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
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.
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.
"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?
No worries until your hardware breaks down and you have to buy shiny new DRM-Enabled hardware you mean?
Oh, you mean you doubt that our friendly PC motherboard/video-card/sound-card manufacturers would make hardware that only accepted input from sources that have a valid DRM certificate?
Let's see.. if they did that, M$ would love them and promote them and offer them incentives. The government would love them and give them tax incentives or duty-free imports for building hardware that will work with the new hardware-DRM bios requirements. The RIAA/MPAA would love them and off free media to bundle as promo material.
If they DON'T do this, a bunch of geeks who make up about 1% of the potential revenue stream will priase them for their Open Source policies... and they'll make no money and crash-and-burn just like all the other dot-bombs.
Sure, no worries here mate.