Development of the Secure PC Proceeds

Licensed2Hack writes "Microsoft Corp, IBM and Intel Corp, et al, are developing technologies that could be built into PCs that would prevent the copying of files without copyright owner permission. For more information, read the stories on news.com or theregister.co.uk."

Comments

The Perfect Marriage

[Phaid]

This only makes sense. As the PC becomes less of a computer and more of an entertainment device, it only serves Microsoft's monopolistic desires to have a MS-only, proprietary media format. The recording industries will only want to release media in this secure format because of this, Microsoft and Intel will have cornered the market on multimedia. One hand washes the other.

And, of course, consumers will flock to the new system since it's the only way they'll be allowed to use the media they so desperately want. And you won't be able to claim restraint of trade or any of that -- look how much choice you have! Why, you can buy your PC from Dell or Gateway OR IBM, and you can play stuff from Time-Warner or Sony or Disney!

All is well. Procreate. Consume.

A noted quote.

[Restil]

It was stated in the article that past inititives to control the media content of consumers had died a quick market death. The only way to implement wide scale protection of this sort would be to leave no other options for consumers. As long as there is one holdout, that company won't be able to manufacture hardware fast enough.

People aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief. Sell them two harddrives at the same price, specify that one will allow you to store mp3's and the other won't, guess which one they're going to buy?

Even complete systems will probably have to post some type of disclaimer after numerous irate customers return systems in droves because they're not "allowed" to store certain files on their harddisk or aren't allowed to burn those files to a CD. See how long the big name companies stick to the moral antipiracy stance when they're not selling any products.

-Restil

I know you're trolling, but...

[jcr]

I work in the software industry too, and as far as I'm concerned, you're full of shit.

Software piracy costs me money if (and ONLY if) a person with a pirated copy would otherwise have purchased the product.

Let's look at the historical example of MicroSquish BASIC, shall we? We've all seen BG's impassioned "letter to hobbyists", in which he took your short-sighted position. The truth of the matter is, piracy MADE MicroSquish. A lot of the people who pirated Gates & Allen's BASIC, went to MicroSquish when they needed BASIC for the new machines they were building.

Another thing to consider, is that today's pirate can be tomorrow's customer. If you want to make money on your product, then make it as popular as you can with the Warez D00dz. If your app is the one they like, then when they graduate from college and start buying for their employers, whose app do you think they'll go with? Maybe, the one they already KNOW?

Sure, you can insist that you must be paid each and every time someone copies your app. Or, you can take a longer term view, and realize that if MicroSquish had managed to get a lid on piracy in 1976, they wouldn't even be around today.

-jcr

What is in a word? Don't use Newspeak!

[Convergence]

Good article.. But, we cannot continue to use their words: 'piracy' or 'theft' versus 'copyright infringement' or 'unauthorized duplication'. 'digital rights management' versus 'digital control'. Is it 'theft' to play and 'share' your favorite song with a friend.

These are important distinctions. Don't use their words. As Orwell pointed out in 1984. If you can control the language people use to communicate, you have won the battle for their minds. Copyright holders have already taken control of the language. We already have a copyright Newspeak; I refuse to use it. So should you.

When you say 'other sorts of digital rights management.' that sounds mild, but replace that with 'other sorts of digital control', and people gain a fuller understanding of the consequences.

Then, the tagline of the MPAA/RIAA can read: `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital control to prevent copyright infringement.' versus `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital rights management to prevent thieving pirates'.

The internet is a technology of control

[Twid]

Lawrence Lessig in his excellent book "Code and other laws of Cyberspace" says that, if we aren't careful, the internet will become a technology of control, not of freedom.

As anyone who runs a web server knows, it's easy enough to track and log everything. The always-on internet opens up the possiblity of things like CPRM; Microsoft's plans for required registration before Office XP will work, and other sorts of digital rights management. DivX may have failed, but it failed because it didn't have a good enough value proposition, and it was a little ahead of its time. Once more houses have broadband connections, what's the big deal to the average consumer if your DVD player needs to be hooked up to the internet to play DVD's?

The idea that there will always be open alternatives to closed software or hardware isn't guaranteed. Lessig really hit the nail on the head in his book and predated a lot of this controversy. Will there be enough advocates to fund and continue producing open chipsets? You can look at the history of DAT to see a way things might play out.

There is a interview with him here that goes into more detail. (the streaming links didn't work for me, but the mp3 download did.)

I wonder if all this posturing on the big corporation side will lead to more polarization and zealotry. You'll have the totally proprietary and controlling microsoft camp, and the totally free and open Open Source camp. It'll be interesting to see.

- Twid

This is more dangerous than people realize

[Ogerman]

The copy control technology they want is a two part system: software and hardware. It's the same as with DVD's. If the software doesn't send the right bus key, the hardware refuses to talk *at all* And that's only the first layer of course. The content itself is also encrypted. Point being is that this system only works with closes source software! You can't have an Open Source implementation because then the authentication and decryption keys are out in the open and that defeats the purpose.

Some people argue that this doesn't matter because we can just use non-protected data on our free OS'es. But what happens to people who want to dual-boot? They won't be able to access ANYTHING on their non-free OS partitions using Open Source software. Furthermore, what happens when more and more media gets distributed using copy control technology? Anyone using an Open Source OS will be entirely unable to view it. Think of the Sorenson Quicktime codecs.. but then imagine that for ALL data.

OK, so we have even more multimedia limitation. But take this further. This technology could be applied to accessing web pages as well! Or advertisements or images.. Imagine this: You're browsing in your free OS of choice and you go to access some page that uses copy controls. Suddenly, you get a kernel panic due to a memory I/O failure. Your copy control enabled memory has just refused to write a block of data.. (say an image from the web page) because it detected the encrypted header of the data you tried to access and it was not in authentication mode.

Because this copy control technology requires low level hardware / operating system communication at the most fundamental level (disk, memory, system busses), it could effectively make it nearly impossible to use an Open Source operating system on any new hardware. At very least, it would necessitate a large infusion of 3rd party closed source object code into our previously free OS kernels. (Not to mention all system utilities involved with file management, etc.) And don't think this is just MS. This is not just about another Windows proprietary format. This is about an industry wide standard from consumer electronics to PC's.

I warn you. This is not DIVX: The Sequel. This is not a single retail chain pushing for a flimsy standard. And this is not just another market experiment by MS. This is something that nearly all of corporate America wants right now and given enough time, they're going to get it. If you want to do something, support the EFF and write to your appropriate legislators to let them know what is happening and how your freedoms are being taken away.

Let the market decide

[Seinfeld]

I don't worry too much about this. It's not like the government is trying to force hardware manufacturers to do this. If Intel starts making chips that have copyright protection built-in, it only opens up a market to a chip manufacturer that won't. And hard drives? I find it unlikely that IBM, Seagate, Maxtor, Fujitsu, and all others would all uniformly adopt copy-protection technology in the competitive storage market, when that technology is a potential turn-off to the consumer.

After all, it's not the RIAA or MPAA that's buying the hardware, but consumers. As long as consumers are informed about what they are buying, they'll choose better. So the best defense is information. Don't allow these "improvements" to slip quietly in. When they do, make sure people know. And watch them gather dust on the shelf. The free market is the best way to send this to the DIVX Dustbin of History.
-----------