Accepting regional information

Comments

1. Giel about 9 hours later: (delete)

   This service probably uses some form of DRM, unless it is expected from their customers to comply to the usage rights manually ("You may watch this on one computer. You have 30 days from the transaction to download the file and 24 hours to watch it after you first click play."). There are still a lot of problems, both conceptual and implementational, with DRM and especially the combination with open software is quite painful. Hence, their system requirements.

   Mind you, I'm not against DRM per se and I'm not one of those that states "it'll never work" or "it's dead". I envision useful solutions, based on convenience. DRM does not have to be airtight, as long as it's convenient to use and the hassle to break it does weigh more than the price of the product protected.

   Note that they don't forbid you to play the movies on another OS, it's just not supported: "Please note that while you might be able to watch some titles on systems with other software, we only support the above configuration." ¶

2. Manfred Stienstra about 10 hours later: (delete)

   I understand they have to use some sort of DRM, but I would really like it if they could use an open and cross-platform DRM. I think no such system is currently available from a large vendor so I understand their decision, as a consumer I'm disappointed that I live in a non-supported country and use a non-supported OS. ¶

3. Giel about 10 hours later: (delete)

   Open DRM is theoretically possible, but it requires hardware support to be effective. Almost all cryptology (IANAC) relies on some sort of secret (the key). With personal cryptology (e.g., PGP and friends), the user can be trusted to keep this secret as it's in his own interest. DRM-like cryptology has to take measures to make it (near) impossible to leak the secret.

   Closed software can be implemented in such a way that this secret is encrypted in the binary and even stored encrypted in memory and is only at some point available in the CPU cache, which makes it hard (but not impossible!) to obtain. Using open software, this can't be done and thus the secret has to be kept in some protected hardware block. This is not generally available and thus working open DRM is neither. ¶

4. Thijs van der Vossen about 13 hours later: (delete)

   Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see why cross-platform DRM would have to be open?

   Then again, apart from the iTunes Store I haven't seen a DRM system for digital downloads where the customer experience doesn't suck. It may very well be 'theoretically possible' to do effective open and interoperable DRM but for various -- mostly political -- reasons I think it's highly unlikely to happen in the real word.

   There's not a single thing that hasn't been pirated because of DRM so I _do_ think DRM has not worked, will never really work and can therefore be considered dead.

   IMHO the best thing for content distributors is to come up with is a way to embed your identity and the usage rights in the media file without trying to use technical measures to enforce these rights. If you add fingerprinting it's even possible to prove you legally own the media. This can be done a lot more secure than DRM can ever be because no secret keys has to be outside the distributors' direct control. ¶

5. Giel about 15 hours later: (delete)

   Cross-platform DRM does not have to be open, it was just a requirement by Manfred ("open and cross-platform DRM"). And by RMS, of course. In practice, do you know of any example of closed software on a truly open OS that doesn't suck?

   Going as far as saying the IMS (does Steve want we spell it iMS?) doesn't suck is quite bold. I'm going out on a limb here as I admit I have no first-hand experience with the iMS, but I doubt they've solved the problems of easy interchange, interoperability and vendor lock-in. I'd gladly hear if I'm wrong here.

   All protection whatsoever will eventually (probably rather sooner than later) be hacked, that's besides the point. The only way any DRM system could ever work is if obtaining a legal copy of content is easier (and reasonably priced) than obtaining an illegal copy. This includes ways to just get a copy from a friend and obtain the usage rights to it in a non-intrusive way. It's all about convenience. I know I'm a dreamer in this respect, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of this happening. The reason this hasn't happened yet is, IMO, because of the wrong focus of content providers; they're not pleasing their customers, and if something sucks, we won't buy it.

   It might very well be that it turns out that the best solution to reach this situation is no encryption at all, but I very much doubt that humans are honest and trustworthy like that. We're greedy, but we're also lazy. If obtaining a legal, encrypted but not usage-crippled copy is easy (clicking in an online store, using a TV set's remote, copying it from a friend and automatically obtaining usage rights on first play, etc.) and obtaining an illegal copy involves hassle (you know it does, altho not very much for the tech-savvy, it does for Joe Average who just wants to watch a movie on his TV), I know what I'm going to do. Hell, if I could just pay a couple of bucks so I don't have to search for a torrent and hope it downloads etc. I'll be happy.

   With the not-yet-really-visible introduction of IPTV and VoD and all distribution problems involved, it might be closer than you think. ¶

6. Thijs van der Vossen about 15 hours later: (delete)

   When I was still running Linux on my workstation VMware certainly did not suck.

   And I'm not talking about easy interchange, interoperability and vendor lock-in. I'm talking about the fact that the Apple software, the store and the player just work fine.

   Also, I've paid for at least 90% of the 16GB of music on my MacBook. I strongly doubt I'm so special that I'm the only one. Without DRM I'd probably buy more.

   Actually, I'm already buying more at emusic and from the Philadelphia Orchestra store (flac!) than from the iTunes Store. ¶

7. Giel about 15 hours later: (delete)

   I can't resist going into hardcore geek mode here: yes, VMware does suck. Can you say 'binary kernel modules'? The problems involved with properly supporting those are just too numerous (are out of the scope of this document, man, I've been reading too much standardization stuff lately).

   You might not mind being locked-in by the iMS, but many people do, which leads to unsatisfactory customer experience and that was what I was talking about.

   Buying stuff you can get for free without consequences does make you a special person (that is a compliment). You're not the only one, but from experience I know we're in the vast minority. Think about the countless paperclips and post-it notes are being stolen from office environments, for example... it's a sad, sad world. ¶

8. Thijs van der Vossen about 16 hours later: (delete)

   You're indeed in hardcore geek mode. VMware has always worked fine.

   Even though there may be some binary-only bits in there the VMware kernel modules are actually compiled for you (again, with a nice and smart user friendly script) if you're not running a kernel they're shipping a pre-compiled module for. ¶

Add your comment

Your name: (also leave contact information)

Your email address (will not be shown):

The url of your website:

Remember me

Your comment: