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
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.
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'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.''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