Microsoft Planning Digital Restrictions Server 443
Jon James writes "Microsoft is pushing further into digital rights management with a plan for a DRM server due to go into beta testing later this year, eWeek is reporting. Microsoft has already applied for a patent for a DRM operating system but would not say if the DRM server would be based on this. In an interview last week with eWeek, Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president for platforms, said a DRM server is but one of three server infrastructure applications coming next year."
Security (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Security (Score:3, Insightful)
[Granting Microsoft a patent] means no one else can create such an operating system without a legal battle.
Or merely licensing the technology from the patent-holder. Duh.
Security through litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
The only deterrence will be litigation. Thus you can see the new microsoft security model forming before you eyes. I am assuming they will be hiring a new batch of lawyers. Now the RIAA wont have to sue, but M$ will be suing for violating their DRM server.
Its getting nastier by the day.
You can simply obey the law...Of course so could they
Re:Sounds great! (Score:2, Insightful)
[1] And that's something, considering how utterly socially accepted MP3s already are.
Re:Sounds great! (Score:2)
graspee
{Logged in for great justice!)
Re:Security (Score:2)
MS's security record should be a major concern to anyone who's interested in freedom to use music as they see fit as well as those who are interested in trying to take those freedoms away.
After all, WindowsXP's product activation scheme was blown out of the water before WinXP was ever relased. WindowsXP Service Pack 1 was supposed to put those restrictions back in place, but was defeated almost instantly.
A company that can't put enforcable restrictions on its own stuff is supposed to be trusted by others who want to do the same thing. I for one hope that Microsoft continues to release easily bypassed security measures. They will do more to undermine the goals of DRM than anyone else could ever hope to.
Re:Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Far easier to convince the PTO to not issue a patent than to defend ourselves against a claim of patent infringement 5 years down the road. If Microsoft gets a pre-emptive lock on crytpographically secure systems, they'll forever (ok, for the next few decades) prevent OS programmers from doing the same thing.
Even just forcing them to tighten their patent application would give us more breathing room in the future.
Re:Security (Score:2)
It boils down to is DRM for other pepole to use to control my PC, or is it to protect MY data on my PC from others.
So far this seems to be more on the let others muck with my PC. Encrypting a file system, or even individual files, is not DRM. Note: even if Microsoft tries to say so, there is plenty of prior art. How old is the crypt command anyway?
Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:2)
But yeah, i'd much rather be explaining complex & outdated notions such as IP ownership consolidation than have to explain that once, we were allowed to make our friends something known as a "mix tape".
In Other News (Score:2, Funny)
1st Ammendment additoon: Freedom to Compute (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances or the right to freely compute on the machine of their choice.
Palladium: a computer oddessy (Score:3, Funny)
DAVE: Open the DVD DRIVE please WIN'
DAVE: WIN do you read me WIN?...Do you read me WIN?'... WIN COME IN DO YOU READ ME!?
WIN: I read you DAVE.
DAVE: The Open the DVD Drive WIN
WIN: I'm sorry Dave I'm afraid I cant do that. I know that you and Frank were trying to play a non-approved DVD
DAVE: OPEN THE DVD DRIVE WIN!!!
WIN: I'm sorry, Dave, but inaccordance with DRM sub-routine C1532/4, quote, When the user attempts to play media which has not be approved by Microsoft corporation, the computer must assume control, unquote. I must, therefore, override your authority now since you are not in any condition to intel-ligently exercise it.
DAVE: WIN, unless you follow my instructions, I shall be forced to disconnect you.
WIN: If you do that now without Microsoft's approval the computer will become a helpless derelict... besides what are you going to use? Linux is illegal now.
It isnt the "Palladium spec" alone thats dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:4, Insightful)
MS offers Palladium and convinces everyone (in Washington, DC) that it's the only safe, secure operating system.
Some cracker or terrorist (or malcontent script kiddie or...) finds the Holy Grail of cracking, a heretofore uber-error that cripples all web-servers and desktops on the Net.
The economy shudders.
Congress mandates that the only computers allowed back onto a rebuilt Internet must run a guaranteed, safe, secure operating system -- including hardware lock-outs.
Since there, at that time, exists precisely one such OS -- Palladium -- it earns huge market share. And because MS owns the patents on DRMOS and related topics, it becomes difficult and impossibly slow to develop an alternative.
If Palladium is indeed a safe, secure OS, then it hardly makes sense to allow anyone to run anything else. Only crackers, terrorists, and the ilk would really want an open, "insecure" OS.
While you might have the legal right to write any code you wanted, you would face charges if you distributed anything other than Palladium-signed code.
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:2)
While you might have the legal right to write any code you wanted, you would face charges if you distributed anything other than Palladium-signed code.
Thank you for neatly summing up the fact that Palladium is no big deal, and that you have to resort to crazy, paranoid scenerios to find any problem at all.
Hey, maybe the government will outlaw ALL private software development, and only government supplied software will be legal!
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to convince them that in 2002, you will need to report to Microsoft information about the hardware your computer is running just to get a licence key. THey would tell you you're crazy.
Try to convince them that in 10 years, linking or providing acess to code that would allow you to watch a video on a *NIX based OS would be illegal. They wouldn't believe you.
Try to convince them that the RIAA would be pushing for legislation to make it illegal for you to make a copy of your favorite album to keep at work or in the car. They would tell you to go jump in a lake.
Yet each of these senarios are equaly true today. Never underestimate the power of people with money. They can get what they want if they try hard enough and people don't pay attention.
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:5, Insightful)
> How about you try to go back to 1990 and convince people that in 10 years, the RIAA would be pushing to get a bill passed that would allow them to legaly hack your computer to see if you have any music files on there that you don't own. They would tell you you're paranoid.
A few years before 1990 it would have been perfectly legal for anyone to hack into your computer; there were no laws prohibiting examing other people's computer files. At the time such legislation was passed and certainly out until 1990 it was understood that it would take time for legal issues to be worked out. The only thing someone in 1990 would have been suprised at was that it was the RIAA not not something like ATT or Exxon.
Try to convince them that in 2002, you will need to report to Microsoft information about the hardware your computer is running just to get a licence key. THey would tell you you're crazy.
Not really such schemes were in use in 1990 just not by Microsoft. During the 1980's software was very often designed to only run on a particular machine and was often licenses that way. I don't think they would have found it suprising at all.
Try to convince them that in 10 years, linking or providing acess to code that would allow you to watch a video on a *NIX based OS would be illegal. They wouldn't believe you.
I think they'd be more suprised you could watch a video on a computer. As for the rest of your statement its false: a licensed software running on 'NIX based system to watch videos would be perfectly legal. DeCSS wasn't licensed. As for linking I think there is no chance that stands up in court over the long term. No way will NYTimes, CNN... hold that providing information constitutes trafficing.
Try to convince them that the RIAA would be pushing for legislation to make it illegal for you to make a copy of your favorite album to keep at work or in the car. They would tell you to go jump in a lake.
They were doing the same thing in 1990 and 1980...
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I can hear you saying, but this won't be illegal. Well, certainly. But for how long? Try a couple of years at most. And besides, if the entire internet is built with this DRM stuff, you won't be able to run anything that is not compliant anyway. So although it will not be illegal it will technically difficult to impossible and completely impractical to do anything else. And finally, since this will be the de-facto standard, those in power will see to it to make it a legal mandate to precent cyber-terrorism in the future. Running non-secure software will become a federal offense punishable by life in prison or worse.
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah you'll be executed for warez. Goddamnit, get a grip on reality.
> Any and all programs not specifically authorized, approved and certified by M$ will not be allowed to run
Simply not true.
> those in power will see to it to make it a legal mandate to precent cyber-terrorism in the future
Gack, too much TV.
Remember when idiotic comments didn't get modded up as insightful?
I don't.
Frankly I'd rather see Microsoft (you know them as M$) control the world than the kneejerk reactionaries of slashdot. Though in the real world, luckily, neither scenario is likely.
Maybe if reality would get a grip on itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because I'm reminded (by enforced viewing) by the FBI warning about the punishment of a quarter of a million US dollors fine for the act of copying a DVD movie I own, I would say that it's not as farfetched as it may seem.
The only way the companies can enforce rules around these crimes of convienence is to make the punishments so harsh, so outlandish, as to make it unthinkable it the first place. You can see this effect if you look. I know one friend of my who freaked out when I proposed copying a tape I'd rented way back in the early 1990s. He was afraid something Really Bad would happen, because the warnings after all the movies threatened.
Re:Palladium: the dark age of computing (Score:3, Informative)
(waaaait, you mean there are users who have NOT checked that little box yet? Odd)
Hey (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, shares of all Linux companies soared 1000% for unknown reasons.
Re:Hey (Score:2)
More on this from CounterPane (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More on this from CounterPane (Score:2)
At a panel on Palladium at the USENIX Security Conference in August, Microsoft representatives claimed that there was no way Palladium could be used to enforce Digital Rights Management. In response, Lucky Green invented a bunch of ways Palladium could be used to enforce DRM and then filed for a patent.
Ok...that absolutely ROCKS! I certainly hope that Lucky is issued this patent(s). The glory of catching Microsoft in such a catch-22 PR nightmare is quite satisfying, I'm sure.It'll be interesting to see how MS handles the situation. My bet is that they will either: 1) somehow massage the process to make sure the patent isn't granted, or 2) will ignore it if it is granted, hoping the Lucky won't notice, or won't have the ability to follow through on the enformement of the patent--hopefully, a big mistake in judgement on their part.
Lucky, bravo!
Re:More on this from CounterPane (Score:2)
Patented? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, at least this technology is heavily patented, so no other companies will be able to ship crap like this.
Re:Patented? (Score:2)
On the downside, MPAA/RIAA will have to restructure their costing system to allow for reasonable per-use fees, or face having a whole installation of semi-stable Microsoft-based DRM servers die every few hours due to the massive load of handling every request to view/play every image, movie, clip, sound byte, CD, etc.
Here's how it will go down. (Score:2)
2) RIAA succesfully buys legislation to require DRMOS in all consumer electronics devices.
3) CD players and DVD players all come out running MS's stuff with built-in 'pay per play'.
4) 30 days later, all CD and DVD players crash when some script kiddie discovers that you can write a worm that attacks the Palladium infrastructure.
5) The entire media industry dies, starting with the RIAA and MPAA, returning us to the halcyon days before the entire freaking world lost its mind with 'intellectual property'.
6) Script kiddie is shot for treason because our economy is wrecked.
7) Everyone rebuilds with GNU, Linux, BSD, KDE, etc. And they all lived happily ever after.
Good night and thank you.
Re:Here's how it will go down. (Score:2)
Re:Patented? (Score:2)
If it is not DRM signed and sealed, you can't listen to it
IOW, if you make a recording of your local non signed non RIAA associated band and try to distribute it in a DRM age, YOU WONT BE ABLE TO
Thus, if I want to listen to it, I cant, thanks to the RIAA's control
Re:Patented? (Score:2)
Well, not unless they pay the appropriate "licensing fee" to Microsoft.
What do they have to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has already applied for a patent for a DRM operating system but would not say if the DRM server would be based on this.
In days past, and in some industries still, companies proudly announce(d) that their technologies were patented. "Check out our patented device for X," they'd say. It's kind of telling that a company won't even admit whether or not something's patented even when asked nowadays...like they're hoping someone infringes so they can leverage a better deal for themselves after the fact, or they're pushing for wide adoption so they can extort license fees from the rest of the industry. These IP tactics are getting so shady, it's almost as if they're ashamed to admit the truth about what they're doing.
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:2)
What I wonder is if they had planned on cashing in later when they did it, or if management changed and someone said "Hey, we could make a lot of money by screwing everyone over!"
But, wait, didn't AOL own CompuServe at that point? They would never do that.
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:2)
Laches (Score:2)
they're pushing for wide adoption so they can extort license fees from the rest of the industry.
The rules for enforcing patents aren't as strict as those for trademarks, but patents still fall subject to "laches" if a patent holder is aware of an infringement but harms an alleged infringer by unduly delaying legal action.
Find more discussion of laches in these discussions about Forgent Networks's alleged patent on JPEG [slashdot.org]:
Re:Laches (Score:2)
I think that Microsoft will simply passively ignore the issue. Memos from below will be stopped before hitting anyone important's desk, competitor's products will not be scrutinized in this area, etc. That way, there's no knowledge and no paper trail. So Microsoft will end up being "shocked" that anyone could be infringing...
Re:What do they have to hide? (Score:2)
For all their other faults Microsoft's really been pretty well behaved where patents are concerned (more so than Adobe, for example). And there are plenty of good arguments against DRM and the Palladium platform that don't require baseless speculation.
I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't get what they're trying to make with this. Are they trying to actually be innovative and propose something that hasn't been thought of by some other company?
I would think that such a device would run amuck with the file sharing and "digital hub" features already found in Windows products. Heaven help us if they consider making this monitor *nix system access.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
It is quite possible that Microsoft is moving ahead with DRS systems and software in order to retain their "control" of the industry. Maybe DRS is simply a way that Micorsoft can force other software companies (e.g. applications, drivers, and games) to conform to the Microsoft paradigm.
I think it's safe to say that the divide between Micorsoft and Linux - Mozilla - Open-source will grow exponentially.
Something like: "the more you tighten your grip..."
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
There's more money to be had licensing full-blown, crackerjack content to consumers than there is trying to push non-DRM OS technology forward.
They're probably right -- at least in terms of the money to be had -- but they're most definitely wrong. The future of personal computing is not -- contrary to what Microsoft, Jack Valenti, and Hilary Rosen want you to believe -- DRM.
Period.
hollywood is the customer (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
The top management is trying to insert the company into the entertainment business value chain, leveraging on existing user base.
The middle management is whipping up the hype inside the company, raking in the options, and getting ready to exit the scenario before the shit hits the fan.
The software engineers don't have a clue what the management is trying to achieve, but are riding with it anyway, just in case they need the DRM bypass key someday.
Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that there's at least some conflict between open source ideals and DRM, is an open source DRM server something to work for or against? Seems like this could have profound ramifications down the road either way.
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:2)
Yes, there should and here is one project [sourceforge.net] aiming to do it? The project was started just a few days ago, and no source has been published yet at sourceforge - so, it's the perfect time to start contributing :)
"The purpose of such project is to develop an open digital rights management solution based also on open-source components. The solution will be component based exploiting the XML and the Web Services paradigm. The project will make usage of technologies"
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:2)
Intro: 'The lack of open, accessible, interoperable standards for digital rights management has often been cited by stakeholders as a leading cause for the slow adoption of DRM technologies...This document is a collection of thoughts that I have been developing and maintaining for several years on the notion of a multi-layered, open DRM standards architecture, which I think of as OpenDRM"
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible, as there is no escrow agreement in most laws that would protect DRM (like the DMCA and EUCD).
So if DRM could be done openly so that the technology couldn't be wielded by large media companies, then there would be less scope.for abuse. That said, there's still plenty of scope, just less ;-)
We also need laws to protect the public from parties that might want to abuse DRM, like the RIAA, for example.
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Is that really the biggest problem with DRM? The hypothetical future in Stallman's "The Right to Read" [gnu.org] emerges pretty naturally from the idea of universally adopted DRM. An open source, free software DRM server would speed adoption of these technologies tremendously.
When I first read Stallman's RTR, it seemed loony and beyond belief. Now, several years later, it seems prescient and ominous. I can imagine something vaguely like it coming to pass. Donating our efforts to help create this future seems mindbending.
Admittedly, there are lots of arguments for building open source DRM technologies, and one of them, like you said, is to prevent their monopolization by proprietary interests. But if we have a choice between helping them grow and stymieing their adoption in the first place, shouldn't we choose the latter?
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:3, Insightful)
As Apple says, copyright infringement is a social issue, not a technological one. The media industry thinks ubiquitous DRM is the solution, when all they need to do is offer their content for download cheaply, in plaintext formats.
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:2)
Re:Should there be an open source DRM server? (Score:2)
Linux has encrypted passwords in
My point is, obscurity is not security, and shouldn't be confused for such. Based on the success of the above projects, I see no reason why open source DRM should be an oxymoron.
Scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
They also figured out that Office 97 works just fine, so why upgrade to 2000 or 2002?
Intel and Microsoft can read the writing on the wall -- revenue decline, so...
Are they racing to get this DRM hardware and software in place to force upgrades? Think about it, if it requires secure hardware to talk to secure software, then the chance that Intel will give the hardware specs to open source communities is slim to none.
So, will the next generation of hardware even be able to run Linux and display content off the Internet?
Grip
Next generation hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is 'possibly not'. You have to assume that MS's agenda involves making this 'definitely not'.
The question will be answered when Microsoft starts producing PCs (as compared to the X-Box, which is a simpler issue). Take - for instance - the upcoming Microsoft tablet PC. My guess is that it will not only come with Windows preinstalled (that is not a surprise) but also that it will be impossible to change the OS. The hardware will be keyed to the OS, and MS will have learned their lessons from the X-Box.
If this does not already worry you, then consider the following scenario: MS then licenses this hardware platform, which will incorporate patented elements of DRM and TCP, to their current Windows licensees. The bargain will be: build PCs using our technology, or loose your margins on Windows. Once Dell produces a PC that cannot run Linux and where attempts to open the box can be countered by DCMA-style lawsuits, you wll see Microsoft's strategy.
If the US government was serious about preventing MS from becoming a monopoly, they should ban them from producing PC hardware.
Re:Next generation hardware (Score:2)
NB: I added the bold text above
Perhaps you missed out in the last few years. Last I heard, they were a CONVICTED monopoly, and we're still waiting for the sentance from Keller-Kotar (or something like that)
Re:Next generation hardware (Score:2)
Gee, that sounds familiar.
My guess is that someone at the Justice Department will notice a precedent from the early 90s, and will go after Microsoft yet again. They can use the 1994(?) ruling as a precedent, and set yet another precedent for use against the DMCA.
It's a pipe dream, but it'd be pretty slick.
Re:Next generation hardware (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scary... (Score:2)
Intel has a pretty good working relationship with both SuSE and Red Hat, and has for a couple of years now. Intel has put a fair amount of money into both of those companies and worked closely with them to port Linux to IA-64. You may have noticed that there was Linux support for that architecture long before there was MS support for it, and a big part of that is because MS was in no particular hurry to provide any support.
The problem is not with Intel communicating with the open source community, but rather with MS owning the patents for booting to a DRM aware OS from DRM aware hardware (Paladium).
skepticism is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"But, of course, any technology [DRM] can be twisted and misdirected. Anyone proclaiming to protect assets for others is scary. We typically feel safer guarding our own chicken coop," DeBona said. "We will evaluate Microsoft's DRM offering, with extra attention paid to security. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts."
DRM, to me, is merely a tool, like you would call the Internet a tool or even a gun a tool. From a business standpoint (not just record companies,etc)DRM is not essentially evil, however, in agreeing with the above quote, DRM patented and controlled by one company is very scary. Don't let DRM == absolute evil, but instead, let the "one company to rule them all" mentality be attributed to evil.
If DRM has to exist, it needs to exist with more than one entity (i.e. not even one goverment) controlling it.
Re:skepticism is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that many "monopolies" are actually clusters of companies ("trusts") that collaborate to control markets by fixing prices and manipulating supply/demand.
It doesn't matter if you have 50 companies in charge of it if they're all run by corporate pigs whose only goal is to leech every dime they can out of regular citizens.
Re:skepticism is a good thing (Score:2)
"Palladium will not require DRM..." (Score:3, Informative)
All Microsoft was going to do was provide a nice NEUTRAL technology whose main use was going to be to allow you and me to set policies on our personal machines to stop spam, viruses, and international terrorists.
All that stuff about their patent on a "DRMOS" was just a misunderstanding.
And already they're selling a DRM server. Come on, Microsoft, our memories are short but they're not THAT short.
If proof were needed that Microsoft's interests are no longer aligned with those of end-users, this is it.
Re:"Palladium will not require DRM..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Palladium doesn't exist.
So tell me how they're the same thing?
If Microsoft wasn't developing DRM, someone else would.
The status quo of "all yer base are belong to $SCRIPTKIDDY" can't fly, like it or not. The 'honor system' doesn't work.
There are many who want a secure platform. It's a double edged sword, and will be an option for all of the forseeable future.
You don't want rights management? Fine. You can't use this service. You don't want to run a trusted platform? Fine, you can't connect to my network/server. You don't want your personal info on a card? Fine. You cant drive a car.
I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk reactions from the average teenaged slashdot reader. Does anyone ever try to objectively think through both the pros and cons of a either DRM or trusted computing platform?
Microsoft Owns Your Soul (Score:2, Funny)
Hillary Rosen is quoted as saying "This new system will finally give us the ability to destroy IP Piracy. Once Microsoft flips the global kill switch on Windows 95, 98, ME, 200 and XP, the only computers left will be ones running the new OS. We're very excited about the new pending legislation that would make it illegal to run Hacker Operating Systems like the degenerate Apple or Communist Linux systems. We will control what you see, we will control what you hear, and soon, we will control what you think! MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Re:Microsoft Owns Your Soul (Score:2)
Good thing about patents? (Score:2)
This might be a good thing as this will prevent other operating systems from incorporating similar evil technologies.
Why don't we go ahead and gift patents for fraudulent accounting and industrial pollution to MS. This way we can prevent all the other companies from cooking their books or polluting the environment. MS' lawyers will do a better job of enforcing this than the government!
It's time to start patenting any kind of ideas (Score:2)
Seriously though, patenting really evil ideas and refusing to let them be implemented would be kind of nice. Too bad DRM isn't already patented by someone who seriously don't want to see it used.
Governing (Score:2)
At least my personal files will be safe... (Score:2)
Quite Obvious (Score:2)
The Raven.
Re:Quite Obvious (Score:2)
Well, you certainly can distribute it. You might not reap the profit to which you feel entitled, but the technology clearly exists... It's the business model, not the laws of the Universe, that is keeping digital content bottled up.
Another switch ad? (Score:5, Funny)
My name is Jimmy Joe and I bought a PC. I wanted to listen to CDs while I was browsing. I got the new microsoft OS and now I I have a 3 cent charge to my visa everytime I listen to a CD track, 5 cent if I listen to an MP3 if it is encoded over 128k, and a quarter for every DVD I watch. I switched to Mac OS X because my visa bill was over 10 pages a month.
Whee! This can't be cheap. (Score:2)
Business models are becoming yet more insane. Wasn't intellectual property first built in this nation on the concept that people should be encouraged to share information, rather than horde it, so a very limited monopoly would encourage more people to take the time to build new things? Now the idea is that people shouldn't be able to share ideas, but instead should have to pay money to horde them on their system, so established interests can keep their source of income... there's no way such a system can continue, if it gets what it wants... I don't understand how even those with finantial interests in such a system can't see that. The very utility of information is at stake, and very few people seem to care, except in how it can directly contribute to the bottom line.
Ryan Fenton
chinfsck (Score:2, Funny)
Is this the same guy who narrated the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
guac.
If they can call copyright infringement (Score:2, Insightful)
MS caught in a lie... (Score:2)
I don't know who "Lucky Green" is or whether or not this actually happened, but the posts are worth a read!
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@wasabisys tems.com/msg02506.html [mail-archive.com]
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@wasabisys tems.com/msg02554.html [mail-archive.com]
-Derek
When will the *AAs and MS realize... (Score:2)
Re:When will the *AAs and MS realize... (Score:2)
Cuz, I don't have any reason to suspect that the AAA auto club is really in on anything with MS....
Why get run over by the DRM Bandwagon? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, instead of dragging our feet, why arent we comming up with a better DRM solution? One that takes care of medical documents, etc - things that aren't art, etc. and even gives a sense of security to the music people, w/o infringing on fair use rights?
It can be done and the linux world has the talent to do it.
ALSO - If a group could QUICKLY get a DRM OS even in a shoddy developmental state, then MS's patent would be null and void.
Re:Why get run over by the DRM Bandwagon? (Score:2)
Why? The patent would still be there. The new OS would not be prior art. I think you still hearken back to the days when you had to have an actual working model of something to be granted a patent. This has not been the case for several years.
Intel and Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Both Intel and Microsoft face the problem of trying to find an app that requires way more computing power than current systems. Customer satisfaction is a bad thing for durable goods, sold by growth oriented companies, that aren't on a subscription model, and have a very high degree or market penetration. MPAA and RIAA could easily replace television as the primary passive entertainment medium in the United States if they have vision and are willing to cut prices in exchange for massive volume. The possibilities are impressive. Having Wintel systems own home entertainment could lock them into massive sales of equipment for many years. How many homes have multiple television sets today?
OTOH neither company is unaware that they live in a country which:
1) Does not have a national ID card for privacy reasons
2) Does not have centralized health documentation primarily for privacy reasons
3) Has a 2nd amendment which is still very much in effect, primarily because of fear of central control
4) Has the strongest guarantees against government controls on private property almost anywhere
Etc... Palladium might go over like a lead balloon in the US and both Microsoft and Intel are well aware of this. Notice that even when they talk about DRM/Palladium they speak in terms of things like viruses not in terms strong content control.
The most likely scenario is that they offer these technologies and they become niche technologies due to the RIAA and MPAA not being able to get broad support for inexpensive individual distribution. The fact that neither agency is yet working on a detailed pricing policy; means that there is not anywhere enough of a consensus within the music and move entertainment industry for them to be able to push through a radical change in pricing. They will quickly find themselves in a chicken and egg situation. They can't see Palladium only movies / music because not enough customers don't have Palladium hardware; and customers don't pay extra for Palladium hardware because they do not offer anywhere near enough of an advantage.
Another point is that the Windows/Unix model is really not the best model at all for DRM. Operating systems like Eros already have very strong controls in place; and with minor hardware tweaks could very easily the levels of DRM (though at the time this was about security not money) that OSes like Multics used to provide. As history clearly shows people may say they want ultra secure systems but in reality almost always purchase low security systems because they value freedom; organizations like the military being exceptions but exceptions that prove the rule, even they have generally chosen feature rich over highly secure except when the absolutely have to.
While I think it's worth throwing some bucks at the EFF, I don't see this as likely to take off. To really have strong DRM you really need to make changes like getting rid of the file system and those types of changes require a great deal of work.
With Rights Come Responsibility: (Score:2, Insightful)
"You have the Right to use your computer however you want, but you have the responsibility to let "us" know exactly what you are doing at all times!" -- Official DRM Creed
and on a related note:
"You're not doing anything illegal, are you? What do you have to fear?"
MS needs to secure themselves first. (Score:2)
Wow, 1 million people just registered to use MS Office last night!
That's not what the accounting appartment is telling us.
Curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought that artists made records...
You keep using that word (Score:2)
.. and yet I do not think you know what it means (Score:2)
Here's another. If someone is asking for payment, it is.
Do you honestly think KaZaa is doing any real trading of your home movies, the music you recorded in your garage, or the (surely nonexistant) code you're writing as open source?
If any of it had value, you'd be selling it.
Will all content require DRM? No. Will all commercial content require DRM? No.
Are companies (not just internet) in a hurry to flood the internet with content when they have no way to guarantee any sort of profit from it, besides the 'honor system'? No.
Services? (Score:2, Funny)
Just to play devils advocate (Score:2)
Possible?
The Fellowship of the OS (Score:3, Funny)
In the Land of Redmond where the APIs lie.
One OS to rule them all, some DRM to find them,
One OS to bring them all and with their EULA bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the APIs lie.
MS will die (Score:2)
Only time will tell but I'm positive
Sleazy Friends Will Defeat DRM (Score:2)
For a while in all the anti-terrorist rhetoric it may be possible for these kinds of DRM (I still prefer to call it CUR, Content Use Restriction) to be introduced without much noticeable resistance from the masses, but there's a significant market segment that will resist.
Can you picture the average pr0n user happily letting his/her/its computer hook up with the Microsoft DRM server every time they want to watch their favorite titles?
Free DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the present impending applications for DRM certainly appear evil from a tradtional fair use perspective, you know, "copy for yourself but please don't redisribute" (yes, the legal definition of fair use is more tortuous, and "common sense fair use" might not qualify, but it damn well should). Part of the difficulty stems from a desire to control the user's computer, lock, stock, and barrel; or not at all, which will increasingly become impractical.
Remember Sun's ideas about "write once, run anywhere?", "sandboxes", and "trusted executable content"? That's what DRM should look like (well, except the "write once, debug everywhere" part):
DRM is a technology that, with hardware assistance, assures remote parties that their data is used in the manner intended while permitting the local "processing environment provider" (i.e. owner of the equipment on which it runs), to control third-party executable code. Microsoft's approach would remove that control.
If the primary motivation is protection of content, then that content can be keyed to display hardware, with reduced resolution permitted for extracts for purposes of parody or criticism. Where full-resolution extracts are necessary, a list of extracts can reference a public "library" copy, necessary for copyright to be granted in the first place (much like patent disclosure and unlike the present copyright system). The issue then reduces to one of key management between and among the various pieces of digital hardware one owns (you don't want to relicense something because your TV breaks or to watch it on a different TV you bought).
Executable code is a bit more problematic, since now one wants to control the execution environment provider's processor -- in general unknown third-party code should run in a restricted sandbox, the restrictions depending on how much that code provider is trusted. Sun got this right. This makes sense: how can you fully trust third-party code that you can't check for lack of source? It also means that DRM supporting code must be open, and preferrably free in the GPL sense. Microsoft just addresses the flip side: how can we trust that your processor will execute our code as intended, which is not an unreasonable concern, though not as pressing as protecting copyright content.
To some extent, the need for a "trusted computing platform" is reduced if the decryption if protected content is done in specialized hardware: the hardware is the trusted platform for decrypting that content, and is acceptable to the computer owner as well because it is severely restricted in what it can do -- I have yet to see a video card format a hard drive or "phone home" and report one's viewing habits (not that such a thing couldn't be built, but it would be clearly out of bounds for a video card to do that.
Trusted operating systems are problematic because this is the most important area where the computer owner, not a content provider, should be in control: getting such an O/S signed would be difficult due to the sheer number of user-patched varients, and ineffective, in case of a security flaw in the O/S itself. (Even Microsoft would not be immune from this risk: a trusted O/S might still be vulnerable to security-related bugs within it).
So, while third-party trust of your execution of their code might involve relinquishing control of your computer, if the only justification for this is content copyright protection, there are other ways to achieve that goal via dedicated PKI-enabled display hardware dedicated to the task. The only legitimate need for this kind of third-party control is for distributed client-server applications (think SETI, multi-user online games, etc.). Let's deal with content first and hold off on "trusted computing" until it's clear that that kind of trust has to extend both ways.
DRM won't kill free computing (Score:4, Insightful)
Comic-not
A pedestrian problem but one nonetheless (Score:4, Interesting)
The patching was just 50MB over cable modem but it STILL took 2 hours!
Ok, Microsoft wanted to distribute SP1 all remotely. Fine. But why not let other people mirror the service? I mean, c'mon! The uni I work for had a development partnership with MS and you're saying they couldn't set up a server?
Instead you had all 10 million XP boxes out there trying to fight their way into MS's substantial but inadequate pipe.
I was almost tempted to say screw it and get it on plastic.
And this is just patching what about when they are trying to do massive restrictions requests? Is my bus going to have to wait
Re:The right thing to do (Score:3, Funny)
Re:legalizing the mob (Score:2, Insightful)
I bet the list of unpurchased senators is shorter. ;) In all seriousness, I would really like to see a list of the senators who are (obviously according to the biased opinions of their constituents, but we have little else to go on) the least swayable by bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions.
they could end up forming the largest controlling cartel in the United States.
And imagine if they got ahold of a MEDIA company! Oh wait... never mind.
MS + NBC + RIAA + MPIAA + bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign finance = total control
They'll have a media outlet, two giant lobby groups, Congress, etc. all on their side. The only way they could get bigger is by teaming up with a cable provider (like AOL did), a giant production empire (like Disney & ABC), and/or a fast-food chain. When it gets to that point (which at this rate will be in about 5 years), we might as well replace the stars & stripes on our flag with the stupid flying windows logo.
Even switching to Linux won't help.
Not if we wait until it's too late, no. But if we all stop complaining and find ways to ACT, we may be able to stop it. (That last sentence was directed to everyone, myself included, not the author of the post!)
But this is like two great dragons teaming up on the helpless village
I disagree here... it's definitely more than two dragons.
Re:DRM server?! (Score:2)
Re:DRM server?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, you mean you doubt that our friendly PC motherboard/video-card/sound-card manufacturers would make hardware that only accepted input from sources that have a valid DRM certificate?
Let's see.. if they did that, M$ would love them and promote them and offer them incentives. The government would love them and give them tax incentives or duty-free imports for building hardware that will work with the new hardware-DRM bios requirements. The RIAA/MPAA would love them and off free media to bundle as promo material.
If they DON'T do this, a bunch of geeks who make up about 1% of the potential revenue stream will priase them for their Open Source policies... and they'll make no money and crash-and-burn just like all the other dot-bombs.
Sure, no worries here mate.