GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
That's not the test. The test is whether you can use a third party cable box.
Probably with AT&T you can't use another cablebox. However, for other cable companies you might be able to. The difference is that AT&T uses a single modem/router for both internet and cable. You would have to find a device with similar capabilities and put in all the authentication needed ... it's probably not plausible. I would not use AT&T anyway, because their arbitration clause.
Maybe for PPV, but not for regular viewing. Sure, the signal is probably encrypted, and it has to decrypt it, but that's not really DRM.
I haven't read the HTML5 DRM proposal, but this "not really DRM" is exactly how I'd expect HTM5 DRM to work. And yes, of course it's really DRM, unless you expect everyone to have unrestricted unpaid access to the decryption keys.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H
I'm not quite that philosophical about it. I care if I can do whatever I want with what I pay for. That's what I care about, and not the DRM itself. CSS is broken, I don't care about it because it doesn't hinder me. DRM on the other hand, hinders me, so I am against it ... until it is broken too.
So why the objection to DRM in HTML5? The only people using it will be the people already using Silverlight and Flash so it's not changing anything for you at all -- you still won't be able to watch the things that you can't watch already.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan
And game consoles and mobile devices, which are becoming the defacto media players now.
Well, yes, and other "devices" like fridges probably...
I have to admit that one thing which does worry me about DRM in HTML5 is that of "trusted platform" type situations where something must be added to the kernel -- that could be problematic. Though some sites apparently require HAL to work so I wonder is there something like this built into HAL anyhow?
Well, yes, and other "devices" like fridges probably...
I have to admit that one thing which does worry me about DRM in HTML5 is that of "trusted platform" type situations where something must be added to the kernel -- that could be problematic. Though some sites apparently require HAL to work so I wonder is there something like this built into HAL anyhow?
I would speculate that HAL is used to generate the decryption key, using a one way hash function whose input is taken from the system hardware.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan
I would speculate that HAL is used to generate an decryption key, using a one way hash function whose input is the system hardware.
Am I right in thinking that HAL is a little like LSB in that it provides certain functionality and APIs that are standardised, so things tend to be built against it?
I don't think things tend to get built against HAL anymore. I mean, didn't the "encrypted Flash video requires HAL" issue come to light only because HAL got deprecated, causing Amazon Instant Video stopped working for a lot of people?
I would expect Mozilla, Google and Opera to be more on top of changes like this than Adobe is. (Point is: it would be a good thing to shift control from Adobe to the browser manufacturers).
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan
I don't think things tend to get built against HAL anymore. I mean, didn't the "encrypted Flash video requires HAL" issue come to light only because HAL got deprecated, causing Amazon Instant Video stopped working for a lot of people?
I would expect Mozilla, Google and Opera to be more on top of changes like this than Adobe is.
Well, yes, think you're right there as it did seem to take a while for people to notice it had gone.
I don't think Firefox, Google Earth or opera need HAL. Actually I know they don't as I've had them all installed before I installed HAL "just in case".
I know they will implement it no matter what. I just hope there is a way to disable it. There probably will be a way, even if it means editing source code.
You don't know these people, you give them a finger and they'll take your arm off. You'll see.
[rant]
DRM is not going to lead anywhere good. I think problem is that you need trust in any relationship and interaction. The trust between consumers and the entertainment industry no longer exists. I'm not sure who struck first, but both are guilty.
The entertainment industry is guilty for putting out overpriced garbage for us to buy and looking for all sorts of aggressive schemes to make more money ... such as advertising everywhere, claiming that it pays part of the cost. They want too much of a profit margin and have decreased the quality of their work significantly.
The consumers are guilty of piracy, not all of them, but many or most. Part of it is a natural reaction to the increasing prices and decreasing wages, but some of it is a break of trust and malevolent. I don't think the entertainment industry recognizes both of these, and they focus on the latter.
If there were only some way to implement a ceasefire. The govn't should step in, but they don't care. I guess it's up to us, the people to do something.
For sure boycotting DRM is a good thing to do, but it won't stop them. If only there were some way to prove that we are not malevolent pirates, and to convince them to let go of some of the profit, because they can live well enough still without their 10th vacation home, 9 vacation homes should be enough.
I don't know if any solution will be found before something collapses, but I will try for whatever solution is plausible.
I think people should be more aware of what they are buying, of its quality and if it has DRM. Do not buy DRM, and do not buy low quality garbage. Also fight against their manipulation of movie ratings on imdb and other places.
[/rant]
I know they will implement it no matter what. I just hope there is a way to disable it. There probably will be a way, even if it means editing source code.
If I may suggest ... DRM is needed just so that it exists, whether or not it is "breakable by editing source-code." Some 'locking' mechanism needs to be in-place, even if it can be bypassed, just to "keep the honest people out." The DRM scheme makes the copyright holder's intentions clear, and makes it 'necessary' to spend money to obtain use of the material in the manner that the copyright holder intended ... while also making it at-least 'not trivially possible' to outright-ignore those intentions.
This, alone, is enough. It doesn't matter that the padlock in question is the most flimsy padlock ever made. What does matter is that the padlock is there.
Remember that these materials are being provided to the public in what is intended to be a commercial enterprise. Someone out there has developed it, and is providing it, with the proviso that you are to pay money for it. (And don't get high-and-mighty on me ... if you're of the age that you have to work for a living, then your salary is coming from the fact that someone out there is "paying money" for something ... a portion of which becomes "your salary." Commerce works.)
Many government agencies are prohibited to spend public(!) money on anything that does not require public money to obtain. Every sentient business feels the same. So, it really doesn't matter if the algorithm in question "would require any geek fifteen seconds to lock-pick," because your customers don't pick locks.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
