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."
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
Of course Microsoft is in on this - they want to set the antipiracy standards themselves.
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/
three words: rip. mix. burn.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
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.
But that slogan kind of implies that you already have the CDs and can legally rip them, mix them, then burn them.
Look, ma! I'm a karma whore
I also can't wait to see the outcome of this fight.
:). Digital piracy - from what I've personally seen living at a RPI - is not such a big problem. There are movies floating around the campus-wide network, but most of the movies I've seen since I came here in the fall of 2000 have been off of a DVD, on TV, on the campus movie channel, or off a videocassette.
Frankly, I agree with the "Alliance for Digital Progress," as they're calling themselves. They just don't want to slow down progress by putting digital copy prevention in every product (according to their site.
Yes. pirating happens, but the movie industry is still very strong (and if you don't think "Kangaroo Jack" netting $21.8 million dollars in a weekend is strong, then you need to have your head examined
Go for it, 'Alliance for Digital Progress'!
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
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
well, if you are in the Hollywood or TV studio biz and you are doing digial editing on your Mac, you want to make sure the digital copy protection isn't going to keep you from working on/copying/distributing/etc your own work.
Well I think that's the whole point of this group. They aren't advocating piracy, they want people to be able to use their own CDs and DVDs how they see fit.
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.
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.
Microsoft claims it's for providing "safe computing", citing viruses, etc., but does it seem like a coincidence that Microsoft is also currently pitching a DRM system to the entertainment industry? Without something like Palladium, DRM is dead in the water.
If Microsoft was only worried about susceptibility to viruses, it can solve the problem without having to redesign the entire platform from the chips up...
Given the effort Microsoft is putting in, Palladium is more about providing additional revenue streams for Microsoft--DRM licensing. Everyone knows Microsoft products are buggy and prone to viruses, but I doubt Microsoft views those problem as immediate to the company's bottom line. But, a cut of the action any time someone buys music or video? That's where the action is...
Shame on Google.
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...
how did the propsed legislation even come to be without the support of any of these major companies?
When Jack Valenti opens his mouth, unfortunately a lot of people in government listen because the MPAA has a ton of money.
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.
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*.
nevershower wrote:
0 4.jobs.p hp
> I think it really odd that Apple is on that list.
Apple is the first company I would expect to be on that list. Since the 2002 Grammies, Apple has taken this stand:
- Intellectual property owners and consumers both have rights that should be upheld.
- The consumers have a right to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own.
- Copyrights should not be violated.
- Copyright violations (piracy) is a behavioral problem that cannot be solved by DRM.
- DRM will always be hackable, and is therefore useless.
The above is taken from various speeches by Steve Jobs and other Apple execs, especially from Steve Jobs' acceptance speech at the 2002 Grammies.
The companies in the Alliance For Digital Progress represent a broad spectrum with Apple on the end upholding fair use rights and Microsoft on the extreme proDRM end. They are interested in keeping the government out of DRM, so they can resolve the issue between themselves. (With Apple no doubt hoping that many will run screaming from Palladium right to the DRM free Mac.)
Actually, I'm a bit surprised to see Microsoft there. For a time, they were taking out DRMOS patents and acting like they were going to embrace and extend CBDTPA into a 100% government mandated monopoly for themselves. Looks like either the government or the MPAA wised up and started mumbling something about open standards. When it started looking like Microsoft wasn't going to be ordained the official DRM provider to the US, Microsoft started speaking up against the CBDTPA. It just wouldn't do to have somebody else come up with a standard that Microsoft would have to abide by.
> 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.
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. That's why they just released a $299 trimmed down version of Final Cut Pro called Final Cut Express. Now even a wedding videographer can use a less expensive version of the program that was used to edit "When Dinosaurs Roamed America".
"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0203/
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
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.
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.
If I could send an email marked "may not foward," that could be enforced
Simple. The owner of the computers can simple use software that does that. The email will be encrypted and any unauthorized people will not be able to access it. There is no need for TCPA/Palladium.
Trusted computing as an idea predated the digital media issues. The government uses it.
Right. And they did it without TCPA/Palladium. Theere is absolutely no need for TCPA/Palladium for the "conventional" definition of trusted computing. The owner of the computer can simply use the right software.
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.
Right. And you don't need TCPA/Palladium to do that.
The problem with Microsoft's solution isn't...
No, the problem with Microsoft's "solution" is that they are requiring special hardware and they are inventing a new and deceptive definition of "Trusted Computing". Trusted Computing (capitals) has nothing to do with trusted computing (lowercase).
non-trusted individuals can't access the data.
Yeah. that's called ordinary encryption.
Palladium/TCPA is all about GRANTING access to non-trusted individuals.
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.
The Palladium "solution" says you have to buy them a new computer.
The ordinary solution is to just give some software to run on their computer. Problem solved.
Of course NEITHER of these solutions work if you consider them to be the enemy. If he's the enemy then he could just copy the email over to the other machine by hand anyway.
The problem is that corporate users in certain environments would like trusted machines. The government would like trusted machines
Then they just need the right software. If they don't have the right software then TCPA/Palladium wont help.
Trusted computing was NOT developed to prevent MP3 swapping.
You are only right as far as the normal definition of trusted computing(lowecase). But the new definition of Trusted Computing(capitals) was designed for exactly that purpose.
The new definition of Trusted Computing(capitals) is that the the owner of the machine is not trusted. The machine treats it's owner as the enemy. There is no justifacation for my property to treat me as the enemy. If it is my employer's machine, fine, it can treat me as the enemy. It should never treat my employer (it's owner) as the enemy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.