4 ms·
... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far without the requirements being public.
by duncan_bayne 13y ago
... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far without the requirements being public.
- gsnedders 13y agoIt's not that surprising, given it started off with a proposal of the spec. I mean, it was basically stated that among other things a secure path to the external hardware (like HDCP) was needed, and the actual DRM itself isn't specified anywhere.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoYeah, that should have been a warning sign. The thing that really set off my spidey senses was folks on the list saying "if you have a better idea than EME + CDM, please propose it", then all proposals being shot down. The whole thing looks rather suspicious to me, hence my attempt to back it up a level of abstraction to the actual requirements.
- wmf 13y agoThere are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf (see Exhibit E on p. 90) In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convinced them that he'd make them enough money to make up for any piracy that iTMS allowed. Likewise Windows XP did not meet Blu-ray's "bag of hurt" robustness requirements but they made an exception because no one was running Vista and Hollywood presumably cared more about their movies being playable on computers than about the piracy that XP would allow. Of course, this doesn't help free software people who aren't willing to negotiate and would be starting from a very weak position even if they were.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoWhy do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here. It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents. EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.
- wmf 13y agoFree software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.
- betterunix 13y agoCan you even name any other class of software that cannot work unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even read the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoViruses, worms, trojans, spyware (think the NSA), hardware verifiers (think laptops that only allow one brand of battery). There are a few.
- chc 13y agoAs a class, just about any program that depends on security through obscurity has this trait.
- malka 13y agoThere is no 'Security through obscurity'. At best, you will have the illusion of security, wich is worse than no security at all.