Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
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.
-
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.
"Evil thrives when Good Men do nothing"
Of course I forgot who said that....
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...
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.)
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?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
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.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.