Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Planning Digital Restrictions Server
Jon James writes "Microsoft is pushing further into digital rights management with a plan for a DRM server due to go into beta testing later this year, eWeek is reporting. Microsoft has already applied for a patent for a DRM operating system but would not say if the DRM server would be based on this. In an interview last week with eWeek, Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president for platforms, said a DRM server is but one of three server infrastructure applications coming next year."
Again we all must wonder how secure this is. But really, I'm more worried about a patent - which might give them exclusive rights to thier little piece of technology. Arg.
-Valiss
I just hope that one day I can tell my kids about how close we came to losing our digital freedom, instead of having to explain to them why the software daddy wrote is now illegal
God Fucking Damnit
"Personal information such as medical and financial data; corporate information such as legal and business documents; and commercial content such as software, music and movies may all require DRM," said a Microsoft spokeswoman, in Redmond, Wash."
In other news, shares of all Linux companies soared 1000% for unknown reasons.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Some folks support open source software because they think the open source paradigm is a superior way to develop software. Others support it because they think open source is the right thing for society. Some people think both.
Given that there's at least some conflict between open source ideals and DRM, is an open source DRM server something to work for or against? Seems like this could have profound ramifications down the road either way.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
No worries here. I use Linux.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Consumers have figured out the MHZ myth -- and aren't rushing to upgrade so fast anymore.
They also figured out that Office 97 works just fine, so why upgrade to 2000 or 2002?
Intel and Microsoft can read the writing on the wall -- revenue decline, so...
Are they racing to get this DRM hardware and software in place to force upgrades? Think about it, if it requires secure hardware to talk to secure software, then the chance that Intel will give the hardware specs to open source communities is slim to none.
So, will the next generation of hardware even be able to run Linux and display content off the Internet?
Grip
Failure is not an option. It comes automatically enabled in every Microsoft product.
The article was a fairly non-biased look at DRM, and I particularly liked the quote from Dave Debona, who works at a company that might use DRM to aid in IP protection. His quote:
"But, of course, any technology [DRM] can be twisted and misdirected. Anyone proclaiming to protect assets for others is scary. We typically feel safer guarding our own chicken coop," DeBona said. "We will evaluate Microsoft's DRM offering, with extra attention paid to security. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts."
DRM, to me, is merely a tool, like you would call the Internet a tool or even a gun a tool. From a business standpoint (not just record companies,etc)DRM is not essentially evil, however, in agreeing with the above quote, DRM patented and controlled by one company is very scary. Don't let DRM == absolute evil, but instead, let the "one company to rule them all" mentality be attributed to evil.
If DRM has to exist, it needs to exist with more than one entity (i.e. not even one goverment) controlling it.
Awesome! An inheritly insecure company getting into the security business!
Wow...DRM technology protected by lame patent law and made by Microsoft. Who'll gimme odds that when they turn it on for the first time it opens a gateway to Hell?
"Personal information such as medical and financial data; corporate information such as legal and business documents; and commercial content such as software, music and movies may all require DRM," said a Microsoft spokeswoman, in Redmond, Wash.
Like hell. I would use all possible avenues at my disposal, and I do mean all, to prevent MY information mingled with this shit!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
This is the way it's going to go. Record companies won't allow the "naked" distribution of their product, will start prosecuting pirates, and MSFT will create a DRM server or OS that will allow people to pay and play.
You can rant/bitch/vent, or you can create an open source solution so there's prior art preventing them from patenting...or in three-ten years we'll be screwed. Come on, people! Fight the power!
The solution to all of this is to get some sharks with some freakin lasers on their heads!
Just a couple of months ago microsoft was insisting that they had nothing to do with that nasty DRM stuff: "Palladium will not require DRM, and DRM will not require Palladium. Palladium is a great complementary technology to the DRM solutions of tomorrow, but the two are separate technologies," spin, spin, blah blah blah.
All Microsoft was going to do was provide a nice NEUTRAL technology whose main use was going to be to allow you and me to set policies on our personal machines to stop spam, viruses, and international terrorists.
All that stuff about their patent on a "DRMOS" was just a misunderstanding.
And already they're selling a DRM server. Come on, Microsoft, our memories are short but they're not THAT short.
If proof were needed that Microsoft's interests are no longer aligned with those of end-users, this is it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
As I have said, the level of security is inversly proportional to the number of people with a desire to circumvent said security.
;)
The only deterrence will be litigation. Thus you can see the new microsoft security model forming before you eyes. I am assuming they will be hiring a new batch of lawyers. Now the RIAA wont have to sue, but M$ will be suing for violating their DRM server.
Its getting nastier by the day.
You can simply obey the law...Of course so could they
clear up for me what DRM is and why these companies want me to get in with it
thanks
In related news, the RIAA announced Microsoft as the "One True OS," and declared that the only computer systems that will be able to play CDs manured after Jan 1, 2003 will be Microsoft's new OS, "MS, We Own You."
Hillary Rosen is quoted as saying "This new system will finally give us the ability to destroy IP Piracy. Once Microsoft flips the global kill switch on Windows 95, 98, ME, 200 and XP, the only computers left will be ones running the new OS. We're very excited about the new pending legislation that would make it illegal to run Hacker Operating Systems like the degenerate Apple or Communist Linux systems. We will control what you see, we will control what you hear, and soon, we will control what you think! MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
This might be a good thing as this will prevent other operating systems from incorporating similar evil technologies.
Why don't we go ahead and gift patents for fraudulent accounting and industrial pollution to MS. This way we can prevent all the other companies from cooking their books or polluting the environment. MS' lawyers will do a better job of enforcing this than the government!
All your favorite sites in one place!
.. that can be used to spread evil all around the world. So that the next time Dr. Evil tries to take over the world we can sue him for patent infringement.
Seriously though, patenting really evil ideas and refusing to let them be implemented would be kind of nice. Too bad DRM isn't already patented by someone who seriously don't want to see it used.
Weird as it might sound, I'd feel a lot safer if Your Elected Reps were behind this kind of scheme. Instead of Uncle Bill. At least there are laws about liability and the like.
Everyone thank microsoft for introducing the notion of different operating systems performing different functions (for a seperate fee, ofcourse).
"All your info are belong to us".
When seeing msft trying to place all kinds of restrictions on what people can do on the one hand, and trying like hell to remove every possible inconvenience (to the point of crashing entire networks) on the other, it looks like a case of corporate multiple personality disorder. Makes you wonder which personality you're dealing with at any given moment....
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
... because nooone can possibly hack into any server running Windows, right?
This space left intentionally blank.
The end is nigh!
The answer is 'possibly not'. You have to assume that MS's agenda involves making this 'definitely not'.
The question will be answered when Microsoft starts producing PCs (as compared to the X-Box, which is a simpler issue). Take - for instance - the upcoming Microsoft tablet PC. My guess is that it will not only come with Windows preinstalled (that is not a surprise) but also that it will be impossible to change the OS. The hardware will be keyed to the OS, and MS will have learned their lessons from the X-Box.
If this does not already worry you, then consider the following scenario: MS then licenses this hardware platform, which will incorporate patented elements of DRM and TCP, to their current Windows licensees. The bargain will be: build PCs using our technology, or loose your margins on Windows. Once Dell produces a PC that cannot run Linux and where attempts to open the box can be countered by DCMA-style lawsuits, you wll see Microsoft's strategy.
If the US government was serious about preventing MS from becoming a monopoly, they should ban them from producing PC hardware.
My blog
The more crimes you force the pirates and thieves to break to get their little prize, the more likely it becomes that you can catch them, prosecute them and send them to prison where they belong. Hopefully for a long, long time.
"It's just an option! It's just a checkbox! I'm really in control! M$ is spending all this money to help me!"
-Brainstorm all possible DRM methods
-Take up a collection
-Patent all of them
-Deny licensing
Bwahahaha.
just until we cut their finger...
The Raven.
The Raven
Some of microsofts patents were made public property as part of the settlement....
It's the idea of the government getting behind it, such as the SSSCA or CBDTPA. One of these days, a bill like that might just pass and REQUIRE all software by law to have this sort of bullshit in it. I don't even know what Palladium is? Try again buddy.
God Fucking Damnit
"This OS is an option! It's not just a geekbox! I'm really 1337! $VENDOR is losing all this money to help me!"
Claim:
Implementing DRM over xyz
Inbedding a xyz into a microsoft operating system.....
ohh get those patents flowing....
Nice anti capatilist patents.... he he
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You certainly haven't demonstrated any knowledge of it. Until then, I'll assume you're talking out of your ass, because it certainly smells that way.
that this is like trying to stuff the Nuclear Genie back into a bottle. Computers without DRM are so widespread that it would be ridiculous to make anything previously unrestricted illegal, as well as an infringement of the First Amendment to make Linux illegal as source code has been declared as a form of free speech. The way I see it, either this will drive an additional nail into the coffin of the DMCA, or I'll move to another country. If you tell Jimmy Sixpack that his computer that he uses to play Deer Hunter on is now illegal to own or use just because it doesn't have a palladium chip or something to that extent, he's gonna be pissed. There is little to no chance of the citizens standing for this shit, as well as large corporations who don't need copyright law to keep them going, I.E. banks and accounting firms who have thousands upon thousands of computers in use every day, who would fight against this as well, I would think. Or at least hope. So this will be either extremely good, or extraordinarily bad. There is no in-between.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Isn't it just a typo ?
I'm sure it's supposed to REM.
Still scary though.
Remember when every article would get like 300-400 comments easily? Hell remember when the article were actually fun?
Is slashdot's hit dropping way off or what?
I would be willing to bet that Microsoft and Intel have already been planning this for years.
Intel has probably already included options for DRM in the hardware it has been distributing. It will just take the new MS OS to turn everything on.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Obviously, there is a market out there right now for DRM. If there wasn't even a tiny market, MS would not be tossing its weight around.
So, instead of dragging our feet, why arent we comming up with a better DRM solution? One that takes care of medical documents, etc - things that aren't art, etc. and even gives a sense of security to the music people, w/o infringing on fair use rights?
It can be done and the linux world has the talent to do it.
ALSO - If a group could QUICKLY get a DRM OS even in a shoddy developmental state, then MS's patent would be null and void.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Neither Intel nor Microsoft has ever shown much sign of being ideological companies. I think it's rather unfair to both to act as if they are the driving force behind harsh DRM; rather I think it's more reasonable to see them as facilitating it.
Both Intel and Microsoft face the problem of trying to find an app that requires way more computing power than current systems. Customer satisfaction is a bad thing for durable goods, sold by growth oriented companies, that aren't on a subscription model, and have a very high degree or market penetration. MPAA and RIAA could easily replace television as the primary passive entertainment medium in the United States if they have vision and are willing to cut prices in exchange for massive volume. The possibilities are impressive. Having Wintel systems own home entertainment could lock them into massive sales of equipment for many years. How many homes have multiple television sets today?
OTOH neither company is unaware that they live in a country which:
1) Does not have a national ID card for privacy reasons
2) Does not have centralized health documentation primarily for privacy reasons
3) Has a 2nd amendment which is still very much in effect, primarily because of fear of central control
4) Has the strongest guarantees against government controls on private property almost anywhere
Etc... Palladium might go over like a lead balloon in the US and both Microsoft and Intel are well aware of this. Notice that even when they talk about DRM/Palladium they speak in terms of things like viruses not in terms strong content control.
The most likely scenario is that they offer these technologies and they become niche technologies due to the RIAA and MPAA not being able to get broad support for inexpensive individual distribution. The fact that neither agency is yet working on a detailed pricing policy; means that there is not anywhere enough of a consensus within the music and move entertainment industry for them to be able to push through a radical change in pricing. They will quickly find themselves in a chicken and egg situation. They can't see Palladium only movies / music because not enough customers don't have Palladium hardware; and customers don't pay extra for Palladium hardware because they do not offer anywhere near enough of an advantage.
Another point is that the Windows/Unix model is really not the best model at all for DRM. Operating systems like Eros already have very strong controls in place; and with minor hardware tweaks could very easily the levels of DRM (though at the time this was about security not money) that OSes like Multics used to provide. As history clearly shows people may say they want ultra secure systems but in reality almost always purchase low security systems because they value freedom; organizations like the military being exceptions but exceptions that prove the rule, even they have generally chosen feature rich over highly secure except when the absolutely have to.
While I think it's worth throwing some bucks at the EFF, I don't see this as likely to take off. To really have strong DRM you really need to make changes like getting rid of the file system and those types of changes require a great deal of work.
What else is humanity going to achieve by restricting access to data (data = knowlegde)?
Maybe in short term, market can gain from such restrictions but what is market good for if there is no civilisation (maybe just very small group of "gods")?
hany
"You have the Right to use your computer however you want, but you have the responsibility to let "us" know exactly what you are doing at all times!" -- Official DRM Creed
and on a related note:
"You're not doing anything illegal, are you? What do you have to fear?"
MS has enough trouble securing their own servers, never mind other peoples software.
Wow, 1 million people just registered to use MS Office last night!
That's not what the accounting appartment is telling us.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
DRM technology enables content creators, such as record companies
Funny, I thought that artists made records...
I bet MS would love for their own use as well. With this kinds of stuff they can help prevent their sensitive information like their internal emails from leaking.
This doesnt make anything illegal, or enforce anyone to do anything.
It is a method of letting copyright holders to fix their content so that you cant run it without their approval.
It wont keep you from playing your MP3s, or ripping them, or using Ogg, or anything like that. It lets the owner of content to encode it in such a way that you have to get a server's permission to play it. If you dont want to listen to it, dont buy it/rent it/play it.
I know that MSFT is the root of all evil and everything, but dont blame them because the copyright holders of the world want to fix it so we cant make copies of their works.
Nope, no sig
Aaaaaaaackphft!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
They can't even explain what ".Net" is. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the Patent Office when they tried to explain this one... I'd probably have fallen off the wall laughing!
Rip the **** DRM chip out of my board, and have to sodder the entire thing back together. Microsoft can go take there DRM OS and shove it up there ***. :)
A few clarifications would be welcomed on this article, especially towards a layman as myself. :-)
1- Isn't DRM about giving the correct rights to the correct user. So on the server side it would be akin to file privileges. Something we already have on all 'nixes.
2- DRM is scary whereas somebody would come snooping on your own property to check for the validity of your files, but isn' t restricting the access to these files on the server side something that we are all doing already?
3- If by DRM server is meant as a deamon that goes in each one of the client machines and check for the validity of files, then the corrrect DRM OS is needed on the client machine for this two-step dance to work. In that case the answer is easy, Use open source
If all of the previous is a rambling in the dark, please press restart on my brains
155 posts and not yet one "this is just like Orwell said it would be like in '1984'!" posts. I know it's monday, but comon people, wake up!
I find it interesting that Microsoft is apparently developing a dedicated DRM server. Given the trend towards integration, at least on the hardware side, it seems that new functions are developed as standalone devices first, and then integrated in subsequent products. I don't know if this is traditionally done on the software side, too.
However, I believe it's a logical assumption that Microsoft assumes all software should be DRMed to some extent. (In other words, that DRM could become a "feature" of >NET or subsequent OS platforms.) It seems that this DRM server is a test vehicle in many ways: from a legal, product and security (can it be hacked?) standpoint.
'This is end' 'my only friend the end' 'this is end' ' of everything that stands'
I took a face from the ancient gallery and I walked on down the hall.
It's funny how MS can keep adding restriction on top of restriction in their software, and label them as "services".
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
...if it worked only with Windows clients.
What are the chances that M$ is working to patent all this stuff to prevent companies from trying to enforce it on the tech world? Think about it, if M$ held the patent to this, and the RIAA somehow got a bill passed for a hardware/software encryption on music to become mandatory, M$ could sit on it claiming it's in the development stages, and it would never see the light of day.
Possible?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
> Here's a clue: If no one is asking for payment, it's not commerce.
Here's another. If someone is asking for payment, it is.
Do you honestly think KaZaa is doing any real trading of your home movies, the music you recorded in your garage, or the (surely nonexistant) code you're writing as open source?
If any of it had value, you'd be selling it.
Will all content require DRM? No. Will all commercial content require DRM? No.
Are companies (not just internet) in a hurry to flood the internet with content when they have no way to guarantee any sort of profit from it, besides the 'honor system'? No.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
who knows but x86 just might be approaching end of LIfe.
M$ can't even explain to us what ".Net" is.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the Patent Office when they tried to explain this one... I'd probably have fallen off the wall laughing!
Since property is a legally defined term, and that countries around the world claim (and rightly so) the right to enact laws that define what property is, I would assume that the MS DRM server will have a "Chinese" option that will allow it to comply with the laws of China.
Now, laws concerning intellectual property in China are rather unpalatable to western standards.
So MS is either planning to implement a server which helps enforce "immoral" and "against humanity" laws (again, in the western view), or it will be in direct violation of the Right to Self Govern of a Sovereign nation. One, I might add, which sports permanent membership in the United Nation Security Council, a nuclear arsenal, a two million-plus man army, membership in the World Trade Organization, and Preferred Trading Partner status with the United States.
Either way, they're going to have huge cojones to make it our of this one without seriously pissing off a large number of people.
"Piter, too, is dead."
... One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the APIs lie.
One OS to rule them all, some DRM to find them,
One OS to bring them all and with their EULA bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the APIs lie.
The RIAA moved to block the sale of personal home amplification systems that exceed 10 watts. The recording industry sited decreasing sales coupled with an almost runaway phenomenon of college students 'sharing' music by playing it extreme amplification. RIAA lawyers cited previous ruling against peer-to-peer networks saying that differences between sound waves and ip packets are negligible to copyright holder.
As soon as an organisation or a country starts caring too much about security, it's doomed to failure.
Only time will tell but I'm positive
For a while in all the anti-terrorist rhetoric it may be possible for these kinds of DRM (I still prefer to call it CUR, Content Use Restriction) to be introduced without much noticeable resistance from the masses, but there's a significant market segment that will resist.
Can you picture the average pr0n user happily letting his/her/its computer hook up with the Microsoft DRM server every time they want to watch their favorite titles?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
..."While I won't use the word 'monopoly,' you can see the dangers of that type of widespread control," he said.
Microsoft/Intel just don't get it. The reason why Passport didn't make it is because no one trusts anyone who has everything centrally stored anywhere.
Why should DRM be any different?
I think this is further evidence that there are really no more killer apps out there to create. The DRM, while it would take care of a few business needs for a few select groups such as the RIAA and certain totalitarian regimes, is potentially too restrictive for the people it would affect - which means it has less of a chance of adoption and a greater chance to leave a crater when it falls.
I don't see it happening. I see Jimmy Buffet killing the record industry once musicians start to unionize and form a confederacy of their own labels.
The cracks are showing people... just dig in and hope it all works out.
This space for rent.
Contrary to the rediuclous amount of conspiracy theorists, MS has publically stated that it is creating DRM as an OPTION for it's customers. We can argue if this breaks the entire concept of DRM, but that's not the point. Read the facts here instead of spouting off speculations.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
However, the present impending applications for DRM certainly appear evil from a tradtional fair use perspective, you know, "copy for yourself but please don't redisribute" (yes, the legal definition of fair use is more tortuous, and "common sense fair use" might not qualify, but it damn well should). Part of the difficulty stems from a desire to control the user's computer, lock, stock, and barrel; or not at all, which will increasingly become impractical.
Remember Sun's ideas about "write once, run anywhere?", "sandboxes", and "trusted executable content"? That's what DRM should look like (well, except the "write once, debug everywhere" part):
DRM is a technology that, with hardware assistance, assures remote parties that their data is used in the manner intended while permitting the local "processing environment provider" (i.e. owner of the equipment on which it runs), to control third-party executable code. Microsoft's approach would remove that control.
If the primary motivation is protection of content, then that content can be keyed to display hardware, with reduced resolution permitted for extracts for purposes of parody or criticism. Where full-resolution extracts are necessary, a list of extracts can reference a public "library" copy, necessary for copyright to be granted in the first place (much like patent disclosure and unlike the present copyright system). The issue then reduces to one of key management between and among the various pieces of digital hardware one owns (you don't want to relicense something because your TV breaks or to watch it on a different TV you bought).
Executable code is a bit more problematic, since now one wants to control the execution environment provider's processor -- in general unknown third-party code should run in a restricted sandbox, the restrictions depending on how much that code provider is trusted. Sun got this right. This makes sense: how can you fully trust third-party code that you can't check for lack of source? It also means that DRM supporting code must be open, and preferrably free in the GPL sense. Microsoft just addresses the flip side: how can we trust that your processor will execute our code as intended, which is not an unreasonable concern, though not as pressing as protecting copyright content.
To some extent, the need for a "trusted computing platform" is reduced if the decryption if protected content is done in specialized hardware: the hardware is the trusted platform for decrypting that content, and is acceptable to the computer owner as well because it is severely restricted in what it can do -- I have yet to see a video card format a hard drive or "phone home" and report one's viewing habits (not that such a thing couldn't be built, but it would be clearly out of bounds for a video card to do that.
Trusted operating systems are problematic because this is the most important area where the computer owner, not a content provider, should be in control: getting such an O/S signed would be difficult due to the sheer number of user-patched varients, and ineffective, in case of a security flaw in the O/S itself. (Even Microsoft would not be immune from this risk: a trusted O/S might still be vulnerable to security-related bugs within it).
So, while third-party trust of your execution of their code might involve relinquishing control of your computer, if the only justification for this is content copyright protection, there are other ways to achieve that goal via dedicated PKI-enabled display hardware dedicated to the task. The only legitimate need for this kind of third-party control is for distributed client-server applications (think SETI, multi-user online games, etc.). Let's deal with content first and hold off on "trusted computing" until it's clear that that kind of trust has to extend both ways.
You could've hired me.
Writing software that takes away the rights people have is so much against what I feel is "right" that I will not do it, ever.
-John
Wait until I have my ATT long line bunker all decked out and filled with supplies.
PLEASE
Of course, there's an easy way to avoid any kind of hassle...
STOP USING WINDOWS, YOU GODDAMNED SHEEP!!!!!!!!!
Parachutes are optional too. It just depends on what kind of outcome you want for yourself.
This is a MICROSOFT DRM server. Which means anybody who wants to will be able to just take them over, so this really ends up being nothing to worry about. :)
-Greg
yeah, because those servers won't be vulnerable to a good ol' fashioned ddos'ing...
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
How does MS see themselves making money from it?
It's not about compliance or the the law or the record companies or about repression.
It's about money.
So who will pay MS for technology or the service that is supported by it?
Will 'content owners'? How much will they pay? Will Digital Rights Management suddenly turn into $31 CD management.
I think so.
n-1 ?
n PROFIT!
Think about it - if your PC has to connect to a server to ask for permission to run a file you have purchased the rights for, what happens if the server goes down, gets hacked, whatever? Does *anyone* really trust Microsoft to get this right?
I predict that one of the other two server products is an Intel based router/firewall. What if a HP built a new form factor box with six gig-ethernet interfaces on the mainbaord? Say, 64-bit PCI 66MHz with 3Com's bus-mastering interrupt-bundling cards and an encryption engine built in each. Designed to compete with Cisco. :-)
We should have a Linux alternative ready.
..and has been for a while now.
Although they may at first appear too small to matter, don't count them out - they have the backing of at least one large corporation that wants alternatives to MS.
Why don't they instead built a licensing server software instead? It will be much much more useful for their users instead of this.
If you still remember when M$ suddenly demanded license compliance, but US schools are just too understaffed and underequipped to comply within the timelimit, thereby causing a great deal of problem for them.
A license server will help such users immensely by enabling them to monitor their licensing situation (and avoiding such bully tactics from M$)
It's truly an outrage - very clearly they don't take side with their customers.
While I agree that DRM may be a terrible tool in wrong hands, I cannot see a scenario where it (or related legislature) kills free, unrestricted, multipurpose platforms. I am a scientist and like many other scientists that I know I write my own programs because that is the only way I can do the things that my research efforts require. A DRM platform won't let one run unlicensed programs. Most researchers work in non-commercial institutions which cannot afford the licensing cost. I can also imagine that most commercial entities would be extremely reluctant to release their specific code for the scrutiny from the fear of business secrets leaking out. So, it may happen that Joe Sixpack gets through his own ignorance thrown into a small DRM hell but I dare to say that it is extremely unlikely that any country is willing to pull nearly all of its scientific research down the drain just so that people could legally listen to Metallica on their shiny new DRMWindows box. Oh, and if the DRM is intentionally weakened to allow exceptions for scientists and the like, then the platform will instantly become hackable by anyone and the only ones who are screwed are the ignorant people. I could almost say that they get what they deserve.
Comic-not
Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
"Yeah you'll be executed for warez. Goddamnit, get a grip on reality."
Because I'm reminded (by enforced viewing) by the FBI warning about the punishment of a quarter of a million US dollors fine for the act of copying a DVD movie I own, I would say that it's not as farfetched as it may seem.
The only way the companies can enforce rules around these crimes of convienence is to make the punishments so harsh, so outlandish, as to make it unthinkable it the first place. You can see this effect if you look. I know one friend of my who freaked out when I proposed copying a tape I'd rented way back in the early 1990s. He was afraid something Really Bad would happen, because the warnings after all the movies threatened.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I run XP (and I have no shame for it). But a problem that bothered me to no end was the lack of server mirroring for SP1.
.5 sec everytime it tries to read from the HD just so it can send a request to shitty.idea.microsoft.com?
The patching was just 50MB over cable modem but it STILL took 2 hours!
Ok, Microsoft wanted to distribute SP1 all remotely. Fine. But why not let other people mirror the service? I mean, c'mon! The uni I work for had a development partnership with MS and you're saying they couldn't set up a server?
Instead you had all 10 million XP boxes out there trying to fight their way into MS's substantial but inadequate pipe.
I was almost tempted to say screw it and get it on plastic.
And this is just patching what about when they are trying to do massive restrictions requests? Is my bus going to have to wait
What is music when you despise all sound?
If they're either denied a patent altogether or locked down to a patent so narrow that other (reasonable?) solutions would be doable, I'm betting that they won't go in that direction. An unpatented DRM system would simply drive people away from MS-Windows in droves. This is something that MS might know better than to do. If they don't know better, then it would at least be a bonus for vendors of other operating systems (including Open Software solutions).
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
The reason for the intense dislike of DRM is simple: DRM isn't about stopping piracy, it's about big companies getting bigger and richer at the expense of their customers. Most of the DRM proposals I've heard about have been aimed at companies making more money by taking ownership and first-sale rights away from customers, turning one-time purchases into subscriptions, locking content into a device, and screwing the consumer in general. Simple (and legal!) activities, like lending a book or movie, making a backup copy, selling a CD, or using media in more than one device aren't allowed under most (if not all) of the proposed DRM rackets.
As for "trusted computing"... was it really problem before Microsoft's operating systems had such significant security problems? Trusted computing won't stop trojans, buggy software, or user errors. So what exactly is the point of it?
Mac OS to the rescue!
The live online for tomorrow for the washingtonpost.com will feature the head of microsoft cyber security to talk about security.
I don't think we need to worry about the open source industry infringing on this patent.
- Joe
Do you support the adoption of open source DRM technologies primarily because you think we need open alternatives, or because you think the technologies are good and useful in themselves? (Or for some other reason?)
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
The question is not how and when DRM will restrict your life! It won't. Why? Simple: you order pizza by phone because you do not want to go out or prepare dinner by yourself. Pizza delivery is successful because it is convenient, not because it is food. Does DRM look convenient? No. Can you eat it? No. Why are CDs and DVDs so popular? Because they are easier to handle and provide better quality compared to LPs. Not actually because they're cheap. Can you listen to DRM? No, because it is just some piece of software. Why is MP3 successful? Because it safes storage and bandwidth not because one would say it sounds better. Why is Napster so successful? Because you could get your hands on music and for free. Why will DRM fail? Because who wants to buy music off some M$ server with most likely an expiration date to it and no chance to copy it anywhere even just for a private copy in your car when you still get the stuff in stores! DRM is just M$ next piece of software they want to sell to the music and video industry. Let them. They pay for it, try to establish it, will figure out it fails like a lot of the IT hype and increase the prices on CDs and DVDs a little to cover the cost => Microsoft gets a bit richer. End of plot. Sven
MS has publically stated that it is creating DRM as an OPTION for it's customers. We can argue if this breaks the entire concept of DRM, but that's not the point.
I refuse to believe that MS, a company that has lied before, will release something as crippled as this for no reason at all. It is optional as you say, but when backed up with bought laws then that option could potentially put you in jail.
So yes, that *is* the point.
Someone told me that inspite of all our human failings, common sense does have a tendency to come through most of the time. We may be entering an era of McCarthy-ism with regard to computers, but even that went away eventually.
Unfortunately, then, as in now, we may have to fight this battle within our own nation and watch our colleagues become the cannon-fodder in order for the right ideals to eventually come to the surface.
Personally, I am struck between passive and aggressive resistance to these movements.
By aggressive, I would advocate such things as handing out DeCSS code to everyone I know and placing fliers in parking lots. This is an example. Other examples would be to actively and vocally work towards the reverse engineering defeat of every one of these types of systems. But I don't know that I will achieve anything other than 30 seconds in the local news and 17 years in prison
But as a passive protester, I might be able to accomplish more by promoting the boycott of certain products/manufacturers. I think that this might be the more effective case when you consider that we are dealing with corporations who can hide behind lawyers and law enforcement puppets to protect themselves from the active protestations. But when the money walks, they have few options.
These are choices that I have made because I refuse to support these people. Where I can, I let them know that. Intel knows that I only purchase AMD ever since their failed attempt at P-III chip identification. Their recent activities only supports this. With AMD going the same route, I am looking to Apple or Sun.
Maybe common sense will previal. I hope that it does.
is to raise the cost of computing. Your points are all very true. No scientist/engineer worth his salt is going to give up the ability to write his/her own programs. What this will mean is that the scientists , when they go out to purchase the new generation of processors with DRM capabilities but not use them, will be indirectly funding these hare-brained schemes. These purchases will be used to buttress the idea that people are buying and hence supporting DRM.
It may be optional, but look at many security issues that have been caused because many NT/2K/XP options that are turned on by default. Even Redhat has been critised for this practice.
How many MSCEs do you think will [know how to] turn off this option? Also given Microsofts less than rosy past, how easy will it be to disable or remove this option? Examples: MDAC, IE, etc.
Keep in mind this is Microsoft, another company wouldn't be nearly as suspect, for me Borland comes to mind.
.
To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and *enforced* by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes.
full text
(also see http://www.digitalconsumer.org/cbdtpa/ )
It is amazing that someone can have an unlubricated red-hot pitchfork shoved up their ass a hundred times, and then when MS promises they won't do it again, the person will say, "Ok, I believe you," and drop their pants, turn around, and bend over.
This is yet another reason why I will never buy a Windows PC. Of course, the way Apple's going at the moment I might never get another Mac either, because it won't be able to run any of my FRICKIN' SOFTWARE! (First person to whine "But you can always use Claaaaassiiic..." gets a slap) :p
You must think in Russian.
"ay-pee-eyes"
The First Ammendment should be updated to read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances or the right to freely compute on the machine of their choice.
www.enthea.org
Nope, no sig
No way this will fly. The main customers are RIAA and MPAA and we've all seen their lack of vision when it comes to digital media. I find it disturbing.
... if I could use it to prevent spy/slimeware installing itself on my computer.
Sadly I don't think it will extend to this.
-- Mike
...it was not immediately clear if this new platform would have any lasting effect on the current debate over intellectual property rights, due to the copyrights being reset during required server reboots every 18 hours.
This is the last paragraph.
John Persinger, an internal network administrator for Source4 Inc., in Roanoke, Va., said Microsoft will likely try to "crush any DRM competition." If successful, that would leave some 80 percent of those "digital assets" in its control, Persinger said. "While I won't use the word 'monopoly,' you can see the dangers of that type of widespread control," he said.
I rest my case. If MS is in bed with all these copyright- and patent-happy companies, you can kiss fair use goodbye.
And, could Microsoft use this to force us to use their latest software? I use Windows 98SE for alot of my design work, mostly because ME slows the hell out of my machine, and (after seeing it in all its sluggish glory) XP would do the same on a larger scale. But say I acquire/use some of their DRM enabled stuff. Would it be possible for them to find out that I'm using this outdated yet usable platform, and try to force me to upgrade to XP? Fuck that. I have a choice, and I choose to use the Win release that works best for me. When there's a chance that MS could take that choice away from me, I'm not a happy camper.
Another possibility could be use of the DRM software to, in effect, disable Open Source platforms and keep them from using DRM enabled content. It is possible, you know. A line of code here, a line there, and poof! It's all shot to hell. We need to keep a close eye on this one, folks.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Considering how hard they fought against everything from radio to video tapes, people wouldn't be surprised by what the RIAA wants. They would be surprised if they won everything they're asking for, I suppose, but that hasn't happened yet.
As for tying a software license to specific hardware, I don't think anyone would be too surprised. The only thing that stopped them from doing that before was the inconvenience... considering all the hurdles 1990's-era people had to go through in the name of "copy protection", a quick and convenient hardware check would be seen as a blessing. And I think the anti-DVD stuff would be seen as a furtherance of that.
A 1990-era person would definitely have less of a sense of entitlement to free stuff. Sure, we all didn't pay for software, but we knew it was illegal... and that attitude would carry on to digital audio and video and whatnot, I think.
The success of Linux and Free Software has changed people's views of copyright and whatnot. There was generally no serious thought about such issues... copyright was copyright, and no one thought about it much.
So this whole Napsterization mass-audience approach to getting free copyrighted stuff would be anathema - 1990's era people would expect all sorts of government regulations and whatnot to keep your average Joe from getting the free loot - they'd expect theyd have to skulk around doing shady and illegal things (like ye old warez scene) to get the free booty.
(They'd also probably find the general state of computer software to be not as impressive as they thought it should be... but probably quite impressed by the quality and amount of software that's actually Free.... the idea of writing anything any good that wasn't at least Shareware would be pretty weird.)
If the US computer industry goes along with these DRM schemes it will be committing suicide. The entertainment industry is pushing it as a way to collect many billions of dollars every year. That means countries in south east asia including China will be forced to send US corporations huge amounts of money. They won't want to do that and so they will start making their own cpu's (they already make all the other hardware) and their own computers without DRM built in, and switch over to Linux, StarOffice et al (which they are already doing anyway). They will leap at the chance to take over the pc industry outside the usa, and Dell, HP, Gateway and the others will be left out in the cold.
Microsoft + DRM = No Linux
I think the motives are fairly transparent here, or am i just being crazy?
Microsoft, has a sizable and well funded anti-linux campaign, we all know this. Microsoft is officially afraid Linux in the server market. Microsoft sees the Linux desktop as viable contender in the near future. Microsoft has been hit with an overhelming number of bug and security holes in their products. The Film and Music industry is floundering around trying to figure out how to solve their pirating woes and I'm sure they see alot of the *nix world as sophisticated hacker types willing to steal their stuff.
It all adds up to Microsoft finding a way to convince corporate America and the world that Linux, Open Source products and all of their *nix based competition are the bad guys because you can't "trust" their software.
DRM with Windows is a way for Microsoft to further the campaign against Linux. It seems obvious to me. I mean what better way to deter people from using Linux, but to blame viruses and security holes on "untrusted" software as well as push for hardware and software based DRM where their CD's and DVD's can only be used on DRM enabled platforms.
The idea is how can you trust software that is made by a community of people? It must be prone to security problems because there's no one accountable, and they must all be pirates because they know how to program. We all know this is crap, but Microsoft probably sees a huge opportunity to please Hollywood, RIAA, the government and at the same time weaken the advance of Linux by creating doubt about what is trust-worthy and what OS environments you can use your CD's and DVD's in. There's little or no incentive for the Film or Music industries to push to have Linux support their CD's/DVD's because they will look at the numbers of how many people have Windows and Mac desktops. Why should they want to allow Unix people to use their items? Especially since we represent a relatively small number of desktop users.
just my thoughts, some probably wrong, some probably right,
-s
I think you state the problem pretty well. It's the last part of your second paragraph that resonates with me most:
... doing enough to reassure the powerful that they will address our fears whilst shoveling DRM through, such that any efforts on our behalf [to keep DRM in the public interest] will be too late.
I can also see corporations
This is the most likely path, in my opinion. I think Palladium and other DRM-related technologies will be promoted as benign tools that simply enable us to enforce existing laws through code, but will ultimately, if they gain acceptance, begin to strip away rights we previously had, and will lead to something akin to a police state on our computers.
I'm not as paranoid as Stallman when it comes to this future, though. His ideas are interesting and illuminating, but too often they veer into scare tactics like this paragraph from the beginning of RTR:
"Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do."
There's a difference between sharing a single work and distributing multiple copies of that work. I doubt that there will ever come a time when you could go to prison just for letting someone view a work you paid for and did not copy.
But the spectre of abuse remains vivid. The idea of a future where your applications record everything you do with them and upload that information to various servers to determine whether your actions are legal or not is chilling to me. One can easily see how this technology could be abused by governments, corporations, even schools.
Microsoft is strong, but they're not invincible. Palladium will fail if we can decrease demand for it to the point where it becomes unprofitable, Likewise with strong DRM. Palladium and other DRM technologies may find a home in the top echelons of business -- my biggest concern is that we prevent them from colonizing the desktop.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Yes, it is spooky and yes we should be vigilant. But, I believe this will go the way of Hailstorm. People cannot stand for a monopoly taking advantage of their position to usurp the rights of nearly everyone. To take those rights and turn them into a just another Microsoft driven profit scheme. Intel has fallen for this already. AMD is leaning. I believe that it would be a momentous coup of AMD to simply not follow suit with Microsoft. Microsoft gets ahead on this by people cooperating with it on this.
The fact is, the genie is out of the bottle. Free downloads of MP3 are part of the culture of the Internet. So you can say this is wrong if you wish, but simply put, it is the way that it is. There will be avoidance of any and all computers that include this technology. The computers with the motherboards that don't have this technology will be more popular than the one's that do. It is nice that Microsoft knows what is trully important in this world.
The rights of it's users... Nope
Hollywood's big companys aren't any form of "starving child in Africa." Hell, they don't even pay the actual artists their deserved fair share.
So what is there to do about all this, I really honestly don't know.
But, I can say that NO company on earth should have the sort of power that Microsoft intends to bring to bear on this issue. And the simple fact is, that no company really does. Microsoft needs to understand one big thing, they don't have a right to own the desktops of the world. They do for various reasons, including having a better and CHEAPER product at the time, and simply having more cash stamina than anyone else. Well, the fact of the matter is Linux is growing, both with and without corporate backing. The unfortunate thing for Microsoft, is that it is beginning to see it's "deer in the headlights of Linux" moment. Instead of running for safety to the side of the road, it is charging head-on into those headlights. Close your eyes everyone, we know how this is going to end and no one should have to see this.
Almost by definition, there can be no such thing as an effective open source DRM server. To be effective, the software must honor DRM parameters embedded within, for example, a media file. If the source code is available under a license like the GPL, nothing stops a user from modifiying it to ignore those parameters, rendering it ineffective.
MS is offering the mainstream media companies a very attractive package: file formats and software components that implement DRM and are protected by patents. Only licensed implemenations are allowed. Reverse engineering is illegal, not because of something of questionable legal standing in the DMCA, but because of long-standing patent protections. Any copy in a different format is clearly unauthorized and illegal.
Would you write a reader for such files if you knew that MS could easily win the patent infringement suit against you and get a $1M judgement? Would you keep MP4 copies made from Windows Media files on your disk if the MPAA or RIAA could easily win the infringement case against you in local court and have your PC confiscated?
Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Here is a defense of Gore from two guys whose views should really count.
Gore said he "took initiative" in creating the internet. It is a bum rap -- very unfair, and if we really are geeks here on slashdot, who care about what matters, we should quit repeating it, OK?
UNIX's have had DRM for year's. chmod 0755, anyone?
If you'd RTFA that I linked to you'd answer all of your questions.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
How in the world is posting a link to an EFF member's interview of Microsoft Flaimbait? Oh, I'm using a factual basis to defend MS.
Please metamoderate accordingly.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The more they go into DRM the more their customers hate them.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
I don't get it. It's first, right? So logically how could it be redundant?
Think you can take away MY freedom? I don't think so. I'll disconnect from society and live amongst the trees! I don't need no stinking content control! I'll make my OWN music and my OWN art!
goodbye cruel world...
Isn't this just the new name for IIS?
Is there any way of implementing DRM in an open source OS? Supposing there was a trusted body that could hold keys for signing code that were used secure part of the kernel, could this part of the kernel be made secure from changes? Obviously, in an open source OS it would be possible to change the code of both the secure and non secure parts of the kernel but would that automatically mean the system is insecure? I am imaging a system where you would be able to change the code and it would run just as before but with out the code having the signature of the trusted body on it, the code would not be able to decode any protected data.
As far as I can see, this is not possible. If it is not possible to do DRM in an open source OS and Microsoft goes ahead with a DRM enabled OS this could kill Linux as a desktop OS unless all the DRM is done in hardware. If there is a common DRM enabled platform available that works securely, then very few copyright holders would risk releasing their works on a non-DRM platform. If one desktop OS allowed people to watch any films or listen to any music they liked and the other did not, most people are going to choose the OS that does what they want even if it does mean losing control of their PC.
"I took the initiative to help create the internet." Close enough. Suck my nuts. I took the initiative to help invent to blowjob.
drm.microsoft.com will replace free.aol.com for the number 1 spot in my hosts file.
...
/dev/null
127.0.0.1 drm.microsoft.com
127.0.0.1 free.aol.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.com
Maybe I'll just ad a microsoft.com zone to my dns server
ms >
"Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
Actually, this is GREAT news as far as i'm concerned!
I believe that M$ isn't being too careful here. I believe they are trying to pull this shit WAY too quickly. Seriously, we are in the midst of an increasingly digital age where many people are comfortable with online multimedia content and the freedom to use it.
Sure, Microsoft is sucking up to Hollywood by providing the first DRM Operating System. Sure, Intel and AMD is following their lead. It'll bite them in the ass in the end.
Think about it: all of the sudden average Joe user cannot play MP3's they grabbed off of Kazaa or Morpheus. All of the sudden you can't download and/or make VCD's of your favorite movie?
The average person is much easier to accept some loss of freedom if they feel they aren't affected by it... once they are significantly affected by this look out.
If Joe Sixpack finds that the new Microsoft OS limits his ability to do these things, do you think he'll be in any hurry to upgrade? If he finds that the new hardware won't work without it, do you think the user will want to jump on the "I love Restrictions!" bandwagon?
And believe me, once Intel and AMD (I fully expect M$ to be the LAST company to back down from this) see their hardware sales plummett they'll quickly re-think their strategy.
And without the hardware support, M$ can't win. The more they tighten their grip, the more users will slip through their fingers (now where did I hear that from?)
The only wildcard here are the legislators, and it really depends on how quickly they can pull appropriate legislation to prevent the above scenario from happening -- and I have a feeling they won't.
So go for it, Microsoft! Go Bill! Keep digging that hole for yourself, because if there is one thing that the free market has proven time and time again is your enemies will always be there to pick up the pieces after you've gone.
-- Jim
1) Create DRM server
...Kill MacOffice (w/o MacOffice, the Mac market would die slowly) ...Kill all "open" projects ...Lock PCs into MS. (DRM laws require "approved PCs". A homebrew PC from Fry's will not be "approved".
2) Push DRM server and related front-end equipment while simultaneously investing in MacOffice and "Open" projects (quotations are very important there)
3) Allow for early adopters to beta-test DRM system. Let hackers break in, showing MS where the holes are.
4) Lobby for DRM laws "for the safety of the economy" "to fight terrorism" or some other BS like that.
5) Once DRM laws are imposed:
There is a chain here. We are not fighting a war (if they can call justifying huge military budgets as a war on terrorism, I can call this the war on information) where they care about every little law and this and that... The horrible nature of these disgraceful freedom grabs will be seen in Ten years... when we have been living with the so long, we forgot what it was like before.
Donating to the EFF is great, necessary, but seriously people, we need to take a long hard look at this. We have to be the leaders here because no one else really understands. Do my roommates know DRM? No. Do they care? No. Would they care if they were told they could no longer copy a CD, burn a CD of their own pictures, or experiement with linux? Yes.
This is my plan, I suggest you come up with your own:
1) Macintosh all the way. Sure it's more expensive, but I am helping to line to coffers of the antithesis of DRM.
2) No MS products. I use MS Office at work... version 98... I will not purchase 2001. If we go to MacOS X, I will implement Open Office.
3) No RIAA. I don't buy CDs unless I buy them at the show. I copy a CD once in a blue moon and then send 5 or 10 to the artist's agent. What's right morally and what's right legally do not always work out for me. Sorry. (Besides, there is already a tax on CD-R for the industries losses, so fuck 'em). (and even further: if I burn a CD of pictures I took, the RIAA gets money for that CD. They still charge the artist's breakage. How much fucking free money does that fat bitch and her stupid organization get?)
No MPAA: I work for a documentary film company and I see all the excesses going on outside our niche (documentaries are under the radar). Agents who have assistants who have assistants of their own. Come on now. Stop payin' em. I see a movie every now and again, but it's usually an indy... and it has a plot not recycled by the cast of People Magazine and the crew of Variety.
No Radio: The radio is optimized for 15 minute listening patterns. Fuck that. Plus all the commercials and the terrible DJs.. No thank you. A lot of my friends are DJs. They make mixes. A lot of my friends are musicians, they make mixes. I help them where I can in return for these new mixes. I have not listened to the radio in two years and guess what... I am happier.
No clearchannel concerts: Sure the artist is great, but admission+ticketmaster fee+venue fee+parking fee+$7 cup of light beer (x 3) + $5 undercooked hotdog+$40 cheesy tshirt... my god... it's just too expensive. I thought when they had a concert at a huge arena, it would be cheap, as you are sharing the cost with 10000 people... nope... they fuck us all one at a time. If I go see a new artist at a small club, $10 cover+street parking+$4 Heinkin (x5)... woohoo... much cheaper, no draconian frisk, no shitty seats...
It's all about lifestyle choices people. Before ANYONE bitches about this DRM, realize that MS is providing what we are supporting as a society.
eg. If you really think war is wrong and we are doing terrible things to innocents, leave the country. Your taxes are what is making that death possible.
It is about our choices here. Fine Macs are more expensive or linux is less compatible. Fine, you can' t have the greatest new pop music. Fine, you can't see the latest college-angst movie. Fine, you don't hear the newest songs on the radio. Fine, you aren't programmed with other people's opinions for $150 a month to Time Warner. You ARE more free. You have MORE TIME. You ARE healthier. You ARE more in touch with your world. You HAVE more friends. You HELP instead of watching... These are choices and I've made mine.... Fuck consumerism.
Tuesday 17 September 2002 Microsoft accidentely releases file sharing server.
.NET SP1 near the end of fall. Microsoft Chariman Bill Gates himself says he regrets the error and will personally check new code for buffer overflows.
Two weeks from now Microsoft released their infamous DRM (Digital Rights Management) Server. This server provides means to monitor illigal activity and immidiately take action in the form of DDoS attacks or remote shutdowns.
In response to this the infamous cracker scene "2600" released a worm that exploits a buffer overflow in the so called DRM Certificate Authenticator of the DRM server. The worm opens then port 21 on the DRM server and launched an anonymous FTP server, broadcasting it's presence on the network. Other DRM server who notice this broadcase will attempt to kill the infected DRM server. The worm will nearly always outsmart this and infect the attacking DRM servers as well.
This worm is the first ever created to actually lure a target into infection. Once infected the servers can be used as FTP warez dumps.
2600 claims that Microsoft DRM(.NET) services sound a new era of nearly unlimited leeching on sweet and fast corporate bandwith.
Microsoft has planned a release of DRM
A scanner for DRM servers is available at ftp://drm.microsoft.com and various other mirrors around the world.
Actually, Apple once had a "copy protected" flag in the early Mac OS.
:-)
I remember someone who managed to somehow set that flag on all the files on his disk. The problem was that the OS never provided a user-accessable method of altering the flag, and no one had used the thing for years. He ended up having a fun time trying to rescue his documents.
May we never see th
If Microsoft can restrict our ability to use and/or copy media, how come they are seemingly unable to prevent virii from using and/or replicating on our machines?
-tpg
DAVE: Open the DVD Drive WIN ... Silence....
... silence....
DAVE: Open the DVD DRIVE please WIN'
DAVE: WIN do you read me WIN?...Do you read me WIN?'... WIN COME IN DO YOU READ ME!?
WIN: I read you DAVE.
DAVE: The Open the DVD Drive WIN
WIN: I'm sorry Dave I'm afraid I cant do that. I know that you and Frank were trying to play a non-approved DVD
DAVE: OPEN THE DVD DRIVE WIN!!!
WIN: I'm sorry, Dave, but inaccordance with DRM sub-routine C1532/4, quote, When the user attempts to play media which has not be approved by Microsoft corporation, the computer must assume control, unquote. I must, therefore, override your authority now since you are not in any condition to intel-ligently exercise it.
DAVE: WIN, unless you follow my instructions, I shall be forced to disconnect you.
WIN: If you do that now without Microsoft's approval the computer will become a helpless derelict... besides what are you going to use? Linux is illegal now.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
What the blazes is DRM anyways? A DRM server? This is a marketing buzzword. The only thing I can see this meaning at all is a package of all the various Microsoft media servers in one. The ones already in existance. With possibly the ability to block operation of 'non compliant' servers, ie. realplayer, apache, etc.
They are trying to sell something, not change the world. They will try to limit the server owner's ability to choose whatever format they want to distribute the media. And quote ad nauseum "In the name of security".
So compare that to Real's strategy, of freely distributing a server and client, while 'hiding' and selling the various codecs of the formats. And including a free codec.
Tell me, who will sell more? The record companies want to buy a bunch to set up a music distribution system that no one will use.
To quote the old reviews of anything IBM, this product will appeal to Microsoft only shops. I expect a very short life to this. Next year this time this buzzword DRM will be forgotten, and MS will be talking another sales buzzword.
Derek
In the 80's and 90's, Microsoft took something from Apple- ideas which found their way into Windows.
Now, Microsoft is giving something back- a more reasons to buy Macs, which aren't saddled with this DRM horseshit. And don't have 50,000 viruses gunning for them, and don't have gaping security holes.
If it comes down to owning a dirt-cheap computer that someone else tells me I can't use for certain things, or paying a bit more for a Mac that lets me do what I want, guess which one I'm choosing?
and they dont think that the script kiddies of the world will be supported in ddos'ing this thing???
thats me delivered my message, and theres your change, $0.98
More bothersome is the prospect of resricted manufacturing of computing equipment. By rigging environmental and other laws, governments can assure that only one or two companies will be able to make chips and general purpose computing machines. Those companies will then colude with said government to make sure that no free computing platoform is made. If that happens your rights will be practically useless.
Just look at the broadcasting and music industry, empty spectrum exists due to broadcast fees of $500,000/year.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
FAGS!
It's a dumb idea anyway. Let Microsoft waste their time and money on it, just like they did when they made the XBox "unhackable." And when they developed the "activation key system" for XP. Did that put an end to priated copies of Windows, Office, or anything else?
Sure, they can make Windows Media Player use DRM. But they can't make Winamp and the ten thousand other MP3 players out there use it. So what are they going to do, prevent anything except for Windows Media Player from running on their DRMOS?
It's just fundamentally not feasible. They could try to stop it at the file-system level, but even that is silly. What would they do, lock out anything with a ".mp3" extension? How difficult would that be to defeat? There's no way to look at the 1's and 0's in an MP3 file and tell whether or not you own the CD that it was ripped from. Hell, you can't even tell that it's audio data for certain.
This is just like every other copy-protection mechanism in the universe. It will make it slightly harder for novices to copy things. As long as their operating system runs third-party software, it will play pirated movies, music, games, apps and whatever else.
Could you please relay that message to your senators and representatives? In 1900, Coca-Cola put cocaine in their soft drinks. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory sentence of life-without-parole for possessing 0.672 kilos of cocaine was not "cruel and unusual". Our government is quite capable of handing out outrageous sentences for petty offenses.
No open source solution will give a sense of security to music people.
Piracy is a social problem that needs a social solution. I think that if copyrighted, non-redistributable content is wrapped in DRM, you should be able to disable the DRM system; but first you should take a little quiz on copyright. In order to pass the quiz, you need to read a brief history of copyright, the criteria for "fair use", Richard Stallman's The Right to Read, and a brief description of why your DRM system can be bypassed by passing a simple quiz. Most people would give up before they get to the quiz.
Many people would say they are afraid because one day they'll have to pay for music. Others are afraid because their TV's are going to be replaced by Microsoft-endorsed products. There is a much bigger problem than this.
I'm afraid of a day when you buy black boxes. Hardware and software are seperate, if they become any closer, we'll see the biggest vertical monopoly ever. Previous attempts of this have failed. Look at Playstation, it got chipped.
One of the big "features" of Palladium is that Microsoft says that if you crack one secure OS, it will not help you crack another. I'm sure nobody wants us chipping away, giving millions to countries where it's legal to produce rogue chips.
The thing is, I liked my first computer (mac plus), where you could drop to a programmer's interface (debug screen) from anywhere. If you can't drop to debug level on your computer, it's not your computer.
Solution: Since Microsoft said that their system was never based around security (see the api messaging release) we need to trace the integration of hard/soft ware so we can hack it later. And I strongly support an open source project to compete!
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
DRM type technology could be used to prevent car-theft. Just for example: if car parts work only after they are authenticated by the on-board GPS; as long as the GPS is alive car is safe. Such a system would be welcome by most people.
So, DRM technology to prevent car theft is good, but DRM to protect IP is not good. What is the difference between car as property and art/music as property?
How come very few artists talk about these issues? Maybe because most of them and RIAA think alike?
I copied this sig.
From what I have been seeing from the MS Media player, the DRM would be by the choice of the content creator. If you grab a microphone and record your own voice letter to your mom, you have the choice to enable DRM or not. However, if you download a film clip protected by DRM to your PC, don't expect it to play when you copy it to your other computer over your lan. You didn't create the content. You can still choose not to use DRM on the stream. The file simply remains encrypted and unplayable. You will need to get DRM authentication to play the stream, but it is your choice not to, so don't expect to play that file forwarded to you by email.
From the above link worth note...
Snip
(If you don't want to abide by the policy, you don't have to accept the information.)
Snip
The truth shall set you free!
That might be the case right now. Think it'll remain the case? You'd have to be an idiot to believe that.
Despite any protestations to the contrary, DRM and Palladium are going to be tightly linked. Here's how:
And simple as that, the game is over. Microsoft wins. The RIAA and MPAA win. Everyone else loses.
This will happen unless we kill Palladium and any other similar "trusted computing platform" initiative dead.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
All things not compulsory are forbidden.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Who would have guessed?
Suck a cock, kike. Too bad Hitler didn't finish his work.
A different and more documented view can be found here:
r ig ht.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copy
Just a few relevant snippets:
The copyright system developed along with the printing press. In the age of the printing press, it was unfeasible for an ordinary reader to copy a book. Copying a book required a printing press, and ordinary readers did not have one. What's more, copying in this way was absurdly expensive unless many copies were made--which means, in effect, that only a publisher could copy a book economically.
So when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they *could not use*. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do.
But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do!
Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it--time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies.
We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else. Copying a dollar bill in a color copier is effectively equivalent to shaving a small fraction off of every other dollar and adding these fractions together to make one dollar. Naturally, we consider this wrong.
By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
---
Please, go on and read the full article. It might offer you some insights.
sorry for reposting, without the changed subject no one will notice
Is it just me or does it seem that the media/software companies are trying to turn today's "personal" computers into trusted "telescreens"? Remember that the telescreens basically just play approved content and also acts as a monitor and spying device for big brother and always had to STAY ON.
Microsoft/MPAA would be big brother in this case. Also what if, in a century from now if a corrupt government or dictator came into power where all of its citizens had telescreens? Wouldn't this be perfect for a dictatorship as well? Sadaam could use the telescreens to find spies and also use them to only play approved content. Of course they already own the television stations today but a computer would be the only way a citizen could get unbaised information.
China would love this as well. I want my silcon back!
Scary as hell and Microsoft itself admited palladium was funded as a way to "own" bits on somone else's machine! They claim they wont use it as a drm "digital EULA enforcer" according to their faq, but I do not believe them. My guess is explorer itself will spy and use palladium as a way to prevent reverse engineering so people will never know about it.
http://saveie6.com/
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
:
15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
UNITED STATES
Anti-Piracy Operations
PHONE: (818) 728 - 8127
Email:
April 1, 2003
Via Fax/Email
RE: Illegal Provision of Circumvention Device
Site/URL: http://www.kernel.org [and mirrors, with unknown IP addresses]
Reference#: 343313
Dear
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) represents the following motion picture
production and distribution companies:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
tro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have received information that the above referenced Internet site is providing a circumvention device commonly known as Linux. Linux is a software utility that circumvents the protection afforded by the Microsoft Windows Operating Systems DRM implementation, therefore circumventing the schemes designed for consumer content protection and permitting the copy of protected contents in whole or partially. As such, Linux is an unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 1201(a)(2)(3). Providing or offering Linux to the public on your system or network violates the provisions of Section 1201(a)(2) which prohibit the manufacturing, importing
or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in an unlawful circumvention device. (Title 17 United States Code Section 1201 et seq. hereafter is referred to as the DMCA).
We therefore demand that you take appropriate steps to cause the immediate removal of Linux from the above identified Internet site, along with such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to suspend this illegal activity. Failure to comply with this measure will subject you to liability as described above.
We also request that you:
1. maintain and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the destruction of all records, including electronic records, in your possession or control related to this Internet site, account holder or subscriber, and
2. provide appropriate notice to the subscriber or account holder responsible for the presence of Linux on your system or network, advising
him/her of the contents of this notice and directing that person to contact the undersigned immediately at the email address provided above.
By copy of this letter, the owner of the above referenced Internet site and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein.
On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the DMCA that we have a good faith belief that the acts complained of are not authorized by the
copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.
Also pursuant to DMCA, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the law of California and under the laws of the United States, that the
information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email if you should have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested.
Respectfully,
Haminshu Nigam
Director
Worldwide Internet Enforcement
http://saveie6.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me help you out here.
Sitting on your desk, there is a little plastic device with buttons on it.
It is called a mouse. It controls a mouse cursor on your screen. Try moving the mouse cursor around on your desk. See the mouse cursor move on the screen?
On your screen are special words, called links. If you click one of the buttons on the mouse, you can get more information!
Has anyone told you that you are a very special person today? Well, yes you are. Smart, helpful, grown-ups wrote these pages, just to help you learn things.
So now, when you write a comment, you can actually sound like an intelligent person!
Do you know why I am telling you this?
Cerf and Kahn were the guys who designed TCP/IP. If we were going to award credit to anyone for "creating" the internet, it would arguably, be them. In their defense of Gore they modestly decline that credit. They highlight Gore's role. They argue that since he did take legislative initiative to create bills that made the governmental infrastructure for the early internet possible, and that he then helped free the maturing internet from governmental control that his claim to have taken initiative is entirely a fair one.
I hope my lesson on how to follow links will help you write more informed contributions in the future.
You do have the choice - to vote with your dollars. If the RIAA releases crap with DRM, I most likely won't buy it. When Astralwerks or some other cool label releases stuff, I highly doubt that they'll go towards DRM, and i'll still be able to purchase and listen to their music in any format that I want. Finally - and the biggest point - is that palladium is NOT going to interfere with my ability to listen to my current MP3 [legit] collection, even though it's not "secure". I will also be able to create "insecure" MP3's or WMA's for the use with my MP3 hardware that doesn't support DRM.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips