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.
-
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.
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.
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.)
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"
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.
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.
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.