Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection 276

Posted by Hemos from the e.g.-copyright-protection dept.
prostoalex writes "Intel and Sony are trying to please the copyright-alerted content publishers and privacy-aware consumers by supporting and pushing Digital Transmission Content Protection standard. New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home. A PDF presentation from an Intel engineer is available on dtcp.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection More

Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection

Comments Filter:

  • *COUGH* bullshit (Score:4, Funny)

    by SMOC ( 703423 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:30AM (#7023202)
    New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home

    So, what happens if I turn up to volume a bit?

    • Re:*COUGH* bullshit (Score:4, Funny)

      by vidnet ( 580068 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:31AM (#7023205) Homepage
      The giant barbed fence they build around your house will also be sound proof.

    • Re:*COUGH* bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gunix ( 547717 )
      I was just about to write something about a laptop, never mind.
      Where is this taking us?
      The optimistic future is that the "content" industry can stop being afraid of all that P2P-mess, and they can start cutting the prices, since P2P is the reason for the high prices...

      The more realistic future is that they get an even firmer grip on the consumers and raise prices!

      Should I buy some DRM-free hardware today and save for future use? Well, AMD releases new hardware tomorrow....

  • Handcuffs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dew-genen-ny ( 617738 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:32AM (#7023207) Homepage
    God this sort of stuff pisses me off -

    The analogy that springs to mind is that if you go to the public library, they let you borrow a book, only if you let them chain it to your wrist first.

    Information was, is and should be free.

    • Re:Handcuffs (Score:5, Funny)

      by zephc ( 225327 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:41AM (#7023238)
      less like chaining it to your wrist, and more like duct-taping it to your face. The future of DRM means for payer's eyes only, LIke movies, but all over the place. When taping Friends is outlawed, only outlaws will tape Friends.

    • Re:Handcuffs (Score:2, Funny)

      by Begemot ( 38841 )
      Yeah, but it insaults my intelligence when "Legally Blonde 2000" is called Information.

      Real info was, is and remains free [nec.com].

    • Re:Handcuffs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:37AM (#7023470)
      Information was, is and should be free.

      Jeez, I thought we grew out of this notion five years ago. I guess as a new generation discovers the Internet, we have to go through the drill over and over. Fair enough.

      Information *IS* free. But Entertainment is not, never has been. Because I can render entertainment as data, clone it, and/or easily disseminate it doesn't mean I should. It most certainly does not mean I have a God-given and constitutionally-protected "right" to entertainment.

      The Big Problem has always been: What type of technology will allow us to simultaneously protect a consumer's right to Fair Use while preventing him from illegally distributing the entertainment he has purchased? *Everybody* is working on this; if Sony is finally announcing some progress, my only question is "What took you so long?"

      • Re:Handcuffs (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dew-genen-ny ( 617738 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:52AM (#7023559) Homepage
        I disagree with the statement that entertainment has never been free.

        The concept of someone "owning" a song is relatively new - the idea that someone wrote it is not.

        It wasn't all that long ago that artists where happy for people to hear their work, because if it was good enough more people would pay to see them, and that would keep the food on the table.

        The mega-stars of the end of the 20th, beginning of this century are a new invention (and a terrible one at that). If you want to see a good reason not to pay people these huge sums, look at what the fortune part of the fame & fortune did to their creativity....but that's another story.

        • Besides, why should artists and their descendants profit from work done decades ago? If we, humble mortals, want to retire some day, we must build up some kind of retirement fund. We are not allowed to keep receiving salaries from the work we did long ago. Why should artists?

          Also, why should artists be millionaires? If an engineer does some good work, that's used by millions of people, he may be reasonably well-off. For instance, if I design a vacuum cleaner or a shock absorber, I might get a bonus, but I

          • The problem is that we live in a society where reward is not (often) based on skill. In a free market society (and I use that term loosely), reward is essentially based on what you can sell, which often means the best marketing.

            The idea of equal pay for equal work is a more socialist and even communist ideology. On the other hand, socialism also often strays from reward based on performance. For example, unionized employees typically make the same pay regardless of whether they're a keener or a slacker

            • There's a thin line between marketing and politics. The media companies today are drifting from marketing into politics. Why did Mariah Carey get paid $30 million or so for not selling enough CDs? Why didn't her contract have a penalty clause allowing the recording company to rescind based on insufficient sales?

              The end result of that politization is seen on plummetting CD sales. That's not what capitalism is about. In a capitalist economy, only the bottom line should matter in a corporation. It should not
              • Mariah's contract had nothing to do with politics. Mariah had demonstrated an ability to sell CDs in the past. The record company gambled that the exclusive right to sell her music was worth a certain amount. It was a bad decision, and the record company cut their losses by buying out the remainder of her contract. Companies make bad decisions. It's part of the free market. If they make enough of them, they go out of business.

              • Why did Mariah Carey get paid $30 million or so for not selling enough CDs? Why didn't her contract have a penalty clause allowing the recording company to rescind based on insufficient sales?

                Negotiation. I'm sure the record company's original contract was far more onerous than what they settled for. But they bet (incorrectly) on making a bundle on Mariah, and gave her a sweet deal at the risk of losing her. That's, as they say, Show Business.

                In a capitalist economy, only the bottom line should matte

                • Re:Handcuffs (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by mangu ( 126918 )
                  The tech world is filled with smart guys who cut "Mariah-like" deals for themselves; you just don't read about them because Larry Ellison's picture on the cover won't sell many copies of People Magazine.

                  Huh? Larry Ellison owns the Oracle corporation! Tech people, when they are really good, they get stock options. Top artists, IMHO, should be treated like that.

                  I think the situation is more balanced in the classic music market. There are CDs sold at less than $3, by some obscure east Europe orchestras. CDs

                  • Tech People, when they are really good, they get stock options.

                    Tech people, when they are really good, incorporate themselves. So long as you work-for-hire, whether as a tech or an artist, you aren't a "superstar." Most techs aren't superstars; neither are most artists.

                    A Popular artist becomes popular because she's popular, not because she has any merit. Same in the tech world. You need look no further than personal computer operating systems. But I would ask you not to confuse what goes into Milli
            • "Equal pay for equal work" means that people performing the same job should receive the same pay. It's often used when pay is reduced due to discrimination of some sort, such as when women in a particular field earn less than men.

              Pay is never based on the amount of work per se. Pay is generally based on the supply of the work. Digging ditches is much more work than writing a hit song, but there are many more ditch diggers available than there are hit song writers.

              The free market does do a reasonably go
          • Besides, why should artists and their descendants profit from work done decades ago? If we, humble mortals, want to retire some day, we must build up some kind of retirement fund. We are not allowed to keep receiving salaries from the work we did long ago. Why should artists?

            Sorry, but this simply doesn't hold water. If you design a shock absorber, someone holds the rights to that design. If I want to use that shock absorber, I have to purchase it from someone. You, as the designer, may not continue t
          • Also, why should artists be millionaires?

            Ahhhh, Class Envy. Now I begin to understand...

            Why does Jim Carrey command $20 mil per picture? Because his presence in the flick can be the difference between the studio grossing $100 mil or $30 mil. People pay to see him; they don't pay to see the work of the gaffers and the guy who re-compiles the kernal in the CGI render-farm.

            People pay to watch the quarterback; they don't come to the stadium to watch the offensive coach map out a strategy.

            And (Playing De
        • It wasn't all that long ago that artists where happy for people to hear their work, because if it was good enough more people would pay to see them, and that would keep the food on the table

          And many artists still fall into that category. But some artists either don't tour or have limited promotional tours because their music doesn't translate over well "live." (Or do the trance/techno/post-modern-post-production guys not count?)

          Then, of course, there are the other artists -- authors, movie-makers, for

      • Re:Handcuffs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AstroDrabb ( 534369 )
        The problem is that the big media studios are NOT working on protecting Fair Use. They are only working on protecting their "content". They want the abitily to prevent you from copying ANYTHING which is WRONG IMO. We have a right to Fair Use and the legal right to backup. If I make a purchase of a DVD, I have the right to back it up and protect my investment so I don't need to repurchase it a year or two from now when the "content" on it is not usable any more. The media studios have every right to sto

      • The Big Problem has always been: What type of technology will allow us to simultaneously protect a consumer's right to Fair Use while preventing him from illegally distributing the entertainment he has purchased? *Everybody* is working on this; if Sony is finally announcing some progress, my only question is "What took you so long?"

        No, the big problem is: how much control do you want to let content owners have over their work after it has been distributed, in order to maximize its utility to the general so

        • ...how much control do you want to let content owners have over their work after it has been distributed, in order to maximize its utility to the general society?

          More than they have without any kind of DRM, that's for sure. Look, people can argue over whether it should be three years, seven years, eleven years, or a hundred years, but clearly an artist who does not perform -- say, an author, for example -- needs some form of protection against some yahoo scanning his new book and posting it on a website.

      • Re:Handcuffs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DunbarTheInept ( 764 )

        The Big Problem has always been: What type of technology will allow us to simultaneously protect a consumer's right to Fair Use while preventing him from illegally distributing the entertainment he has purchased?
        Nah, the bigger problem is this: How can that technology, if it gets invented, work in such a fashion that it doesn't criminalize open source software? Right now, every solution the industry comes up with depends on the software writers being 'trusted' by the recording industry. In other words,

  • and the analog hole? (Score:4, Funny)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:32AM (#7023211) Homepage Journal
    is it closed?

    heck, play the music loud enough and it does leave your home! buy a bitching video projector and the images leave your home as well ;)

    .

    • Re:and the analog hole? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CaptainBaz ( 621098 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:52AM (#7023272) Homepage Journal
      My current setup means that I can't play DVDs on my PC, because I *might* be outputting the signal via TV-out (PowerDVD 4 on Win2000 Pro, generic DVD-ROM and GeForce2MX400 gfx).

      What makes you think you'll be allowed to use a projector? :-)

      • Re:and the analog hole? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )
        use the vga in of the projector?

        and what you mean that you can't play dvd's? programs like powerdvd refuse to play?? hasn't happened to me(and you know why there's macromedia chips to supposedly screw up the signal in cards with tv-out to be used with dvd's).

        what makes me think that they'll allow use of projector? the fact that if they don't nobody will buy the thing because they wouldn't be able to use their tv's, monitors or ANYTHING to look at the said content(they have to make it possible to see/hear
        • To clarify:

          PowerDVD 4, which is out NOW, on the market, will not allow MacroVision'd DVDs to be played at all on systems with a gfx card like the Nvidia GeForce2 MX400.

          Reason: The GeForce2 doesn't allow the TVout hardware to be disabled by software, so PowerDVD prefers to stop me playing the DVD at all unless it can be sure I'm not outputting it via analogue.

          People still buy PowerDVD, so I'l not sure your argument stands. Yes ok, VGA works at the moment, but it's being phased out by digital output
          • You've got to be kidding me.

            I get the GeForce cards specifically for the TV out specifically to play DVD's. I also use the output to record the DVDs to VHS (Fair USE!) to play them on my portable TV in the car.

            Of course I'm using Xine/Mplayer which don't care a whit about macrovision, and I'm using some OTHER software just to be able to play the DVD's.

      • Grins, I have a scan converter that act's just like a Monitor.. unless they will require DRM enabled monitors I can get around their tactics easily.

        No matter what they will try, the rest of the world will be at least 2 steps ahead of them... Unles they simply resort to imprisoning or suing everyone ALA MPAA/RIAA/TNAAA/WHATEVERAA

  • How are they going to enforce that? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by miodekk ( 680870 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:34AM (#7023215)
    I can't see any way to enforce that.
    Of course assuming you are using linux or other open source OS.
    • The encryption in the DRM will ensure that no untrusted application (or OS) will be able to decode the media file. That way they can easily enforce the constraints on the media (until a bug is found in the DRM code)

    • Re:How are they going to enforce that? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rknop ( 240417 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:59AM (#7023298) Homepage

      I can't see any way to enforce that. Of course assuming you are using linux or other open source OS.

      And what makes you think that Linux or any other open source OS is going to be able to view any media in the future? (At least legally?) Heck, it's already illegal, technically, in the USA to watch DVDs with open source software, even DVDs that you have legally purchased.

      -Rob

      • The phrase "digital revolution" is taking on a whole new meaning.

  • New technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by mst76 ( 629405 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:34AM (#7023217)
    > New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home.

    Dang, I used to hand out mp3 cdr's on the street corner. Now I have to resort to sharing on kazaa inside my home.

  • Any attempts always end up getting cracked. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LinuxMan ( 3590 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:36AM (#7023220)
    It is interesting, because when it all comes down to it, the "good guys" are hurt due to restrictions, and the "bad guys" always end up pirating, etc. I am not sure there really is an answer as to how to protect information 100% without it both hurting the consumer and being crackable by a cracker. Of course, the governments can keep passing laws that make reverse engineering illegal, etc, but again, that's just going to scare the average Joe much more than it would scare someone who really wants to crack a DRM transmission. Only time will tell where the DRM issue ends up.

    the new 40gig ipod [amazon.com]

    • Consider what the NSA does... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you want to find out where DRM is going, consider what the NSA and other government agencies around the world do in order to keep encrypted data secret:

      1. Never, ever associate the unencrypted data with the encrypted.

      2. Keep the encryption and decryption keys secret and change them.

      3. Keep the encryption and decryption devices secret.

      Even given all that, I'd be codes still get cracked.

      So, RIAA and MPAA want to encrypt hundreds of millions if not billions of copies of known data thereby associated encr

    • Uncrackable DRM isn't the point or the goal. The goal is DRM layered with enough hard encryption that it's a major pain in the ass.

      It's not a question of how, but when. VHS has no encryption, but Macrovision was applied after development for content protection. CDs were a late 70s/early 80s invention, no encrytption at all, with various macrovision-style protection methods applied later. DVDs were a late 80s, early 90s invention, flawed encryption, with limited DRM via improved macrovision.

      It's clear

  • I love the wording on these. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Borealis ( 84417 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:37AM (#7023225) Homepage
    "Allow" the customer to use digital content at home. You mean the content you payed for? As opposed to not allowing you to listen/watch/use content you've payed for?

    They always word these things like they're *granting* new rights instead of taking them away. I don't know whether to be amused at the balls of the PR makers or dismayed at the fact that there are twits who will read a press release like that and think "Oh goody, I've been wanting to do that."
    • You hint at the issue here. We didn't pay for it, we paid for a "license" to use it in whatever way the license allows (and not in the ways it doesn't). This is the problem... until sales are treated like sales, no matter what some "license" purports to say or limit, we'll never be free of the bullshit. If I buy a CD, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. I should be able to share it with whomever I desire, sell it, rent it, perform it publicly (i.e. play it in my store), or crush it up, boil it

  • old computers (Score:4, Informative)

    by kipple ( 244681 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:38AM (#7023227) Journal
    people will keep their old PCs because of that. how are the sales supposed to increase then? will they sneak drm-enabled processors to customers without telling it? maybe with a new eXPerience of an Operating System?

    I really hope that some new company (from China, maybe?) will come up with new brands of processors without the DRM stuff. but then probably the US government will make them illegal in the country :)
  • There's always a way to copy music. You can use a double-ended dubbing cable (with stereo plugs on both ends), plug one end inot an MP3 player and the other end into a computer's microphone port. Start up Sound Recorder, or the equivalent, and there's your new, non-content protected MP3. The only way they could completely protect it is to make it impossible for you to listen to it.

    -StarMaven

    • Re:Digital Content Protection (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Obviously the phrase "generation loss" is lossed on you :-)
    • Although many think that analog is always in the clear, watermarking technologies can prevent the copying of redigitized signals. A watermark would be a auditorialy invisible signal in the content data that encodes a copy protection code or DRM code. If the DRM system looks for a watermark in the content data (as opposed to a special metadata code) and permits/prohibits playing, copying, saving, etc. then dubbers are defeated. Content creators could even use this technology to prohibit digital recording
      • The watermarked content mentioned would not be played on a DRM system. It would be played on a typical current generation RIO, PC, DVD player, Etc. The DRM system simply won't be compatible with regular MP3's, expecialy those recorded from content with a watermark. However, everything else would play them no problem.

        Anyway I read the article. It's quite clear this the the Microsoft Media PC. It's no more a general use PC than an X Box is. It's a cable subscription box that plays rental and purchase p

      • A watermark would be a auditorialy invisible signal in the content data that encodes a copy protection code or DRM code.

        If it can't be heard, a good lossy audio encoder will remove it. If it can be heard, audiophiles will female dog about it to no end.

        If the DRM system looks for a watermark in the content data (as opposed to a special metadata code) and permits/prohibits playing, copying, saving, etc. then dubbers are defeated.

        And watch how mad a father can get when his shiny new camcorder refuses

    • Re:Digital Content Protection (Score:5, Informative)

      by RMH101 ( 636144 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:10AM (#7023341)
      well, if you want to record in mono and overload your mic preamp, go ahead. otherwise, do it properly and plug it into the the LINE IN on your sound card.


      sheesh, someone tells you to plug something into your soundcard and it gets a plus 4 insightful? whilst i'm here, anyone want to mod me up if i tell you how to unplug your keybo....

      • I'm suprised you didn't also mention it's not a good idea to Start up Sound Recorder. It and Hi-Fi have nothing in common. I used to use it to send grandkid noises to distant relatives. I thought the very Lo-Fi sound was due to a cheap sound card. Then I discovered CDeX has a record button under tools. For a no feature capture device, WOW! It is possible to get stereo Hi-Fi recordings on my hardware! It's good enough to use to transfer my LP's. Sound Recorder wasn't even as good as a cheap tape recor
    • While yes, digital to analog recording should work just fine, there is alot of money being invested in digital watermarking, one form which should in theory actually resist the Digital to Analog to Digital conversion process. The only way that this will work is if you copy your digital media onto legacy analog standards like cassette tape. The trick isn't so much the fact that this form of watermarking isn't easy enough to do, the trick is incorperating it into the music without an adverse affect on sound

  • Is it bad? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by joostje ( 126457 )
    I guess loads of people will moan about not being able to illegaly copy. But why would it be bad if technology allows the wishes of the copyright owner to be enforcerd.

    What to me is *much* worse, is when these DRM techniques disable me (honest linux user, strictly using Free software), to do things MS users can. I might *want* to pay for a film/song, but if the technology disables me from vieuwing it, I'll have to become a criminal.

    Fortunaltely, the requirements, as stated in the .pdf, are:


    Content Comp

    • Re:Is it bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sphere1952 ( 231666 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:53AM (#7023575) Journal
      Because the wishes of the copyright holder are not the same as the rights of the copyright holder.
    • Because the rights of the consumer are a lot more important than the wishes of the copyright holder. Copyright was designed not with rewarding the holder as the end, but as a means to encourage cultural development by rewarding the creator. In a world where record labels churn out manufactured content while hijacking the works of real artists through "work for hire" provisions, it is already clear that copyright law as it stands is counterproductive. Increasing the recording industry's strangle hold on one

  • Can We Say Fritz Chip? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Praedon ( 707326 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:52AM (#7023269) Journal
    This has got to be fritz chip revisited... I mean come on... Plus, not to mention all the people who will refuse to buy the new cpu, and refuse to update an "eXPerience OS", and just do what a real man does. Go to Linux! Besides.. I fail to see how possible it is to make a CPU Block digital media... not to mention on how possible it really is to accomplish this without touching a very touchy subject of freedom of speech.
  • Stuff like this will be hacked a cracked inside of a few weeks. Stop spending so much money developing DRM technology, it's a total waste. Maybe if you did that, then it would offset some of the money you say you are losing due to infringement.
    • Yeah well, if it's on the chip, the task of the chip can be emulated in software.

      However, is it possible to open an IC and read what is stored in it's flash (or whatever) memory? Or to put it other way, is it possible to take a smart card (eg a phone SIM card) and read what's written there without having the PIN?

      I mean is it physically possible with our current technology?
      Can NSA or IBM labs or a university labs or a garage geek do it?
      How much does it cost to do it?

      If it's not possible, then it's essent

  • A simple rule about copying music: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Biogenesis ( 670772 ) <overclocker,brent&optushome,com,au> on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:53AM (#7023274) Homepage
    If you can put it through speakers, you can copy it. Simple. It's only a matter of time before someone with high quality gear decides to make a copy for everyone. Sure it might slow down the spread of stolen music, but it can't be stopped.

  • Again: Nice try. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Monday September 22, 2003 @07:58AM (#7023295)
    When will the vendors finally learn it? CDs would still be a stable market if it weren't for CDRWs costing less than a set of coasters nowadays. You won't turn the weel back with copmetition just around the corner.
    If Intel should start getting truly pesky to customers with TCPA, this new gadget and anything else, AMD, VIA, Motorola and any other Vendor will rejoyce and push out CPUs and Architecture variants that don't have this crap.

    Why don't Corporations just go back to good ol' quality products for a fair price to make money? That used to be a reliable way to do it after all.
    Sanely priced CDs with mp3s and oggs and mpeg videos included, along with interessting booklets should do magic to a declining market. But I guess they just want to sell crap for to much money and will use law enforcement to emphasis that and in the end really piss their customers of.
    • Why don't Corporations just go back to good ol' quality products for a fair price to make money? That used to be a reliable way to do it after all.
      Sanely priced CDs with mp3s and oggs and mpeg videos included, along with interessting booklets should do magic to a declining market. But I guess they just want to sell crap for to much money and will use law enforcement to emphasis that and in the end really piss their customers of.

      Right on, man. The cd itself doesn't cost a dime to these labels, and I would

  • six months (Score:3, Insightful)

    by famazza ( 398147 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [onirazzam.oibaf]> on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:01AM (#7023302) Homepage Journal

    I'll wait six months until somebody outside US publishes something to crack this bullshit!

    Just like CSS!

    When will they learn that any kind of digital copy protection will ALWAYS be cracked in a few monthes? Don't they have TI advisors?

  • Define "home." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:05AM (#7023323) Journal
    The PDF was hosed and the CNet article was spartan, so I'm still left wondering about this great big definition issue in the term "home."
    This reminds me of the crisis over defining "copy" that underlies all the legal arguments over file sharing. The fact is, these terms have long been de-stabilized. The advent of electronic media that began at the turn of the century created a whole new level of complexity in language that text based laws simply cannot encompass.
    Just imagine the use of the term "home" in a filesystem. Where is home? Does that mean in relation to root? Which root? Or is it the user home? Does that include the virtual network or locally? Local meaning active or including backups?
    Glazing over these things as if they didn't exist simply because a lot of people don't want to face it is not looking at the reality we live in today.

  • Excellent. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by acceleriter ( 231439 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:08AM (#7023334)
    More competing standards will cause confusion and anxiety in the marketplace, as skittish "rights" holders wait on the sidelines to see which one will emerge victorious. This could only be helpful in the battle against DRM. I encourage more digital restrictions standards :).

  • Revocation question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phil Wherry ( 122138 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:11AM (#7023350) Homepage
    Well, I actually did RTFA (forgive me!) and note with some concern that the standard provides for "device revocation" under some clearly-defined terms, though those terms are unspecified. Can anyone shed some light on what those might be?

    The obvious concern here is that the devices will be sold under some sort of license agreement that will permit unspecified others to figuratively fry your hardware if they suspect it's compromised (or are otherwise displeased with you). I imagine that one's recourse as a consumer (remember: we're "consumers" and not "citizens" here!) will be quite limited. Sigh.
    • As if we don't have enough problems with all of the things connected together in the home entertainment center now always working reliably.

      Not only will there now be physical connection problems, but errant software which (for whatever reason) denys access to content you fully and rightfully own.

      Just remember... the people who are "giving" us all these great new abilities are the same ones that "gave" us those wonderful warnings and advertisments that can't be skipped on the DVD player.

  • Meanwhile Windowsupdate is offering me DRM too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:24AM (#7023406)
    Yes folks its the 'Windows Rights Management Client 1.0', a 'recommended' upgrade if you are running XP.

    What does it do?

    The Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Rights Management (RM) client is required for your computer to run applications that provide functionality based on Windows RM technologies. Installing this client places software on your computer that allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information.

    Now what interests me is, who is going to be the first software company to embrace this? Probably the next version of Media Player.

  • If I get a consumer product with GPL software in it, do they have to supply the source?
  • Obvious Simpsons joke aside, this seems like a pipe dream. The ability to have this kind of control over media no doubt sends the RIAA et al into spasms of joy, but there's a catch. Surely all you need to play downloaded music, either legitimately owned or copied anywhere is an MP3 player and a decent set of speakers? Given the choice of being able to play carefully controlled MP3s through my fridge - or whatever they're going to install this system onto - or just plug in an mp3 player and go, the latter ge

  • No thanks, I don't need cripple-ware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:33AM (#7023453) Journal
    New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home.

    Because you should have to pay twice if you want to play the music on a portable mp3 player.

    And of course, no open source mp3 software, because I could compile it with -DNO_DRM.

    Well, Sony, guess what? Having my music conveniently on my PC and on my mp3 portableplayer is what motivates me to buy the music in the first place.

    And guess what? I do respect copyright; I won't even burn a CD for close friends, or rip their CDs -- despite the 32 GB of free space on my portable.

    And I'll continue to respect your copyright: I just won't buy your cripple-ware.

    I can find plenty of great music on old LPs, on real (Phillips-Sony Red Book Standard), from emusic.com, and from independent labels.

    Let me repeat: I don't want your cripple-ware. It does me no good since it won't play on the hardware I control (it only plays on hardware I buy and you control). So it will do you no good -- I won't exchange my money for it.

    The more new releases you distribute exclusively as cripple-ware, the more alternatives will be produced. And that's what I'll be buying.

    • And I'll continue to respect your copyright: I just won't buy your cripple-ware.

      Just out of curiosity, which copyright do you 'respect'? The length of copyright that was in the US 100 years ago, the one 60 years ago, the one 40 years ago, the one 6 years ago, or the one today?

      • Just out of curiosity, which copyright do you 'respect'? The length of copyright that was in the US 100 years ago, the one 60 years ago, the one 40 years ago, the one 6 years ago, or the one today?

        It's a good point you implicitly make: why should we respect copyright if, as the trend suggests, it will be extended every time Disney needs it to keep Mickey Mouse in chains.

        One the one hand, you could certainbly make a case that copyright should be perpetual: why should mere passges of years make my unique

  • Typical /. Hipocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:37AM (#7023469)
    As I read the article and then read the comments, it dawned on me after a few lines; there was advocation for breaking the law everywhere I looked. Comments such as 'this will be cracked' and 'we will find other ways to steal music.' What kind of immature attitude is being thrust into the open here? Honestly, if the community doesn't want to be portrayed as a bunch of thieves and black hats, then this kind of idiocy has to stop.

    You don't want to be called a thief for running Linux? You don't want to be known as some script-kiddie hacker for using OSS? Well here is a good hint...stop advocating cracking and stealing music and software. You paid for it and it is yours to use, but, don't share it with the rest of the world.

    Hypocrisy is found here in the more pure form I have ever seen outside of Hollywood.

    • Re:Typical /. Hipocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ddimas ( 629883 )
      Wrong. This is a rehash of the copy protection issues of the 1980's and early 1990's. Why is it no longer an issue? The industry settled on a convienient and copyproof (or so they thought) format that did not mandate all this DRM crap. After a few years they found out that copying was a non-issue.

      Ironicly the software distribution format they settled on was the cd.

    • What kind of immature attitude is being thrust into the open here?


      It's a natural response to the immature attitude of putting copy-protection everywhere. Or would you say treating your customers as outlaws is a "mature" attitude?


      You paid for it and it is yours to use


      You bet! And I will keep it mine! I paid for it, it's mine, they will not take it back!

    • Re:Typical /. Hipocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __past__ ( 542467 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @09:35AM (#7023930)
      Not necessarily. I do respect copyright, don't run unlicesensed software, don't download mp3s or videos from p2p networks etc, yet I do think this will be cracked. And honestly, I will have a good laugh at their expense when it will be.

      The problem is that copy protection has failed every time. From the first attempts from 8bit game producers over hardware dongles and broken audio-"CD"s, nothing has ever really prevented illegal distribution of media and software. But each new attempt has made life worse for the honest paying customer. Currently, I can't play a lot of my "CD"s in my computer or car stereo, because the music industry is deliberatly breaking standards - I could still grab it from Kazaa, of course, and use it without any hassle. What will those DRM-style things bring - will I be able to make a backup of my legally purchased files if I get a new computer or hard drive? Will I be able to use them if I chose to use an operating system the DRM software providers might never have heard of, or simply don't consider big enough a market?

      I still think that on the long run it's a better idea to offer your customers good products at a fair price rather than treating them as a bunch of worthless criminals.

    • You see, a few years ago the people here said to the RIAA "Give us an easy, cheap, convienvient way to download the songs we like."

      The RIAA responded with "No way! You will only like the songs that we tell you to like and you will only buy them they way we tell you to buy them."

      Of course that pissed the users off at the already pissed off RIAA, and we all know what happens when two very pissed off entities meet each other in a dark alley.

      All I can say is may the most powerful pissed off entity prevail.

    • Re:Typical /. Hipocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      Damn straight we'll crack it. Why should we respect the law, when the law has no respect for us? What matters is the will of the people, and this kind of grass roots direct action is far closer to what the people want than anything dreamed up in a congressional committee. The system is wholly corrupt, any attempt to work within the system will be rapidly hijacked or ignored while enough lip service is given to appease constituents. In such circumstances justice can only be had by working outside the syste
  • I'm going to end up with one Hell of a big home network...

  • They can make all the DRM they want (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:51AM (#7023554) Homepage
    I'll never use it and continue to create my free alternatives that are DRM free.

    if this makes me a criminal then so be it, I'll be an underground criminal but at least I'll be DRM free.

    My Freevo does things that no TiVO can (watch your shows on the subway with your laptop... oh wait you cant without ahack that makes making a freevo box look easy) and I'll always be able to create DRM free mp3's no matter what they try.

    and I know that I'm not the only one that does not want DRM here nor some damned companie's fingers in what I do in my home.
  • It's sad, because there is a legitimate use for DRM that Intel is completely missing, and instead just acting like the **AA's bitch. Imagine DRM that was in the hands of the consumer that, for instance, ensured that malicious worms could not be trusted and executed on the machine. Or that the consumer could use to ensure that, say, a malicious government could not crack their documents.

    He who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty to suck on the rancid teat of hollywood blockbusters deserves neither.

  • I have the solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:58AM (#7023627) Homepage
    When Intel comes out with "ultra-optimized .... [fine print] DRM enabled" systems...

    DON'T BUY THEM.

    That'll shut them up fairly quick.

    Tom

    • Re:I have the solution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#7023897) Journal
      But don't forget to send a short (paper) letter to Michael Dell telling him _why_ you chose another vendor to service your corporate account. Preferrably, you can tell him why you have chosen bnot to putchase your next computer from his company, but rather from his competitor. Most businesses & end users don't buy processors, they buy computers. Computer makers must know that we expect computers wihtout DRM shackles, otherwise Intel will continue to underwrite their advertising campaigns and get their hobbled chips into more systems.

  • Soooo...lemme get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TyrranzzX ( 617713 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @09:27AM (#7023862) Journal
    Middle aged pundit: I can't play this on my dvd player, I think it's broken.

    Salesperson: *looks at DVD* oh, that's one of those new DRM protected dvd's.

    Middle aged pundit: Drmwhazit?

    Salesperson: It's a security measure to keep people from copying the DVD.

    Middle aged pundit: Ok, well why won't it play on the player then?

    Salesperson: Becuase you have to have a DRM enabled DVD player to run it.

    Middle aged pundit: *runs through mind, looks over at shelf, sees an expensive $300 player for the DVD, becomes slightly irritated* Can I get a refund then?

    Salesperson: Sorry, it's store policy not to give refunds on CD's or DVD's.

    Middle aged pundit: Why?

    Salesperson: Because a lot of people copy them and try to return them. If we allowed for refunds we'd go out of buisness.

    Middle aged pundit: *now very irritated* But I didn't copy this, hell, it has copy protection on it! I want my money back.

    Salesperson: Sorry, can't do it.

    Middle aged pundit: Ok then. *runs off to look at the non-drm'd dvd section or out of the store very angry to return and look at the non-drm's dvd section*.

    This is how DRM is going to effect most people. The youngin's and technically adept are going to know about it and not even get caught up in that. Plus, with their system it looks like it needs an internet connection which is even more expensive.

    Only when it's cheap will it catch on. Remember that folks.

    Intel's going to have to put some money investment into a fritz chip. Unless they are getting some profit out of this it ain't gonna happen. The whole idea for the corperations is to gouge people on the media they by and if that fails then the entire scheme will fail.
  • Once you have made the decision to turn your product into a string of 1s and 0s, it is out of your control.

    Why do they have such a hard time understanding that?

  • Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cycline3 ( 678496 )
    Why are the big companies pushing for DRM? After all - consumers DON't want it - and we aren't likely to buy much DRM protected kit. I understand the IP debate - but if you don't have a product that people want - then you can't sell it. This seems like such a no brainer to me.

  • Dear Big Business (Score:4, Informative)

    by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @09:58AM (#7024153)
    Fuck off and die.

    Regards,

    Your customers.

  • Here was my first thought (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Monday September 22, 2003 @11:57AM (#7025225)
    I couldn't view the PDF but it almost sounded like Intel's big invention was basically to only allow transfer among private IPs. Specifically:

    The DTCP specification, embodied in home networks, would permit consumers to play downloaded music or movies on any PC or digital device in the home. However, the downloaded material can't be transmitted outside the home or copied

    Now what embodies a "home" network as opposed to an "outside" network? Private IPs. Almost all the people I know with broadband and multiple computers are using some kind of NAT. Think how easy it would be to put a chip in a consumer electronic device that sniffed out the IPs of files as they come in or out. Anything with 192.168.x.x is allowed and anything else is denied.

    Now, I'm sure the hard core networking guys could use PPTP or something to "extend" their home network around the world but for 99% of the people out there, they already can't figure out how to share files over NAT (try listening to all the complaints about DCC not working in any IRC filesharing channel) so it's doubtful that they would know how to bypass this either.

    And because it's the a chip in the electronic device that controls the input/output you couldn't just write a program that would be NAT aware like the modern P2P sharing programs. You'd essentially have to modchip all your devices, which could end up being a lot more trouble than its worth.

    So that's my theory on how it'll work.

    -JoeShmoe
    .

  • Trusted Computing for anti-virus NOT for DRM!!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by morgue-ann ( 453365 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @12:35PM (#7025547)
    It's obvious that Microsoft's month for secuirty wasn't enough (after 20 years of feature creep, we only get a month for?).

    I've read the TCPA specs and it's not a bad idea in a commercial & some home environments as long as you can turn it off so you can develop code or run someone elses' if you choose to (as opposed to sneak-ware like Gator). I have two computers at work & wouldn't mind if the one running email were "locked down" to keep corporate IS from losing their minds for every MSBlaster/Fizzer/MSwormoftheweek as long as they leave my "programming" box alone (where's the checkbox for USB compliance suite [usb.org] on their audit checklist???).

    At home, it would be an advantage to have two copies of Windows installed- one that lets me play & one that I run video editing on & only runs trusted code.

    By mixing DRM in, Intel, Microsoft, h-p & others are guaranteeing that

    1) there will be strong opposition to the tech in the form of boycotts (see the anti-RFID flak) & cracks

    2) the tech will be weakened to serve its new DRM masters by complexity not needed for simple rogue code protection

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Close