Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
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'.
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
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
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.