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."
...do they do anything?
Curious.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
...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
Microsoft may sit up and talk about Palladium, but they aren't doing it for the benefit of limiting the rights of the users. If laws are passed requiring copy protection to be built into every new piece of hardware and software, Microsoft loses on two fronts.
First, sales of newer operating systems will drop as customers, afraid for their individual rights, hold off on upgrading their OS or buying a new PC. This won't be a mass swearing-off of the next-generation of computers, but it will be a noticable dent.
Second, if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory, Microsoft suddently has to go from saying that is the future to devoting huge numbers of programmers to make it the present. And then what happens when the MPAA sues them for having bugs in their software, and not making the updates automatically install on client machines?
I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though, so you can't share music with it using Apple's software. It comes with a "don't steal music" sticker on it, showing Apple's preference for personal responsibility - something the courts seem to have nearly forgotten.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
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
- 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
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
It should be fun to watch though. Who will MS backstab and what will happen after that?
War is necrophilia.
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
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.
> 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.
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
To me Palladium is three things; secure computing, authorized computing, and available computing.
You are either astroturfing or you don't understand Palladium. A lot of people are missinformed about what Palladium is and does. Microsoft and the TCPA alliance have done an increadible job of spreading false and missleading information. They have decieved many intelligent people. Unfortunately you practicly have to be a programmer to fully understand what it is and does. And I am a programmer.
There is absolutely NOTHING you can do with Palladium that you can't do without it except take away control of someone's own machine.
Palladium is a crypographic system and digital signature system. You can do all of that in any "normal" program. The ONLY thing special about Palladium is that it does not allow the owner to see his ownAGAINST it's owner. Anything that increases the security FOR the owner can be done without Palladium. Period.
Palladium "trust" means one thing and one thing only - that "they" do not trust the legitimate and authorized owner/user of the machine. Anything that improves the OWNER'S trust in the machine can be done without Palladium. Period.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
To be fair, the astroturfer's (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) argument regarding corporate computers should be addressed. His assertion that many company's would like the concept of having their employees on user hostile machines where they can control the employees ability to communicate the information he has access to is very correct - in fact, many (most?) corporations already deprive most employees of root accounts on their workstations, so short of a software application running as root decrypting documents only when it pleases, they have already achieved this.
So what does TCPA/palladium provide beyond this? The only thing really is that it designed to make it harder for a person with physical access to machine to break root - on a normal PC is it typically no harder than breaking the case lock and setting a jumper to reset the BIOS - with TCPA, barring software attacks it will take serious hardware reverse engineering (though I doubt software attacks should be barred - nobody has made an OS with privilege escaltion exploits yet - do we really believe MS will this time?) The former is certainly enough for in-office PCs - but I guess corporations would like to retain control of laptops and machines that leave their property.
For this purpose one could imagine a class of corporate user hostile laptops - built so that employees could take home machines that are still loyal to the employer rather than the user - but trying to justify the entire TCPA/Palladium technology on that is naked lie. Firstly, a niche market for such technology hardly makes it a necessity in every computer sold, yet that is pretty clearly where we are headed, and secondly, in this case it would be the employing corporation that should control the keys that give ultimate control of the computers - but under TCPA it is the vendor.
The purpose is clear - TCPA is aimed not at corporate computers that need to be controlled by there owners, but at privately owned computers that "need" not to be controlled by their owners. Thus the vendor controls the keys, and magically the users are turned into consumers, subjects of the technology companies who are ready to trade their power over them to the media industry.
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
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!
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