Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Transmeta to Incorporate DRM in TM5800 Processor

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the great-way-to-boost-sales dept.

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?"

41 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Why? by swordboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Why? by blamanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Why? by lunenburg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Why? by swordboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Why? by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:Why? by MSZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

    8. Re:Why? by voodoo1man · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --

      In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  2. I feel I speak for most people here... by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:I feel I speak for most people here... by bns_robson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  3. Why... by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Boycott? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  5. Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" by debrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

    2. Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" by nagora · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" by Old+Wolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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..

  6. security is a double edged sword by rebelcool · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    -

  7. Chinese by xombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Is there a list by sweetooth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Is there a list by _fuzz_ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  9. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Evil thrives when Good Men do nothing"

    Of course I forgot who said that....

  10. Inside connection by JemalCole · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Oh, wait... Dangit.

  11. Non-Story by reynolds_john · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Non-Story by Lokinator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "It is morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force.." Of course, defensive force is fair game...
  12. In other [bbc] news by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  13. Not quite DRM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Just a bunch of X86 extensions! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Reasons? by Zigg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Transmeta Sold Out by syntap · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:Didn't Intel do this a few years ago? by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

  18. All they are doing by mocm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 ;).

    --
    ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
  19. Useful Features by seaan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  20. Hardware Encryption - Cool!!! by NiteHaqr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  21. It's transmeta. It makes sense by briancnorton · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  22. Re:Hardware companies have a lot to lose by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  23. Yes, it is DRM. by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    A solution to the problem with music today
  24. Puting the Rights in DRM by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  25. That's not how it works. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  26. well, if you want to screw yourself... by alizard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Tech Public Policy stuff