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?"
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...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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?
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.
...And which is why my next PC won't be powered by a Transmeta CPU after all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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.
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.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
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.
"a powerful and unexpected ally..."
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.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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".