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."
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
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.
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
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
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
DRM exists.
Palladium doesn't exist.
So tell me how they're the same thing?
If Microsoft wasn't developing DRM, someone else would.
The status quo of "all yer base are belong to $SCRIPTKIDDY" can't fly, like it or not. The 'honor system' doesn't work.
There are many who want a secure platform. It's a double edged sword, and will be an option for all of the forseeable future.
You don't want rights management? Fine. You can't use this service. You don't want to run a trusted platform? Fine, you can't connect to my network/server. You don't want your personal info on a card? Fine. You cant drive a car.
I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk reactions from the average teenaged slashdot reader. Does anyone ever try to objectively think through both the pros and cons of a either DRM or trusted computing platform?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The more laws you force everyday users to break the more ridiculous you make yourself look and the more socially acceptable piracy gets[1]. Way to go, Microsoft.
[1] And that's something, considering how utterly socially accepted MP3s already are.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
"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?"
DRM technology enables content creators, such as record companies
Funny, I thought that artists made records...
The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible, as there is no escrow agreement in most laws that would protect DRM (like the DMCA and EUCD).
So if DRM could be done openly so that the technology couldn't be wielded by large media companies, then there would be less scope.for abuse. That said, there's still plenty of scope, just less ;-)
We also need laws to protect the public from parties that might want to abuse DRM, like the RIAA, for example.
[Granting Microsoft a patent] means no one else can create such an operating system without a legal battle.
Or merely licensing the technology from the patent-holder. Duh.
Far easier to convince the PTO to not issue a patent than to defend ourselves against a claim of patent infringement 5 years down the road. If Microsoft gets a pre-emptive lock on crytpographically secure systems, they'll forever (ok, for the next few decades) prevent OS programmers from doing the same thing.
Even just forcing them to tighten their patent application would give us more breathing room in the future.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Especially when they find Lucky owning some ill-gotten mp3, movie, or piece of software and threaten to throw him in jail unless he lets Microsoft do what they want..
--even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
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.
The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible...
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Is that really the biggest problem with DRM? The hypothetical future in Stallman's "The Right to Read" emerges pretty naturally from the idea of universally adopted DRM. An open source, free software DRM server would speed adoption of these technologies tremendously.
When I first read Stallman's RTR, it seemed loony and beyond belief. Now, several years later, it seems prescient and ominous. I can imagine something vaguely like it coming to pass. Donating our efforts to help create this future seems mindbending.
Admittedly, there are lots of arguments for building open source DRM technologies, and one of them, like you said, is to prevent their monopolization by proprietary interests. But if we have a choice between helping them grow and stymieing their adoption in the first place, shouldn't we choose the latter?
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
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)
I would never work on DRM software. Currently I spend hours each day writing software to try to let people do more with their computers. It's very difficult and time-consuming, and I'm not always successful... I'd hate to be writing software that makes people do less with technology. That's just a disgusting waste of resources.
As Apple says, copyright infringement is a social issue, not a technological one. The media industry thinks ubiquitous DRM is the solution, when all they need to do is offer their content for download cheaply, in plaintext formats.
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?
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