Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 3 hrs, 3 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 4 days, 23 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to wmarone For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-06-26
, 17:46
|
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ Illinois, USA
|
#72
|
Originally Posted by wmarone
I see those two use cases as the same. Please explain the difference you perceive?
The core philosophy of DRM is problematic as there is no "core philosophy." Some use it to ensure only paying customers access content. Others use it to try and implement transactional systems and rental services. The only thing DRM has is a goal, and that is to protect revenue streams.
Originally Posted by wmarone
Digital Rights Management. It doesn't imply some overarching capitalistic extreme. Its merely a tool to insure that only paying customers have access to what they should have access to. PEOPLE may USE it to implement these sorts of ideas. Then your malice should be directed at those people, not the tool.
The grander goal of DRM is to monetize every and all uses of content. Move to a different device, charge a fee. Make a ringtone, charge a fee, etc. To grow the revenue stream and leave the end-user powerless.
Originally Posted by wmarone
A perfect DRM system would allow people to do what they should be able to do. No more and no less. The question is can such a system be created? I am inclined to believe that it can, but I admit I don't want to be the guinea pig for all the iterations it may take to reach it.
Originally Posted by mmurfin87DRM is explicitly intended to do just that. It just so happens to break down every so often (technical failure, business failure) and deny users rightful access to what they own.The only real objection here can be when the DRM doesn't allow users to do what they should be able to do.
Last edited by mmurfin87; 2010-06-26 at 17:50. Reason: added " to what they should have access to" in my second paragraph.
| The Following User Says Thank You to mmurfin87 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-06-26
, 17:53
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#73
|
Originally Posted by mmurfin87
You're right, they largely are the same.
I see those two use cases as the same. Please explain the difference you perceive?
Digital Rights Management. It doesn't imply some overarching capitalistic extreme.
Its merely a tool to insure that only paying customers have access. PEOPLE may USE it to implement these sorts of ideas. Then your malice should be directed at those people, not the tool.
A perfect DRM system would allow people to do what they should be able to do. No more and no less.
The question is can such a system be created? I am inclined to believe that it can, but I admit I don't want to be the guinea pig for all the iterations it may take to reach it.
Man, I'm highly amused at all the pro-DRM arguments on a forum centered on a (mostly) open source phone OS.
|
|
2010-06-26
, 18:01
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#74
|
I think the so-called pro-DRM arguments are in expectation of what MeeGo will bring and the acceptance therein.
Will it mean no repository, no community, no music that can't be freely shared? Not in the least.
It means mostly that bigger corporations will finally support a Linux based endeavor that previously we've enjoyed without no big 3rd support.
Will it mean no repository, no community, no music that can't be freely shared? Not in the least.
It means mostly that bigger corporations will finally support a Linux based endeavor that previously we've enjoyed without no big 3rd support.
|
|
2010-06-26
, 18:15
|
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ Illinois, USA
|
#75
|
Originally Posted by wmarone
That would also be an apt description.
Considering it imposes restrictions and no real rights, I don't see the need to expand the acronym. "Digital Restrictions Management" is equally applicable.
Originally Posted by wmarone
True there are many vendors who consider users as hostile foreign entities. DRM by itself doesn't have to make them as such. Proper DRM could also be used to give rights to the user and restrict the ability of vendors to do certain things in the same way it restricts users. This contains some elements of the control you talk about. I agree users do need control.
Well, the essential -tools- in question are that of encryption and key management. I have no problems with those so long as they're under the control of the user. DRM is deliberately outside the control of the user, whom the vendor sees as a hostile entity to be protected against.
Originally Posted by wmarone
Certainly RIAA and MPAA have a vision and a strategy of an ecosystem in which DRM is used restrictively according to their desires. I think the DRM system I dream of is also dreamed of by those organizations, although the restrictions and rights we would both put into place are polar opposites.
Well, that's -your- opinion of a perfect DRM system. I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA's vision of a perfect DRM system is much more draconian and much, much more likely (since they can throw money at it.)
Originally Posted by wmarone
The idea basically is that I'm trying to remove all the "evilness" of DRM and put it on the people who use it. Similar to "guns don't kill people, people do."
The deal here, of course, is that you have no real say in the matter. They will not push for the middle of the road system you described. And if you think they will, you have far, far too much trust in organizations whose sole goal is to earn money.
Its a rule, though, that everyone believes that perfect DRM would be DRM that allows people to do all of and only what they should be able to do.
Whether its the RIAA restricting music piracy, or end users restricting vendor kill switches, DRM can be useful. Furthermore I don't think its diametrically opposed to open source.
Originally Posted by wmarone
I'm not so much "pro-DRM" as I am "anti-anti-DRM".
Man, I'm highly amused at all the pro-DRM arguments on a forum centered on a (mostly) open source phone OS.
| The Following User Says Thank You to mmurfin87 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-06-26
, 23:42
|
|
Posts: 741 |
Thanked: 900 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Auckland NZ
|
#76
|
Amazon also removed a book from people's Kindles some time last year. It was ironically George Orwell's 1984.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/te...azon.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/te...azon.html?_r=1
| The Following User Says Thank You to maluka For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-06-27
, 03:21
|
|
Posts: 4,556 |
Thanked: 1,624 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#77
|
Originally Posted by gerbick
It does mean however that if Nokia is planning on going forward with what they said earlier about DRM in Maemo that you may not be able to change the kernel, or do things in the underneath level without losing access to DRM apps.
I think the so-called pro-DRM arguments are in expectation of what MeeGo will bring and the acceptance therein.
Will it mean no repository, no community, no music that can't be freely shared? Not in the least.
It means mostly that bigger corporations will finally support a Linux based endeavor that previously we've enjoyed without no big 3rd support.
__________________
Originally Posted by ysss
They're maemo and MeeGo...
"Meamo!" sounds like what Zorro would say to catherine zeta jones... after she slaps him for looking at her dirtily...
 |
|
2010-06-27
, 03:28
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#78
|
Originally Posted by mmurfin87
I agree.
At the end of the day, there is almost nothing wrong with the core philosophy of DRM: to insure than only paying customers can use the software.
The only real objection here can be when the DRM doesn't allow users to do what they should be able to do.
I have no issue with a product creator wanting profit for their efforts. I have significant issues when protection goes so far as to interfere with the consumer's ability to enjoy that product as they see fit. But as long as DRM technology is something owned and pushed by singular entities rather than cooperatives, we're going to have that problem.
Ironic.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2010-06-28
, 05:00
|
|
Posts: 486 |
Thanked: 251 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#79
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Part of that worst case is losing any functionality from the phone radio. This has been true for the last two updates.
This is one reason I like the N900. I worried they'd add this in the PR1.2 firmware, which is why I keep copies of the older firmware around. Worst case we can always revert vai re-load of the base image.
__________________
The Mini-USB plug is an improvement over both the Type B plug and the Micro-B plug.
The Mini-USB plug is an improvement over both the Type B plug and the Micro-B plug.
The grander goal of DRM is to monetize every and all uses of content. Move to a different device, charge a fee. Make a ringtone, charge a fee, etc. To grow the revenue stream and leave the end-user powerless.
Last edited by wmarone; 2010-06-26 at 17:41.