Q: In a message sent to a leading Linux-targeted e-mail list, he outlined a controversial proposal: Nothing in the basic rules for the Linux operating system should block developers from using digital rights management (DRM) technology. DRM tools are technological locks or identification measures that range from ensuring a software program is really a film to protect against unauthorized copying.Linky (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,, t269-s2133872, 00. html? rtag = zdnetukhompage)
Whatja think?
Re:Maybe. It's hard to say, because I know that mostly MS just wants people to want it's product. And that the vast majority of everyone is just interested in doing their jobs and are willing to take measures to protect themselves and their profits from their work.*
*warning: sidenote
(which is the actual definition of "liberty". The right to profit and control what you make with your own work/effort, not some amorphous abstract concept about human rights and protected right to happiness/comfort/security or whatnot. The right to profit from your work, to control your destiny. Not the right to walk down the street and not have people sneer at you, not the right from hunger/suffering/pain. etc)
If MS or a bunch of computer people get together with the media-makers and decide that they want to establish a set of standards to protect their work and make it easier for the average computer user to protect themselves, is not something that I am scared of. In fact its what makes the internet work in the first place. A set of standards that everyone agrees to and everyone enforces.
But once they try to make it law or whatnot it begins to make me nervous. What if it's unjust, or to restrictive? or if is not realy effective, but everyone has to follow it anyways making it harder for the average person to compete because now they have to follow regulations and proceedures dictated by their competitors? What if someone creates a better way of doing things, but it conflicts with the established way of doing things? I don't think it is ever a good thing to get the governement involved. As long as the TCPA is kept out of the legislation. I realy don't have a problem with it. That's why I think the DRM is a bad thing. You should have the right to go after criminals that steal and sell your own work/music/movies/code whatever. But to make it illigal to reverse engineer hardware/software/storage media or to learn how to break codes is a bad thing or to make it illigal to distribute knowledge about a specific product. How are people suppose to improve security or encryption if they are not allowed to disect what is in current use? Stuff like that is what this industry thrives on.
I may be a bit paraniod, but hopefully that doesn't stop me from learning. Anyways the "fritz chip" stuff is just the hardware extension of the software stuff in TCPA, isn't it? Just as long as pallidum and TCPA is purely voluntiary I actually like it. If it does something I don't like I can just tell it to f**k off and it won't affect me.
Re:As most have said DRM has it's uses and I think it'll be better (as most things are IMO) in Linux than in Windows because it'll be used as it should be, to enable users access to specific data (like movie trailors, downloadable music, etc) but it won't be used to restrict how the computer is used.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
I thought that part of the way pallidium (possible ways) works is in junction with the fritz chip, If the manufacturer wanted to that computer would only allow the OS that came with the computer to run the computer.
Part of it would activily set out and destroy any illigal software you may have on you computer. You know any mp3 from copyrighted music would be deleted, and I assume that part of it would also include refusal to play drm-protected movies that have been ripped and cracked.
Not that I have anything against a company or person protecting his/her work. It's their's, they made it and they can decide what they want to do with it (doesn't mean of course I have to actually BUY it, I have better things to do with my time then trying to figure out a way to play crappy hollywood films on my computer. I'll just buy ones that will.)
But this is the first I heard of Pallidium being a choice. I thought the only choice was not to use it. But it's not like I am a expert or anything.
That is all speculation by (mostly) this one guy who is not only anti-microsoft but an alarmist of the worst kind. He parades unfounded speculation around as if it was fact, and due to the nature of the internet some people begin to believe him, and soon enough, everyone *knows* it's true. Nevermind that the whole "Fritz chip" is a term and and a concept that he came up with all on his own, or that he has few facts. People will believe anything if they want it to be true, or are afraid that it is.
I think the Linux approach to DRM is more realistic than what most people are assuming will happen. The concept is, sure, you can use it or not. If you don't, you may be "free", but Sony et all doesn't have to make their stuff work on your system. That's their right, just like it's your right to support DRM or not. I believe that this kind of approach is what will eventually come to pass, and I think all this talk of "Fritz chips" and MS taking away our rights is unfounded and built on an irrational fear of loosing your freedoms. Sure, it might be true, but ask yourself this. Do you really think it's true, or are you simply afraid that it is?
Re:I thought that part of the way pallidium (possible ways) works is in junction with the fritz chip, If the manufacturer wanted to that computer would only allow the OS that came with the computer to run the computer.
Part of it would activily set out and destroy any illigal software you may have on you computer. You know any mp3 from copyrighted music would be deleted, and I assume that part of it would also include refusal to play drm-protected movies that have been ripped and cracked.
Not that I have anything against a company or person protecting his/her work. It's their's, they made it and they can decide what they want to do with it (doesn't mean of course I have to actually BUY it, I have better things to do with my time then trying to figure out a way to play crappy hollywood films on my computer. I'll just buy ones that will.)
But this is the first I heard of Pallidium being a choice. I thought the only choice was not to use it. But it's not like I am a expert or anything.
Re:Originally posted by: Vortex
I dont have a problem with DRM being avaliable on Linux. I'm sure it has some legit uses. The great thing is, we wont be forced to use DRM, like you will with Palladium. So what if its in the kernel? You dont have to enable it. I dont see any open source developers integrating DRM into their applications and forcing the users to use it. Even if that happens, there will be plenty of alternatives you can use, and most likely patches removing the functionality all together. I dont care if somone goes out and makes a DRM based distribution, I dont have to use it. There will always be alternatives, and if for some reason there wasnt, you could go in and rip out all the DRM code yourself.
If your looking at models where your going to license media (say pay per view movies or music) from Sony/Universal/etc, then having this support in the OS is the only way that media will be available to play on the system. Your absolutely right that you don't have to use it (just like you wont with Palladium), but the tradeoff will be your access to that restriced content.
The idea of 'ripping' the drm code yourself shows you don't really understand how it will be used. It really doesn't matter if its there (or not), if you rip your own cd nothing is going to magically force DRM on it. It's when your going to bring content in from off the box that is secured. If you want that content, you'll need drm to play.
This happens everyday in satellite and cable tv converters and no-one blinks, someone wants to watch a pay-per-view on their computer and everyone is up in arms 
Bill
Re:I honestly don't care much. For the time being, it doesn't affect me, and I don't see it affecting me in the future, so I'm just kinda apathetic about it.
Re:I dont have a problem with DRM being avaliable on Linux. I'm sure it has some legit uses. The great thing is, we wont be forced to use DRM, like you will with Palladium. So what if its in the kernel? You dont have to enable it. I dont see any open source developers integrating DRM into their applications and forcing the users to use it. Even if that happens, there will be plenty of alternatives you can use, and most likely patches removing the functionality all together. I dont care if somone goes out and makes a DRM based distribution, I dont have to use it. There will always be alternatives, and if for some reason there wasnt, you could go in and rip out all the DRM code yourself.
0 Comments.