drm

The GNU/Linux community is facing a great opportunity that it must take advantage of, the turn of the tide of 64bit computing over an increasingly obsolete 32bit computing. The time is ticking away and if we want our operating system to dominate on the desktop we must act now, even if that means making some compromises. This is pretty much the premise behind the paper known as World Domination 201, an elaborate analysis of this opportunity, current status of the operating systems market with regards to GNU/Linux and what needs to be done for GNU/Linux to take advantage of the opportunity and come out as a winner.

Something about certain comments to CNET's recent "Week in review: Vista Furore" overview almost gets me chills. It is as if people are finally waking up, possibly without even being aware of what all of what they are hearing and experiencing now means on the bigger scale. For so long people who support Free Software have been saying, among other related things, that "stealing" is not a way to portray acts of unauthorized copying, also known under the industry-dubbed nickname "piracy", because it is your principal right to share and certainly make backups of software or transfer it to a new machine you may have bought. Many people who may have opposed this view before now seem to be saying essentially the same thing in response to the news that you wont be allowed to transfer your Vista to a new computer more than once. Here's an excerpt from discussion that has taken place on CNET's commenting area:

The Wiktionary states that a vigilante is:
- "One who takes the law into one's own hands"

When we think of this we think of mobs going around beating and killing people they believe have broken the law. In these cases the police usually treat the vigilantes as offenders and those the vigilantes persecuted as victims. This seems fair and just doesn't it? People shouldn't take the law into their own hands.

Despite the fact that the world's countries have laws, which are to be enforced by the countries' judicial system, many actively support the digital vigilante: Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

Famous for his reverse engineering, an author of the DeCSS content de-scrambling software "DVD Jon" is playing a slightly different tune now. Rather than working against DRM as he has been known to do, he is now apparently experimenting with the idea of using DRM to his and supposedly customers advantage. He has reverse engineered Apple FairPlay, a DRM technology which makes sure that only Apple's files can play on an iPod, and instead of offering it to the public as it was his usual practice before, he is offering to license it to would be Apple competitors so that they can make their files play on an iPod.

Sounds like a noble kind of business. Or does it? Alex Curtis from Public Knowledge apparently agrees. He believes it is good thing because it is a chance to open up more competition to iTunes. It would make it possible for people to order music not only from iTunes, but some other alternative stores to play on their iPods. However, I would hesitate to give it my blessing just yet. One thing that seems to be overlooked is the fact that this could actually help *increase* the popularity of iPods which is an Apple product and potentially even contribute to its monopoly over portable music players even if temporarily cutting the monopoly on iPod compatible music stores. Curtis suggested that what DVD Jon is doing is not illegal as others have done it under the reverse engineering / interoperability provisions of the DMCA. I have to be suspicious in that regard. As one commentator on gigaom put it; "If the Apple patent lawyers did their job right, they would have covered any and every reverse engineering angle.." There is no guarantee that Apple wont at least *try* to litigate against him or companies deploying his DRM and maybe even succeed. What would be the end result of that? An increased popularity of iPods and still not much competition in the field of iPod compatible music stores.