DRM - Seriously, Why Not?

[Hef]

I've read the obvious- Philisophical Reasons, DRM is the Devil, and many other reasons.

But really, I've got a Sansa, I pay for Rhapsody, I am fully licensed when booted to the Sansa Firmware - why cant Rockbox somehow "See" the License and use it to play my Licensed Songs on My Sansa?

At first I just accepted it as "the way it is" but lately I've been wondering why.
I'm just a User, not a Developer, so I have no idea what would go into it. Just looking for an answer.

Thanks
Hef

[cool_walking_]

DRM, by it's nature, can't be open source.  There's probably heaps of legal and licensing stuff as well.

EDIT: What more do you want than an ethical reason?

[Soaa-]

DRM actually encrypts the DRM-infected songs. Without a way to decrypt them, even with the license, there is nothing we can do to play them.

[Yotto]

Because they won't let you.  You pay Rhapsody for the privilege to listen to the music they let you listen to, on the devices they say it's okay to listen to the music on.

This is not the Rockbox philosophy getting in your way, it's the Rhapsody philosophy getting in your way. Open Source not wanting to sully itself with DRM isn't the problem.  The problem DRM not giving Open Source the option.

[GodEater]

Open Source not wanting to sully itself with DRM isn't the problem.  The problem DRM not giving Open Source the option.

I'm not sure I agree. I can only speak from a personal stand point here - but even if Rhapsody or some other organisation were to approach us and say, here, this is how to implement DRM in your software so it can play our songs - I'd still tell them to get lost.

The problem with DRM is people accepting it in the first place. If we all had the OP's attitude there'd be no hope for open standards at all. The only way to get rid of the DRM problem is to simply not use it.

I can't see any advantages to using it at all - and plenty of disadvantages. There have been several news stories this year alone of people who've been paying for content, and then the company that's been licensing that content to them has decided to about face (for whatever reason), and suddenly you can't access that content any more. Despite the fact that you've paid for it. That is just wrong on so many levels.

[scharkalvin]

DRM is just a tool to protect a copyright holders interests by insuring that media he has sold can be used ONLY by the buyer.  Ideally it would work by a key based encryption method.  Such a device COULD be open sourced because the way it is SUPPOSED to work is that the decryption only can happen if you have the keys.  As far as I know there ISN'T a standard for such a device, and until such a standard is in place there simply isn't a way to support DRM across all products.

I don't think that DRM itself is evil, but until a standard is in place that would allow open source access to use of DRM'ed media the status quo implementation IS evil.

The end users rights must come first in a product and any DRM that restricts these rights is a problem.  A few DRM'ed media suppliers have made some effort to not step on end users rights (Apple iTunes), but all is still not perfect.

I'd rather buy CD's and rip them then have to deal with DRM'ed downloads.  But CD's may be an endangered species, and at some point we are going to have to deal with the cyberspace delivery problem.....

[Yotto]

Don't get me wrong.  I don't agree with DRM on purchases and am extremely wary on Rentals (I accept the DRM in Netflix's "Watch It Now" feature becasue I'm not buying the movie, and actually not even paying for the instance of watching it.  I'd never buy a DRM'd song from iTunes or any other service, however.  I'm on the fence about the system Napster has (had?))

However, if it was legal to crack DRM, and somebody did, you know that'd be the most popular patch in the Unofficial builds section.

[Hef]

Open Source not wanting to sully itself with DRM isn't the problem.  The problem DRM not giving Open Source the option.

The problem with DRM is people accepting it in the first place.

What's not to accept? I've got as much music as any of you in mp3 format on my hard drives. As much as it is, I get tired of it, and always want something new. I have 3 kids and a wife, all interested in different music than I am. I'm an old Rocker, my wife needs Techno Crap for workout tapes, and who knows what kids are listening to.
With Rhapsody, we are all happy. Quoting Scharkalvin - "DRM is just a tool to protect a copyright holders interests by insuring that media he has sold can be used ONLY by the buyer." How else can a company justify giving us the right to listen without a way to protect the artists? It's annoying...Yes. But they are letting me take whatever I want and listen.
For all of that, it's easy to accept.

As for companies doing an about face, yes Rhapsody bought Urge ?, and those customers I guess, all lost there database library. But they dont lose the music. It's all available to them again. They never owned it, and you have to understand that when you get in.

All that said, I wasnt looking for an argument, and after reading through these forums, I know that a lot of folks have bad attitudes about it, some I believe are for the wrong reasons. It seems that some think it's a free speech, or scensorship issue. It's only a way for a subscription company to operate.

Thanks for the comments.
Hef

[GodEater]

Leaving aside all the philosophical arguments, of which I have many - the reason we can't do DRM is because the people who implement it HAVE to keep how it works a secret. Otherwise they can't generate revenue from it.

This means it can't EVER be used in an open source way.

[Chronon]

As for companies doing an about face, yes Rhapsody bought Urge ?, and those customers I guess, all lost there database library. But they dont lose the music. It's all available to them again. They never owned it, and you have to understand that when you get in.

That sounds like such a sucker's game.  Give me a CD instead.  Or let me go to an actual concert.  The latter is the most preferable option because it's a direct exchange between the creative source of the music and me.  The artist has much more power in a concert setting and I would prefer to support the artist over the record company or other corporate broker.

Anyway, this whole thing is moot for reasons that GodEater has given.  

[GodEater]

I'd just like to point out that you're here complaining about something which you said you agree with.

Rhapsody have said, "You can listen to this music, but only on your Sansa, and only when it's executing code we've approved of". You apparently think this is a grand idea - and yet you're asking us to find a way around this restriction for you by allowing you to play the music that Rhapsody own on a platform they don't endorse.

Even if we did manage to somehow make DRM playable in Rockbox without giving away their big secrets on how they stop people doing exactly what you're asking for (can you see the flaw here yet) - as soon as we do it - we've broken DRM. The music you have bought is now transferable elsewhere and is out of Rhapsody's control.

This is why *I* don't like DRM. When I want to listen to music, I want to listen to it on MY terms - not someone else's. If I want it played back on my iPod, I don't want someone then telling me, ah yes, but you can't now play it back on your Xbox. Or your PC. Or your girlfriend's PDA.

[Hef]

Even if we did manage to somehow make DRM playable in Rockbox without giving away their big secrets on how they stop people doing exactly what you're asking for (can you see the flaw here yet) - as soon as we do it - we've broken DRM.

As I said - "why cant Rockbox somehow "See" the License and use it to play my Licensed Songs on My Sansa?" - Without even - Knowing the Big Secrets - just Authorizing the License, the way the Sansa Firmware does. Rockbox is not Creating the License or breaking it, just Using it.
From my view here, this seems logical to me. Rockbox boots, finds DRM protected songs, looks for a valid license, and finds it.

Once again, I'm not the developer - just tell me where the flaw is in that - technically. Not because you dont want to get involved, or that the DRM folks dont want you to, (I'm sure that could be an issue )

Could it be done?

[LambdaCalculus]

I think everyone here has already stated the reasons why it WON'T be done. We will not, and never in any forseeable future, support DRM.

I suggest you read this article to understand our stances, and come back when you're done:

http://defectivebydesign.org/

[Llorean]

Consider DRM secret math. The "license" is a big number. We don't know what to do with it. Do you multiply? Divide? Do you take parts of it and multiply, then divide by other parts? It's very complicated math too, not simple.

So no, you can't just use the "license" because you also need to know what secret math to use too. And you need to have legal permission to show that secret math to other people, because someone owns that secret math, and they think that showing people it will make it easier for people to get past it without a license.

[Hef]

Llorean - thanks for the explanation. I think you are looking at it as - How do we decode or hack this? - That's not what I'm asking, evidently the Sansa Firmware knows what to Do with DRM. Someone told Sandisk what to do with their firmware to make it work, along with all of the other acceptable mp3 players out there. Why does Creative know what to do to make the Zen players work with DRM?
My guess is because Rockbox is Open Source as opposed to being a private company.

As for Lamba - telling me WE will never support is - that's a great stance- as for those articles, talking about people that bought movies that are DRM encoded - I would never do that, and that's not what we are talking about.