0
85

[–] slender_asteroid 0 points 85 points (+85|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"I also wonder how effective any image-based DRM can really be in the longterm, given the ease of simply screenshotting an image to make a copy."

The last sentence from this article perfectly describes the futility of such an effort. Well, maybe they will lobby to remove Print Screen capability from computers, as you might use it to copy protected works, which would be equally futile. Since there are many, many ways to circumvent such DRM, this seems like a misguided waste of effort and resources.

0
15

[–] CaCtUs2003 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

It's like how they tried to take away Stereo Mix. They may have taken the option away in newer computers but if someone wants to record the sound coming through their computer, they're going to find a way regardless.

0
19

[–] slender_asteroid 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

On the topic of content protection measures, were I live, we have to pay an extra sum on all electronic devices that can be used to record or play media files, as a means to compensate copyright holders for people potentially pirating their content. The implication this poses at end-users does not seem appropriate. This does mean that we are legally allowed to copy copyrighted content for personal use though, so that's nice I suppose..

0
2

[–] NightFox54 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Remember when mp3 players came with radio station recorders? That seems like the same thing. Difference being that you can feasibly ban radio recorders...

0
2

[–] derf 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wait when was this removed? Windows Vista or 7 even introduced some way for applications to grab audio from any output device and changed the way sound is handled. I have a Creative Soundblaster E3 and it still comes with a stereo mix option. My Realtek onboard audio still has the option.

0
1

[–] Acer-Red 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They may have taken the option away in newer computers but if someone wants to record the sound coming through their computer, they're going to find a way regardless.

When was it removed? Even the computer of mine running a preview version of Windows 10 has it. Although it's disabled by default, but just show disabled devices, and you can re-enable it.

0
13

[–] ack 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

"You wouldn't download a screenshot..."

0
6

[–] Morgendorffer 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

0
8

[–] wisdum 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

DRM is like the War on Drugs... you can't win it.

0
1

[–] tame 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I believe that the winner of The United States Of America vs. Cannabis was recently declared to be cannabis, so I contend that you can win it.

0
1

[–] Fagtardicus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

the win condition on both of these isnt to "win" but to siphon money from taxpayers

0
1

[–] Tonguestun 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well, you could win the DRM war, but it would mean not releasing your content at all. If you can see or hear it, it can be copied; it will be copied.

0
0

[–] PrimaPils 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Spotify and Netflix converted me from a routine pirate into a paying customer. Make your product easy to access and reasonably priced and consumers will choose to give you their money. Make your product expensive and/or bloated with DRM that makes the user experience terrible and they'll go right back to pirating it.

0
5

[–] un_salamandre 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Security theater, you know.

0
10

[–] FireFox 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Jpeg

But seriously... They can't even DRM a multi gigabyte movie.

0
2

[–] Violentlight 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The thing I really like about this video is when it blows up my speakers and I lose my ability to hear.

Fun times.

0
1

[–] Fagtardicus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[–] [deleted] 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
40

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 1 points 40 points (+41|-1) ago 

JPEG obsolete? What? Every DSLR, point-and-shoot, and smartphone on the planet encodes to JPEG, and with good reason. You use PNG when you have clean image data, like vector graphics, logos, and so on. You use JPEG when you need decent filesize with real-life images or visually complicated data, and don't mind slight lossiness.

1
15

[–] strongdoctor 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

I shoot RAW whenever possible. Converting to JPEG later on can make sense in some cases as you mentioned.

2
3

[–] bubblesort 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

JPEG is crap for shooting and editing. I use RAW. If you aren't shooting RAW then you are wasting your money on a good DSLR. You might as well get a point and shoot if you are shooting JPEG. Now, you need to convert to PNG or JPEG to publish the picture, and I usually go with PNG, but if this goes through I might change to JPEG.

Serious photographers have been working on ways to secure their art ever since photographs became digital. Watermarks don't work. Maybe this will. If it does, then photographers are going to be making a lot more money when they convert their images to JPEG before publishing.

0
2

[–] ColaEuphoria 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Every DSLR, point-and-shoot, and smartphone on the planet encodes to JPEG

You're shooting yourself in the foot encoding to anything other than some raw format with a DSLR unless you're absolutely certain you won't be editing it later. Even phones are more commonly encoding to raw now.

You use PNG when you have clean image data, like vector graphics, logos, and so on.

PNG doesn't support vector graphics. It's a raster format. Although I get what you're saying, with visual regularity being ideal for PNG's lossless compression.

JPEG obsolete? What?

From a compression standpoint, yes, JPEG is obsolete, the only thing it has going for it is that it's deeply rooted in the internet. It has a very simplified discrete cosine transform based compression algorithm that is easily beaten by nearly all modern video codecs when used on still images. Websites could save a ton of bandwidth by using better lossy DCT-based image formats and using smaller file sizes with much better quality than JPEG. Perhaps this JPEG DRM story will be enough to finally get us to look for alternatives. If anything, Firefox could get on board with it. They're already closely tied with the Xiph foundation.

0
0

[–] techlovingeek 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I use RAW in DSLR. Google's WebP which is an open format, can cut image file sizes by 40 percent compared to JPEG file format. If jpeg adds drm then a lot of people will surely move on.

0
0

[–] northernarcher 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are you joking? Jpeg is used everywhere. It's how ever photo ever is taken.

0
0

[–] Cattrain 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

jpeg is the same thing as jpg, and the purpose is for a decreased size in images where a little noise isn't noticeable, such as actual photographs.

2
7

[–] TheITGuy 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

JPEGs are becoming legacy

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

4
4

[–] ButcherOfBlaviken 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

PNG? It's better in just about every way, except maybe filesize.

Transparency, quality, animation (APNG anyone??), I could probably list more, but those are the most important bits.

0
3

[–] PlasmaDistortion 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I can actually see the usefulness of this. If I needed to send an image to someone and guarantee it has not been altered during handoff then this would be perfect. Otherwise for keeping something copyrighted this is a futile effort.

0
11

[–] rwbj 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Encrypt it before sending it.

If that's too much effort then get a checksum for the file - you can even do it online.. Share the checksum in a public location, like pastebin or even a Voat post. When the receiver receives the file, he also performs the checksum and verifies it against the public checksum which you can verify has not been manipulated.

0
2

[–] uncle_bob 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Checksum's are designed to be as simple as possible and small as possible to detect accidental errors. The usefulness of being simple also means that intentional changes are easily possible.

Secure hash, SHA is designed to prevent intentional changes. For any security, use a hash function. It would be overkill of only preventing accidents, but would be a better suggestion for the case you have presented.

0
0

[–] A_Scanner_Darkly 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Proofofexistence.com

0
0

[–] PlasmaDistortion 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Great point on the checksum.

0
0

[–] Fagtardicus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

oh thats not gonna be abused at all

0
2

[–] ThePieAssassin 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Jesus christ, leave it alone, stop making useless changes to things that work.

0
0

[–] Vespera 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not really. Proper attribution of digital photos is something standards body's have been trying to find a solution to forever.

It's more about attribution vs. access-restriction; a way to prevent photographers from plagiarizing eachother, specifically in media.

0
1

[–] BlueHats 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's certainly not an easy problem, and photographers are a group that I'm far more sympathetic to with regards to copyright issues (as opposed to filmmakers, sorry guys).

With film, plagiarizing is usually pretty obvious, and copyright concerns are focused around unauthorized re-distribution. Lost sales are really hard to prove in the best case, and the enforcement mechanisms are invariably anti-consumer.

With photography, plagiarism seems to happen all the time and tracking down the original author (or at least proving authorship) can be difficult. Meanwhile, the perpetrator can be earning money and reputation off of stolen work.

I'd hate to see the photography industry take the same road as film, since those systems are A) anti-consumer, and B) inherently broken at best, but I definitely think there's room for a container format that provides a strong proof-of-authorship mechanism. Heck, maybe something tied into a blockchain mechanism?

0
2

[–] Agricai 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This sounds overly complicated for an image. I understand its perspective usage but it seems like DRM in images would be easily circumvented as others have mentioned so why bother. I feel this is Beyonce's publicists telling the internet to take down that image of her. very pointless.

edit: added that image

0
1

[–] Bigboned 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I bet someone is working on a search algorithm to find all the screen grab pic's that have DRM on them.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)