Slashdot Mirror
Digital Rights Management Operating System
Anonymous Coward sent in a note about Microsoft being granted a patent on a "Digital Rights Management Operating System". Anything more to say? Nope, don't think so. After Windows XP will be Windows DRM.
That doesn't sounds good. I don't want anything after 2k anyway
-Pasty
It's nice to know MS can conceive of it. Too bad they can't *build* it.
It sounds like high time for some good ol' mob action. I would join in, but don't feel like being labelled a terrorist for supporting the rights of American citizens to control the products they own.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
QUick! Search for open source prior art!!
BTW 1st?
That means that only one company will be enforcing DRM. For the rest of us using Mac, Linux, et al, we can simply go on about our business without the fear of being bossed around and controlled by Big Brother.
q:]
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
the pain
hobbits abled intelligence
I don't have this problem, I use Linux.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
...that not only ??AA executives believe that everyone should license everything from them only in some "copy-protected" form, the only way to actually make those restrictions actually restrict anything is by licensing some piece of shit from Microsoft?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
First the DVD chips/Windows Media tie-in, and now a whole OS... and you thought the IE market share/desktop OS monopoly was bad...
I could have sworn that almost all operating systems already restrict memory access. This is hardly a new invention.
stuff
Keep it going "Bill" gonna make your way right out of a job. Can they really be this stupid to think that this kind of $%&# can continue. US citizens like freedoms, not restrictions and we spend accordingly...
Business is Business and Business must grow, Regardless of crummies in tummies you know... -Onceler
One joe six-pack (or his kid) hears that he can't play his bootleg MP3s on his computer cause of the OS, they will switch to something that can.
Honestly ...
Given the continuous stream of security holes found in Microsoft software, how can they honestly believe that they will be able to securely protect -any- digital content for long?
Granted, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but throwing the gauntlet to the community like this is only begging for the system to be torn apart - DMCA be damned.
Got to give them points for hubris, though.
Its also not unexpected. Microsoft wants to make their OS the only one that can read digital media. Then they can convince companies to only release media in MS format. Then maybe, as a bonus, they can get Linux declared illegal as a circumvention device!
Step 1:
Get Sen Ernest Hollings (D-SC), to propose requiring OS's to use DMA.
Step 2:
Patent this concept.
Step 3:
Given enough cash/campaign contributions/graft, the OS design suggested in Step 1 will be developed.
Step 4: Microsoft, having patented this OS design, eliminates the competition, and rakes in cash.
They (Microsoft) can stop weaving the rope they intend to hang themselves with. It's plenty long.
I won't support *any* operating system that treats the data as having more important concerns than the machine's operator (me).
Buying Microsoft anymore is like saying: Please, treat me like a two year old, stifle my creativity and learning, keep me in the dark and feed me crap, and whatever you do, don't let me question your 'authority'.
Disgustedly,
If the hardware resides in my house, there will always be a fix. It may require paperclip jumpers and sacrificing chickens, but there will be a way to access data that is in memory or in some form on the computer.
So this is what they are going to be putting in their new set-top boxes? Or maybe the Xbox2's OS?
Does this mean I can patent the inevitable CrackDRM.exe?
_______
2B1ASK1
Maybe some folks will not only like, but will love this stuff.
Obviously this is intended to bew the final solution to pesky little things like user free will and responsibility.
the RIAA, etc are just going to lap this up.
Fortunately, the move to open source and Linux is picking up speed. As seen in this report in the Government Technology Mag many governments are looking in Linux for reasons of their national security.
While many folks like a comfy life, there are many that do not want the "comfy sofa technique" and who will rebel just because somebody says that they have to have things a certain way.
This keeps up, and I'll get ready to join "geeks with guns"
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Look, don't blame Microsoft. If companies and organizations are clamoring for digital rights management software, software companies are going to produce it. Microsoft didn't go to the RIAA and say, "Hey, people are stealing your music, don't you want some digital rights management solutions?" The fact is if you don't want this type of thing occuring, your going to have to go after the content providers and your legislators, not the company supplying a requested product.
I think I'll stop here.
Microsoft released the DRM-update on WindowsUpdate today.
You really think microsoft would push a law which would require them to ship a certain kind of product without at least researching the topic of how they would create that product?
You really think microsoft would do detailed research on how to create that product without patenting the results of their research, even if the law didn't pass and the product didn't ship? Come on.
I'd have been really fricking surprised if MS *DIDN'T* file a patent like this at some point.
The only reasons i find this interesting are the following two questions:
If a company has a patent for creating a DRM OS, then the SSSCA can't possibly pass, right? That would create an instant monopoly, if I understand broadly what's going on here.
Either that, or Microsoft would have to license the patented technology on a royalty-free basis, which for Microsoft's uses, makes it rather useless, right?
Windows XP already implements a whole bunch of the DRM "technologies".
For instance, there's a Secure Audio Path that's used in conjunction with signed audio drivers. The OS can (theoretically) lock out unsigned drivers. In order to get your deiver signed, you have to turn off digital audio output on demand.
Great, huh?
This reminds me of the the stuff on /. a while ago about the patenting of building codes. What if Microsoft is able to push through a law (sssca) that requires OSes to use DRM, and then they have the patent?
Yes this sounds silly, but 5 years ago a web browser built into the OS sounded silly. MS: Turning silly into reality.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
considering their stellar security...
Having them as the gatekeeper wouldn't be too bad.
Business is Business and Business must grow, Regardless of crummies in tummies you know... -Onceler
This wouldn't be that hard to do, not any harder then making a user secure OS like Linux, OpenBSD or, in theory Windows NT/2k/XP.
I mean, just add 'copy' to the things you can do with a file (like read, write, execute). If it can't be copied, then only allow DRM compliant programs (all digitally signed by M$ of course) to open them. Easy easy. Of course, this can't really stop you from accessing the data if you have physical access to the machine, any more then Linux and Open BSD can protect your data from hacking if the hackers (or, say the FBI) has unlimited physical access to the machine.
On the other hand, throw in DRM certified hard drives and sound cards (perhaps a DRM OS would not allow non-certified hardware to run. Perhaps with a Nintendo-style Lockout chip even). And you create one tough nut to crack. Basically you've got to turn the wide open PC into a closed box. As long as you've got good memory protection, it's not hard at all. (Just like how your Linux box is 'closed' to people without root access).
Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere that MS will do this, though given their apparent stance on copyrights and the like, it wouldn't surprise me (you can't even save Mpeg files in the new media player. What a crock)
I have to say this passage from the patent I found humorous though.
Piracy of digital content, especially online digital content, is not yet a great problem. Most premium content that is available on the Web is of low value, and therefore casual and organized pirates do not yet see an attractive business stealing and reselling content. Increasingly, though, higher-value content is becoming available. Books and audio recordings are available now, and as bandwidths increase, video content will start to appear.
(and wrong. I've been snagging movies off the net (and no, not just pr0n) for years.)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
... is supposed to contain the precursor of DRM code. A recent tech paper at Apple's own site discussed it in brief for about 5 paragraphs. The intent is to release DRM modules to the linux community at the same time, and it intimated that both RedHat and at least one other producer of linux is on board with includinging it in ISO and store stream media releases. The details were hazy, as is to be expected, but it was certainly ominous.
So, don't think you minority geek OS users are out in the clear on piracy and DRM... you are not.
Anybody who's thought through DRM knows it's pure shit. The key's going to live in the box, and somebody, somewhere, is going to find it.
And even assuming the key won't be retrievable, unencrypted content will be available at some point along the path from where the bits live to how my brain gets the input.
Let MS invest billions into this nonsense. It'll get cracked before it's out of beta, just like everything else they do.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
If you pay close attention to the article, they forgot to remove the link to the Coward's email address: Anonymous Coward! So, John (James?)(Joe??)(Jimmy?) Hopkins, now we know who you are...
501 Not Implemented
I highly suspect that the successor of the X-box will likly be something very similar to this.
Its interesting though to read the means of it. It will erase data from a memory page when some 'trusted' process would try to access this memory page. (Instead of just logically denying the access maybe?)
They just patented being stupid on large scale.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Twoflower
--
Twoflower
The ultimate way to circumvent any DRM stuff would be to use some virtual machine emulator that emulated everything, hardware, etc, down to the register/port level. Unless they move the DRM down to the level of the individual DACs in audio or video circuitry, this, we can simply intercept any hardware stream (digital audio, video. etc).
Any protection that the OS has is invalid, because the OS just think's it's running on a normal machine.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Unix based systems have secure tight systems already which prevents users from doing stuff they are not supposed to. Only the "root" user has the skeleton keys to the full system. Maybe its time for microsoft to rewrite windows on a unix core...
Now that we know their plan for world domination isn't superman suppost to come out and kick some ass?
Well I'm sure they'll get what's comming to them in court, in the mean time I'm waiting for that $12k check I'm going to get for forwarding this e-mail to 10 people.
Good Grief!
Rob
The EROS page has more info on how capability systems work.
Still, I'm not sure people will go for it even if it's implemented well.
Who will watch the watchman?
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Obviously, that means they can control which program you use on windows! of course, it's not your machine, it's their OS!
it's supposed to first unload 'sensitive data' and/or stop 'trusted applications'... but the trusted application will be your mouse driver, and the sensitive data is the page swap table
that's it! the perfect excuse so nobody can play on their backyard
-Kz-
Good news: this will be just as secure and reliable as IIS. HA!
Expect these DRM systems to be vigorous in demanding your identification.
Expect these DRM systems to tie content to your identity.
Expect MS to have enormous profiling ability of your tastes, habits, etc as a result.
EPIC DRM Webpage.
Bet you anything when I try to install:
* Corel Wordperfect: Sorry, not a trusted application
* Lotus Smartsuite: Sorry, not a trusted application
* Mozilla: Sorry, not a trusted application
* Netscape: Sorry, not a trusted application
* Anything not owned by Microsoft: Sorry, not a trusted application
So are they really protecting other people or just their monopoly?
Robert Claypool
built into the OS sounded silly, I thought it was a natural extension to viewing directories.
Unfortunately, as many crypto and media format experts have pointed out, it is impossible to truly protect content from being copied without authorization.
If someone can view it, someone will find a way to copy it. If a watermark is imperceptable to a person, it can be compressed out without anyone noticing a difference in quality.
These are based on the laws of mathematics and physics. Try as they might, the content owners and their representatives will never be able to change these immutable facts.
Unfortunately, law makers don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics, only their own laws. When will the emperor discover that he has no clothes?
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Why didn't you take the time to check out BSD or the like. I hate to think about the state of the code, if so little foresight something as basic as a license agreement.
Now all we need is "You need to login .Net Passport Service before viewing this movie." Welcome to the Microsoft(R) Planet(TM)!
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
I interpret that to mean that if XP contains DRM capabilities, then the entire computer it's on is patented. If that's the case, they can theoretically force computer manufacturers to pay royalties for licensing this patent. I'm sure I must be getting this a little confused, but this part 17 really sounds crazy...
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft can license this patent to whomever they want. Apple will probably buy one, if it becomes popular (can't be the 'leading' AV OS if your OS can't read the most common digital formats). Sun and other UNIX vendors could license it as well. I doubt we'll ever see this on Linux. Unless crap like the SSSCA or whatever become real.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How can this be new?? Secure systems used by goverment and other agencies have had Digital Rights Managment (DRM) systems built into the OS for years.
A computer with a secret classification only allows access by only programs/people that have a permission.
RSBAC running on linux did this in 1995-96.
selinux has been doing it for years.
Another stupid patent.
Shaun Savage
Fire your lawyers. They obviously can't read a simple license. The GPL requires that if you distribute your changes, you must also distribute your source. So don't distribute your software. Linus will accept binary-only device drivers in the kernel, so you may be able to hide your work there.
The acronym GPL stands for General Public License, just as it says in the license itself. Did you read it?
The output of a compiler is yours alone. The courts have ruled this way over and over.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. There are plenty of other Free Software licenses available. You might like to run *BSD and use a BSD-style license instead.
'Defrag' is something you do in Microsoft Windows. Ext2 manages fragmentation automatically. If you must defrag manually, you can use the defrag tool written by the ext2 authors.
Since you don't seem to value Freedom, why post on Slashdot? You want to take the Linux kernel and hoard it. That's not the way Free Software works. If you don't want to play by those rules (or learn them), go away.
Robert Claypool
and want to believe their freedoms aren't capable of being constrained, so they walk into the next smaller box, believing it to be the same size
This is the approach adopted by the cable industry and their set-top boxes, and looks set to be the model for DVD-video presentation. The second solution is to use secret, proprietary data formats and applications software, or to use tamper-resistant software containers, in the hope that the resulting complexity will substantially impede piracy.
Hey, why not obscure things...after all it worked for the DVDCCA's DeCSS encryption.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
So I just have to ask:
How secure would a Windows DRMOS be if it
were run inside some sort of VM environment
where the DRMOS wasn't the host OS?
Sounds like, unless you can lock down the
hardware (XBox, perhaps?), *someone* will
relatively easily find a way to look at
the content in cleartext...
you go first.
Microsoft has already experimented with this technique. They implemented the Secure Audio Path in Windows ME (it also part of Windows XP) which ensures that the music reaches the sound card on a computer and is not diverted to an unauthorized application, according to this article on MSDN.
Anything more to say? Nope, don't think so. I guess I should be the one to say 'Last Post!'
As much as I take displeasure with Microsoft's Product Activation crap, and their ever increasingly legally-verbose licenses, you gotta hand it to them. Those nerds know how to corner a market.
This is the kind of thing that put them where they are today. "Digital media only available to Windows" I hear. Duh. That's almost the way it is now. I don't have any numbers, but I'd bet money that most of the conventional forms of digital media we enjoy today started development in Windows--with obvious exceptions to other popular formats (eg. Quicktime).
They corner the market. Hell, one of the only reasons I use Windows more than Linux is the fact that so many of my favorite games and media formats are just easier to use (or are only usable) with Windows.
They're trying to corner the market? Doubtful. I think they already have, we just aren't on the same page yet.
But who knows, maybe enough people will not put up with this BS and jump onto the next OS. However, this is people we're talking about here. The majority of which enjoy being led around by others who have arbitrarily assigned themselves authority.
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
It's all 1s and 0s.
There is a way around everything!
If the media is of any use to anyone it is copyable, it is distrutable, it is everything the powers that be don't want.
I prefer the term "Digital Rights Infringment" to Digital Rights Management, since the only rights being "managed" are those of the content providers. Where in this technology are the bits that protect my digital rights as a (potential) purchaser of such content? It would seem some rights are more important than others. I always believed that rights came with responsibilities, above all, the responsibility to respect the rights of others. These days, "rights" are what corporations get in return for soft-money bribes.
Old ground for /., I know, but I still think it's worth using using phrases such as "digital rights infringement technology" and "copy inhibited" rather than the corp-friendly "copy protection", especially when you discuss this issue with non-techies. The battle is half lost if we let the very language of the debate be decided by those who would take away our rights.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
There's no justice like angry mob justice!
I'll take a pretty good guess that the
prototype is already known as the XBOX.
"Please insert your Oracle(tm) National ID to access your computer!"
"What the fuck? A buncha slack jawed operating systems around here."
(Our favorite governer punches through the monitor.)
"I ain't got time to bleed. I hear this Linux stuff'll make you a sexual tyrannasaur!"
(Disclaimer: This sketch may not reflect the views of said governer. Jeebus, I can't remember his name. I go watch Predator now, bye!)
Straight from the description
"A fundamental building block for client-side content security is a secure operating system. If a computer can be booted only into an operating system that itself honors
content rights, and allows only compliant applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within the machine can be assured."
What more could Microsoft ask for? A machine that only boots what they want it to boot.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
You do realize the next step after this is to pass a law forbidding operating systems without DRM? I'm sure they could word it so that a requirement is that the source for the DRM is not published thereby violating GPL. This law, were it to be enacted would essentially make Linux/*BSD illegal and no longer a threat to MS.
Don't think it can happen? Never underestimate the power of stupid laws.
I thought the point of patents was to prevent inventions from being secret and give the inventor protection if the inventor discloses his/her idea to the public. Doesn't that mean you should have to include the source code of software in a patent?
This patent is just a bunch of baseless claims.. hey I'll patent my secret fusion device and not tell anyone how it works... cuz it's secret....
With software patents this easy, some company should just sit around and brainstorm ideas for possible software and then patent the idea for the software without ever developing it... Just patent as many ideas as you can out of science fiction books...
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
spoken like a European :0)
I know I'm way off base, but so is the patent.
Who cares, anyway? This would actually be a problem if:
1. MS could author an OS that did what it claimed it could.
2. Real geeks used MS OS'es.
*Installs asbestos, prepares for flames*
MS makes them think that the content will be secure but at the same time WMP asks the user if he wants to activate DRM :)
MS should keep on screwing those bastards.
I think it's very interesting that microsoft was smart enough to apply for this in 1999. This was long before any of the recent DRM crap.
It will also be interesting to see if they ever deploy this on the desktop. It's my guess that this will fit primarly into set top boxes.
Forcing this onto desktop users would be great for Linux. Every mp3 sporting dad would be downloading red hat.
Digital Managament Rights Operating System? Call me ignorant, but that is the most incomprihensible piece of legal jargon I have ever heard. Any thoughts on what it actually means? Really, people, let's have some thought about what that means for a second. Not much comes to mind, does it?
Everything is mainstream now.
GM doesn't necessarilly own patents on machine screws, although these screws may be constituents of designs patented by GM.
If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will simply jump right out. The trick is to put the frog in cold water, and slowly turn up the heat until the frog dies.
What makes me afraid and sad about the post is the slow erosion of freedom that Microsoft and others are peddling. First, we have the secure audio streams in Windows XP. Fast forward through Windows DRM. What's next? At some point, will MP3 files be deemed "unprotected" and thus not be allowed to run under the future Microsoft OS? Can we allow something like this to come to pass?
Were you and those lawyers ignorant of technical detail or just hallucinating? I work for a LARGE bank that commonly uses GPLed software (particularly Apache, sendmail, compilers and interpreted languages such as perl) and they have all been run through our legal dept.(and you can't get any more legal-conscious than a bank). GPLed software is used by Sun and IBM who are acutely aware (and far more capable of dealing with) software legalities. When I worked for Motorola (another intellectual property power house) open source was in common use there. So imagine my surprise when morons like you waste tons of time and client money doing stupid things like rewriting entire projects because you didn't check the facts. Our do you work for Anderson and that is how you generate revenue? Second note. You don't need to defrag ext2 but if you wanted to manually use the tool that is provided. Third note: token ring support is part of standard RedHat distros.. Fourth note: Keep your dangerous ignorance to yourself.
From the patent:
If a computer can be booted only into an operating system that itself honors content rights, and allows only compliant applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within the machine can be assured. This stepping-stone to a secure operating system is sometimes called "Secure Boot." If secure boot cannot be assured, then whatever rights management system the secure OS provides, the computer can always be booted into an insecure operating system as a step to compromise it.
This can be seen as a response to MS agreeing to allow OEMs to produce dual-boot machines -- sure you can do a dual boot machine, but our OS will kick and scream as soon as it realizes that it's not the only thing on this machine, and you won't be able to run any media player (or anything with rights management built in -- like the next release of Word.)
You might not even be able to log in if it can't guarantee a clean boot.
Aside: makes one wonder how it will handle the pcode drivers in I20.
They also talk about needing a secret value from the hardware. So anyone wanting to turn off the CPU serial number won't be able to boot either.
Perhaps I'm misreading the patent application. It may be after log in that the rights management kicks in. Again, according to the patent, if an untrusted process tries to run while a trusted one is running the untrusted process will be killed. So, I try to start up my favourite Untrusted Player, the OS notices, also determines that WMP is running (it's always running, it's part of the OS), and refuses to launch my alternative player.
And then there is the question of how a software developer can get it's product trusted. A large cheque to MS, perhaps?
Look at all the fun things MS can do in the name of enhancing the user experience. Sure they'll agree to the consent decree, who cares what their contracts say when they can enforce the same policy in the actual OS.
I just turned off read access to all files on my hard drive, does this count and a DRM OS now?
I'd hate to not be compliant.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Microsoft came out against that law the (SSSCA). Jesus. It was Disney and Fox and other motion picture companies that backed the law. Virtually everyone in the tech industry balked at it. Including MS
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
nice job sucking all these people into this troll. some people on this site are not very smart.
This is good... it will create furhter roadblocks for any unified approach to DRM between the media conglomerates and the tech industry. Remember that the media conglomerates have not been jumping on the MS bandwagon... they want to be in control, not play second fiddle to MS. If MS has patents the media companies will distrust them even more...
Let's just hope those in government don't see fit to pass legislation mandating DRM in products...combined with this patent, that would give Microsoft not only their OS monopoly, but the ability to stop anyone foolish enough to try to challenge them.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
EXCELLENT troll. Ive never seen so may idiots jump on the trollwagon.
EggTroll huzzah to you. Good work.
.
Wait, Whats the motive for MS to do this? This will do one of two things. Either people will buy it or they won't. If people do buy it then MS is a monopoly, or people are real stupid. If people don't buy it then they will buy something else, which will kill the monopoly that they are protecting. Conclusion: Informed consumers kill monopolies.
Since there are no informed consumers out there, we are all screwed.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
from the patent application:
"and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock."
I wonder if it will keep trustworthy time, as opposed to the computer clock on my @#$*%X*^! Microsoft OS desktop at work.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
So if the government mandates DRM in all electronics, and Microsoft holds the patent on putting DRM in operating systems, that's pretty much the end of the road. Anything that uses an operating system (read anything that plugs into a wall these days) will have to go pay Microsoft for the right to exist.
Granted that's assuming that DRM requirements get passed which hopefull won't happen, but it is an interesting position for Microsoft to be in.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Phase 2-
Phase 3: Profit.
Computer:Greetings, citizen. Would you like to listen to some music?
Citizen:Yes, friend computer, I would.
Computer:...you are not of a sufficient authorization to listen to music. Report to the nearest termination station.
Citizen: Thank you, friend computer!
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Christina - she can sing, she's tall, reasonably intelligent, and prett.
Shakira can sing, but she's FAR TOO SHORT. 4 foot 11 inches, for god's sake!.
Britney's obnoxious white-trash who can't sing very well, and whose face looks half-melted.
DOS didn't have any networking code. The early lan stuff for DOS was NetBIOS/NetBEUI based. There were a couple of 3rd party TCP/IP vendors that supported DOS but none of them were M$. That's what you get when you take tech knowledge from a lawyer.
From: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46671,00 .html
An article on SSSCA:
"Unlike earlier drafts, this draft defers hugely to the private sector and the high-tech firms," Padden said. "In earlier drafts, the government just set a content protection standard. In this draft, the high-tech industry is given 18 months to negotiate with each other. It even provides the high-tech companies with antitrust exemptions."
Let me paraphrase: Microsoft has a patent on an OS that prevents a computer from booting anything but the "digital rights OS" Seems to me this would do away with dual boot PCs rather nicely.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Notwithstanding the merits of a DRMOS, isn't anybody vaguely concerned that Microsoft is trying to monopolise that field - especially when they are very unlikely to deliver it?
I mean, it has always been inevitable that the Recording industry (and the software industry) would begin to look at enforced (DMCA-style) IP-protection. What's new here is M$ claiming that it, and only it, should be capable of delivering that protection. To me, this sounds absurd, and I'm sure there must be truckloads of prior art demonstrating these concepts - NT has had process-protected memory spaces for a very long time, for instance. So do most other OSes.
At least for those of us who don't like DRM or the DMCA, M$ will not be able to deliver anything substantial...
- Malcolm
I don't see what the big hubbub is. If you don't like the OS, then you don't have to use it.
So you say, yeah, but Monopoly this, monopoly that, everybody develops for the monopoly, blah blah. My fellow Americans, if nobody buys it, the monopoly will stop selling it. After all, Big Blue was once seen as the oppressive monopoly, wasn't it?
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers [Princess Leia]
One of the named inventors on the patent, Butler Lampson, is a famed CS person who is noted in the Jargon File. Microsoft Research has all kinds of famous computer folk working there, including the inventor of Qsort, the author of VMS, the author of Turbo Pascal (now C#), and others.
Of course, this rights-management is all useless (as any informed antivirus software user can tell you) as long as users have the right to execute whatever code they want on their PCs. No software is safe from attack from an emulator. They'd have to make VMWare and Virtual PC illegal, and make flashing your computer's BIOS to a different BIOS illegal to actually have this work and stop any but the most casual practitioners.
Of course the way the legal system is acting as of late, that may not be too unrealistic a scenario :-(
o/~ Join us now and share the software
MS and A/V copyright owners have been working together for quite a while to get consumers under control and have now recruited hardware vendors. With the just announced inclusion of special chip-level circuitry in hardware (today DVD players; tomorrow processors, northbridge and southbridge chips, graphics controllers, IDE controllers, memory controllers, etc) that supports proprietary MS codecs, how long before we see systems that absolutely can't be tricked into letting us defeat increasingly restrictive copyrights?
Clever hacks and alternative operating systems may not be adequate to circumvent DMCA-protected hardware-implemented protection schemes when your DVD drive, your CPU, and your motherboard are all working against you.
Can this happen? Of course. All it takes is for a few companies like Intel, AMD, VIA, and others to quietly implement some security features that aren't visible.
In a few years, when all of the hardware we're using today is obsolete and in a landfill, your new system will have a new 200X speed DVD burner and a new 1.3THz Pentium VIII with 2Gb memory and a pair of 6.0Tbyte discs, all tied together with a new 4GHz 128-bit wide PCI-4 bus. You'll be able to get 75,000 frames per second on Quake14. Too bad that none of your old hardware will be compatible with your new system, but that's the price you pay for performance. You'll be happy.
Your new system will also have a bunch of security features built into the hardware that you're likely unaware of.
Shortly after most people have these new systems, some media company will begin producing products that utilize those security features you weren't aware of. Your old media will still play, but you'll want to see the new movies and hear the new music and they'll only play if all of the security features are in place and active. You won't be able to do anything that looks like capturing, recording, or reproducing content.
Will some consumers be unhappy? Sure. Will the media companies care about them? No. Will there be anything we can do about it then? Not likely.
Is this what anyone besides MS wants???
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
http://pythonisito.blogspot.com/
I believe I just heard the shot through through MS's foot.
Seriously, who would buy this when alternatives exist without restrictions, some of them free?
The x-box OS refuses to load executables which are
not signed by Microsoft. Even slightly patched programs won't run.
So I wonder if this behaviour fits the description of the patent as well. Unfortunately, the patent text can't be accessed using the link in the article. It has been blocked.
--- Eat my sig.
There is a cute little clause in the DMCA that makes it not so bad after all; a clause that slashdotters seem to forget in their haste to promote alternative softwares: all a tool has to do in order to survive against any legal assault with the DMCA is prove a substantial non-infringing use! It's that easy, and I can think of thousands of organizations, including governmental ones, that have NEVER used linux to pirate info. *obviously* it has a substantial noninfinging use!
Additionally, there is no way microsoft could force, by law, others to use thier patent without the government first either invalidating it or purchasing it!
Read jack phelps dot net
I am sooooo glad I have an Apple Macintosh with Mac OS X. Makes me a little impervious to M$'s $#!+!!!
And, if you take the trouble to read the description of how the whole thing works, it comes down to the fact that the CPU can authenticate itself over the network at runtime by using this private key that ONLY the CPU can access.
Now, I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything about Intel or AMD building public key / private key pairs into their CPUs. In fact, the whole Intel processor ID fiasco has probably scared them away from this area. Don't forget that this patent was filed in 1998, and was probably designed long before the PIII was released.
I think the most interesting thing about this is that it shows where Microsoft wanted to go in 1998 - they probably were working with Intel on the processor ID thing, and the next step would have been public / private keys to enable the design shown in this patent.
But it won't be happening anytime real soon. Unless maybe all those Pentium 4's out there actually have this as an unannounced feature. Unlikely, but possible - the P4 hyperthreading stuff was like that...
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Dirty Rotten Microsoft (kinda like DRI, get it?)
is a patent created by the GPL crowd which specifies and owns how all data content moves back and forth from one DRMOS to another, including, but not limited to tagging what data is trusted and not trusted.
.. not the networking.
Notice it only talks about the OS
DRM-SSH anyone?
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Only in the United States could this be happening. Why is there no counter from a megacorp? Maybe we can get the Dutch govt to step in, they seem fairly level headed.
It seems a lot of the posts here are concerned about getting "free" (as in beer) music.
I don't pirate music. I gladly pay (a reasonable amount... read: discount) for a CD with music I like.
I'm mostly afraid the music industry would require me to run a Microsoft OS to play the music I buy.
That would be almost as bad as the SSSCA.
You are a dumbass.
I have to go with answer "E", given the fact that your mother's already cum-filled pussy (from your ceaseless ravaging of her withered cunt) provides extra lube for my beef log.
Yeah, I just love the way her cum-crusted pussy lips flap loosely against my cock. You could drive a mac truck up in that shit. Come to think of it, your dad's anal action ain't half bad either. But I'll get to him after I'm done with your ma.
Hey, you got a sister? If her cunt is half as filled up with soggy giz loads as your asshole, I'm sure to have a spankin' good time with her too.
HAND.
Enough banter. It is obvious that something needs to be done about Microsoft. Lets start thinking of solutions instead of pointing out the same problems over and over again. We know that most Slashdotters do not use Window products, so boycotting them isn't going to do any good. And it's apparent that not even the government can handle Microsoft in court, so legislation isn't going to help. Perhaps more drastic measures are necessary?
Well, egg troll, while I don't agree with your cut and paste trolling method, I must give you full credit for being able to still get biters no matter how many times you post the exact same comments over and over again. When will you start doing impromptu trolls, so you can become truly adequate?
Every time I hear some news like this, my resolve to archive up all of the software I have now is renewed. I plan to upgrade as little as possible; at the moment, I can believe that my computer is more mine than Microsoft's (or anyone else's). It seems like it won't be like that for very long, and I can only wonder how many years it will be before my PC which I have control over is illiegal because of that fact.
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
What I can't understand is how they got the patent. Pretty much everything they describe is well known prior art from the area of multi-level secure operating systems. Those systems have (had? not sure if any multi-user systems of this ilk are still in use) the ability to authenticate multiple users, store multiple classes of information, expose information only to those users who were authorized by policy to see them, differentiated between the right to view and the right to print, prevented copying from one level of secure environment to a lesser (or different) level, and so on. What the MS patent claims is pretty much the same thing.
If you stretched all this out to its natural conclusion, one day Linux will become the only OS that still makes it possible to easily circumvent encryption and other methods of gaining free access to intellectual property.
Conceivably, the courts could then rule that Linux, desipite other useful utilities it might have (like some file swapping systems we know), is nothing but a tool for pirates and therefore needs to be stopped. Judges will start outlawing Linux kernels until they begin incorporating their own digitial rights management system. But I then wonder how Linux could get around this patent issue?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...but they can make it highly impractical -- and that's close enough.
Actually, this does bring up an interesting question. I'll betcha Microsoft is out there, posting FUD under Anonymous Cowards and fake identities. Anyone have concrete evidence?
:)
Why waste time working on conquering Software Libre on merits alone, when you can poison the community's message boards and frighten newbies looking for help. We [the majority, anyway] blindly assume that egg troll is actually a consultant, that he/she is posting in honesty, and even assume that he/she is actually a human.
Interesting attack on the Open Source/Free Software community. You just have to keep us from recognizing it.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
For some reason I'm reminded of Cold War Russia. I'm seeing our corporate run government employing many of the practices we once label "EVIL". I suppose that now we have the "Digital Curtain" and the "Redmond Wall". First we get a crippled OS that either lets us listen to RIAA approved WMA files *OR* we can debug our latest project, but never both. All because of some "protected" data. Its not a far cry to think that the next step will be information restriction. Imagine an OS that won't let you use non-approved data at all. Now we all know M$ won't give /. a digital signature so I guess we won't have anyplace left to complain. Funny that they will take away our first Amendment rights at the kernel level...
I think a couple of messages are missing the point and are asking, does this technology or the fact that 'Microsoft [bad]' would have this technology == an allowed monopoly? I don't think that is the question to ask. I think the question to ask is whether this patent would allow for a monopoly.
Without getting out my Barrett on Intellectual Property hornbook, generally: yes. It is well founded that a patent, with rights constitutionally provided, is essentially a de facto monopoly; there are no exceptions (unless the patent holder licenses the patent to another party, but still such a license is a demonstration of the monopolistic nature of patent law).
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
I know this is a troll, but I can't resist.
after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
This line alone is enough to convince me of the ignorance of your supposed "lawyers". It's blatantly false. Compiling something with gcc has NOTHING to do with the license you choose for the code. That would be like saying any documents you write in Star Office have to be released to the public because Star Office is GPLed (which BTW you could use that on the next revision of your troll).
Windows Digital Rights Electronic Access Management (tm)
...coming soon to a store near you
the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program
A message "Please wait while windows loads"
"Untrusted program "win.com" found, aborting load of XPDRMMPAARIAAOS"?
I can't wait for Disney to patent the word mouse and mice, so that in the near future we'll have to refer to these input devices as "Personal Rodent Indicating Contraptions"...
So, grab your P.R.I.C and visit disney.com!
:)
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Even if this patent doesn't let MS implement the 'We are the only legal OS' doomsday scenario, there's nothing saying that such a patent won't come in the future. And you KNOW that they want it.
Must pay royalties.
You are incorrect in your allegation that the government could not be sued for patent infringment. It actually happens now and then. Not often though, because the government purchases ip rights just like anyone else when they need to. What do you think provides the financial fuel to the military industrial complex?
Why do you think they have to purchase seat licences for Windows?
The answer is simple, because they are legally obligated to do so. If they do not the constitution itself provides for redress of grievences against the government. Trust me, MS would profer such griviences in the most strident terms. And have.
The government also collects its own patents, because if it did not it would be obligated to pay royalties to those that eventually patented the technology.
During the Manhatten project civilian workers were deemed to legally own all of their own ideas. The government thus issued a directive that all ideas, no matter how apparently trivial, were to be brought to the attention of the military command, and the federal government would pay them a dollar for each, so that IT held the ip rights.
You can find an amusing relating of how this worked in Feyman's autobiographical ramblings in " What do you Care what People Think?"
The book itself is a good read, and highly recommended even to a general audience, but the story in questiion is still highly relevant, as it relates to the ideas of obviousness of certain technological ideas. Feynman took the side that these ideas were so obvious they weren't patentable. Nonetheless, he ended up as the inventor of record of the nuclear power plant and the nuclear powered airplane. ( He also suggested the nuclear powered submarine as 'patently' obvious, but he dosn't get credit as inventor because someone else had already suggested it).
His relatings of his attempt to actually collect his dollar is extremely amusing as well. It seems the government didn't make any provision for, or believe it actually had to PAY the promised recompense. On principle Feynman wouldn't let them off the hook.
For that matter, any person who did not recieve their dollar would be fully within their rights to claim the patent as their own, as proper consideration was NOT in fact given, as required by the contract.
They could, in fact, have sued the government for patent infringment and insisted on royalties.
KFG
Don't tell Microsoft this, but if they kill the average user's ability to download free MP3s, then the average user is finally going to look around and realize that there exist other ways of doing things. I think this will push Joe "Hunt-n-Peck" Blow over that threshold to where he will actually make the effort necessary to install a Red-Hat partition. We can only hope Microsoft will take it that far.
My spoon is too big!
Anyways: You, sir, are obviously trolling. Your first post had a touch of subtlety, but in this one you have tripped yourself up.
I'd love to say that I like the occasional troll, but the truth is I don't. Please go away.
Dear Mr. Bin Laden,
Sometime ago, I wrote to you asking if you could please take care of Microsoft. Unfortunately you 'cared' for the wrong target _COUGH_ place. (I think New York is quite a long way away from Microsoft HQ). Please, please, please, could you consider taking care of Microsoft and Bill Gates? He is responsible for America's crimes against humanity and must be stopped at all costs. For example, his use of bribery and monopolising has forced his evil product to be installed on sacred religious computer systems in your land. He is also responsible for attempting to destroy the Internet by brainwashing his minions into using Microsoft protocols. Soon, as the American government plans to deploy the SSSCA (backed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Ass-holes of America) and backed secretly by Bill Gates himself) Microsoft will release its operating system to be compliant with this. Suddenly, almost overnight, the last little bits of freedom that America enjoys today will vanish. Speech will be un free and alternative operating systems (that do not comply with the closed specifications of the SSSCA that will only be disclosed to Microsoft) will be outlawed. Lucky for me, I don't live in America so I will wake up laughing with the rest of the world. However, seeing as they helped us out in WW2, I think we owe it to them to help them out with this.
PS. I have been practicing on (ironically) MS Flight Sim. and have learnt how to use most of the systems on the B767. If you are short of pilots to bomb Microsoft, I would be more than happy to help.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
hi,
well, this sounds an aweful lot like the DoD's trusted operating systems. just substitude varying security levels with varying digital rights' owners.
perhaps MS will be able to expand its monopolistic empire further into the gov't's graces by supplying trusted infrastructure systems beyond the red-black buondaries. *sigh*
sTc
Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?
Someone asked earlier why Apple isn't getting Quicktime onto DVD's along with .WMA and .WMV... well the reason is because Apples already read/write/author DVD's in their native format AND Microsoft is using this as a *BIG* power-grab in the *FUTURE* of DVD -- with the Digital Rights Management nexus running straight into Microsloth.
Oh, the tragic irony.
Microsoft merged with the Monopoly logo
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Why is everyone being so apologetic about being "paranoid"? You've heard the saying: "Just because your paranoid, don't mean they're not after you." Well, they are after you. Do you think that those in power have a final point at which they will be satiated, then decide to start doing good for humanity? NO. Those in power build more power to protect their power.
I don't think that those in power want to control your lives for the sake of it. You are all just chess pieces in a world-wide game of power. You are the grunts in Warcraft, the peons of THE biggest real-time strategy game. And to forget about the fact that you are slaves, you play real-time strategy games. The irony...
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Trouble is, the claims are tangled with each other and amazingly general, it seems- but the gist of it seems fairly clear. It's just a little hard to believe.
Has Microsoft successfully patented the _concept_ of 'trusted client', daft though that concept is?
I couldn't even begin to tell you whether that is good or bad (I mean, apart from the 'being able to not let any non-MS programs run on Windows' part). Any lawyers in the house care to give their interpretation on what MS actually got for themselves here?
Bill Gates: Dammit! Slashdot is about to take apart the DRM OS!
Picks up phone.
Bill Gates: Alert Bullmer! Tell him to put on his "Egg Troll" hat! It's time for some FUD!
Close Curtain.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I'll second this emotion... excellent work eggy. I'm currently working on a masterpiece myself. I was hoping to have it done by yesterday for troll tuesday, but I'll have to wait for next week. You see, I've been researching a disease known as "vagina" for many years now... and finally, I think I've been able to draw a conclusion. Linux use is possibly the most effective vaccine for the terrible affliction known as vagina. Looking forward to a peer review of my thesis next week...
Color flashing, thunder crashing, dynamite machines.
For the love of god man someone needs to put this down with prior art. While this is all referd to as DRM, really an secure OS will do preform most of these operations. As soons as someone jumps into any sort of debuging /trace mode the kernel falls into a insecure mode. I cant belive with all the secure OS resurch out there no such thing exists. Please dont let MS run away with this, we will have them suing us over secure Filesystems next.
Again, yes some of us DID read it. CPU ID's are not the only way this could work.
"Other physical implementations may include storing the key on an external device to which the main CPU has privileged access (where the stored secrets are inaccessible to arbitrary application or operating systems code)."
I believe a PCI card could be such an "external device". I also think one of those USB memory sticks could be made to meet that description, and would have the advantage of being portable. The concern is what constitutes "arbitrary application or operating systems code". M$ has already described Linux as a virus, not to big a leap from there.........
My favourite parts:
Hmmm.... so in other words, if somebody somewhere in Russia cracks GenericTrustedPlayer2002, and MS decides they don't like that program anymore... poof!
Funny, they didn't mention it on the back of the box as a feature... Luckily, I don't have a problem as I can currently choose not to use secure formats... wonder how long that will last?
My personal favourite. From what I've heard from MS business licences, they should have that ® symbol after "Easy-To-Change Licensing Terms", but I don't know much about that. All I know is that this "feature" allows people to change the cost of my DRM-ed rented movies while I've still got them! Great!
-Cruz
What we need is some devs to write some killer apps that refuse to run alongside any software lacking an 'open source' certificate.
Create a database of open source apps, with each OSS app 'trusting' all others, and mistrusting all proprietary apps.
If someone tries to run an open source app while a proprietary app is running, then pop up a window with propaganda like "Security Warning: You are running a proprietary application, which fails to comply with open software security standards. Click OK to close proprietary applications, or Cancel to quit this program."
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
This is crazy -- read this -- I love how they call it "features" :)
My favourite parts:
Hmmm.... so in other words, if somebody somewhere in Russia cracks GenericTrustedPlayer2002, and MS decides they don't like that program anymore... poof!Funny, they didn't mention it on the back of the box as a feature... Luckily, I don't have a problem as I can currently choose not to use secure formats... wonder how long that will last?
My personal favourite. From what I've heard from MS business licences, they should have that ® symbol after "Easy-To-Change Licensing Terms", but I don't know much about that. All I know is that this "feature" allows people to change the cost of my DRM-ed rented movies while I've still got them! Great!
-Cruz
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
> Fortunately, the move to open source and Linux is picking up speed.
This will stop when the DRMOS comes out, as it provides all the security governments want. The NSA will switch to Windows, and secure Linux will vanish.
-B
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
and there is the actual web page http://www.geekswithguns.com/
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You know, that's starting to sound like a really good analogy, even if it runs the risk of invoking a modified Godwin's Law (i.e., by making such an outrageous accusation, you officially lower the discussion to the level of flaming, so you lose).
I think it was here on slashdot that someone posted what I believe is a quote from "Alpha Centauri" (I never played the game, so I only know what I saw here). Ahem:
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free access to information is the only safeguard against tyranny.
The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information will soon burst with freedom and vitality, while the free nation gradually constricting its grip on free discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I just recently installed a copy of windows xp (corporate professional edition with volume license key--no registration required), and was trying it out with various pieces of hardware. (Un?)fortunatly, it appears that my main soundcard cannot work with XP, as it is a digital-only I/O card with unsigned windows 2000 drivers (m-audio dio2448). XP will actually install the drivers and load them fine, but the only sound the system will play is the windows shutdown sound! Not even the startup sound plays!! Back to using w2k for windows apps.... Ps: the XP dos-box sound blaster emulator sucks too, compared to vdmsound (GPL ntvdm sound blaster emulator).
Wrap the file into a VBS script, a Word macro or a screensaver. Feed it into Outlook and click...
One patent to rule them all
One patent to find them,
One patent to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
considering how general the patents that seem to be granted these days does Stallmans "The Right to Read" count as prior art?
l
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.htm
BTW, can we look at the "working example" of the DRM OS that must have accompanied the patent application?
Microsoft has a patent on an OS that prevents a computer from booting anything but the "digital rights OS" Seems to me this would do away with dual boot PCs rather nicely.
Taking this even further -- to completely guarantee the integrity of the data, don't you have to also prevent the user from removing the hard drive? I mean, the user could conceivably open up the box, pull the drive out, and put it in a machine with an insecure operating system. Bingo - compromised data.
There are just so many things wrong with this concept that it's difficult to know where to begin...
More like Micro$oft stealing the ideas of unix. Linux's GUI is the X window system, which PRE-DATES ms windows!!!
How does a digital rights management operating system differ from a secure operating system? Wouldn't the problems of protecting the information in a system with access to "Top Secret" information be the same as the problems of protecting the user from accessing data (video, audio, Ebooks) in a way the owner of the data prohibits? I would think the NSA, CIA and DoD would have already solved these problems or do those agencies just not use Microsoft products?
Not only is he trolling, he's reposting an old troll! I forget the article, but I know that I've seen this one before.
The sad fact is that the /. crowd is preaching to the choir. We know that M$ is the evil Borg empire ready to assimilate the world. The problem is that most, and I'm talking 95% of computer users, do not see this and blindly walk out of CompUSA, Best Buy, insert-your-favorite-PC-retailer-here with a computer that has the latest incarnation of the Windoze OS. Most do not know that there is anything other than Windoze and Mac. The others are into convenience. Their lives are stressful, and they do not want to tinker around with an OS that is perceived as hard-to-use (i.e. stressful). So, like cows to the slaughter, they buy the M$ crap and eat it with a smile. I want to see the M$ empire truly challenged with real competition from real OSs, like Linux and the BSDs, but the lawyers and lobbyists all work for the deep pockets and your representative only cares about whether or not his/her constituents feel safe. If an OS promises to eliminate encryption software, that as we all know is so prevalently used by Islamic extremist terrorists, then they will pass laws to ban any code that can do such a thing. If an OS says that it's secure (and has a multi-billion dollar marketing campain to prove it), then the public will feel that M$ is offering them digital protection from the digital bad guys in the world, and your representative will pass laws that make all other OSs illegal or that you will have to license patented, proprietary technology from M$ (which will not work with GPLd code, like Linux). Again, it's a sad situation.
It's odd that the software I trust the least to protect my assets (my work on the hard drive that I'd prefer a worm not eat) is trusted the most by the OS to protect someone else's assets.
We should rename the DRM acronym to more accurately reflect its real intent.
DRM = Digital Roach Motel.
Users can check in, but you CAN'T check out!!!
Here's a quick question:
What would prevent someone from installing Win-DRM on top of a VM running a different OS, then simply stealing the raw data from the DRM OS?
From the Patent:
COPYRIGHT NOTICE/PERMISSION
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. The following notice applies to the software and data as described below and in the drawings hereto: Copyright.COPYRGT. 1998, Microsoft Corporation, All Rights Reserved.
Now there's no chance in hell that any such thing as a DRM OS will ever make it to the marketplace.
Bush II is gonna be out of office come next election, I guarantee it. His father's fate will also his own.
Once this pro-trust administration has been unseated, the next one will not fail to prohibit Microsoft from extending its monopoly this way.
The DRM OS will then die a deserved death, rotting in Microsoft's patent portfolio.
Edith Keeler Must Die
This gives a whole new meaning to the error message:
"Program shut down because it perform an illegal operation"
Ahh, I was sure this day was bound to come sooner or later! This is the beginning of the end for the Dinosaur monopolies and cartels that control this country, and so some respect, the world. Who do you think built the culture we have, that already allows us to be bullied this way? Well if you're 20-something like myself, you can safely point the blame in the direction of your grandparents' and great-grandparents' generations.My grandma's only 65, but its obvious she doesn't have as much power in the world as she used to. This is also true with many large corporations. The people who built these vast empires are trying to pass on their ideology, because they want to perpetuate what they've created, long after they are dead. Then we have my generation, which will inherit the earth in the next 10-20 years. Who bitches the most about our freedoms being taken away? Fairly young people. Anyone ove 40 in here who gets the big picture? You? Great, you're one of us, grab a beer. You see, these megalocomglomerates absoluately do have a huge amount of influence on Capitol Hill. Anyone disagree? You're wrong, its a fact. Now take a look at the cut-throat capitalistic society that we live in (here in the U.S.). These are not what ails our society, but are merely a symton of what does. Times have radically changed in my short lifetime, and the world has moved on, infortunately the masses don't get to move along with it. Just look at the technological marvels in the last 50 years! We've made a quantum leap in the last century. The problem is that public mindset (or the powers that influence it) have not caught up. Thus, the ruling parties in this country are still stuck in an old paradigm that cannot stablally exist in our now technological (and intellectual) status. We are at a time of imbalance, where either our technogical wealth will be used to enslave us (overly dramatic maybe, but you get the idea) if the old ruling class retains power. Or, a new social paradigm develops and gains control, and our technological weath is actually put to work for the masses.
This is just another attempt by the aging ruling-class, in order to better guarantee thier ongoing control. However, they play a big risk here by bringing this neo-civil war into the public eye, and unless they can keep the masses under thier thumb, they will lose public support (they being the evil corporations and the currupt government), and well, some sort of skirmish for domination is almost a foregone conclusion.
I think this newest step by the powers that be is a great thing, because it forces the issue, and there are reasonable alternatives already in existance. As many have said, information demands to be free, and you know what, its never failed to find a way yet. Hopefully true freedom can again be attained when our terribly corrupt government is exposed for what it is, and the public actually dares to do something about it.
Hmm, too bad the government has the military on thier side...
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
I don't understand why Microsoft would want to build such an OS. I mean, OSes are bought be consumers for their features. Providing features that the majority of users want should drive Microsoft's new OS designs because this would sell more copies. Why build an OS that restricts features users want?
This same debate is played out in hardware too. DVD players are a good example. It's to a DVD player manufacturer's advantage to provide easy cirumventation of region codes.
So why would MS do this? What's their motivation?
It looks like the patent covers a specific approach to DRM at the OS level.
In theory, another approach could be for the kernel to relinquish control of certain pages of memory to a user-level app, removing them from the kernel's VM subsystem altogether. The app could manage those pages using direct bios calls. Since the kernel has no access to those pages, other apps running on top of the kernel couldn't acesss them either. The kernel could wipe the pages when the program exits.
It's possible that this a hairbrained idea since I don't know much about kernels other than what I learned in school (CS LaTech 1998) but maybe not.
Also, does anyone else have any ideas about how to implement DRM (or more generally - protected memory) outside of the MS way?
Note that BoycottXP did a story a while back on MS violating another company's patents with DRM. Seems like this may be either a) A buy-out of that company or b) a way around that patent. As far as I can tell, the patents are the same thing.
We [the majority, anyway] blindly assume that egg troll is actually a consultant, that he/she is posting in honesty, and even assume that he/she is actually a human.
Actually, Trelane, many of us know that egg troll is simply Trolling in this case. A pure, unadulterated Troll, crafted and posted for no purpose other that to get bites. There isn't one shred of truth or sincerity in its entirety.
I'm surprised, given your UID, that you didn't see that.
a) A new act is on its way that requires any digital device to have Digital Rights Management.
b) MicroSoft is granted a patent on Digital Rights Management in Operating Systems, and thus for any programmable digital device.
Does this sound just a bit like MS just bought themeselves totalitarian authority over Corporate States of America?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The SSSCA itself is unconstitutional. The argument is plain and simple.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
So, the government has the exclusive right to secure copyright. Enforcing copyright? Nope. If you look at Paragraph 401 of US Copyright Law, 1978, the owner of the copyright is required to initiate enforcement of the copyright by issuing some kind of declaration of infraction.
Plain and simple...the government cannot aid in the enforcement of a copyright UNTIL the enforcement has been begun by the copyright owner.
Now, relating this to Microsoft and their "DRM OS," there's nothing that says that some 3rd party can't aid in enforcing the copyright. HOWEVER, depending on how you interpret the law, the forced limitation on copyrighted material DOES infringe on the definition of "ownership."
As it's been said by now, according to Copyright Law, the ownership of a copyright and the ownership of the copyrighted material are mutually exclusive. Anotherwords, the ownership of a copyright DOES NOT INCLUDE ownership of the copyrighted material IN ANY WAY (Para. 202). Microsoft's limitation through digital encryption of the material when the material is owned by someone other than Microsoft directly conflicts with Para. 202.
A good example: say I purchase a book to read from a bookstore, but the book print is too small. I then go to Target to purchase a magnifying lamp so I can read the book. Microsoft is basically trying to say that it would be illegial for me to use the reading lamp to read the book unless the reading lamp was purchased from Microsoft itself.
Sorry, Microsoft, but if I own the music, I OWN the music. Your limitation of my EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP of the music is illegal.
Uh... bullshit. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, the latest Media Player will play any MP3 you want. If you install a third party MP3 encoder, it'll encode any MP3 you want at any data rate the encoder supports. Might want to recheck the facts there.
/., and that it tends to be done rather blindly without a full understanding of the facts. I freely admit that I haven't got all the answers. I'm just noticing a trend, between DeCSS, the DMCA, and MS's sleazy tactics, that media is being regulated more than ever, and MS is among those on the front lines, ready to cash in.
/. about WinXP's license verification system not letting users make more than a certain number of changes to their computers, within days there were cracks available. Where there are restrictions, there are usually ways around them, at least technologically. And they're pretty readily available.
:)
Ah, yes. I looked it up, and found this article which seems to verify your claim, such as it is. It does seem, though, that Microsoft is making it more difficult for users to do this. Of course, most MP3 junkies tend to be technically savvy enough to pull it off. And seeing as how the only article I found was a post on an opinions board, it may be a very simple matter.
The point of my post was to indicate that MS seems to be moving closer and closer to regulating the behavior of its customers in a way that seems characteristic of a legal institution. This reply is very true, though, as MS's power appears to be coming largely from the people who are allowing more restrictions to be put in place.
Honestly, I realize that demonizing Microsoft is nothing new to
It's not really Microsoft that's the main problem, admittedly. It's the whole notion of property, ownership, and copyright getting way out of hand, combined with many people's tendencies to go to whatever means they can to acquire more of what they want. Thankfully, though, if enough people want more freedom from media restrictions (which, incidentally, aren't all that extensive yet. I still have a sizeable MP3 collection, and it continues to grow), they have the power to take action.
As soon as the story was posted on
So maybe it's not such a sturm und drang story after all
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
No, a PCI card would not work. USB would be even worse - all you have to do is hook up a bunch of logic probes and you can read the "secret" numbers right off the wires. This isn't really difficult to do - although I suppose under the DMCA this would make logic analyzers "illegal circumvention devices". Hah.
The private key would have to be either burned into the CPU itself (just like the multiplier settings are) or possibly embedded into a separate chip sitting close to the CPU, and the whole thing covered with epoxy.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
As a matter fact, Microsoft Lan Manager (DOS based) had a TCP/IP stack.
I've supported hardware generated 'keys' for a long time now.
I think that taking things such as CPU temp, firmware numbers, bios version number, RAM size [free or total] to create a 'key' would be nice. Other dynamic numbers such as cpu usage, disk throughput, computer uptime, etc would be great to create a secret key. [and even help create a public key]
But! They must be removable, via disk or a card [credit card or memory stick]. And it can't be authored by someone who would possible 'phone home' with the key. M$ is known for phoning home with some of it's apps and controlling things in your PC that you don't want them to control.
Ever installed IE? It goes to MSN right away. We have no idea what type of information they are sending because no one can see the code. There isn't an option of turning this off. You get your home page back next time - but it is too late. Ever went to hotmail.com on a pc that has MSN Mes.? Why is it that the program shows up in your system tray only seconds later? I never started it!
My point is, this is a great idea in theory. I would like a system that lets people buy software or media online. This is something that we all want. It is possible to stream full length movies to broadband users. Netbroadcaster.com [pop up city] has movies such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "Refeer Maddness", classics that someone would be willing to pay a few bucks to watch [you work out the business model]. It's possible.
The problem is, no one is moving towards formats that work [divx;-)] because they aren't going to cash in. No effort is being made towards being open.
But in practice we all know that this system will keep you from backing up any type of media or software that you like - keep down artists that don't sign with ??AA companies and so on.
It's not about DRM, it's about control. If this system is implemented I hope we don't ever pay for computers again. Why should we, we will pay through the nose just to use it - even though we won't be able to control a thing.
So when this whole thing comes out beware of this simple saying:
"All your OS are belong to us"
Get your Unix fortune now!
I read up on the other comments and knew that it was a troll. I just had an interesting idea [the posting in order to poison the data] and wanted to see what other people thought.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
This is the world we all want, isn't it?
Given Microsoft's past behaviour, we would expect them to clutch this patent VERY tightly.
So, law is passed making it mandatory that only DRM OSes can be sold - therefore, you must buy Windows DRM.
Microsoft has now painted itself into a corner, where there is no way to dispute their monopoly status -- therefore, they MUST act in the public interest, etc, at all times. Sure, Microsoft would be everywhere, but for how long, and at what cost?
As to what alternatives there are... oh, Linux, perhaps?
With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
Take games for instance. They install the entire content of a CD onto the machine, with no option to minimize installed files, yet, requires the CD to be in for playing.
Or lets look at movies. Isnt it annoying when the rest of the world gets to watch a movie when you have to wait an additional 6 months, simply because you dont live in the popular zone? Or perhaps it didnt sell to well in the other zones and they (big bad sony?) decides its not worth selling in your zone.
Or how about the case of ebooks? The legal way provides no ways for blind to read them. Or for that matter, perhaps it restricts you from printing it out to take to the mens/ladies room.
Now, it used to be illegal for companies to put this type of restrictions on intellectual property. Thank god it isnt like that anymore huh? Now, companies can buy a law if the current ones doesnt suit them. I mean, its not like the government has to care about the little guys. The silent majority that will never complain.. or at least, not many enough. Wee....
I support piracy 100%. I support it because I know that companies will not give me, a user, any good alternaltive, whileas a pirated copy most likely will be possible to use in all the ways I want to use it. Why cant I pay for it at the same time? Well, look at my problem...
I have a big mp3 collection. Now, I do believe artists are entitled to profit from their work. However, to be able to do this legally, I have to get out (eeek), stand in the rain for 40 minutes waiting for the never coming public transit, walk 20 minutes to the record shop that might have the song I want, then buy it together with tons of other songs, pluss I have to pay for the price of the CD. Then I have to get home before the last bus leaves.
Now, instead of doing it the legal way.. i can simply download it in 1 minute, while being all dry, and being able to use it anywhere, on my computer, on CD, anywhere. And it only took me a minute. Now, which method is the best?
Ok? But why not support the initiatives from RIAA to do legal online services? Well, there's a number of reasons here.
-
They want to charge the exact same thing as you would pay for CD's, ie, you would pay a nonexisting expense.
-
I dont recall the link but I heard they said the p2p technology was very important for this. Does this imply they taking adventage of regular peoples bandwidth for their services? I think that's a fucking ripoff, pardon my spanish.
-
All initiatives at this suggests a restricted format, which is severely limited in what you can do with. This is the main reason I do not like CD's, I think this is simply reinventing the whe^H^H^Hmistake.
Obviously, I dont like any of this. And untill they change their stand on all those 3 points above (And yes, I do realize this would more easily allow piracy, but its the only way I will accept it), I will continue my public support for piracy and help those who needs help with it.The same arguments pretty much goes for movies as well. Apart that I do not mind the DVD disc, I think it provides something in decent quality compared to what it costs. The main problems here are restrictions (now useless restrictions, but they still seem to stick with them) on the format, and in that, zone restrictions. People should be able to view DVDs from all zones. Waiting 6 months for a movie to be released in another zone if the company decides to release the movie at all is just bullshit. That's not how it should work.
For games, Im more positive to restrictions. But just find a better way than by requring an otherwise useless CD to be in the drive. That has been cracked in every single game ever released, I dont know why they keep doing it. I mean, its just an annoying thing, nothing that prevents piracy at all. Do you hear me game developers? Find a better way!!
But seriously, do we want to live in a world heading more and more towards this. Where media and software corporations buys all the laws they want, where the little man has nothing he should have said? Where the little girl is taught at school that this is a good thing (Yes, this is already happening)?
So, anyone agree with the way it's going? Ok, everyone agreeing stay silent? Wow.. seems like we've got a majority here. Now you're mad at me, and will reply that you use Linux (or FreeBSD or another free os). But this isnt enough. This is passive support. Only active support, and a lot of it, will make this problem go away. And as we can see, trying to battle such insanities in the courtroom (refering to the case of eff vs dmca), will just end with judges laughing in our faces. We need to find a better way of getting the point through.
I've noticed one thing curiously missing from the discussion surrounding digital rights management. What are, in the industry's eyes, the rights of the consumer? Everything I've seen about digital rights management suggests that the only rights being protected are those of the content owners. I think it would be fascinating to see a direct answer from the industry in response to this question.
One would expect, that DRM would bring significant new opportunities for the consumer; lower prices, perhaps, or the ability to share content with friends in a limited and fair way.
The DRM proposals I've seen thus far don't provide any new abilities for the consumer, though, and are therefore destined for failure since they represent a downgrade from current abilities at the same (or higher) prices. As the market continues to vote with its money for non-restricted media, I'd expect that the attempts to distort the actions of the market through legislation will become ever-increasingly shrill.
So microsoft paid all of these "really major people" to work on something that is useless.
Secure against who, users?
Quick buy your guns now before you can't have those either!!!!!!!!
Microsoft, in a bid today to control the Evil market into the future, has filed for a patent on so called EvilOS technology.
Industry leaders and Open Source activists alike have decried the patent as unfairly perpetuating Microsoft's illegal monopoly in the Operating Systems market. "Evil is set become a very important feature in operating systems of the Twenty First Century, and by getting this patent, Microsoft has effectivly locked competitors, such as the free Linux Operating System, out of the market", said Eric S Raymond, leader of the Open Source Initiative.
The Electronic Founteers Foundation has called for technologists to search "prior art," or implementations of Evil in operating system design prior to Microsoft's, in an attempt to challenge this patent in court.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer countered critics by saying: "Microsoft has always been a leader in Evil and Operating Systems, we were the first to innovate Operating Systems to have Evil built in, and so it is only fair that we should be granted this patent. That's the American Way."
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''I think it's pretty safe to say that Microsoft is acctually being run by the illuminati...
I still can't believe that things like this get patented. Wiping and protecting memory isn't a new idea. Although I guess preventing me from loading cool edit while a cd app is running is new. Won't that be annoying...
Sorries - I'm a new poster - and /. account info does not come to my work email.
So I'll just be a coward for now....
From what I can see, the idea is that "content owners" get free use of your system resources to uphold their copywrite. I dunno about you, but I sure don't feel like giving time on my system to content owners for free.
As far as I'm concerned, if they want to use cycles on MY system that I PAID FOR and OWN for their own use, they can pay me. In this care, MS would probably owe me money because they chose to act as a proxy.
Ah, as we can see, the Gnomes of South Park have finally finished their great work...
Once again proving that the creators of South Park are both visionaries and masters of the finer art of cut-throat business practices...
1. Underpants.
2. ???
3. $$$
clearly, "underpants" is actually a not so well disguised metaphor: get up close and personal with the lawmakers (not to mention lawyers, Ashcroft, and the DOJ, the great dirty underpants of the USA).
Step 2, '???', should have been obvious, as we all know that the patent office is completely incomprehensible.
and of course, step 3 follows...
If we have digital intellectual property rights it seems entirely reasonable that companies go out of their way to protect theirs and that other companies provide what is needed to enable them to do that (and protect their own ability to do that as well - hence the patent). I don't see any alternative besides (1) abolishing digital IP or (2) having the government manage digital property rights. Both seem scary to me.
-- SIGFPE
Even what the DMCA says isn't as bad as how the DMCA is applied. I can name you half a dozen Linux DVD players that rely on DeCSS code; did that make any difference in the courts?
I am sure that we can find some prior art that would invalidate the patent...
I for one have DRM on a chip tied to hardware in 1998
As well as a lot of work on DRM at the per play level of file access that communicates on a per play fee.
Just a thought
why wasn't mp3 disabled in windows xp...? i heard all sorts of nasty rumors that it would either be severely crippled, or disabled altogether.
at any rate... it's forward-looking patents like these that help strengthen my fondness for my macintosh.
Of course a patent creates a monopoly. It's just that most patents don't have a corresponding law saying "all foos must implement the technology described in this patent".
The shareholder is always right.
This seems like Ford patenting cars that won't speed and then proceding to manufacture them. Granted, M$ is trying to attract content providers and thereby attract consumers. However, they're making it illegal for WINE et al. to implement their protections, so WINE will be legally forced to implement fake DRM library/system calls. I assume the DMCA still allows reverse-engineering for compatability purposes.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
You see, now that the DMCA is law, they don't have to bother with this anymore. They don't have to have real secure hardware, or secure software. They just have to implement some half-assed, weak, pathetic attempt at security, and then sue the hell out of anyone who points out how pathetic and weak it is... Much more convenient then doing real security!
Here's my prediction of what will really happen with all this crap.
The government will extend the DMCA in a direction similar to that proposed by the SSSCA, but since that was clearly insane and would have made Linux and BSD illegal, they will "compromise".
The "compromise" will be that people can either (a) run "Digital Rights Management Compliant" operating systems from Microsoft, Apple, and maybe a few others, or (b) Get a license to run a "non-Certified" operating system. Getting the license will put you in a big database. Your IP address will be tracked. The government will get away with this because they will point out that only a small percentage of computer users will need to get licensed, and most of those will actually be ISP's running Linux servers.
Besides the ISP's and other companies, the only individuals needing licenses will be a few thousand software developers, and a small number of computer "hobbyists".
Microsoft will love this because it will be a huge obstacle to Linux on the desktop, counterbalancing the cost of Microsoft. People will think: So what would happen?
A bunch of Linux users would leave the US. A lot of them would get licensed. A lot of them would give up Linux and go back to MS or Apple. And Microsoft would win.
That's my nightmare scenario, anyway.
.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
What does a secure version of Linux have to do with DRM? Totally different things as far as I can tell.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ever installed IE?
No, not on purpose.
This is very scary. Some people might say that it is protecting illegal pirating, but who's to say that Microsoft wont use it to further create a monopoly by either declaring competing software "ilegal" or just making it hard as all heck to install it.
What is even scarier is that they've had time to work on application of this "protection" since it was filled in January of 1999, giving them almost two years to design an implementation. Kind of scarry
--theKiyote
You can do DRM in an Open Source way, such that OSS software could be allowed to copy a data stream from the network and put it on a device, and despite the full access to the source code it is impossible to use that data stream for any other purpose. This will be *WAY* harder to crack than what MSoft is proposing, the people who want DRM should realize that MSoft will sell "source code" as well, harder to read, but somebody with the right resources can still decode the instructions and chips. It is a lot safer to make a design that assummes the user can read the source.
What is done is you use public/private key encryption. A new DRM display or speaker has this device embedded in epoxy at a very late point. The device has a *fully documented* interface and takes a digital stream input and processes it and puts it on the display, it also has an interface that outputs the public key. Getting the private key would require smashing the device to the point that it is inoperable, so would any attempts to remove this device and insert a home- built one. The device could also have a settable clock imbedded and a random number generator that cannot be set.
A company that wants to send you content that you can only display on your device would request the key. Open source software can read the key and send it. It can also lie and send any key it wants to, but that is pretty useless because you will just get data you cannot use. The provider then checks the key against a trusted central manufacturer database to make sure it is not a fake key by somebody who built their home-brew device. The provider would then send the encrypted data. Open-source software can store the data or send it to the device.
If they want to limit the time they can look at it, the encoded data includes a clock range and the random key. It must match. If you try to reset the clock (this must be allowed because the power might fail, and the provider wants the clock to be at a time in the future) the random number will change. You will have to request the data again, sending the old one (the provider also cannot decode it, but may have a header encoded with their own keys containing the data checksum and the clock you asked for before).
Obviously this system has lots of "fair use" infringements, but it would work, and in fact is probably much more in the interests of the digital content providers. MicroSoft's "solution" is 100% designed to further their own interests. They are as willing to screw the RIAA as to screw the users, you know.
maybe it'll work just as well as the drm demos at the debut of ms's reader 2.0. the software crashed hard twice on the handheld, once on the laptop. flop sweat was flying.
You have the right to remain silent...
Do you really want to pick up that new Brittney Spears CD or watch that new NBC sitcom. Come on people this stuff is making us brain dead. Lets keep making Linux and BSD better and better and just forget about what Microflush is trying to push us to use.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
nuff said.
The problem is, in one sense, it seems totally fair that Microsoft should be able to create a "DRM" controlled OS, and that people who don't mind using such an OS should be able to buy and use it along with all the products that are available on it.
In another sense it seems just as fair that other people create free OS's and do what they like with them (like Linux). These "free" OS's would tend to create emulators and "compatability layers" for other OS's like Microsoft's. (example: Wine et al)
Now, what happens when Linux users start porting DRM protected apps from MS's "safe" OS to Linux and Wine, and some (or a lot) of those users also start distributing these products free and running them on Wine (or something similar) without paying for them or adhering to any other rules imposed.
Some would argue, that this is all perfectly fair, and part of the free market system. MS is free to create DRM technology and other coders to reverse engineer it (and in some cases) not pay for the content.
Others would argue(at least we hackers fear) that this is completely unfair, and that Linux should not even exist because of it's ability to "hack" (in this case hack meaning to take apart and understand) other systems. The fact remains, if freedom of thought, freedom to create is allowed, then DRM can never stand. This has been established again and again by cryptographers.
So, the dilemma remains. Do we give up copyright laws? Or do we give up our personal freedoms?
To my young naive mind, it appears that digital copyright has never worked, at least not in a strict sense. After all, I downloaded my first "cracked" game when I was 6 years old. (for an Apple IIe no less) It was the same year I got my first computer. I also fear the 80's and 90's showed me nothing better. Of course this is the same period in which the tech sector became a major force, and Bill Gates made 30 billion dollars... Some of this may have been due to a catch up game going on between producers and consumers, but I haven't seen signs of it letting up.
If there was one fault with this time period it was a lack of actual copyright enforcement. My friends who did drugs had run-ins with the cops, but I never once received a reprimand for downloading games.
So, why extend copyright? Do we need to pass more laws for everyone and his dog to disobey? I didn't see whole business sectors failing(that weren't obsolete) or massive down turns in the economy. So if copyright holders would ask for more than mere enforcement of the classical copyright law, I think the burden of proof lies with them to show that personal freedoms will not be infringed under such a system, and that they will actually have some effect on the "piracy problem".
All I see the new copyright laws doing today is stopping competition and stopping creativity. They certainly don't seem to have affected the warez channels.
Did Tony Hoare write QBasic as well as Qsort?
This is getting stupid... I am tired of coporations like MS putting rules and regs on 'my' data. Not only that, reserving the right to look into my 'personal' computer. I couldn't give a crap about .NET, office xp, or the latest game (more of the same). Tell me, somebody please tell me why I should bother investing anymore money in the wintel monopoly (that includes AMD). It's time to cut damn platform loose (x86/windows). I'm not waiting for Linux to catch up to the 'desktop', I need to get my work done now and my free time is valuable. Taking into account Apple's wisdom on how they handle mp3s and how easily they make DVD buring. Does anyone have to look any further for a platform that will allow you the freedom to do what you want with digital media? My advice to the masses is to get off the cheap PC crack and INVEST in a computing solution that is there to serve you, not vice versa. My PII 400 run W2K (what im typing this on) is almost 4 YEARS old and it probably has a few more years in it. My 600 Mhz Alpha is older than that and it STILL kicks ass. Where do you kids get this money from to blow on 2GHz machines to play Quake a little faster? Point is, buy a damn computer, build it well, and stick with it. You wanna break MS's back? Start buying macs and buying mac software from companies that don't include MS. If you just can't avoid it BUY MS office for the mac (you already have IE). You don't need anything else to talk with the rest of the world and there's always PDF. Also let me point out that MAC is the ONLY other platform you can buy office for. Linux is great and Linux has lots of potential though I fear that someone will have to resurrect the long lost art of 'cat hearding' for it to reach any serious goal.
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
I don't think it's possible for anybody to "sacrifice" _fewer_ virgins than I have this year... :-/
Freedom: "I won't!"
we can't implement digital rights managment in (insert free os name here) because MS holds the patent. Sorry.
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
looks like somebody forgot to check the 'Post Anonymously' box . . .
I was under the impression that government work could never be patented at all since it is funded by tax payers.
Prior art does not have to refer to a prior patent. It can refer to any prior application of a process. Application of a new and useful process by the government before anybody applies for a patent on the process places the process in the public domain.
Government-funded research often produces patents that are auctioned off to the highest bidder. Sad but true.
Will I retire or break 10K?
As the market continues to vote with its money for non-restricted media, I'd expect that the attempts to distort the actions of the market through legislation will become ever-increasingly shrill.
Wow. I didn't think I'd ever consider the use of legislation to regulate "the market" to be a BAD thing. Even Adam Smith noted (quite vigorously) that government would have to use laws to restrict market forces (eg. disallowing monopolies) and thus prevent exploitation of both the workers and customers.
Freedom: "I won't!"
What does a secure version of Linux have to do with DRM? Totally different things as far as I can tell.
s/copyrighted/classified/ in Microsoft's DRM proposal and you have a DRM system more along the lines of what the NSA would create.
Will I retire or break 10K?
We've already lost most of the Bill of Rights. Much more and I'll be leaving.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Only that wouldn't work because as long as you can read a file, you can duplicate it.
Then turn off 'read', and make the playing of media files dependent on the 'execute' bit, as it is in UNIX systems with Perl scripts, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Either:
or
Personally, I'd rather see the first choice, I'd LOVE to these these jerks get knocked on their ass profit wise for this kind of garbage.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
If Microsoft can get the DRMOS thing going, and then ensure that only Microsoft operating systems can access MS Office file formats... spooky...
Well, maybe not. It basically means one of two things:
1) If the majority of other people you work with use MS Office, then you pretty much have to forsake any other operating system to use their files (unless they give Mac special priviledges or something)...
2) The whole world falls in love with "Save As XML " and the proprietary Microsoft file formats become obsolete...
Taking bets on which one?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
I don't see this as a big issue.
Look. The data is stored on your computer. On your HARD DRIVE. Even if they encrypt the drive, your memory is zeroed on powerdown. So the keys are either on your harddrive, or readily transferrable to your computer via a network connection, etc.
I don't care how much software or hardware protection is on that system, it can't tell me from "the system" if I feed it the correct bits.
If the keys must be downloaded, you just write a dummy app for linux, plug in an old computer, and download the keys that way.
The you pull out your DRM harddrive, and plug the cable in the back into an old computer. "Obsolete hardware dissapears" you say? I still have an 8088 in the basement. Slow. Inefficient. But it can still read 40-pin IDE cable. Enough to get the job done. And then I'll just read the whole drive in, flip whatever bits I want, and flush the drive back, DRM disabled.
Then I will just plug the drive back in, and the computer won't be able to tell that I disabled it's security.
Remember: You are able to view the material on the harddrive, through some "Trusted" app. (Otherwise, why would it be on your harddrive?) Therefore, at some point, it MUST be decryptable. And no algorithm can't be reproduced, given enough time, on a system not "intended" to run it (DeCSS? SDMI hack? Now DRM-ripping? Why not?)
is that the useless government that we have may require that all systems be "secure". Since Microsoft holds the patent to such a system (from their corporation-worshipping perspective), it would not be far-fetched for other OSes to thus become outlawed.
Can anyone say Prior Art???
Digital Rights Management? Isn't that what security in any OS is about?
Only goes to show how horrendously foolish the U.S. government really is, making such a mistake as to grant such a patent to the largest and most monopolistic corporation in the world. (Well, maybe not foolish, just totally for corporate interest, instead of protecting the rights of their citizens first.)
Microsoft put the clamps on PC users so tightly that it changed what a lot of people wanted from a PC (then Linux took off). RIAA, MPAA, and (um) Microsoft are putting the clamps on digital entertainment so tightly that it seems to be changing what a lot of people (well ok, maybe just "I") want for entertainment.
What is the first principle of engineering psychology (or interface design if I prefer)?
The first principle of engineering psychology is you do NOT talk about engineering psychology!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled trolls, crapfloods, and holy wars. That is all.
They that would sacrifice their
I dislike this attitude, for many reasons.
1) Perhaps they are famously rich. So? Are they suddenly less-worthy as citizens, or as humans, if they are?
2) In the past, it was more difficult to distribute copies of a work. Some that weren't difficult (like audio tapes) had a built-in failsafe: after enough copies, the media wore out, or the quality degenerated after so many generations. Thus, the originators of the work sold more "genuine" copies, and became famously rich. If you take away the ability of the originators to become "famously rich"--or at least generate some money--they have no incentive to produce work outside of the goodness of their hearts.
3) Human goodness is remarkably scarce and short-lived when found. I don't care to depend on it too much.
Don't misunderstand, this is not to say that DRM isn't onerous: I only want to point out that the relative wealth of one of the parties is *NOT* a factor in the decision-making.
Or, at least, it *shouldn't* be.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Tell me, has there been in history of computers any product that has succeeded in the long term based on copy protection mechanisms? Not because of hackers, but because competition came out that permitted the users to use the software as they desired. Microsoft Excel vs. Lotus 123.
These products have no inherent value. If people don't get value by purchasing them, but rather lose value due to restrictions, there is absolutely no value, not even counting inherent. Give the XP signup about a year before the s### hits the fan, as people try reinstalling, or upgrading, or MS decides not to support it anymore.
I suspect that as more and more people get pissed off at the loss of usage rights, they will do a few things, including:
1. stop buying music
2. stop buying dvd or movies.
3. stop buying microsoft software and os'
Hence, the title.
Derek
Why would any government want to manage its affairs using computers over which a third party maintained complete control?
To sum, this OS plus secure hardware implementation can hide, make invisible, one process from another. To hear them speak of it, it sounds like they are (oh so generously) only assisting the financially beleagured content industry (music, et al) from the rampages of brutish hacker pirate outlaws. That's a deserves a rant of it's own. But think about this. They are talking about this like their simply protecting data. Well, as we all know, there's a special form of data called a program. I.E. - such an OS could completely obscure the very existance of this or that program. You could never really know what your OS was up to.
Now couple this with a secure network communication protocol. Kind of gives spyware a whole new meaning now, doesn't it?
And the United States government should pass some laws to help make this all possible. Will someone up on the hill, a lot of someones, please get clued in about this shit?!
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Not necessarily. There is code out there to post to slahdot automatically. Someone wrote it to automate "first post" attempts.
Has anyone noticed that this patent is almost 3 years old? It seems that freedom-lovers are about 2 steps behind the forces of evi...um, MSFT.
They developed Windows NT completely from scratch in 4 years. In this case, it wouldn't be anywhere near as hard for them to modify the NT Kernel to have DRM in it as it would be to write a new kernel from scratch (which, given Windows's history, would be the right thing to do; therefore MSFT hasn't done it).
In short, it may be too late. There may already be a working build of DRM-enabled Windows {Longhorn or Blackcomb or (insert codename of other Windows beta here)}.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
They may have been major, famous people in the past, but IMHO their actions on this patent have shown them to be unethical CS practitioners in the here-and-now. So I would have to say that any respect I would have had for the inventor of qsort, etc., etc., is now gone. Not to mention that I could have told them that they needed Secure Boot as well as complete hardware control to get their mad scheme to ever work - this is not rocket science at all. Although it is on par with some of the dumb ideas that I see people at my place of employment patenting :)
Now if I ever see Knuth's name on a DRM patent, then that will truly be the Day the Hacking Died :(
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
- Install DRM OS and place desired digital media files on the HD.
- Remove HD and attach to standard Linux PC.
- dd if=/dev/hdb of=/root/hdbimage bs=512 count=(size of HD in bytes / 512)
- Use image created above in an emulator (say, DRMEmu).
- Using emulator, load the DRM-protected files in "trusted" application.
- Play the DRM file. Of course, rather than piping the output to the soundcard, the emulator writes the raw data to disk...
Goodbye DRM, hello MP3.Nathan
think about it, if it becomes illegal to circumvent DRM, imagine a virus that does just that (circumvent DRM) is created; if the user is ever called on the circumvention, she/he reverts to the "i have a virus" problem.
/. hackers. =)
there will always be ways around this move towards less user freedom that keep users in the clear. that's users, not
j
Bear with me... it's on topic
Once I was looking for Win2k (don't ask) drivers for the onboard sound on my asus a7m266 mb. Found the CMedia website. Found the chipset version. Found a bunch of drivers. Found some older drivers and a new Wind'ohs WDM certified one. Downloaded the zip for the WDM driver. Came with the change log (a bloody refreshing change for Windrivers -- when was the last time you saw a change log for windows drivers??). I Read the change log:
Seems the change that got them WDM certified was nothing more or less than the inclusion of DRM (which was obviously broken according to a couple of later entries).
I'm on the wrong machine now, and I can't find that particular change log on the web (which is weird, it wasn't that long ago -- When I get to my machine I'll repost), but check out
quote
Jul 21, 00 v5.23
DRM test hang fixed.
unquote
from http://www.cmedia.com.tw/8x38/W2K/release.txt
Maybe this is old news. It's looks as though redmond is pushing for the mandatory use of broken certified drivers with DRM as opposed to working drivers without it.
..as if it's patented, I don't it would be thought to be fair to have a law forcing your OS to comply with the system (and pay royalties for doing it) :-).
(Clarification - only Lampson was named on the patent, the others I was just mentioning are just MS employees)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Remember awhile back when there were a number of distributed DoS attacks against sites like Yahoo? Linux (and I believe Unix) OSes wer blamed as the platform of choice.
This doesn't matter because it won't work. They have just patented something that cannot be built on PC architecture. I think I'll patent a frick'n hyper drive if its not already taken.
Posiks
So... why not approach it from the angle of making 'untrusted' apps present themselves as trustworthy?
...
... ---
As there is always data/software in the computer that is copyright protected, this means that the OS will basicly prevent any software not signed/issued by Microsoft from running on the machine.
Great. A MS only OS. And MS only drivers. Guess you need to give Microsoft the source code before they sign your program. And they will of course not abuse it and rename your product from Stacker to DoubleSpace,compile it and sell it under their own name.
The "compromise" will be that people can either (a) run "Digital Rights Management Compliant" operating systems from Microsoft, Apple, and maybe a few others, or (b) Get a license to run a "non-Certified" operating system. Getting the license will put you in a big database. Your IP address will be tracked. The government will get away with this because they will point out that only a small percentage of computer users will need to get licensed, and most of those will actually be ISP's running Linux servers.
Effectivly an OS aparthied, so they'll need to obscurate the language involved depending how well those they might inconvenience have actually read the US constitution.
...the /. story from yesterday re: Windows Media Support in DVD players. As I speculated, these DVD players would ship with modems and "Digital Rights Checking" support. Of course, to do this, you would need DRM support in the controlling OS of the device, hence the DRM-OS that microsoft has claimed patent on.
Yes, but that was originally IBM's Lan Manager that was evolved from PCLan. MS tweaked it some and simply repackaged it. I think it was out around the time of Win 3.0. It wasn't part of DOS either.
Not that I have any faith in the US courts, but the worst implications of this are surely unconstitutional. Now that M$ has this silly patent and claims that it is workable (ha ha), let's say they convince the multitudes and their representatives that only DRM OS should be legal. The meat space analogy is that only printing presses that can not violate copyright should be legal. This is clearly impossible and in violation of everything the US stands for as expressed in the Bill of rights.
if they are MS's customer.
Bah! (waving paw)!
have they ever designed anything that was completely bulletproof?
a DRM OS is going to holes and exploits just like every other OS. besides M$ has proven repeatedly that they can't get it right the first time around, or the second or third.
yes its true, it would get better over time and maybe M$ hasn't been completely honest and can actually write solid code. but it won't be perfect, it will be circumvented. it will be a classic arms race scenerio.
Why not name it more accurately?
Content Use Restriction Operating System
OTOH, "CUR-OS" kinda reminds me of some old GNU README files that referred to MS-DOG. There would probably be too much confusion between the canines.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
> It's nice to know MS can conceive of it. Too bad they can't *build* it.
And note that the link was to a patent. This means that you can't build it, either, without being hit by a patent-infringement lawsuit from the biggest bully on the block.
If the courts uphold this patent, we can expect that Microsoft will be getting royalties from anyone who incorporates any DRM into their products.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Yes, if only being slapped by them counted! :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Yes I read his other comments and I know he is on the M$ payroll but I had to post a reply in fear that others reading might take what he says seriously. Although I have worked with a fair number of EXTREMELY stupid consultants (read Anderson or whatever they call themselves now).. Sorry I am a sucker for blatantly dangerous stupid provocations. ;-)
No content for lack of users / No subscriptions due to lack of content choices May it die the Circuit City cripled DVD format death.
The truth shall set you free!
you worthless bastard ;-).. I am not exactly savvy on the usenet/message board games. I just couldn't help but jump on that horrible stupid blathering. But I still say that fun as it may be to get idiots like me to respond you should keep the faux stupidity to yourself and protect the innocent. Get attention some other way.. cross dress maybe?
Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
has been posted quite a few times here but its scary how many ppl (real-life friends) buy it...
I don't think it would actually be found unconstitutional. After all, compare it to vehicle licenses:
You don't need a license to operate a bicycle. You do need a license to operate a car. You need a different, harder-to-get license to operate an 18-wheeler or a bus.
You don't need a license or background checks to buy, own, or use a slingshot or BB gun. But you generally need to get a background check to buy a real firearm, and you need to get permits for concealed carry.
There's lots of other examples.
So.... my prediction is you won't need a license for Windows or Apple, but you will need a license for any operating system where you can change the source code.
With all of these examples, it's all about how much power the user has, and how "dangerous" that power can make you to society / government / big business. You need a license for the "powerful" tool - be it a car, a gun, or maybe soon, a source-code-available operating system.
Therefore, as much as I hate it, I think a law requiring licensing for free software would be constitutional.
.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
i'm very interested in this "trusted clock." what do they mean by trusted clock? do people not trust their clocks now? mines never given me any troubles, but maybe other people are having trouble. i think i want to get this DRMOS so that i won't have to worry about ever not trusting my clock. i'd hate to have to use three clocks in a voting system just to know the time. this idea is a god sent!
This patent cannot be enforced in many states
because of the presence of anti-sodomy laws
(such as Georgia).
http://saveie6.com/
5 years ago, yes they could have banned linux.
But now many large, POWERFUL, corperations use linux to run their web servers etc.
A congressman can easily piss on a bunch of geeks, but he cannot just piss on some of the largest corperations in the world, esp the ones who finance his campaign
The M$ patent on DRM could be a blessing in disguise. After all, there isn't going to be a Linux version of their DRM technology. This means there will always be a substantial community of non-DRM computer users.
Even if M$ releases DRM-related products for Linux, they will get lobotomized and/or hacked in less than a week. Let them build as much silliness as they like into Windoze. Has M$ EVER released a highly secure, platform-indepenent product?
Let's see here. What Microsoft is patenting is giving the user a trusted identity (setuid root) before allowing him or her to access the data, and then not allowing other processes to access the data (standard memory protection under UNIX). In short, what Microsoft has patented is being able to run a program setuid.