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.
wasn't there some law proposal that would make all OSes that don't support this (digital rights management) illegal though?
nice way to force people into licensing your patent
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,
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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-
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?
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!
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.
Very true. See, what's happening here is that a company, rather than a government institution, is enforcing "digital rights management". This is essentially Microsoft's way of ensuring that all digital media is Windows-compatible only, and given most people's general tendency to flock to whatever's popular, it looks like they have a good shot at succeeding. I have no doubt that MP3 is here to stay, it's just a question of how readily available they'll be to everyday users. The latest Media Player won't play MP3s at anything better than 56kbps, which sounds something like singing underwater over a telephone. I'm fairly certain that under the auspices of Digital Rights Management, we'll start to see Windows reject the installation attempts of CD rippers, and given the fact that Windows still dominates the desktop market, that will dramatically reduce MP3 availability.
Granted, as for MP3 players like Winamp, they'll still exist, and Microsoft will have a hard time justifying any restrictions placed on installing that. It is disturbing, however, that Microsoft is becoming analogous to a government entity, where it has the power to restrict and regulate the behavior and actions of its users.
Okay, so that makes me paranoid. And maybe what I'm suggesting is a bit over the top. But it's still interesting to think about how one company has become so powerful. Then again, I look at something like AOL Time-Warner. Microsoft controls our desktop computers, fine. AOL-TW controls television, record labels, movie studios, news networks, and internet news sites. Those are the things that steer public opinion and tell many folks out there how to think. But they're much more subtle about it. Besides, if the news services are corrupt, who's going to tell us about it?
Okay, I'll stop my overly paranoid rant. If y'all excuse me, I think I'll go etch a few more conspiracy theories on the men's room walls.
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
Let us think about what that means. First, I assume by 'one company,' you really mean 'one operating system family.' Second, you're assuming that it will remain legal to have a non-DRM operating system. This may not continue to be the case; there is no legislation that bans non-DRM operating systems currently, but such legislation has been proposed in the past. Further, the media lobying efforts are heavily directed to getting such legislation.
Regarding the current congress and administation, there is cause for concern. It is likely that a law requiring a DRM compliant operating system would get passed, especially if it can be presented as an economic aid. The source of the worry is that Microsoft will certainly not license this "technology" to any other operating system authors. The inevitable patent battle means the world will end up with a total, unadulterated Microsoft operating system monopoly. This monopoly could be levered into all areas of software; cell phones, PDAs, routers, firewalls, basically any computing environment which can operate on the Internet.
Then again, maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
Or, if Apple and Sun sell out, we can just count on our buddies from overseas. Microsoft doesn't control the whole world, just the USA.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
We saw the trend with DVD playback development under Linux: the tools were declared "illegal", or "infringing", and cries of legitimate uses were met with the response, "it isn't necessary to make Linux do that, because Windows already does" [paraphrasing, of course].
So, while your suggestion is logical (though I take exception to calling Linux, "shitty", or "little"), it may not be legally practical.
You could've hired me.
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.
I wish this were just a joke, but thanks to the DMCA it may not be. Don't be surprised to hear Redmond begin to attack Linux more publically (and before Congress) as
If the DMCA becomes firmly entrenched (so that it is as taken for granted as, say, the law which says you can't operate a car without a license) , MS will simply drift all its protocols/formats into new proprietary and copyrighted ones which it will be a crime to reverse-engineer.
At least, that's what I'd do if I were an evil megalomaniacal SOB (or even if I were just running a publically-held company with a lot of powerful shareholders).
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
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
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.
Holy crap - I wasn't thinking about torches until I read this little snippet from the patent:
The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client.
...and later still...
The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights.
This "peculiar arrangement" (verbatim from the patent app) is everything that is wrong with the application of copyright law to digital media as opposed to analog media. Microsoft got it exactly right - it's a damn peculiar arrangement. Unfortunately for us, instead of realizing the crappiness of this situation, they've integrated the peculiar arrrangement part and parcel into a computer operating system, to the maximization of profit both for Microsoft and for "digital content providers." Here we have something as fundamental as a computer operating system designed around an idea that destroys rights we've otherwise enjoyed for literally hundreds of years - for nothing more than to line the pockets of people who are already famously rich. Time for torches, indeed.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.........
The degree to which the Goverment can restrict and regulate the People is strictly a function of the People's desire to be regulated
Close, but not quite. Here is how it should be worded: "The degree to which the Government can restrict and regulate the People is strictly a function of the People's desire to regulate other people's behavior". It's tyranny of the majority. If you're in the minority, just find some majority you can join and start oppressing someone else. No one wants laws passed that directly affect themselves, but all too many are happy to get laws that directly affect some group they aren't a member of.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
Corporations' social obligation is to maximize profits, and when one corporation attempts to prevent the maximum profit from something it should be frowned upon. What's peculiar about this situation is that people continue to buy into it, even when it's quite obvious that the most profit can be derived from other means.
The problem with your argument is that you are attacking the fact that these companies are trying to maximize profits.There's nothing immoral about that. The thing you should be attacking is that they are trying to protect their profits by stifling innovation by preventing better business models from taking hold.
.NET and Passport, and elimination of competing OS's, they'd have unprecedented opportunity for profit without ever having to release a software upgrade or fix a bug again.
There is nothing immoral about the _desire_ to maximize profits, but there damn well can be immorality in the actions taken to achieve that goal. Dismissing moral concerns for the sake of profit is immoral.
And while it is true in this case that a better, more profitable busines model is available that doesn't involve destroying our rights, that really isn't the problem. The problem is the attempt to destroy our rights.
I have commonly heard the insanely simplistic notion that the free market and maximization of profit will result in nothing but benefit to the consumer, and make society a better place. This is as foolish as saying that the abolition of government will end oppression.
The fundamental problem with the view of profit being both the means and goal is that it is completely divorced from the supposed benefit to society. There is nothing in the "maximize profit" dogma that implies actions that benefit the people, only actions that maximize profit. And there are many instances where profit can be maximized be shafting the people. For example, if MS is successfull with their XP rentware licensing scheme, universal application of
It reminds me of the argument that the southern states would have actually been better off financially without slavery when that's not the fucking point. There are competing theories that they were better off that way, and damned if that would make slavery ok!
Sorry if I ranted a lot, but I'm sick of this Capitalist Gnome logic:
1: Maximize Profit
2:
3: Utopia
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
What is the first principle of engineering psychology (or interface design if I prefer)? "Non standard widgets, which are seen nowhere else, shall not exist?" I'm not a Microsoft fan boy, but face it: Their attention to detail (and consistency) in their interface and their move to write their software for the right hardware, was what put them ahead of linux in user base. Until Linux has a truly user friendly (drooler friendly) interface, (and maybe the designers will have to swallow some pride and COPY microsoft gui behavior in order to get it on enough desktops) it will never gain ground.
> 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.