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
"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.
I'd rather give them a patent. That means no one else can create such an operating system without a legal battle.
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.
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
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
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.
DRM technology enables content creators, such as record companies
Funny, I thought that artists made records...
[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.
... 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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