than anti, it results in more DRM-free native Linux games coming out as well. Another thing that helps is more widespread use of crowdfunding. When stupid legacy publishers aren't involved, developers can be more user friendly and don't drag any DRM garbage in.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Oh yea, we should talk. You're a wealth of games information.