O GuitarTabs tem estado sem tablaturas isto porque um grupo de advogados enviou uma carta aos seus responsáveis a dizer que aquelas tablaturas violavam os direitos de autor de alguns dos seus clientes.
Este site tem de facto tablaturas de músicas com direitos de autor, mas são feitos através do velho método de orelha; oiço um bocado tento reproduzir, até conseguir reproduzir toda a música.
Segundo estes senhores isto é crime, porque a música tem direitos de autor. Já não bastava andarem a colocar DRM nas músicas seja em forma digital ou em cd, agora também vêm implicar com os hobbistas que gostam de tocar a sua musiquinha. Não consigo perceber o verdadeiro alcance que possa ter colocar uma tablatura de guitarra on line. É uma tablatura e não a musica, pode ajudar quando muito aquelas bandas de casamentos que tocam de tudo. Será que lhes tiram assim tanto?
O que esta aqui a acontecer é bastante semelhante ao que acontece com o software, mas a complexidade de tornar o código fonte de uma música em algum executável é bem mais complexo do que pegar num compilador e gerar um binário.
Também acontece quando se tenta criar um clone de outro software, como o linux como clone de unix, ou o reactos como clone do windows. Pode um programador ser acusado de pirataria por conseguir reproduzir um software (ou função) sem ter acesso ao código fonte original? o programador está a criar um software para uma função equivalente e não a copiá-lo.
Se dúvidas existissem sobre o quanto nos usam para ganhar dinheiro naquilo que deveria ser arte, vou ainda juntar este artigo sobre os níveis de som com que gravam os discos.
Actualização (8-7-2007)
A perseguição continua. Se antes eram as tablaturas agora são as aulas de guitarra.
Um grupo de professores de música publicou aulas de guitarra no Youtube e os seus vídeos foram retirados por violarem direitos de autor.
Não vou comentar mais. A ideia base desta posta e outras é a simplesmente mostrar como os nossos direitos são diariamente violados por grandes grupos/empresas que simplesmente podem, financeiramente, fazê-lo.
Sabem porque é que a Microsoft chamou Vista ao seu novo sistema operativo?
Então leiam:
Forget about the WGA! 20+ Windows Vista Features and Services Harvest User Data for Microsoft
- From your machine!
By: Marius Oiaga, Technology News Editor
Enlarge picture Are you using Windows Vista? Then you might as well know that the licensed operating system installed on your machine is harvesting a healthy volume of information for Microsoft. In this context, a program such as the Windows Genuine Advantage is the last of your concerns. In fact, in excess of 20 Windows Vista features and services are hard at work collecting and transmitting your personal data to the Redmond company. Microsoft makes no secret about the fact that Windows Vista is gathering information. End users have little to say, and no real choice in the matter. The company does provide both a Windows Vista Privacy Statement and references within the End User License Agreement for the operating system. Combined, the resources paint the big picture over the extent of Microsoft’s end user data harvest via Vista. Reading Between the EULA Lines Together with Windows Vista, Microsoft also provides a set of Internet-based services, for which it has reserved full control, including alteration and cancellation at any given time. The Internet-based services in Vista “coincidentally” connect to Microsoft and to “service provider computer systems.” Depending on the specific service, users may or may not receive a separate notification of the fact that their data is being collected and shared. The only way to prevent this is to know the specific services and features involved and to either switch them off or not use them. The alternative? Well, it’s written in the Vista license agreement. “By using these features, you consent to the transmission of this information. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you.” The Redmond company emphasized numerous times the fact that all information collected is not used to identify or contact users. But could it? Oh yes! All you have to know is that Microsoft could come knocking on your door as soon as you boot Windows Vista for the first time if you consider the system’s computer information harvested. Microsoft will get your “Internet protocol address, the type of operating system, browser and name and version of the software you are using, and the language code of the device where you installed the software.” But all they really need is your IP address. What’s Covered in the Vista License? Windows Update, Web Content, Digital Certificates, Auto Root Update, Windows Media Digital Rights Management, Windows Media Player, Malicious Software Removal/Clean On Upgrade, Network Connectivity Status Icon, Windows Time Service, and the IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT) Traversal service (Teredo) are the features and services that collect and deliver data to Microsoft from Windows Vista. By using any of these items, you agree to share your information with the Redmond Company. Microsoft says that users have the possibility to disable or not use the features and services altogether. But at the same time Windows update is crucial to the security of Windows Vista, so turning it off is not really an option, is it? Windows Vista will contact Microsoft to get the right hardware drivers, to provide web-based “clip art, templates, training, assistance and Appshelp,” to access digital software certificates designed “confirm the identity of Internet users sending X.509 standard encrypted information” and to refresh the catalog with trusted certificate authorities. Of course that the Windows Vista Digital Rights Management could not miss from a list of services that contact Microsoft on a regular basis. If you want access to protected content, you will also have to let the Windows Media Digital Rights Management talk home. Windows Media Player in Vista for example, will look for codecs, new versions and local online music services. The Malicious Software Removal tool will report straight to Microsoft with both the findings of your computer scan, but also any potential errors. Also, in an effort to enable the transition to IPv6 from IPv4, “by default standard Internet Protocol information will be sent to the Teredo service at Microsoft at regular intervals.” Had Enough? I Didn’t Think So! Microsoft has an additional collection of 47 Windows Vista features and services that collect user data. However, not all phone home and report to Microsoft. Although the data collection process is generalized across the list, user information is also processed and kept on the local machine, leaving just approximately 50% of the items to both harvest data and contact Microsoft. Still, Microsoft underlined the fact that the list provided under the Windows Vista Privacy Statement is by no means exhaustive, nor does it apply to all the company’s websites, services and products. Activation, Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP), Device Manager, Driver Protection, Dynamic Update, Event Viewer, File Association Web Service, Games Folder, Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition, Input Method Editor (IME), Installation Improvement Program, Internet Printing, Internet Protocol version 6 Network Address Translation Traversal, Network Awareness (somewhat), Parental Controls, Peer Name Resolution Service, Plug and Play, Plug and Play Extensions, Program Compatibility Assistant, Program Properties-Compatibility Tab, Program Compatibility Wizard, Properties, Registration, Rights Management Services (RMS) Client, Update Root Certificates, Windows Control Panel, Windows Help, Windows Mail (only with Windows Live Mail, Hotmail, or MSN Mail) and Windows Problem Reporting are the main features and services in Windows Vista that collect and transmit user data to Microsoft. This extensive enumeration is not a complete illustration of all the sources in Windows Vista that Microsoft uses to gather end user data. However, it is more than sufficient to raise serious issues regarding user privacy. The Redmond company has adopted a very transparent position when it comes to the information being collected from its users. But privacy, much in the same manner as virtualization, is not mature enough and not sufficiently enforced through legislation. Microsoft itself is one of the principal contributors to the creation of a universal user privacy model. The activation process will give the company product key information together with a “hardware hash, which is a non-unique number generated from the computer’s hardware configuration” but no personal information. The Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP) is optional, and designed to improve software quality. Via the Device Manager, Microsoft has access to all the information related to your system configuration in order to provide the adequate drivers. Similarly, Dynamic Update offers your computer’s hardware info to Microsoft for compatible drivers. Event Viewer data is collected every time the users access the Event Log Online Help link. By using the File Association Web Service, Microsoft will receive a list with the file name extensions. Metadata related to the games that you have installed in Vista also finds its way to Microsoft. The Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition will only report to Microsoft if the user expressly desires it to. Through IME Word Registration, Microsoft will receive Word registration reports. Users have to choose to participate in the Installation Improvement Program before any data is sent over at Microsof. Ever used a print server hosted by Microsoft? Then the company collected your data through Internet Printing. Network Awareness is in a league of its own. It does not premeditatedly store of send directly information to Microsoft, but it makes data available to other services involving network connectivity, and that do access the Redmond company. Via Parental Controls, not only you but also Microsoft will monitor all the visited URLs of your offspring. Hashes of your Peer Name tied to your IP address are published and periodically refreshed on a Microsoft server, courtesy of the Peer Name Resolution Service. Every time you install a Plug and Play device, you tell Microsoft about it in order to get the necessary device drivers. The same is the case for PnP-X enabled device, only that Windows Update is more actively involved in this case. The Program Compatibility Assistant is designed to work together with the Microsoft Error Reporting Service, to highlight to Microsoft potential incompatibility errors. For every example of compatibility settings via the Compatibility tab, Microsoft receives an error report. The Program Compatibility Wizard deals with similar issues related to application incompatibility. File properties are sent to Microsoft only with the item that they are associated with. You can also volunteer your name, email address, country and even address to Microsoft through the registration process. A service such as the Rights Management Services (RMS) Client can only function in conjunction with your email address. All the queries entered into the Search box included in the Windows Vista Control Panel will be sent to Microsoft with your consent. The Help Experience Improvement Program also collects and sends information to Microsoft. As does Windows Mail when the users access Windows Live Mail, Hotmail, or MSN Mail. And the Windows Problem Reporting is a service with a self explanatory name. But is this all? Not even by a long shot. Windows Genuine Advantage, Windows Defender, Support Services, Windows Media Center and Internet Explorer 7 all collect and transmit user data to Microsoft. Don’t want them to? Then simply turn them off, or use alternative programs when possible or stop using some services altogether. Otherwise, when your consent is demanded, you can opt for NO. What Happens to My Data? Only God and Microsoft know the answer to that. And I have a feeling that God is going right now “Hey, don’t get me involved in this! I have enough trouble as it is trying to find out the release date for Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows Seven!” Generally speaking, Microsoft is indeed transparent - up to a point - about how it will handle the data collected from your Vista machine. “The personal information we collect from you will be used by Microsoft and its controlled subsidiaries and affiliates to provide the service(s) or carry out the transaction(s) you have requested or authorized, and may also be used to request additional information on feedback that you provide about the product or service that you are using; to provide important notifications regarding the software; to improve the product or service, for example bug and survey form inquiries; or to provide you with advance notice of events or to tell you about new product releases,” reads a fragment of the Windows Vista Privacy Statement. But could Microsoft turn the data it has collected against you? Of course, what did you think? “Microsoft may disclose personal information about you if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to: (a) comply with the law or legal process served on Microsoft; (b) protect and defend the rights of Microsoft (including enforcement of our agreements); or (c) act in urgent circumstances to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, users of Microsoft software or services, or members of the public,” reveals another excerpt. And you thought that it was just you… and your Windows Vista. Looks like a love triangle to me… with Microsoft in the mix. Artigo Original
Your Freedom needs Free/Libre Software
by Richard Stallman
Many of us know that governments can threaten the human rights of software users through censorship and surveillance of the Internet. Many do not realize that the software they run on their home or work computers can be an even worse threat. Thinking of software as “just a tool”, they suppose that it obeys them, when in fact it often obeys others instead.
The software running in most computers is non-free, proprietary software: controlled by software companies, not by its users. Users can’t check what these programs do, nor prevent them from doing what they don’t want. Most people accept this because they have seen no other way, but it is simply wrong to give developers power over the users’ computer.
This unjust power, as usual, tempts its wielders to further misdeeds. If a computer talks to a network, and you don’t control the software in it, it can easily spy on you. Microsoft Windows spies on users; for instance, it reports what words a user searches for in her own files, and what other programs are installed. RealPlayer spies too; it reports what the user plays. Cell phones are full of non-free software, which spies. Cell phones send out localizing signals even when “off”, many can send out your precise GPS location whether you wish or not, and some models can be switched on remotely as listening devices. Users can’t fix these malicious features because they don’t have control.
Some proprietary software is designed to restrict and attack its users. Windows Vista is a big advance in this field; the reason it requires replacement of old hardware is that the new models are designed to support unbreakable restrictions. Microsoft thus requires users to pay for shiny new shackles. It is also designed to permit forced updating by corporate authority. Hence the BadVista.org campaign, which urges Windows users not to “upgrade” to Vista. MacOS also contains features designed to restrict its users.
Microsoft has installed back doors for the US government’s use in the past (reported on heise.de). We cannot check whether they have successors today. Other proprietary programs may or may not have back doors, but since we cannot check them, we cannot trust them.
The only way to assure that your software is working for you is to insist on Free/Libre software. This means users get the source code, are free to study and change it, and are free to redistribute it with or without changes. The GNU/Linux system, developed specifically for users’ freedom, includes office applications, multimedia, games, and everything you really need to run a computer. See gNewSense.org for a totally Free/Libre version of GNU/Linux.
A special problem occurs when activists for social change use proprietary software, because its developers, who control it, may be companies they wish to protest–or that work hand in glove with the states whose policies they oppose. Control of our software by a proprietary software company, whether it be Microsoft, Apple, Adobe or Skype, means control of what we can say, and to whom. This threatens our freedom in all areas of life.
There is also danger in using a company’s server to do your word processing or email–and not just if you are in China, as US lawyer Michael Springmann discovered. In 2003, AOL not only handed over to the police his confidential discussions with clients, it also made his email and his address list disappear, and didn’t admit this was intentional until one of its staff made a slip. Springmann gave up on getting his data back.
The US is not the only state that doesn’t respect human rights, so keep your data on your own computer, and your backups under your own custody–and run your computer with Free/Libre software.
Copyright 2007 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Comecemos pelo mais importante:
Protesto contra DRM, dia 25 (algumas informações por confirmar)
Se ainda não sabes o que são os DRM clica aqui.
E não menos importante:
Seminário sobre a GNU GPLv3 no dia 24, das 14h às 18h no Fórum Picoas.
O que parecia impossível aconteceu. Algo talvez sem precedentes. O “mundo” juntou-se em massa contra os grandes players do mercado de novas tecnologias e multimedia.
Reza a história que ao 2º de Maio do ano de 2007 uma associação obrigou um sitio na internet a retirar um numero de um site. Revoltados os utilizadores desse site encheram-no de artigos e mais artigos mandando o site abaixo. Os responsáveis imitiram um pedido de desculpas pelo que aconteceu.
A frase:
“If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying”.
O numero mágico:
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
0×09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
The Corruptibles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
The road to hardware free from restrictions: How hardware vendors can help the free software community
by Justin Baugh and Ward Vandewege
Senior systems administrators
Free Software Foundation
February 2007
Introduction
The computer hardware market is steadily evolving towards a more standardized ecosystem based on unrestricted hardware. Already, smaller vendors are realizing increased sales by ensuring that their hardware works optimally with free software and that drivers are easy to develop and maintain. Industry leaders have already been realizing these benefits in the server market, but have yet to make the same commitment for consumer hardware.
Vendors who understand this evolution will reap the benefits of leveraging the free software community. Vendors who fail to realize this will be left behind in the marketplace by more nimble competitors.
Free software drivers
One of the biggest problems facing the free software community today is the lack of free software drivers for common hardware. Significant advances have been made in providing drivers for GNU/Linux systems, either by tacit support from manufacturers or by an arduous process of reverse engineering. Two citadels of binary-only drivers still remain: wireless network interfaces and video cards. There is wide community support for free software drivers for all hardware. (The Free Drivers Petition to hardware producers currently has over 5,000 signatures.)
Almost all current wireless cards and USB devices either require binary firmware loaded by a free software driver, or require the use of Windows drivers via a free software emulation layer (Ndiswrapper). Ndiswrapper is an inefficient use of processor cycles. The binary drivers it requires are often of poor quality, which can lead to stability problems and support headaches.
Most video cards won’t perform at their full potential without binary drivers, especially in 3D applications.
The usual problems with proprietary software apply. Bugs in the proprietary drivers can result in a security vulnerability in the system itself that cannot be corrected without vendor intervention. Bugs noticed by the community can take months to be fixed—if they are fixed at all. Vendors regularly ignore the concerns of users who have already purchased their product. For instance, in the specific case of the binary NVidia drivers, there have been several high-profile security vulnerabilities that remained unpatched for far too long.
Hardware that requires binary firmware with a free software wrapper simply circumvents the issue by moving all intelligence into a black box that the user cannot open. This is merely smoke and mirrors—it creates the illusion that the hardware vendor respects freedom while the concerns of the community remain marginalized.
How hardware vendors can help
- Hardware vendors could require that full low-level technical documentation be made available for the hardware that goes into their products. This documentation should be made available in an unrestricted way, as used to be common practice.
- Vendors could encourage the development of free software drivers for their hardware either by writing the drivers themselves or by supporting community development efforts.
- Vendors could work with the community to get these drivers included in the standard version of the kernel, Linux. Doing this makes driver maintenance and upgrades much easier for developers as well as users.
How will this improve the situation for the vendor?
Hardware that is well-documented and supported by free software drivers will be significantly more useful to both the members of the free software community and the wider public. A reputation for hardware free of restrictions equates to positive product reviews, a stronger brand image and increased sales. (“In the survey of 1,800 young people, released by Cone Inc. and AMP Insights, two Boston marketing companies, 89 percent said they are likely to switch from one company’s brand to another if the second brand is associated with a good cause.” Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2006.11.09, Peter Panepento.)
Respecting the users’ freedom is a mark of an ethical company. (Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.)
Proprietary BIOS locks
There are a number of serious issues with the proprietary BIOSes that are shipped commonly with consumer systems from the big vendors. Two particularly glaring problems are:
-
The lock on the use of minipci cards in laptops
Several major vendors use code in the BIOS to lock down their machines’ otherwise completely standard minipci slots so that they only accept a couple of pre-approved extension cards. This is a major problem, particularly because the pre-approved cards are often manufactured by vendors that are hostile to free software, like Broadcom.
-
Disabling of the hardware virtualization functionality in modern CPUs
It has been reported that some machines with CPUs supporting hardware virtualization have those features disabled in the factory BIOS. One vendor claimed that virtualization had not been tested on its product, which is why the feature was disabled. (See “Business support forums - nw8440 - VT disabled in bios”.)
It is worth noting that no OEM motherboard manufacturer implements similar restrictions.
How hardware vendors can help
The vendor should not deliberately cripple hardware through BIOS locks or DRM in the BIOS.
How will this improve the situation for the vendor?
By removing artificial restrictions, users will be free to use their hardware to its maximum potential, including the freedom to combine hardware as they see fit. To a large tech-savvy community like the free software community, this freedom makes or breaks purchasing decisions.
Free BIOS support
There is a movement underway to replace proprietary BIOSes with a free BIOS. The major community effort is behind LinuxBIOS. (See http://linuxbios.org.)
How hardware vendors can help
Hardware vendors could support the community by providing access under a permissive license to all the low-level hardware documentation necessary to port a free BIOS to their systems, and ideally offer engineering support.
Hardware vendors could ship hardware with a free BIOS instead of a proprietary BIOS. The free software community values hardware that can be run fully with free software from the BIOS up, and is willing to pay for it.
How will this improve the situation for the vendor?
It is in the hardware vendors’ best interest to support a free BIOS, because it offers a number of advantages over proprietary BIOSes:
- Most of the code is written in C, which is much easier to maintain than assembly code.
- It runs almost entirely in 32-bit protected mode.
- Rather than continuing design decisions made in the 1970s, it is based on modern architecture.
- Revolutionary new features are possible, like embedding an entire kernel in the ROM chip.
- Boot-up time is only a couple of seconds, which is a fraction of the time an average proprietary BIOS takes.
- The vendor is not dependent on one proprietary BIOS vendor for any changes and fixes to the code.
- Since it is licensed under the GPL, there are no patent or per-board royalties, or licensing fees.
The “Microsoft tax”
It is nearly impossible to purchase consumer hardware without a Microsoft operating system pre-installed. The vendors that do offer such systems usually discourage their purchase by hiding them. Vendors that pre-install GNU/Linux often only list the option for select systems. In neither case do vendors commonly provide a discount, even though they save money by not including an OEM Microsoft license.
How hardware vendors can help
- Vendors could offer “no operating system” as an option on all their systems, including consumer systems, and particularly laptops.
- When “no operating system” is selected, vendors should reduce the price of the system by the cost of the Microsoft OEM license.
- Vendors could offer some GNU/Linux distributions as an option on systems, including consumer systems, and particularly laptops. These systems should be tested for subsystem functionality like ACPI.
How will this improve the situation for the vendor?
By selling and promoting more hardware without a pre-installed operating system, or with a GNU/Linux operating system, vendors will become less dependent on Microsoft. Millions of people are already using GNU/Linux systems. The free software community will undoubtedly support vendors that sell hardware without subjecting their customers to the “Microsoft tax.” Lower costs to the vendor mean lower prices and increased sales.
Digital Restrictions Management
The free software community opposes the imposition of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). As current software implementations of DRM have proved insecure, arduous and unmanageable, this anti-consumer technology is increasingly moving into hardware. Traditionally, hardware vendors have encouraged innovative uses of new technology and media, not restricted them. This culture of innovation is what the entire computer hardware industry is based on.
How hardware vendors can help
Hardware vendors could resist pressure by the media companies to stifle this innovative culture, and actively lobby for laws that protect consumers’ rights.
How will this improve the situation for the vendor?
The free software community will flock to any vendor that protects the rights of the consumer by delivering “hardware free from restrictions.” Vendors that sell equipment that is “defective by design” will see their sales and community support diminished.
By steering clear of DRM hardware, vendors would also remain free to innovate, rather than having to clear every new product with Big Media.
Conclusion
By making the recommended changes in any or all of these five areas (free software drivers, proprietary BIOS locks, free BIOS support, the “Microsoft Tax,” Digital Restrictions Management) hardware vendors will help establish a mutually beneficial relationship with the free software community. Vendors will realize increased sales, and the free software community will have hardware that meets its ethical requirements.
The Free Software Foundation is eager to assist hardware vendors interested in making the changes recommended in this paper. Vendors should not hesitate to take advantage of this largely unexplored opportunity.
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
DRM, Vista and your rights
[ Tuesday, 23 January 2007, michuk ]
In the US, France and a few other countries it is already forbidden to play legally purchased music or videos using GNU/Linux media players. Sounds like sci-fi? Unfortunately not. And it won’t end up on multimedia only. Welcome to the the new era of DRM!
Author: Borys Musielak
In this article I would like to explain the problem of Digital Rights (or restrictions) Management, especially in the version promoted by Microsoft with the new Windows Vista release. Not everyone is familiar with the dangers of the new “standard” for the whole computer industry. Yes, the whole industry — because it goes way beyond the software produced by the giant from Redmond and its affiliates.
DRM, Trusted Computing — what kind of animal is that?
Quoting Wikipedia:
Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures; these two terms refer to technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices with such technologies installed, acting as components of a DRM design.
A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be “trusted”. Obviously it’s not about the trust, it’s about the money. The companies that deliver content (specially multimedia, but it’s not restricted to media only) to the client want to be able to control the way it is used. For example, they want the content to be displayed on approved media only, banning all the “illegal” applications (illegal does not mean that it violates the law, but rather the agreement between the client and the company that sells the media). More on Trusted Computing can be found (as always) in Wikipedia.
So, what’s wrong with the practice? Why shouldn’t the companies be able to control their content? The idea of DRM has two aspects that are important (and may be dangerous) for computer users. First aspect is technological, the second is ethical. We are going to cover both.
In a nutshell, the technological aspect is that DRM implies that the software, or even worse — hardware — should be manufactured not for the highest stability and performance, but rather for the best copyright protection possible. This means, that we — the users — are supposed to pay more money for a product that is defective (does not allow certain functionality for non-technical reasons) and provides an inferior performance.
Ethical aspect is even more dangerous. In the world of DRM, it turns that we cannot do whatever we want with the legally purchased products (like software, music, videos or text documents). What we can and what we cannot do is decided by the provider, not by ourselves. For example, a DRM-protected product can be disabled at any time by the producer if he believes that we violate the terms of the agreement. This means that your collection of “protected” music can be rendered useless (e.g. by decreasing the quality or even deleting the content) in a matter of seconds, without your approval. It that some horrible vision of a sick and evil overlord? Nope. This is an upcoming, terrifying era of DRM.
DRM by example
So, what does DRM look like? Can we see it or is it hidden? Actually, quite a lot of famous companies have already decided that DRM is the way to go. Below we present only a short list of the most popular formats that are affected (tainted) by the “rights protection”:
- DVD — the disk itself does not contain any hardware DRM, but a lot of providers decided to use the restrictions recommended by the DVD CCA organization, such as CSS (content scrambling by using encryption mechanisms) or RPC (region codes).
- HD DVD — the new standard that will probably replace DVDs has been unfortunately tainted by DRM since its creation. The main restriction used is AACS, a modern version of CSS.
- AAC — audio file format invented and promoted by Apple and its iTunes Music Store. In the version with FairPlay (sic!) protection system, it contains DRM-type restrictions (encrypting) aimed at making it impossible for competitive portable players to support this format (encrypted AAC works flawlessly only on Apple products like iTunes player or iPod and a few other players approved by Apple)
- Windows Media — each of the media formats of the Windows Media pack (WMV, WMA, WMP or ASF) has been tainted by some kind of DRM, usually meaning that the content is symmetrically encrypted and if the keys are not accessible, the user can watch/listen to only the scrambled version of the content (very low quality).
Pic.1 iPod coffin designed by Jeremy Clark
What is interesting and not widely known, DRM is not restricted to media only. It can be used to secure any other “digital goods”, especially the software. The idea to restrict access to proprietary software using hardware DRM technology is getting more and more popular around major software vendors, like Microsoft and Apple. If this gets implemented, the software producer will be able to, for example, block the use certain programs if they recognize it harmful or illegal. This could mean blocking programs of competitors if they violate the company’s internal rules (e.g. enable the user to play encrypted DVDs or AAC files, even though it is not illegal to do it in the user’s country). Blocking Peer2Peer clients, like eMule or Gnutella (nevermind if used legally or not) could be another option. And there are many more options available, provided that DRM is publicly accepted…
The price of DRM, or… what says Gutmann
Peter Gutmann in his recent publication analyzed the cost of Windows Vista Content Protection [PDF version by Max Moritz Sievers] with emphasis on the actual cash to be spent for the computer user if these recommendations are implemented by the hardware vendors. The article is interesting, but long and very technical, so I decided to summarize the main points here. If you prefer to read the original article, we strongly recommend you doing so. Otherwise, you can read our short summary, so that you know what we are talking about.
So, what will happen if the Microsoft vision comes true?
- If you have recently bought a high-end sound card you may be surprised, since in Windows Vista you won’t be able to play any “protected content” due to the incompatibility of interfaces (S/PDIF).
- Significant loss of quality of the audio may be common due to the need to test every bit of streaming media for the use of “protected content”
- The idea of open-source drivers will be abandoned since the whole DRM thing is based on the fact that the content decrypting takes place in a “black box” and only a few selected corporations may have a look at it. Security through obscurity, that’s what it’s called. Open source stands in complete opposition to this concept.
- Removing any standards from the hardware world is one of the Microsoft goals. According to the Microsoft theory, each device will need to communicate with the operating system in a unique way in order for DRM work as required. This will enforce the incompatibility of the devices, killing the existing interface standards.
- Denial of Service attacks will be a common place. The new era of DoS attacks will be more harmful than ever before. This is connected with the tilt bits introduced in Windows Vista. The malicious code will be able to use the DRM restrictions in any suitable way and the detection of this activity will be almost impossible if not illegal (sic!) thanks to the infamous DMCA act that prohibits the use of any reverse engineering techniques used to either understand or break DRM.
- The stability of the devices will be decreased due to the fact that the devices will not only have to do their job but also “protect” (who? obviously not the user…) against the illegal use of the audio and video streams. This “protection” requires a lot of additional processing power and of course a lot of programmers man days. Who’s gonna pay for that? Of course us — the customers.
- Issuing the specification by Microsoft seems to be the first case in the history when the software producer dictates the hardware producers how their hardware should be designed and work. Seems dangerous, especially when we all realize the intentions of Microsoft.
The conclusions are rather sad. If the major hardware vendors like Intel, NVidia and ATI take these recommendations seriously and implement them in their products, it may occur that the client will not only get an inferior product (defective by design), but will also have to pay the extra cost of implementing DRM restrictions (the vendors won’t be probably willing to spend the extra costs for something that does not give them any profits).
Update: there has already been a Microsoft response to the Gutmann’s paper: Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). The advocacy is however very poor. The Lead Program Manager for Video (Dave Marsh) confirmed most of the Gutmann’s conclusions, but presented them as “inevitable” and “providing additional functionality”. The OSNews readers seem to agree that Marsh’s response was basically the act of admitting the guilt 
What we have covered so far are only the technical costs of DRM/Trusted Computing in the form proposed by the Redmond giant. The ethical costs of the “innovation” are even more interesting… or rather depressing. Read on.
DRM and freedom, or what says Richard Stallman and FSF
According to Stallman,
DRM is an example of a malicious feature - a feature designed to hurt the user of the software, and therefore, it’s something for which there can never be toleration.
Stallman is not the only person respected in the IT world who believes that DRM is pure evil. Another known DRM-fighter is John Walker, the author of the famous article “Digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle”. Walker compares the Digital imprimatur with DRM in the Internet and computing in general.
In Windows Vista it has been decided that the most restrictive version of DRM ever known will be implemented. If the Redmond dreams come true and the large hardware producers also decide to implement the DRM bits in their chipsets, it may lead to the situation in which we — the users, practically won’t be able to decide about our own software of legally purchased media. And this is actually only the beginning of what we can expect if a massive consumer protest against DRM does not begin. In the near future it may turn out that we will not be able to run any programs that violates one of the absurd software patents in the US or any kind of so-called intellectual property (just as if the ideas could have an owner!). And almost everything will be patented or “owner” in some way by that time.
I have a science-fiction vision of the IT underground, where the only hardware not tainted with DRM is made in China and using it is illegal in most of the “civilized” countries. And the only software that allows users to do anything they want with it is (also illegal) the GNU software, developed in basements by so-called “IT terrorists” — Linux kernel hackers, former Novell and Red Hat employees and sponsored by the Bin Laden of the IT — Mark Shuttleworth. Sounds ridiculous? Well, hopefully so. But I don’t think Microsoft and Apple would be protesting when this ridiculous and insane vision comes true…
What is it all about and how can you protect yourself?
So, where is this all heading to? It seems that, for Microsoft, controlling the desktop software market is not enough anymore. Now they try take control of the hardware market as well. Currently only by “recommending” their solutions to external hardware companies. But in the future, if the current pro-DRM lobbying proves successful, it may happen that Microsoft and other big software companies will be dictating how the hardware is designed. And all this — of course in their argumentation — only for securing the end user and protecting the intellectual property of the artists and programmers. This situation is rather paranoid. The hypothetical pact between the software vendors, hardware vendors and the content providers (RIAA, MPAA) could slow down the innovation in the entire IT industry for many years. This would be also one of the first times in the history where certain new technology is introduced not based on the customers’ demands, but rather on the need of large and influential companies. The customers (those aware of their rights) cannot be satisfied by this kind of agreement by no means.
So, how can you protect yourself from this “pact of evil”?
- First of all — ignore the hardware and software using DRM techniques to restrict the rights of the user. Do not purchase music, movies and other content secured by DRM mechanisms. Instead, use alternative services recommended by the Defective By Design campaign — these are the tools and services DRM-free.
- Secondly — talk, talk and once again, talk — make your family, friends, co-workers aware of the dangers connected with the use of DRM in the products. This is the best way to educate people what DRM really is and why they should care. Nobody wants to be restricted. When people become aware of the restrictions, they will not buy the products that restrict them. Simple enough
Pic.2 CC by-nc Randall Munroe
Breaking the DRM — it’s… easy
OK, and what if we have already legally purchased some content (like multimedia or text document) secured by some kind of DRM? Do not worry. Most of them has been broken a long time ago. For example, in order to play an CSS-encrypted DVD under GNU/Linux, you can use almost any player like VLC, MPlayer or Xine with libdvdcss2 enabled (this is a non-licenced library used to decrypt DVDs encrypted with CSS). If you posses music in AAC format (e.g. purchased at iTunes), you can easily convert them to a friendly format using JHymn without losing quality. The story repeats with each and every new introduced DRM technology, like encrypted PDFs, Windows Media, or recently HD-DVD (see the muslix64 post on BackupDVD) and BluRay.
Breaking the DRM restrictions is hard but always possible, due to the fact that all DRM mechanisms need to use symmetric encryption in order to work. This kind of encryption requires the keys to be hidden either in the hardware or software — in both ways it’s possible to access them by the hacker, analyze and find the way to decrypt the data streams. If you are interested in the details of DRM hacking, read the lecture of Cory Doctorow for Microsoft Research about the nonsense of DRM.
OK, but is it legal?
We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends… Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don’t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.
Fortunately, in most other countries, it is still completely legal to use free software to break any DRM restrictions, like DeCSS to play your DVDs. What we, as the free software supporters, need to do is to constantly watch the law-makers in our own countries so that they do not try to introduce similar restrictions as in France or US. In Poland, for instance, a protest led by one of the big pro-Linux portals and thousands of computer users made the leading party to abandon the project to introduce a DMCA-like law in Poland. Free-software supporters in other countries, like the United Kingdom go even further and try to completely ban the use of DRM in the British law system.
Of course, breaking the restrictions is fighting the results, not the causes. The real problem is the pure fact that DRM exists and is widely accepted by the (unaware) majority. If the computer users do not unite and protest against including DRM in more and more products, nobody will, and the DRM will become our every-day experience which we will need to fight just like viruses or malware. This year may be the one in which the major decision will be made both by the industry (whether or not to apply DRM in the products) and by the customers (whether or not accept DRM as is). If we miss this fight, we may have to accept what we get. I don’t think we can afford missing it. Do you?
More info on DRM
- Defective By Design — the anti-DRM campaign
- BadVista.org — Free Software Foundation campaign against Windows Vista
- The Right to Read — the article by Richard Stallman
- Can you trust your computer? — another article by RMS about “Trusted Computing”
- Digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the Internet genie back in the bottle — a famous article by John Walker
- RealNetworks rep to Linux: DRM or die! — RealNetworks reaction on Linux not supporting DRM
- Linus on DRM — Linus Torvalds does not protest against implementing some DRM in the Linus kernel (as long as it can be disabled)
- A Five Minute Guide to Opposing DRM — the article by Bruce Byfield about opposing the DRM in a smart way
- The big DRM mistake — Scott Granneman about the general mistake of the DRM concept
Copyright (c) 2007 Borys Musielak
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.