Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

Sure you can whine about it, but it's largely moot unless you deliberately run afoul of it. DRM is something that is being forced upon everyone with no real question.

The core philosophy of DRM is problematic as there is no "core philosophy." Some use it to ensure only paying customers access content. Others use it to try and implement transactional systems and rental services. The only thing DRM has is a goal, and that is to protect revenue streams.

The grander goal of DRM is to monetize every and all uses of content. Move to a different device, charge a fee. Make a ringtone, charge a fee, etc. To grow the revenue stream and leave the end-user powerless.

DRM is explicitly intended to do just that. It just so happens to break down every so often (technical failure, business failure) and deny users rightful access to what they own.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

I see those two use cases as the same. Please explain the difference you perceive?

Digital Rights Management. It doesn't imply some overarching capitalistic extreme. Its merely a tool to insure that only paying customers have access to what they should have access to. PEOPLE may USE it to implement these sorts of ideas. Then your malice should be directed at those people, not the tool.


A perfect DRM system would allow people to do what they should be able to do. No more and no less. The question is can such a system be created? I am inclined to believe that it can, but I admit I don't want to be the guinea pig for all the iterations it may take to reach it.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

You're right, they largely are the same.

Considering it imposes restrictions and no real rights, I don't see the need to expand the acronym. "Digital Restrictions Management" is equally applicable.

Well, the essential -tools- in question are that of encryption and key management. I have no problems with those so long as they're under the control of the user. DRM is deliberately outside the control of the user, whom the vendor sees as a hostile entity to be protected against.

Well, that's -your- opinion of a perfect DRM system. I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA's vision of a perfect DRM system is much more draconian and much, much more likely (since they can throw money at it.)

The deal here, of course, is that you have no real say in the matter. They will not push for the middle of the road system you described. And if you think they will, you have far, far too much trust in organizations whose sole goal is to earn money.

Man, I'm highly amused at all the pro-DRM arguments on a forum centered on a (mostly) open source phone OS.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

I think the so-called pro-DRM arguments are in expectation of what MeeGo will bring and the acceptance therein.

Will it mean no repository, no community, no music that can't be freely shared? Not in the least.

It means mostly that bigger corporations will finally support a Linux based endeavor that previously we've enjoyed without no big 3rd support.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

That would also be an apt description.


True there are many vendors who consider users as hostile foreign entities. DRM by itself doesn't have to make them as such. Proper DRM could also be used to give rights to the user and restrict the ability of vendors to do certain things in the same way it restricts users. This contains some elements of the control you talk about. I agree users do need control.


Certainly RIAA and MPAA have a vision and a strategy of an ecosystem in which DRM is used restrictively according to their desires. I think the DRM system I dream of is also dreamed of by those organizations, although the restrictions and rights we would both put into place are polar opposites.


The idea basically is that I'm trying to remove all the "evilness" of DRM and put it on the people who use it. Similar to "guns don't kill people, people do."

Its a rule, though, that everyone believes that perfect DRM would be DRM that allows people to do all of and only what they should be able to do.

Whether its the RIAA restricting music piracy, or end users restricting vendor kill switches, DRM can be useful. Furthermore I don't think its diametrically opposed to open source.

I'm not so much "pro-DRM" as I am "anti-anti-DRM".

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

Amazon also removed a book from people's Kindles some time last year. It was ironically George Orwell's 1984.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/te...azon.html?_r=1

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

It does mean however that if Nokia is planning on going forward with what they said earlier about DRM in Maemo that you may not be able to change the kernel, or do things in the underneath level without losing access to DRM apps.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

I agree.

I have no issue with a product creator wanting profit for their efforts. I have significant issues when protection goes so far as to interfere with the consumer's ability to enjoy that product as they see fit. But as long as DRM technology is something owned and pushed by singular entities rather than cooperatives, we're going to have that problem.

Ironic.

Re: Nokia only manufacturer without 'kill switch'?
 

Part of that worst case is losing any functionality from the phone radio. This has been true for the last two updates.