Microsoft's Janus DRM Software Officially Unveiled 570
hype7 writes "News.com.com is reporting the official unveiling of Microsoft's new DRM system, internally dubbed 'Janus'. Interestingly enough, a wide variety of companies including AOL, Dell, Disney, Napster and Freescale, a subsidiary of Motorola, have all signed on to the technology. Whilst some content providers and producers are keen, it remains to be seen what consumers will think - 'the new digital rights management tools include features that would protect content that is streamed around a home network, or even block data pathways potentially deemed 'unsafe,' such as the traditional analog outputs on a high-definition TV set. That's a feature that has been sought by movie studios in advance of the move to digital television.' I love the quotes from the MS rep - 'This release of technology really enables all kinds of new scenarios that are emerging now,' said Jason Reindorp, a group manager in Microsoft's Windows digital media unit. 'We're taking quite a holistic view.' It's good to see Microsoft taking a holistic view of preventing the consumer doing what they want with their paid for content, and protecting us from unsafe data pathways."
Previous Janus article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Janus (Score:3, Informative)
Read more about it here [wikipedia.org].
Janus isn't for HDTV (Score:5, Informative)
The application for Janus is mentioned in the article: playing rented music on portable players.
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:2, Informative)
then save your old hardware. i have an older portable minidisc player/recorder with a mic input. sony took the mic input off its new models because people used them to bootleg.
Re:the end of computing as we know it is coming... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:taxation (control) without representation (Score:4, Informative)
> matter ??
Sadly, yes.
A legal "right" basically says "you can't be prosecuted just for doing this". Note the "just" - that's important, as obviously if you committed a crime in the course of doing it you could be prosecuted for that.
It *doesn't* say that you have to be physically able to do it. Thus, right now, you have the right to drive a Rolls-Royce, because you wouldn't be prosecuted just for doing so. You cannot however demand one without paying, because the right doesn't say that you have to be physically able to do it. Likewise, you can't steal one, because then you could be prosecuted for stealing the car (which is not the same as prosecuting you for just driving it)
So the fact that copyright law doesn't give anyone the "right" to restrict usage doesn't mean they can't do it. You don't need an explicit right to do everything.
And the fact that you have the "right" to fair use, sadly, has been interpreted by a court is meaning it's OK for you not to do it. Legally, under the DMCA, you *can* break DRM to make fair use. But you *can't* distribute anti-DRM tools, so you have to work out how to do it yourself; and if you can't do that, that counts as "not doing it physically" so it doesn't legally deprive you of your right..
Re:Good way to create new illegal downloaders (Score:3, Informative)
New powers (Score:4, Informative)
The DMCA (and now various DRM schemes) effectively give the copyright holder a right they never had before: the right to dictate how you can use that work in the privacy of your own home. Copyright law doesn't say that Disney can force you to only watch their Aladdin DVD using software that Disney has approved... but the DMCA does. Since the DVD CCA controls its DVD decryption software as a trade secret, and only licenses it to DVD player-manufacturing companies who paid them a fee, AND since (thanks to the DMCA) it is illegal for a customer to reverse-engineer that DVD player in order to find out how the decryption works and write their own software... well, you get the picture.
The solution to this problem is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:What a comical spin by the marketing department (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It is said of code making and breaking (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true... you don't need to "break the encryption" because the very nature of DRM encryption is that the client is doing the decryption himself. At some level you have to trust the client not to reveal the key to the user. All a hacker needs to do is figure out how it's encrypted and what the key is. The key is on your computer. You don't need to "break" anything.
- grab the data when it is in the clear. This is what the iTunes crackers do.
That's what qtFairUse did - snagged the data as it went through quicktime. But PlayFair is different and better - dvdJohn figured out how iTunes generates the key (from HD serial number and stuff) and that's the trick. No breaking of encryption is involved.
I think what you're failing to understand is that all DRM mechanisms that have so far been conceived rely on the client at some level to hide the key or the mechanism of the encryption. As a programmer (but not a encryption expert) it is impossible for me to envision any other kind of DRM besides "security through obscurity" and that's why I agree with the grandparent that every popular DRM format will be cracked in time.
Never mind that ANYTHING you can see or hear can be recorded, DRM or not, from an analog signal using advanced technology such as "sound cards" or even "tape recorders".
Re:Discussion Rules (Score:2, Informative)
Fair Use is Important (Score:1, Informative)
For the average person, it's not currently a big deal, but try talking to some librarians or educators. It's a big deal to them. Read the CETUS Fair Use Pamphlet [cetus.org] for the perspective of universities on fair use.
However, in the future, the loss of fair use rights will be a big deal to the average person. The right of first sale is one of such right that people are going to miss when they can no longer sell their old books, music, and movies and when stores that can legally sell used versions exist. It's worth remembering that consumers have already shown their dislike of digital formats that remove some of their fair use rights--remember how consumers rejected of the DivX movie disk format in favor of DVDs.
It makes me wonder if the whole system of copyright is rather broken, to be frank. But I don't know of a better way, so I can't really criticize too much.
Law professor Jessica Litman offers some interesting alternatives to the current economic and legal copyright system in her book Digital Copyright.
Re:The right to read *what,* exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
They have an interest in forcing you to cryptographically sign it so that they know whom to hold accountable if the page contains illegal material.
I think that would work (Score:2, Informative)
"But the new digital rights management tools also include features that would protect content that is streamed around a home network, or even block data pathways potentially deemed "unsafe," such as the traditional analog outputs and cathode ray tube on a high-definition TV set. That's a feature that has been sought by movie studios in advance of the move to digital television."
I think the above might work as advertised. Anything less than that is a total farce, but we all know it already.
Re:"Mandated possibility"?? (Score:2, Informative)
Digital TV has been mandated by the U.S. Congress. All television stations must convert to digital format or go off the air. Stations must also support the current analog format until 2006 or until 85% of households have digital equipment.
The Federal Communications Commission recently voted to require electronics manufacturers to include digital tuners in all new television sets by 2007 -- the agency's strongest action to speed the federally required conversion to digital television.
Hence, everyone who buys a television after 2007 will necessarily contribute to the 85% required before analog is ditched.
Theoretically, it is "possible" that everyone will stop buying new equipment, but realistically, the government has "mandated" digital content. Perhaps he should have said "effectively mandated".
Re:Greenhills displays their ignorance (Score:3, Informative)
And that's not the whole story, either. The compartments didn't reach high enough in the ship. It didn't matter that the compartments had watertight bulkheads, because as each breached compartment filled, it spilled over the tops of the bulkheads into the next compartment.