Slashdot Mirror
Tech Firms Fight Copy Protection Laws
buulu writes "CNET is running an article about Alliance For Digital Progress going on the offensive against Hollywood over digital copy protection. The alliance consists of some of the big names: Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard,
Information Technology Association of America,
IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, etc."
Microsoft on that list?
...do they do anything?
Curious.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
So at last they see they light, or they just want to appese their stockholders ? Either way, this ought to be fun to watch.
Venlig Hilsen / Regards
John Hinge - shayera /
"Buffy I love you... Please God No!" S
I think it really odd that Apple is on that list.
They have been going after Holywood and TV studio business for the past couple of years. I.e. the Purchase of Final Cut Pro, Tremor, Shake, etc.
Look, ma! I'm a karma whore
It's good to see so many heavyweights lined up against technology mandates. As Lessig has said, while we often don't like what some of these companies do, we need to support them when they do something right--and going up against Hollywood's lobbying effort is definitely a good thing.
The alliance consists of some of the big names: Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Information Technology Association of America, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, etc.
Yeah right. Microsoft, they are surely concerned about user rights. So are HP (please buy original cartridge, and oh, it's only filled to half capacity). Motorola, hahaha.
The only reason these companies are "fighting" for user rights is because they don't want Hollywood/Media moguls to dictate them technology.
On the other hand, they are themselves perfectly willing to incorporate "features" so as to protect the "rights" of their users. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Aren't they working together to bring about DRM?
Jason
ProfQuotes
The alliance is fighting government involvement, not copy protection. This might look good at first, but could easily hurt us in the end, as I'd expect lots of Microsoft-style copy protection to emerge as a "compromise".
We could end up with coalition of groups who'll own the only means to access your CDs and DVDs, while other hardware and software companies are left out in the cold with the nerds.
GL
Maybe they want a non standard drm that only they own and fear if the industry got together and created their own that they would lose the multimedia market. Only microsoft can be the gatekeeper I guess. Isn't this what pallidium was designed for. To enhance security my ass. ITs about hardware level product activation with security marketed as an afterthought after it has been proved that it could provide this function as well.
http://saveie6.com/
... Another group has stepped up in the fight against the MPAA and DCMA copy protection. Members include Gateway, Commodore Business Machines, Data General, Sun Microsystems, the Church of Latter Day Saints General Motors, Verizon Wireless, the Dhali Llama, the Vatican, and unlikliest of all the MPAA, according to their web site. Based on the MPAA's use of Microsoft Internet Information Server, their entry into this group is unconfirmed. Still on the fence is the Church of Scientology, who have yet to decide if it's in their best interests to side with the DCMA, or with the anti-copy protection group.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
since when does microsoft have to join with other companies to have effects on legislation? This is new, normally they snap there fingures and get what they want, they even snap there fingures, and get what they want in --other-- countries.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
Looking at what they stand for it looks as if these companies are just wanting to implement their own DRM solution (or more likely, solutionS), not have a standard imposed from above by the law or Hollywood.
how did the propsed legislation even come to be without the support of any of these major companies?
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
"OK, OK, we'll cave in and put DRM chips in every device we sell, just please, pretty please, don't tell Congress on us!"
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
I know, that's not part of the SAW (Slashdot Accepted Wisdom). We all know Slashdotters are far more intelligent than any of these suits, but maybe some of the folks whose companies provide us with technology we can't live without are actually not brain-dead.
Is their composite track record on DRM really long enough for us to make any sort of valid assumptions about what this consortium will do? They may see the hopelessly backwards media tycoons as an impediment to the continued progression of computer technology.
While conspiracy theories are well and good on the X-Files and Fox News Specials, I'm inclined to give the technology companies the benefit of the doubt until their actions indicate their true intentions.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I guess that some version of CBDTPA could be introduced, but the landscape has changed some (it's not certain how much). First and foremost, Fritz ("Hollywood Whore") Hollings no longer chairs the committee - that's now McClain. How that plays out .... we'll see. Meanwhile, "HW" is still on the committee (AFAIK), but with far less power. Hollywood should have learned by now that when you hire a whore with a long term contract, you should make sure (s)he can go the distance. All in all, it's probably good to see opposition groups arising, even accepting that some members may have their own (equally noxious) agendas. After all, playing both sides against the middle is a proud and effective tradition.
I guess we'll see where it all leads.
...Microsoft just doesn't want any competition.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
for me, as a day-to-day linux user for several years now. I don't dual-boot, nor do I have any other type of system around. I don't want any other type of system.
/. crowd has reacted to DRM, the DMCA, etc.
The irony is this: I've noticed that Hollywood seems to have no problems with using open systems (such as linux) for editing and special effects, and then locking down everything in sight after doing their production. This is regardless of the fact that some popular movies are drawn directly from the public domain of some very old children's stories.
I've noticed that certain tech companies have no problem making sales (even linux-based sales) to various Hollywood companies. I've noticed how tech companies spend a lot of PR on this novel concept of "Open-ness".
I've noticed how the
And I've noticed that the core developers for any major sub-system and application don't really seem to give a damn about any of the above-mentioned flak; they just keep coding, de-bugging, and doing what they think is right.
My personal reaction to this percieved irony (hypocrisy?) is this:
Will they all please sit down and STFU ?!
I'm not gonna have the least bit of respect, nor will I open my wallet ($$$), until I start seeing people and companies practice what they preach and scream so loudly about. After all, the core developers have been practicing what they've preached for years now. This last fact is evident in the working, day-to-day code.
C|N>K
how can you be against copyright, but for the dmca?
thats like saying you want to dig up your enemies while your still alive, then make a tv series out of them, but protecting your copyright until your dead. while keeping a monopoly on digging up dead people and making tv shows about them.
maybe i'm just bitter....
i dont like where this is going. most if not all software based copy protection/anti-piracy trash is hacked quickly and easily. .001% THD for audio the new digital copy will be near perfect. and that new digital copy can then be copied infinitely with zero loss.
all software based drm (what a broad euphemism) is inherently flawed and can be circumvented by anyone with minimal skills; if it is observable it is copyable. some may argue that quality may suffer, but with the right equipment it wont be noticable. with <
what scares me are several possibilities:
1 built in loss. all rips, burns etc will have distortion or loss intentionally added. this distortion does not add up, but multiplies each time a new copy is made.
2 hardware is rigged to only play approved,or registered media. this could be incorporated w some kind of checksum to detect what mp3/movie the user wants to play
3 there may be no way to disable hardware based drm, besides getting new hardware
hopefully pc makers wont fold on this one. i like apples slogan, rip. mix. burn. lets hope that the only ones who continue to get burned are the fatcat record/movie executives.--lean times ahead, either for mpaa as file sharing +, or for pc makers as the only ppl who will want to buy drm crap are the record execs themselves.
the argument that piracy will lower the amount of good media is out there doesn't work. if mr valenti an ms rosen dont like the entertainment industry, they can leave. nobody is forcing them to stay in that market. if making millions for running a racket is to hard, there are plenty of other jobs out there. they can pump gas, cobble shoes, deliver pizza, collect cigarette butts and make whole smokes out of them etc, etc.
Hillary you are beaten, mpaa you are cordially invited to fuck off and die.
A name you can trust.
Hewlett-Packard?
"You guys don't want people to copy your content, cutting you out of money. Tough luck with that."
Maybe Hollywood should return with, "You guys don't want people refilling their ink cartridges, cutting you out of money. Tough luck with that."
*snort*
The only aim of this alliance is protection of their revenues. If government decides to legalise copy protection as proposed by Entertainment industry, that would make existing hardware obsolete and new products much more expensive, thus quickly reducing revenue streams. This is what they state on ADP web site, anyway.
Sure, not all members are technology companies but I have no doubts whatsoever that some of them ( Business Civil Liberties, Inc. Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Computer Systems Policy Project, Consumer Alert, Defenders of Property Rights) have already received fund injections, just to appear on that list.
No surprises here, my friends.
Most of these companies actually lobbied for the DMCA when it came out! Oh the hypocrisy of it all...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I note with interest that Caldera, Red Hat,
Slackware, Debian, BSDI, and other Linux and
BSD companies are not on this list. Why? Am
I missing something obvious?
MCP
Cleara
Comment removed based on user account deletion
no text
Free as in mason.
They are specifically part of this because they do NOT want government regulation of this sort of control of digital content. Because they care about their users rights? Of course not! Because if the government is setting the agenda on digital content protection, then Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is all for DRM (WMP9,TCPA,Palladium, etc.). Just on their terms exclusively. They do not want to have to answer to Washington. Only Bill. Always Bill.
Everyone seems so suprised and worried about names like 'Apple', 'Micro$oft' and 'Intel' on this list.
I'm not surprised at all. As others have said this is about the difference between government mandated digital copyright protection and digital copyright protection coming out of the private sector.
Consider that the DMCA says that you can't backwards engineer any copyprotection code for any reason or risk jail time. If this is the law, then what is the incentive for stronger encryption and better code?
All this stuff filters down. Look at the contests to do things like break encryption. Remember when they said we would never break 128 bit encryption?
Where would we be if it was illegal to try?
If the government mandates copy protection and passes laws then we end up in that end-game.
However if we let capitalism and the private sector do the work then we end up somewhere just a little bit more fun. We walk away with new technology, new ideas, a new bread of hackers pressing technology to its limits.
That is what got us to where we are today.
And besides if we let the private sector take charge then we are still left with a choice. We will be able to choose not to purchase Palidium enabled hardware/software.
What is going to happen the first time a motherboard manufacturer has a non-palidium board outsell a Palidium enabled board?
These are all scenerios that cannot happen if we allow the government to mandate this stuff.
I know it is like bad medicine, but I support Micro$oft, Intel and Apple and anyone else that opposes the government in this.
Heck, with the point of view that copy protection is here to say, I say bring on Palidium. At least it is a known evil.
framework first. I don't care what they fight over so long as my rights are not reduced in the process.
Most of the big fish want to be able to continue to make the decisions outside the law. Without some hard ground rules we are screwed...
I see digitalconsumer.org is there, so maybe there is some balance.
This is also exactly why RIAA backed off as well. They realize that they cannot realistically take away our rights through a lobby, so they punt and go to plan B.
Contract law.
Blogging because I can...
Which isn't a lot and isn't exactly consumer rights.
From the mission statement:
ADP strongly opposes efforts to make the government design and mandate copy-protection technologies
But notice they don't say anything about stopping the government from "enforcing" said technologies once the industry has adopted them. They aren't anti-DMCA, they aren't about copyright and patent reform.
Heck read what they stand for:
The Alliance for Digital Progress (ADP) strongly supports the protection of intellectual property, including digital content such as movies, music, and software.
ADP believes that private-sector collaboration among the technology, consumer electronics, and content industries creates the most effective tools to combat digital piracy. These tools provide innovative and concrete solutions that:
Meet the needs of consumers;
Succeed in the marketplace; and
Foster a thriving digital economy.
ADP believes the proper role of Government is to enforce existing laws against illegal copying.
Are you a member of one of the industries listed above? I'm not. This is simply a self-serving coalition to try and get the government to stay out of the way and let *them* make the rules.
How come that most of these companies are the ones behind all the Palladium/TCPA stuff? I guess they need to make up their minds...
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
- Dell
- Hewlett-Packard
- IBM
- Intel
- Microsoft
- Motorola
Does this seem strange to anyone else?"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
These companies have an alterior motive and want a profitable DRM solution only they control. All this without having to deal with government and any fair use laws.
If the government mandated DRM, it would be outdated by the time it was released and easily circumvented, or hacked. I think these companies are afraid of this, so they want to eliminate public consultation on this matter as quickly as possible.
"Hi, I'm Fred McClure. You may remember brother Troy from such films as 'Election: For Purchase' and 'The House: Con Games', and me from such policy positions as 'Herbert Walker's Right Hand' and 'The Winston Policy Group'. I'm here to tell you about protecting your rights with the new and improved 'Alliance for Digital Progress'. Act now and buy one CD burner and get all the music you want for free!"
paintball
I feel like hugging a tree.
...a beowulf cluster of hard cock!
this is a GOOD THING(tm). But, my fellow libertarian geeks shout: "Hey! While on the one hand, M$ and HPQ are lobbying the government to ignore mandated DRM, with the other hand they're selling us Media Center PCs and Windows DRM 9 software!"
And I respond, "Yes! But if the tech companies can keep the government from mandating DRM, then these DRM technologies will have to compete in the marketplace. And they'll lose!"
Why do I think they'll lose? Well, we're talking about a marketplace that's already filled with readily available (free) tools for ripping, playing, and sharing video and music. And these tools are in widespread use, and everybody under the age of 30 knows about them. The cat's out of the bag, and any DRM imposed by these companies is simply going to fail. Period.
For example, let's imagine the destructive word of mouth publicity that Microsoft would have to deal with if the next version of Windows prevented you from ripping CDs to your hard drive. Suppose I'm a typical consumer; I buy a computer with this new OS and I install my favorite MP3 ripper and I try to encode the latest hit single. But I can't. And you live down the hall from me and have a computer still running Win2K (or MacOS!), and you have no problem. Either I'll just give the CD to you to rip and e-mail me and then I'll forget about it, or I'll go do some research as to why this happens. When I find out that Microsoft is trying to prevent me from listening to music that I paid for on my computer, I'll be furious and I'll tell everyone I know to avoid this new Windows like the plague!
Too many people are already accustomed to ripping and sharing music. KaZaa has more than 3 million users already and growing daily. If even a third of them decides to hold off on upgrading their Windows OS because of M$ DRM in the next version, that's 1/3 of a billion dollars in lost revenue for Microsoft. They'd kill the project right quick after that kind of a beating.
Frankly, it's too late for DRM on PCs. The cat's out of the bag. (CDs, of course, are a whole separate issue, but no matter what sort of trash they stick on there to confuse your CD-ROM drive, you've still got to be able to play it somehow, and that's where you've got them
And the saddest part, the RIAA most likely puts more money into lobbying congress than all of those others combined. I wonder who will win this fight *scratches head*.
I think all copy protection laws should be ignored. Check it out:
http://hackerskit.da.ru
Hunderds of hacking, cracking, phreaking files and manuals. Become a real hacker.
they always play both horses. they supply and develop DRM stuff, and join the faights agains it.
talk about double face, the beta of NT4TerminalSErver was called 'Hydra'.
Palladium is indeed DRM, but I think they are aiming at a different direction for DRM. To me Palladium is three things; secure computing, authorized computing, and available computing.
.Mac - file storage, mail, calendars, web pages, virus protection and more, in a convenient package. Microsoft had .Net, tarnished name and all, still making its way into the market. With .Net comes none other than global authentication. You can use .Net's existing authentication architecture to provide security and availability to your data and applications from anywhere. This integrates quite nicely with DRM, as you could keep authority records for content access in your .Net profile. Palladium is your data where you are.
Palladium has the ability to allow companies engaged is sensitive competetive research to add a layer of security to their documents and communications. This way, even if you manage to obtain a document, you still require authorization to view it. Human Resources, Payroll, Accounting - all of the data within a company can not only be protected from outside eyes, but from prying eyes within. Palladium can be "piece of mind" for companies worried about sensitive data.
Every major vendor of software has a problem that both helps and hinders them: piracy. When a product is new and fresh, a little piracy can lead to popularity. But as a product matures and more time and money are invested in it, companies would like to see more people paying for their hard work. This is clearly visible in Microsoft's recent Authorization scheme. Microsoft wants what they legally deserve; that people pay for what they use. While this directly benefits companies like the RIAA and the MPAA, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Microsoft is courting their interests - they have money. Palladium is ensuring that you get paid for what people use.
With Internet access becoming more pervasive, global access to your personal files and information is becoming more important to people. Apple introduces
So sure, Microsoft is pushing Palladium. It can be everything to everyone. Don't forget that you can use DRM goes both ways. If you create something for free distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no one can use it for commercial purposes. DRM is a weapon of choice - you can oppress, or you can set free.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
What is worse, an FCC mandated copy-protection mechanism - or a defacto Microsoft/Intel copy-protection mechanism?
Unfortunately, it will probably come down to one of these (2) choices, and that will dictate how the studios will distribute their content. As much as I hate to admit it, I think a defacto, industry created copy-protection mechanism is in the better interest of both manufactures as well as consumers.
That said, I for one won't buy the content if I can't play it under GNU/Linux with an open source media player.
Is it just me or don't all types of anti-piracy methods seem to be completely in-vein? I mean, as long as hollywood is going digital with everything, and data exists on DVDs, someone gets their hands on it, and someone, somewhere will find a way to crack it. Then hollywood will come out with some new anti-piracy method, someone else will crack it.. rinse, repeat.
Don't get me wrong, i respect the attempts that hollywood is making at trying to keep their income as high as possible and protect their copyrighted work, but the amount of people that will actually download a movie instead of seeing it in the theater seems to be negligable at best. If anything, if I download a new movie from a reel-rip and like what I see, I'll probably spend money I normally wouldn't have going to see it in the theater.
It just dosen't make a whole lot of long-term sense to try to protect these movies from peer-to-peer networks. It's inevitable they're going to exist on peer-to-peer, and, in my opinion, is wasted effort in trying to protect.
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
"We are not the enemy. We are not at war with the IT community. We are hoping that (future) meetings will produce amiable results..."
Valenti said, then rotated his head 180 degree, mummered in someone else's voice:
"If you only knew the power of the darkside..."
it's about time!
Microsoft Palladium even if it occurs at worst will leave you with the choice between some level of lock in and the disadvantages of a nonstandard system (higher hardware costs, difficulty reading various types of digital content...). The government can put you in jail.
While I don't like either solution I'd much rather battle Microsoft. Palladium without DMCA but the government going after commercial piracy is vastly better than government regulated technology enforced on providers and consummers.
The purpose of this alliance is not to oppose DRM or copyright protection -- it's to oppose laws that mandate certain standards of protection. Basically, the heavy hitters are lining up and telling the govenrment that they don't want the Hollywood or the government telling them how to do their jobs.
That's why Microsoft, Apple, et al are involved. They have the opinion that they are better judges of what is/is not technologically feasible and appropriate than the government. This isn't at all about user rights.
This is analogous to me saying that I am against *thinks of controversial topic* laws regulating noncommercial sex between two consenting adults in a private place. I'm against this because I feel I'm a better judge of what's appropriate than the government. It's all about me; a heterosexual male. I'm not necessarily against it because it affects gay rights although it certainly does affect their rights. Now replace me with Apple, Microsoft, et. al., sex laws with copy protection laws, and the end user rights with gay rights. There's your analogy.
The funny thing is that they don't even have to fight the government; this is just the result of the deal the BSA made with the RIAA. I guess the ADP was set up to keep the RIAA honest about its side of the deal.
They're fighting for no Government involvement. I think this is a mistake. The government should be involved, in terms of protecting fair use rights. There's at least one member of Congress that's proposing a bill to do just that. If alliances like this succeed, then compromises will be reached between the tech firms and the content industries...just like they were with the DVD, which btw is one of their featured "success stories". We all know how well DVDs protect fair use....
--snip-- Posted on Friday January 24, @12:58AM --end snip--
Where in the FUCK is the year??? Why are all the posts like that. I don't care if offtopic, this was a lame ass topic to begin with
> the RIAA most likely puts more money into lobbying congress than all of those others combined.
It will be interesting to see. RIAA might be putting a lot of money, but it works only if the mandatory implementation of copy right function helps over all economy. Washington might have not realized what the internet really meant to the economy when they were looking at the Napster (because it appeared that some people started spending less money), but this move, the mandatory implementation of copy right function, looks like that it is going to hurt the over all economy (badly). Some already mentioned a potential effect; who's going to rush to get copy right protection built-in locked up can't do anything system? Washington might be not technically savvy, but even for non-technical people, this move does not look good; it just doesn't look like that this move will bring back glory days of the late 90s. This is my observation, but we'll see.
Allow me
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
"The penguin is m...."
Damn you lameness filter, now how am I surposed to repend for my sins
The fact of the matter is that the consumer is almost always better off without the government control. Who thinks the government is competent? Just look at VA hospitals, or the insistance of the FAA to use old parts in old aircraft instead of using newer better parts. I could go on about the governments incompetence... The fact is if the government decides what's best the consumer loses and the companies lose simply because of the nature of the government, it's too huge to be efficient. Compare the government to computer code, it's got billions of lines of code, lots of the code doesn't even work, and no one knows what the heck a lot of the code is doing, the code doesn't even know what to do sometimes, it's like trying to compile Basic with a C compiler.
We most likely will be imposed with some sort of copyright protection, but it will be created by companies that need money from our pockets to buy their products. They will compete with each other to make something reasonable that will induce us to buy it or they will go out of business. They are smart, but they're also profit motivated, and their profit comes from pleasing consumers.
I'm glad these companies are standing up to fight the government oppression. We should support them. Governments does have some great functions, but regulating the tech industry any more than it does isn't one of them.
Apple has sworn to democratize the tools of music and movie making like they once did desktop publishing. The intended audience isn't just privileged members of a movie making or music recording cartel. The intended audience is anybody who wants to make a movie or record a song.
Which puts Apple (and the rest of the computer industry) in direct opposition to the media conglomerates. The computer industry has some new "killer apps" to sell - along with new boxes to run them. And it's the audio and video publishing empires on the receiving end of the killing. Or else the empires can hang on by getting the new tech crippled or banned by government intervention. But then the apps - and the computer industry - get killed.
And government is in the position of picking sides. The media empires got it to pick THEIR side in the first couple battles, and the computer industry has finally woken up and JUST STARTED to strike back.
But what I'm waiting for is the Republican Party to wake up and see which side the bread is buttered on. Hi tek tends both to avoid politics and contribute at least some to both major parties. The media are almost totally and rabidly on the Democrats' side - both with money and with more-expensive-than-money free propaganda that isn't touched by "campaign finance reform" laws.
So when the government choses sides, in a battle where the winner becomes richer and the loser broke, which side would a self-interested Republican-party-controlled government pick?
Of course the Republicans have repeatedly shown themselves to be clueless about such things. So let's see if they rent a couple on this issue.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So sure, Microsoft is pushing Palladium. It can be everything to everyone. Don't forget that you can use DRM goes both ways. If you create something for free distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no one can use it for commercial purposes. DRM is a weapon of choice - you can oppress, or you can set free.
This is the worst kind of apologist propaganda imaginable. TCPA and Palladium serve one purpose and one purpose only: taking away the root control of our own machines from us. It is that simple, and it is indeed true that once our freedom of informational self determination has been taking from us, there are many applications, good and evil, for those to whoom we grant it: that is the nature of having power over people. You are absolutely right that this power can be used in fair ways, just like any power over us, but once we have given up control of our computers this is no longer for us to decide. If we accept hardware DRM, we are giving up all our freedoms on the promise that if we are nice they'll give most back. Such power is evil in and of itself, regardless of whether it is used for evil or not.
Defending user hostile computers on the grounds that they can be used for fair applications is like defending totalitarian regimes because they can stop crime and corruption. Both statements are true - a totalitarian regime can indeed protect us in a way an open society cannot, and many intellectually honest thinkers have argued that it is necessary and preferable (Plato, Hobbes, Marx etc.) But history has shown us again and again that open societies prosper, where as those that wish to concentrate power, no matter how convincing the utilitarian argument, lead us down a path of insanity and darkness.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends - for this is not a new battle, what we are seeing with those who would promise us gold riches for the small price of our freedom in cyberspace are the same devils, if with different faces, that have offered this deal since time immemorial. Choose your side, and remember that history will be our judge.
Valenti hates this alliance. That's the best endorsement I've seen yet!
All I have to say is, About F*cking Time. Other than Apple and Gateway, the Tech industry has been way too quiet on this subject. This gave the impression a $300B/Year industry was letting a $30B/year industry push it around simply because they didn't want to soil thier hands with politics.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Of course they list Apple first.
Three cheers for the one PC manufacturer who doesn't think PC stands for Politically Correct!
Aren't most of the rest of those companies also listed in the TCPA member list?
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Herestay a roblempay ithway hetay itesay, I an'tcay ccessay hetay "ssueiay hetay" or "boutay suay" agepay. Onvenientcay hattay heirtay essagemay siay naccessibleuay. Hoay ellway.
These standards have to comply with guidelines set by CBDTPA, including being reliable, resistant to attack, upgradable and not too expensive.
Pick two...
Now, the (MP|RI)AA can claim that "oh, those high-tech companies are so big and powerful, and they have so huge amounts of money, and they make that money by stealing the food off the tables of the poor, starving artists".
And, you know, there may be some truth to this too.
For us, it is important to emphasize that consumers (I kinda hate that word, to music, I'm a listener, not a consumer), and artists are in the same boat. The goliaths, the distributors and the tech industry are not fighting a fight for the rights of any of us. They are fighting their own fights, for their respective monopolies.
That's not a fight where neither consumers nor artists are winners, if we are to win, the problems that are facing us must be addressed in an entirely different manner.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
"Industry Cooperation Is Good For Consumers" [Once I read that I knew it was time to put on the hip waders...]
... Movielink, an Internet service that lets consumers legally download and pay for movies to watch at home... Pressplay, an online service that enables consumers to preview individual songs as well as entire CDs, and then pay to download legal copies to their computers..." [ How is this 'good for everyone - especially consumers'???!? The proper thing to say is 'good for everyone - especially corporations'...LOL]
"When the entertainment industry has cooperated with the technology and consumer electronic industries in the past, the results have been good for everyone -- especially consumers. For example, the entertainment industry has used anti-copying technologies to provide consumers:
DVDs,
"Over the last seven years, the technology, consumer electronics, and entertainment industries have held more than 60 high-level meetings to develop effective technological protection measures..." [ hmmm - why not avoid the problem altogether by going Open Source? You could save the time spent in those 60 meetings to do something really constructive...]
"One of the major causes of piracy is that the distribution models for entertainment have not yet adjusted to changing consumer demands ? so consumers go outside the market to get what they want. ADP believes there is a two-stage approach to solve this problem. First, government must enforce laws against piracy. Second, the entertainment and technology industries must offer consumers attractive legal alternatives." [Here is the logic to this: 'hmmm consumers don't like paying overinflated prices for our products...I *got* it! - LETS GET GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE PIRACY LAWS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND CAN CONTINUE TO RAKE IN THE BUCKS!' - I would laugh, but its just not funny]
I don't know about you, but my 'expectations' don't include the nirvana of a copy protection scheme behind every bush. Universal exceptance of this sewage will only serve to block access for those who can not afford to pay to play, and will criminalize those clever enough to decode the protection methods.
I urge everyone to boycott established music and software companies. Artists and Developers: Look for new business models that are not coersive and levy outrageous prices by enforcing piracy laws; instead - let market forces dictate prices. Consumers unite! Vote with your dollars and your feet.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Story can be found here.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Among their clients, Dittus Commuications counts BSA (Business Software Alliance), Intel and Microsoft.
These simple facts are revealed by Dittus' press release, about yesterday's event and the actual press release from the event.
So, how does Dittus work? Go to dittus.com to find out. Clicking on "services", then "coalitions & grassroots" gives you this:
Now, click on "clients" on the main menu to the left, then "case studies". Read through a couple of the studies, for example "Americans for Computer Privacy" (text mirrored below). Interestingly, you'll find that Dittus was behind the strategy and campaign that in the end lifted U.S. export limitations on strong encryption. Now of course, the current DRM campaign they are running on behalf of their clients, is pretty much the opposite of the goals of "Americans for Computer Privacy". This campaign is no more than a call for unregulated, oligopoly-controlled implementation of TCPA / Palladium, but of course they never mention TCPA/Palladium. I am not surprised to find all of the TCPA founding members in this so called "Alliance for Digital Progress".
This is a fight were it is in the public interest that both parties fail.
Here's Dittus' own case study on how they helped relax U.S. encryption regulations:
Ah, the joys of money.Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
They are not going on the offensive, they are going on the defensive. Any action is still good action but it is still defensive.
Counter-Offensive actions will be wbe when they propose and push roll backs of DMCA and the Bono/Disney copyright extension.
Offensive will be if they push for guarantees of new rights to access material.
quote:Their specific target is a bill by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., which was introduced last year but has yet to be introduced to the 108th Congress, which began its session this month. By demonstrating broad opposition to the idea, and by enlisting libertarian and conservative advocacy groups in their coalition, the firms hope to bottle up any similar proposal this year.
this IS a Good Thing. Tech companies are not (all completely) stupid. Making sure that the laws are not passed will mean the we, the consumer, will retain our freedom of choice and that laws guaranteeing those freedoms will be much easier to pass.
OF COURSE tech companies are going to take $$$ from the MPAA and RIAA to design DRM systems, but they are also going to continue to release non-protected systems and these systems will be the ones that people buy. If the RIAA only produces copy-protected CDs, they will go out of business in a year.
It's going to be a LONG time before every digital recording and playback device currently in service is broken and replaced.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Sometimes we are passing around emails that contain trade secrets to employees and/or partners. Every once in a while, someone fowards one out (usually to someone trustworthy), and we have to go talk to them to protect it. If I could send an email marked "may not foward," that could be enforced, that problem would go away.
Trusted computing as an idea predated the digital media issues. The government uses it. In "primitive" Unix permission, a file has an owner and group with permissions, plus default permissions. ACLs allow you to go a step further and assign different rights to different groups, something that the Unix style doesn't allow. Government certified systems are different.
With a basic trusted system, you start with layers (normal, secret, top secret, for example), and based upon your clearance, you can or cannot access it. But it goes beyond files. If I am reading a secret file, I shouldn't be able to write to a normal file, otherwise I could copy and paste the information out.
The system can enforce these sorts of requirements, but only in a trusted environment. The problem with Microsoft's solution isn't the introduction of trusted environments, its the business policy of forbidding non-trusted environments.
For example, my non-forwarding email. If I sent it trusted do not forward, non trusted environments shouldn't be able to access it at all. If you move all data to trusted, then non-trusted individuals can't access the data.
This may or may not be a bad idea. If I want a home user to be able to VPN in and check email, I have a problem. If they don't have (and don't want) a trusted client at home, i need to provide them with one. That means that they have two machines, trusted and non-trusted. And none of the trusted data should be able to enter the non-trusted machine.
The problem is that corporate users in certain environments would like trusted machines. The government would like trusted machines (for employees, not all citizens). The media empires saw trusted machines as a solution to their problem. They saw that their watermarking and other absurdity was doomed to fail, although they spent years looking for an impossible solution. Trusting computing research has a solution, but it was never intended for the consumer market (who had no demand).
The content companies concluded that if they moved their content into a trusted environment and only let people play in a trusted environment, they might be able to save their business models. Trusted computing was NOT developed to prevent MP3 swapping.
Alex
I have been doing some thinking about the fact that "LaGrande"-type crypto co-processor circuitry will be available soon on CPUs from AMD, Intel, Transmeta and VIA. There might actually be an upside to this circuitry in a "free" (in this use of the word, unencumbered by DRM) OS.
How about using the crypto co-processor to offload encryption overhead? You take a performance hit when you use strong encryption like that in SSH, IPSec and so forth. If the math-intensive encryption/decryption could be off-loaded to a crypto co-processor, you could have nearly effortless crypto protection of communications. Imagine VPN tunneling without feeling like you've downshifted into second gear. Imagine SSH that is as fast as cleartext Telnet. Encrypted VNC that doesn't feel like you're back on an analog modem again.
I don't like DRM. I like having r00t on my machines. That's why, when I run Windows 2K, (and that's getting rarer and rarer between Linux and MacOS)I don't apply Service Pack 3. That's why I am totally against Palladium and other TCPA crap.
But if TCPA is supposed to have an "off" switch so that you can run non-DRM OSes like Linux (and since Intel and IBM are both pro-Linux most of the time, and much of TCPA was formulated by IBM and Intel, it's a likely feature) then perhaps we can harness the crypto co-processor for good applications like accelerating encrypted tunneling. When a software company like Microsoft gets a hold of this technology, of course, watch out for your cornhole. But maybe there is an upside buried in the midst of all of this.
"But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
-- Jack Valenti
Disclaimer: I am a freshman in college meaning I have very little real, direct experience with...anything.
Nonetheless, I have a brain with which to think, and perhaps more importantly I have connections.
Specifically, my dad is a reporter for the Detroit Free Press, and all my life I've heard tales from work at the dinner table.
The popular idea that the media are liberal is a myth. This myth is perpetuated by the fact that many reporters, both for newspapers and for TV stations, are liberal, and sometimes manage to put a liberal spin on stories. People read this liberal spin as representing the industry.
But the spin is just the most obvious manipulation of society by the media. More subtle is the way in which they choose what to cover in the first place.
My dad is incredibly liberal; he's very much in favor of socialism, if that gives you any idea. This has a direct effect on the way he writes stories, so it has a direct effect on what his readers think. It also has an effect on what he wants to cover--but not necessarily on what he covers. Countless times I've heard him rant about a story he found having to do with city, county or state politics that he desperately wanted to cover--corrupt politicians are everywhere, at every level of government. Countless times I've he's said days later that he researched and wrote the story, but the paper wouldn't run it because the editors, who ultimately decide what gets printed, wanted to stay on the good side of the executives, who after all are rich and therefore Republicans.
The bottom line is that reporters, like any middle-class, working-class citizens, tend to be liberal, but the newspapers are owned by conservatives to whom the editors have to cater. An analagous situation is no doubt the case in television news.
To take my case outside the news media, listen to Tom Petty's new album, The Last DJ. The whole album, with the exception of one song, is a slam at the music industry and the way that the record labels steal from the artists. The chorus of one of the songs includes the line, "You get to be famous, I get to be rich." This is obviously a very liberal view Petty is expounding.
Now, having listened to this album, listen to the radio a bit. Let me know if you hear any of these songs.
Basically, Petty was allowed to publish this album because he's a big name and the companies knew it would sell. That's the only reason he was allowed to get away with it, and even with that in mind I suspect that that one song, the exception mentioned above, had to be included to keep the label happy.
The result is that on the surface the media put a liberal spin on everything, but the persistent motives behind the long-term behavior of the conglomerates owning the media companies are always conservative.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
And anybody who'd let one of those evil monsters near their children deserves the dire consequences sure to follow.
I don't personally tax religions anymore. I've been enjoined.
Tech companies need to get organized and start showing politicians the power of the internet as a media tool in order to get more respect on the hill. This is a good step forward, but it should have been done years ago.
Microsoft, love 'em or leave 'em, is learning the costs of not playing politics the hard way with the DoJ.
You don't need Palladium to implement this. You can use an email client with this feature, and assume that your colleagues won't intentionally go to the trouble of breaking it.
If someone really wants to distribute that email without your permission, they can just type it into a non-trusted email client and send it off.
The media has given generously to both parties. Let's look at campaign donations from last year:
In the House, the media industry donated money to 178 Democrats and 183 Republicans; accounting for 83% of all House members. The Democrats got an average of $11,734 each, the Republicans averaged $10,040 each.
In the Senate, the media industry donated money to 43 Democrats and 37 Republicans; accounting for 80% of all Senators. The Democrats sold out for an average of $40,369 each, while the Republicans whored themselves out for a measly $14,555 each.
and with more-expensive-than-money free propaganda that isn't touched by "campaign finance reform" laws.
Let me clue you in on something, when the media tells you they have a liberal bias, they are telling you to vote Republican. If they wanted you to vote Democratic, they would quote a Liberal who claims the media has a conservative bias.
But really, the media doesn't have a liberal or conservative bias. They have a "this politician is good for our bottom line" bias. Notice they never favor Libertarians, Greens, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, or any other third party. They are quite content telling people to choose between two parties, both of whom the media supports.
As for the various anti-freedom copyright bills, every single one of them was sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans.
I note the fuss over the Fritz Hollings bill, which could be resurrected to try and mandate copy protection features. Also, FCC threats to promote similar aims.
In order to make these clamp-down strategies work, imported electronics would have to be regulated, too. Otherwise, consumers can bypass the restrictions by buying imported media and players.
If that happened, the US restrictions could kill the domestic market.
If the imports were restricted, there would be the threat of trade wars: a political hot potato.
Where does Europe stand on this protection racket? It's one thing to prosecute DVD Jon for hacking in his home laboratory. It's quite a different kettle of fish to be telling major electronics manufacturers what they can and can't do.
Look, rules are going to be made one way or another. I'm not being defeatist here, I'm being frank.
The technology coalition wants to make their own rules for the products they develop and build. They feel, justifiably IMO, that it's not a government's duty to interfere in industry beyond what's required to ensure a fair and competitive market. Telling the tech companies how to implement DRM certainly falls outside of that.
But in the end, if tech companies make the rules, the consumers still have the final say. If they don't like something, they don't buy it. The tech companies, who exist only to get money from consumers, will change it.
If the government mandated the technology, the tech companies wouldn't be allowed to change it. The tech industries wouldn't have a voice. The consumers would not have a voice.
...so before you even think about heating up that leftover pizza, make sure you're compliant and have all your fees paid or your microwave might just set your pizza on fire to prevent you from circumventing any patent protections on eating a pizza while watching television.
bah, its all bullshit. I would move to Canada, but I hear its even worse up there. Anyone going to Mars anytime soon I could hitch a ride with?
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
I think there will have to be a period of transition, and that some laws will probably "grandfather" in old hardware. Just as most places say older vehicles aren't subject to the same emissions standards as new ones, old computers will probably still be kicking around.
But, just as it's difficult to find an XM Satellite receiver made for a '57 Chevy, you probably will find plenty of media/programs. that requires DRM-enabled hardware. As businesses upgrade and new documents won't work with older computers, people will be forced to make the switch.
Hopefully, we can avoid the whole issue, and move into an unprecedented era of common sense and personal responsibility.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
It's simple, turn off TCPA mode. You want root? Don't run TCPA. Yeah, you can't download movies now in pure digital form from Blockbuster (because they don't _TRUST_ you that you won't make copies of their digital library) but your root.
oh god, you're a drama troll.
Except the fact you can not only elect NOT TO PARTICIPATE, but you can also PURCHASE the device, and DISABLE the "totalitarian" mechanism.
Seems to me, what your saying is, "currently, i have the ability to simply ignore laws i don't agree with in terms of digital rights. If they go ahead with this DRM coupled with Hardware support, i might not be able to simply ignore the laws anymore. I might actually have to play by their rules. And I don't like their rules."
In this case, you should work to CHANGE those rules. Not bitch that enforcement is too perfect. Fine, go back to civil disobedience then. Boot with TCPA disabled, rip the tracks from the CD, and offer them on your file share. Then, boot back into TCPA mode, order up a PPV movie, and have your HDTV out redirect into your TV IN, and encode it in a non DRM compaitable fashion, so you can again, share it with your budddies. See, it's still possible to be the disobedient, unhappy citizen you will always be.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Microsoft is part of this? I don't understand. Microsoft is creating/producing DRM garbage that will do exactly what it appears to be helping to fight against in this collection of companies.
The hardware companies don't want DRM garbage forced into their hardware. OK. Good and makes sense. But M$ is devising an OS and system for doing the same thing yet they are part of this coalition?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
This is a very complicated situation and its getting harder and harder to sort the good guys from the bad guys. It seems to me that this could go one of three ways.
1) DRM isn't required by law and it fails in the marketplace, the people win and the corps lose.
2) DRM isn't required by law and due to the oligopoly it succeeds in the marketplace using proprietary closed source/format, the people lose big and the corps win big.
3) DRM law goes through ensuring that it succeeds in the martketplace using government regulated standards which no one company has total control over, the people lose and the corps lose ( a little).
Unfortunately the first is the best option and the one least likely to happen. However it seems as though if the first one isn't possible government regulated would be preferable to microsoft regulated. But since we have no way of knowing beforehand whether it will succeed in the market we have no way of knowing if taking the "safe route"(option 3) is a good idea...
This is just getting to difficult to sort out, maybe I should just find some nice remote cabin
--kovk--
well, Hollywood sure don't like the Repubs because the Repubs want to regulate them out of business (Social Conservatism says: Titties=bad - Fiscal Conservatism says: Titties=$).
The Repubs, of course, probably salivate over the ability to legislate technology to prevent people from seeing titties.
The Repubs, also salivate over kickbacks and bribes from tech companies to allow them to pollute and exploit third world labor.
So the tech industry must like the Repubs.
But if they let the Repubs clamp down on the Titties, then there's no more compelling content, and nobody will want to buy DVD players and TV's that automatically put a black-bar over their titties.
This is why the Repub platform and philosophy is just plain broken. It conflicts with itself.
The Dems, on the other hand, claim to defend the "little people" while selling them out to the big media corps with fascist copyright policy. (Hollings, Bono, etc.). So they're broken too.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The consumer is one party, the copyright holder is the other party, last I knew. If you, the consumer, do not like the agreement as it is drawn up, STOP BUYING THE MATERIALS which are placed under those agreements! If the market (consumers) goes away, it will be to the better agreements that we all went. Linux is alive for this reason: users do not agree to code fixed to one parties development goals. People are going elsewhere.
bah, its all bullshit. I would move to Canada, but I hear its even worse up there. Anyone going to Mars anytime soon I could hitch a ride with?
Canada is relitively more sane for now, but there legal structure is insane. There are no checks and balances over there
For example A Judge threw a man in Jail for owning firearms, which his neighbors disapproved. The man owned all the fire arms which he mainly used for hunting legally, and no intent was ever proven for him to want to use them to harm people. In fact he was a reclusive old red neck geezer who mainly stayed to himself. I know this story was linked to slashdot.
Canada is free eh?
The first line "I don't think you are fairly addressing the technology." should have been in itallics. I was quoting.
McClure indicated that last week's announcement of a cessation of hostilities between the music industry and a pair of tech lobby groups would not change the coalition's strategy
:)
McLure? Troy McLURE? What next? Dr. Nick Riviera as health advisor? No wonder they are trying to stop him!
It's a joke people
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Since that's unlikely to happen, I'm looking forward to any solution proposed by committee. Hell, let's give it to the IEEE or ISO--it can languish for years as the various parties bicker about standards. Here are the issues I see that this committee are going to have to overcome:
- Usability-- If Ozzie can't figure out the remote, he's not going to use it. A hardware solution offers more security, but I have yet to see a hardware interface that satisfied usability requirements. How many people in the world still have vcrs that still blink 12:00?
- Distribution--
- As people have said about Apple's initiative, the world is moving towards equal access to content production. Any solution that precludes the end user or small/independent source from distributing content for this 'device' is going to leave a significant market for alternative/broad-use devices that will interfere with adoption.
- Hollywood had their best, but not total, control over content when you could only see a movie if you went to a theatre. Effective security is based upon "what you know and what you have." Possesion of the media is no longer sufficient; ie: ISO images and virtual CD drives. There are a myriad options for viewing and interoperability is the trend--not least of all is the internet as a common denominator. Fundamentally it's all just IP packets which gives our Norwegian friends something to work with.
- Lowest common denominator-- Since interoperability is the trend, if the solution doesn't work on the hdtv, cable box and portable as well that will be another barrier to adoption.
- Government-- As we've seen with cell phones and other technologies, the NSA isn't going to let any decent encryption technologies be mass marketed unless they have a backdoor or already have the computing power to negate the system.
None of these issues are showstoppers, but it will be interesting to see a committee address them.To make it usable, they are going to have to wrap it with software and that weakens the security enough that 'life will find a way' (thank you Norway, thank you Finland)
Remember, the market is Joe Sixpack with cable; the bad guys are a relatively few nerds with computers. Few of these companies are going to be willing to spend the money to re-engineer the world with an effective solution just to appease a few copyright holders. One look at the cost benefit analysis would cause accounting departments around the world to go into fits of catatonia.
I predict spirited discussions to avoid legislative interference (remember this is the administration whose stated policy is to let industry police itself) and eventual implementation of some half-assed (cheap) stopgap
Regardless of which corporations or media powerhouses come out on top in this and what laws are passed, it's not over until the Supreme Court Rules. Period.
While IANAL, it is clear that some very basic rights are trampled by these types of initiatives, and I can guarantee that once your average joe realizes that they can't use the content that they've bought in a useful manner, the courts will be full of class action lawsuits. (Granted it will be the lawyers who figure this out first.) Several of those lawsuits will reach the Supreme Court, which has a history of supporting user rights when it comes to purchased content(think back the whole playstation game burning fiasco where the courts decided that it is legal and lawful to burn backup copies of purchased games).
My guess is that regardless of what happens in the short term, in the long term things will bounce back.
In Soviet Russia, Supreme Court Rules You!
But in the end, if tech companies make the rules, the consumers still have the final say. If they don't like something, they don't buy it.
Ahh yes, the majority rules that's *always* fair. I'm guessing you've never witnessed a lynching? Basically if you think it's a simple matter of "letting the market decide" (especially under the DMCA) you, quite frankly, don't understand the issues. You've already been sold a bill (G?) of goods.
If the government mandated the technology, the tech companies wouldn't be allowed to change it. The tech industries wouldn't have a voice. The consumers would not have a voice.
Oh yes, the tech companies are really in need of a voice here! Hogwash. The US goverment's role is supposed to be, at least to some extent, as the voice of the people, especially those without a voice. Well, at least that was the rhetoric in years past. I mean, really, if the government is this giant monster not listening to anyone, perhaps it's time to overthrow it? Of course, that means no more copyright laws (or property laws, or any other laws for that matter).
You're either for or against the DMCA. These guys seem to be for it if anything. You support them if you want to, I wouldn't touch em with a ten foot pole.