Digital Rights Management Operating System 600
Anonymous Coward sent in a note about Microsoft being granted a patent on a "Digital Rights Management Operating System". Anything more to say? Nope, don't think so. After Windows XP will be Windows DRM.
Torches, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like high time for some good ol' mob action. I would join in, but don't feel like being labelled a terrorist for supporting the rights of American citizens to control the products they own.
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
How about not using Microsoft products and telling (and helping [1]) others to do the same?
[1] Yes, helping, not telling them to "RTFM", fucking zealots.
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client.
...and later still...
The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights.
This "peculiar arrangement" (verbatim from the patent app) is everything that is wrong with the application of copyright law to digital media as opposed to analog media. Microsoft got it exactly right - it's a damn peculiar arrangement. Unfortunately for us, instead of realizing the crappiness of this situation, they've integrated the peculiar arrrangement part and parcel into a computer operating system, to the maximization of profit both for Microsoft and for "digital content providers." Here we have something as fundamental as a computer operating system designed around an idea that destroys rights we've otherwise enjoyed for literally hundreds of years - for nothing more than to line the pockets of people who are already famously rich. Time for torches, indeed.
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:2)
The underlying theme of the "it was OK for analog, but copyright has no place in digital" argument that is common on slashdot is really "with digital media, copyright actually incoveniences me, so I'm against it".
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
No, incorrect. There IS a difference between the way digital media and analog media is treated in copyright law - hard to believe, but true. When you buy a book, you have total control over the physical content of that book, and can use the full pantheon of fair use rights with that book. When you buy software, or a DVD, you do not have control over the media in question - see the DMCA. That's what's so shocking about the DMCA and digital IP laws being bandied about - and what's so terrifying about this MS patent.
Check out Jessica Litman's book "Digital Copyright" for a much better, more in-depth discussion about how we (assuming "we == USA") treat copyright law differently when applied to digital and analog media. It's really compelling, and somewhat disturbing. Good luck!
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
This is at odds with "DRM" tech and god forbid if this tech ever really takes off it's education for the rich and serfdom for the poor.
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
No no no. The media industry is after much more than simply limiting our ability to copy digital works. They want all sorts of other types of control. They want to put time limits on how long we can view/hear a certain work. They want to put restrictions on where and when we can view/hear a particular work. They want to remove our ability to make personal copies and our ability to loan a book/movie/album to a friend. Hell, even making a copy for a friend is legal under copyright law. They are taking away our ability to exercise our fair use rights in many ways. Without access to tools that can decrypt a DVD, how is someone supposed to show a clip for a review or a class? This isn't even everything. As the previous post suggested, read Jessica Litman's book. I would add Lawrence Lessig's book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" as well. Both are excellent for bringing oneself up to date on exactly what is going on here, and where it is leading us.
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing immoral about the _desire_ to maximize profits, but there damn well can be immorality in the actions taken to achieve that goal. Dismissing moral concerns for the sake of profit is immoral.
And while it is true in this case that a better, more profitable busines model is available that doesn't involve destroying our rights, that really isn't the problem. The problem is the attempt to destroy our rights.
I have commonly heard the insanely simplistic notion that the free market and maximization of profit will result in nothing but benefit to the consumer, and make society a better place. This is as foolish as saying that the abolition of government will end oppression.
The fundamental problem with the view of profit being both the means and goal is that it is completely divorced from the supposed benefit to society. There is nothing in the "maximize profit" dogma that implies actions that benefit the people, only actions that maximize profit. And there are many instances where profit can be maximized be shafting the people. For example, if MS is successfull with their XP rentware licensing scheme, universal application of
It reminds me of the argument that the southern states would have actually been better off financially without slavery when that's not the fucking point. There are competing theories that they were better off that way, and damned if that would make slavery ok!
Sorry if I ranted a lot, but I'm sick of this Capitalist Gnome logic:
1: Maximize Profit
2:
3: Utopia
Re:Torches, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
We saw the trend with DVD playback development under Linux: the tools were declared "illegal", or "infringing", and cries of legitimate uses were met with the response, "it isn't necessary to make Linux do that, because Windows already does" [paraphrasing, of course].
So, while your suggestion is logical (though I take exception to calling Linux, "shitty", or "little"), it may not be legally practical.
This is good news... (Score:2, Flamebait)
q:]
MadCow.
Re:This is good news... (Score:3, Insightful)
nice way to force people into licensing your patent
Re:This is good news... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there was. The senator [slashdot.org] from south carolina who is not stom thurmund got put up to it. He backed down after it became aparent he didn't know what he was talking about [slashdot.org]. However, that's not to say that there won't be a similar, less broad legislation coming down the pipe (SSSCA could have applied to everything with a data input and a microprocessor).
SSSCA also said it would enforce a standard agreed-to or imposed upon by the commerce department... ol' senator hollings's staff didn't exactly do a patent search to check if a standard could get imposed upon the commerce department.
Apple would likely prefer to pay license fees to its minority owner, Microsoft anyway than leave the industry anyway.
... Must... Resist... Urge to flamebait...
Re:This is good news... (Score:2)
Microsoft bought $150M of non-voting Apple stock, which is a pittance to a company of Apple's size -- they have something like $4B in the bank and a hell of a lot of shares out there. I have read that MS even sold that stock off, so they have *no* investment in Apple. Calling them a minority owner is, well, just really wrong. Even when they owned some Apple stock they had no additional pull.
If you were humorously referring to the way that Apple caves in to Microsoft for other reasons, that's another story, but that is not how it came across.
Re:This is good news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, there's a way around that, one could always hack that, until the DMCA rears its ugly head.
I don't think this can be good at all.
Actually, this might be bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes this sounds silly, but 5 years ago a web browser built into the OS sounded silly. MS: Turning silly into reality.
Re:Actually, this might be bad (Score:2)
How true. Just 5 years ago I was laughingly telling my computer-naive friends that nothing like the "Good Times" virus could ever exist... and then came Melissa.
But that was amuzing... this is frightening.
Not exactly (Score:2)
Re:This is good news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, as for MP3 players like Winamp, they'll still exist, and Microsoft will have a hard time justifying any restrictions placed on installing that. It is disturbing, however, that Microsoft is becoming analogous to a government entity, where it has the power to restrict and regulate the behavior and actions of its users.
Okay, so that makes me paranoid. And maybe what I'm suggesting is a bit over the top. But it's still interesting to think about how one company has become so powerful. Then again, I look at something like AOL Time-Warner. Microsoft controls our desktop computers, fine. AOL-TW controls television, record labels, movie studios, news networks, and internet news sites. Those are the things that steer public opinion and tell many folks out there how to think. But they're much more subtle about it. Besides, if the news services are corrupt, who's going to tell us about it?
Okay, I'll stop my overly paranoid rant. If y'all excuse me, I think I'll go etch a few more conspiracy theories on the men's room walls.
/* Steve */
Re:This is good news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh... bullshit. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, the latest Media Player will play any MP3 you want. If you install a third party MP3 encoder, it'll encode any MP3 you want at any data rate the encoder supports. Might want to recheck the facts there.
Re:This is good news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Close, but not quite. Here is how it should be worded: "The degree to which the Government can restrict and regulate the People is strictly a function of the People's desire to regulate other people's behavior". It's tyranny of the majority. If you're in the minority, just find some majority you can join and start oppressing someone else. No one wants laws passed that directly affect themselves, but all too many are happy to get laws that directly affect some group they aren't a member of.
Re:This is good news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us think about what that means. First, I assume by 'one company,' you really mean 'one operating system family.' Second, you're assuming that it will remain legal to have a non-DRM operating system. This may not continue to be the case; there is no legislation that bans non-DRM operating systems currently, but such legislation has been proposed in the past. Further, the media lobying efforts are heavily directed to getting such legislation.
Regarding the current congress and administation, there is cause for concern. It is likely that a law requiring a DRM compliant operating system would get passed, especially if it can be presented as an economic aid. The source of the worry is that Microsoft will certainly not license this "technology" to any other operating system authors. The inevitable patent battle means the world will end up with a total, unadulterated Microsoft operating system monopoly. This monopoly could be levered into all areas of software; cell phones, PDAs, routers, firewalls, basically any computing environment which can operate on the Internet.
Then again, maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Re:This is good news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Gets Patent on Evil Operating Systems (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft, in a bid today to control the Evil market into the future, has filed for a patent on so called EvilOS technology.
Industry leaders and Open Source activists alike have decried the patent as unfairly perpetuating Microsoft's illegal monopoly in the Operating Systems market. "Evil is set become a very important feature in operating systems of the Twenty First Century, and by getting this patent, Microsoft has effectivly locked competitors, such as the free Linux Operating System, out of the market", said Eric S Raymond, leader of the Open Source Initiative.
The Electronic Founteers Foundation has called for technologists to search "prior art," or implementations of Evil in operating system design prior to Microsoft's, in an attempt to challenge this patent in court.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer countered critics by saying: "Microsoft has always been a leader in Evil and Operating Systems, we were the first to innovate Operating Systems to have Evil built in, and so it is only fair that we should be granted this patent. That's the American Way."
Re:Actually, the very next patch of OSX.1... (Score:2)
Please provide a link to this, this just sounds absurd.
So doesn't it mean... (Score:2)
How long til -THIS- is cracked . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Given the continuous stream of security holes found in Microsoft software, how can they honestly believe that they will be able to securely protect -any- digital content for long?
Granted, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but throwing the gauntlet to the community like this is only begging for the system to be torn apart - DMCA be damned.
Got to give them points for hubris, though.
Well, (Score:5, Interesting)
Its also not unexpected. Microsoft wants to make their OS the only one that can read digital media. Then they can convince companies to only release media in MS format. Then maybe, as a bonus, they can get Linux declared illegal as a circumvention device!
Re:Well, (Score:4, Informative)
The patent should not stand, though, since we already have prior art [infoworld.com] from the NSA. The Microsoft patent seems to be a subset of the development work done by the NSA. It focuses mainly on digital rights management whereas the NSA secure OS project would apply to all applications and data types, not just DRM.
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish this were just a joke, but thanks to the DMCA it may not be. Don't be surprised to hear Redmond begin to attack Linux more publically (and before Congress) as
If the DMCA becomes firmly entrenched (so that it is as taken for granted as, say, the law which says you can't operate a car without a license) , MS will simply drift all its protocols/formats into new proprietary and copyrighted ones which it will be a crime to reverse-engineer.
At least, that's what I'd do if I were an evil megalomaniacal SOB (or even if I were just running a publically-held company with a lot of powerful shareholders).
One ring to rule them all (Score:5, Interesting)
Get Sen Ernest Hollings (D-SC), to propose requiring OS's to use DMA.
Step 2:
Patent this concept.
Step 3:
Given enough cash/campaign contributions/graft, the OS design suggested in Step 1 will be developed.
Step 4: Microsoft, having patented this OS design, eliminates the competition, and rakes in cash.
Re:One ring to rule them all (Score:4, Interesting)
For that matter, is the NSA's secure Linux project an example of prior art in this case? The MS patent is fairly specific about memory allocation and long term storage. Does the secure OS project implement memory wiping/protection? If it does, then by all means it is prior art!
The US government is not Royalty, and thus. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
You are incorrect in your allegation that the government could not be sued for patent infringment. It actually happens now and then. Not often though, because the government purchases ip rights just like anyone else when they need to. What do you think provides the financial fuel to the military industrial complex?
Why do you think they have to purchase seat licences for Windows?
The answer is simple, because they are legally obligated to do so. If they do not the constitution itself provides for redress of grievences against the government. Trust me, MS would profer such griviences in the most strident terms. And have.
The government also collects its own patents, because if it did not it would be obligated to pay royalties to those that eventually patented the technology.
During the Manhatten project civilian workers were deemed to legally own all of their own ideas. The government thus issued a directive that all ideas, no matter how apparently trivial, were to be brought to the attention of the military command, and the federal government would pay them a dollar for each, so that IT held the ip rights.
You can find an amusing relating of how this worked in Feyman's autobiographical ramblings in " What do you Care what People Think?"
The book itself is a good read, and highly recommended even to a general audience, but the story in questiion is still highly relevant, as it relates to the ideas of obviousness of certain technological ideas. Feynman took the side that these ideas were so obvious they weren't patentable. Nonetheless, he ended up as the inventor of record of the nuclear power plant and the nuclear powered airplane. ( He also suggested the nuclear powered submarine as 'patently' obvious, but he dosn't get credit as inventor because someone else had already suggested it).
His relatings of his attempt to actually collect his dollar is extremely amusing as well. It seems the government didn't make any provision for, or believe it actually had to PAY the promised recompense. On principle Feynman wouldn't let them off the hook.
For that matter, any person who did not recieve their dollar would be fully within their rights to claim the patent as their own, as proper consideration was NOT in fact given, as required by the contract.
They could, in fact, have sued the government for patent infringment and insisted on royalties.
KFG
Re:The US government is not Royalty, and thus. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One ring to rule them all (Score:2)
Already my ATARI 800 XL used to have OS that used DMA (direct memory access) for various purposes. Maybe you meant DRM (digital rights management) ?
Is that how it goes? (Score:2, Funny)
Phase 2-
Phase 3: Profit.
Re:One ring to rule them all (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
I think the rope is long enough now. (Score:4, Insightful)
I won't support *any* operating system that treats the data as having more important concerns than the machine's operator (me).
Buying Microsoft anymore is like saying: Please, treat me like a two year old, stifle my creativity and learning, keep me in the dark and feed me crap, and whatever you do, don't let me question your 'authority'.
Disgustedly,
Re:I think the rope is long enough now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Understood. Looking at it from a different angle, it is interesting that MS can put money into this, so that as a consumer I'm forced to pay to protect somebody else's data, but they don't provide the same the same option for me to protect my own data. We're continuously offered default installations that necessitate following lengthy check-lists for a secure install. As a few other people pointed out - if you take away the 'digital rights management' it sounds a hell of a lot like 'trusted operating system.' Had they put in the patent that a user could tag their own data to be protected in this way, perhaps the patent office might have viewed the idea as being a little to familiar. Not having read more than the abstract, perhaps I'm jumping the gun, and missing something that makes this unique. But, as a network administrator I would be interested in a system that viewed appropriately classified organizational or personal information (think on the server) as more important than the machine user.
There's always a way in. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's always a way in. (Score:2)
crack (Score:2, Funny)
We have seen the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe some folks will not only like, but will love this stuff.
Obviously this is intended to bew the final solution to pesky little things like user free will and responsibility.
the RIAA, etc are just going to lap this up.
Fortunately, the move to open source and Linux is picking up speed. As seen in this report in the Government Technology Mag [govtech.net] many governments are looking in Linux for reasons of their national security.
While many folks like a comfy life, there are many that do not want the "comfy sofa technique" and who will rebel just because somebody says that they have to have things a certain way.
This keeps up, and I'll get ready to join "geeks with guns"
Supply and demand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Supply and demand (Score:3, Interesting)
In point of fact, Microsoft did go to the RIAA and say that. They made a concerted effort to sell their Windows Media DRM solution, as did IBM and a bunch of other people. DRM solutions were the next big thing at the time, and nobody knew that the music industry was gonna drop the ball on it so completely. Microsoft just had enough money and patience to continue the selling, long after the competition began to flag.
It's not a terribly big point to make, though, as Microsoft really is just responding to content-providers' demands by producing integrated DRM systems. The problem is, what's in the content-providers' interest is not necessarily what's good for their customers-- and as MS is a monopoly, there's not much that the customers can do about it. It worries me when a monopoly teams up with a Cartel and starts building features like DRM into a monopoly-product. The consequences can be dire for smaller competitors in the music and software business, not to mention the end-user.
Re:Supply and demand (Score:2)
true... but most of the "end users" who are seriously opposed to this technology aren't paying for MS software anyway, so MS doesn't care.
I hate the idea of not owning my content as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to bitch and whine because MS isn't going to help me fight. Why on earth should they? If they get DRM to work properly, they can stop everyone from pirating their SW.
I don't think its possible, but we'll see.
Captain_Frisk out.
Re:Supply and demand (Score:2)
Yes, they are. In order for DRM to work, technology must be used by the content providers to make their content secure. This is what they are customers of. The only reason it's in the end-user OS is so the DRM technology will be of any attractiveness to the content providers.
Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company has a patent for creating a DRM OS, then the SSSCA can't possibly pass, right? That would create an instant monopoly, if I understand broadly what's going on here.
Either that, or Microsoft would have to license the patented technology on a royalty-free basis, which for Microsoft's uses, makes it rather useless, right?
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Monopoly Allowed (Score:2)
An article on SSSCA:
"Unlike earlier drafts, this draft defers hugely to the private sector and the high-tech firms," Padden said. "In earlier drafts, the government just set a content protection standard. In this draft, the high-tech industry is given 18 months to negotiate with each other. It even provides the high-tech companies with antitrust exemptions."
Re:Monopoly Allowed (Score:2)
But the government just might. As the previous poster stated, anti-trust is officialy not an issue! Problem solved! They don't care.
--jeff
Not Technology/MS==Monopoly, Its Patent==Monopoly (Score:2)
Without getting out my Barrett on Intellectual Property hornbook, generally: yes. It is well founded that a patent, with rights constitutionally provided, is essentially a de facto monopoly; there are no exceptions (unless the patent holder licenses the patent to another party, but still such a license is a demonstration of the monopolistic nature of patent law).
Doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
So, the government has the exclusive right to secure copyright. Enforcing copyright? Nope. If you look at Paragraph 401 of US Copyright Law, 1978, the owner of the copyright is required to initiate enforcement of the copyright by issuing some kind of declaration of infraction.
Plain and simple...the government cannot aid in the enforcement of a copyright UNTIL the enforcement has been begun by the copyright owner.
Now, relating this to Microsoft and their "DRM OS," there's nothing that says that some 3rd party can't aid in enforcing the copyright. HOWEVER, depending on how you interpret the law, the forced limitation on copyrighted material DOES infringe on the definition of "ownership."
As it's been said by now, according to Copyright Law, the ownership of a copyright and the ownership of the copyrighted material are mutually exclusive. Anotherwords, the ownership of a copyright DOES NOT INCLUDE ownership of the copyrighted material IN ANY WAY (Para. 202). Microsoft's limitation through digital encryption of the material when the material is owned by someone other than Microsoft directly conflicts with Para. 202.
A good example: say I purchase a book to read from a bookstore, but the book print is too small. I then go to Target to purchase a magnifying lamp so I can read the book. Microsoft is basically trying to say that it would be illegial for me to use the reading lamp to read the book unless the reading lamp was purchased from Microsoft itself.
Sorry, Microsoft, but if I own the music, I OWN the music. Your limitation of my EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP of the music is illegal.
Not really that innovative. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, just add 'copy' to the things you can do with a file (like read, write, execute). If it can't be copied, then only allow DRM compliant programs (all digitally signed by M$ of course) to open them. Easy easy. Of course, this can't really stop you from accessing the data if you have physical access to the machine, any more then Linux and Open BSD can protect your data from hacking if the hackers (or, say the FBI) has unlimited physical access to the machine.
On the other hand, throw in DRM certified hard drives and sound cards (perhaps a DRM OS would not allow non-certified hardware to run. Perhaps with a Nintendo-style Lockout chip even). And you create one tough nut to crack. Basically you've got to turn the wide open PC into a closed box. As long as you've got good memory protection, it's not hard at all. (Just like how your Linux box is 'closed' to people without root access).
Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere that MS will do this, though given their apparent stance on copyrights and the like, it wouldn't surprise me (you can't even save Mpeg files in the new media player. What a crock)
I have to say this passage from the patent I found humorous though.
Piracy of digital content, especially online digital content, is not yet a great problem. Most premium content that is available on the Web is of low value, and therefore casual and organized pirates do not yet see an attractive business stealing and reselling content. Increasingly, though, higher-value content is becoming available. Books and audio recordings are available now, and as bandwidths increase, video content will start to appear.
(and wrong. I've been snagging movies off the net (and no, not just pr0n) for years.)
That's great! (Score:3, Insightful)
And even assuming the key won't be retrievable, unencrypted content will be available at some point along the path from where the bits live to how my brain gets the input.
Let MS invest billions into this nonsense. It'll get cracked before it's out of beta, just like everything else they do.
Re:That's great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Every nanobot is going to have to verify the digital signature of its source, and then maybe, just maybe, DRM will have a clear, unrestricted path from the bits to my neurons. Maybe.
I mean, it's easy to envision having other nanobots loose in my head too, there for no other reason than to pirate the signal, yes?
Information wants to be free. And dammit, that's the way it's gonna be, no matter how many idiots you pay to make it otherwise!
Read the patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Its interesting though to read the means of it. It will erase data from a memory page when some 'trusted' process would try to access this memory page. (Instead of just logically denying the access maybe?)
They just patented being stupid on large scale.
Re:Read the patent (Score:2, Insightful)
And how is this "trust" established? Seems to be based on licensing, and we know how licensing is handled as M$ with XP these days. Sure, go ahead and link up to www.M$.net and share what I have and what I want to use and let me know what M$ "trusts."
Summary of a DRM OS (Score:5, Informative)
Twoflower
Re:Summary of a DRM OS (Score:2)
Virtual Machine (Score:2)
Any protection that the OS has is invalid, because the OS just think's it's running on a normal machine.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Refuses to load an untrustd application" (Score:2, Insightful)
it's supposed to first unload 'sensitive data' and/or stop 'trusted applications'... but the trusted application will be your mouse driver, and the sensitive data is the page swap table
that's it! the perfect excuse so nobody can play on their backyard
The Emperor Has No Clothes (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone can view it, someone will find a way to copy it. If a watermark is imperceptable to a person, it can be compressed out without anyone noticing a difference in quality.
These are based on the laws of mathematics and physics. Try as they might, the content owners and their representatives will never be able to change these immutable facts.
Unfortunately, law makers don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics, only their own laws. When will the emperor discover that he has no clothes?
Re:The Emperor Has No Clothes (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't make it impossible... (Score:2)
If only they invested in security... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now all we need is "You need to login .Net Passport Service before viewing this movie." Welcome to the Microsoft(R) Planet(TM)!
so how about VMWare / bocs / plex86...? (Score:2, Interesting)
How secure would a Windows DRMOS be if it
were run inside some sort of VM environment
where the DRMOS wasn't the host OS?
Sounds like, unless you can lock down the
hardware (XBox, perhaps?), *someone* will
relatively easily find a way to look at
the content in cleartext...
If I understand it correctly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If I understand it correctly... (Score:2)
If the user controls the hardware, there's always a way...
Stupid laws sure to follow (Score:2)
Don't think it can happen? Never underestimate the power of stupid laws.
Re:Stupid laws sure to follow (Score:2)
flies in the ointment for MS if this is their
goal:
For one thing, IBM and some other major players don't want to see Linux fail (have you seen the IBM TV ads touting Linux servers?). If the law requires DRM software, then some moneyed interests will provide. The penguin will not fall on a technicality.
Second: the U.S. is not the world (the chilling caveat here is the new universal copyright enforcement).
Third: Apple's OS X is basically BSD under the hood. So I'll bet there'll be DRM for BSD.
I still don't get software patents (Score:2)
This patent is just a bunch of baseless claims.. hey I'll patent my secret fusion device and not tell anyone how it works... cuz it's secret....
With software patents this easy, some company should just sit around and brainstorm ideas for possible software and then patent the idea for the software without ever developing it... Just patent as many ideas as you can out of science fiction books...
Re:I still don't get software patents (Score:2)
Actually, this patent is a detailed road map explaining exactly how control over our computers will be taken away from us. It has some nicely done points, including the need for a secure time source, but I imagine that the secure time source point is not novel to this patent.
The system as a whole seems fairly obviously to be what you need to do if you want to have a secure DRM system, and I imagine that anyone with 'Skill in the art' would come around to this same basic layout if they applied themselves to it, but Microsoft got the patent first. Will make it quite hard for anyone else who wants to host media on their systems (including Linux/BSD users), but credit to them for getting this in to the PTO. Any OS vendor could have patented this, and it wouldn't have taken a lot of foresight to see the necessity for this sort of thing. Microsoft was on the ball more than the others, that's all.
Of course, there's the whole problem about getting the horse to drink, but that's for a later day.
did he say software patents, what is that? (Score:3, Funny)
I know I'm way off base, but so is the patent.
Check mate! (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted that's assuming that DRM requirements get passed which hopefull won't happen, but it is an interesting position for Microsoft to be in.
Death of linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me paraphrase: Microsoft has a patent on an OS that prevents a computer from booting anything but the "digital rights OS" Seems to me this would do away with dual boot PCs rather nicely.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
resistance is futile... (Score:5, Interesting)
Clever hacks and alternative operating systems may not be adequate to circumvent DMCA-protected hardware-implemented protection schemes when your DVD drive, your CPU, and your motherboard are all working against you.
Can this happen? Of course. All it takes is for a few companies like Intel, AMD, VIA, and others to quietly implement some security features that aren't visible.
In a few years, when all of the hardware we're using today is obsolete and in a landfill, your new system will have a new 200X speed DVD burner and a new 1.3THz Pentium VIII with 2Gb memory and a pair of 6.0Tbyte discs, all tied together with a new 4GHz 128-bit wide PCI-4 bus. You'll be able to get 75,000 frames per second on Quake14. Too bad that none of your old hardware will be compatible with your new system, but that's the price you pay for performance. You'll be happy.
Your new system will also have a bunch of security features built into the hardware that you're likely unaware of.
Shortly after most people have these new systems, some media company will begin producing products that utilize those security features you weren't aware of. Your old media will still play, but you'll want to see the new movies and hear the new music and they'll only play if all of the security features are in place and active. You won't be able to do anything that looks like capturing, recording, or reproducing content.
Will some consumers be unhappy? Sure. Will the media companies care about them? No. Will there be anything we can do about it then? Not likely.
Re:resistance is futile... (Score:3)
Yes, it's called the boycott and the strike. Sure, it sounds really blue collar, doesn't it. But it could very well become necessary and happen. If all pissed off employees of various companies developing DRM crap got up and left, guess what? Bye bye DRM. The board members could talkselves blue in the face, but guess what? They have no power other than what their engineers give them. And no doubt those same employees would leave carrying crypto keys to be shared unto the world. The problem, is if too many of the engineers don't care. This is the very reason we need geek entrepreneurs to set things straight in the industry.
What is this in preparation for? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this what anyone besides MS wants???
Arrgh! No one's read the claims yet! (Score:5, Informative)
And, if you take the trouble to read the description of how the whole thing works, it comes down to the fact that the CPU can authenticate itself over the network at runtime by using this private key that ONLY the CPU can access.
Now, I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything about Intel or AMD building public key / private key pairs into their CPUs. In fact, the whole Intel processor ID fiasco has probably scared them away from this area. Don't forget that this patent was filed in 1998, and was probably designed long before the PIII was released.
I think the most interesting thing about this is that it shows where Microsoft wanted to go in 1998 - they probably were working with Intel on the processor ID thing, and the next step would have been public / private keys to enable the design shown in this patent.
But it won't be happening anytime real soon. Unless maybe all those Pentium 4's out there actually have this as an unannounced feature. Unlikely, but possible - the P4 hyperthreading stuff was like that...
Re:Arrgh! No one's read the claims yet! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Other physical implementations may include storing the key on an external device to which the main CPU has privileged access (where the stored secrets are inaccessible to arbitrary application or operating systems code)."
I believe a PCI card could be such an "external device". I also think one of those USB memory sticks could be made to meet that description, and would have the advantage of being portable. The concern is what constitutes "arbitrary application or operating systems code". M$ has already described Linux as a virus, not to big a leap from there.........
Re:Arrgh! No one's read the claims yet! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that taking things such as CPU temp, firmware numbers, bios version number, RAM size [free or total] to create a 'key' would be nice. Other dynamic numbers such as cpu usage, disk throughput, computer uptime, etc would be great to create a secret key. [and even help create a public key]
But! They must be removable, via disk or a card [credit card or memory stick]. And it can't be authored by someone who would possible 'phone home' with the key. M$ is known for phoning home with some of it's apps and controlling things in your PC that you don't want them to control.
Ever installed IE? It goes to MSN right away. We have no idea what type of information they are sending because no one can see the code. There isn't an option of turning this off. You get your home page back next time - but it is too late. Ever went to hotmail.com on a pc that has MSN Mes.? Why is it that the program shows up in your system tray only seconds later? I never started it!
My point is, this is a great idea in theory. I would like a system that lets people buy software or media online. This is something that we all want. It is possible to stream full length movies to broadband users. Netbroadcaster.com [pop up city] has movies such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "Refeer Maddness", classics that someone would be willing to pay a few bucks to watch [you work out the business model]. It's possible.
The problem is, no one is moving towards formats that work [divx;-)] because they aren't going to cash in. No effort is being made towards being open.
But in practice we all know that this system will keep you from backing up any type of media or software that you like - keep down artists that don't sign with ??AA companies and so on.
It's not about DRM, it's about control. If this system is implemented I hope we don't ever pay for computers again. Why should we, we will pay through the nose just to use it - even though we won't be able to control a thing.
So when this whole thing comes out beware of this simple saying:
"All your OS are belong to us"
Re:Arrgh! No one's read the claims yet! (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, now that the DMCA is law, they don't have to bother with this anymore. They don't have to have real secure hardware, or secure software. They just have to implement some half-assed, weak, pathetic attempt at security, and then sue the hell out of anyone who points out how pathetic and weak it is... Much more convenient then doing real security!
Here's my prediction of what will really happen with all this crap.
The government will extend the DMCA in a direction similar to that proposed by the SSSCA, but since that was clearly insane and would have made Linux and BSD illegal, they will "compromise".
The "compromise" will be that people can either (a) run "Digital Rights Management Compliant" operating systems from Microsoft, Apple, and maybe a few others, or (b) Get a license to run a "non-Certified" operating system. Getting the license will put you in a big database. Your IP address will be tracked. The government will get away with this because they will point out that only a small percentage of computer users will need to get licensed, and most of those will actually be ISP's running Linux servers.
Besides the ISP's and other companies, the only individuals needing licenses will be a few thousand software developers, and a small number of computer "hobbyists".
Microsoft will love this because it will be a huge obstacle to Linux on the desktop, counterbalancing the cost of Microsoft. People will think: So what would happen?
A bunch of Linux users would leave the US. A lot of them would get licensed. A lot of them would give up Linux and go back to MS or Apple. And Microsoft would win.
That's my nightmare scenario, anyway.
.
yep...DRM (Score:2)
Saving Software Now (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux: The next OS of choice for IP pirates? (Score:3, Insightful)
Conceivably, the courts could then rule that Linux, desipite other useful utilities it might have (like some file swapping systems we know), is nothing but a tool for pirates and therefore needs to be stopped. Judges will start outlawing Linux kernels until they begin incorporating their own digitial rights management system. But I then wonder how Linux could get around this patent issue?
Anyone else reminded of the 1950's? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Mr. Bin Laden (Score:3, Funny)
Sometime ago, I wrote to you asking if you could please take care of Microsoft. Unfortunately you 'cared' for the wrong target _COUGH_ place. (I think New York is quite a long way away from Microsoft HQ). Please, please, please, could you consider taking care of Microsoft and Bill Gates? He is responsible for America's crimes against humanity and must be stopped at all costs. For example, his use of bribery and monopolising has forced his evil product to be installed on sacred religious computer systems in your land. He is also responsible for attempting to destroy the Internet by brainwashing his minions into using Microsoft protocols. Soon, as the American government plans to deploy the SSSCA (backed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Ass-holes of America) and backed secretly by Bill Gates himself) Microsoft will release its operating system to be compliant with this. Suddenly, almost overnight, the last little bits of freedom that America enjoys today will vanish. Speech will be un free and alternative operating systems (that do not comply with the closed specifications of the SSSCA that will only be disclosed to Microsoft) will be outlawed. Lucky for me, I don't live in America so I will wake up laughing with the rest of the world. However, seeing as they helped us out in WW2, I think we owe it to them to help them out with this.
PS. I have been practicing on (ironically) MS Flight Sim. and have learnt how to use most of the systems on the B767. If you are short of pilots to bomb Microsoft, I would be more than happy to help.
Eerie use of word TRUST in the claims (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, the tragic irony.
Microsoft merged with the Monopoly logo [cafepress.com]
Great News! (Score:3)
Bush II is gonna be out of office come next election, I guarantee it. His father's fate will also his own.
Once this pro-trust administration has been unseated, the next one will not fail to prohibit Microsoft from extending its monopoly this way.
The DRM OS will then die a deserved death, rotting in Microsoft's patent portfolio.
I'd be interested in industry opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
One would expect, that DRM would bring significant new opportunities for the consumer; lower prices, perhaps, or the ability to share content with friends in a limited and fair way.
The DRM proposals I've seen thus far don't provide any new abilities for the consumer, though, and are therefore destined for failure since they represent a downgrade from current abilities at the same (or higher) prices. As the market continues to vote with its money for non-restricted media, I'd expect that the attempts to distort the actions of the market through legislation will become ever-increasingly shrill.
Re:Big Brother Gates (Score:2)
This could be a great opportunity for other Operating Systems! You know we'll have fun with the slogans the marketers come up with to sell the product!
If that's true... (Score:2)
I interpret that to mean that if XP contains DRM capabilities, then the entire computer it's on is patented. If that's the case, they can theoretically force computer manufacturers to pay royalties for licensing this patent. I'm sure I must be getting this a little confused, but this part 17 really sounds crazy...
Re:Um, you're surprised? (Score:2)
Second, I don't think we can get the press to drop the ridiculous term "Digital Rights Management" because the more realistic term "Consumer Ass-Fucking" would fly in the NYT.
You fuck head. (Score:2)
Re:DRM = Loss of Privacy (Score:2)
Expect me to create multiple bogus identities on these DRM systems.
Expect MS to get worthless profile data as a result.
Re:Can anyone say X-Box version 2 (Score:2)
MS first tried to push it as an "uber home box" a couple years ago, and they couldnt get anone to sign on.
So they repositioned it as a "game console" and people said - yeh, we'll do that.
wait - if the XBox takes off, they will move to monopolize the Home PC market.
Re:If Microsoft is going to be the Watchman... (Score:2)
Then, who watches the watchman's watchman? And who watches the watchman's watchman's watchman? So on and so forth.
Until the people are the watchman, you're going to have corruption on all levels. That was the initial idea behind the American Government. Look where we are now. "Screw the people, what can it do for me?" Wonder why we have such a screwed up government?
The problem is, if the people are the watchmen, things like this don't come to be, you retain your freedoms, and Microsoft doesn't get paid. Therefore, we can be sure that that'll never happen. Microsoft can buy any legislation they want, these days...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)