DRM Based on Trusted Computing Chips 484
An anonymous reader writes "We've always know that Trusted Computing is really about DRM, but computer makers always denied it. Now that their Trusted Computing chips are standard on most new PCs, they've decided to come clean. According to Information Week, Lenovo has demonstrated a Thinkpad with built-in Microsoft and Adobe DRM that uses a Trusted Computing chip with a fingerprint sensor. Even worse: 'The system is also aimed at tracking who reads a document and when, because the chip can report back every access attempt. If you access the file, your fingerprint is recorded.'"
Biased article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:5, Insightful)
What next?
I would sell my soul for total control over you. Or something like that. What has come of the world that corporate greed has taken over from the free harmonious society? I would love to say everyone will just scrap computers and move onto other ventures (like going outside) but that is the Utopian view. In reality the Orwellian scenario us coming upon us. It won't be long now people.
What is sad about this is they are touting the "legitimite" uses of making sure software is unmodified and doesn't contain root kits and protecting sensitive data from attackers. I find it funny that SHA1SUM and gpg --checksig tells me when my download isn't what the author intended. Cryptoloop (and a tonne of other software) keeps my files highly secure and safe from prying eyes even if they do steal my disks.
There are no legitimite uses for this technology that can't already be accomplished today. There are only evil uses!
*THIS* is what FOSS is all about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, while the current incarnation may seem ok, things are only a few steps from being really bad and invasive. Couple this with the DMCA, and half the things we take for granted with computers now could be taken away, and it will be illegal to 'break' things to get those abilities back.
Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:1, Insightful)
IBM/Lenovo builds this, because a) Their business customers want it. or B) They are involved in some sinister conspiracy with the music/movie industry out to get you and your file downloads, which would benefit IBM how?
Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:3, Insightful)
The media industry does NOT need PCs. On the other hand, PC and laptop vendors do need media as its one reason more to buy a computer. If the studios want, there will be no video playback for PC, they can rely on dedicated DVD players. This wouldnt hurt them, but it would hurt IBM/Lenovo, Dell, Acer, and MS since they deliver the most used OS for the computers. So the *AAs can force MS and the IHVs to play along. As a side effect, ANYTHING can be DRM'ed. This is both good and bad, but the bad side really overshadows the good one, since I DO NOT trust the content producers. However, there is the chance of all this breaking down due to faulty implementations and pissed customers (like "now this piece of shit tells me that I am not allowed to watch my damn video again just because I got my Windows reinstalled!") just like what happened with copy-protected CDs.
IBM, Dell etc. are not the evil ones here, neither is MS. Its the *AAs who don't care about destroying the universal computer.
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now comes interesting Tidbit Number two...
The article mentions "My fingerprint results in Access Denied, but the person who wrote it gets into the [document]." Right... So what if they want ME to be able to get in, but not my coworker? How do they acquire MY credentials to allow me in? How secure is this acquisition? Already things like PK Encryption require chains of custody and KNOWN Public Keys to have the proper security. When you get into the extremely-high levels of security, it gets somewhat complex. But now there is a certificate associated with my fingerprint?
Overall, while they claim "Makes it easier", from a security standpoint, I actually see a lot of room for complication, error, and massive breaches of security. And as the article points out: Do you REALLY trust Microsoft to not have security holes? One "Oops" and suddenly the document that you need -ME- to be able to read is not at all accessible by me, but who knows who instead.
And what kind of "Oops" does it take? Gee... Spoofed email of a Public Key maybe? Social Engineering of a phone call to claim to be me, and give them a false cert fingerprint? And of course if I use Linux, I'm {censored} out of luck. If Linux will even RUN on the systems anymore, since Microsoft doesn't sign it to be trusted.
getting out of computing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased article? (Score:3, Insightful)
And it "records" fingerprints. Oh my. Of course, many systems of this type only record data points and are unable to reconstruct the fingerprint from those points. This could be of that type, though I doubt the author would admit it. Even so, please explain to me how recording the fingerprint of someone who's trying to gain unauthorized access to MY secure data is a bad thing?
Fundamentally, the author is spinning each point to "prove" his agenda. Personally, what I gain primarily from this article is that Information Week's editorial standards are lower than I thought...
Pulling the plug (Score:4, Insightful)
--Ryvar
A significant improvement in usability (Score:3, Insightful)
You no longer have to travel to the document repository, and you are no longer restricted to the hours that the librarian keeps.
Trusted Computing == Untrustful Customers (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just disgusted that companies are putting on a smile and trying to gain consumers' "trust," yet none trusts consumers. However when consumers do not trust companies by removing DRM, consumers quickly become criminals, and are called pirates and thieves. While companies abuse the consumers' trust and play market share or monopoly or pricing/licensing games, companies are just looking out for the economy/artists/share holder's best interest.
There is no such thing as "trusted" computing. No one trust anyone here. This shouldn't be called "trusted computing." This should be called "Untrustful Consumers Computing."
Ah! I see a new profitable market! Fake Thumbs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve
Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about. (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't even be able to use your OSS tools on a "trusted computing" platform. That's the whole point.
This new scheme is aimed explicitely at locking out any software from vendors that don't lick the RIAA/MPAA's collective bottoms.
Re:Biased article? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how these things get adopted: they are offered to the businesses and parents, but soon same businesses will demand to control their users because of piracy and infair business tactics.
And you know it'll get used for privacy invasion and remote control.
Slowly, carefully, but it's inevitable. Few years from now we won't even know how it happened.
It's not the gun that kills, the man holding it is. Whether the technology is "evil" or not basically is completely unrelated.
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that for a second. They are responding to arm-twisting by Microsoft and Adobe (,etc.) and working *against* customer interests. Consumers have no interest in DRM at all. The question on manufactures' minds is how much DRM they can shove down consumers' throats before they balk and stop buying. They are counting on consumers being either too ignorant or too passive or too apathetic -- until it's too late.
Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about. (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow, million of people don't refuse this way and put themselves to authorisation and authentication ("genuine advantage") procedures, product activation and "calling home" on startup.
So you may not, but the business doesn't care about you, you're a minority.
Re:What about the customer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
The customers and the consumers are not the same. The customer is the corporation who wants to lock up its data. The consumer is the person to whom the corporation wishes to grant access to that data.
Yes, lots of consumers are also customers of the hardware manufacturers but the corporations are larger customers and their voice is louder. If you dont want this stuff in a computer that you are buying then you need to let those manufacturers know about it. Buy something else and send them a copy of the receipt with a note explaining why you didnt buy their hardware.
Right but...Change is good (Score:3, Insightful)
But not yet. This is just a "chip on a motherboard." So what if the adobe doc requires all this authentication? It's ultimately passing unencypted over a bus in a machine of otherwise conventional design. No core level encryption, no encrypted root level executable. That means all the "security" in the world is just so much appendage waiting to be hacked off by the first experienced coder to come along.
Such a platform CAN change the way we think about things, though. Ad denough encryption and it gets awfully damn hard to remove attributes form data. This is *not* a bad thing. Once we can give data attributes that canot be easily removed we enter into the realm of being able to move *things* across the internet. Want to move your World of Warcraft *things* into your new Sims pad? It can be done, if the game designers adopt the new standards for "trusted object model data."
This is not just about recording your biometrics every time you listen to maria carey. The possibilities this opens up can literally change the world economy - when the tools of production are in the hands of the proletariat, and the only raw material needed to supply that production is *knowledge,* a lot of people suddenly have a lot of new opportunities to better their lives.
I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the right to use my computer to whatever I feel like and it is of no concern to anyone but me. If the companies disagrees with this they can take a hike for all that I care.
All this will contribute to - is to further alienate Linux and users of alternate operating systems and demean our hard efforts to get legal DVD-playback software etc. for our chosen platforms. I am so put down by this Ill probably never run anything with DRM on it again just for the opposition of it. I will not purchase DRM enabled mp3-players, I will NOT purchase DRM harddisks or any hardware with DRM on it.
If I am forced to do it because of the fact that every hardware producer is forced by Microsoft to do so... I will do anything I can in my power to make sure that my system will be rid of such hardware, modding, jacking, compiling - I really dont care. Its my hardware and NO one shall take that right away from me! No one shall control my software or my computers or what I will be doing with them.
I fully and completely agree with the companies about piracy, I dont support piracy in any way. That said - I also support my own freedom to chose, and past experience shows us that businesses will always do whats best for them FIRST before the customers, the customers are just milking-cows to them - which is fair enough if you give us what we pay for. When you decide to mess with our hardware and deprecate our already paid for services and hardware - then I am putting my foot down and say - Enough already!
All this will probably further feed a grassroot "linux-like" organization that will form an alternate OS that will NOT conform to DRM - even if by law (god forbid it goes that far). DRM and control of customers hardware is a CRIME against the public!
Re:Amazingly shortsighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping corporate proprietary info secure
Or, keeping an internal memo that reveals the company has broken laws etc. secret. DRM of this kind (and on emails, something else they want to implement) makes it very difficult for whistleblowers to collect evidence and expose a company that should rightly be exposed.
The effects of DRM are certainly chilling. Also, as far as trade secrets go, there are laws designed to protect those. DRM will only ever be (ab)used to hide things that shouldn't be hidden and to strip away fair use rights. The media companies weren't able to do it through the law courts, so they sneak in fair-use crippling measures by the back door.
Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM, Dell etc. are not the evil ones here, neither is MS. Its the *AAs who don't care about destroying the universal computer.
Oh god, you are so fucking wrong it actually hurts to read this.
DRM is all about controlling applications -- music and video are just the high-profile stuff. Applications spread/use data, if you are going to control data, you must control applications. TCPA hardware decides which code gets to run, and what it can access... and it does it behind walls of encryption to ensure that *you* can't see what is executing. IBM, Dell etc etc all have massive hard-ons for this hardware because *THEY WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PC*. They will broker the CPU, memory, hard disc, sound/gfx card on your machine to the RIAA/MPAA members, or just anyone they feel like. You will have no say in the matter. They can install software on your computer without you ever knowing about it, and you will not be able to remove it or disable any undesirable features because your computer will not be "trusted" anymore.
In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did.
Re:Amazingly shortsighted (Score:4, Insightful)
If I *did* have a legitimate security need, I wouldn't trust this; it's almost certainly backdoored (because I can imagine certain law enforcement agencies could be quite pissed if it wasn't - imagine some criminal using TPM hardware to encrypt their data such that it's password-protected, can only be accessed on that computer with an untampered OS, and erases itself after three consecutive wrong passwords). And if it is, there's no guarantee that someone won't get access to the backdoor who you don't trust with your data (criminals, one of your competitors,
I don't trust my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to know that the content industry now trusts my computer and lets it play its crappy movies. The problem is, I don't trust it anymore. I won't trust it with my data, I won't trust it with my files, I won't trust it with my time.
At least until I find a way to make MY computer MINE again.
Until now, I was a good citizen. I bought my music. I bought my movies. I bought my games. My reward was a rootkit, DVDs that don't play on my equipment and software that crippled my system.
Sorry, but I don't trust your computers. And I will do whatever it takes to make my computers mine again!
Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Hardware to go with our Open Source Software?
I imagine the smaller hardware shops like Soekris [soekris.com] will become more popular and be able to ramp up production, become cheaper and more viable. I realise that Soekris make stuff for embedded and router type hardware, but surely there will always be desktop and laptop machines available without built in DRM?
Hmm, maybe some motherboards put out with some powerful FPGA's for the CPU and maybe some other parts for controllers and graphics.
Surely the people can take the power back!
Other and better ways to protect your stuff exist (Score:5, Insightful)
So would you, if you were a software company, trust Microsoft? Would you, if you were a mainboard manufacturer, trust Intel? Would you, if you were a chip producer, trust Infinion?
There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. Open Source encryption mechanisms, the source code of which you can read, audit and evaluate, and even adjust to your security needs.
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit they wouldn't. The software companies realise they have a product that never gets old, never wears out and will perform the task it was purchased to do until hell freezes over unless they find a way of breaking it. Software companies have been trying to find ways of making software wear out for decades so they can rake a continuous income from their customers the way other manufacturers do. They use product activation to tie the non-wearing software to the fragile hardware for example, but their customers hate them for it.
The customer wants to buy a tool and use it forever, or until they no longer have a use for it, whichever comes first. We know damn well when they're being scammed, and want nothing to do with this license once and pay forever crap. We've tolerated buying the same product over and over again because we accepted we were paying for new features and improvements.
The cost of production of each copy of a program is nil, so the only controllable cost variable for a producer of software is the cost of development, the development of those features and improvements we've been paying for. If they can get away with using this DRM garbage to artificially obsolete programs, they won't need to keep improving the software, they'll have their continuous income without the cost of development. Say goodbye to software innovation.
Thank Sarbanes-Oxley for this one.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Limited? Where? Stuff created before I was born will still be protected after I die. That's not limited.
Re:Oh no, I can hear them cry (Score:5, Insightful)
And now we see why v3 of the GPL has provisions to prevent this.
Locking software to a person (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need this to secure documents. There are already nice products like TrueCrypt available that let you encrypt a volume and even create hidden volumes within. If someone steals your PC or laptop, they get nothing but the hardware.
It's not entirely about DRM, though. I'd bet there are still more "features" we haven't been told about. If that system can track who reads a document, it can also be used to figure out who visited a web page or who originated an email. Count on it, that's what this is really about. Taking away the remaining shreds of anonimity that's left on the internet. There will likely be some upside to that. Stolen hardware will be easier to locate, as will trojaned spam bots. You'll be able to access software online with reasonable assurance that no one else can get to your stuff. But, overall, we're all going to get dicked.
And it will keep happening until those companies implement something like this and experience a giant decrease in sales. Like Sony and rootkit follies.
Empower yourself by not using it (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much anything you can do to create a hardware/software version freeze, so that when the shit really hits the fan on all of this, all you have to do is say "no thanks, I already have 'xyz' and it's working fine for me and i've made assurances that it will continue to work fine for me."
If you have a job at the moment, are you actually working or are they paying you to sit there and wait for the next round of upgrades?
In my mind, that's going to be the best way to defeat all of this stuff they are forcing on us. We need to take away their ability to force it on us.
I know wanting a faster processor is something we all want, but when I think about it, it hasn't really gotten all that much faster when you consider the OS's portion and how with almost every new speed bump, something is there to utilize that speed basically nullifying the benefeit it would have on your apps.
So, why upgrade at all? If windows 3.11 had thte ability to deal with large amounts of RAM and large HDD's think of just how fast it would run on our modern processors.
Basically what I'm getting at, is, empower ourselves to take the upgrade cycle out of their hands, because when everyone says "i'm happy with what i've got" then they have no market. Same for the **AA's as someone mentioned. Take away their audience. Since we are pretty sure they are making a killing from digital music and video, just don't watch it on your computer or device etc. Get a DVD player now. Keep it and use it. When nobody is buying their newer crippled stuff, they are going to start whining that nobody uses their computers for media and it's hurting their wallets, and we can just point and say "you said the opposite of that 'x' years ago."
It's definately not impossible to make these things happen on our terms. It's not even that hard. We just have to say we're not going to buy it or just be content working with what we have now.
Re:I have one... (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF?
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, that's what is quickly becoming the worlds most parrotted unsubstantiated claim, with more and more indications, ranging from the rapid ascendance of opensource through the economic rules of free market competition, suggesting that it's blatantly false.
I suggest that competition, communications and the free exchange of ideas drive the advance of science, technology and the arts. I suggest that intellectual monopoly legislation not only does not serve its purpose, it actively slows the advance down through removing competetive pressure and the introduction of barriers for information combination.
Re:Pulling the plug (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased article? (Score:5, Insightful)
By saying "yet", you imply that you believe people will start screaming about it, at some point. I think you give way too much trust in that the general public is actually educated enough to differentiate between propoganda and the truth. I think they will be fed some load of crap about hackers, and theives and such. Then the media will help by putting a bunch of it in the news in a timely manner, and all the people will be like "wow there's a lot of that going on, I understand" then they'll say my favorite line "...besides, I have nothing to hide, I'm not a theif or a hacker" (which is equivilant to what pastor Martin Niemoller is known for saying). Then they will be forced to pay annual fees and all that nonsense, and continually be told new reasons "why" they have to pay more and more, and the general public will just eat it because, the majority of people are just plain stupid.
First they came for the [hackers] and I did not speak out -- because I was not a [hacker].
Then they came for the [music and movie theives] and I did not speak out -- because I [never stole music or movies].
Then they came for the [software pirates] and I did not speak out -- because I was not a [software pirate].
Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
(Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, German priest during WWII as the Nazis took everyone away to the camps)
Re:I truly hate this crap, the companies will pay! (Score:4, Insightful)
You couldnt be more wrong even if you intended to (no offence). If the products are capable of putting outside powers to control your own purchased product - then that in itself is wrong. We create the law, if we find something sinister to what corporate does to us - we protest, such is the way of democracy.
Take the Recent Sony battle as an example on how good
intentions (for themselves) could go horribly wrong.
There are plenty of things that you are not allowed to do with your computer by the law. You are not allowed to crack into other computers (either with intent to steal or for learning something new.) You are not allowed to say, download child-porn, etc.
I think that kind of goes without saying, I assumed that you - the reader - know how to follow the law. You have knifes to cut your food but you could potentially KILL someone with it, but of course most of us will never do that. So your point falls to the ground with a boom. I do however believe that in order to fight cybercrimes - better investigation software, filters etc. are better tools for protecting each other, and not the very least...better education rather than enforcement.
You think you have some kind of a natural right, to be sold computer hardware without built in DRM? Nope, you do not.
Im starting to believe that Im falling victim to a TROLL here...Of course we all have a NATURAL right to be sold any products without whatever we dont want - we are the customers - we have the money. Duh!
You are going to spend all of your time cracking your hardware and software? It is going to be very time consuming, if at all possible.
*cough* Linux *cough* GPL...hello, where have you been the last 10 years? Under a rock? We have plenty of free alternatives programmed by ourselves and our GPL friends in our spare time. This is all about the freedom of controlling our own hardware / software. No need for cracking of any kind.
Companies are going to pay? No. Companies are going to get paid better now.
How can you be so sure? You are assuming everyone is a pirate. Guess what? There are thousands, if not - millions of alternatives to everything you can buy - largely thanks to the effective communication of the internet. Do I need to buy the latest hit from Madonna? Do I need the collective hits of Michael Jackson? No - At least not me.... I do just fine with thousands of remakes and independent music made by independent artists who have placed their music in the open and free for everyone (LEGALLY mind you) from their own bedroom or garage band, there are more quality alternatives than you might think.
Same goes for software really... I have made a living out of using Blender 3D software, the Gimp and much more to produce high end advertising, packaging art etc. All free - legal - alternatives. No use being blinded by what someone WANTS you to do, there are other ways.
And as for Companies getting better paid after DRM? I dont think so. here is why: Remember the radio days? People used to exchange tunes they listen to on the radio on tapes etc. and finally sales boomed because people wanted the real thing on vinyl (or later
To cut it out in carboard paper why I think Hardware DRM is wrong:
- The ability of any corporate to control your computer are borderline dictatorship. No corporate in a democracy are allowed to breach your privacy - for ANY reason - period!
- No company with money as the no.1 priority have the rights
to decide what you shall read, use, develop, sell, give, share unless its their own product. Initially DRM is made to protect their property which in itself is fair enough - until YOU the CUSTOMER are made to pay for the chip or FORCED to have such a chip installed in YOUR paid for computer, then it all goes wrong!
I cant wait for the first Trusted Virus! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*THIS* is what FOSS is all about. (Score:4, Insightful)
What about me? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) So I create a Word document at work. I use my fingerprint to lock it down so no other can read it (I'll unlock it after the draft stage). My company moves me to another project just before it's finished and I die in a freak car accident the same afternoon.
What now? It's not like you can brute force the password as you can do now with Word documents. Thousands and thousands of pounds were spent on the document. More than all the chips inside the grey box are worth.
So what now? Someone please tell me.
2) I refuse to give my fingerprints over to my employer.
"Look boss, you can have 40 hours of my time a week at 100% effort but you're not having anything more from me. No blood, no sweat and no tears. That includes my fingerprints."
Will my employer sack me?
What about if I want my fingerprints back when I leave the company? Track down every document I've ever written to undo the fingerprint locks? I can imagine a phone call 6 months down the line asking me to pop-in for 5 minutes ($1m an hour for my fingerprint service btw boss).
3) We currently send documents over the internet that are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to possible future tenderers. We use email. We might use PDF but there will be no security on it.
Are we going to change the way we work? No, no way. We don't even use Track Changes or Version Control on SharePoint.
Someone highup expects people to understand this Trusted Computer lark? It's not going to happen at my company (10,000 employees).
I see no benefit in any of this.
Re:Right but...Change is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Linked through the article, I read the bit on BitLocker [microsoft.com], MS's drive-level encryption that has the option of being secured with Trusted Computing chips. I found the steps to activate this almost funny:
Step 1: Turn on the TPM
Step 2: Set ownership of the TPM
Odd.... looks to me like the user has access to the key on the TPM (Trusted Platform Module)... huh. Suddenly, motherboards that won't load the trojan'd bootloader that I didn't know of sounds really, really nice. What's that, some script kiddie replaced my kernel with a rootkit? Dare I say it, TPM to the rescue!
Yes, I enjoy my sarcasm. However, since the end-user has the ability to completly reset the TPM module, to set the key, the password, etc... I suddenly want to purchase a computer with TPM installed. Once (okay okay, if) linux + bootloaders can support it, and/or vice-versa, this suddenly became an incredibly useful tool for making sure that your computers boot what you want them to. No more rootkits on the kernel level, or bootloader level, or even MBR level. Period.
Just because it can be used for DRM, doesn't mean that is has to be used for DRM.
Re:Right but...Change is good (Score:3, Insightful)
The performance hit should be very slight with this integrated DRM. That's fundamental to the whole design of Trusted Computing: if consumers see a real performance hit, they will avoid the DRM controlled media or software.
There are serious trade-offs in having integrated encryption vs. ease of recovering documents. Trusted Computing has decided on, and implemented, a system where all keys are either centrally managed or can be created only with a centrally managed signature. This eases recovering lost keys, but it means a huge level of trust must exist in the central key authority: they can, and history shows that they will, turn over the keys for their own political or business reasons. And there really is no need to have such a central authority if your goal is user protection: the use and spread of PGP has shown how to do that.
No, the centralized key management is clearly focused on DRM. And the movie and software companies have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to restrict you from legal use of their material. If they weren't, they'd have created or permitted a Linux DVD player years ago and avoided the whole libdvdcss mess where they sued people and got a portable DVD decryption library outlawed in numerous countries, a library that has been expressed as 2 lines of Perl code as a demonstration of how easy it is to do.
Good for the US Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe for some industries with real sensitive data as well, but of little use to the average person, except to please the *AA's.
Re:Biased article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why limited times? copyright is a tradeoff between providing the incentive to create, and the harm that a monopoly on ideas creates. Incentive falls off exponentially; Walt Disney made films believing they would only be protected for 14 years, and it's unlikely he would have been any more inspired knowing that his heirs would continue to profit for another 90 years beyond his death.
On the other hand, harm is at least directly proportional. A copyright lasting 28 years keeps the material out of the public domain twice as long as a copyright of 14 years. It may even be worse, since a copyright of 90 years beyond the authors death means copyright holders are often unknown and many works of art will have perished before they can be legally copied and archived on a more long-life media.
'Exclusive rights' should extend only to publishing; where money is paid for copies. Personal copying and any sort of transformative use should be no business of the copyright holder.
"He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his [candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me."
The first and foremost consideration should always be "progress of the sciences and useful arts" as a whole. Always ask yourself "Where is the promotion of progress?" Without that, there is no foundation of Congressional power and therefore no basis in law.
Re:Right but...Change is good (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't. Owner Override is something that was PROPOSED by the EFF. The Trusted Computing Group has refused to permit any Owner Override into the system.
If there were an Owner Override then the owner would have the power to control his system and to control and modify the securioty settings at will and he's have the power to unlock his own files at will. In short the owner would have the ability to beat DRM systems. He'd be able to use his Owner Override to unlock and read a DRMed music file.
it's fully under the owner's control
That's like saying that a pair of handcuffs are "fully under your control" while you are wearing them. The handcuffs move wherever your hands carry them, but they are still designed and they still operate to cuff your hands together and deny you any freedom of motion that they do not permit.
you can completely clear the contents of the chip by merely going to the BIOS settings and hitting the right button
Sure. That is the only way to change certain security settings.
And if you do that then chip is EXPLICITLY REQUIRED TO DESTORY CERTAIN KINDS OF FILES SECURED UNDER THAT CHIP!!!! Designed and required to make it impossible for you to backup or recover that data.
You haven't run into any problems because no one is using the Remote Attestation system yet, and therefore the anti-owner features of the chip are not being used. None of the data is being locked against you... YET. But the chip is explicitly designed to be able to lock your files against you. Explicitly designed to spy on you, and to securely transmit those spy reports.
Just because no software is yet using the anti-owner features does not change the fact that it was explicitly designed to secure the computer against the owner.
You could get all of the same benefits you cite from an otherwise identical system where the owner had the option of receiving a printed copy of his master key. There is no legitimate reason that you should be forbidden to know or control your own Root Storage Key or your PrivEKey.
Tthe current system is like an apple with a poison pill in it. You are citing the wonderful nutricious vitamins and minerals in the apple. However that does not explain why you should be forbidden for getting an identical apple without the poison pill. Does not justfy why you should be forbidden to get an identical system where you *can* know your master keys and here you CAN chose to change the security settings on your computer without the chip doing a MANDATORY DESTRUCTION of certain catagories of files secured under that chip. Does not change the fact that some of those security settings are to secure your files against you.
-