Follow-up and minutes from last night's meeting
Hi all, Thanks for a great meeting last night - and welcome to the new people! We had a good discussion around DRM, in the lead-up to next month's Day Against DRM. Below are some notes that I jotted down. I notice that some of the action items are already being worked on. Nice one! Suggestions for topics for next month: - How can we be more involved with LibrePlanet? - FOSS-friendly employers, both in terms of IT companies and others (e.g. how do you get the print shop you work at to start using FOSS?) Cheers, Alex ---- What message are we trying to get across? E.g. do we want to cause a boycott of DRM-encumbered media, or just raise awareness? Problems: - People don't care. - Common objection: "Amazon is so convenient" - It's an uphill battle, in the same way as it's an uphill battle convincing people to be green. Solutions: - Play up the convenience of having DRM-free media. - We must be able to cite alternatives. - Promote the DRM-free sources -> we should compile (or find) a list. - P2P distribution system that bypasses traditional publishers, but still allows authors to be paid. Or something like flattr. - Talk to people who have been burnt (e.g. Ubisoft customers, who couldn't play their games for a week). Comment: when (if ;) copyright on a work expires, what happens to copies of it that are DRM-encumbered? Actions: - Show the rest of the world that Australia is in a more favourable position, to get them to stand up for their rights. - E.g. region-free DVD players. -> Two Bens to write about this on our wiki. - Compile a list of DRM-free media vendors and authors. -> Bernie to create page on wiki.
Hi Alex, gang, Thanks for documenting this. Good for us ex-Melbourneers! - Promote the DRM-free sources -> we should compile (or find) a list.
For computer games, GOG (http://gog.com) and Humble Indie Bundle ( http://humblebundle.com) have done a great job promoting DRM-free gaming and still making profits. Not free software, but I suppose you have to pick your battles. (I think still making profits is important -- it's all well and good to say "things should be DRM-free!" but unless you can show profit, nobody is going to take you seriously.) - Talk to people who have been burnt (e.g. Ubisoft customers, who couldn't
play their games for a week).
games.slashdot.org/story/12/02/03/1446207/thanks-to-drm-some-ubisoft-games-wont-work-next-week Also, I was just talking to someone today who said something about Blu-ray I don't think I knew: that if you buy a new disc and own an older player, the disc may not work because the player's key may be untrustworthy so the disc manufacturer used a new key. I think you can upgrade the firmware in some players, but other players may be left out. Apparently this sort of thing already happened in 2007: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/10/new-blu-ray-discs-with-bd-drm-f... But I didn't find any more recent examples. Comment: when (if ;) copyright on a work expires, what happens to copies of
it that are DRM-encumbered?
Yes, very important. There's a great article on this here (with regards to software): https://www.pcworld.com/article/248571/why_history_needs_software_piracy.htm...
From the article:
Thanks to widespread adoption of aggressive digital rights management (DRM) and a single-source model of distribution, most digitally distributed software will vanish from the historical record when those stores shut down. And believe me, they will shut down some day. If this doesn’t scare you, then you need an allegorical history lesson. Here it is:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria>Imagine if a publisher of 500,000 different printed book titles suddenly ceased operation and magically rendered all sold copies of its books unreadable. Poof. The information contained in them simply vanished. It would represent an cultural catastrophe on the order of the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria> in 48 B.C. In that fire, a majority of the Western world’s cultural history up to that point turned to ash.
Now take a look at the iTunes App Store, a 500,000 app repository of digital culture. It’s controlled by a single company, and when it closes some day (or it stops supporting older apps, like Apple already did with the classic iPod<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/30/apple_removes_ipod_classic_click_wheel_games_from_itunes_store.html>), legal access to those apps will vanish. Purchased apps locked on iDevices will meet their doom when those gadgets stop working, as they are prone to do. Even before then, older apps will fade away as developers decline to pay the $100 a year required to keep their wares listed in the store.
Woh. I knew Apple charged $100 for a developer license. I didn't realise Apple made you pay $100 *every year* in order to keep your software listed. Is this true? Wow, it is true<https://developer.apple.com/support/ios/program-renewals.html> . So anyway, should be able to mine that article for some good arguments and examples against DRM. Hope this helps. Matt (Sydney)
On 21 April 2012 00:21, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, I was just talking to someone today who said something about Blu-ray I don't think I knew: that if you buy a new disc and own an older player, the disc may not work because the player's key may be untrustworthy so the disc manufacturer used a new key. I think you can upgrade the firmware in some players, but other players may be left out.
That reminds me. Seems to be possible to play Blu-ray under Linux, but only after you jump through some hoops: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/BluRayAndHDDVD https://www.ebower.com/docs/ubuntu-bluray/
Woh. I knew Apple charged $100 for a developer license. I didn't realise Apple made you pay $100 *every year* in order to keep your software listed. Is this true?
In comparison, Google charge a once of $25 fee: http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=113468&topic=2365624&ctx=topic -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
In comparison, Google charge a once of $25 fee:
More importantly, the Google fee is not required to run apps on an Android device, only to get them into the Google Play marketplace. If I have an APK for an app then nobody can ever take it away from me. It looks like on iOS that if the developer stops paying the yearly fee, the app essentially disappears from the iOS ecosystem (it doesn't get deleted from devices, but if you ever wanted to wipe or buy a new device, the app would be lost to you).
On 21 April 2012 11:48, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
More importantly, the Google fee is not required to run apps on an Android device, only to get them into the Google Play marketplace. If I have an APK for an app then nobody can ever take it away from me.
Am a bit confused here - does this mean it is not possible to distribute iOS apps outside Apple's market? Some people have said yes, others have said no. Also why is it called iOS? AFAIK it has nothing in common with IOS, Cisco's OS, and to use the same acronym is confusing - especially when doing Google searches. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
Also why is it called iOS? AFAIK it has nothing in common with IOS, Cisco's OS, and to use the same acronym is confusing - especially when doing Google searches.
It fits with iPhone and iPad, Steve Jobs figured if he had a big enough temper tantrum Cisco would give up and let him use the name he wanted.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
Also why is it called iOS? AFAIK it has nothing in common with IOS, Cisco's OS, and to use the same acronym is confusing - especially when doing Google searches.
There are many acronym/abbreviation collisions in the computer industry. Trademark law makes marks specific to uses to cater for this fact. For a customer there wouldn't be any confusion between the printed form of "iOS" referring to a mobile device and "IOS" referring to a router. So a reasonable human interpretation of trademark law suggests that iOS would not be considered an infringement on IOS (an actual court result might disagree). The problem here is Google being inadequate. Google also has traditionally had problems in searching for strings that contain punctuation characters and spaces. So searching for the exact text of an error message would often give hits on human readable text that contained the words in question but not the actual string, even using quotes didn't necessarily solve that. They seem to have improved and they have always been better than other search engines such as Bing (which only recently stopped making Bonnie Tyler one of the best hits for a "Bonnie++" search). As an aside, it would be really cool if there was a distributed web search engine that was free. It wouldn't be possible to give the <1s result time and the instant hints on searches with a distributed system. But it should be possible to get some reasonable results if you had lots of people on good net connections who each indexed ~100G of data per month. Not that the hints are such a great thing. I was once at a client site when someone typed in "how to do some IT stuff" but after "how to" his web browser suggested "find a prostitute". That's how to make your colleagues wonder whether Google knows something about you that everyone else doesn't. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Am a bit confused here - does this mean it is not possible to distribute iOS apps outside Apple's market? Some people have said yes, others have said no.
It's complicated, but in short, NO. There is no way to run any code on an iOS device (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) without Apple's approval. As far as I know, there are three ways to install software on the device: a) install an application through the Apple App Store, which has been explicitly approved by Apple, or b) pay $100 per year for an Apple developer license, which lets you compile and run your own code, or c) each developer may nominate up to 100 devices for "ad hoc" installation, which means those 100 people can install your software without Apple's approval. So option (c) lets you distribute software without Apple's approval, but it obviously doesn't work for wide-scale distribution. The other option is jailbreaking, which basically means someone has found a security exploit in the device allowing the installation of non-approved software. Third-party app stores such as Cydia run on jailbroken Apple hardware and allow the installation of third-party software (much like adding Debian repositories). But these are not supported by Apple, they typically break when Apple issues an update, they may void the warranty, and they may not be legal in some countries (though I believe they were recently ruled legal in the United States). Essentially, I do not buy the excuse Apple fans have often tried to give me, that "it's an open device because it allows jailbreaking." I don't consider jailbreaking to compensate for the lack of control the devices normally give their "owners". My assessment is that iOS is completely incompatible with free software. My close (non-lawyer) reading of the (L)GPL v2 and 3 finds that it would be a violation of the GPL to distribute software via the App Store. Regardless of the technical compatibility with licenses, these devices are clearly against the spirit of free software, forcing all software developers to grant none of the four freedoms set out by Richard Stallman.
On 22 April 2012 14:06, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
My assessment is that iOS is completely incompatible with free software. My close (non-lawyer) reading of the (L)GPL v2 and 3 finds that it would be a violation of the GPL to distribute software via the App Store. Regardless of the technical compatibility with licenses, these devices are clearly against the spirit of free software, forcing all software developers to grant none of the four freedoms set out by Richard Stallman.
Brett Smith actually mentioned that in his talk as well, that distributing on the app store violates both GPLv2 and v3.
Also, on the defective by design website they have a guide to DRM free living: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide. The categories are a mess though.
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes:
Am a bit confused here - does this mean it is not possible to distribute iOS apps outside Apple's market? Some people have said yes, others have said no.
You may be getting inconsistent answers because the question is vague. What do you mean by “possible”? Is it possible to distribute iOS apps outside Apple's store? Of course; the internet can carry any stream of bits to any device. But if you mean something other than “possible”, the answer will be different. The only way, TTBOMK, that Apple will distribute a program through its store is under a Developer Program License Agreement. One of the terms of that agreement is: Applications developed under this Agreement can be distributed in two ways: (1) through the App Store, if selected by Apple, and (2) on a limited basis for use on Registered Devices (as defined below). […] “Registered Devices” means iPhone or iPod touch devices owned or controlled by You, or owned by individuals who are affiliated with You, that You have specificallt registered with Apple under this Program. <URL:https://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf> Hence, as a condition of distributing through the Apple store at all, the above agreement requires the distribution be exclusively through that store (with a limited exception for “Registered Devices”: the developer's machine and various other machines for developing the work, each one of which must be approved and registered with Apple). So, distributing a program under the above agreement would make it a violation of the agreement to distribute the program in any other way. -- \ “Religious faith is the one species of human ignorance that | `\ will not admit of even the *possibility* of correction.” —Sam | _o__) Harris, _The End of Faith_, 2004 | Ben Finney
On 24 April 2012 14:59, Ben Finney <ben+freesoftware@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
You may be getting inconsistent answers because the question is vague. What do you mean by “possible”?
I meant is it possible to distribute apps you create yourself, and allow other people to install them on their phones, without using Apple or Apple store in anyway? Matt Giuca said it is not possible without getting a developer's license, and then being restricted by it. In comparison I can create an android application, put the apk on my website, and distribute to anyone who wants to download it without making any agreements with Google or putting anything on their Market. The only catch point is that user's must allow untrusted sources to be installed. This in turn allows for competitors to Google's market, e.g. F-Droid. If my understanding is correct, it would not be possible for iphone to do something similar. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
In comparison I can create an android application, put the apk on my website, and distribute to anyone who wants to download it without making any agreements with Google or putting anything on their Market. The only catch point is that user's must allow untrusted sources to be installed.
I don't consider this to be a "catch point", but a security feature -- AS LONG AS THE USER CAN DISABLE IT. Being able to disable security features is what makes them security features as opposed to vendor lock-in. I think Android is similar to Debian in this respect -- by default you can only apt-get official software, but any user can add extra sources. (It's a little different because users can run untrusted software on Debian without adding extra sources, but in spirit it is similar.) This in turn allows for competitors to Google's market, e.g. F-Droid.
If my understanding is correct, it would not be possible for iphone to do something similar.
Absolutely not. Well, again, on jailbroken devices (as I described above), there are third-party stores. Cydia is the most popular -- essentially you install Cydia on your jailbroken iPhone and then from there, you can install other software that has been introduced into the Cydia store. But again, that relies on the exploit of security vulnerabilities in the iPhone and is therefore not reliable. On a normal iPhone, there is no chance in hell that Apple would allow you to install a third-party software centre. That would break their complete stranglehold on all software and online stores on all iOS devices.
participants (7)
-
Alex Fraser -
Ben Finney -
Bianca Gibson -
Brett -
Brian May -
Matt Giuca -
Russell Coker