Undoubtly, MeeGo will have to deal with DRM and CA and not just for Connected TV but also for the other device categories namely Handset and IVI. Any platform that will eventually be used by users to consume premium content provided by content owners through networks will have to provide technical means to protect that content.
DRM and CA may not be popular among open source and there seems to be the notion that just because the platform itself is open source the data that is processed by that platform belongs to the owner/user of that platform and hence the owner/user is inherently entitled to use, copy, modify, etc. that data as he/she pleases. That is definitely not the case. Hence, I have to object to the statement that "copying the bits, straight out a decryption/decompression library, or even out your HDMI port" actually "is in direct contradiction to 'open source' and open platforms." An open source platform that intrinsically forces me to give up my intellectual property rights to my own work is not acceptable. In that sense the rights of the originator and owner of the work take precedence over the rights of the platform owner/user on which that work is processed. And I would expect that most open source developers would agree because consequently that would also mean that owners of mail servers, network equipment etc. have intrinsic rights to the data processed by that equipment. A content owner for instance a movie studio or a television station grants a set of rights to their content to a network operator and a network operator then in turn grants all or a subset of those rights to the network subscribers. Content owner and network operator need to have means to enforce those rights to protect their interest in the content. DRM/CA enforce the licensing agreements through technical means. To be a viable platform for Connected TV, Handset, IVI etc. MeeGo must provide the technical means to protect content owned by others. That does not mean that MeeGo itself must provide DRM/CA solutions but it must allow DRM/CA solutions that are not part of MeeGo and that are potentially proprietary and closed source to be used with MeeGo. That also includes that MeeGo's licensing must not prevent the use of such solutions. However, MeeGo could choose to integrate an open source DRM solution such as Sun's DReaM DRM. DReaM is part of the Open Media Commons initiative ( www.openmediacommons.org). The DRM/CA space is actually filled with IP and patents from various DRM/CA companies. Sun went through a great deal of patent research to actually come up with a solution that is free of rights of others and hence royalty free. However, that has never been tested in court. Outside of that it may be rather challenging for MeeGo to come up with a DRM/CA solution that could be open-sourced and would not violate the rights of others. It is also not trivial to get a DRM/CA solution accepted by content owners e.g. Hollywood studios, etc. Google is very well aware of the issues surrounding DRM/CA. If you are familiar with the DRM/CA space you probably noticed that Google acquired IPTV and over-the-top DRM/CA vendor Widevine on 12/3/2010. Let's face it: DRM/CA is not going away. The MeeGo community must familiarize itself with the idea of DRM and CA. Developing a security concept for MeeGo to support content protection all the way from the hardware layer to the application layer is mandatory for MeeGo's success. Disclaimer: Before joining the Linux Foundation I did work for three years at IPTV DRM/CA vendor Verimatrix as engineering program manager. :rjs On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Niels Mayer <[email protected]> wrote: > If I was a marketing person (i'm not), I'd exploit FUD (fear, > uncertainty, doubt), and ask the question > "Which platform is least clouded by FUD?" > ------------ > > (1) Apple is closed and proprietary. An Open source platform with > critical applications also based on open-source, and 3rd party apps > based on open-source infrastructures -- offers better "oversight" over > security/privacy issues, which helps prevent problems like this: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/28/apple_privacy_lawsuit/ > > Apple slapped with iOS privacy lawsuit > 'We respect your privacy' promise in dispute > Apple has been named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that the > company allows iOS applications to provide advertisers with sensitive > – and supposedly private – user information, according to Bloomberg > Businessweek, which broke the story on Tuesday. > > "Apple claims to review each application before offering it to users, > purports to have implemented app privacy standards, and claims to have > created 'strong privacy protections' for its customers," the complaint > states. "However, Plaintiffs have discovered that some of these apps > have been transmitting their personal, identifying information ('PII') > to advertising networks without obtaining their consent." > > ------------ > > (2) Android Java -- under a cloud of I.P. claims and licensing > disagreements.... vs the Meego platform: "plain old linux" and "Qt" > which have well-established and well-understood copyrights on which a > number of both commercial and open distributions have been made. > > http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html (Miguel de Icaza) > ..................................... > .... apparently Gosling was not under NDA and has confirmed exactly ( > http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_hits_the ) > what I said above: > > "Oracle finally filed a patent lawsuit against Google. Not a big > surprise. During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where > we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and > Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle. Filing patent > suits was never in Sun's genetic code. Alas.... > I hope to avoid getting dragged into the fray: they only picked one of > my patents (RE38,104) to sue over." > > So now we know that Jonathan shopped Sun with a big "Sue Google" sign. > So much for his visionary patent defense ( > > http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/ > ) against Apple and of course this jewel: > > "The most egregious of such suits was filed against Sun by Kodak (yes, > the film photography people). > Egregious, because Kodak had acquired a patent from a defunct computer > maker (Wang) for the exclusive purpose of suing Sun over an esoteric > technology, Java Remote Method Invocation (“Java RMI” – not exactly > the first thing that comes to mind when you hear “Kodak”)." > > ---------------------- > > (3) Android/Google TV: despite the hype, is not ready for primetime -- > and it looks like they angered networks over DRM issues (*) > > ..................... > > http://www.dailytech.com/Logitech+Refuses+to+Reveal+Whether+it+Suspended+Google+TV+Shipments/article20497.htm > > Reviews of the box have been very mixed, with many users complaining > about interface flaws and the lack of third party apps. Google > reportedly address these issues in a coming update that is slated for > February or March. That update will add access to the Android > Marketplace across the Google TV product lineup. As Google TV > products pack a similar power CPU/GPU to a top of the line Android > smart phone, it can be assumed that they could handle most apps that > Android phones could, including games. > > Another sources of criticism has been Google TVs products inability to > access free online TV episodes from TV network sites or sites like > Hulu. This is no coincidence -- Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Viacom, and other > networks have purposefully banned Google's browser from playing the > episodes, despite the browser being equipped to support them. > ................. > > (*) : How is MeeGo TV planning on handling the kind of thorny DRM > issues that perhaps scuttled the Google TV launch? There's now issues > w/r/t actually preventing people from copying the bits, straight out a > decryption/decompression library, or even out your HDMI port ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System ), which > is in direct contradiction to "open source" and open platforms. These > AACS laws have already removed any means of externally recording HD > content. > ( > http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/aacs-hdmi-kill-component-2010) > > --- Niels > http://nielsmayer.com > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
