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 feel like I speak for most people here, when I say " Oh, shit ."
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Evil thrives when Good Men do nothing"
Of course I forgot who said that....
Hey, with Linus working for TM, maybe Linux can be the first OS with support for DRM! Woohooo!
Oh, wait... Dangit.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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***
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.
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.
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.
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".