Development of the Secure PC Proceeds 174
Licensed2Hack writes "Microsoft Corp, IBM and Intel Corp, et al, are developing technologies that could be built into PCs that would prevent the copying of files without copyright owner permission. For more information, read the stories on news.com or theregister.co.uk."
Microsoft, Intel, and IBM, eh? (Score:1)
Well, looks like my next PC will be built around Linux, AMD, and (disk manufacturer other than IBM)... :-)
The Perfect Marriage (Score:4)
And, of course, consumers will flock to the new system since it's the only way they'll be allowed to use the media they so desperately want. And you won't be able to claim restraint of trade or any of that -- look how much choice you have! Why, you can buy your PC from Dell or Gateway OR IBM, and you can play stuff from Time-Warner or Sony or Disney!
All is well. Procreate. Consume.
'Secure' PCs (Score:2)
It's a idea so stupid as marketing boomboxes without a tape recorder (or with a tape player, with no 'record' button).
I suppose there are some in the market: cheaper, of course.
Anyway, a hardware layer must have a software layer in order to work: it won't take to much time before someone finds a very simple hack to make it work.
Will each and every storage device in the market support this? Of course not! You'll always have the choice of 'old' devices (that *must* be supported for a long while) so even if you can't record in your brand new PC, you still have a chance of using that old box in the attic. Or brand new devices not intended for end user.
But there's something to do: educate consumers in such a way that they really know what they purchase. Create awareness exactly in the same way that people became aware of that silly trap that DivX was.
Re:F*ckware (Score:2)
--
F*ckware (Score:3)
We need to ensure that enough people are well-informed about any hardware which incorporates this kind of technology, that it falls flat on its face, and whichever companies are pusing it are stung badly and punished for their arrogance.
--
Re:Why this won't work and DVD did work (Score:2)
But none of these codecs will be superior, in sonic quality, to CD-Audio, DVD-A, or SACD. Of course, one is unlikely to find PC ports of the latter two formats.
On the other hand, the percieved audience for SDMI probably does not include audiophiles. People who listen to EnSync have neither the taste nor the equipment to enjoy a higher resolution format. However, if you pair that insipid pap with a "free ticket" offer (available exclusively with the SDMI format) there might be some takers.
Mandatory DRM and Linux (Score:2)
They could carve up the market into two categories:
1) server machines (3x as expensive, run Linux, cannot run Secure PC players)
2) desktop machines (cheap, copy control built in, tied to proprietary Secure PC OSes (Microsoft's, and possibly Sony's BeOS variant); also shipped in nice consumer-electronics cases)
The pricing structure would work like consumer vs. professional DAT, or IDE vs. SCSI disks; consumer outlets would only sell Secure PCs and components, with the server machines being sold through trade outlets. Needless to say, the server machines will be useless for listening to downloadable music, online banking, web surfing with plug-ins, games, &c.
Re:The more they tighten their grasp.... (Score:2)
This is probably part of the plan; cut off Linux as a desktop alternative, benefiting both Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA (a Microsoft monopoly is someone they can deal with).
Re:What If... (Score:2)
As for writing your own decrypting/copying program, the information will not be available to do that; unless you crack it, in which case releasing it will land you in federal prison with a large guy named Bubba.
Welcome to the Digital Millennium.
Oh come on... (Score:2)
Bullshit. That line, and most all of the rest of capitalistic theory is predicated on an open, competitive market. In a world with monopolies and cartels, it has virtually zero meaning.
If all hardware companies got together and decided to implement CPRM or SDMI or whatever, the free market is left with no alternative. If people don't like the new measures, they are out of luck. There is no competition to take their business to, they have to suck it up and deal with it, or simply not buy hardware at all.
Rosy, isn't it?
--Lenny
Re:The Perfect Marriage (Score:1)
If hardware is developed that has decryption keys for secure media, then this is about the same as having a stand-alone embedded system. The Free (and therefore not trustable for secure media) software can send the bytes to the hardware decoder, which can do whatever it wants with it. (of course, there would be lots of ways to work around all this, esp. with audio which is easy to record with another computer.)
Having said this, I'm against the whole idea of secure media. I think there are enough people willing to create content because they like doing it to keep the world turning. Bands can still charge for live shows, and stuff like that, but I really think it's dumb to set up a whole infrastructure to hold carrots in front of people with media that their crappy software doesn't let them make fair use of.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re: if you present it this way (Score:1)
If it is presented to customers using above statement, than no wonder almost everybody will buy those "MP3 enabled" hard drives.
But if you tell them that this "new" drive contains "new MicroHardware feature which will protect you from software pirats/hackers/crackers/whoever" and "forgot" to tell them it means they will be unable to store MP3s, then I imagine almost nobody will buy those real storage devices - because almost everybody will buy "You are trying to do something nasty. You are bad guy! Pity on you!" devices.
Re:Much like the pc appliances... (Score:1)
Intel released the P3 with the little GUID in it that everyone was up in arms about. Regardless, there is very little that we can do about it - Intel has many more customers than the small collection of them that view it as an invasion of privacy, and a foreshadowing of what's to come. They don't give a rat's ass about us, and the market is sufficiently big that they don't have to.
Oh, and if MS writes Windows so that it only runs when this sort of thing is present in the CPU, for instance, AMD will have to comply, or else they're sunk.
Get a few of these companies in critical spots cooperating with each other and they are no longer effected by market forces. Intel, MS, the few big HD manufacturers, that'll do it. You'll buy their stuff because you'll have no other choice.
Re:Much like the pc appliances... (Score:1)
Someday there may just be an x86 standard or something, and Intel and AMD and others try to adhere to it. But given what happened with browsers, where there's a standard that is widely ignored, and where people write for IE and NS alone, I don't think it would hold up well.
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:1)
The most dangerous tool available which can be used to overcome any content-control, inasfar as computers are concerned, is a compiler. The most dangerous group of people in this context are programmers.
If the content control is of the type which merely depends on a "Go-no-go" decision, then it is little more than trivial to ensure, through changes in code, that the favorable path is always taken: often only one opcode need be changed.
If access to the controlled content is dependent on a key, then, given that, for practicality in the consumer market, all devices must use the same key for any given content, all that is needed to unlock the content is one key!
How difficult would it be, and how long would it take, to discover that key, using the programming power of the very same technologies and technologists which made possible the lock protected by that key?
The obvious method of attack in this case is to use a networked group of computers to brute-force try the 'lock' ala Distributed Net: try all possible keys. Once the key is dicovered, all content requiring that key is available to anyone with a copy of the key.
My point is that it seems that any practical content-control scheme used in the consumer market will have to depend, at some point in its process, on one easily (by today's standards) influenced decision: "Is the password correct?" or "Is this the right key?"
The only way to really prevent meaningful circumvention of content-control, is to take away the very same tools from the very same people responsible for the creation and implentation of those control schemes in the first place.
That's you and I, ladies and gentleman. And that's all of our development tools. The people represented by Slashdot would have to be put out of business, if not under lock and key, themselves.
At any rate, the period of time that will pass before any such content-control technology is rendered useless, will depend on the value of the content. It is possible that the actual value of the controlled content will lose much of, if not all, of its value because of its "protection". In that case, who will care that it is lost to the mass market? How bad do we really care about music by the Backstreet Boys? On the other hand, content which is deemed valuable to the mass market, or at least, to the greatest segment of that market, will be more quickly wrested from any controls.
Re:Antitrust fodder (Score:1)
Re:Trusted paths (Score:2)
Oh, you want some process with super access to find the isolated intrusion. This super access puts it all back to square one.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:2)
Which consumer is this: the consumer that doesn't have enough technical savvy to program a VCR, let alone understand why mandatory copy protection is bad (for example: most consumers)? Or the consumer that understands that it's not in their best interests to support a technology, but doesn't give a shit anyway because they're so anxious to get their hands on the latest bad sci fi movie with documentary and out-takes (for example, the Slashdot crew)?
We don't control the media, so we're not in a position to inform people about all the facts. Even if we were in such a position, people probably wouldn't care. Our best bet, to prevent this monstrosity from hitting the market, is to strangle it in the crib. Talking about letting the market decide is living in an Adam Smith pipe dream.
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Re:The Threat... (Score:2)
Waay to go!
Hey, wait! Without insipid culture to put the masses to sleep, they might actuall start to (gasp!) **THINK** for themselves!!! Uh-oh!!!
--
Re:Not to worry... (Score:2)
--
Re:What is in a word? Don't use Newspeak! (Score:2)
Right! Does anyone seriously think that a ``Secure PC (tm)'' will offer the end-user any more security than garden-variety PCs do now? Is running Microsoft Windows Whatever on a Secure PC going to be any more secure than Windows users expect today? What will be more secure is the music files. The cracker that breaks into your Windows PC won't be able to play the music files they're able to steal from you.
What's the benefit of the Secure PC to the end user? None? I thought so.
--
Re:Let the market decide (Score:2)
---
Re:Let the market decide (Score:1)
Yeah, 'cause anyone can build a chip fab in their basement and compete with intel. Anyone who doesn't like it can just build their own damn multi-gigaherz CPUs, and develop their own instruction sets that are 100% compatible with x86 yet don't infringe on a single Intel patent.
Rah, rah, Ayn Rand...
---------------------------------------------
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:1)
Another thing to consider... market forces. When the used market for non-authenticating hardware goes through the roof (because consumers want cheap content with no strings attached), there will be hardware vendors that will continue to produce the stuff.
Bottom line is this: King George started taxing certain goods to death and the colonies had a revolution. If King Valenti does the same, we'll damn well have another. The United States government cannot withstand the force of 100 million pissed off American citizens, and that's less than half the country, mind you. The issue here is the duties people have to pay in order to participate in their own culture. In the 1770's it was taxes on tea and stamps. In the 2000's it will be royalties on music and movies.
Re:The Perfect Marriage with M$ not easy (Score:1)
Re:Trusted paths (Score:1)
A "trusted path" is a computer-age "holy grail". It doesn't exist.
The greatest problem with "trusted path" is that the hardware is no longer under your control. The moment a "secure" computer leaves your shop, you have no guarantee whatsoever that the machine will remain "secure".
Software authentication and access control comes to naught when the hardware can be diddled.
The access controls in Unix-like O/Ses and even Windows NT (to a limited extent) should be enough to prevent virus-like software behaviour. How many people are prepared to put the effort in to making their system secure though?
Copy prevention mechanisms aren't going to stop viruses. They will, however, stop you from making backup copies of your Thesis or Dissertation the night before your machine gets struck by lightning.
The more they tighten their grasp.... (Score:2)
Many, many people start off with pirated warez, and later buy into stuff as their means increase. But with copy protection making pirating impossible, the warez will dry up.
This will cause people to look a lot more seriously at the free beer alternatives, and very likely grow the market segment of user of these programs. Later on these same people will be far less likely to buy into the non-free software world.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Re:"Secure", Thus Others "Insecure" (Score:1)
Re:Copyright = (Score:1)
Re:Let the market decide (Score:2)
Re:Sound card (Score:2)
Soviet-era Repression, Who Owns Your Computer? (Score:2)
In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, it was illegal for "little people" to own or usecomputers, photocopiers, printing equipment, even typewriters without permission and close supervision because the Communist Party was afraid that people would distribute information harmful to Communism.
Now, it may again become illegal for "little people" to own or use computers, photocopiers, printing or recording equipment, even VCRs without permission and close supervision because the Corporations are afraid that people would distribute information harmful to Profits.
Now, who owns your computer? I paid good money for my computer, so I'd like to say I own my computer. Any data that is stored or processed on my property is done so at my sufferance, so I want absolute control over all of the data on my machine. Copy control measures rob me of control of my own computer. The organizations who make copy control schemes are denying me permission to use my own computer and sending the message "We own your computer."
Re:Let the market decide (Score:1)
Free markets, by definition, do not work in the presence of monopolies and oligopolies. These organizations are explicitly designed to thwart market forces and force the consumer to either buy what they want to sell, or do without, and to not permit anyone to manufacture or sell what the customer wants to buy. If this is your idea of a free market, I'd recommend more economics classes.
"Secure", Thus Others "Insecure" (Score:2)
Obviously, these "Secure" computers are better than the others which must be "Insecure". Ironic to have the "Secure" label on Microsoft products, particularly as this makes the product even more fragile.
great (Score:1)
Great, so I'll homebuild an AMD machine and run Linux/BSD/etc.
Seriously, though, if we can run Celerons in SMP mode (something intel said we couldn't do), still make pirated copies of MS products (I give xp a day before the "cracks" come out), etc, who actually think that determined individuals won't be able to get around this in a matter of.. I give it less than a week?
It's THIS kind of "innovation and market control" that will open the doors to "alternative" OS's (I'm not so sure that Linux will be the desktop choice). I'm not going for XP mainly because it's none of MS's mfing business what I do with the OS I install on my system and I'm not going to call them when I do major system upgrades. To hell with em. I've been playing with Stormix and OpenBSD and I've found that other than games, they're more than adequate for what *I* do.
Priceless (Score:1)
Pentium III 1GHz: $230
Kingston 512MB PC133 SDRAM: $424
IBM Deskstar 75GXP: $257
Creative Labs 48X CDROM: $23
HP 9140I CD-RW 8x4x32x: $145
The feeling you get when you can give the [RI|MP]AA a big FUCK YOU: Priceless
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
It's "access control", not "copy protection" (Score:3)
This isn't about copy protection, it's about access control, or if you'd prefer, control of use.
The organizations that favor this want to force you to use technology that enforces whatever they say are the terms of use for some pile of octets. Sure, the most important thing to them is limiting retransmission, but they can't limit retransmission without making sure that no unexpected use is ever made of those octets.
Once the debate is framed in terms of "copyright protection", the argument is half over. Don't fall for it.
Secure PC? (Score:1)
Kinda like anti-security no? Giving third parties the ability to control what goes on on my drives.
-AZ-
Brain Damaged (Score:1)
Like Winmodems and Windows printers.
Imagine an Outlook worm that "protects" your documents.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:3)
Ive been through that twice. Buy a new video and funnily enough, the picture gets distorted on my old but perfectly fine TV. Not when I use the old VCR tho. So, I leave the video in for service and they cant figure out what was wrong. Neither could I.
Then a few years later I find out about Macrovision. Those ****ing retards cost me a ****load of money for buying a new TV.
Now, I would have bought that Macrovision enabled video when HELL froze over, had I known that it wouldnt work with my old TV.Or just told them to ****ing fix it, because the pile of crap did NOT work as advertized. Nowhere did it say it would not work with an older tv.
But thats just the thing. Theyre not gonna tell anyone. Joe Average Consumer isnt going to know about this kind of crap until it hits him solid in the wallet, _AFTER_ hes bought his new stuff.
A noted quote. (Score:5)
People aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief. Sell them two harddrives at the same price, specify that one will allow you to store mp3's and the other won't, guess which one they're going to buy?
Even complete systems will probably have to post some type of disclaimer after numerous irate customers return systems in droves because they're not "allowed" to store certain files on their harddisk or aren't allowed to burn those files to a CD. See how long the big name companies stick to the moral antipiracy stance when they're not selling any products.
-Restil
Re:Probably not true... (Score:2)
Except that security systems are about far more that simply how strong any specific encryption system is on paper.
It's the complete system which matters. Putting a good lock on a safe is a waste of time if there are removable hinge pins on the outside.
As a content protection mechanism if just can't work so long content is needed to be unencrypted at any point
Don't forget the 486SX... (Score:1)
Re:Computer Freedom Seal of Approval (Score:1)
March 26th 1011 ... I must restate my hyposthesis....
tagline
Re:Not to worry... (Score:1)
it at the ISP, you have to get it before it
leaves the computer.
Which is exactly what they're working on.
Re:Why this may work (Score:1)
Why not? I don't hear lots of multimedia being played in the server room.
Re:OK, so what hardware / electronics do I buy? (Score:3)
That is all cool by me - but what if you wanted to make a tape copy of a brand new DVD you bought that you like watching a lot - in theory, fair use, right? Nope - this deck won't allow you! Want to tape an excerpt to show in the drama class you teach at the high school? Nope - can't do that either. Fair use be damned!
But does that stop consumers? No - just like it didn't stop you from buying and attempting to use the VCR you paid for (hopefully in a fair use fashion - but what you do on your own time is YOUR business, not mine). So what is a citizen (not a consumer - get that out of your head NOW - NOW DAMNIT! YOU ARE A CITIZEN - AN INDIVIDUAL WITH RIGHTS, RIGHTS THAT TRANCEND MERE CONSUMERISM!) to do?
Stop any and all contact with those corps and groups who deny your fair use rights, who deny your CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS! Tell anyone who will listen about what is happening - educate the public! Hell, tell anyone, and if they refuse to listen, say it a little louder. If they tell you to shut up, tell them that is what the corps (with a little help from OUR own government!) are slowly doing to them. If even a trickle gets through, it will help.
Point them to
Sometimes I think I should go live in the woods - but what good would that do me - and what good would it do others. So participate - and get the word out, vote for those who seem with you, and let them know why you voted for them, when you can...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:A noted quote. (Score:1)
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:1)
Sure it can...
OpenDVD [opendvd.org]
LiViD [linuxvideo.org]
Re:A noted quote. (Score:1)
Ah, so he did. So, rephrase my argument, but make the harddrives of equal price. People will still choose the "MS-enhanced" version.
Re:A noted quote. (Score:2)
And just who is this ever-present tech-savvy being that follows all the non-tech people around when they buy a new hard-drive, and magically "specifies" to them them the difference? They will simply go to Best Buy, see a Microsoft-media-enhanced hard-drive that sells for $25 less, and buy it.
You have way too much faith in the common consumer to be discriminating about decisions that require technological know-how.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Legislation from Congress? Only in America! (Score:2)
Re:I found this tidbit amusing... (Score:2)
Much like the pc appliances... (Score:2)
3com bailing on its device:
http://www.3com.com/news/releases/pr01/q301_ear
ostiguy
What is in a word? Don't use Newspeak! (Score:5)
These are important distinctions. Don't use their words. As Orwell pointed out in 1984. If you can control the language people use to communicate, you have won the battle for their minds. Copyright holders have already taken control of the language. We already have a copyright Newspeak; I refuse to use it. So should you.
When you say 'other sorts of digital rights management.' that sounds mild, but replace that with 'other sorts of digital control', and people gain a fuller understanding of the consequences.
Then, the tagline of the MPAA/RIAA can read: `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital control to prevent copyright infringement.' versus `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital rights management to prevent thieving pirates'.
The Collective Desire to Hack (Score:2)
Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]
Re:The Threat... (Score:1)
Sure, there were also other factors, but are they any different from what Hollywood faces?
*counting on being marked a troll*
The internet is a technology of control (Score:5)
As anyone who runs a web server knows, it's easy enough to track and log everything. The always-on internet opens up the possiblity of things like CPRM; Microsoft's plans for required registration before Office XP will work, and other sorts of digital rights management. DivX may have failed, but it failed because it didn't have a good enough value proposition, and it was a little ahead of its time. Once more houses have broadband connections, what's the big deal to the average consumer if your DVD player needs to be hooked up to the internet to play DVD's?
The idea that there will always be open alternatives to closed software or hardware isn't guaranteed. Lessig really hit the nail on the head in his book and predated a lot of this controversy. Will there be enough advocates to fund and continue producing open chipsets? You can look at the history of DAT [hrrc.org] to see a way things might play out.
There is a interview with him here [pc-radio.com] that goes into more detail. (the streaming links didn't work for me, but the mp3 download did.)
I wonder if all this posturing on the big corporation side will lead to more polarization and zealotry. You'll have the totally proprietary and controlling microsoft camp, and the totally free and open Open Source camp. It'll be interesting to see.
- Twid
Pipe dreams. (Score:2)
Copy protected hard disk drives would have to know when the information being accessed is copyrighted. This could be done with a one byte flag per sector, but would require the OS to keep the data on the disk coherent.
(Can you imagine booting windows - Sorry, the file win32.dll is copyrighted - access denied).
Alternatively, copyright data could be attached on a per-file basis. i.e. The disk must know something about the file system. With the number of existing file system formats and taking into account new ones being created after disks are produced, the HDD would have to have some means of disabling the copyright flags.
Therefore, if stored data can't be protected, it must be done through an algorithm. The key fact that most companies so far forget is that: "There's always someone smarter than you."
In previous cases, the smarter people tend to be labelled "hackers". No matter how hard they try, companies will not be able to hide the algorithms they use to access the data.
What if they encrypt the algorithm? the decryption key / method must be unencrypted. it just slows the process down.
I don't think that the majority of people that want to protect copyrighted data will ever come to the conclusion that their efforts are futile. They'll just keep banging their heads against the wall.
The Threat... (Score:3)
Bullshit. The billions of dollars a year in business they do now without those protections I'm sure is incentive enough. What they want is to be able to charge you for every time you listen to a song (Be it on the radio, a CD you purchased or in compressed digital format) and every movie you watch (Be it on the big screen, commercial free cable, or commercial supported network TV.) They also want to completely control the distribution medium so that amateur artists can't threaten their business.
Even if they did stop creating any new works tomorrow, someone would take in that slack. There's simply too much money at stake for a void to appear in that industry. Even if piracy were 100 times more of a problem than it is today, there will still be a lot of money to be made in the entertainment business.
Re:Answer me this. (Score:2)
--
I found this tidbit amusing... (Score:2)
They finished talking about how every single attempt at building in copy control for media content has failed miserably because nobody bought into the products. Then hardware makers say "computer sales are going down, so let's build in copy protection." Hello? They think copy protection is going to increase sales? Force people to buy higher end machines? Do they even realize what they're saying?
Of course, it just occured to me that perhaps this is an interesting trick. They build in copy protection for their lower end machines, and then provide high-end machines without copy-protection for much higher prices(despite the fact that it would actually cost less to leave it out). They can cite economies of scale to justify the higher price since most people wouldn't even know what they were getting into by buying a cheaper machine. Not that the hardware companies have to justify anything anyway.
In the end, I guess the only thing that matters is if they can get every single hardware maker into building these measures in. If they don't, then people will just flock to whoever is left
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Re:This *could* be a good thing... (Score:2)
Independant artists won't have these restrictions on their music ... They'll distribute in MP3 / OGG formats ... In a few years when broadband is avaliable to more people, the same thing might happen with independant movies ... alot of DVD players can play VCDs ... pay a couple bucks to download a movie, burn it to VCD, watch it on your tv.
Re:I know you're trolling, but... (Score:2)
Why this won't work and DVD did work (Score:3)
A cracked version of 3DS, huh? (Score:2)
Besides, trying to use a cracked version of Autodesk products usually doesn't work. From a warez mailing list:
"Off the top of my head, 3D Studio Version 3.0 came out ages ago, people wrote crack after bad crack for it, and finally a group came out with a "100% fully working crack" which seemed to work perfectly. Months later, people using the cracked version of 3ds3 noticed that their files were getting missed up - things would shift over just a slight bit.. Not noticable between one version and the next, but completely ruining their work if they'd been working on a project for any length of time. If I remember correctly, they didn't even notice it until 3-4 months after the crack was released, at which point it was too late for those effected:) Also, the software was "old" by that point, so I don't think anyone ever bothered writing a good crack for it."
The original protection system for 3D Studio was very clever. The key idea is that it's possible to implement copy protection in a way such that no one can ever be sure a cracked version will work reliably. This destroys the commercial value of cracked versions.
But this doesn't work for entertainment content, because it only has to play adequately. Ongoing use isn't an issue.
Hey (Score:3)
This *could* be a good thing... (Score:2)
Remember -- big part of computer owners are broke and famished students. There was no way in hell I could afford a 3dmax package when I was a sophomore, so naturally I had to download it off of many warez sites, togeter with many other useful items (note to FBI officer reading Slashdot: since I'm running GNU/Linux, I do not own any stolen software for over three years now).
If there appears software that only runs on *protected PC's*, that means there will be a lot of demand for operating systems and software which DOESN'T require or use "copyright-enforcing", meaning more people will jump to alternative solutions, students and other poor people doing so 'en masse'. This will also NOT sit well with freedom-minded people out there and we can count on them joining the alternative/open OS movement as well.
So, the outcome would be -- a lot of 'young blood' will be entering life with GNU/Linux, BeOS, or some other platform experience, not at all attached to Wintel like we see it happening today, when a lot of students exiting college are incapable of un-learning their Where-is-my-start-button trained responses.
And that, my friend, is a beatiful thing!
Re:This *could* be a good thing... (Score:2)
Take this a step further -- I think this will be a great thing for independant artists like myself...
This is very true! In fact, I haven't bought an <evil>RIAA</evil> CD in over a year now, discovering all good independent artists on mp3.com and emusic.com. If it wasn't for these mediums I doubt I would have ever discovered these works of art and now I'm waiting anxiously for more releases from my favorite bands. (True, there is also a load of crap music out there, but at least you don't have to buy a CD first to discover that you don't like it!).
I haven't yet gotten into on-line video, since it's rather bothersome to watch it on Mozilla/Linux, but I can watch several broadband European TV channels and my German, French, and Dutch are improving rapidly. :)
So, things aren't as bad at all. There are huge benefits to be ripped off of big corp's big-brotherish desire to control stuff we own.
This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:5)
Some people argue that this doesn't matter because we can just use non-protected data on our free OS'es. But what happens to people who want to dual-boot? They won't be able to access ANYTHING on their non-free OS partitions using Open Source software. Furthermore, what happens when more and more media gets distributed using copy control technology? Anyone using an Open Source OS will be entirely unable to view it. Think of the Sorenson Quicktime codecs.. but then imagine that for ALL data.
OK, so we have even more multimedia limitation. But take this further. This technology could be applied to accessing web pages as well! Or advertisements or images.. Imagine this: You're browsing in your free OS of choice and you go to access some page that uses copy controls. Suddenly, you get a kernel panic due to a memory I/O failure. Your copy control enabled memory has just refused to write a block of data.. (say an image from the web page) because it detected the encrypted header of the data you tried to access and it was not in authentication mode.
Because this copy control technology requires low level hardware / operating system communication at the most fundamental level (disk, memory, system busses), it could effectively make it nearly impossible to use an Open Source operating system on any new hardware. At very least, it would necessitate a large infusion of 3rd party closed source object code into our previously free OS kernels. (Not to mention all system utilities involved with file management, etc.) And don't think this is just MS. This is not just about another Windows proprietary format. This is about an industry wide standard from consumer electronics to PC's.
I warn you. This is not DIVX: The Sequel. This is not a single retail chain pushing for a flimsy standard. And this is not just another market experiment by MS. This is something that nearly all of corporate America wants right now and given enough time, they're going to get it. If you want to do something, support the EFF and write to your appropriate legislators to let them know what is happening and how your freedoms are being taken away.
Gov't won't "Let the market decide" (Score:2)
People that compare the current situation to a capitalist free market are wrong - it is a merchantilist market where gov't protects the corps. A lot like the economic side of fascism.
Law already exists (Score:2)
They have already bought their law and bought at least a judge or 2.
Re:F*ckware (Score:3)
You mean like encrypted, region coded DVDs, PlayStations that won't play copies of game CDs, and nontrasferable software that has to be registered to function?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
My First Virus . . . (Score:2)
[insert evil laughter here]
-----------------
Data Protection (Score:2)
We have the data protection act which states that for £10 you are allowed access to all digital data owned by a company about you. This includes CCTV footage [e.g. you can request tapes that you know you are on].
With protected storage you could probably demand the data from the protected drive under the Data Protection Act - £10 fee every time you want an decrypted backup of your data, all done remotely by someone else.
Re:Why this won't work and DVD did work (Score:2)
But when media starts to be released such that it will *only* work on the devices with stringent copyright protection, that will be a "benefit." And no, your average John Q. Public won't care about the technological underground that knows how to bypass the protection. His shiny new SDMI-CD player will work and will play the new media, and that's all he'll care about.
Unfortunate, but true. And the media companies know darn well that this is the case. Hence the reason they keep going ahead with SDMI/CSS/... despite the opinions of the technological minority (such as Slashdotters).
---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:2)
Excuse me? I use Netscape, and it's pretty obvious from browsing with it that IE compatibility is more than sufficient for many sites. MS has already succeeded in facilitating widespread creation of non-standard (IE-only) pages, and the number of people who have stopped going to those sites has been largely inconsequential.
It's already happened, and you claim it wouldn't? I disagree
Re:Sound card (Score:2)
Reducing us to analogue dubbing with the resulting loss in quality is the whole point - it's discouraged, but it's a decades old technology that they are well used to. If they can reduce our computers to old fashioned lossy dubbing, they have triumphed utterly over everything we seek to protect.
Surely this should be obvious? This whole mess is about digital copying. No-one gives a shit about people using computers the way they once used cassette decks, the fight is about things like the elimination of scarcity, the ability to have a maximal quality copy for the car without buying a second CD, that sort of thing.
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:2)
Sure it can...
While it's nice to think that the childishly simple 40bit encryption on DVDs means that the secure formats being developed will likewise be simplicity to break (conventiently ignoring changes to US encryption export law since then), the reality is that mistakes are being learned from (albiet slowly). More to the point however, I don't think it matters in the slightest if some boffin can assemble a system that does not restrict his rights - if joe average off the street can't do it, the war is lost almost as badly as if no-one can.
I estimate that in less than 10 years time, I could tell a random selection of people about my new custom-built HDTV recorder box*, saying "and it will even record the movies that come up with the 'record access denied' message when you try to tape them with a consumer recorder". And the predominant reaction amongst the people listening will be "Isn't that illegal?".
(Actually, if this were in the USA, it could conceivably be illegal under the DMCA, but I don't live in the USA), and so my point is that people will have lost their rights - not because their rights have been erased in law (though that's allready happened in the USA), but because the industry wants them to believe they have no such right. This is already the case when demonstrating Minidiscs. Imagine - the people believing that it is illegal to record a free-to-air broadcast for later personal viewing. That is a defeat that cracking the new media formats can't touch. As I said, I estimate less than 10 years. Probably more like 5.
It doesn't matter what a boffin can do. Even assuming Linux experts manage to break the new hardware-based formats with software, it only matters if non-experts can do it too - otherwise for all intents and purposes, the MS OS can play media that linux can't.
*haven't built one yet, it's part of the example
I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but your reply to the effect of "But linux can play DVDs" seems to me to be overlooking a bigger picture.
Re:This is more dangerous than people realize (Score:3)
You're thinking inside the box. I regularly run into galleries where flash or javascript is used to disable the right-click, the purpose being so that you can look at an image, but not keep a copy it - even in cases where I have every right to a copy of said image, it's just not in the interests of the website owner. Obviously, this is easy for someone like me to circumvent, however I imagine it is successful against more users than not.
Now imagine the same trick being pulled with using the access-control "features" now built into my HDD, RAM, CPU, etc. And what if (even worse) the open source OS is unable to handle the calls of the hardware, because those functions need to be licensed (like CSS), and open-source violates the terms of license. MS would love to contribute to such a scenario - Linux hoist by its own petard. Those Famous Last Words of "Freedom or Death!"
Ok, the scenerio I just painted isn't realistic for the near future anyway, but you seem to think that consumers will have a choice. One of the main points of the article was that the industry now recognises that the only way to make this work is to ensure consumers have no choice. They believe they can achieve this, and only a fool would sit back and say "sure - go ahead. Make my day" on the assumption that previous failure guarentees future failure. It's doesn't. They may be learning from their mistakes slowly, but they are learning. The game is changing, and if we are too blase and arrogant to notice this, we will lose.
On a related note, you seem to think that MS OS functionality is being limited by access-control, and thus less desirable. Technically, this may be true, but to the consumer (aided by billions in marketing), the opposite may be apparent - the MS OS is more functional because it can play the polished Hollywood media that Linux can't. That it can't copy the media is neither here nor there, as Linux can't even display the stuff to begin with.
Re:I know you're trolling, but... (Score:3)
Yea, and don't think Gates hasn't known this since about 5 minutes after he sent out that letter. The rampant piracy of Microsoft BASIC established it as the standard and any other BASIC was DOA.
Microsoft has traditionally been one of the most pro-piracy companies around. Not just BASIC - Windows 3 and MS Office became standards not through the DOS-loving IT managers, but because the users revolted and just pirated the software.
However, things are a little different now. You have to trust that changing thieir historical stance on piracy was a decision not made lightly at Microsoft, and they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think that it was the best way to increase long term revenues.
For example, Microsoft has a two tiered OS strategy (and I don't believe that they don't until they stop selling 9x/ME) -- maybe they let you pirate ME and lock down on XP. The Office market is already saturated - by moving to a low cost of entry subscription service and adding copy protection, Microsoft obviously thinks they can get a lot of those pirates to pay up.
So does that mean people other than the RIAA ... (Score:2)
One thing that strikes me is this will be very American Centric, following American rules! What about Germany where (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's allowable to copy stuff. RIAA, MPAA, Micro$oft and Intel are trying to enforce US legal policy on machines / OS's that are international.
Okay fine
It's a monopoly when the same people that make all the drives sell the licenses to create the media.
I just don't get why anyone cares about kissing the asses of the RIAA and the MPAA. I didn't buy a computer to view DVD's or to listen to MP3's. Let these industries make their own media and don't license any drives that work in general purpose computers.
Computer Freedom Seal of Approval (Score:2)
Well as the article said:
A key problem is that partial measures aren't particularly useful. Security locks are foolproof only when all brands of stereos, computers and MP3 players use the same antipiracy technology, leaving consumers little choice but to accept it. When products with no protections have been left on the market, consumers have purchased those instead. This consumer trend has been evident for years. Circuit City's Divx DVD player, designed to control the use of digital videos, died a quick market death. Sony's Vaio Music Clip was the only music player to add early versions of the SDMI's proposals, but the technology was removed after negative reviews and slow sales
In Other words, it only works when you build a cartel, or when you have a monopoly. MS is marketing the advantadges of being a monopoly to its clients, because then you can limit trade and deliver a product that meets the expectations of absolute control.
So the only solution to this IS Open Source. But the in-fighting that takes place from time to time gets hideous. It is almost as bad as what you see if you ever watch the UFO fringe groups. There they "eat their own young". Each little group proclaims that they have the truth, and a pox on anyone else that claims otherwise. (Then again, they get into conspiracy theories that make MS look like a candidate for SaintHood)
You have the highly financed and organized Anti-Piracy Alliance vs the hoards of Open Source programmers. Remember that the American indian was the best Light calvary in the world in their day, better than the horse soldiers they fought. The problem was that they they were all small groups who only fought when they were bothered in their neck of the woods. The soldiers could operate with a much wider plan.
Open Source needs to become sufficiently widespread that when these other products hit the market, that the APA shoots itself in the foot, and breaks the monopoly with its own stupidity.
You could have a marketing campaign for something like the "Computer Freedom Seal of Approval". "These computers maintain your rights to use the software on it as you see fit. Only buy computers with this label. Other computers restrict your rights and your freedoms. Fight back today!
Then again, what are the odds that hoards of anarchistic individualists could every organize together to a common goal? They tend to shoot even at those folks who could be their friends, never mind their enemies.
Trusted paths (Score:2)
I'm serious, and on-topic.
If you read Schneier's "Secrets and Lies", he talks about the need for a trusted path within a computer, which can be used to implement access control. That is, people who are supposed to be able to see files can see them, and nobody else can -- in such a way that trojans, viruses, and the like cannot violate.
If we have technology to enforce access control on media files built into every new computer that comes off the line, then it will be that much easier to improve the security of those computers. By adding more authentication and access control, it will actually become easier to lock down a computer and protect its data.
As far as I see it, losing the ability to copy protected works without limit also comes with the protection from the unlimited copying or alteration of critical system files. This could be a good thing. And even if the DMCA gets thrown out and the RIAA told to fsck themselves, the technology that everybody is getting upset over right now will still be there, and may be of very great value.
Re:Why this may work (Score:3)
They didn't, but nobody asked them and they got it anyway. Because it fitted the interest of "content providers" and because it got legislators on board, hardware makers joined in.
In this case hardware/software makers are joining because they have an interest. And legislators will join in also. So consumers will have to gobble it as usual. remember that the life of the average computer is three years. When Joe Consumer buys his new 7GHz computer with 800Tb harddrive, the only hardware available will implement copy protection, unless you believe that Joe Consumer will build himself a beowulf cluster just to escape AOL Time Warner
I suppose there is more awareness now and the organizational power of open source will allow a larger area of resistence. But unless something dramatic happens to block it, or the cartel somehow manages to shoot itself in the foot, that resistence will be an off-off-bradway show as usual.
I hope one day enough people will figure out that a constitution without a democratic representative government is just a piece of paper with funny glyphs.
The new CALEA? (Score:2)
I'm surprised, really surprised, that no one has brought up the observation that the law enforcement people will be VERY PISSED when they are unable to copy evidence from your computer.
How's that again, Satch?
When copy control becomes ubiquitious, as the entertainment content providers would like to become, you can create files with the copy controls in place. The only option the G-man would have is to take the device. Not too easy to do when the search is supposed to be stealth. Today, your average lawman could make a copy of the file to floppy, or ZIP, or whatever, and walk away with the victim none the wiser.
Put it in context with existing requests by the FBI and other law agencies: (1) undetectable wiretaps of phone, fax, Internet; (2) growth of "no-knock" warrants; and (3) advances in possession-releated statutes. What the FBI can't get through the front door of legislation they are trying to get through the back door of international treaty.
So what is Congress to do about this? Any back door will be utilized by unscrupulous people -- witness what happened to Clinton's favorite child, Clipper. Trying to prohibit ordinary people from owning equipment that can generate protected files just means that casual use is stopped, just as prohibitions on gun ownership in some cities of the US and some countries of the world stops only the honest people.
Ubiquitious copy-protection hardware. Good for ALL criminals. Those that claim alligience to The Godfather and those that claim alligience to the RIAA...
Who cares? (Score:2)
Even then the only way to truly prevent privacy would be to have robust watermarks and build watermark detection directly into every audio and video path, that would be the only way to enforce it so even people who dont use m$ shit could avoid it.
Some parts of the industry might want to push us there... but unless audio/video reproduction devices without "copyright protection" become illegal its not going to happen IMO.
Re:Let the market decide (Score:2)
-
Re:Mandatory DRM and Linux (Score:2)
Re:Antitrust fodder (Score:2)
My lawyer friends say yes. (STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This second-hand synopsis of a bs session with some attorneys is not offered as competnet legal advice. If you need legal advice on this issue, consult an attorney. Why you'd need legal advice on antritrust is beyond me, but to disclaim is divine.) They also note that it won't happen for a couple reasons:
1. GW Bush is president. There won't be any significant antitrust actions for at least 4 years. Not a troll, just the facts.
2. No corporate victims. Sun, Apple, Netscape, you name it - they all lined up to declare Microsoft a child of Satan. Consumers don't give enough money or make enough noise to be the sole reason for an antritrust lawsuit.
The only scenario where we'd get an antritrust lawsuit here is if the system takes a couple years to get off the ground and about the same time we elect a left-wing Democrat as president who appoints a left-wing attorney general who needs a good victim to start his term off.
They might be partially right (Score:2)
Movies are another issue - the product actually costs a considerable amount to create. Live theater, which was almost killed off by movies, may make a resurgence. Expensive blockbusters may die off - there won't be any movies like Battlefield Earth (yay!!!) or The Matrix (sad) but that's what new technology does - it changes things, for better and worse.
Not to worry... (Score:2)
On the whole, Computing Consumers are not stupid. I cannot say the same for the Corporate IP delusionals.
These products will end up in landfills worldwide, unopened, just like the majority of Circuit City's Divix boxes.
Sadly, the logical result of this failure will be that the Infotainment Nazis will focus their attention to the last remaining assaultable link in the IP hemmorage problem: the broadband ISP. They will reach out to their paid Senators and ask for the ISP Safe Harbor provisions of the DCMA be modified so they can force all ISPs to have Carnivore style filters installed on their networks.
It is now time to call for the end of copyright.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Re:Not to worry... (Score:2)
Yes...But NO ONE will buy the hardware that blocks IP at the computer. People buy computers to do stuff. They don't buy computers that don't do the stuff they want to do. When the hardware initiative fails, the IP nazis will march on washington with the target being your ISP. And remember, you have no constitutional right to use cryptography.
Do not underestimate the evil that greed can promulgate.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Let the market decide (Score:4)
After all, it's not the RIAA or MPAA that's buying the hardware, but consumers. As long as consumers are informed about what they are buying, they'll choose better. So the best defense is information. Don't allow these "improvements" to slip quietly in. When they do, make sure people know. And watch them gather dust on the shelf. The free market is the best way to send this to the DIVX Dustbin of History.
-----------
Rest of the world? (Score:2)
Will the rest of the world stand by and let the United States tell us what we can and can't do?
Seeing as we weak Canadians will (unfortunately) do whatever the Americans do, I hope others might prevent it.
heh (Score:2)
ill-mannered crackers who cracked dongles will crack their stuff again.. poor harware guys..
Re:Why this won't work and DVD did work (Score:2)
Wrong. The "benefit" that copyright protection offers consumers is the ability to play protected media.
Thanks to systems like Napster, that benefit is non-existent right now, because anyone can get all the free media they want. However, with the demise of Napster and the introduction of new content controls, it will start to become harder and harder to get media that isn't protected.
The big question, as I see it, is whether or not hackers will be able to crack the new protection schemes in a way that is easily duplicated by your average computer user. For example, if hackers come out with "SuperRip 2001 For Windows" that will rip all your new protected CDs, the situation will stay much as it is today - lots of people will rip their CDs and people will trade the un-protected files. However, if circumventing the new encryption schemes starts to require specialized hardware or something like that, pirating music will cease being the commonplace act that it is today. Fewer people will have the means to rip their CDs and unprotected music files will be harder to come by. As a result, you will start to NEED one of the new, secure PCs just to listen to popular music. There will be a benefit to buying the secure hardware - it will allow you to listen to music that cannot be listened to on older, more free hardware. Then SDMI and CRPM and their ilk will start to dominate.
Re:Why this won't work and DVD did work (Score:3)
But he will care about buying a new computer. Old (or current) computers can do multimedia etc; only extreme computer/entertainment nuts would even think of buying a computer for the sole purpose of playing some funky protected format. Heck, most people nowdays buy the $400 'second rate' computers that are 'only' 400 - 650 MHz instead of the expensive stuff.
Something good out of economic globalization: (Score:2)
We know that software copy protection is worthless. There will always be a hack, as a guy on alt.security.pgp likes to say: you can't have security by obscurity. I have my doubts about hardware protection, too. Ripping will become harder, but far from impossible and as long as there is ripping music data files will be avaliable on the internet. It does not matter if there is some watermarking the data that my harddisk doesn't like. All such software elements of the protection can be easily disabled.
What amazes me is that the copyright industry has no qualms about trying the impossible over and over again.