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.
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.
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
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.
... because nooone can possibly hack into any server running Windows, right?
This space left intentionally blank.
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 Raven.
The Raven
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
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!
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.
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.
"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...
Nope, no sig
But what happens when your ISP won't let you connect without a DRM OS? ANd what heppens when the next line of processors wont' run without DRM OS?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
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!!!!
... 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."
The more you tighten your grip, motherfucker, the more mp3s and divxs will slip through your fingers...
graspee
{Logged in for great justice!)
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 would be somewhat ironical if the DRM solution itself limited "digital rights" by using closed protocols and propietrary technologies. The product does not have to be open source, but the interfaces, protocols and standards should be well documented, public and free. Luckily, as interoperability is likely to be a key issue with DRM, this will probably be fixed automagically because nothing else makes sense (business wise).
Now, maybe someone with more insight on DRM could comment on this as well?
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
... 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
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.
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?
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
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
Personally I think it is physically impossible, but cryptography and advanced math is complex and may do things that don't seem logical. I mean I never would have thought PK encryption was possible, either.
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
I think you're right. It's one thing when Windows users have IE and media player shoved down their throats with their new OS, but people will take notice if they have a DRM enabled OS and realize what a bunch of junk it is. They'll tell their friends. There'll be oodles of news reports on it on more mainstream outlets.
I'll admit that it's fun to sit around and preach doom-and-gloom about the pending death of Fair Use, but I think the more likely end result is that this just won't fly. This marketing about keeping you safe from viruses is ridiculous. How many users *really* still have major virus problems these days? Unless Symantec and every other virus software manufacturer quite suddenly go out of business, that scare tactic won't work.
Now if the PR department comes up with something more feasible, maybe I'll perk my ears up a little more. For now, I just plan on not buying these products.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Not to mention a mob of people who can't download their latest BS [Britney Spears/bullshit, what's the difference?] music from Napster-clone-of-the-day anymore. Never underestimate the noumber of people who wants to have free (as in beer) content.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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