Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Software Your Rights Online

BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing 227

Posted by timothy from the whaddya-mean-ya-don't-trust-'em? dept.
distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing More

BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

Comments Filter:

  • rms on treacherous computing (Score:5, Informative)

    by latroM ( 652152 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:50PM (#11992628) Homepage Journal
    rms on the subject [gnu.org] if someone hasn't read that yet.

    • Re:rms on treacherous computing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:13PM (#11992766) Homepage
      Those who quote RMS rarely know him.

      The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.

      I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.

      I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.

      • Freeloaders (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:46PM (#11992977)
        Unfortunately--at least on /., anyway--the loud opinions of those "freeloaders" usually makes rational discussion of copyrights, intellectual property, and DRM meaningless. You can't get past the "RIAA IS EVIL AND I AM A FREEDOM FIGHTER" mindset. I think we'll start seeing some real progress and some valid compromises made by both sides if we can get past the reactionary attitudes that really only exist to shift blame away from downloaders and onto some faceless corporate entity, because demonization is easier than acknowledgement of one's own guilt.

        The truth is that the portrayal of both sides is usually wrong. Most companies aren't big, evil, cigar-smoking Republicans sitting in dark rooms plotting economic takeovers to maintain their monopolies. They're just companies trying to protect their media content because of the explosion of piracy. And pirates aren't freedom fighters riding the wave of a big cultural movement. Most are just freeloaders looking to get stuff without having to pay for it (it's basic human nature).

        So far, iTunes has been a big success, so apparently a lot of consumers have no problem with DRM and online legal music-downloading. So to be quite honest, I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes. Legal online music is already here, which makes the argument for piracy appear even more self-serving.

        • Re:Freeloaders (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Psiren ( 6145 )
          I agree with pretty much everything you said. The trouble is, DRM is a (poor) technical fix for a social problem. Those that really want to copy these thigns generally still will, whereas some (potential) paying customers such as myself have problems with it (I've yet to see any reasonable online music site offering files I can play under Linux, and no, that dodgy Russian site isn't one, before anyone points me to it).

          Personally I still prefer to buy CDs. I like having the physical item in my hands, but ev
          • The trouble is, DRM is a (poor) technical fix for a social problem

            Maybe law should be _in synnc_ with the society they purpote to structure and serve.

        • Generaliation (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Peaker ( 72084 )
          Some of us simply do not believe copyright law is just, and think that it is draconian and absurd.

          Obeying laws, even absurd ones, is generally good, in order to avoid contempt for the law. Unfortunately, in the case of copyright, obeying the law means empowering the lobbyists that keep the law alive and strengthen it.

          The best way is to avoid copyrighted works, and when they are not avoided, at least do not pay those who push for the continuation of the copyright regime.

          Piracy is name-calling, and the re

        • Re:Freeloaders (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @07:02PM (#11993513)
          DRM is a technological solution to a social problem. It's been said many times before, but it's still true.

          The problem with the Big labels' acceptance of the "new" business model like Napster (subscription) is that if they could, they'd rent you content and charge per use. A "pay-per-view" society is the content providers' wet dream. A funnel of money coming from your wallet and going to their bank account each time you turn on your TV, read a newspaper, or get on the internet.

          Don't think that's what they want? DiVX was a piss-poor version of what they REALLY are after. You not having a physical copy of anything, and they controlling both ends of the pipe.

          Can't do it? No, not yet they can't. But Trusted Computing and the legislation to back up their lockdown (DMCA anyone?), and they, not you, are in control. Each step is making it harder and harder for people to exert their rights over the rights of content owners, not the producers, the OWNERS. The biggest cry is from those who create NOTHING. They just OWN it. Who are the REAL freeloaders in this debate?

          Explosion of piracy? You sound like a PR statement from the RIAA front desk. They are making billions. Still raking it in.. and by the way, increasing sales, in the face of "the explosion of piracy." How can they explain this? Well, they'd be making TRILLIONS if it weren't for those bastard college students. In other words, they don't. Don't look at how much we are making. Look at how much we claim to be losing. (That's another debate entirely.)

          Every technological advancement has been met with the same brand of resistance and sometimes even from the same people (MPAA and VCR, anyone?) Every time the content providers adapt and innovate, they tap into yet another stream of revenue. Every time they stifle, legislate, sue, and whine, they disappear. It's called progress. Get on the train, or be left at the station. Sad thing is, the current content providers want to obliterate the train and the station.

          They won't innovate anymore. Now their course it to control. I am not a freeloader, but I am also not going to give up any control. The things these people are trying to control are worthless pieces of entertainment that are not essential to your or my daily life. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the importance of this whole debate will return to the level it should. These providers aren't making anything we can't live without.

          I for one would rather do without than to live under someone else's control. Nothing they have is worth losing your freedom over. Nothing.

        • I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mangu ( 126918 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @07:55PM (#11993798)
          I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes.


          Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.


          I would gladly pay for online music if the price was in the same order of magnitude as the cost the distributors have. But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.


          The "business model" is still obsolete, it's done in the same way John D. Rockefeller used to do business. It's a cartel (or a "trust", as it was called in the late 19th century) that fixes prices and imposes artificial barriers to competition. Things like the broadcast bit and closed binary formats have the same use as the different train gauges the "robber barons" of the 19th century used to push independent railroads out of business.


          No, the media cartel uses unethical business methods, and should be broken up. No new legislation is needed, any honest government could get rid of the ??AA using the same laws that were used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, what you call "piracy" I call "freedom fighting". Happy Boston Tea Party!

          • But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.

            do you pay for gas (petrol) to the store? bus fare? teleportation?

            otherwise i agree with you

            • do you pay for gas (petrol) to the store?

              I agree that my mentioning the download cost wasn't the best analogy, because one does pay the transportation cost for physical goods, too.

              Yes, suppose I'm looking for a new dishwasher. I could get a lower price if I had a car big enough to carry it home from a "factory outlet" store. But since all I have is a cheap subcompact, instead of an expensive SUV, I must pay a higher price at a store with "free" home delivery. If all one does on the internet is web surfin

          • Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.


            DVDs typically cost $20. An album on iTunes is .99 per song, and typically nine bucks to buy the entire album. I honestly don't see how you could possibly consider that overpriced. It's half the normal cost of a CD at the store.
          • DRMed hardware, like MSFT's "Palladium" project, will find increasing support from both government and industry for more reasons than just protecting IP. DRMed hardware means the end to insider whistleblowers that reveal emails/memos indicating wrongdoing. It also makes the regulation and oversight of business via legislation like Sarbanes/Oxley much more difficult. The DRM issues that the **AA stormtroopers are fighting for are a drop in the bucket compared to organizations trying to protect themselves

          • Re:I know why... (Score:2, Informative)

            by jgritz ( 858142 )
            This bottom of this page [arancidamoeba.com] does a nice job of breaking down the costs of recording and associated costs. Article is by Steve Albini, quite a well known producer.
        • Your post must be +7 or something. Explains whole stuff.

          The last paragraph though... Every single shareware/game/program/music on this mac is purchased. E.g. I respect to artists work.

          To buy downloaded legal music, I am stuck to Magnatunes.com. Of course, its the thing. The problem is, e.g. if I want to listen Velvet Underground, a major label one I must go and buy CD and rip it to iTunes.

          iTunes does not exist other than 10 or less countries and napster uses windows media format which sounds like tin to

      • Not True (Score:3, Interesting)

        by argoff ( 142580 )
        The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.

        This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's prop
        • This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's properly signed.

          Ok, so lets say I have some DRM'd music. I can only play it on some trusted hardware. Now, if I crack the encryption and grab the raw audio, I can easilly destroy any digital w
    • The key point for consumers to remember is that the Trusted Computing Platform makes their computers an Untrustworthy Computing Platform.

      It does so by allowing vendors to take back things you have already purchased (like the TiVo and Apple examples) and by making it harder to keep the works you purchase as you change computers every three to five years and find incompatibilities or changes in operating system or application vendors locking you out of your own property.

  • DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:55PM (#11992660) Homepage Journal
    They are right about DRM, by limiting the amount of time a user can view the file, they are just increasing demand for a cracked one.

    If you had downloaded something, and it had DRM on it limiting the number of times you could view it or how long it could be viewed - it would just be a hassle, and would cause most people to either go looking or just wait for a unlocked version of it.
    • They are right about DRM, by limiting the amount of time a user can view the file, they are just increasing demand for a cracked one.

      Back when I was usingthe Apple II, most of the stuff I was working with was source code, software I wrote myself, but there was one game I really wanted to play... Wizardry.

      Wizardry's copy protection was so strict and timing sensitive that if your floppy drive was a little bit out of alignment, you would get to the point where saving your game (on the master disk!) would lo

  • re-asking the question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) <{yayagu} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:56PM (#11992667) Journal

    Okay, so I've asked this before... I'll ask again... (refer to my previous post... [slashdot.org])

    I had hoped for definitive answers to these questions, but if you'll re-read some of the responses to my post, while thoughtful, they were divergent and inconsistent among themselves. Again I am concerned what the "trusted computing" platform truly means... mostly because it appears to me it is mostly negative for the linux community.

    A scenario played out last summer for me with... a local Mom and Pop grocery store kept EVERYTHING on their Windows XP PC, and one day it went toes-up. They were understandably distraught -- all of their business spreadsheets and wedding pictures (over 1G) were on the hard drive and they couldn't get to them. They were prepping the machine to be sent in to be re-imaged. I asked them if they knew that meant they were likely to lose their data. She was almost in tears. I went home, got my Knoppix CD, and with their permission, played... and, recovered ALL of their data and burned it redundantly to CD's.

    So I ask, if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to? I'd hate to think this is one (of many) of the things we lose in this "better" world. Help!

    (I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this, but maybe it's like boiling frogs in water... by the time we realize what's happening it's too late?)

    • Boiling frogs in water? I'd say it's more like lemmings marching off a cliff.
      • he actualy refering to two things supposedly
        1. if you throw a live frog into boiling water, the frog instanly knows the water is too hot and immedaiately jumps out unharmed.
        2. throw a live frog into room-temperature water and heat it slowly to a boil, the frog nevers realizes the water is getting hoter until it's too late.

        I've never heard from anyone who I'd considered trustworthy if either case of the above works.

    • Re:re-asking the question (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:15PM (#11992775)
      if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to?
      Absolutely NOT, and that's entirely the point.

    • Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Interesting)

      by xiando ( 770382 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:16PM (#11992783) Homepage Journal
      "I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this" THE problem here is CHOICE. And if we find ourselves in a situation where there are laws who require computer makers to have a feature in order to sell it legally, then obviously they will obey and implement the feature in order to keep selling their products. The feature (or bug..) will soon be part of CPU units, and that, depending on implementation, will make a whole new scenario. The choices may soon be not upgrading or buying something with usage restrictions.

      • Many people will not upgrade, and many will by also ilegal hardware from countries that permmit non TC compilant ones (remember, people from US, there are other countries on the world).

        I really don't believe that TC will spread. On the US (that is already rulled), DRM will spread, and people will start finding ways to break it. But even there, if TC legislation became true, we will start to see so much garbage sold as software that nobody (read, bug companies, with power) will complaint for too long. I not

        • Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @10:58PM (#11995014) Homepage
          Trusted Computing is more insidious than you realize. The problem is that it will spread because it does *not* have the problems you think it has.

          A Trusted computer can do anything a normal computer can do. A Trusted computer is a normal computer *plus* an extra handcuff mode. Outside handcuff mode it is a normal computer that can do anything you can do now. It's like a computer with speakers, when you turn the speakers off it's just as good as a normal speakerless computer.

          It is such a threat becuase there is never any reason *not* to have a Trusted computer.

          Not upgrading your computer will not help you. There is no need to outlaw normal computers because normal coupters aren't a threat to them, because normal computers will be increasingly useless. Trusted Computing it about new software that cannot be installed except in handcuff mode. New software that that can only be run in hancdcuff mode. It is about new media files and e-mail and WEBSITES that can only be seen in handcuff mode. And in a few years you may only be able to get an internet connection while in handcuff mode.

          Yes all of the new stuff is crippled crap when you're in handcuff mode, but none of the new stuff will work at all outside handcuff mode, will not work on a normal computer. You're prefectly free to keep your old computer, you're perfectly free to manufacture and buy normal computers, but you'll get nothing but error messages from half the websites on the internet. You won't be able to read the e-mail your mother or your boss sent you. And your mother and your boss are going to blame you for not being able to read their mail, blame you for having a compatible computer, blame you for having an old obsolete computer.

          The strategy is so insideous because there is no reason *not* to have a Trusted computer, and about making people increasingly suffer if they do not "upgrade" to a Trusted system.

          -
          • Not upgrading your computer will not help you. There is no need to outlaw normal computers because normal coupters aren't a threat to them, because normal computers will be increasingly useless.

            Ok, so I buy a new "trusted" computer and 6 months later someone's cracked the DRM algorithm used. What then? Am I going to be compelled to upgrade my computer every time the DRM is cracked?
        • DRM will spread, and people will start finding ways to break it.

          This is exactly why all DRM is doomed to failure - DRM'd data eventually has to be decrypted to be used. This means that you're giving millions of people the means to decrypt your precious DRM'd data. You can guarantee that at least one of those millions of people will have the motivation, knowledge and equipment to reverse engineer the decryption system which the manufacturer put into their hands. And of course, once one person has done i

    • Re:re-asking the question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lakeland ( 218447 ) <lakeland@acm.org> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:34PM (#11992900) Homepage
      Since we don't have trusted computing implemented yet, it is hard to say definitively. Given current chips, it is possible for the answer to be yes, and also possible for the answer to be no. Therefore in answering your question I am second-guessing how microsoft will set the defaults rather than what the chip can do.

      My guess as to the most likely scenario is that you will be able to boot knoppix. I just cannot imagine the amount of pressure the linux community brings to bear if this happens. The TC chip will however PROBABLY not permit knoppix to unlock the hard drive. So at this point you're kinda stuck. It is likely you'll get low-level access to the disk, but dumping encrypted data isn't of much use.

      It is possible the TC chip will trust knoppix once the user enters their password, in which case your recovery would go just fine. It is also possible there is a back door and if you send the encrypted partition to the NSA they will unlock it for you, though I doubt they'll offer the service even if it is possible.

      • The system is well documented in the enginering specifications. With one exception, everything you said is exactly right. You will be able to book Knoppix or any other OS and software you want, but you will not be able to read or recover any of the Trusted-secured files.

        The one thing you didn't get right was "It is possible the TC chip will trust knoppix once the user enters their password". The chip does not decide to Trust or not Trust anything. The chip does anything software asks it to do, the catch is
    • You might want to check a rant I wrote ages ago [alwinh.dds.nl] (available in English and Dutch). With current knowledge, some of it doesn't make sense anymore, some of it holds even more water as time passes.

      Basically, you can view 'trusted computing' as (potentially) a strong enabler for systems integrity checking, user authentication, and yes, DRM. This may be have both good, and evil uses.

      It all comes down to whether it's optional, and who (ultimately) has the keys.

      Right now, it's optional. There's still plenty h

    • It depends on what data is protected by the TPM and how.

      First of all, if the TPM is even enabled, but the data that you want to recover is NOT protected by the TPM in anyway (either through the application or the OS), then you can recover the files.

      If the application/OS that created or manipulated the files are using the TPM, then it MAY get a bit more tricky.

      Here is the quick and dirty:
      • The TPM manages keys and encrypts and/or signs small blobs of stuff--pretty much other keys. It is not a bulk encrypt
    • I have yet to see where any of the entities involved with trusted computing want to password protect everything... they seem to want to give users the option to protect their own data, and allow content providers to protect their files.

      I doubt a local Mom and Pop grocery store would want to use these features, so I doubt they will ever be required to. Microsoft does not want to be known as the company that loses everyone's vital business data.
      • I have yet to see where any of the entities involved with trusted computing want to password protect everything... they seem to want to give users the option to protect their own data, and allow content providers to protect their files. (emphasis mine)

        Exactly. Giving content owners the ability to protect their files in that manner means the public is cheated. Remember, copyright is a temporary license from society to a creator.

        If content "owners" want the economic advantage of a near-monopoly on thei
        • Great point on copyright. I'm not sure what the copyright duration on creative works is at the moment, but life + 99 years comes to mind. I hope I'm wrong on that, I'd rather see something more like 14 years and then the works are put into the public domain and available from the library of congress. I think that would be a fair compromise for society and copyright owners.

          I wouldn't mind seeing regulation that requires the content owners or DRM license providers maintain the keys for all of the content
    • (DISCLAIMER : I do not know how the TCPA cpu will handle protected file.) I do not know what sort of "encryption" layer will the CPU do, but I doubt this will be something complicated (If it was a slow encryption then imagine the playback time). If this is something which is hackable, then the solution is simple : Keep forever a 3Ghz Pentium somewhere without trusted computing then remove the HD from the trusted computing PC, put it as slave HD in the normal PC, hack all files trough, play back, burn on CD

  • Trusted Computing: Both good and bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Neruocomp ( 513658 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @04:57PM (#11992669)
    I think hardware based security is something that is needed by government and other organizations that handle sensitive information. That way we wouldn't be hearing about databases being cracked and having millions of people's information leaked. Thats the good part.

    The bad part is what it means should trusted computing enter consumer electronics. With DRM it would be like having someone from the MPAA in my living room, and thats something I dont want to happen. While this technology sure has potential, it does need leash to keep it under control. I paid for the machine, so it should do what I want it to do.
    • I don't see how hardware security is going to stop problems like database leaks, because they are more of an application security, or social engineering problem. rather than hardware.

      If the governmentr needs that high of a security, they simply make the user sign out/ sign in the hard-drive from a secure vault.

      I once lost a secret crypto document while in the army. I had signed it out of the commsec room and was resonsible for it. I had some rather seriuos talks with people from the Army Security Agency
      • I'm surprised you were allowed back in to the COMSEC room. In the past I was on a project that required a secret clearance with a COMSEC rider, and we were all freakin' paranoid about any data being left out.

        I'm glad you found the document, and didn't have to have an all-expenses-paid vacation at Ft. Leavenworth!

  • To Be Fair... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by N3koFever ( 777608 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:02PM (#11992701)
    ...the BBC is publicly funded and so doesn't need to make a profit. They don't care if people go and download their stuff (in fact, they're soon going to be offering their archives online) because they don't have advertising revenue to lose and have already made their money from everyone in the UK with a TV who pays £120/year to them. I'm sure that a commercial company that actually had to turn a profit would be singing a different tune.

    • Re:To Be Fair... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:17PM (#11992793)
      Well, maybe that means the BBC has the right business model and the commercial media industry doesn't?
      • The BBC's business model is to charge each household in the UK who have a television a fee of around £110 regardless of whether they use BBC services or not.

        If the TV license fee isn't paid, then the Government allows non-payers to be fined upto £1,000.

        Personally, I feel a business model of allowing viewers/listeners to pay for a particular service if they decide to use it is a much more fair business model.

        • The BBC's business model is to charge each household in the UK who have a television a fee

          Don't want to be charged? Don't get a TV!

          (N.B. I don't have one, except 1 month every 4 years for the World Cup. I probably would have one if the BBC did broadcast around here. That's how pathetic our commercials-funded programs are. Be careful what you wish for...)

      • I think it means that countries with a mixed media market like the UK (with a large and independant public sector) have the right business model. The BBC 'customer' is anyone with a TV who pays the same license fee no matter how cheap or pricey the TV, so if other news outlets stop looking out the for little guy then the BBC almost certainly will fill the gap. This ensures that 'populist' news and entertainment remains a significant part of the information landscape.

        Castrate the "public" sector media (Pat
      • Umm, right.

        So, the commercial media industry should all be tax-payer funded, so that they don't need to worry about turning a profit?

        Or did you mean something else?

    • Not 100% correct (Score:5, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:23PM (#11992843) Homepage Journal
      BBC Enterprises makes a decent income from the sale of videos and DVDs to consumers, and master tapes to overseas broadcasters. As such, BBC Enterprises would be hard-hit if piracy were to destroy their markets, which would (in the end) impact the BBC in general.


      It is an interesting twist of fate, though, that a significant fraction of the BBC Enterprise's income come from Black and White footage that the BBC Archives destroyed in the 1970s, but was later recovered by enthusiasts, media history fanatics, broadcasters with a sense of history, etc.


      Had DRM existed in the 1960s, virtually everything prior to 1970 would have been lost forever. This would have included virtually all the Doctor Who stories, the BBC coverage of the moon landings, and many other recordings now regarded as historic and of extreme interest.


      Fans of The Avengers would also have lost out, as many Catherine Gale episodes were recovered from a landfill site, as were the two known surviving episodes from the first season with Dr. Keel.


      No, television today would be poorer, had they had DRM back then. The BBC would appear to have learned the hard way, but nonetheless have learned that copyright cuts both ways. It hurts EVERYONE and not just those supposedly targetted.


      Orrin Hatch and American broadcasters have never really experienced the devastating losses that can result from a single bad decision. (Well, at least, not in broadcasting. The US has suffered many losses due to bad decisions in other areas of life.) Their refusal to recognise the lessons demonstrated so clearly by others is frightening. Faulty policies, through ignorance, can be excused. But there is no ignorance here. They know perfectly well what others have experienced, and either through arrogance or contempt, do not make any effort to avoid repeating those experiences here in the US.

      • Copyright cuts both ways, and so do bad examples. The United States has turned over control of the copyright and patent systems over to the private sector (not directly, perhaps, but the results of the DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act and others) have had that effect. Sadly, however, the European Union is doing much the same thing with their copyright and patent laws. That tells me that an unwillingness to learn by someone else's bad experience is not limited to th
      • The Avengers was not a BBC production.
    • "...the BBC is publicly funded and so doesn't need to make a profit. "

      The BBC is required to show a return on investment, however. And the BBC does care what is downloaded and how it is used, but has more liberal availability than some organisations. However if you go to the BBC radio website you will see that not all shows are available as 'listen again' and those that are available are only available for 1 week.

    • ..everyone in the UK with a TV who pays £120/year to them..


      Of course, these things are flexible. One must change with the times, so don't be surprised if you will need a license for your PC [theregister.co.uk] in a decade. Presumably this will be conducted using trusted computing! Gotta love it!


      Now, where's my tin-foil hat?

  • BBC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:08PM (#11992738) Homepage
    As an American, I'd like to express my gratitude to the BBC for being one of the most, if not THE most outstanding media organization in the world.

    I know they have their faults, but when they need to come through, they really come through, especially on matters of public interest.

    I for one welcome our new BBC Overlords, in hopes that they will be a big ally in our struggle to further media distribution on the net.

    • It's just a pity that Bill Thompson, who represents the BBC is such a fool. Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3334531.stm He writes for example: "Earlier this year I wrote that Google was becoming so powerful that it should be regulated by a new 'office of search engines.'" I simply never read BBC News tech stories with his name on them anymore.
      • Oops. Here is an actual link:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3334531.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      • Re:BBC (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Sajarak ( 556353 )

        Yes, this article is actually quite an interesting about-face for him. Just two and a half years ago, when Microsoft announced that it was jumping on the trusted computing bandwagon, he wrote this [theregister.co.uk] article, singing the praises of hardware-based restrictions, and governmental regulation of the internet.

        It seems that he's only just recently come to the conclusion that maybe this whole trusted computing thing is there to serve the purposes of the hardware and software makers, rather than their users.

      • It's just a pity that Bill Thompson, who represents the BBC is such a fool.

        Well, he only represents the BBC in that he writes an occasional column. And part of the reason for running a column is to elict reaction, which I suspect he does regularly. But don't expect reasoned argument or technical accuracy.

  • Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)

    by JohnnyKlunk ( 568221 ) * on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:08PM (#11992741)
    BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

    Bill Thompson is the Beebs geeky, slashdotty type technology editor. His articles are not representitive of BBC corporate policy, as the headline seems to imply.

    • +1 Informative (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:15PM (#11992774) Homepage Journal
      This is a very important point, lest anyone in the UK be lulled into a false sense of security as to their vulnerability to this kind of thing.

      If anything Europeans need to fight harder against this stuff because often those arguing against it are arrogant Americans whose argument is often "we do it in the US, therefore you must too". The irony often is that they have a harder time pushing it in the US than elsewhere.

      I had a recent experience [locut.us] of this type of thing in teh debate over software patents in the EU.

    • While an editor he does represent the BBC's public opinion in these matters.

      Plus note the BBC will offer most of its content for download for UK residents (those who fund it) from 2006 onwards. For a television network to offer downloads of its perviously run content (who has downloaded Enterprise or Buffy torrents because they missed the show despite such behaviour being illegal?) this is a serious step forward!

  • EFF and Berkeley (Score:4, Informative)

    by millette ( 56354 ) <robin@@@millette...info> on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:11PM (#11992756) Homepage Journal
    The EFF has been following the DRM issue [eff.org] for quite some time now. See also this 2003 conference on DRM at Berkeley [berkeley.edu].
  • Lets not use the language of the opposition.

    By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".

    George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...
    • I believe the correct term is "treacherous computing." (Not my idea -- Stallman's, I think.)
      • I believe the correct term is "treacherous computing." (Not my idea -- Stallman's, I think.)

        My suggestion would be not to go too overboard because it's harder to be taken seriously.

        Something like "limited computing" or "rent-a-computer" would be good.

  • One simple criterion for what is trustable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by file-exists-p ( 681756 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:41PM (#11992938)

    If the device includes a private key known by the manufacturer and not known by the customer, the device is trustable by the manufacturer and not anymore by the customer.

    There are no user-friendly feature which requires such a key, and there are no way to take your right away without such a key.

    --
    Go Debian!
    • An excllent post and an excellent point and I agree with your position. However there is a factual error. In general the manufacturer does not actually know the key. Either it is generated randomly inside the chip itself, or it is generated outside the chip and inserted into the chip and the manufacturer is not allowed to keep a record of that key.

      The situation is still just as bad. The problem and all of the abuses are because the owner is prohibited from knowing his own key.

      -

      • Then I am sort of lost. I thought one major point was that the fritz-chip has to be able to send a trustable report about your hardware/software configuration.

        If no such private key known by the manufacturer exists, how can they know that I don't just forge such a report with the adequate software ?

        --
        Go Debian!

  • law?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fuzzums ( 250400 ) on Sunday March 20, 2005 @05:46PM (#11992979) Homepage
    i didn't know it was the duty of software writers to enforce the law.

    let's look at cars. speeding is prohibited. should cardesigners make it impossible to speed?

    you're not allowed to kill. should bullet makers make bullets that don't kill?

    then why....
  • ... see the article at Secure Enterprise [securitypipeline.com].

  • PPC? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by yesheh ( 862579 )
    Is this technology related to the intel platforms only or is it also going to be present on PPC, Alpha, MIPS, etc? ie. is it req'd by law on every computer or is it just required on new x86s/64s?.. I'd much rather stay with ppc anyway, risc chips are way better...

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close