Transmeta to Incorporate DRM in TM5800 Processor

smiff writes "Silicon Valley is reporting that Transmeta will embed 'security' features in its TM5800 Crusoe processor. 'Transmeta said its Crusoe processors...would be slightly altered to tackle security and address requirements for securing sensitive data and intellectual property.' With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?"

Comments

Why?

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Why does this kind of stuff happen right in front of our eyes, yet behind our backs?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

pobably because it does, and yet it doesn't.

Re:Why?

[swordboy]

Why does this kind of stuff happen right in front of our eyes, yet behind our backs?

Because it makes sense to a lot of people. Say, for example, that I want to write a book. While I could write the book, the odds of a publisher picking it up are incredibly small. Even if it did get picked up, an author only gets a small fraction of each sale. Then there is the Self Publishing route, but this requires that I put significant time and effort into developing my own publishing methods. Lastly, I could simply sub-contract the actual creation of the book, but I've got to have significant cash up front in order to buy in the quantity required in order for this to work. And then you've got to manage inventory (storage and accounting thereof).

Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM. If the book is successful, then I've got some capital to work with in order to bring the book to the bookshelf.

It isn't all evil, people. But this is slashdot so I'd better go screw myself, eh?

Re:Why?

[blamanj]

I gotta believe that part of the problem is the current economy. The chipmakers are desparate to find someone to buy the chips. The feel if the suck up to the music and video industry behemoths, that there'll be a new market.

I bet if the economy hadn't tanked, we wouldn't be seeing so much of this.

Re:Why?

[lunenburg]

Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM. If the book is successful, then I've got some capital to work with in order to bring the book to the bookshelf.

It isn't all evil, people. But this is slashdot so I'd better go screw myself, eh?

And, by using this "secure DRM", you feel that you also have the right to dictate to the purchaser the exact terms and conditions that they are allowed to use your book under? Things like not being able to print the book, not being able to copy it from device to device, the book becoming unavailable after X days?

Normal publishers don't get to dictate these terms - why should you? That's the problem with DRM.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, go screw yourse.. oh, um, yeah.

=)

Re:Why?

[banzai51]

I gotta believe that part of the problem is the current economy. The chipmakers are desparate to find someone to buy the chips. The feel if the suck up to the music and video industry behemoths, that there'll be a new market.

Except it won't be the music and video industry buying these chips. It will be you and me. We all know that most tech-savy crowds (Ars, Slashdot, etc) will NOT be buying this crap. So they are doing this to alienate their potential market?

Re:Why?

[swordboy]

And, by using this "secure DRM", you feel that you also have the right to dictate to the purchaser the exact terms and conditions that they are allowed to use your book under? Things like not being able to print the book, not being able to copy it from device to device, the book becoming unavailable after X days?

Normal publishers don't get to dictate these terms - why should you? That's the problem with DRM.

Consumers have a right not to buy something if they do not like the terms. If Joe Consumer does not want to buy an eBook because he can't copy it to multiple devices, then there is nobody forcing him to do so. If Joe Consumer wants to buy a real, hard copy book, then his rights have been restricted as well.

For the record - I *am* writing a book. And my work will be released only in hard copy format because an unsecure digital work would quickly remove the need for most people to actually *purchase* the book (I realize that there are a few honest people out there but not in the demographic that I will be targeting).

What you are not realizing is that secure DRM *creates a new market* rather than restricting the current one. Everyone associates the term with the MPAA and RIAA. And yes - these companies would like to remove some of our fair use rights with this technology. What they don't realize is that it will remove the need for many authors and artists to require the terms of the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated Big Corporate Evil.

If a proven secure DRM makes an inroad, then I would consider releasing my work at this level. And if Joe Consumer wants to pay a few bucks to preview it for X number of days, then he will. But realize that this is a new market and not a restriction on an existing one.

As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.

Re:Why?

[Sloppy]

Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM.

What does publishing a DRMed eBook get you, that publishing a non-DRM eBook wouldn't?

It seems to me, like all it gets you is a smaller market for your book (and thereby, lower sales), combined with some additional fees and contractual obligations from you to whatever organization is in charge of the DRM "technology."

Re:Why?

[Loco3KGT]

Did any of you flamers even read the article? The term "DRM" wasn't even used.

snippet from the article :
"As computer users worldwide become more mobile and communicate via wireless technologies, the threat of information theft becomes a major concern to consumers, businesses and governments," said Dr. Matthew R. Perry, president and CEO, Transmeta Corporation. "Transmeta has met this challenge by leveraging the company's unique software and hardware processor design to enable embedded security capabilities unmatched by any other x86 processor."
--

OH MY GOD. THEY ARE TAKING AWAY MY MP3Z! oh wait.

Re:Why?

[Oculus Habent]

What does it get you? While the market might be smaller, you have a sight better chance that the people who do read your eBook will pay for it.
Ideally, teh restrictions should never prevent you from copying it, merely from having it in multiple places, just as you cannot loan a friend a copy of the book you are reading. This could mean some media restrictions if certain OSes don't play fairly.

For instance: you download an eBook with DRm on your desktop PC. You start reading it there and decide you want it on your laptop. You could move it, but not copy it.

There are some limitations with a system like that. If you burned a copy of the eBook onto CD-ROM, you could never move it elsewhere - unless your DRM-enabled Burner could damage that part of the disc or some other such tactic. What's bad about this theory? You can't indescriminately copy files. You have to own things.

What's good about this theory? If it works, content could become much cheaper. With less complex distribution and management methods, new "media companies" built from the ashes of the RIAA and MPAA could offer better rates to artists and have lower overhead (imagine: 10 execs, 100 lawyers, and 250 techies... :) and reduce the overall cost to consumers, not only because of the better, cheaper distribution, but because you don't have to factor the cost of piracy into your content.

So, what's good about DRM? Plenty.

Re:Why?

[MSZ]

But realize that this is a new market and not a restriction on an existing one.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say.

DRM as a concept isn't evil. It might be even good. Problem is in the details, namely in the way it is implemented. And I bet it will be implemented in a way that will benefit only the big evil corporations.

Assuming that I would like to buy an ebook, I'd like to be able to use it in a way no more restrictive than a dead-tree edition. Which means ability to tranfer to laptop, PDA, smartphone or whatever device I would carry - just like I can carry the normal book in my bag or in my pocket and don't need to pay for separate bag and pocket editions. I could even agree with some form of deactivating other copies so only one is accesible at a time. Current approach however is that I would have to pay for new copy for each device I want to have the book on. Which suddenly makes ebook more expensive than normal one even though the production cost is much less... Guess what, I won't be buying one.

Re:Why?

[BlueJay465]

Face the facts. The vast majority of the population does NOT read Ars, Slashdot, etc. Computer manufacturers, who want to save some money picking Transmeta over Intel or AMD are the primary consumers of these chips. They then pass their new line of cheaper computers to the 90% of the unwashed masses who don't know the difference between the CPU and the Monitor. Potential market my ass. Only the geeks who read this site and others like it are the ones booing DRM, but the rest of the public could care less.

Personally, I think DRM has a valid place in society and is inevitable, however the current iteration is quite flawed. Information is no longer free...those who won't accept that will be the ones banging their heads against the wall in the end wishing for the good `ole days of Napster.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers have a right not to buy something if they do not like the terms.

Of course, if they do not understand the terms that's a different matter. When Joe Consumer finds out the eBook he paid for can't be used under basic fair use terms this will all end up in court faster than falling down a mineshaft with a tailwind.

Problem is that DRM tries to imply a license for use rather than an actual product purchase. Most punters won't get the difference (and others will disagree with it) so that will create problems.

And my work will be released only in hard copy format because an unsecure digital work would quickly remove the need for most people to actually *purchase* the book

Every one wants it so bad they'll steal it! Wow. It's that good is it? How about if it's any good, they'll pay for it. I've paid for PDF documents and I'll do it again, but not if they come with strings attached IN ADDITION to those of the existing law.

What they don't realize is that it will remove the need for many authors and artists to require the terms of the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated Big Corporate Evil.

So where do you think you will get your DRM authorization from? Yep, Big Corporate Evil - aka Microsoft or Verisign or Adobe or similar.

As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.

Ya reckon? I think you'll find that Linux users will be those against DRM in general, and hence will not be in the DRM "market" anyway. Linux (and other OS) were developed for free use, not to be part of any "market".

Re:Why?

[Mwongozi]

And, by using this "secure DRM", you feel that you also have the right to dictate to the purchaser the exact terms and conditions that they are allowed to use your book under? Things like not being able to print the book, not being able to copy it from device to device, the book becoming unavailable after X days?

Or how about not being able to make a copy identical to the original to give to all your friends for free?

Remember, copying a real book for someone else is still illegal, and justifiably so, IMHO. The only reason you don't get special designs of book that are intentionally difficult to copy is because books are already difficult to copy! Ripping apart a book and photocopying every page is time-consuming and hard work, and the copy ends up nothing like the original - and you deface the original in the process.

Non-DRM e-books, unlike real books, are amazingly easy to copy, just a couple of clicks will send an identical copy winging its way to your friends, and the original is untouched. If you really wanted to copy a DRM e-book, you probably could, crackers are usually on the ball with these things, however, it's time-consuming and hard work... just like trying to copy a real book! This is why DRM is needed - to make it just as difficult to make an illegal copy of digital data as it is for hard copy data.

Re:Why?

[Sloppy]

because you don't have to factor the cost of piracy into your content.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think that DRM will ever let you avoid having to face piracy. There's always a way around it, even if one pirate has to resort to one analog copy (and then a million DRM-less digital copies of that).

I guess there's going to have to be a "DRM bubble" for a while before the media companies learn what a fraud it was.

Re:Why?

[voodoo1man]

Consumers have a right not to buy something if they do not like the terms. If Joe Consumer does not want to buy an eBook because he can't copy it to multiple devices, then there is nobody forcing him to do so. If Joe Consumer wants to buy a real, hard copy book, then his rights have been restricted as well.

You obviously haven't no idea who a "consumer" is. Yes, some of us are forced to buy your books and their restrictions. Medical, law and engineering professionals are forced to buy books to practice their trade. Scholars and researches are forced to subscribe to journals and periodicals to do their job. Students are forced to buy books to pass their courses.

Don't believe that last one? I didn't, until that exact thing happened to me only (literally) yesterday. The professor for the course (without any prior notification in the course description) demanded that we purchase a certain copy of a book that comes with a software license, and that the only way for us to hand in assignments (and therefore pass the course) is to use the software*. I didn't agree with the licensing restrictions of the software (non-transferrable, and the license key expires at the end of the term), I don't run Windows, and I had already purchased a used copy of the book (thankfully the copy I had was only $20, and the book itself seems ok). When I raised this objection, the instructor basically told me to piss off and take another class. Although the course is required for the program I'm pursuing, I won't be able to take it this semester.

What you are not realising is that DRM will significantly affect the current market and anyone involved. There will be absolutely no new markets created by DRM. Consumables and consumers determine a market - you are neither creating new types of consumables, nor drawing new consumers. What you are doing is placing trade restrictions on the current markets with absolutely no economic justification or historical precedence.

* For the record, it was a logic course offered by the department of philosophy under the faculty of humanities - there was absolutely no reason why the particular (or any, for that matter) software had to be used to complete the coursework.

Re:Why?

[pardonne]

> But this is slashdot so I'd better go screw myself, eh?

You should go and screw yourself independent of this being slashdot. Put it in your head: Nobody wants to read the shitty ebooks that you want to write, DRM or no DRM.

Pardonne

Re:Why?

[DarkVein]

As an author of an intellectual work, you realize that your work serves to enrich culture. You are not producing a product, such as a chair. You're producing an expression of thought.

The market for thought, such as it is, will not expand beyond those that are ready to pursue it. E-media only serve as another distribution channel, with considerable downsides that can only be enhanced by DRM.

Copyright is granted to you as a financial incentive for you to enrich the bodies of work and the cultures they affect.

I think this is the crux of the Product vs Progress debate: Those who support DRM believe in the right of restraint; "I have produced a product, and you have a right not to purchase it." Those who distain it understand the unyeilding power of Copyright. An expression can not be aquired by another means, from another source, or be duplicated outside the scope of the law. You may never experience Minority Report within your lifetime, or possibly your children's lifetime, if you have any problem with the defective DVD.

Now, you can disarm the arguement I've presented -- the basic presumption which placed copy rights in the Consitution -- with bashings of greed, and regexing "s/I/society/g". I hope you present it in original language, at least.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why does this kind of stuff happen right in front of our eyes, yet behind our backs?"

If you'd think about where that puts your head, you could just decide to stop contorting your body like that....

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when a couple million people notice that their favorite mp3's from Kazaa don't play anymore, their market dies, and so does DRM. At least in my ideal world.

Re:Why?

[bnenning]

This is why DRM is needed - to make it just as difficult to make an illegal copy of digital data as it is for hard copy data

And I have no objections at all if publishers want to release DRM-crippled products. The problem comes when said publishers subsequently demand laws to make criminals out of people who use tools that *could* be used to violate copyright, even though they have entirely legitimate uses (such as restoring the fair use rights that DRM schemes invariably remove).

Re:Why?

[rusty spoon]

I can hear it now "The stuff I stole no longer works, I want my money back".

Somehow I doubt anyone will go to court over the fact that their stolen music and movies no longer work. I also doubt that you could take a new PC back to the store and get a refund because it refuses to play your stolen media.

DRM is here to stay. It may not be perfect yet and there are almost certainly some giant-sized problems to overcome but it ain't going away.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that the big guys want to make it so you don't/can't *buy* songs/books/movies, just rent, pay-per-view, and subscription. Fair use copying goes on the trash heap of history.

Public distaste for the concept killed Divx
(pay per view DVD's) but you must keep your
snake-oil sensors on high.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Non-DRM e-books, unlike real books, are
>amazingly easy to copy, just a couple of
clicks

>will send an identical copy winging its way to
>your friends, and the original is
untouched.

>This is why DRM is needed - to make it just as
>difficult to make an illegal copy of
digital
>data as it is for hard copy data.

In your first sentence you make the exact point why DRM is absurd, We have the
technology to copy and distribute data perfectly and yet we need to implement roadblocks
to safeguard outdated business models. You would have burned gutenburg at the stake.
This is just history repeating itself, it seems to be the American way. Don't innovate, don't
find new ways of doing things, fsck social advancement just lock it up. No wonder our
economy sucks.

-troy

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Rights Online Articles are a great way to burn Karma! I lost 35 points in two days!

I guess I'll name it the YuRO Diet!

The trick is to post anything not cynical.
Slashdot seems to just mod ANYTHING in ANYWAY!

Ps, IN SOVIET RUSSIA 3.Profit pours hot grits on all your base! Natalie Portman!

Re:Why?

[severnaGates]

So you restrict the rights of a whole to provide monetary benefit for the few?
Nothing says being an artist or author is suppose to be profitable.

The Baen Free Library is an example of a professional business that has realized that giving people the right to copy doesn't hurt their sales; in fact, it helps them.

There are more people out there that have seen the light.

Oh FYI, unsecure is not a word perhaps you meant insecure and bigtime should either be hyphenated or spelled as two words eg. big time.

Re:Why?

[shaitand]

"Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system"

Unfortunately with Linus' ties to transmeta perhaps this is in the forseeable future?

Just a note though, as one author to another. You do remember that any rights you have profit from your work are only on loan as a token of goodwill from that target audience and joe consumer alike don't you? Out of the kindness of their hearts and in the spirit of fairplay they give you exclusive rights in the form of copyright for a time. But inheriently all new "works" belong to everyone, they are the property of the human race, not the author. If the human race sees fit to loan you rights because your the author, that is something you should be thankful for.

I don't know what audience your targetting, but most of those who pirate are those who would like to benefit in some fashion from what you've written but would not spend money on it otherwise. The rest are either children or those who collect (and sometimes redistribute those collections to the other two groups). It's doubtful anyone who would buy your book would pirate it, or not many in any case. 99% of the time, the pirating of your material is the cheapest free advertising you can get. I can't tell you how many times I've been loaned a book, digital or otherwise and then bought works from the author. Perhaps I've kept a book to two that was loaned to me digitally but I always buy other works from that author. I'm also alot more likely to give an author a chance if a friend I trust loans or gives me a book from the author than the author giving a "preview".

It's easy to discount people who say these things aren't the views of authors but those who want a free ride, but I myself am a published author of several works.

Re:Why?

[shaitand]

My my, prevent you from having it in multiple places, yes I can see how that doesn't unessarily inconvience me. I can see how convient it is not to be able to keep a copy on my laptop, pda, and desktop at the same time. After all, god forbid, I might somehow figure out how to read it in all three places simultaneously.

Re:Why?

[Oculus Habent]

It inconveniences you only because you are used to having the option to have it in three places at once. But how often do you read a book in three places simultaneously? This is the perspective of DRM. There's no reason you would ever read something in three places at once because you aren't in three places at once.

Lets look to the average user. How often is John Q Public going to need the eBook they are reading on their home PC, their PDA, their travelling laptop and their work PC all at once? About as often as they need a physical book in all four locations at the same time. That's the point. It comes down to protection of license or merchandise. You bought one copy of the book, not an indiscriminant number of copies.

I'm not saying it won't be restrictive. I keep my MP3s on my Mac and my PC at the same time. I read electronic versions of physical books I have because it is more convenient for me. As far as the DRM is concerned, I am not a "good consumer." That's why I hope that we don't see DRM soon. When I have a high-speed encrypted link to my home server where I can keep all of my personal documents, and I can access them from work, other people's houses, on the road, on the plane, etc, then DRM isn't an inconvenience, because you aren't limited by it. Until then, it will never be able to live up to others hopes, and will cause plenty of discontent in its own right.

OK. Here's the part where people mod me down. But the scenario you provide is strained at best, fictionalized at worst. Poorly implemented DRM is a burden on the user. It can interfere with the completion of your task. It can waste time and frustrate the user. DRM like that is indeed something to be spoken out against. But clean, seamless, integrated DRM is not the terrible monster people make it out to be. Instead of screaming, "No!" you should try to ensure that the DRM being implemented isn't oppressive and inconvenient.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.

1) There's an oxymoron in there - "fair DRM".

2) Even at this very moment, MS can hardly be called the biggest player on the DRM field - let alone the only one. Everybody seems to think that because they're the biggest name and they moved onto the field they must be the biggest player, but that's a false assumption.
MobiPocket (to stay in the e-book branch) is more popular than MS Reader, just to name an example.

In related news, Contramount Pictures just announced that their already overpriced Star Drek books will in the near future only be available in ARM (Analog Rights Management) editions.
When a book is first opened, it will detect the environment it is in by means of a patented light-based algoritm. When the same book is later opened, all pages will be blank unless it is opened in the same room. "The initial version will not allow for redecoration of the room, but in a future edition this issue may be addressed, or it may not," a spokesperson told us.
The end-user price of each ARM book will include a $4.00 license fee for the ARM system, but the same spokesperson said "but that is an insignificant amount compared to the $25.00 we already charge for a 200-page paperback now, so we don't expect sales to drop much."

The spokesperson finally added: "Our current policy of charging more for an e-book than for the hardcover edition will be abandoned, because this is now possible without lowering the e-book price."

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights give publishers limited exclusive rights to works. Which is why software is very unusual in the way it is licensed under arbitrary terms, which is legally questionable.

DRM effectively extends these limited rights.

An open source operating system can not adopt a secure DRM system unless it is done by hardware with no involvement from the OS, because you can always modify it to give you access to the content if it is ever unencrypted in memory.

Re:Why?

[arafel]

>Lets look to the average user. How often is John Q
>Public going to need the eBook they are reading on
>their home PC, their PDA, their travelling laptop
>and their work PC all at once?

Simultaneously, you shouldn't. However, if you don't let people keep copies on all of them, then you have to make sure to move anything you *might* want to read onto (say) your laptop, if you're going on a business trip. You've just removed one of the big gains of an electronic version.

You've said yourself, just now, that you don't do what you want DRM to enforce. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I realize that there are a few honest people out there but not in the demographic that I will be targeting"

Great attitude toward the people you expect to buy your book.

Re:Why?

[shaitand]

"You bought one copy of the book, not an indiscriminant number of copies."

That's were you are wrong in large part, and should be wrong completely. When I buy a book, I don't buy a physical copy of anything. I buy a license of the copyrighted material for my own personal unlimited use. If I buy a cd, I've bought the music, not the copy. I should be able to make two hundred copies for my own use so long as I don't give one to someone else. Having the text of the the new WoT book tatooed in phosphorous ink to the inside of my eye should be illegal, unless I've purchased the right to that text for my own personal use at some time in my life. If I ever buy a second copy of a book, it's simply because I find it worth the feee to not be inconvienced by producing a second copy myself, not because I feel the slightest pang of guilt for copying it. That would be light having a strange idea that If I own 5 pc's I should have to pay for the same piece of software I just 5 times over simply because I actually find it useful.

I feel I speak for most people here...

[I'm a racist.]

I feel like I speak for most people here, when I say " Oh, shit ."

Re:I feel I speak for most people here...

[bns_robson]

The company, which sells its chips to notebook computer makers like Sony, Toshiba and Fujitsu, said the providing of secure storage of certificates and keys for authentication and encryption of confidential data was a "critical challenge facing the computer industry and end users."

I definately would feel challenged if other people start storing certificates and keys on my computer without allowing me access to them.

Re:I feel I speak for most people here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Haven't you read MS's and the MPAA's papers on DRM. It's all for your own good. Really!

Repeat after me:
"In Microsoft, we trust."

Why...

[Paul Neubauer]

With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Because it is not security for you, but security from you.

DRM seems to be more DRRM: Digital Rights Removal Mechanism.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

...And which is why my next PC won't be powered by a Transmeta CPU after all.

Re:Why...

[mapmaker]

Yes, that is exactly the point smiff was making with his rhetorical question, which you appear to have mistaken for a literal one.

Re:Why...

[cheezedawg]

It is security for anybody that wants to use it- including you. DRM gives software an unprecidented ability to store secrets- whether those secrets are your latest tax return or a Hollywood movie is invisible to the hardware. It can help you just as much as it can help Hollywood.

DRM will be a boon to corporate security, which is the first target market for the technology anyway. DRM systems are going to sell like crazy to corporate IT whether /. likes it or not.

Re:Why...

[ccady]

... DRM seems to be more DRRM: Digital Rights Removal Mechanism.

I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.

But you *do* agree with him about Digital Restrictions Management, eh?

Re:Why...

[bnenning]

DRM gives software an unprecidented ability to store secrets- whether those secrets are your latest tax return

You mean I'll be able to "encrypt" my private documents so that nobody can see them without some sort of "password"? I can't wait!

It can help you just as much as it can help Hollywood.

I've yet to hear of any alleged benefit that DRM gives consumers that isn't easily attainable with non-DRM systems.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM gives software an unprecidented ability to store secrets- whether those secrets are your latest tax return or a Hollywood movie is invisible to the hardware.

The only way DRM would help you in this situation, is if you encrypt your documents, and the DRM can keep your key secret. That would require using trusted software, signed by whomever controls the hardware keys.

Note that DRM will not protect you against security holes in the OS or other trusted software. So in other words, it is no different than using your own software without DRM. Except that if you use your own software, you will not be trapped with DRM-based customer lock-in.

Hate to tell you....

[Anonymous Coward]

With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?"

Because you are actually a robot.

Re:Hate to tell you....

[Anonymous Coward]

a rock-em sock-em robot.

Boycott?

[Junior J. Junior III]

I thought Transmeta had Linus, and were therefore good guys. Now we're going to have to design and fabricate our own OSH chips so we can code and compile our own OSS. Maybe I'll just take up fishing instead...

Re:Boycott?

[The Bungi]

I'm sure he likes his job so don't expect much from him.

Re:Boycott?

[SpringRevolt]

Yeah! Good idea! Let's stop buying products which include Transmeta chips so they almost go out of business!

Ummm....

Hang on a minute...

Re:Boycott?

[Gerry Gleason]

A boycott is an inappropriate response to this. Putting support for DRM into the hardware or BIOS is not the problem, and nobody should be punished for putting in the required features at this level. Besides, what are you going to do, buy Intel or AMD chips instead? In case you haven't noticed, they are going along too.

Yes, do boycott companies that actually release content with objectionable DRM technology. A simple rule of thumb is if you can't view it under Linux (assuming there has been time and information necessary to create drivers, etc.), then it is unreasonably restrictive. Apple may be a good benchmark too, but they might cave at some point. It's really not possible for Linux to cave on this (well, maybe in an embedded box, but I doubt it).

Re:Boycott?

[E_elven]

Everybody seems to be talking about DRM.. however, I would more relate the matter to TCPA and such schemes, and I have thought about only one solid argument against it.

1) The main trick, and the most appealing trick, of TCPA is that the contents of your computer are scrambled so that it's supposedly impossible for unauthorized people to access your data.
2) Criminals (against property or humanity) are going to LOVE item 1. They can keep their data secure from any intervention from any authority.
3) Said authorities are NOT going to like item 2. They will demand that certain backdoors are built into the structure (demand if this isn't done by default) so that 'in case of national security' they can access that supposedly secure data and foil the criminal intentions.
4) Remind me again, what was the most appealing feature of TCPA? Completely protected data? Hm? Anyone?

E

Re:Boycott?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out OpenCores for open processors!

Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

The market drives the economy.
If all DRM hardware don't sell then the technology
will be abandoned.

I believe that a true open design for open hardware
will result out of this. And we will be running
Linux or FreeBSD.

Apple I believe is fighting to stay out of this.
Who knows, maybe Apple will get a surge of new business.

I do not want a nutered computer.

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[debrain]

If all DRM hardware [doesn't] sell then the technology
will be abandoned.

Not entirely true. If the cost of selling DRM technology exceeds the benefit, then it will be reduced in market share, perhaps to oblivion. On the other hand, if the benefits, which may include demands, or more precisely protection from, from entertainment and media conglomerates, exceed the costs of creating DRM, it will expand in use.

If it becomes standard, through de facto expansion, or mandate, then it will have marginal extra cost to manufacturers. This may enable market players to created added value in non-DRM technology, but the value-proposition, in lieu of wanted protections from aforementioned conglomerates, is exceedingly small. (ie. make something non-DRM and get sued.)

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[nagora]

Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

It it the clear intention of Hollywood and the Whitehouse that this would mean doing without a computer of any kind. Sounds like a fun future, doesn't it. This is the reality of consummer capitalism: the public is free to choose from the options the plutocrats set out for them, whether it is computer chips or presidents. In the later case, of course, they sometime have to fiddle the figures a bit if you're tedious enough to pick the wrong one but the reality is that a choice of two nobodies suits them much more than a real choice of people that might actually try to do a good job.

TWW

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be created a new sticker: DRM Inside

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your free-market talk sounds good, but what if it's mandated by the government?

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Sebastopol]

Boycott any hardware!? HA HA HA!

AMD, Intel and Transmeta have all gone DRM. What are you going to use, IBM Power4? Apple will follow suit next, I assure you.

Again, we've been fukked by lobbyists and a greedy congress. Free market my ass.

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this ass-drivel modded up?

The market drives the economy.
If all DRM hardware don't sell then the technology
will be abandoned.

The market drives the economy. Yeah. So, you're a smart sort of guy, aren't you?

I believe that a true open design for open hardware
will result out of this. And we will be running
Linux or FreeBSD.

You forgot to mention that peace in the Middle East will come out of all "this". By the way, what are "we" running right now?

Apple I believe is fighting to stay out of this.
Who knows, maybe Apple will get a surge of new business.

Yeah, I heard they were really fighting some people really hard in order to stay out of "this". You should go into tech reporting (when you conquer that mental retardation thing), cause you certainly have the inside scoop.

I do not want a nutered computer.

Very eloqunt. Nutering a computer would be crule. Hard to argu.

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Junior J. Junior III]

If all new chips incorporate DRM, and all current chips are phased out, then the market won't have any say at all. This is particularly true if DRM-enabled technologies are mandated by legislation. Even nastier will be when they make it illegal to own any legacy hardware that's capable of circumventing DRM.

They can pry it out of my cold, dead hands I suppose. But more likely they'll just infect legacy equipment with some kind of hardware-destroying worm that overwrites the BIOS with something that fries mobos and procs. The anti-virus companies will be forced to ignore this virus by the Dept. of Homeland Security in the interest of protecting the information based economy from "economic terrorists".

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[John Whitley]

Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

NO, NO, NO! As someone who works in the consumer digital media industry, this is not the right idea. The B2B (that's business-to-business) companies, e.g. Transmeta and many others, who produce hardware, firmware, and software support are bound to do what their customers (consumer electronics companies) want them to produce. If they don't, someone else gets the contract, period. The failure of Transmeta or TI or ARM does *nothing* to stop DRM. But there is a means that will work:

Boycott end-user products that use unacceptable DRM technologies. A few good market failures will send a loud message to the CE companies that no one wants DRM products. They stop asking for it, and companies like Transmeta will be more than happy to no longer waste development effort on a feature their customers will no longer pay for. Then the CE and the B2B hardware companies become your allies in the fight against DRM -- because you've taught them that to do otherwise limits their bottom lines.

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[nagora]

I think you should have been replying to the orginal poster; I don't think there's any point in boycotting any DRM stuff: chips or consumer items. We're going to get DRM whether we want it or not and the suppliers (MPAA, RIAA etc) will make damn sure that the only options are DRM or no digital content/DVD/Music/whatever at all.

No one is asking us.

TWW

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[zaqattack911]

Ok so if I'm to metaphorically interpret your solution:

We shouldn't boycott toaster ovens, we should boycott toast/bread, until they start making toaster ovens the right way?

That probably won't work for music/dvds etc..
People NEED to watch new movies and listen to the latest CDs.

Otherwise the american population will quickly realise how boring life is, stop being good consumers, and throw the nation deeper into an economic slide until we become part of the axis of evil :)

But seriously.... you tell me. Could you go a year without rending/buying/listening to a new album/dvd/movie ? Think about it... we are engineered consumers. We are trained.

-Zuchini

--If suicide bombers don't value their own life, why should we place value on the life of their people?

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Old Wolf]

Doubt it. Security is a good thing, isn't it?
For example, some Eftpos terminals contain a "secure chip" alongside the CPU, which you can write 3DES keys in, and do 3DES on any data, but it is physically impossible to extract the keys. I think few people would call this a bad thing (except people who want to rip off banks...)

Having the Transmeta CPU support this, as the article suggests, would mean that PCs, laptops and other devices could do secure banking and other tasks without their keys being discovered.

Security isn't bad. Rights removal is bad. Don't mix them up..

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[Moofie]

Re: your sig.

Obviously, you're one of those people who can't seem to understand that different people might have different opinions.

Example:

Not all Palestinians support suicide bombers.

Not all /. users hate MS and Apple and love Linux.

I understand how this might be difficult for you to get your brain around, but I recommend you make the effort. It will be worthwhile in your intellectual development.

Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM"

[zaqattack911]

You missed the point of my 'Sig' fucko. If you have the smallest sense of logic, you would be able to deduce that what I said in no way implies that all palestinians support suicide bombers. This is more of an "attack" on the bombers themselves... who mistakenly believe they are helping the cause by blowing themselves up. Such a profound disrespect for ones own life I cannot relate to, and pretty much speaks for itself. --Zuchini

linux/s

[ronaldcromwell]

doesn't linus work for these guys, or at least he did when they were getting started? what does he have to say about all this jazz?

Re:linux/s

[Anonymous Coward]

All this "jazz?" Hey, you hip cat, the 60s called, and they want their lingo back.

Re:linux/s

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong decade, go drink another beer

Re:linux/s

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... let the hippy be. He's, like, cool and stuff. Stupid wanker.

security is a double edged sword

[rebelcool]

The technology required to make computing actually secure can easily be turned into such things as protecting intellectual property.

Personally, I think the whole DRM thing is just FUD. There are so many agendas at work, the true nature of it is only known to the designers at work. And knowing how hardware architects work, I don't think theres much to fear.

Re:security is a double edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

Not FUD, its actually quite simple. Your computer will only work when your biometric RFID tag is properly installed in your spinal cord. This promotes security and accountability of your actions.

Re: security is a double edged sword

[hany]

The technology required to make computing actually secure can easily be turned into such things as protecting intellectual property.

... or plans of terrorists.

Note 1: In which case I'm supporting it.

Note 2: Now after thet previous note I should state that I'm not terrorist nor I support them nor I sympathize with them.

Note 3: Byt note 1 I meant "if it can protect plans of terrorists then it for sure can protect my private files". So that's why I'm willing to support such technology.

Note 4: We should use other strategies to fight terrorists than to turn entire humankind into suspects.

Note 5: And also MPAA and RIAA members should better find some new business model than to turn their entire customer base into suspetcs.

Oh great...

[gpinzone]

Now the list of companies for Slashdot to simultaneously love and hate grows again. Step aside Sony, Disney, and Adobe...make rook for one more.

Re:Oh great...

[dcmeserve]

> Step aside Sony, Disney, and Adobe...make rook for one more.

Naa, making pawn will do.

(ducks)

Boooooo!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or should that be "boo hoo?"

Reasons?

[DamnYouIAmALion]

I wonder what the reasons are for this. All big the hardware manufacturers seem to be moving towards helping the big media companies.

Perhaps as the computer and media technology blurs they're trying to not burn bridges before they've set foot on them.

Makes sense. I'm sure someone somewhere is doing well out of all this. Not your average Joe though.

- DamnYouIAmALion

Re:Reasons?

[Zigg]

Maybe this story has something to do with it? Essentially, the entertaiment and tech industries have "struck a deal" which means we won't have CDBTPA, but won't have fair use either.

Chinese

[xombo]

Perhaps this is the time when we should take into consideration buying processors from the Chinese government (since they're making them now). I realize they may be slow, but if this DRM thing gets out of hand this sort of threat to the US chipmakers could be in order.

Re:Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll happily buy Chinese hardware if it comes without DRM "protection" for the consumer.

Re:Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>>Perhaps this is the time when we should take into consideration buying processors from the Chinese government (since they're making them now). I realize they may be slow, but if this DRM thing gets out of hand this sort of threat to the US chipmakers could be in order.

The problem is that these chinese companies want to sell their stuff to the americans. Look at APEX dvd players, yeah first couple generation of them are hackable to get region free. But APEX sells more dvd players in north america than sony last year. And that means they turn "legit".

So will all these chinese companies.

Re:Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

You're advocating selling out US chipmakers to FOREIGN CHINESE (not to mention the socialist kind) companies? I'm guessing in no way you are an American.

Where do you think we already get more than half of what's solded onto our boards (and the boards themselves) China, and the ROC. Why? because US companies save billions of dollars paying $5k/year to Wu Ping rather than giving $25 to John Smith.

And now, because of the huge gigantically monstrous DRM you'd rather buy chips directly from them so that in no way at all does it benefit the US economy. What a great idea, it's not like the Chinese are trying to curtail anyone's individual rights anyway. Let alone on the cyberfront

Re:Chinese

[kipple]

...and then you'll be marked as a "terrorist".
Sorry man :)

Re:Chinese

[twitter]

Perhaps this is the time when we should take into consideration buying processors from the Chinese government

Yeah, we all know the Chinese would never stoop to censorship or other Digital Rights Denial. Give me a break, Commie talk about the evils of IP is self serving at best.

Re:Chinese

[xombo]

In response to the other comments, I give you the following to consider:
The Chinese government seems to be trying very hard to become more legit as far as its relationships with countries abroad.
The Chinese probably won't be bound to the legalities (Like american companies) of "digital rights" and "privacy protection" or whatever spin they're putting on this Big Brother nonsense.
Finally, what do the Chinese have to gain from selling a crippled product that can only run what all the other companies are selling at half the speed---That's right--nothing! Which is why they can find a niche by selling these processors without DRM.

All communist remarks aside, if the Chinese could market this the right way they could end up being in a very lucrative business.

Is there a list

[sweetooth]

of vendors not planning on making chips with DRM? So far we know that Intel, AMD, and now Transmeta will be incorporating DRM. What about Cyrix/Winchip? Has anyone heard about IBM adding this to ther PowerX series of chips? Or Motorola for thier upcoming lines? I would have no problem moving to PowerPC if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with DRM.

While there are very valid and good reasons for this technology to exist, I don't ever want to see it on my desktop/laptop. Server side makes sense to me, but I only see potential for abuse on the desktop side.

Re:Is there a list

[pheared]

Such a list becomes pretty useless for any poor sucker (myself included) who lives in a country that is considering legislation to make hardware and software that goes not comply with DRM-ish concepts illegal.

Re:Is there a list

[_fuzz_]

Has anyone heard about IBM adding this to ther PowerX series of chips?

Why would IBM put DRM in a POWER4 chip? The RIAA doesn't care about AS/400s.

Re:Is there a list

[Lumpy]

first of all you can always buy a nice shiny P-4 3ghz machine and not follow the sheep and buy a new computer every 15 minutes... then the DRM comes into the P-5, you dont have it crippling you.. Granted now you are at the last bastion of your computing power, but if you aren't running a crippled OS like something from Microsoft that will require a DRM computer+processor+DRM ram+drm hard drive+drm keyboard+drm mouse+drm speakers+drm monitor+whatever else crap they come up with.... you'll still in 20 years have a more capable computer than the 600Terahertz machine with 30 pentabytes of ram and 90,000,000 pentabyte hard drive. you can do things with your computer... while everyone else can.... surf the web but not view any content for fear that it will be remembered and that will be a copyright violation.

I see it as creating a HUGE computer hardware underground.. and any law that creates a large illegal trade is a law crafted by idiots and morons.... Proabition for example...

Re:Is there a list

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you have the SPARC architecture which can be used as laptops or workstations.....

Re:Is there a list

[TarPitt]

I see this as an excellent incentive to port P2P tools and media players to this environment. Anyone care to try coding this stuff in RPG? ;)

Re:Is there a list

[sweetooth]

IBM is working on a scaled down Power4 chip (speculation says for Apple) which could potentially end up in desktop computers. Hence over what IBM is doing with the Power4 line.

Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Evil thrives when Good Men do nothing"

Of course I forgot who said that....

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible, Star Trek; same thing.

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like Cicero

Inside connection

[JemalCole]

Hey, with Linus working for TM, maybe Linux can be the first OS with support for DRM! Woohooo!

Oh, wait... Dangit.

Non-Story

[reynolds_john]

You're a struggling company. You:

A. Ignore DRM solutions and the coming tidal wave of hollywood support and cash and apps that will work with Palladium-type processor hacks.

B. Make your chip support and embrace DRM.

As an investor, I can guess "B" might be your answer...

Re:Non-Story

[Lokinator]

Option A & B are all good, but you neglect option C -

C. Remembering the Intel PIII serial number debacle, launch paralell lines of production for DRM and non-DRM chips...and watch which one actually sells, killing the other.

Re:Non-Story

[MSZ]

The problem is, keeping two product lines alive until one turns out to be effectively dead may kill small company financially. Intel could do that. AMD maybe could do that. Transmeta can't afford such thing.

Seems there's a chance for the Chinese "Dragon" processors, maybe even that Russian "Elbrus" thing if it actually exists...

Re:Non-Story

[Anonymous Coward]

> C. Remembering the Intel PIII serial number
> debacle, launch paralell lines of production
> for DRM and non-DRM chips...and watch which one
> actually sells, killing the other.

Really? Current Macs do have an integrated serial number. Now, where's the uproar?

In other [bbc] news

[oliverthered]

The RIAA and technology companies have aggreed a deal, that will be anounced in washington on wednesday.

Basicly the RIAA are going to stop lobying for imposed DRM and the tech companies are going to put DRM inplace.

BBC News Story

Re:In other [bbc] news

[twitter]

Basicly the RIAA are going to stop lobying for imposed DRM

Right, there's a trusted source of information. I goes like this:

RIAA: Look Mr. Tech, I've used my vast propaganda power to push "trusted computing" and could make horrible laws. If you just give me what I want on your terms I won't have to beat you with legislation.

Mr. Tech: Ahhh! I give up, your monopoly on Britinay Spears and control of Radio in general are too powerful to resist. -Asside: If we do it our way, we can squeeze everyone for money! If things are regulated we won't make nearly as much.

RIAA: Great, we thought you would see it our way. -Asside: sucker once you start abusing everyone they will scream for government assistance and we own those bitches.

Didn't Intel do this a few years ago?

[anotherone]

Didn't Intel put a serial number on every processor a few years ago, allegedly to allow for this? Didn't they catch all nature of flack about it?

Re:Didn't Intel do this a few years ago?

[The Bungi]

The PIII UID was not a "security" feature per se. It was a simple identifier. Sort of like being able to get the CPU serial number through the hardware. I never did understand why Intel added that.

In any case, you could turn it off.

Transmeta... Transhmetta...

[3vi1]

Don't worry, it's not like it's AMD or Intel doing this....

(whisper whisper...)

THEY'RE DOING WHAT?!?!!? HOLY MOTHER OF @#$@#!!! THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FRICKIN' FALLING!!!!!!!!

We only have one option to stop these guys: Don't buy it.

But here's the problem with that: What if they're only interested in huge commercial bulk orders anyway? I'm afraid my company and many others would buy them without even considering future repercussions.

Sooner or later, how are we going to get a relatively high-performance CPU without DRM? Someone here must have alternatives. THINK, NERDS! THINK!!!!

Re:Transmeta... Transhmetta...

[JGski]

Option 1: Switch to MacOS X/Darwin BSD - neither Motorola, IBM or Apple have announced DRM support for the PowerPC (yet). I'm already a Macolyte, as well as a Penguin-Hugger and Devil-Hugger, and dabble with the powers-of-darkness by economic necessity.

Option 2: DIY, open-source microprocessors and motherboard projects. To wit:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/11/016223 &mode=thread&tid=137
http://www.circuitcellar.com/library/print/0502/2. asp
et al.

JGski

Re:Transmeta... Transhmetta...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of everything but this.

Pre DRM hardware

[jthj]

I just hope my current computer system lasts forever.

Re:Pre DRM hardware

[Grishnakh]

Unfortunately, all silicon chip have a built-in lifetime due to electromigration. Eventually the aluminum atoms at some point will migrate, causing either a short or a break, and the chip will no longer function properly. This doesn't happen much on older chips due to low clock speeds, low temperatures, low current, and large trace width, but these 1GHZ+ processors with 130-nm wide traces probably have a very measurable lifetime due to this effect. Don't expect to hand your current P4 or Athlon to your kids in the future when computers are infested with DRM and freedom is nonexistent.

"Et tu, Linus?"

[Nova Express]

"Then fall, Geekdom!"

Seriously, one wonders what Mr. Torvalds thinks about working for a company who's implamenting a policy that's anathama to most of Open Source community.

Re:"Et tu, Linus?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he thinks, "Well, this isn't that great, but at least I get a regular paycheck".

Re:"Et tu, Linus?"

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you use the word "anathama", yet mispell the word "implement"?

Re:"Et tu, Linus?"

[RabidOverYou]

If you hadn't misspelled 'misspell', I'd've given you a big smootchy kiss.

Re:"Et tu, Linus?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Webster disagrees!

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) : Mispell \Mis*pell"\, v. t., Mispend \Mis*pend"\, v. t., etc. See Misspell, Misspend, etc.

good news

[Anonymous Coward]

the faster we move toward open hardware, the faster we go out of all that shit regulative world.

once we are too much squizzed, new hardware maker will come.

whos buying the stuff anyway?

[sniperindisguise]

Maybe they should start making these "security" and other features to be beneficial to the PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY BUYING THE STUFF. I never said I needed any "security" or DRM on my next computer. Hmm I wonder who they are trying to please?

Not quite DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't look like full Paladium-style DRM. It just looks like various implementations of DES, AES, etc. It is mentioned that these features are to speed up these commonly used encryption schemes

Though it does have "secure" storage for "confidential information." The article also mentions that it that the architecture can be extended to support new "features." So don't panic (yet), but it looks like this is a start towards full on-chip DRM.

Re:Not quite DRM?

[Buskaatt]

You're right, and I'm actually really stoked about this decision. Read this to see another take on the situation.

I like the idea of users being able to encrypt all their stuff without having to install additional software. Am I reading this right?

Just a bunch of X86 extensions!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read what Transmeta is adding the talk about security like in SHA, DES and AES. The accelerate the ciphers and MAC calculations. They probably will have a hardware based random number generator. Which is a great thing in itself. Those will probably be the best chips for IPSec gateways and SSH servers. This does not in any way forces certain signed OS to be booted or anything like this.

They say DRM because it sells, but you can use it for signature checking your executables against troyaned versions (and you calculate the signatures when you install from a know, secure media), accelerating your encrypted FS, chat and web traffic. So if you install MS system you get an accelerated DRM PC. You install Linux/xBSD and get an accelerated privacy protected PC. I'd rather have this choice.

Linus

[nrvous6]

I doubt highly that Linus has any say either way on this thing. They didn't hire him for his outstanding management ability, but because he codes better than most, and at the hardware level (which, if I recall correctly, they are a hardware company *note sarcasm*). I don't like it either, but let's get of his back just because management took a direction we don't like.

DRM will make open source development harder

[Anonymous Coward]

Free software projects like Linux are a demonstration of the value of open technologies, hardware, and standards. Ogg, MP3 (patents aside), Ethernet and TCP/IP, are all open and well documented technologies. There's nothing in the CPU the creator proposes that's been crippled to prevent "unauthorized" use. Even MP3 which is encumbered by patents is documented and anyone may use it for any (legal) purpose they wish, although in a limited number of commercial cases, they may have to pay a small royalty. It's no big deal.

These issues are important - a problem has been solved with open components, and it would be impossible to solve that problem without that open infrastructure. Yet various groups, lead by the MPAA (and to an extent cheered on by the RIAA, the representative of the recording industry which has concerns about unauthorized copying) have promoted laws that remove that ability to problem solve. In the end, the output of copyrighted material producers is being compromised by these actions, but this doesn't stop them as there's an assumption that open technologies are bad, and that technologies need to be centrally controlled and contain technologies to prevent not merely uses of copyright material that are clearly unfair to the content producers, but also of uses of that material that the producers have not heard of.

One company, Microsoft, has already proposed and demonstrated technologies that would make projects such as the above impossible. Content would not be copyable onto unprotected commodity components in Palladium, a digital restrictions mechanism that uses encryption and authorization at the hardware level to divide a world into "trusted" and "untrusted" realms. While Microsoft argues their technology is voluntarily, a content producer can restrict use of their content to only those who sign up for the technological restrictions.

This is a block on innovation. It's a block on personal freedom. In the end, it will cause damage not merely to consumers but also to those who produce content. We face a future of stagnant information growth, resembling more the state of Brewery development in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, than the technology industry during the same period.

Palladium is backed by entertainment industry promoted laws such as the DMCA, that make it illegal to bypass access control mechanisms, such as Palladium's Digital Restrictions Mechanisms.

This quagmire of a paranoid entertainment industry crippling the future both of content production and technology will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Write also to the Jack Valenti, the CEO and chair of the MPAA, whose address and telephone number can be found at the About the MPAA page. Write too to Bill Gates, Chief of Technologies and thus in overall charge of Palladium, at Microsoft. Tell them you understand the concerns content producers have about unauthorized copying, but that without an open technological infrastructure, the value of content will be lowered, and as the bar to entry into content production is raised more and more innovation will be sucked out of the industry. Tell them that technologies such as Palladium, DVD CSS, and other technological locks, will damage both the content and technology industries in ways that go well beyond anything reasonable. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to create new ways of viewing and hearing content but that if those technologies are closed, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how digital restrictions harms all three. Let your legislators know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies towards legally enforcing clearly damaging restrictions management systems.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Re:DRM will make open source development harder

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are too lazy to write them out do what I do. http://www.eff.org! they are a great means to get your voice out with little effort required.

Serious question:

[Anonymous Coward]

What would happen to DRM material if you changed motherboards/processors/computers? It seems to me like you would not be able to access it. But maybe there is a transfer mechanism?

Even if there is, what happens if your hardware fails? I've had one motherboard and 2 drives go bad on me in the last 8 years.

Re:Serious question:

[Anonymous Coward]

proposed "transfer mechanism" == buy new copy.

Transmeta Sold Out

[syntap]

They're probably embedding DRM to break into the handheld / portable music player market. It won't take long before Sony and others, who create hardware as well as have RIAA-linked music divisions, begin to streamline their products on DRM.

I wouldn't panic because Transmeta has a miniscule market share. When Intel announces they will incorporate DRM into all current and future Intel chips and AMD follows suit, THEN panic.

Re:Transmeta Sold Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't panic because Transmeta has a miniscule market share. When Intel announces they will incorporate DRM into all current and future Intel chips and AMD follows suit, THEN panic.

AMD and Intel have already announced it.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

...why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Insufficient booze, my friend.

Insufficient booze.

25th post, my biznatches.

Could be good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you are the controller of the keys, this could be a good thing.

Consider for example using Palladium as a Tripwire system. You set up your root partition how you want it, then sign all of your executables so that you can tell when someone tries to change them (ie detect root-kitting).

Or consider if we started signing source code, so that you could have some guarantee of it's integrity. *note that this is already done*. Now consider you incorporate your signing into the 'emerge'/apt/rpm system so that the signatures were automatically propogated to the binaries that were created.

time to sell transmeata stock NOW!!

[Unknown Poltroon]

Beforee it plummets form lack of sales.

What a glorious Troll Tuesday!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought the reasons people weren't snapping up transmeta based systems was:

1. They're overpriced
2. they're underpowered
3. they think x86 is a good thing to emulate
4. THEY SUCK
5. ???
6. PROFIT!

Why can't I take this seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I'd never trust my security to one of these chips. Since the microcode can be completely replaced, and this method isn't open, what we have is security by obscurity - which is no security at all.

This really sounds like a desparate attempt via Transmeta's marketing department, I'm sorry to say.

I prefer an emphatic ...

[burgburgburg]

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

But that's just me.

Better buy up...

[Anonymous Coward]

...all the highest speed/capacity processors, memory, disks, motherboards, etc, that you can possibly (not really) afford to spend on your swollen credit card debt right away right now and squirrel it away, so you'll have a supply of non-DRM crippled hardware to tide you over for a while in the future. This stuff is going to make for a good underground market in the not-too-distant future.

Also, the timing of this DRM onslaught isn't exactly non-coincidence with the sluggish economy and poor sales of "gadgets" the past few months. The push for accelerated displacement of "legacy" (non-DRM) hardware goodies is banking on all the paranoid geeks spending like crazy to stock up before the coming drought, in order to help out the short-term economy.

Curses! Foiled again....

[Aquitaine]

If only we had a man on the inside!

Is a good thing...

[r00zky]

... to know which company I will NOT buy a processor.

Re:Is a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

You better blacklist AMD and Intel, too then. They are both supporting Palladium and TCPA, not just making ambiguous statements about hardware-accellerated encryption.

That pretty much rules out new x86 chips right there. Looks like your new CPU options are Alpha, (under)Power(ed)PC, MIPS, or some other dying technology.

the reason: TabletPCs

[petsounds]

Linus doesn't seem to be working with Transmeta, at least according to their management team page. Of course, he could still be working in some other capacity there.

While the press release doesn't specifically state support for TCPA, it does state, "Transmeta said its Crusoe processors (which already feature Code Morphing software) would be slightly altered to tackle security and address requirements for securing sensitive data and intellectual property."

This is actually not surprising, considering that many of the Microsoft XP-based TabletPCs use Transmeta chips. It is a natural for them to want to acquire Palladium hardware support for the whole range of devices their OS runs on.

Re:the reason: TabletPCs

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus was never on Transmeta's management team --- ever.

Hardware companies have a lot to lose

[caluml]

and nothing to gain.

What are the benefits of producing this kind of DRM hardware?

On the other hand, they could drive millions of people like us running. And guess who buy/advise what kind of hardware to buy?

It's a risky proposition.

Re:Hardware companies have a lot to lose

[BECoole]

On the other hand, they could drive millions of people like us running. And guess who buy/advise what kind of hardware to buy?

Uh, Lawyers?

Re:Hardware companies have a lot to lose

[Zathrus]

What are the benefits of producing this kind of DRM hardware?

That your processor will be picked for use in embedded technology, or that studios, etc. won't whine and cry about your CPU because, in theory, it supports DRM?

In otherwords, have DRM and you can either use it or not. Don't have DRM and there may be an entire field of applications that you cannot sell to.

On the other hand, they could drive millions of people like us running. And guess who buy/advise what kind of hardware to buy?

Running to where? Intel? Nope. AMD? Nope. VIA? Maybe, but I doubt it. Cyrix? Don't make me laugh. Motorola/MIPS/IBM? So utterly different it's an absurd concept, especially on cost.

Once one company agreed to include DRM on chip it became a risky proposition not to include it on your competing chip.

Consider it from the company's point of view - it's just another bulletpoint feature. You don't have to use it, anymore than you need to use MMX, or the FPU, or whatever. But if you don't have that bulletpoint then it can be used against you. Sure, you can argue that it's a good "feature" not to have, but that's not how it'll get marketed and you know it.

Re:Hardware companies have a lot to lose

[TomServo]

I think most of the hardware companies are struggling financially, so any major short term loss could be enough to put them under the ground. Long term, of course, it would be better for them to not go the DRM route. As more and more consumers start to realize their rights are taken away and they can't do what they used to be able to do, more and more are going to educate themselves and move to non-DRM alternatives. The problem is, most people don't know this right now.

In the short term, people will continue to buy what they're used to, buying Windows based PCs. Say Microsoft comes along and makes it so their next version of Windows will *only* run on Palladium-friendly CPUs. Then, Microsoft shows all these consumers the new features that let you watch two DVDs at the same time or something, and they all flock to buy it. All new PCs are sold only with this new OS. In the meantime, while people are still demanding this new version of Windows, the non-DRM CPU makers are left out in the cold, waiting for people to come to their senses. Before they do, though, that CPU maker runs out of cash in its treasure chest and has to fold.

Losing the support of Microsoft (or even the ability to run Microsoft OS's at all) would be a death blow to any CPU maker. That, or find a niche market (like us Slashdotter's) and sell a Linux-friendly non-DRM CPU at a much higher profit margin, banking that we'll be willing to shell out some extra money to avoid all this madness. However, how many of us are, especially if the price difference isn't negligible, like $200 more @ CPU or something?

Consumers need to be educated, and the DivX debacle proves that can happen. The question is, how many outlets are there that aren't controlled by one of the big media companies, the very ones that are fighting for DRM? I can't answer it, but hopefully the same people that helped to kill DivX off can do the same thing here...

All they are doing

[mocm]

is adding DES hardware support, which can be used for all kinds of stuff, but doesn't mean that they built in TCPA (see also this article. I think the DES hardware can be very useful, especially for brute forcing keys ;).

Re:All they are doing

[Basje]

Effective hardware for a chinese lottery.

Still every one keeps wondering why everything improves, but the batteries stay the same: it's because the extra juice is used to crack keys.

</cheesy paranoia mode>

Reasons

[dokhebi]

(Says the RIAA, et al): You are not supposed to feel 'warm' and 'fuzzy.' You are supposed to be protected from your own foolishness, Comrade.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of {Microsoft, RIAA, Disney, etc...}

Re:Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

the rights you are having taken away from you are all in the name of capitilism friend. if it furthers the economy by stopping these companies losing money, then your (and everyone else's) rights mean fuck all. a lot of extreme socialist governments have been fuck ups, but at least the doctrine is supposed to benefit everyone, not just the wealthy.

not a troll, but i may have just fed one.

#sed "s/Transmeta Crusoe/Never Mind/" whishlist

[Anonymous Coward]

/me whipes Transmeta Crusoe processors of the mental wish list of toys.

Useful Features

[seaan]

Does everything have to be political, what ever happened to good technilogical discussions? I've done my fair share of ranting against DRM, but the Transmeta features have other uses too.

Much like the Intel P3 features, it is quite useful to have a good random number generation and increased speed for software cryptography. Even the hidden storage registers have non-DRM uses (although I suspect they won't make the FIPS 140-1 level 3 or 4 that I'm used to).

Here are some non-DRM uses to consider:

* Increased crypto speed helps servers (don't forget Transmeta sells chips for dense servers).
* Network identification and IPSEC support (increasingly important in these wireless days)
* Local encryption options (protect data on vunerable computers, like laptops).

My point is that not all cryptography is bad.

Re:Useful Features

[Wesley Felter]

I agree with you except in one case: attestation. The only use for attestation is to discriminate against users who run unapproved software.

Hardware Encryption - Cool!!!

[NiteHaqr]

Been said before on this thread, but just to see if different words will encourage understanding.....

The title of the piece is "Transmeta Embeds Security in TM5800 Chips", it does not mention DRM or Palladium.

The 1st paragraph comments that there will be a Crusoe that has "embedded technologies for securing sensitive data and delivering tamper-resistant x86 storage environments", now it seems to me that they are making it possible for me to protect MY data.

The next paragraph is slightly less clear in their intentions, with "for securing sensitive data and intellectual property", as it doesn't mention who's intelectual property we are talking about.

I will put the next paragraph in in ts entirety as is says quite a bit "The new security technologies include secure hidden storage of confidential information, encryption acceleration and a processor architecture that can be extended to support new features and industry standards, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)"

I am going to stop quoting now as the link to the story is available in the initial posting.

Lets look at my current config on my web server to see where this new chip could benefit me.

The server is running SSL versions of Courier MTA, Courier IMAP server, and Apache. Then there is the fact that the only way to log onto the box is via SSH.

Do I see rather a lot of encryption going on there - I think I do.

So if my processor can accelerate that then its a bonus not a problem.

Add stuff like tunnelling X through SSH tunnels and I would be a happy person.

So this is a rather useful tool, rather than the thin edge of the wedge, at least as it looks to me from the available info, I could be wrong, but at least I am not just seeing Palladium/DRM lurking around every corner.

And no, I am not pro-Palladium, in fact I have posted previously about my fears of Palladium, and its possible negative impact on my ability to do what I want with the computers that I own.

But lets not get hysterical people

Re:Hardware Encryption - Cool!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets all sell out to drm! I bet if we make up more uses this will have to us (but they will never lets us do) we will help support them!

I think you can feel fuzzy alright.

[WhaDaYaKnow]

First if all, hardware acceleration for the DES variants is great.

The other stuff, well, with Linus working there and all, I think that there's good change that these will not be features one can only know about by signing a crazy NDA.

And quite honestly, there's nothing wrong with having support for key management in hardware. It is, if implemented correctly, a big step in making it harder for malicous code to get a hold of private keys for example.

Note also that nowhere in the article the term 'DRM' is used. DRM has become a disgusting word, probably because it is seen as the RIAA and MPAA's whore. But those are not the only parties that will benefit from good encryption, which is what this article is about. (in fact I think it will turn out that the RIAA & MPAA will not benefit from this, but that's a whole nother story)

I think there's a lot of FUD about security being implemented in our PC hardware, mainly because it seems like those features are maybe not going to be accessible to 'us'. But there's no reason why the workings of such features would be hidden, after all security by obscurity is not security.

In the end we may all benefit, this kind of stuff is long overdue; in fact I personally think it's nutts what's going with all this 'homeland security' bullshit, but the need for better security in our PCs was much needed, even pre 9-11.

Anyways, if you are worried about not being able to get the latest tunes off a P2P, well, maybe not, but most likely these things will not have any influence. After all, _most_ current CDs are very rippable and the new stuff isn't worth listening to in the first place ;-) Seriously though, so long as we don't have encryption built into our brain, we will always be able to record whatever we hear and see.

It's transmeta. It makes sense

[briancnorton]

You are forgetting who this is. This is transmeta. They work almost entirely in the mobile sector. When you have a computer that can be stolen, data security becomes VERY important. They probabally dont give a crap about people stealing MP3s, but are responding to a need to increase security for users of sensitive information on mobile devices. The main feature is a actually a DES accellerator that is meant to allow entire contents of drives to be dynamically encrypted and decrypted on usage. The processors arent fast enough to do it in software.

I have a lifebook P 2000, and I can tell you that watching movies and listening to music are two things that just dont happen on it. I would LOVE to be able to lock it down, but it isnt really possible past PGP/Zonealarm/NAV/etc.

Consumers have come around on DRM

[heroine]

In 1997 when Intel first announced the CPU serial number, opposition was never ending. By the looks of current slashdot comments, 6 years and billions of layoffs later have changed consumer sentiment dramatically. Now consumers clearly are ambivalent about CPU-based copy protection if not supportive of it.

#1 They don't want to give up the high priced feature sets that copy protection brings them.

#2 The boost in technology stocks brought by copy protection outweighs the loss of freedom.

Most of today's opinions use financial conditions as reason for imposing CPU copy protection where yesterday's opposition was entirely based on pure computer science.

WE LOST WHEN WE...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bought DVD region coding.. We will never win this back.

DVD died along time ago for me, the artists can starve. I win, i eat, they loose, they dont get my money.

*buys up all athlon XPs and multi way boards*

+5, TRUE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha, FLAMEbait! Get it?

"It's funny because it's not me."

Braveheart:

[Anonymous Coward]

My response to the media companies that would subvert our freedoms just to make a buck is much like Princess Leia's response to Darth Vader: "The more you tighten your grip, the further the jism will squirt from your penis"!

TMTA Stock?

[buzzsport]

Uhm.. it's been time to sell ever since it dropped under $30. (Take a look at the two year chart)

http://news.cnet.com/investor/quotes/chart-snap/ 0- 9970-1043-0.html

BTW -- the stock has been up today ~4% after the announcement.

It is your fault

[Anonymous Coward]

In the relentless pursuit for faster, more powerful CPUs, we paid little attention to energy efficient computers. Even during rotating power outages and skyrocketing electrical bills you bought that Easy-bake oven with a 2.8Ghz P4 and 500 watt power supply or that super-fast laptop with a 16 inch screen and 45 minute battery life.

Last year I tried to buy an energy efficient workgroup server. Since it would be running all the time, I wanted something that didn't use lots of power, even dropping CPU speed and shutting down disk drives when idle, but still being aware enough to wake up on network requests. Transmeta was to make great inroads into this type of device, BUT I COULDN'T BUY ONE. The one remaining supplier of such systems would no longer sell them to customers in lots of less than 250.

Consequently, Sony [the electronics manufacturer] seems to be the biggest buyer of Transmeta processors (for its ultra-portable PCs). Sony [the content provider] has significant interest in DRM, so Transmeta has little choice but to supply its major customer with the features it requests. As a conglomerate, it is in Sony's best interest to completely control content production and use all the way from recording, publishing, distribution as well as manufacturing production equipment, computers, and consumer playback. Don't be surprised if in the future, Sony produces eyeglasses that provide an enhanced viewing environment for its movies, but go dark when unauthorized content is viewed.

You as consumers showed little interest in buying the types of products Transmeta's processors were origninally designed to enable. You shouldn't complain if Transmeta becomes the "kept woman" of a powerful conglomerate, living comfortably in exchange for favors, with some loss of dignity.

What's all of this complaining about?

[Laser Lou]

How many people complaining about Transmeta implementing DRM actually use a Transmeta processor?

Re:What's all of this complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because once one gives, they all do.

Its like follow the leader.

It all started with DVDs. It will not stop if you accept even one item with it in it.

If AMD enables this in Hammer, as far as im concerned they DIE: I refuse to DOWNGRADE to them.

And now we watch

[davmoo]

I'm curious to see if, now that the darling processor company of Slashdot, having announced DRM on future chips, will be met with the same hatred that similar announcements from both Microsoft and Intel have been met.

And no, moderators, this is not a troll. I have watched here, literally for years, as unpopular announcements from Intel and Micrsoft have been pronouced to be the work of the Anti-Christ, and then similar announcements from, using them as examples, Apple or AMD have been either quickly swept under the carpet, or passed off with offhand "well, its a competitor to Intel and Microsoft, so this time its good" attitude. Those of you who moderate this post down will only serve to further prove my point.

Re:And now we watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, got to love the 'unassailable position' that 'if you do foo, you only prove that you all suck and I ownz j00 all'. Classic middle school argument technique.

Stephen King Dead As BSD At Age 55

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I don't mean to rain on you peoples parade, but I do feel there is more pressing news right now -- like the death of American icon STEPHEN KING!

He was found dead in Soviet Russia this morning (or was Soviet Russia dead in him?). More details forthcoming, but aparently close friend and fan Natalie Portman was first to report the sad news. King's agent Deborah Schnieder said in a statement:

"Literary giant Stephen King was, and is, a shining light that illuminates the world with a relentless spirit of truth and love. This man was not an insensitive clod, but rather was a man that furthered the written art form in profound ways and has made a huge impact on the fiction genre at large. But do not be saddened now. Rejoice in that King gave us all so much of so many kinds of so many things - different ways to look at hot grits poured down our pants and what Linux distribution is best -
Use the life of Stephen King as inspiration. We can all learn something from the enormous span of achievements of Stephen King. No computer nor all your base are belong to us has enough memory to hold all the names of every person whose life King has touched in a positive way."

God bless his family and may he rest in peace.

Your missing the point... and IBM already did this

[sunking7]

Why does it seem like everyone is missing the point of the story. Built in cryptographic hardware engines on the CPU! Transmeta doesn't give any performance numbers, so I wonder how they compare to other hardware implementations...

IBM did this first, and announced last year at the Hot Chips conference. See here.

Integrated Cryptographic Hardware Engines on the zSeries Microprocessor

The presentation gives an overview of how IBM did it, and predicted that other platforms would have to adopt this class of features in the future.

The future is now.

Now I am confused.

[ColdGrits]

Linus works at Transmeta, so we are supposed to love Transmeta and everything they do.

Transmeta are implementing DRM, so we are supposed to hate Transmeta and everything they do.

Oh no! Simultaneous yet mutually exclusive conditions.

What do we do?

Do we like Transmeta or do we hate them?

TELL ME WHAT TO THINK, SLASHDOT!

BIOS aftermarket?

[jeepmeister]

In the long run, shouldn't all this spawn a new market for replacement BIOS chips sans privacy invasion?

McGruff the crime dog says:

[Cid Highwind]

Remeber kids, when you buy cheap DRM-less Chinese processors, you're funding TERRORISM!

Who are you?

[david_g]

I'm tired, people. Slashdot repeats itself day after day after day, both in the articles and in the replies to them.

You have no 'right' to share music, movies, or whatever it is you didn't create. You have no 'right' to own a computer, much less one that isn't 'DRM enabled'.

They build, they sell, they dictate the rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. That's the right you have.

I'm exercising that right. I work with computers, though I don't know how much longer. I look around me and I see people thirsty for love and friendship, and I'm here, afraid of them, afraid that they won't love me. I don't reach out for them because I'm afraid. Instead, here I am, worrying that some stupid CPU is going to incorporate some gold-mine-of-the-day-let's-milk-those-suckers-for- more-cash
technology. Hello?! Something's definitely wrong, and I'm it. I, the loner. I the selfish one. I, he who neglects giving himself to people because he is afraid.

I'm considering going back to college, to study psychology. I want to do something, to help others, and to help myself. I don't know if that's the way I'll take, but I know I don't want to be where I am right now.

"The man who tries to save his life will lose it" -- Jesus Christ

I'm tired of trying to save my life--I only found boredom and sadness. I'm posting this because maybe there are some here that feel the same. To you: I sympathize.

Quit worrying about the DRM enabler of the day. Let them have their petty schemes. Let them reach the nothing that they seek, and know that they have found nothing. Maybe they'll understand, then.

All that time, you'll be busy loving.

WTF? Where is Linus [sic]

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is Linus, WTF? Isn't he the beloved champion of the Linux kernal, and now the company he works for is implementing DRM? Well you know what he should do he should quit. After all how hard could it be to find a new job with the way the tech jobs are. After all DRM is evil. Maybe the RIAA is getting Transmeta to do this so that they can get DRM on Linux first. That will show all those free software hippies, eh?

Linus...

[TheDefunctMunky]

If i were Linus, i would leave transmeta...

Yes, it is DRM.

[i_am_nitrogen]

This sure does look like full-on DRM. I really like the hardware accelerated encryption; it would be great for VPN, IPSec, ssh, etc. It would also be great for DRM. The secure storage for confidential information is a vague way of saying user-inaccessible storage for DRM cryptographic keys. While it does have other uses, DRM is most likely their primary intention. Transmeta probably worded the press release vaguely to hide the fact.

I'd like to have one of these processors, or any processor with encryption acceleration, and secure storage, to be honest, but only if I could access the secure storage myself. In fact, this would be an excellent CPU if the end user and developer could read and modify the secure area... But then, of course, it's not truly a secure area.

Re:Yes, it is DRM.

[CommieOverlord]

I was under the impression that most encryption algorithms (ie DES) are almost always software based is for security. Having it hardware based makes it faster, which is bad because it allows for faster attacks.

Interested interpretation

[tacocat]

I read the posting from transmeta. they didn't say anything about DRM. Just security.

Of course, since Linus works there, it can't be all bad, right?

Alright, Poindexter...let's do the math here...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The market drives the economy."

Who owns the market? Who was it that heralded in the age of Winmodems? PnP? Who's coming out with new Microsoft ready flatscreen Monitors. Who in the PC market *isn't* on the Microsoft train? To dis Microsoft in the PC devices market is to quickly die an painful death. Heck, Microsoft is even paying for advertising here on /. - if they can do that, what can't they do? If the market drives the economy and Microsoft owns the market and the vast majority of the market simply doesn't give a rats fanny what their computer does so long as they can send an email to Aunt Bob (sex change) and go to www.geneology.com, just what do you think a few geeks wearing "Just Say No" teeshirts are going to accomplish?

DRM is here and it's not going away. Every hardware manufacturer is to please Microsoft because they see nothing but dollar signs. Even Hollywood is Microsoft - until suddenly Hollywood becomes Microsoftwood - and it *will* happen. Heck, Microsoft even has Bush and Dick to play with.

And you actually think Apple is a hero? When Apple users can't listen to CD's and play DVD's because DRM is required, they'll jump on the DRM train as fast as anyone else - they're just trying to sop up all you "Boycotters" to boost it's share - trust me, it's not a matter of if they adopt DRM, it's a matter of when they adopt DRM. It's only a matter of time.

Do what you've always done before all this crap hit the fan and before Linux was suddenly "popular" - ignore all that extranious garbage and develop the best operating system you've ever used. If DRM throws a wrench in the works - well, tell me, since when has there ever been a challenge that could not be hacked? Hack DRM and move on. I mean, have we truly lost the ability to reverse engineer? Have all our genious programmers gotten fat and lazy with the sudden influx of help from all the Big Guys? Heck, dongle-cracks are harder to circumvent than DRM will be, and you know how easy it is to crack a dongle - or don't you?

If you're all staring around at Microsoft and Hollywood and DRM and such, that means you're not staring at Kernel code, which means it will quickly start sucking because all your quality time is being spent running around like panicking chickens. them. them all. Then don't respect them in the morning. If they want to play the DRM game and Winmodem game and WinNIC game and all that Microsoft-centric crap, let them - that's their perogative and you can't do a thing about it. Now, when Linux gets 90% market share, then we can come off as expecting the hardware manufacturers to start stroking us. Till then, get yer strokes at from yer pr0n sites and concentrate on the task at hand...hacking Linux to be even better and better and let the chips fall where they may.

DRM my - we're our worst enemies as much as Microsoft is it's own worst enemy. Let's not ourselves please...

For those of you who have as much a clue to
printf "hello world";
as I do to quantum physics and have an extra dime in yer pocket, then join EFF...let them worry about and coordinate activities concerning the rights of users and free software. That's their job. You haven't a clue about it excepting what you read on /. and perhaps a wildly misquoted Newsforge article, and the EFF guys are the experts - so let the experts deal with it and support them exhaustively. /. is quickly getting famous for generating millions of uneducated and just totally wrong flame mail to people since no one here seems to be capable of stopping and thinking - at least EFF puts some thought into it's debates and actions...

Re:Alright, Poindexter...let's do the math here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blast - my self-censored tags disappeared - sure does make for some strange reading...

Let's try this again:

"The market drives the economy."

Who owns the market? Who was it that heralded in the age of Winmodems? PnP? Who's coming out with new Microsoft ready flatscreen Monitors. Who in the PC market *isn't* on the Microsoft train? To dis Microsoft in the PC devices market is to quickly die an painful death. Heck, Microsoft is even paying for advertising here on /. - if they can do that, what can't they do? If the market drives the economy and Microsoft owns the market and the vast majority of the market simply doesn't give a rats fanny what their computer does so long as they can send an email to Aunt Bob (sex change) and go to www.geneology.com, just what do you think a few geeks wearing "Just Say No" teeshirts are going to accomplish?

DRM is here and it's not going away. Every hardware manufacturer is (censored) to please Microsoft because they see nothing but dollar signs. Even Hollywood is (censored) Microsoft - until suddenly Hollywood becomes Microsoftwood - and it *will* happen. Heck, Microsoft even has Bush and Dick to play with.

And you actually think Apple is a hero? When Apple users can't listen to CD's and play DVD's because DRM is required, they'll jump on the DRM train as fast as anyone else - they're just trying to sop up all you "Boycotters" to boost it's share - trust me, it's not a matter of if they adopt DRM, it's a matter of when they adopt DRM. It's only a matter of time.

Do what you've always done before all this crap hit the fan and before Linux was suddenly "popular" - ignore all that extranious garbage and develop the best operating system you've ever used. If DRM throws a wrench in the works - well, tell me, since when has there ever been a challenge that could not be hacked? Hack DRM and move on. I mean, have we truly lost the ability to reverse engineer? Have all our genious programmers gotten fat and lazy with the sudden influx of help from all the Big Guys? Heck, dongle-cracks are harder to circumvent than DRM will be, and you know how easy it is to crack a dongle - or don't you?

If you're all staring around at Microsoft and Hollywood and DRM and such, that means you're not staring at Kernel code, which means it will quickly start sucking because all your quality time is being spent running around like panicking chickens. (censored) them. (censored) them all. Then don't respect them in the morning. If they want to play the DRM game and Winmodem game and WinNIC game and all that Microsoft-centric crap, let them - that's their perogative and you can't do a (censored) thing about it. Now, when Linux gets 90% market share, then we can come off as expecting the hardware manufacturers to start stroking us. Till then, get yer strokes at from yer pr0n sites and concentrate on the task at hand...hacking Linux to be even better and better and let the chips fall where they may.

DRM my - we're our worst enemies as much as Microsoft is it's own worst enemy. Let's not (censored) ourselves please...

For those of you who have as much a clue to
printf "hello world";
as I do to quantum physics and have an extra dime in yer pocket, then join EFF...let them worry about and coordinate activities concerning the rights of users and free software. That's their job. You haven't a clue about it excepting what you read on /. and perhaps a wildly misquoted Newsforge article, and the EFF guys are the experts - so let the experts deal with it and support them exhaustively. /. is quickly getting famous for generating millions of uneducated and just totally wrong flame mail to people since no one here seems to be capable of stopping and thinking - at least EFF puts some thought into it's debates and actions...

Typical Slashdot

[diz]

It's clear that very few people posting actually read the article. Personally, I want hardware accelerated DES and 3DES, and I'd bet that Transmeta already has Linux prototypes with people like Peter Anvin and Linus working there.

Stockpile

[Techmaniac]

I plan on buying the last Mobos that don't incorporate this corporate control crap, maybe 5 or 6. Then I'll build the super machines, and use them like it's the last tissue in the box.

I would suggest you either do the same, or place your order with me. It's the bunker mentality, but I don't plan on buying any of this shit in the future. We'll see who has the power when consumers get tired of being corralled and pushed around!

What the...?!

[sudog]

How the heck will this help Crusoe sales?

Cake and Eating

[ACNeal]

The old addage of "You can't have your cake and eat it too." really applies to this and other discussions on this board.

If all information wants to be free, then you need to include all information. That has the requisite implication that your personal information is public domain, and privacy statements are irrelevant. If you believe all information wants to be free, then as soon as you put your name, address, or any other personal informatin into the wind, you should expect anyone has it.

If, however, you believe that you have some inherent right to privacy, and that your name, address, sexual preference, etc. are not, and should not be public domain, then nothing you produce should be public domain. If you have the right to decide who should know your address, then you should be able to decide who reads your thoughts, who can copy your thoughts, and who can listen to the musical implimentation of those thoughts. If you want your best friend to hear your music, but no one else, then that should be your right. If you only want people that pay you for the emotional energy you put into that music, book, or code, that should be your right.

You can't have it both ways. All information is free, or no information is free.

Re:Cake and Eating

[ctid]

Unfortunately, despite the fact that you've put a lot of effort into your post, what you wrote is idiotic.

Suppose I confide in a friend by email about some problem I'm having. On the same day, I post the latest version of some open source/free software somewhere on the internet. I then send out an email to interested parties that there is a new version available. You are suggesting that because I distribute some software and news about that software, other people should be allowed to re-distribute my private email. I'm afraid that is idiotic.

Re:Cake and Eating

[ACNeal]

No, what I am suggesting is, if you believe information should be free, then all information should be free.

If you believe that I think that once you donate something to Open Source, you believe all things should be open source, then it would be idiotic. You can donate to open source without believing that all information should be free.

If you would believe RMS's rhetoric, it would be too difficult to diferentiate between the information that wanted to be free, and the information that didn't want to be free.

It is easy to say that the name and address stuff shouldn't be. Where does it stop? I don't want my music published, but you want to share it with your friends. I want my music published, but I don't want just anyone sharing it.

What I was trying to say is, if you believe all information should be free, then your personal problems that you shared with one person are immediately fodder for everyone. Whether that be a personal note, a piece of music, a book, or a piece of code, as soon as you express that idea, then it wants to be free (according to some). Where is the line? Who decides what is personal, and what is truly "wanting to be free information"? My understanding of your personal problem might be quite lucrative. It might benefit me, say if you were pining for my girlfriend, or just dumped your girlfriend that I was pining for.

Donating to open source is not the same as believing that all information wants to be free. If you believe you have the choice to decide what items that you already put out into the wind should not be spread hither and yon, then you do not believe that all information wants to be free. If you don't believe all information wants to be free, and I don't trust you the be the authority on what does and doesn't want to be free, then you can't really tell me that any information wants to be free.

And, according to certain pundits, if you don't believe all information wants to be free, then you are a morally repugnant person, or something to that effect.

Re:Cake and Eating

[spitzak]

My friends don't tell other people things that I want them to keep secret.

Too bad you can't find any good friends.

Re:Cake and Eating

[ctid]

What has this to do with anything? READ the post I was responding to. At least try to keep up with the level of debate here on Slashdot.

Re:Cake and Eating

[ctid]

Aaargh! Sorry sorry sorry. I thought you were responding to my earlier post. I will in future take the trouble to read the post you are responding to, and try to match the level of debate on Slashdot. My apologies again.

Re:Cake and Eating

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not have the common sense that God gave a gnat?

He is clearly not refering to whether your friends are going to keep your secret. It is refering to the notion of free information. If you think the information you tell your friends should stay private, then all information you produce should be kept private (or as property).

Why don't you rise to the level of debate on Slashdot. Even if you were responding to the subsequent post.

YAACA

[zogger]

--yet again another car analogy. Remember when the transition from no pollution crap to totally space shuttled out plumbing on cars happened? Eventually within some time certain aspects of it became mandatory, then emissions tests, etc. It's now illegal to alter change or modify any of that stuff *technically* and some places are now considering retrofiting your cars as another mandate if they don't "pass" their inspections. I'll go out on a limb here and predict it (DRM STUFF)will become law all over sooner or later, nation wide, both in hardware and a lot of software. You certainly can't purchase new anything in the vehicle world that isn't a plumbing nightmare anymore, that's for sure. And the computer world moves a lot faster than the car world, that's just reality.

I am expecting the same with computers. DRM will become mandated, it's about inevitable. So, word to the wise, stock up on non crippled hardware if that's what you want, and send missives to the major manufacturers you won't be using their products and will "make do" with the older stuff. Here's a place that the "gamer community" (one of several examples but a large one demographically) can make an impact, if they would just stop buying "new and improved" once it's universally crippled, and let the chip makers and game developers know they intend to follow through with this so they need to be told "don't go there". Along with all that other normal activism lobbying. But will it happen, or will the lure of faster and faster and faster and more realistic 3-D blood and gore get these chips and software sold? yes, I know there's a lot more uses for faster and better, etc, just looking at where the general big interests are. the big companies that tote the note on buying mass quantitites of hardware will probably want 'security' features. the mass media guys obviously do. the games shippers want to make a buck or two, most of them anyway. So there ya go, the "golden rule" will result in "for the childrenz!" crippled hardware and software eventually, at least on most platforms, and even more likely mandated by various laws on "new" stuff.

wall>handwriting

When you dance with the devil...

[SensitiveMale]

you don't change the devil, the devil changes you.

Transmeta is whoring themselves out to MS because they need the cash.

TCPA

[KidSock]

Can someone explain to me why exactly TCPA is bad? No one disputes the consumer-unfriendly motivations behind the people pushing TCPA but quite frankly I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the concept of it. We're bascially taking about secureing the machine so that programs can operate in a well defined state and nodes can communicate securely. What is wrong with that? Yes, you will not be able to rip that audio stream. Yes, you will not be able to boot that bootleg copy of Windows. So what? If you want to get into a philosophical argument about that you will loose. I think TCPA would be GOOD for users because you will have the option to do much more significant things. Do you feel confortable buying things on-line? I cringe every time I punch in my credit card number. You're whole VPN is compermised if one node is cracked. All of the negative arguments assume that activating TCPA would be *mandatory*. This is NOT true. It's CBDTPA that mandates securing devices capable of playing or recording copyrighted material. So what are the real dangers of TCPA then? Is the potential for censorship the only argument? Really, educate me.

Re:TCPA

[Bouncings]

It's CBDTPA that mandates securing devices capable of playing or recording copyrighted material.

Every PC is capable of playing, recording, creating, and altering copyrighted material. That's the purpose of the company -- to manipulate information. By reversing the capability of the computer, corporate america is stealing your computer from you. I do not make a distinction between DRM and armed robbery, besides the robber being honest. There is no defence, redeaming value, or excuse for any DRM whatsoever. Period.

Re:It's transmeta. It makes sense

[ccady]

... allow entire contents of drives to be dynamically encrypted and decrypted on usage. The processors arent fast enough to do it in software.

Untrue. NTFS uses DES to encrypt files when they are read and written from disk. It could use a speed boost, but today's processors can do it just fine. That said, there is nothing wrong with speeding it up by putting it on the chip in hardware.

Other Countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DRM is put into effect in the US how are other countries going to react to this? If they stop buying processors from Intel/AMD then those companies will lose lots of porfits. Just because DRM might be forced on the US people it isn't law in other countries.

Time to build your new box now!!!!!!!!!!

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

Well It's time to gather parts to build your new box now. I'm gathering spare parts. I do not wish to own the new planned DRM hardware.. ever.
This sounds like an "Orwelian" future.
Multimedia is about 15% of what I use my computer for. And because of that the future of the PC will be nutured?

Hopefully this will fail.

Re:It's transmeta. It makes sense

[briancnorton]

Ok, the Whitepaper says that to be true, but then how does NTFSDOS or NTFS for Linux work? Even if it is using DES, I have to assume that the key length is very short to maintain it's decent performance

Here's how it works...

[rdmiller3]

Whatever encryption support Transmeta is planning to include will have to be in CMS (which is firmware) until they can add hardware support to the design, which would probably take about a year before they'd have anything in silicon.

Y'see, the Crusoe isn't just a drop-in replacement for the processor. No! It's a whole subsystem, capable of including the functionality of several peripheral chips as their most recently announced product does. Why not crypto too? It's better than having another chip sapping battery power.

So what Transmeta's announcement amounts to is, "Our processor will be able to do that crypto stuff (DRM or not) without adding another chip to your design." That's all.

-Rick

Weird Press Release

[BrunoC]

Quoting the press release @ Yahoo:
"Secure Hidden Storage Providing secure storage of certificates and keys used for the authentication or encryption of confidential data for wired and wireless transmissions is a critical challenge facing the computer industry and end users. The storage of such information must be tamper-resistant. Current solutions, such as Smart Cards and the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance's (TCPA) Trusted Platform Module (TPM), are external components that add cost and increase both design complexity and system space requirements. Transmeta's new security technologies will provide interfaces to the Crusoe architecture that enable both runtime and persistent, secure storage of certificates, keys, and eventually, other confidential information. These storage facilities are within the Crusoe architecture and thus invisible to the x86 space, representing the ultimate tamper-resistant environment. Such robust capabilities are a direct benefit of Transmeta's unique software and hardware approach to microprocessor design. "
Maybe I'm missing something here but: if this storage area is invisible to the x86 space, how do I store any data on it (like my gpg keypair for instance)? And if there's a x86 interface, how is this invisible? Any ideas? Anyone?

Feeling OK

[SEWilco]

"With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?"

Do you have Feeling Right Management inside?

Actually, the article does not mention DRM. They're just adding key and encryption hardware.

The key storage apparently will not be available to applications, as if it's just an extension to the existing "system/application" modes -- the same hardware which helps enforces that user processes can not affect the rest of the system.

The encryption engine is mentioned as being a replacement for software, as if it's going to be an additional peripheral. For DRM it would have to somehow be mandatory for a certain device type...with the decrypted data magically never being available for system manipulation, unlike VPN and the other given examples.

Puting the Rights in DRM

[Gerry Gleason]

As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.

The problem is that with ??AA dictating what DRM is with MS as their accomplice, this is unlikely to be allowed.

I was thinking further about the discussion about how "trusted" is understood in the phrase "trusted computing". The essence of what is being proposed is being able to trust the computer when you can't, or more correctly won't trust the operator (user/admin) of that computer.

Trusting the user is fundamental to the philosophy behind Open/Free Source. There is no practical way to keep the admin of a Linux system from being able to defeat any DRM system that Linux implements. You have the source, so you can always hack up a version that strips it out and lets you do whatevery you want.

That being said, it is completely possible to implement a fair DRM scheme in Linux, and since you are trusting the operator anyway, any special support in the HW/BIOS isn't really needed. Since we are now back in control, we can design it to be fair, and have the 'R' in DRM stand for rights, not restrictions. In other words, we would empower the user in excercising fair-use rights to back-up, change formats, share with friends (within fair use bounds, of course).

This probably won't satisfy DRM proponents, but I think it is important that the community respond to them with a true willingness to protect the copyright holders rights as well. If all the standard distros make good faith efforts to produce a system that respects both DRM and fair use, the average user will leave all the controls in place and when they make copies, they will know that there are fair use limits to be respected. Some may still choose to cross the line, and others will go further to circumvent controls completely. But the community will be demonstrating their stand for the rights of all parties involved.

Still, the ugly head of the DMCA rears its head. At least in the US, this law gives all the power to the DRM proponents to just deny Linux access to protected content. It would be bold, but not unreasonable to assert the right to implement the program outlined above even in the face of the DMCA. After all, you are making a good faith effort to implement the controls (sans fair use restictions), not trying to "break" the controls. Now, I wouldn't do this on my own and risk the legal attention of a number of large companies, but this would require a lot of coordination in the community to pull it off anyway.

Re:Puting the Rights in DRM

[apweiler]

Good point about trusting the user. I was going to post something similar - that I as a user demand to be trusted in the sense that I'm not going to give up control over my computer, which *any* working DRM would require (I wonder how well I'm known yet for my radical anti-DRM stance...), and that DRM (or 'trusted' computing in that sense) is fundamentally incompatible with open source/free software.

But I have to disagree with your idea of 'voluntary' DRM for Linux - the publicity aspect is interesting ('hey! look, we're trying'), but I don't think it matters much; and ultimately, what's the point of your proposition? Anyone who even thinks of copying something won't be stopped by this, whether you need to change a config file or patch the source - it's like having a dialog box pop up "This file is copy protected. Do you want to copy it anyway? Yes/No" when you try to e-mail it to someone, or upload it on Gnutella, or whatever - most people would just click Yes, like they click I Agree on any EULA that comes their way.

What I'm saying is that this is basically the same as no protection (or farce thereof) at all - even if it's totally uncontrolled, some people will always buy the stuff, others will always pirate it. I don't think it makes much of a difference.

As for the legal aspect - you certainly wouldn't be able to implement an existing DRM technology this way, you could only design your own and tell the media companies 'look, we've got protection too, release your content for our platform please'. If you basically 'cracked' MS' DRM and implemented a less-restrictive, easily circumventable (is that a word?) version on Linux, they'd just spin it as 'they broke it, arrest them'.

Still, I suppose it's worth thinking about, the publicity aspect might matter more than I think...

Re:Puting the Rights in DRM

[Gerry Gleason]

You are correct about what would be required for "Open DRM". I don't really expect the content industry to allow this easily, only if they are taking a really huge market hit, and even then ...

I am making the point that in some sense we have a right to view/hear content under Linux and other OSs, and to the extent that what is available is more or less Windows only there is a legal argument. At the very least, there is a new monopoly claim against MS (with the help of the content industries).

You too easily dismiss the efficacy of implementing fair DRM in Linux and other open systems (note that few Solaris admins could work well or happily within the contraints of DRM that doesn't trust them to make system modifications). Most people will not go out of their way to modify the distributions configuration, or recompile some tools in order to break the law. If Linux ever becomes mainstream, we know most people will not change anything from the defaults, and if Linux is ever to become mainstream, it must have the ability to show/play content. Sure, sites could provide ready made tools to make the mods easy, but that would clearly violate the intent and spirit of copy protections. There is little of no reason to do this if fair-use copying is allowed. Yes, the system can't always tell if a copy falls under fair use or not, so the user is still being trusted to follow the rules, but most people want to be fair, so all that is necessary is to clearly state what is permitted before they click the "ok, start the copy" button. What I am proposing is to respect any DRM flags and data, and keep them in the copies. You would have to hack source to create a tool that removed this information, and gnutella should respect this as well. If you are running a public server, you shouldn't have unrestricted downloads of protected content. It is only "easy" in the hacker sense to circumvent these controls.

Re:Puting the Rights in DRM

[apweiler]

we have a right to view/hear content under Linux and other OSs

Here I have to say, and I believe I am speaking for most of the media industry: You have fuck-all 'rights'. As you say, if Linux is to become mainstream, it has to be possible, but you don't really have any god-given/legal/whatever right. Though this is a hairy issue - anyone can read a book, but for any storage mechanism that requires complex devices to view the content (even vinyl if you will), what 'right' do you have to view it? More to the point, do you have a 'right' to choose your viewer, or is it 'use the viewer we give you if you want the content'? So perhaps you're right, certainly I think this is something that'll have to be considered, and possibly even requires some kind of legislation...

Anyway, as for the fair-use DRM system for Linux - you do have a point, but there is something like that, but I don't know any programmes that respect the 'copyright' flag in MP3 files.
And either way, the basic point is, as you say, *trusting the user to follow the rules*. And I doubt the *AA is even able to do that.

Where's DataPlay??

[Shrike9]

DataPlay stuck their foot in it by embracing DRM. Tell me, where are they now? HAH!!

I WANT security dammit!

[Demon-Xanth]

I got 17 pieces of spyware that's called part of WinXP, spyware in the programs that I use to share files, people snooping my ass while I surf the internet, and shady places selling my email address so they can offer me both penis enlargement AND breast enlargement. ...so what has security done for me lately?

Higher Security != Reduced Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think securing your private information warrants adding hardware-level securty and enhanced encryption. For example, our Unix servers contain sensitive taxpayer data. I'd love to have a version of SELinux which implements TCPA protection to forbid snooping on the hardware level. Microsoft Palladium is but one application of TCPA. How about other benefits like preventing viruses from wiping out BIOS? Free / Open Source software could implement code signing into developer tools like MD5 checksums are used to verify integrity. When you build a package from source, you would sign it with your own key, allowing it to run on your PC.

Boycott? Are you all insane?

[geekee]

The hardware features proposed by Transmeta, as well as Intel and AMD, could vastly improve the security of linux. Yet everyone here keeps talking about boycotting this type of hardware. These features do not restrict anything if you trust your software (e.g. open source). They only enable more features.

Re:Boycott? Are you all insane?

[MikeBabcock]

It does _not_ help you get more security on your home PC. Operating systems that understand isolation provide 100% more security than DRM chips.

Re: your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

--If suicide bombers don't value their own life, why should we place value on the life of their people?

If you are referring to Geo. Bush, than the usa is in big trouble.

What are Rights at all???

[alricsca]

Why is it that so many people who want these so called rights holders to have absolute power and control over their content do not understand that in order to do this we must create tools that would allow absolute oppression and control, tools that by their very existence inherently violate the social contract that protects these rights holders at all? In a free society there has to be a balance between freedom and restriction to preserve the social elements that allow it to survive. A society does not merely exist, it is instead a construct created be a social contract that by our actions we all define, create and obey. Last I checked; I work, I vote, and I obey the rules of this society. I, like so many others, contribute to creating and maintaining this social contract that creates the society in which these rights holders are taking part. It is part of the very same social contract that protects these rights holders by creating and enforcing laws that they give up absolute control and power over their own work, that there are limitations to patent, an end to copyright, that there is fair use, and in time free use of all knowledge. It is essential that in order to have any power over the actions of others that they must risk losing a little power and control themselves so that all may gain. These are the limits to power and control we all have agreed to so that the society does not suffer to benefit any one individual over another and that all benefit from taking part in the social contract. We all give up these same things to have the benefits of being a part of the society that both protects and defends us? I do not have absolute freedom over everything I may say or do. I have limits that I agreed to in order to have the protection and privileges of this society. Shouldn't they have to be held to the same standards I do? If they want absolute power and absolute control they should not be granted the rights and protection being a part of this society grants them. It is not my rights it is society's that people must learn to protect. It seems everyone has forgotten this in this battle. It is all about me and my rights. What about society? Does anyone remember why we have laws and rules at all? They are things we all agree to by giving up absolute power, by giving up absolute control. By saying it is no longer about I, it is about us. I wish people would take a step back and remember that.

How is this decided?

[anonymous loser]

I would love to be at one of the meetings (say, at AMD) where the executives decide that adding DRM support to the processor is a good idea, and that every processor they produce is going to have it built in. I honestly don't see the logic in this decision. How is adding this technology going to sell more PCs (and hence more processors)? Who are AMD's biggest customers, and why are they asking for DRM? And if they're not, why is AMD bothering with the extra development costs?

Re:How is this decided?

[MikeBabcock]

Mike: Hey Bob, you guys putting DRM in the new chip?
Bob: No Mike, that would cost us $4.2 billion!
Mike: Well see, we've got this interesting $3.5 billion advertising package about to go out that's being paid for by the MPAA and $1.7 billion from Microsoft for some cobranding of the CPUs ... but only if you do the DRM thing (whatever that is).
Bob: Umm, DRM sucks ...
Mike: Does your job suck?
Bob: Yup, but I'm gonna go put DRM in our chips!

It's bad, but is it THAT bad?

[someone247356]

I realize that DRM CPU's are a "Bad Thing" (TM) but just how bad is it anyway?

As long as we can boot our nonDRM OS on this stuff, and communicate with other nonDRM machine's, we can still hack, create, enjoy. Most non-mainstream (i.e. not Windows or Mac) OS's haven't had access to the full range of data/hardware/software for years now anyway. How exactly will this be any different?

The only other thing we should be worried about/working on is that it remains illegal to circumvent whatever technological silliness the content/hardware companies dream up. Just like watching DVD's (that you have legally purchased) on Linux was doable, so will everything else.

Support the EFF (www.eff.org), support the ACLU, (www.aclu.org), support EPIC (www.epic.org), and get aquatinted with DigitalConsumer.org (I'm not going to bother giving you their address). Get off your arse and contact your senators, and representatives, Get your friends, relatives, mailman to understand what they are about to loose and have them contact their representatives as well.

As long as it isn't illegal to "fix" what you've purchased so that it works, we will win out in the end. It may be along hard road, but if we persevere it's inevitable.

Remember hard to photocopy manuals that held bits of text you had to enter at inopportune times? Or floppy disks that were written in such bizarre ways that they damaged your drive, all in the name of "copy protection"? Where are they now? Those that cared bypassed them, for everyone else they were more of a pain to the legitimate user than they were a hindrance to the criminal.

Don't forget, your local librarian, and "reading a bedtime story to the grandchildren" grandmother is on your side in this one. Make sure that those in power (and those that aren't) realize this.

Re:It's bad, but is it THAT bad?

[cranos]

The problem is this - Palladium. While stock standard DRM might not be so bad its the nasty little features that MS wants to build into it, such as MS being the ones who control what can and can't run on a Palladium enabled box. The other problem I have with it is the concept of letting someone else determine what I can and can't run on my machine.

Re:It's bad, but is it THAT bad?

[someone247356]

But doesn't that assume that you want to run a MS OS on that box?

If you can boot and run non-Palladium Linux/BSD/etc. OS and you can access all of your box from the non-MS OS just what harm can Palladium do to you?

From my read, Palladium will allow MS to determine who runs what under its MS Palladium enabled OS. Data written by the DRM enabled OS won't be available to a non DRM OS. If you never let a DRM OS write the data in the first place, what's the problem?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, as long as it isn't illegal to bypass DRM encumbered content that you have legally purchased to play it on your non-DRM OS, they can't bite you there either.

Do you remember the DRM on ATA hard drives fiasco? (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17009.html)

"But Linux ATA driver guru and T.13 committee member Andre Hedrick, who has watched CPRM for several months, strongly disagrees. ...."

"Hedrick's issued his own "suggestion" to the T.13 mailing list, promising to give away a command parser that bounces unknown new commands, so obliging a CPRM-vigilant OS to track and reject all such command sets. His threat poses a dilemma for drive manufacturers which may be inclined to sneak CPRM in through the back door: they'll effectively lose the Linux market. Hedrick's parser will include trap-doors for vendors who try to circumvent known command sets, too."

"I will share and give away a command-parser model that will allow any HOST OS to reject commands that it does not know how to match the data-phase returns. Remember that the SPEC are the rules how to talk to devices as we have all been told, but the HOST has every right and duty to restrict the execution of unknown commands. Additionally, should attempts be made to bypass this method of access filter, then we add complete taskfile register parsers and finally content tracking of all commands that return memory info that is outside of the registered and found user-space LBA's." (http://212.100.234.54/content/2/17230.html )

As long as something like Andre's response remain LEGAL, and we can get our non-DRM OS to boot, DRM encumbered CPU's or anything else for that matter will be a major pain in the backside, but ultimately ineffective.

That's why we should pressure manufacturers NOT to do something that silly, but at the same time ensure that it remains legal to work around it, legal for the enterprising manufacturer to continue to make and sell non-DRM encumbered hardware. Look at the SDMI in regards to handheld music playback devices. Those that sold non-DRM encumbered devices, like the Rio effectively destroyed any market for SDMI restricted devices. Heavily encumbered DAT audio drives, died in the market, and DiVX (the much maligned pay per view video scheme, not the codec) withered when confronted by less encumbered DVD's. As long as consumers have a REAL choice, they will always choose to buy that which gives them more choices, over that which restricts choice.

Re:It's bad, but is it THAT bad?

[cranos]

Thats all very well and good however we are not just talking about software DRM. We are talking about the major chip manufacturers getting involved in Palladaium, giving MS the opportunity to control the machines at a hardware level. It would be quite feasible for MS and Intel to block the installation of Linux or any other OS because it doesn't meet the requirements they set out. MS has the sort of industry clout to say to manufacturers of Desktop hardware, if you don't make your devices Palladium enabled then we can hurt you badly.

MS doesn't want consumers to have a REAL choice. They want everybody on the one platform that they can control and extort resources from.

Re:It's bad, but is it THAT bad?

[MikeBabcock]

If the DRM capabilities were merged with the n/s bridge chips to real-time qualify all signals on the mb between hardware devices and system memory as well as provide memory isolation features between the CPU and RAM to prevent swapping DRM-protected data without DRM-protecting the drive space and so on and so forth, then there's still one requirement: that the chip require all software to have a form of DRM signature before being loaded and executed. If this is enforced, then Linux goes out the door ... would anyone let that happen? Dunno ...

Re:It's transmeta. It makes sense

[ccady]

According to the Linux NTFS Project FAQ

3.3 What features of NTFS does Linux support?

NTFS supports a wide range of features, ... However, the driver cannot read encrypted files, it ignores Windows' security information and ignores quotas set by Windows.

Yes, Boycott unacceptable use of "DRM"

[Gerry Gleason]

That means the content (DVDs, CDs, Ebooks and downloads of same) and the devices that won't support fair use. For the content stuff it should be very clear, but it will be more murky with devices because more that one component will often be involved. You can't cut a CD or DVD on a player, but they are trying to also protect the play signal so only a DRM writer is compatible, so you have to consider the whole system.

For computers, the critical DRM component is the system software. Palladium does constitute a core DRM technology. If you must use Windows, disable palladium, and don't use programs and content that require it to be enabled. If this makes Windows useless to you, then boycott windows. As long as putting the hardware support there doesn't interfere with running Linux, I would not hold the HW vendor responsible.

That's not how it works.

[twitter]

Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM. If the book is successful, then I've got some capital to work with in order to bring the book to the bookshelf.

This is Digital Rights Denial, implimented at the hardware level. You will not be able to publish in the new format, only a few existing publishers get they keys. They will continue to have all the power they enjoy under a dead tree economy without any of the costs. You will loose the ability to make any kind of publication at all, including paper, and will recieve even less that you might currently.

... so I'd better go screw myself, eh?

Don't waste your effort, many dedicated people are working hard to screw you and everyone else. Just sit back and relax.

In other news

[lelitsch]

(AP) Across the United States, emergency services have been overwhelmed by calls about weird looking young males running around in circle screaming "Linus and the RIAA" while ripping out their hair and flagellating themselves. According to San Jose fire chief Elppa Letni: "We a currently stretched very thin with over 500 cases in the last hour. Thankfully, most of the victims are so out of shape that it is fairly easy to catch them. Claming them down is another matter, but a mixture of Ritalin and Code Red seems to do the trick."

Why not ask for something that makes sense

[twitter]

I have a lifebook P 2000, and I can tell you that watching movies and listening to music are two things that just dont happen on it.

Why not?

I would LOVE to be able to lock it down, but it isnt really possible past PGP/Zonealarm/NAV/etc.

Why not put a real OS on it?

Re:Why not ask for something that makes sense

[briancnorton]

I have a lifebook P 2000, and I can tell you that watching movies and listening to music are two things that just dont happen on it.

Why not?

because it is a business machine. It's hard to grasp for many, but laptops are meant to do work on. Sure, some people make great effort to use a laptop for everything, and a casual user can get away with it, but a laptop is a poor, poor substitute for a desktop. If I were dealing with MP3s and DVD rips, I wouldnt give a crap if somebody stole that data.

Why not put a real OS on it?

Because you see, the REAL world relies on Microsoft Windows applications. Criticise it all you want, I, like most people am stuck with it.

well, if you want to screw yourself...

[alizard]

Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM. If the book is successful, then I've got some capital to work with in order to bring the book to the bookshelf.

It isn't all evil, people. But this is slashdot so I'd better go screw myself, eh?

Sounds like exactly what you're planning to do. I certainly don't want to stop you if you want to give yourself the shaft.

Chances are, if your eBook goes nowhere, it'll be at least as much to do with the fact that nobody likes DRM formats as whether or not the content is crap, and since you wrote means you don't even know what's going on around you it probably will be.

DRM-broken E-books are not selling.

Didn't you learn anything from the recent discussion of the Baen Free Library? They are giving away earlier works of name authors with their permission, and the publisher and the authors are suddenly drastically more profitable than they ever have been before.

Baen makes it's ebooks available in non-protected formats.

Re:well, if you want to screw yourself...

[Reziac]

A side effect of Baen's ebooks being unprotected, is that it is considered very bad form to post one in a binaries newsgroup. People who request them are told to hie themselves to baen.com and buy the ebook instead.

Yep -- the fact that Baen's ebooks are easily reproduced has actually *reduced* piracy, because the ebook-sharing community wants to express their appreciation to Baen for "doing the right thing".

just a trojan.

[twitter]

you say, This does not in any way forces certain signed OS to be booted or anything like this. ... you can use it for signature checking your executables against troyaned versions

I say the whole chip is a trojan. Witness the "hidden" stuff on the site:

The new security technologies include secure hidden storage of confidential information...

So it's got stuff you can't see or write to, but others can. That makes others root and you are not.

Boycott? OSS must embrace, or be screwed...

[aquarian]

The biggest danger I see in the DRM battle is the OSS movement putting their utopian obsessions before everything else. Whether DRM is adopted or not is out of our hands. If it is adopted, there's nothing we can do about it. But one thing's for sure -- if we go stomping out of the room in disgust, like a bunch of dumbass college sophomores, we can forget about having any control over the standards that do develop, and we concede all control to the Big Evil Corporations.

But if we embrace DRM, we can at least help foster the development of open standards.

Harumph!!! - I'll build my own processors...

[Anonymous Coward]

...entirely from 12AX7 tubes and individual capacitors, resistors, etc.

New MS Slogan

[Sayjack]

Where shall we allow YOU to go today?

And Clippy says... "I don't think so Tim..."

Alpha platform!

[AnonymousCowheard]

The Alpha platform is up for grabs!

All we need to purchase Alpha is a good liar (Dr. Evil) and $2...million...dollars.

ermm I mean we need a good lawyer (EFF) and $5...hundred...billion...dollars.

The Blender project received $100K in less than 5 days, we should be able to petition everyone and receive $5...hundred...billion...dollars in time for...Intel to release the AlphitaniXParcMeta (about 20 years or most-likly never).

DRM is a development that can't be removed /revolt

[AnonymousCowheard]

No matter what, DRM will be part of the modern world. Software developers are not in control of the distribution of their software. Software developers, although responsible for an actual product, are simply a small chain in a company that will receive any implementation to regulate its products market penetration. The plan of DRM technology is not to give people an option to disable it. It will be used or your software will not be able to install unless a crack is released that subjugates the "DRM" and viably will put the user of such technology within legal liability to the patent holders of the DRM and the Software Distributors. This is a combination of efforts from the United States' employees (pseudo-politicians), Software *Distributors* (whoever receives such responsibility), and the various platforms of computer hardware and software developers that received the duty to implement DRM into an operating system! Think of the legal implications of DRM in a computer; you have received an agent of the United States by the contractual purchase of your computer hardware and software! DRM is in violation of Article III of the Constitution of the united States of America, yet by being contracted through a license approving an agreed conditional voluntary purchase of such software and/or hardware it is made legal! DRM is a legal abridgment of everyone's constitutional rights! This puts the United States government in competition with fellow private business and this is also a violation of Article I of the Constitution of the united States of America by abridging the freedom of speech! Think about it, what kind of people would abridge a freedom of speech clause while maintaning a "State of War" that it does not revoke in the absence of war? Constitutionaly, this allows a world of possibility to construe Article V of the Constitution of the united States of America for unwaranted search and seizure of property and effects! It's mass fraud that is attempted by mis-leading implied contractual agreements!

The perpetration of DRM began with a private company attempting to illegally enforce the honor of patents and intellectual property. This demand has caused a "domino-effect" of the SNAFU theorom to reach Software Distributors to consider the ability of regulating the sale of software by enacting agents within software! This opens a completly new concept of software-use. And over at Transmeta, I thought the many Linux-users would lobby against DRM due to Unix being an actual technology contructed to regulate the use of software via principle accounting feature in the system environment. I may consider an alternative Unix-like software project that is Public Domain and not bound by licenses whether implied or traditionaly interactive.

Anyone know of any Public Domain projects, and when I mean "Public Domain" I understand it to be not regulated by any authority of its use via a terms-of-use license?

Sincerily,
Saddened by everyone's violation of my constitution...that honors my independence from tyranical governors.

If anything...

[Bisifiniti]

Is it DRM? It might be, in the most true sense of the word. Management of my digital rights. Is hardware-based encryption stealing your mp3s? Heck no. If anything, it would be harder to prove you're doing anything illegit with them. Remember, the RIAA can't crack it, thanks to the DMCA.

Why fo' schizzle m'nizzle.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a non-fp biznatch.

Re: your sig...

[zaqattack911]

that ain't a fucking sig.

Re:It's transmeta. It makes sense

[FrostedWheat]

They probabally dont give a crap about people stealing MP3s

You can't "steal" MP3's. Copying something is very different from stealing.

Re:I'm a good man!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Englishman yourself, I would expect you to know that the correct spelling is "PaedoPeteTownshend".

Unexpected implications...

[salesgeek]

Since companies are wasting R&D cash on features we don't want, this will create an opportunity for someone who DOES MAKE what we want. Over time the cost of support of this feature will also direct R&D investment away from core features, leaving the door open for competitors to develop better solutions. I say let them waste money on irrelevent features. Besides, I have yet to see something that can't be cracked yet (safes, OSes, encryption, diamond-tough materials, etc...).

$G

And the Mighty were toppled by the Fools...

[Quixadhal]

Unfortunately for us, the unwashed masses of computer consumerism (this would be the VP who decides what to purchase, and the millions of Maw and Paws who just buy whatever Dell/Gateway/Wallmart has on sale) will embrace DRM-enabled technology because they won't know any better.

For them, it's just another of those annoying computer-thangs they have to do when they turn it on. Type in this 256-digit authentication key and place your finger on the needle... yup, can I see the internet now?

For the average consumer, a few errors from the DRM hardware are no different than the "press any key to reboot" message. So their new downloaded mp3 won't play? Oh well, stupid computer. Go download another one or stop trying.

Those who want DRM will cite the falloff of P2P sharing as the sucess of DRM and gleefully charge us an extra $5/month to listen to "premium" content before your neighbor hears it.

We may be nearing the end of an era. If the DRM lobbyists succeed, our personal computers will only be able to access data that has been purchased and licensed (and approved by various agencies). Want to view slashdot? Ok, that'll be a micropayment of 1 cent for every article headline, and 5 cents for every full text. Sure, Taco will keep the charges minimal, but that's just the amount he'll have to pay for certificates that say each article is a valid copyrighted entity. User commentary will take a little longer to post (and be subject to a 25 cent surcharge... to cover the censor review).

Fear the Future.

what matters...

[__aalwyc6372]

what's the difference between legal and illegal criminals?

the legal ones have the right to justify and punish the illegal ones.

can you imagine ....

[hany]

Why would IBM put DRM in a POWER4 chip? The RIAA doesn't care about AS/400s.

Can you imagine what some MP3 or movie pirates cat do with such big systems?

I fear that while it sounds ridiculous maybe some day we will see anouncement of DRM being added to mainframes, supercomputers and clusters - after all even account clerks, engineers and scientists may be pirating Holywood' content. :)

IBM is always first

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course IBM was first! IBM is always first. I think they even had a PowerPC core for ASIC that has the built in DES engines.

Last Post!

[alpg]

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...