Adobe Pushes DRM for Flash

I'm sooo upset by this right now that I can't think, I'll update this post as soon as I calm down...

**edit** because of the text posted below I have uninstalled flash, I have installed gnash insted. I know that gnash isn't going to do me much good, but I am hoping that it will get to the point where I can get buttons and things like that work. I am still royally pissed, and am boycotting all adobe products.

also there is a great comment on my blog (threethirty.us/2008/02/adobe-pushes-drm-for-flash.html)**edit**



Posted to eff.org's DeepLinks by Seth Schoen

The immense popularity of sites like YouTube has unexpectedly turned Flash Video (FLV) into one of the de facto standards for Internet video. The proliferation of sites using FLV has been a boon for remix culture, as creators made their own versions of posted videos. And thus far there has been no widespread DRM standard for Flash or Flash Video formats; indeed, most sites that use these formats simply serve standalone, unencrypted files via ordinary web servers.

Now Adobe, which controls Flash and Flash Video, is trying to change that with the introduction of DRM restrictions in version 9 of its Flash Player and version 3 of its Flash Media Server software. Instead of an ordinary web download, these programs can use a proprietary, secret Adobe protocol to talk to each other, encrypting the communication and locking out non-Adobe software players and video tools. We imagine that Adobe has no illusions that this will stop copyright infringement -- any more than dozens of other DRM systems have done so -- but the introduction of encryption does give Adobe and its customers a powerful new legal weapon against competitors and ordinary users through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Recall that the DMCA sets out a blanket ban on tools that help "circumvent" any DRM system (as well as the act of circumvention itself). When Flash Video files are simply hosted on a web site with no encryption, it's unlikely that tools to download, edit, or remix them are illegal. But when encryption enters the picture, entertainment companies argue that fair use is no excuse; Adobe, or customers using Flash Media Server 3, can try to shut down users who break the encryption without having to prove that the users are doing anything copyright-infringing. Even if users aren't targeted directly, technology developers may be threatened and the technologies the users need driven underground.

Users may also have to upgrade their Flash Player software (and open source alternatives like Gnash, which has been making rapid progress, may be unable to play the encrypted streams at all). Third-party software that can download Flash Video, like the most recent RealPlayer, will also break. But Adobe now has an incentive to push the use of DRM: it's only available to sites that use Flash Media Server 3 software, which starts at over $4,000 (with extra fees depending on the number of simultaneous streams).

Furthermore, the prospect of widespread adoption of DRM restrictions on Flash threatens to squash a growing tradition of expressive fair use of online video -- a practice effectively in its infancy that, left unfettered, would be a dynamic solution to our failing effort to teach media literacy. Before we understand how to read media messages, we must first learn how to speak their language -- and we learn that language by playing with and remixing the efforts of others. DRM, by restricting the remixing of Flash videos, stands to bankrupt a rich store of educational value by foreclosing the ability of students and teachers to "echo others" by remixing videos posted online.

Take the example of "A Vision of Students Today" vs. "(Re)Visions of Students Today". The first "Vision" YouTube video is an artful critique of higher education's failure to come up with new models of instruction that engage the modern student; the second "(Re)Vision" YouTube video is an incisive observation of higher education's crisis in diversity (summarily expressed by the lack of diversity in the original "Vision" video). The original and the remix support each other to instruct with an influence above and beyond the power of either video alone.

Outside the halls of academia, we can see that the ability to openly download and remix video is part of a new ecosystem of amateur entertainment -- watch Drama Prairie Dog and its countless responses:

* "Dramatic Prairie Dog vs. Kung Fu Baby (Best Remix Ever)"
* "Hollywood Zombies Dramatic Prarire Dog"
* "Dramatic Look Bond Remix"
* Drama Prairie Dog - Zoolander
* "Drama Prairie Dog -- Kill Bill"
* (an obligatory Star Wars-related remix) "Darthmatic Chipmunk"

As we noted above, remixers who find and use tools that break the Flash Video encryption could be sued, even if their transformative creations would otherwise have been fair use.

Finally, there's a classic suite of arguments against DRM that will be as true for online video as they were for music. DRM doesn't move additional product. DRM is grief for honest end-users. And there's no reason to imagine that new DRM systems will stop copyright infringement any more effectively than previous systems.

Freedom Hater of the Day: Nokia

ARSTechnica posted today that Nokia is upset with the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) because they want to include both OGG Vorbis and Therora in the HTML5 Spec.

Why I Didn't I hear about this sooner? OGG on the web w00000000000000tzzz!!!!111one.

But Nokia had a List of issues, I answered this list of on Digg and figured that you all should see it too.

So with out Further adieu, My Rebuttal: A Rope of Sand:

1. W3C shouldn't make any standards relating to codecs. Leave that to other standards bodies like ITU-T and ISO/IEC.

*But the W3C is the standards body for the web not ITU-T and ISO/IEC, those 2 have no "jurisdiction" (I guess that word will do)

2. There are over a billion PCs in the world today, many connected to the web, but these numbers are tiny compared to traditional video playback devices like DVD players.

*DVD players have nothing to do with the web.

3. This industry is used to paying license fees and royalties for video codecs like MPEG-2.

* yeah and I'm sure they would be heartbroken to save money

4. This industry is used to making money, and it doesn't care about keeping things free.

*Free Software refers to freedom, not money. Think Free Speech, not Free Beer.

5. Web codec standards should be either free or low-cost to implement.

*see number 3

6. Web codec standards should support DRM to placate Hollywood, but DRM implementations should be optional.

*there hasn't been DRM on the Web so far (that I know of), and if they wanted to, the spec is in the Public Domian http://www.vorbis.com/faq/

7. H.264 for video and AAC for audio would be Nokia's recommendations for codecs.

*what in the hell do they have against Linux. If you standardize on those two the web will suck for Free Software fans for at least the next two years. x.264 is fairly stable and complete, but I don't about AAC

Apple put down that glass of hater-aid

Okay Steve listen up, YOU CAN'T STOP THE INEVITABLE! At what point did you think that a little sha checksum would stop us, the determined, the diligent, and the free? Ok you're trying to stop the same people that cracked DVD's (yes DVD John cracked CSS so that he could play DVD's on his Linux box), the same people who are reimplementing WindowsNT (check out ReactOS, it's finally getting places), and the same people who built the technology that your precious OSX is built on (Darwin is an off shoot of one of the various BSD's) . You silly. silly man. Thanks to the crew that code on GTKpod we now can use your freedom hating, DRM using, sickeningly trendy, digital music product. here is a little glimpse into the that triumphant moment

From #gtkpod today:
wtbw: okay guys
wtbw: i think we're done.
wtbw: let me code something just to check
[30 minutes later]
wtbw: can i hear a fuck yeah?
wtbw: works for both mine and xamphears :>

donations from thankful users can be sent to Cancer Research UK.

Steve we don't like working this hard, just keep it free and open and no one's feeling will get hurt, Okay?

Oh BTW: it's not free software without some code

Thanks,
three
threethirty.us
three[at]threethirty[dot]us

Okay anyone know where I can send this?

OpenMoko: Linux-based $300 open smartphone

The OpenMoko is a cellphone platform for those who are tired of being pushed around by the big manufactures and the carriers. The Neo 1973 is a $300, Linux-based open smartphone. Unlike the iPhone, it doesn't come locked to any provider, it doesn't come with DRM, and it allows you to install any third party app you like, even if Steve Jobs worries that it might spoil your experience. It's still in "developer preview," but this will be my next phone.

The Neo 1973 boasts the following hardware specifications

* 2.8" VGA TFT color display
* Touchscreen, usable with stylus or fingers
* 266MHz Samsung System on a Chip (SOC)
* USB 1.1, switchable between Client and Host (unpowered)
* Integrated AGPS
* 2.5G GSM – quad band, voice, CSD, GPRS
* Bluetooth 2.0
* Micro SD slot
* High Quality audio codec