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.
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?"
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.
Yeah, until most of the distribution/content sources begin using DRM, and then forcing all their artists, etc. to use DRM. Next thing you know, your new DVDs won't play on non Windows Media DVD players, because they are 'unlicensed' players.
Sure, there's a way around that, one could always hack that, until the DMCA rears its ugly head.
I don't think this can be good at all.
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
... 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.
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
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...
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.
In point of fact, Microsoft did go to the RIAA and say that. They made a concerted effort to sell their Windows Media DRM solution, as did IBM and a bunch of other people. DRM solutions were the next big thing at the time, and nobody knew that the music industry was gonna drop the ball on it so completely. Microsoft just had enough money and patience to continue the selling, long after the competition began to flag.
It's not a terribly big point to make, though, as Microsoft really is just responding to content-providers' demands by producing integrated DRM systems. The problem is, what's in the content-providers' interest is not necessarily what's good for their customers-- and as MS is a monopoly, there's not much that the customers can do about it. It worries me when a monopoly teams up with a Cartel and starts building features like DRM into a monopoly-product. The consequences can be dire for smaller competitors in the music and software business, not to mention the end-user.
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
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
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 stepping-stone to a secure operating system is sometimes called "Secure Boot."
It's also called the xbox.
That's why there are folks attacking the BIOS of the xbox (search your favorite p2p network for xbox.bin), trying to figure out how to boot unsigned software, over at xboxhacker
somebody, somewhere, is going to find it.
Consider digital cable set-top boxes (Scientific-Atlanta Explorers and Motorola DCTs). Security still unbroken.
Private key is inside a secure micro that is never supposed to give it up. It only decrypts session keys (which change every few seconds so can't effectively be shared).
It's true that at this point the unencrypted content is in the clear on a couple of memory busses (possibly mixed with a lot of other traffic), but the content tends to be ABC, HBO and pay-per-view movies. In other words, not that valuable. The important thing is securing the access for folks that don't pay not the content for those who do.
In any case, set-tops-on-a-chip like Broadcom's mean that the CPU and MPEG decoder are on the same die. Moving the DENC (digital to analog converter for video) onto the MPEG decoder eliminated one exposed path & this will eliminate some others. They'll have to get embedded DRAM on the chip to really make it secure though. Then it'll be output of the QAM decoder in, analog video out.
These techniques can be used for PCs too. Soundcards are just the beginning-- look for secure CPUs, hard disks and video cards in the future.
-M
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 just too bad that all of this crap .. DRM and the like .. is being pushed by these huge American (dare I say monopolistic) entities that between them can't produce anything worth protecting.
.. and not have computer compatable hardware at all .. oh but you can still copy from the line in .. tsk tsk tsk .. well you can be sure I'll continue to use linux since it won't bend to the pressure .. :P
.. and hey .. forced upgrade for previous windows versions as well .. win/win
My rant is why the hell should they have the ability to do this? Why are they dictating to the rest of the world what general purpose computer hardware can or can not do.
They want to piggyback a widely used format to ease their own costs but complain when people copy the content.
Why can't they just come up with their own disc format/players that are all closed boxes and that have encrypted output the whole way
/snarky aside/
.. maybe MS will lobby to get legislation drafted that makes non DRM OS's illegal and wipe out the linux and the rest of the competition that way
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!
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.
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.''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.
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