Slashdot Mirror
Palladium's Power To Deny
BrianWCarver writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education has the most detailed article I've yet seen on Microsoft's Palladium architecture. The article discusses the potential Palladium has to give publishers power to eliminate fair use and the potential for software manufacturers to use Palladium to enforce shrink-wrap licenses. Comments from several great sources including, Ed Felten (Freedom to Tinker), Eben Moglen (pro-bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation and recent Slashdot interviewee), and Seth Schoen (Electronic Frontier Foundation) among many others. Key quotations from article: Palladium could create 'a closed system, in which each piece of knowledge in the world is identified with a particular owner, and that owner has a right to resist its copying, modification, and redistribution. In such a scenario the very concept of fair use has been lost.' 'Palladium will "turn the clock back" to the days before online information was widely available.' and 'Microsoft could decide to lock everything up.'"
the power of free software (as in freedom).. GPL!
Wasn't there an article on slashdot a while back talking about how someone had defensively patented Palladium-DRM schemes in order to prevent M$ from doing exactly this? If so, then how can M$ do this now -- would it not be in violation of such patents?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Software companies will still have to sell software to survive. If people don't like the restrictions - they will shop elsewhere. I see this as nothing but a replacement for the dongle.
This is just Microsoft's way of seperating the men from the boys. They just want to be able take guys like me who only use windows for gaming and push us away from the OS altogether so they know who their dedicated users are. Thats when they break out the 'kool-aid' and ascend to heaven in a spirtual journey.
It saddens me that some US people are spending all this time and energy protesting a war that hasn't happened yet and could give a crap about things happening in their own country in regards to their freedom. And it's not just this story, it's all the freedoms that are being taken away thinks to the events of 2001.
for Microsoft that nobody has yet claimed the intellectual property rights on evil ... yet
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Wouldn't that be history repeating itself?
This isn't where the fight should be. Instead, we should be avoiding the products of the companies that would use such technology for purposes of controlling what we can do with what we own.
You mean 'The Technology Formerly Known As Palladium' ;)
What is particularly maddening about Palladium is the repeated claims that this offers a security benefit for end users. Microsoft is trying very hard to trojan in this DRM technology as a part of the Trusted Computing initiative. If this is the form of 'trust' they are speaking of then I want nothing to do with it.
Buy your processors now before they are infected with all of this Palladium/TCPA nonsense.
'Microsoft could decide to lock everything up'
Isn't the reality that the content creators would be the ones locking everything up? Who says MS is going to for them?
Another stupid poke at MS I assume? Damn that's getting old.
How long do you think it will take for crackers to work around this technology?
Sure, it will take a lot more work than something like a simpler like disabling Windows Activation or a NO-CD crack for your favorite game, but when it is something as powerful as this there will most certainly be those who make their attempts at disabling this function.
Thoughts?
Here is the one-step process MicroSoft will surely follow in the interest of sidestepping those patents you mention:
1. Billions upon billions of dollars
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uncrackable encryption on sofware has its appeal
Every time something like this comes up, people either go defeatist and decide that Microsoft own us all, or decide to fight back.
The world was once as free as our computers, we lived in isolated communities. As soon as the bridges formed between us, we became united, and ruled. Laws were made. Ownership was arranged. The higher classes sprung up and controlled the land, forcing the lower classes into a life of endless work.
Times have improved, but the fact remains: once many things join, a hierarchy is formed. Now we are having our Governments get more involved in the internet, setting up protective laws at first, and now actively trying to control and limit data flow.
The corporations will 'own' the 'land' we have. They will charge us for the privelige, and render our systems useless unless we upgrade.
Ok, this is a worst-case scenario, but remember that Microsoft has already tried underhand tactics (EULAs agreed as soon as you open them!?) and with this new cookie jar for them to reach into, who knows what new, restrictive ideas they may be planning.
- Rico
Didn't they change the name Palladium to a new one?
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
do not upgrade?
A lot of people use windows out there, A LOT. Open-source software et al. need to get their software to these users.
Go to the register and read many stories about just how hard it is to stay out of the upgrade-cycle-of-death that is windows software licensing
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
A question
Is then MS pushing this as a way to seal up markets like China? whre this desire to lock up information is prevalent?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
When will people learn that anything that appears on a screen or is played through speakers can be copied...
is to see this implemented on a small scale and see if all the FUD out there is true. I'll stand in line with the next guy if the fears are true, but I have to see it to believe it.
http://www.stoppalladium.org
So, with as buggy as MS security usually is, how long after the first Palladium crap-o-la is released until we can either a) emulate it's functionality or b) completely bypass it? That is not to say that I'm unworried about it, but seriously people, they can't stop me, you, or especially ALL of us forever. It just doesn't work.
-theGreater View.
but true.
I suspect all this time we spend worrying about the dark future that is Palladium/Next-Generation Secure Computing Base/DRM-in-general will turn out to be quite small potatoes indeed, once the other shoe drops. It can't be too long before MS announces that it is opening its own movie studio and/or record label (if not just buying up some of the smaller-yet-successful of the established ventures)... at that point, when MS is both giving us the content and telling us what we are and are not permitted to do with that content, that's when everything will truly suck.
Yeesh. The way people respond to this stuff is so predictable. "OMG, Microsoft is trying to control every bit on earth!"
/. don't want to believe this, but Microsoft is a market-driven company -- at least to some exent. If the market doesn't embrace something they drop it (Microsoft Bob). If they aren't sure how the market will respond they will float trial balloons for months or even years before shipping it; and then drop it before it even launches if appropriate (Hailstorm).
Let's step back a minute and actually think about Palladium as it currently stands, shall we? Can we?
To start with; I know lots of people on
Right now Palladium is just a flag flying. They know that the entertainment industry and the politicians in the entertainment industry's pocket will salute. But they aren't sure about everyone else. I will admit that breathless scare mongering is one reaction they will pay attention to, but a more rational approach is to simply point out clearly (and without running in circles decrying the evil-that-is-Microsoft) that there are alternatives (Linux).
Personally I think the latter is a tactic Microsoft will pay more attention to. That, and supporting the EFF as they fight against technology like Palladium being required.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Palladium could create 'a closed system, in which each piece of knowledge in the world is identified with a particular owner, and that owner has a right to resist its copying, modification, and redistribution.
I know, I know. You were worried. Don't be.
Be assured that information about you, such as your medical history, and any transaction history you have in the databases of direct marketers will be copyrighted by someone other than you, relieving you of this onerous burden.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Bullshit. I bought those albums, so it is most certainly fair use. If I started sharing them with someone else, then it would not be. Just because I carry 10GBs of mp3/ogg on my laptop does NOT mean I have violated any law, civil or criminal.
Similarly, how is having a divx copy of LotR illegal if I bought the dvd and ripped it myself?
I can only assume you're referring to people who illegally download mp3s or make divx copies of illegally recorded theatrical showings of movies, but you need to be specific! The lack of specificity insinuates that we're all rampant filesharers, or that the only use of MPEG compression technology is piracy. Keep it up and the next thing you know, the MPEG consortium will have to disband or be incarcerated...
Let's suppose a new audio codec came out that prevented users from sending the file onward. Sure, people could just take the audio feed and pipe it back into their machine - catching it and encoding into mp3 or perhaps just run a script on the file that would de-donkeyfy it but how many people will have the patience and/or know how to do that? This type of security is going to really reduce how many people have control over the content on their machines. For instance, how many people on Kazaa can encode an mp3? I'd bet that it's less than 30%.
So, in answer to your question - plenty of people already know that but plenty of people will never know it. We have to watch out for their rights.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
A piece of candy now, a sugar addiction later...
Obviously you can see how, being the folks developing the software, Microsoft can (hell, probably *will* as a software protection feature) program in the ability to encrypt the data into a form that only Microsoft can read, and put a remote based command as the trigger.
... for payment and product activation info"
So you sign in for your latest Windows Update (which you'll have to because if you don't, your encryption will soon be out of synch and nobody will be able to read squat that you make), Windows Update detects that "Hey! This copy of Palladium has been registered in a different computer", not knowing that you've just moved the hard drive over to a newer chassis with more expansion room, and sends the code to lock it all up, so that all you get on bootup is a message to "Call Microsoft at
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
>>Those mp3s on your hard drive aren't fair use. Those divx copies of lord of the rings aren't fair use either.
I thought if we owned the CDs or DVDs, it would in fact be fair use?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
given the fact that a software is required to be signed with a key to run on a palladium-enabled motherboard/cpu, I wonder how much it will take to crack that key. :)
I know it's public key cryptography, but I think that given a fair amount of computer power such aforementioned key could be cracked (think about distributed.net). Once it is cracked, at least the same app can run and be exploited via "regular" exploits, and access to memory/disk/cpu power would be unlocked.
Of course it will be illegal and punisheable with death sentence by then, but that's not an issue
or maybe I am completely wrong.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
I remember reading somewhere once that fairuse is actually only available to you if you are able to carry it out, the manufacturers/publishers dont have to provide you with the ability to copy something freely or run/play that copy freely. This generally means that although cd protection schemes, DRM etc destroys what many on here think is fair use, it actually doesnt do anything of the sort. Now cd protection schemes that dont actually work, ie play in a audio player but not a pc are a totally differnet matter. As usual, i expect someone on here to clarify my position, wether its right or wrong etc.
..at least til the major Internet Routers start using Palladium to control virus and worm attacks. Not a Palladium verified system? Get your own internet.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Two thought come to mind on this one:
First: "If you hack it, they will crack it." Go right ahead and give us DRM, because one way or another someone will find a way to circumvent it.
Second: These kinds of moves are exactly what undermine the power of the content holders. The more tightly the MPAA and RIAA squeeze content up their asses, the more energy, resources and popular attention that will go to the small-time independents who are actually doing something creative, and the more fragmented the audience will become. Fair use is what makes the world go round..
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Click here for the story on Lucky Green trying to use the patenting process to prevent Microsoft using Palladium to enforce software licensing.
Like the article mentions, if the content provider, i.e. Word. Decides that only Word can read the article you just wrote. It means that OpenOffice can't open it (or any other competitor).
If I want to add a plugin to a program. The program, might just say: no! you need to be a plugin approved by my company, not some random plugin. You thief!
In other words, my beef with Paladium is that the security control is set at the level of the creator and not of the user. That in itself is not a problem until you realise that the control given to the creator is a lot more then simply "the right to copy and distribute" it affects the righ to interoperate between programs (in the name of being virus free).
The software industry does not have a history of being open minded, I'd suspsect that by default interoperability would be set to off.
Sad.
"I have been wondering what the issue is. If this is such a bad product, don't buy it. "
What's the problem, you say?
Microsoft==Monopoly.
Don't like the price you pay for electic power? If this is such a bad product, don't buy it.
Are you dis-satisfied with your telephone service? If this is such a bad product, don't buy it.
Are you unhappy with the performance of the latest Ford auto? If this is such a bad product, don't buy it.
Notice that this last one is much more feasible than the previous two!
Microsoft is in that position. Because of the proven anti-competitive practices of a convicted monopolist, I don't really have that choice. As a software developer, I have to account for Windows as a platform or stop making money.
And, if Microsoft decides that they EOL any non-Palladium O/S, millions will be forced to buy it, simply because they have no effective choice.
Linux (Hooray!) is becoming an option, and I'll do everything I can to get it in use, but it's not there yet. I can't yet readily make a living producing software unless I at least allow accessability to Windows users.
And Microsoft still has the power to potentially stonewall Linux adoption for a long time, and it's my feeling that Palladium is how they'll try do it.
Only time will tell...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
This only affects windows users, if the mainstream computer users (geeks excluded) want to give all of their freedoms up to MSFT, so be it. I run linux, and can do what ever I want with my data, be it music , video, source, etc. If you are stupid enough to give microsoft money to control your life, you might be to stupid to own a computer.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
From the article:
The plural of PC is PCs, not PC's. Chronicle of "higher" education, are they? :-)
A story from LLRX.com from a couple years back says, amoung other things, On the positive side, this strength of protection offered by trusted systems could have the beneficial effect of encouraging authors to make all of their work available electronically. This would, at least, increase the availability of content, if pricing is reasonable. In this new universe, however, libraries would have to completely rethink their existence.
> Comments from several great sources including, Ed Felten (Freedom to Tinker), Eben Moglen
>(pro-bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation and recent Slashdot interviewee) [...]
Just what need: More "Pro-Bono" lawyers looking after intellectual property rights.
If all that content owners were doing is "attempting to enforce their rights", then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's really about content owners claiming more rights than they currently have. If I buy a dead-tree book, I can't make copies and sell or distribute them. But I can still make a copy of a page for my own use, or lend or give away the original to a friend. I still control the one physical copy that I have bought. DRM takes these rights away from the consumer. It takes control away from the consumer.
I agree with you that all the people who are mooching need to stop! But I contend that DRM advocates are using the cause of preventing piracy as a smokescreen. Their real goal is to control our behavior to a much higher extent, so that they can separate us from our money quicker. Even if there were no piracy, the push for DRM will not go away, as you suggest. Because Piracy is not the reason for it, it's just the excuse.
The copy protection will be cracked within a week. Something this big and this unpopular doesn't stand a chance. Remember the "copy protected CD's"? The protection was circumvented with a black marker.
Then Microsoft will have to use the DMCA to shut people up.
What they want to stop is sharing that collection with the world via Kazaa, Gnutella, WinMX, or what not. Palladium will make it far more feasible for content manufacturers to allow you to have a copy of the music on your computer, and to burn a cd for yourself without allowing you to give it away to millions of people.
After all, nobody cares about people giving music to friends, even the record company executives realize that's a sales booster. However, Giving music to millions of people needs to become socially and technologically unacceptable.
I guess all this will do is make it so the most widespread works out there are the ones people publish free to copy and distribute. I mean, who is going to pay the kinds of prices that they are going to want to charge you once they know you can't get it elsewhere.
As an aspiring author (as a hobby, not for a living) of a fantasy novel, I have been looking at publishing recently and have decided to self publish my work and allow people to freely distribute it. Why? Well, I have a day job, and while extra money is nice, I don't really need to make money off of my novel and I don't really expect to make a living off of it either. Instead it is a hobby for me, my art if you will and I am more interested in getting it wide exposure than on some best seller list somewhere.
If my work is good, word of mouth will push it around and people will load it off my website to read. If not, it flops but I'm not really out a cent, just whatever time I put into it, which is no big loss because that time would like as not been spent playing computer games anyway.
But the advantages are, I can get widespread coverage to a large and diverse audience. I retain full rights so that if the story is considered movie material, I get to keep all of what the studio doesn't take. I can publish it anywhere at any time, for money or for free. So in a way, I don't need to worry about Palladium. If someone releases a work, no matter how good, which is locked up and expensive and pay by the bloody minute spent watching, I won't waste my time or money on it and I'm willing to bet a lot of you won't either.
As an aside to this, I wonder if a "free publishing" community will start up where people donate time and experience to writing material which goes straight into the public domain instead of locked up in copyright for life + forever. Schools, libraries and teachers would likely be happy to have such work available royalty free and aspiring writers can practice on free stuff the way coders do on open source software. After all, look what Open Source is doing to Microsoft. If the publishers get nasty, then we should be able to take them on in a similar way and have similar success. It would be great to have a library of the people, of free and public domain works which can be freely read, copied and sited without having to hunt someone down to ask permission. This isn't the same as current libraries, most works in current libraries are illegal to copy (though most people do it anyway) and sometimes you can't even site without permission. So we could use a nice library of *only* free and public domain works which can be used for whatever you wish. Better yet, it could be online and fully unlocked so Palladium be damned you could still read, copy and use such works in your own endeavors. In the end, I think everyone might benefit from such a movement.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
If you've read Code you probably already know why this kind of regulation by code is bad, but Lessig also wrote on this over At The Atlantic Monthly.
He says the picture of a world where one needs a license to read is discomforting.
Current laws represents a choice made by our democratic processes, and with copyright as code it's not clear how the same balance can be struck. The problem with regulation (And Law) through code is that there is no place for such a collective choice. If one kind of "trusted systems" software protects rights of fair use, a competing version will promise more control to the owner. This makes fair use a bug, not a feature.
Personally, I blame it on Flouridation.
;)
You can avoid this by not seeing the Rocky Horror Show too often
While you have some things right, you've also completely forgotten about the innocent... and yes, there are people that qualify.
I've never personally downloaded a song or movie or anything else of the nature that I didn't have the rights to do so... and while I don't have an MP3 library yet, I will soon since my TiVo's will be able to play an MP3 library.
There does need to be some form of reasonable copyright controls... but the keyword here is reasonable. The RIAA and MPAA haven't gotten that through their heads yet. Instead they're trying for more and more draconian measures to protect against a group of people who, more likely than not, don't have the money to spend on their product in the first place. Heck, even the people I know that do download MP3s and the like illegally would be willing to pay for them if there was just some reasonable way to do so... but there isn't and the big recording houses are avoiding any attempt to go down that path.
And, yes, there are the dipshits who just happily steal everything they can, claiming all sorts of absurd reasons for why they're justified. That's the group that's impossible to prevent - I mean, hell, they're watching bootlegged video camera shots of LOTR complete with audience dialog, breathing sounds, et. al. -- do you really think you're going to be able to convince them of anything? I don't... their brain function isn't high enough.
What's the solution? Hell if I know. But Palladium style lockdown isn't it, nor are most of the solutions I've seen... about the best is to change the pricing structure to something reasonable, allow people to pay for what they want to listen to (and not the crap tracks they don't), and hope people are honest. The execs don't believe anyone will be honest though. Maybe that's more of a reflection on their own selves than anything else.
I'm positive that this has been talked about in previous stories about both Palladium and TCPA, but I feel that it is important to highlight the distinction once more. TCPA is a hardware product. Palladium is the next level of system-wide DRM that Microsoft is planning on including in Windows Longhorn or Greenhorn or whatever they feel like calling it tomorrow. The TCPA spec calls for code signing for the system BIOS, and for a special chip to handle encryption duties, taking that load off the processor. This is a good thing, as it could make PGP encryption and signing for email transparent, as well as allow for code-signing and verification in the background. It can be turned off if you don't want it, but it can only be a Good Thing. It doesn't mean you can't run anything other than Windows on your hardware. It means that proper security is implemented at the hardware level, making it more difficult to install a trojaned program (ie, the download is automatically checked for the proper checksum etc) With the load taken off the CPU, better crypto for online transactions and things like remote desktop access would no longer cause performance problems.
Palladium would likely make use of this hardware to take care of the crypto aspects of DRM, but it is a part of Windows. If you don't buy Windows, you have nothing to worry about. Microsoft would have to manage to replace every DVD player, computer and MP3 capable device in the world to make DRM mandatory. Palladium may not be great for consumer's rights, but it is also not forced upon anyone. We still have a choice. Run some form of *nix on your current hardware, or buy a Mac. This shall pass.
My 0.10 shekels
Suppose the FSF owned this patent, then sold it to M$ for a billion dollars and used the cash to fund a lawsuit to challenge the legality of Palladium's protection mechanism.
Interesting thought on Palladium - bear with me.
Palladium as a whole, to me, sounds impossible to implement, maintain, and get buy-in on. The potential for backfire, for cracking, for failure, seems large.
So, how much does Microsoft really plan to implement?
Maybe this is a significant percent of publicity-playing. See what people think, get out the word you're "doing something" to deter the competition, then put in something far less in function (and effort, and cost) than you started and say its what people "want." Meanwhile you can hopefully discourage others innovating.
Just a thought.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I'm Sorry, the name "Skillet-Theif" contains a word that is owned by xyz co. You have not been authorized to use said word by xyz co. Our rabid lawyers have been notified.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
If the cost of new works becomes prohibitive, perhaps a true liberal arts education based on the Great Books will return; ending the anti-intellectual, trendy nonsense that passes for an education these days.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
along with the torture endured when some DJ puts on "Let's do the timewarp" or whatever that stupid song is called.
yeah, call me killjoy, I like it.
said oops up side your head, said oops upside your head
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Frankly, I find that hard to believe. If you've been following the DRM, you'd have to take into account that every DRM scheme to date has been aimed at preventing users from making any copies whatsoever, which I would say, is a pretty clear violation of fair use. CSS was created to stop you from making any copy of a DVD. CD copy protection schemes (music) are even more horrendous, often times preventing the *original* from working properly in some people's players. Now, given MS's own attempts at DRM along with the history of DRM in general, don't you think MS would just love to have a way to make the previous generation of Windows simply cease working at an arbitrary date, forcing users to buy a new lisence every n months?
If and when Palladium reaches the market, our best defense an educated customer. If people know in advance about the downside of Palladium, it will be rejected.
To an extent, the education tactic is working. "Hailstorm" is buried in the Internet cemetary, somewhere near the CueCats, and Microsoft has decided to abandon the "Palladium" name (although the project lives on). I think they should rename it "Microsoft Smallpox", to help remind all of us that if we allow our neighbors to become infected with this disease, we will ultimately become infected as well.
OK, let's say that a big university like MIT implemnts Microsoft Windows Shiny and Secure Palladium Edition 2005. Not only on a workstation, but on _all_ computers; libray computers, dorms, workstations, servers etc.
Then all documents produced inside MIT will become Microsoft DRM enabled. All the papers, tests, research and publications. Right?
Year 2050. MIT want out. Whatever reason they have; they need to get out: The cost of the system is to high or the system don't work according to the promised specification.
Actually the reason they have, don't matter. Maybe Penguin OS v69 has become The OS.It's irrellevant. They want out; and they want it now!
Now what?
Well, for starters just about everything people have done the last 45 years is _potentially_ lost forever unless they manage to get a deal with Microsoft.
All the fileformats are MS Propretary DRM Palladium Edition and can't be read on their new and shiny OS and they would have to deal with the relatives of former employes who "own" information produced on MIT.
What a mess. Such a waste.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Personally, I blame it on Flouridation. Nothing like mass administering a depressive without consent.
It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
(yay Dr. Strangelove)
Bitchslapped. Neat.
Palladium is a technology. It's designed to restrict what can be done with information, in useful ways. Maybe it's really clever, maybe it's clunky and unworkable, I don't know, but either way, it's a bit of technology that someone developed and therefore I'm inclined to like it.
Now, if people *had* to use it, that'd be a bad thing. If people were *punished* for certain actions, using Palladium as a tool, and those actions weren't really evil, that'd be a bad thing. Those are legal issues, and I'd be inclined to resist them.
IMHO it is never a good thing to try and suppress, a technology just because you are afraid of what someone might decide to use it for. This is exactly the kind of thinking behind the DMCA, which tries to suppress a vast class of technologies because they could theoretically be used to break other laws.
You can hate the control freak attitude of many IP holders, you can hate the ubiquity of MS, you can hate the increasingly wacky commercial laws of our nations. Heck, I know I do. But I don't start trying to suppress particular innovations just because they can be used for purposes I don't agree with. I'm generally against nuclear war but I'm sure glad they developed the internet.
This has been kind of a long, structureless post, but I'm going to post it anyway cause I really believe I have a message buried in there
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
This is what I understood of Paladium, and why it IS scary:
In a Paladium box, the DRM starts with the hardware. Thus, uninstalling MS-WinPaladium and trying to install Linux/Win2K/other is not possible because the hardware will not allow you to run the 'unsigned' installer. Once Paladium, always Paladium.
Even if someone finds a hack/crack around this, installing an alternative OS on a Paladium box will probably not become widely excepted because this is illegal according to the DMCA.
So, let's fight the battle now. Why is or isn't Paladium good for 'the people'.
Palladium will not: (and I quote into the cauldron..)
.. would face enormous pressures to do so"
- Replace the Windows operating system.
- Search the Internet to detect and delete pirated software, music, and movies.
- Eliminate spam and software viruses.
- Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features.
"The goal, Microsoft officials say, is to make servers and desktop PC's that people can trust." (ha-ha)
Maybe a system that did ALL of these things would be competitive?
--
I think it's only fair these [hopefully nonexistent] publishers are forced to purchase Palladium PCs and use only Palladium-liscensed reference material for which they will pay per byte forever.
"Colleges
Why not instead force publishers to provide text-searchable CDs for free to legitimate book owners because of fair use laws? Safari seems pretty useful.
If every student is networked these days, I think there may be an opportunity for universities to promote a solution to a real (as opposed to hypothetical) problem which happens to appear antithetical to Gates' wet dreams.
- Students spend an awful lot of money on textbooks, and sometimes have difficulty finding them in bookstores and libraries. A significant number might jump at the chance to purchase a digital copy instead of the paper textbook.
- Searching for words in textbooks should be promoted at universities as one of the few clear merits of owning a computer in school. It would be interesting to see legally if universities, or individual students, can promote this to the point of forcing publishers to provide a free fair-use cd of searchable text with every textbook. The bookstore could hand them out when books or purchased.
- Students who have purchased second-hand books also should be able to enjoy the benefits of digital searching.
- Annotation is a second obvious merit of using a computer in school, and it's why the web was born. Students used to surfing the web will readily jump into information organized in am easy to use, interactive format. Researchers should also be able to freely access stores of annotations and digital texts.
- Also annotation as well as the ability to index and navigate by scene or timecode is very useful with film and video. This could be useful in university film, music, television, language, and science courses among others, and universities ought to be able to negotiate with publishers to create free-use zones for scholarship purposes without all this annoying crypto. If enough did it, there would be a smaller potential Palladium market.
- Schools with less funding should be able to invest in personnel and students, and (if there is a suitable alternative) ought to be able to use information technology to reduce the financial barriers. MIT has embarked on an open curriculum and more should be promoted. We need to enable people to apt-get an education and get used to it so they won't let it get taken away.
- It would be interesting to see if projects funded by national governments would be exempt from Palladium
- While MP3 sharing may very well be within the law, it is not as obvious a poster child for fair use as any of the above uses of everything from ascii text to hdtv. I think it would be very interesting to see if the open source and educational communities can relatively quickly develop something demonstrably more useful and open that Palladium, and possibly preempt it.
>>> by restricting professors to a read-only view of the article, from which they could not "cut and paste" the text.
i don't think that they would even try to implement something like this - you can always make a screenshot or something.
If Microsoft have these powers, they will abuse them. Microsoft will use it to further force you to do what they want you to do, not what you want to do. Even with the very recent legal difficulties, they are still acting exactly as before. And this has just cost me a couple of hours of my time. Let me explain - bear with me, the gall of MS will amaze you...
I use Windows XP with Mozilla. The software my bank uses is only compatible with the Microsoft JVM (stupid bankers...). I have previously installed the Sun JVM, so in an effort to get the Microsoft JVM working I used the new "Set program access and defaults" option which Microsoft added to Windows XP as part of the settlement. It is supposed to make it easier for you to set the default email, JVM and browser clients. I intended to change my defaults to IE and the MS virtual machine, use my bank's site, and then change them back again to Mozilla(1). To cut a long story short, once I had changed my default browser from Mozilla to IE, it was impossible to change it back again. The new configurator that Microsoft had added as part of the legal settlement had renamed all of the mozilla files so they wouldn't work anymore, replacing their old extention with "new", i.e. so mozilla.exe became mozilla.new. Not only that, it also removed the mozilla icon from the desktop, the "power bar" and the menu. So the only way I could get it working again was to completely reinstall it. And they did this as part of the legal settlement!
F*uck them. I'm going to move to Linux for my desktop. It might have installation hassels too, but at least I'll know that they haven't been designed to be difficult on purpose.
(1) This may seem an odd thing to do, but you can't download the Microsoft JVM from the MS site any more, so I thought this might be a way to reactive it.
In other words; you are owned.
Sorry, you don't own anything anymore, you license it.
While I agree with you in principle, I know that it won't work. Old saying - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The average person, which BTW outnumbers the "in-the-know" crowd by about a million to 1, will not care. If the only thing that Dell sold was Palladium computers, the public would buy them. They won't go out of their way to avoid it, they will fork over their cash because as far as they are concerned, it isn't a big deal.
Our duties as the technically literate is to make sure that things like Palladium do not happen. The (potential) cost far outweighs the (potential) benefits.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Those mp3s on your hard drive aren't fair use.
Actually, I bought the CDs, so ripping them to MP3 format on my computer is fair use. So is playing them on my other computers, burning a custom CD or extra copy for each of my cars (where they have a 6 month lifespan before getting trashed).
Those divx copies of lord of the rings aren't fair use either.
I bought not only the theatrical version of LotR, but the extended version as well. Despite the DMCA preventing you from decrypting the DVD to watch it later instead of now, it's absolutely fair use to have copies of my movies on my computer or laptop to watch. The RIAA and MPAA has spend forever trying to tell us how we don't purchase the movie or music, but just 'buy a licence to view/listen to the work'. This absolutely supports allowing me to format shift my legally purchased CDs and DVDs into any format convienent for me.
Why does MS think that it is their place to enforce copyright law? The fact that they are enforcing it wrongly is secondary, they have no business even getting involved.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
it won't even be that the code itself has to be cracked like people are saying, you just need to patch windows.
just edit the 8000 line long sub program that scientificly mathmaticly deterimes if it should say "yes" or "no" into a one line program that looks like:
int main(){
return "yes";
}
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
"... the server would ask any computer that tried to gain access to student records on the server to certify what program it was running. The server would block access to the records if the computer were running an insecure program. Such questioning of another computer is not part of most security mechanisms in use today. As a result, college computer systems are repeatedly victimized by hacker attacks."
Funny, I thought it was a result of running Microsoft products.
Soon enough, there will be plenty of servers that non Pay4dumb users won't be able to access.
MSN was recently noted as serving up different (read broken) content to non-IE browsers. Now you won't be able to decrypt or access MSN (and other sites) without Internet Exploder.
How does this affect me again?
And what makes you think that you PERSONALLY won't be able to make copies onto you PERSONAL mp3 player?
There are already systems like this in place where you are able to DL (C) music and make 2 CD copies legally.
And if the publisher decides they don't want to give you any fair use? Screw-em! Who the hell needs to listen to yet another boy-band anyway? Who the hell needs to watch another Star Wars movie? Go get music from Indie sources, read a book, brew some beer. DO someting!
The publishers will either cave in or go broke. It's their own throats they're cutting.
I agree with the root, this is all Chicken Little. Let them have their locked up universe, I don't need thier crap, you don't need their crap. They will come back begging us to take their stuff after a while!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
I can see why you would have mp3s encoded since its pain to keep changing cds or to transfer to an mp3 player but why would you encode LoTR to Divx? I never found any reason to encode my dvds to divx. Copying a dvd on the other hand I can understand for a backup.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Mac OS X works fine.
sulli
RTFJ.
DO NOT UPGRADE and use THE OLD STANDARD.
You miss the point. If content providers suddenly start requiring you to have a palladium enabled system, then you're in a bad place. If your company relies on a data feed and the source of that feed switches to palladium, then guess what, so are you. It's not the hardware manuf. adoption of the technology that presents the problem, it's the content providers (including software manuf). So while, "don't upgrade" may be fine if nothing you use or enjoy switches, it may not be a viable option for a great many others.
Jeeze.
I hate to be the one to site pornography and other questionable material as the driving factor in most of humanity's entertainment expression mediums (with the exception of Videogames, oddly), but with a real lockdown of media and information on the Windows platform, won't that encourage more people to transition to alternatives such as Linux and Macintosh? Considering the BSA's estimates that 2/3rds of all software is pirated, and if this turns out to be a truly effective way to stop the piracy of not just programs but also video and audio data, it seems like TCO arguments by otherwise law abiding citizens will sway towards mediums that are easier to pirate on. The Playstation, for example, was notoriously easy to pirate, and that helped drive sales as a platform. Pirating Playstations doesn't help Sony persay (although late in the life of the platform hardware sales were profitable for Sony), but a preponderance of available software does help Microsoft retain their leveraging points (and I don't mean the quality of their software).
Now, perhaps some sort of middle ground will finally be reached, between overbroad click-through agreements and overly cheap end consumers. Or perhaps many people will make a move to a system where, for example, Kazaa will still work. Or perhaps Microsoft will take the intelligent (from their business standpoint) road and setup a system which allows piracy to flourish but can protect studio-released content from seeping into that region.
Either way, this looks great for that other OS, OpenBEOS. I mean, Linux.
The ______ Agenda
you know.. what the public needs is a law forbidding all copying for couple of years, vcrs, xeroxing stuff, everything..
at least in finland alcohol was quite cheap during prohibition(albeit short lived one, since the alcohol consumption also went up it was quite pointless, i've actually heard that it was CHEAPER during prohibition than when it was legit due to taxing and etc. it certainly would be nowadays since we got so crazy taxes on alcohol even criminals wouldnt take that much profit from it).
alcohol is a lot like 'copying' when it comes to this.. both can be used for wrong, and both can have 'fair use', and both will be used no matter what law..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
How can you publish freely if you have to pay Microsoft a fee to "verify" your work?
Even if it's just a document, it would have to have something so that those who charge for their documents can be assured of copyprotection.
Thus, one way or another you will have to pay microsoft to publish anything, free users or not.
Take any product that Microsoft have announced, consider for example Windows XP. So much fuss was made about it's un-hackable activation key - how it would finally put an end to pirating etc... Yeah, sure Bill - I'm writing this now on a warez copy of XP. Now everyone is 'up in arms' about palladium, it's gonna do this, it's gonna do that. Bollocks, they will fuck it up and it will be bypassed, simple as that. Microsoft can't even keep there OS secure for Christ's sake, and yet everyone is whining about Palladium. Wake up ppl, it will be hacked to bits as soon as the beta's hit KazaA. It will turn out to be a lot less than they are 'advertising' it to be, same as every other piece of junk they push.
Computing experts in academe often blame Microsoft for producing software that is vulnerable to viruses and hackers.
But, of late, the experts have been criticizing the company's sweeping plan to correct those very deficiencies.
How is Palladium a plan to thwart viruses and hackers? Right in the bottom of the very same article they say that Palladium will not eliminate software viruses. And I suspect that it will eliminate few hackers too, since the weakest link is the people, not computers.
Can someone explain to me any real, additional potential benefits of Palladium? We have encryption and security for protecting sensitive data already... I bet most of student records leak from the paper copy accessed by some unscrupulous employee rather than through smart hackers.
Don't like the price you pay for electic power?
Actually, I do. It's being produced by a regulated monopoly (LADWP.) However, I like choices, so I'm putting in a 3KW solar power installation to help cut down on the amount of power that I draw from the grid - just in case.
Are you dis-satisfied with your telephone service?
Yep. That's why I'm cancelling my extra lines and going with Vonage IP-based telephony. That's a plus for the deregulated (with local loop sharing by FCC mandate) local telephony markets.
Frankly, I'm less afraid of Palladium (the concept) than I am of the Microsoft groupie/zombies that will push Palladium (the product) onto everybody and everything.
If you believe in choices, don't develop for Palladium - develop for the competition instead, and make your product better, cheaper, faster, and release it earlier. If enough people need to run systems without Palladium, it will die in it's infancy like IBM's Microchannel bus, and Microsoft BOB. Boycott Palladium-laced products, just as people are doing with that DRM-riddled piece of crap that Intuit released as TurboTax.
Is to educate the massess. Sorry but you aren't going to legsliate something like this out of existance. Even if you could, it would kind of be a strongarm tactic on par with what the RIAA does in reverse. However the public can be convinced it's a bad thing and told not to buy it. Happened with Divx. Hollywood had decided they liked the Divx pay-to-play model and it, not DVD (it was a DVD extension) would be the next big thing. Most studios were doing Divx-first releases and some were doing no DVD releases at all.
Well people got together and educated the average joe on why Divx sucked and why they should not buy it. The acerage joe listened, Divx sold for shit, and Circut City took a bath to the tune of $100 million.
That's the real way to beat Pallidium: Convince the public it's bad and that they don't want it. Companies go where the money is, and if people won't buy Pallidium stuff, they'll stop selling it.
here's what i want to know--what happens to opensource when creators of content are requiring drm? if i'm creating music or video and drm is a requirement, it can't run on anything opensource because anyone can modify the code to stream a digital copy of the content to a file, making a perfect copy and the entire drm effort is already defeated.
if this goes through, are we looking at basically every piece of software and digital content becoming another slice of decss hell? is there any way out? is there any way opensource software will be able to legally play music, watch video, read documents, or run proprietary software?
are there any good articles that discuss the opensource implications? is there any way drm can be implemented such that opensource software could legally view protected software for legal, legitamate purposes? i can't think of a way and it worries me.
i sure hope i'm wrong.
char *mySig;
I am utterly sick of new security features in everything computer related. Every time we get more "security" rammed down our throats there's always somthing tagged along with it, some new way to slowly convice us to give up our rights.
I use no antivirus bs and never update windows (God knows I dont wanna read the EULA's) because one of these days they are bound to have some clause in there about MS getting yer soul in return for "security" "updates". I need no security.... Use yer friggin brain and you dont get viruses.... My router + my brain = not one virus ever on any of my computers. People need to learn about computers; they need to realize what personal rights they are blindly giving away for "security" that they don't need.
Sure, For A Fee.[macworld.com]
This illustrates it nicely doesn't it? Palladium enables publishers to bleed more cash from you for less utility than you get today.
Also,
Socially unacceptable sure, but to make that one idea "technologically unacceptable" (meaning not possible or extremely difficult?) you as a user may have to sacrifice more than you will ever gain.
Unlike electric SERVICE or telephone SERVICE, their software is a good. You own it, and it doesn't go away. New versions are nice, but non-essential. So, if the next MS OS is all locked down and crappy, peopel can just elect not to buy it. Well software developers go where the money is. If everyone is using the old OS, teh software will be written to run on it. That, or they go out of bussiness and someone else will setp up to fill the need.
That's the thing people seem to forget. A monopoly on something like electricity or telephone is dangerous because it's a service, so you have to keep paying for it to have it. Same with something like food, since oyu need to keep eating. However OSes are real different. There is no need to upgrade to teh latest, greatest. In fact it amazes me the number of people I know with newer system that still run Windows 98, despite the fact that 2k/XP are much more stable. If everyone refuses to upgrade, then that is that. Software will continue to come out for the old version as that's where the money is.
Also, even if you use an "alternative" OS, you will probably still have to buy Palladium-ready hardware, which may or may not play nicely with your non-subscribed OS. And guess who might just be deciding whether it plays nicely or not...
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
"There will still be the vast majority who DO NOT UPGRADE and use THE OLD STANDARD. "
This is true -- according to Google's Zeitgeist, the number of people using "obsolete" versions of Windows (95, 98, NT) is almost the same as those using the latest versions (2000 and XP).
"I really can't see how this will effect people who don't use it (now tell me how it will take over the world when people do start to use it and how it will effect the data on the internet and bla bla bal....)"
Easy. If broadband ISPs only allow Palladium-equipped devices (PCs, routers, etc) online, then the Internet will be denied to everyone else. Should Microsoft make their own version of IPv6 that's "secure", it's going to be supported by all the major players. (If the MS-IPv6 protocol can't be altered through software, then any company that doesn't support the corrupted protocol is going to be locked out from all new PCs once IPv6 goes live.)
Even easier: sites that currently "require" Internet Explorer -- but work fine with other browsers -- will require IE plus Palladium. Or your ISP says that only PCs with Palladium are supported.
If Microsoft plays their hand correctly, they'll be in complete control of the x86 platform, and nothing other than a successful anti-trust case will break that hold. If Microsoft fails, they'll alienate enough people that Linux and other OS's will make significant gains.
Palladium lets me control how my software will run on your computer. I should consider that a good thing.
However, what isn't stated is that Palladium lets you control how I use my computer. That I do not like.
Thus, Palladium is equal and symmetric, except for one thing. Given the power relationship between me and (say) a typical software company, Palladium will only be used to maintain and strengthen their power over me through abuse and control.
Thus, although it nominally gives me the ability to control others, that control will be useless to me in practice. This is much like how copyright supposedly gives band's the control over the music industry. *laugh*
Bingo. Ok, so in the case to which I was referring, Lucky Green patented anti-piracy measures using Palladium. In the case of the current article, Microsoft will use it to prevent fair-use in media. Close enough
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
They can always start releasing new content using only DRM-enabled technologies. I have an older Jornada Pocket PC, for which I can't find hardly any eBooks, because it came out prior to the advent of DRM on those devices - I can't even upgrade to a more modern OS because it's a hardware issue. Add in the fact that most consumers don't have a clue about this issue, and they could definitely (not neceassarily easily) make this a standard technology, and a gateway to moving forward with digital content.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
As the article points out, what happens if Word requires Palladium to run and encrypt any documents it creates? Then people who don't have Palladium and Word can't read those documents. At least now people can reverse-engineer Word documents and read them via Abiword, OpenOffice, etc. If Palladium is used, you would have to break the Palladium encryption before you could even reverse-engineer the document. And you would probably be charged under the DMCA for breaking the encryption.
Imagine what would happen to Wine if all the new Windows games and applications required Palladium to run. If Wine can't break Palladium encryption, then Wine can't run any new Windows software. This could prevent any sort of Windows emulation or reverse-engineering that is allowable by fair-use. They could effectively prevent people from using any OS other than Windows to run their applications or view documents. As new applications come out and old ones become outdated, Palladium could become the new standard just because all the new software requires it.
Linux (Hooray!) is becoming an option, and I'll do everything I can to get it in use, but it's not there yet. I can't yet readily make a living producing software unless I at least allow accessability to Windows users.
Guy, you are so way behind the times it's embarrassing. For all the worrying you have here, why don't you see what you can sell with the Linux distros. I'm sure you'll be delightfully surprised. Perhaps you've just signed in, but people are making a living with non-MS solutions. Become a part of it.
I'd like to talk on a particular pet peeve of mine: the concept of ownership and creation. I've probably mentioned this subject before, but it's just something that's on my mind a lot. Copyright is a flawed concept.
First off, I believe that almost every work draws upon references to previous works. If a work cannot stand entirely on its own (in other words, there was nothing from which it was inspired) I would allow copyright. Otherwise, those sources - even if it's just one line of text - should be compensated. I mean, in truth, it was their idea which the author, musician, artist, et al. was using. However, said creationist somehow can claim a complete dictatorship over said content.
Secondly, in order for the continuation of learning, we need to be able to draw upon reference without fear of charge. Imagine a poor institution that, due to copyright, could have had the needed information to cure a major disease. But, they couldn't afford that work, that reference. Suddenly, lives are lost.
Third, enforcement of copyright. The ways that I have seen to support this concept are nothing short of illegal. We go from blocking a for-pay service that customers subscribe to, all the way down to what amounts to digital vandalism. I want nothing to do with an idea that has to be protected by such methods.
Fourth, proprietary content. This is a big one. What I create - here - should be readable anywhere, by anyone, on any system that has sufficient resources to view it. Like a web page. I hate those stupid "best viewed with x-browser" buttons. They bespeak bad web design. They tell me someone is not using the right (standards-based) HTML tags. Tim Berners Lee's, creator of the Web, greatest fear was that someone would create a technology to split the web - in other words make it so that only a small portion of users can access certain bits of content. Microsoft has been trying this. They will continue until they feel they have gained sufficient control over what should be an open technology.
Fifth, ridiculous ownership terms. Disney has, through legislation, extended the copyright on some of its animated characters. I totally disagree with this legislation. First off, a copyrighted work shall remain copyrighted only for the lifetime of its creator, if at all. Those who were not involved in the creation of the work, such as descendants, employees, students, or anyone else not having acting in a manner to bring a work in to existence, shall have no claim to royalties. After the death of the last living creator of a copyrighted work, said work becomes public domain.
Microsoft insists that its new technology is a neutral platform. "It is certainly possible that an application vendor could choose to use [Palladium] to evaluate and enforce some software licensing terms," acknowledges Ms. Carroll. But "at the end of the day," she says, "the terms of the license for an application are strictly an issue between the vendor and the university."
This sounds sounds really riduculous to me. Kinda like drug manufacturers claims, "Hey, we just make the heroin." Or gun manufacturers, "We just make the guns and bullets. What you use them for is none of our business." Whereas those two examples *can* be used for alternative things, Palladium really can't. Ok, it can but it won't.
While I can see the use of such a system the last place I want it is stuck in my PC. There seem like so many better alternatives than forcing people to use computer systems with locked-in encryption/security. Especially locked-in by Microsoft. Does anyone believe they have altrusic intentions?
I sincerely hope that this thing goes over as well as "Bob" did.
"There is no spoon." - Neo
"Spoooon!" - The Tick
You've picked some very unfortunate examples. The DivX format is based on copyrighted Microsoft libraries that use patented compression techniques. Similarly, MP3 content creation has some very restrictive licensing terms, which in many cases require you to pay $0.02 per rip.
The chances are, if you're using these two formats you're breaking the law regardless of "fair use". If you had used Vorbis and perhaps MPEG2, your point would have been made more clearly.
if we don't buy and install it. Too bad all the big corporations will love it..keep the cubical monkies from infecting the network with "a humour game" and keep customers from doing anything with their stuff that they don't want them too. And then we'll start to see software that will only run on Palladium-enabled windows...and eventually all the monkey people will buy it up so they can use their latest tax program.
Me prints up an Adobe e-book, then heads to the photocopier...
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
I challenge you to name one feature of Palladium that isn't already available to users in one form or another. This isn't innovative, it is invasive.
This isn't usefull technology for anyone but Microsoft.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Such as MOLP type agreements, where you MUST upgrade after a certain period of time after the new version comes out. Which of course requires you to often upgrade hardware to meet system requirements. They also restrict you from using older versions as your license is no longer valid after the grace period.
Other software ( more and more it seems these days ) 'simply' expires and again requires you to upgrade, forcing you away from 'the old standard'.
While its a nice thought, its not practical in today's *business* environment. Probably impossible in tomorrow's.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Java: Protected by a sandbox. At numberous points in past, some implentation flaw has allowed java apps to get around the sandbox.
DVD: Trotted out to content providers as secure since content could be encrypted and secured on the disk. Then one vendor makes a mistake and includes an unencrypted key in their DVD player, some kid in Europe finds it, and the entire house of cards falls down. If that one vendor didn't screw up, DVD's probably would still be unrippable.
In all technologies, the apologists have pointed to the fact that they are secure by design, but flaws in implementation or procedures caused the faults.
So even if I wanted TCPA/Palladium to be a smashing success, I wouldn't bet my fortune on it. Someone will screw it up...
And fluoride is documented as being more toxic than lead. =)
The Toxic Effects of Fluoride
To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
Palladium will:
Palladium will not:
- Replace the Windows operating system. Hello, MacOS, Linux, *BSD, etc....
- Search the Internet to detect and delete pirated software, music, and movies.
...actually, some of Adobe's applications have been known to search the LAN for other machines running the same application with the same serial number. It's been done, but should be left to the application vendor.
- Eliminate spam and software viruses. Well, eliminating spam is going to take better filters than Hotmail has, and switching off Windows will take care of the vast, vast majority of viruses.
- Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features. Duh. Even Linux systems can be easily hacked with a live CD, removal of the BIOS battery, and a quick flick of the reset switch.
So, it appears that in addition to taking away fair use, Palladium isn't even giving us anything new. Well, maybe it looks new, but that's just because it's solving the same old problem using new tools. But remember what happened with WinXP the day it hit the streets? Remember that "Corporate version" that bypassed the "product activation" pile of crap? Who wants to bet we'll have Palladium cracked before it hits the street? Perhaps a paperclip soldered in to bypass the palladium chip...I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
It was a hypothetical case-in-point rebuttal to the OP. I don't have a divx version of LotR lying around. I could easily create an mpet version with my DVDs, but I don't want to...
I do have the aforementioned ~10GB mp3/ogg files on my laptop, though. And to address another person in this thread... I created all of those mp3s with iTunes, which I got with my iBook, so I am using a licensed encoder. I got the license for iTunes from Apple when I bought the computer, and Apple paid the patent holders a license fee for including an mp3 encoder in one of their apps...
I'd be interested to know what the people here think will be the fate of OSX on x86 - a lot of peopl ehave said that Apple is gearing up to release the OS, in some form (probably not to run on any and every x86 box) for x86 as a hit back at Microsoft when they release Palladium.
If this is true then Apple obviously thinks there are going to be a lot of users that are going to be so p****ed off at MS that they'll switch platforms at this time. And they have a lot more marketing dollars than any of us here to predict these things, so what do you guys think?
-Nex
This sig has been deprecated.
Palladium, like computers and any other bit of technology, is a technology that can be used for good or evil.
I might accept that assertion about TCPA. As I have learned by the extreme measure of actually reading the spec, TCPA does have some useful applications, if used with software that is under your control, against servers that are under your control. But using TCPA-like technology together with proprietary software (i.e. Palladium) is a very good way to shoot yourself in the foot, because you just don't know what the program does. Software authors gain an unprecedented level of control over your machine, which means that you must have complete trust that the authors of your software will not abuse that power, not even if you piss them off badly in the future.
I don't know any company, let alone Microsoft, which would be worthy of such trust.
I know I wouldn't advise anyone to buy such a system, much less buy one myself. Would you?
He did?
Instead of relying upon Palladium, content providers should just use a hardware dongle.
It's potentially cheap and it achieves the same effect. Plus, it's infinitely customizable for the particular circumstances.
I've used them as both a consumer and as a software writer, and I've been nothing but happy.
Caution: Contents under pressure
The strategies of Microsoft and Intel into controling how I use my computer doesn't worry me overly much yet. I have yet to hear anything on MS and Intel *requiring* me to buy such technology and install it into my computer. Im sure that there are some users out there who could care less about their hardware/software specifics, but people who depend on their computers tend to be very picky. Picky users generally don't buy shoddy hardware, limited hardware, or software that will make their life miserable. Therefore, unless MS is VERY clever there isn't much chance of Palladium getting installed in the computers that matter most, the experts, power-users, developers, and hackers computers.
In addition I don't see how MS can force the issue. I suppose they will bundle it with Internet Explorer. I can switch to Netscape or stay at IE6. It will be in the next Windows OS, but I use Win2k, and have no plans to upgrade. If MS does figure out a way to get it installed on my computer, I maintain good backups and am willing to spend an afternoon reformating and reinstalling.
Sorry MS, resistance is *not* futile.
And, when (not if) Microsoft's super-de-dooper Hardware security gets exploited, who 0wnz? Could you imagine that? A compromised system could lock out the rightful owners and Microsofts OS, but let anyone else in. Gee, and then what do you do to patch hardware? Buy new systems all over again, every few days/weeks when there is a security patch?
Fsck Microsoft and all it is/stands for.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
IMHO it is never a good thing to try and suppress, a technology just because you are afraid of what someone might decide to use it for. This is exactly the kind of thinking behind the DMCA, which tries to suppress a vast class of technologies because they could theoretically be used to break other laws.
I think you have made a very good and often overlooked point. People should be free to make their own decisions about the technologies they use. We may not agree with those decisions, and indirectly their decisions may hurt us, like the fact that 90% of computer users choosing Windows makes it hard on us Mac and Linux users. But those are their free choices, and they have reasons for making those choices.
As long as Palladium is not mandated, we should not try to get it suppressed. Let the technology compete in the markets. If people start doing all those "evil" things with it, let other companies compete with them by not putting so many restrictions on the data. Imagine you had a choice between two music subscription services, A which uses Palladium and puts all kinds of DRM restrictions on your music, and B which does not use that kind of technology. But B costs more than A. Now you have a choice, consumers have a choice, and they can decide how much the freedom to manipulate music is worth to them.
Having more choices is good! Palladium opens up a whole new range of techniques for manipulating data that are impossible today. The people who are trying to shut down Palladium are the ones who are trying to take away choices, who are trying to force people to use computers in ways that they approve of. That's not how we should approach the future. The world is a complex place, and the more tools we have to deal with the issues ahead, the better. Palladium is one more tool that gives us new ways to handle data, and it can only increase our flexibility and our options.
I realized a while ago that i need to keep this computer tucked away somewhere pending the outcome of the corporates vs the consumers. With my installation (OSX 10.2.4) and hardware now (DVD-R) I can rip-mix-burn 99.5% of CD's that have ever been made, and either by turning on apache/FTP access for my friends or burning them DVD's full of 256k encoded Mp3's I have a machine with which I can do anything I please with an exhaustive collection. When it comes to movies FFMPEG and Mencoder make it a one click operation to backup any DVD's I have (to any format I like) and share them as described above. With what I hear coming from the linked articles and other sources not upgrading and keeping legacy hardware may be coming into reality as the only way to protect our rights. Is there any restrictive DRM on OSX right now? Yes, I hate to say it but yes (see iPod, un-saveable QT movies). And yes, it is only going to get worse. I believe Apple will use the lack of hard Palladium style DRM as a selling point for a while, but at some point that selling point _will_ vanish unless serious changes are made to the DMCA. That said im hoping to buy a dual Power970 later this year....that would be a machine I could comfortably tuck away and use for the next decade.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Sorry, you don't own anything anymore, you license it.
Wow, you're most likely saying that in sarcasm mode, but be very careful. Too many people already think that is so, and that it is OK with them. The fact of the matter is, I own a whole lot of things, especially things I've purchased. Don't make me prove it.
the "in-the-know" crowd
Heh, my wife likes to call that the "jumping to conclusion" crowd. She says thats how i get my exercise.
they will fork over their cash because as far as they are concerned, it isn't a big deal
Well ya, as long as all that EULA paperwork is just meaningless toilet wipe (which it currently is) why should they care? You just watch a "passive consumer" bring home a brand new Britney Spears CD that they can't play on their favorite CD player.
The DMCA truly is a bad law, and should be repealed. It doesn't enforce EULA's but it does enforce honerous copy protection measures, and creates an eternal sort of patent like protection, without any meaningful checks or balances. Anything nasty Microsoft manages to do with Palladium will just underscore how bad the DMCA is.
it's not Microsoft's technology that I fear. I live and work with it every day. I understand it (and them) more every day because of it. Maybe I don't spread around some of the information I can aquire by delving deeply into their software, but rest assured 50,000 of my closest friends and I know many of those secrets and wouldn't hesitate to share them if and when it became necessary, consequences be damned.
The greatest threat from Palladium (and other technologies under the DMCA) will come from subtility. If the mechanisms can be put in place while no one is watching, then the lockdown will be fast and furious.
Our responsibilities as the technically literate are to make sure that viable alternatives to foolish schemes remain viable. They include not letting one company crush the spirit and bottle the power of an industry. They also include making sure the government doesn't tie our hands so far behind our backs that we can't tie our own digital shoes.
Don't like Palladium? Use something else. Nothing else exists? Build (or help build) an alternative. Make the alternative better than the original and... Well you get the idea.
The average person, which BTW outnumbers the "in-the-know" crowd by about a million to 1, will not care.
:-D
So if there are 290 million people in America, then only 290 of them are "in-the-know"?
Obviously, you are not one of the 290.
-Gonz
Apples and Oranges...
You are correct, but the arguments are not entirely the same. While Elcomsoft's software is simply a tool, it is available for end users. Some users will use it for fair use, and others will inevitably use it in an illegal fashion.
However, Palladium is a tool that will likely remain in the hands of Microsoft. Sure, the "content owners" will be given limited toolkits that allow them to make Palladium-friendly software, but it will be Microsoft who says what is trusted or not.
That said, if Elcomsoft was (a) a US-based company and (b) required the users of its tools to seek approval from Elcomsoft for each and every use, then Elcomsoft SHOULD be held accountable for misuse of its tools, because they would know of specific violations.
Now the question here is this: "Will Microsoft use Palladium for illegal purposes?" Judging by Microsoft's past record... well... you be the judge.
- Twilight1If something has the potential to do "wrong" things, should we outlaw it? Should we outlaw DeCSS because it can be used to copy DVDs? Should we outlaw p2p file sharing networks because they can be used to transfer copyrighted material? Should we outlaw Palladium because it allows you to build DRM software? (Ignoring the potential for virus protection, safe management of sensitive information like passwords, etc?) That's my main problem with the anti-hype against Palladium....it makes everyone into a hypocrite about "potential uses" versus "all uses".
Just being hopefull in the idea that one day in the not so distant future, someone somewhere will develop a Palladium virus that would default to deny all rights to all mediums and data. That your computer would just close itself out and deny all access to it, saying you don't have the rights to access it.
And say this virus spread like wildfire, and hundreds of thousands of happy-go lucky MS users worldwide can't get to their MP3s and DivX p0rn, nevermind grandma and her email, and the business exec that can use powerpoint. I'm thinking this would be sweet... So, what's your favorite limnux distro??
-A30N
Na, look at their track record. Given the reigns they'd decide to lock up anything anti-microsoft or dangerous to their profits and not a lot else. I believe that's why exercising this kind of control is often called "censorship".
By the time Palladium came out, I won't be using any Windows OS anymore.
There are other alternative, but as of now there are particular softwares that I need to use that only run on Windows.
--so OK, the "peaceniks" are wrong and will "cost lives". That's an opinion, it has to my mind a certain amount of validity, but I'd like to expand on it more. I have an additional opinion, but I'll phrase it in the form of some questions at first.
How many people will die because others refuse to accept the evidence that high level "leaders" in various western nations created, sponsored, armed, equipped and encouraged saddam hussein, al queda, and etc, and are currently conveniently "forgetting" those facts? What are we to do with people who refuse to learn from history, and can't see the hegelian dialectic at work, when crises are manufatured on purpose in order to garrer power and profits for high level "connected ones"? When does it become politically correct to notice exact parallels with events such as the reichstagg fire,where a retarded man was setup to commit a crime of such size as to influence public opinion so that "drastic security measures' were "needed", and 9-11, where obvious brainwashed goat herders were used in a similar fashion, and where the linkages up stream go directly not only to far off afghanistan, but to western intelligence services, large corporations, and various stock brokerages, and this information was "overlooked" or dismissed as "intelligence failures", when it obviously wasn't? Why is it that international financiers who always seem to be quite willing to finance all the sides in various conflicts are given a "get out of jail free pass" on their actions? When will all the connections between "serious bad stuff happening" and extremely rich and powerful western white guys in suits be "fashionably correct" to note?
You see, it works on several levels. I have noticed that for a lot of people, stopping the data input at the 'comfort level' based on a prior "belief" system seems to be the norm. If any data is presented that doesn't fit someone's pre conceived belief of what political reality is, then such data gets rejected out of hand, based not on cold clinical analysis and a sense of honesty and fair play, which should be an intelligent response and is an accepted scientifc model, but rejected and denied based on just a partisan sense of belonging to some group who "can do no wrong, it's those other guys fault, all of it". That is an absurd "belief" system that can be classed as almost cultish, and as such should be avoided, one would think.
Now, to switch to just general commentary on iraq, if it was my call, this is what I would like to see. I would like to see the high level US leaders (other nations in the west need a similar action to take place) who decided to fund and bankroll that goon saddam exposed, and busted. Busted, exposed, prosecuted. I think the United States should FIRST show the world we are willing to clean up our own messes, that we did in fact break international law and common sense by supplying him with poison gasses and active alive biowarfare germs that were produced and stockpiled in direct avoidance of treaties we have signed, that the materials shipped over there were not "samples" but actual production runs of size, and that we as a nation screwed up. I would also contend that this goes across the two major political parties leadership levels, and into various places inside our own military establishment and inside various private corporations, and has been an ongoing criminal enterprise of monumental and sinister proportions. And that we did this partly to counter iran, but that the iraninan problem itself was AGAIN partly our fault as we had our intelligence services help to overthrow the previous elected government of iran, put into power this royal "shah" monster, who went about so abusing his people that radical islamicists were able to easily recruit converts, leading to the mullah khomeni taking over with his gang of despots. You see, there's connections. You can't stop at one point and say "here is where it started and it's all these other guy's fault!" And that all of this was done on purpose for the reasons of power accumulation and "making money" into the obscene levels. ONCE we do that,clean up our own mess, and regain the moral high ground we have lost on the international levels you can plainly see, THEN proceed to deal with creatures of our creation like saddam the dictator, and if we have to, to do it legally according to our constitution which insists on congress and not some tin pot dictator to decide about such a heavy event as 'war'.
There are literally dozens more examples I can cite to reinforce this position, completely outside of just iraq. In other words, our hands are not clean either and it's well past time we as a nation have the courage to admit it and deal with it.
And this is not a "leftist"or "rightist" viewpoint, millions share it, it goes across the political spectrum. I doubt were you to poll any of the protesters across the world from this weekend you would find many "saddam" supporters. What some folks are uncomfortable with is the notion that the protesters were also protesting the "why did this happen" position which points pretty clearly towards "us" as having some serious involvement, and unfortunately, a lot of the high level people involved in creating this saddam problem are now offering their latest "solutions"..
Personally, I think none of these gents we have who are connected to saddam and to bin laden and al queda, etc, should be in ANY position of power, and in fact need to be pulling some hard time at club fed, and that their public personas are a sham,a shame, and a lie, a very, very big lie. It is embarrasing, so a lot of folks go into denial over it.
I can put this even simpler. If I as an individual do business with the crackhouse and gang up the street, if I sell them arms, supply them with support,make sure their car runs, loan them various burglary and mugging tools, etc, then later on they go on a crime rampage around the neighborhood, would I be guilty or innocent of being "wrong"? Would I have any claim to moral superiority, would I have any rational basis to claim I had no hand in the crimes committed? Or would the local prosecutor say I was in fact a part of this gang?
When it's on that level it's easy to see, when a nation and it's so called "elected" leaders and it's "pillars of society" business people do it, then this situation is supposed to change, morally and legally? Uhh, why is this?
A lot of the people around the world don't see much difference, and frankly, I share that view. The scale is different with the examples of the crackhouse gang and it's crimes, but the crimes committed certainly aren't, and ALL the criminals involved need to be dealt with in a legal fashion, no matter their skin tone, what they wear for clothing, what country they currently reside in, or what temporary 'title' they enjoy, or what current economic level they happen to be at..
This picking and choosing just "some" of the gang members to "prosecute", while completely ignoring the other gang members is just intellectually and ethically and morally bankrupt, IMO. And that's what's going on with the current "protest" activity, millions of other people can see that.
As much as I hate how I know M$ will ultimately use this, it could be a HUGE boon for the medical industry.
See, even the devil can be useful.
Actually I totally agree!
:( It'd be a great world if there were no computer viruses too! We'd not need all this "Security" crap! :) But alas...
I happen to know, through a long history with this subject, that as long as something is easily stolen, people will steal it. (I'm not talking about fair use, I'm talking about ripping a CD and placing it on Usenet)
This is the sad truth about humanity and we ALL suffer for it
Was that a defeatist reply? Well as soon as people do actually stop stealing software, music, movies etc in wholesale mass quantities. Then I will change my position on DRM.
I also know that part of this can be accomplished by making said things cheaper. A lot of companies are finally realizing that. Microsoft included. People used to pirate office for home just to get a real word processor (Word). Now They sell a $79 (-$20 rebate frequently) package that includes a full version of Word in it. People pirate Photoshop constantly just to have quality photo editing software (Sorry GIMP, You don't cut it yet). Now Adobe sells Photoshop Elements for $99 (-$30 rebate frequently) and it is 100% of Photoshop without CMYK or professional paper compensation curves.
As long as we see more of that, and as long as people relieve themselves of the "Everything has to be free" mentality, there is some hope...
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Everyone save all your analog hardware!
Absolutely. The DMCA is something that never ever should have been passed, and is an example of what can happen if tech people don't keep their eyes and ears open. I think it was a wake-up call to that effect, and makes us realize that Palladium needs to be fought against, and fought hard. Don't let the market decide, help the market decide. I think people have the right idea that we need to educate ourselves, and educate others. Like I said:
We need to do whatever it takes to prevent things like this from getting off the ground. "The market" needs to have a bigger voice up front, especially when it comes to someone like Microsoft who has the power to essentially disregard what the market thinks. It needs to be prevented from happening, rather than let it get created and then rally against it.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of the DMCA, and won't care about it until it affects them personally, and in a significant way. By then, it may be too late.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Now, MP3s are spreading this stuff all over the globe, and it takes just a couple of minutes to download a song; the quality isn't that bad, and you don't need to buy blank tapes or anything like that. Publishers are scared, and they're lashing out at everybody and everything in sight.
I agree that piracy is a problem, and I think we sometimes get wrapped up into thinking it isn't that bad to download a few songs. But I also think that the RIAA and the MPAA don't want to stop at ending piracy.
I believe that they want total control over their music and movies, and they want 'fair use' to mean you get to watch it on the medium they send you, with no backup copies, no shift to viewing on a PC, and maybe no transferability at all (see the earlier TurboTax fun, with the one PC/First PC type of licensing and protection).
That's why we need dissent. We need to fight against unacceptable encroachment upon our rights, while they fight for theirs. Sometimes they have a better bargaining position, but if they go too far, we put that much more effort into defeating their schemes. I can already evision people 'modding' Palladium chips to fight the power, and the endless cycle shall continue . . .
It sounds to me like Ms is making a superior product - one that allows companies to charge for their software and know that they are going to get paid by everyone who uses it. You guys seem to be upset that ones MS does this no one will want to use other software without this feature. Of course they won't, and why is this a bad thing? MS will offer a something people want, so people will use it. That about it like this: If you published a book, and you only got paid for that book when someone buys the book. Would you want to sell your book in the store that put magnetic strips on the book to stop people from stealing them, or in the store that does nothing to stop shoplifters?
The most critical issue that I see from this is publishers locking out those who can not pay for the service. The ability for the publishers to create their own definitions of what is "fair use" could create a further imbalance between those universities that are rich and those that are poor.
The key element that makes the internet such a critical part of academia is the freedom to exchange ideas from anywhere on earth. Removing that fundamental element puts those people who can not pay for the same ability out of the loop, and serves to stratify society even more than it is already.
Who benefits? Two factions benefit from this:
1. Monopolies - corporations who tend to gain from exclusive control over a particular market. This reinforces their exclusivity at the expense of freedom.
2. Elitists - those who feel that only a select few with resources should have access to higher education and the halls of power.
Both of these factions work hand in hand to further their agendas. Every ivy league college will have a fully functioning Palladium system, state colleges and universities will cut critical continuing education and other 'bootstrap' programs to pay for it, and small colleges without the resources will be left in the dark. Once the defacto standard is set (by publishers removing free electronic access, and embracing Palladium), it will all be over - the internet will be come a 'dark' place for those left out.
Of course, that might have a positive effect: those who GPL their manuscripts will have wide acceptance as 'the source', since most teachers will not be able to pay for the cannonical knowledge base to 'clip' for fair use.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Were you aware that the DMCA passed by a voice vote? With so many controversial laws being passed one would think the public might be concerned about how their representatives have been voting. But this is America. :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do we have to go through the "guns don't kill people" argument here? Any defense you can offer of the hardware in TCPA and be offered for Palladium as well.
The reality is that getting ubiquitous hardware out there that can do TCPA will inevitably lead to superior DRM on that platform. Whether this will matter beyond DVDs (which already have broken DRM) or not, it's hard to say. But e.g. the music industry decides to finally get off their asses and sell music online, you can be sure it'll be DRM'd as best they can.
But since TCPA offers no real benefit--it's not going to stop Slammer, it's not going to allow you to tell the difference between an executable your friend sent you that you should run and an executable your friend sent you that you shouldn't run--it's hard to see any point to having it in the first place.
The previous ask slashdot post about this with the motherboard vendor (or was it chipset?) just amounted to "our customers want it". Why the hell do their customers (the people who are building machines) want it? They shouldn't give a damn unless maybe they're getting pressure from someone else who wants it, and their customers (you, me, and Joe Hexpack) aren't asking for it, so I don't know who that would be besides MS (who certainly have a history of playing hardball with PC vendors).
I can still buy the newest althon CPU and MB along with RAM, put linux, win2k, bsd, whatever on it, without worring about palladum.
Nope, buy a palladiam motherboard it won't let you load a non-Palladiam OS.
Hey, whatever happened to that Clipper Chip? What about that V Chip that was supposed to go in your telvision and prevent certain content from being watched? If anyone is paying attention to history, this kind of crap is usually stillborn or shot down early in its production. Linux and the Mac will still be around, as will plenty of other options, such as older Sun and SGI workstations. Believe me, once consumers find out what Palladium *really* does, microsoft will be in a heap of trouble. Personally, I hope they pour billions and billions and billions onto Palladium only for it to fall flat in the marketplace (which it undoubtedly will) and give up marketshare to everyone else. Just sit back, watch it fail dramatically and enjoy.
IAAL
The thing that worries me is that the cornerstone of Palladium, and other technologies like it, is the concept of "trusted" applications - programs that can prove their authenticity. My question is this: how simple would it be to spoof a trusted app? Any program can pretend to be trusted, or otherwise authorized.
A simple script can say "Yes, I am administrative program Foo, and I have access to file Bar".
The only way I can think of getting around this is a database of known "trusted" apps, each with a corresponding hash. The "trusted" platform would check the "Trusted" list to see if program "so-called Foo" is in the known list of "Trusted" apps.
How would vendors get their software listed in the "Trusted" apps list? Who will oversee addition of programs? What or who would determine the rules for allowing a program to be listed? A conglomerate of companies? What if company X has a program in the list, and competing company Y wants to list a similar program, and company X has power to decide who can be in the list? Will company Y's product be listed? Will there be a hefty fee required?
Sorry for the stream-of-conciousness post. The potential abuse of power is frightening...I can see computer software distribution only being in the hands of the few large corps. Geeks, treasure your DRM-free computers!
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
This may be my naivete with the capabilities of encryption, but it seems that whenever encrypted digital content is delivered to a recipient who does NOT have a vested interest in maintaining the confidentiality of that content (e.g., cable/satellite programming, DVD content, ebooks), someone manages to successfully break that encryption. I am assuming that the recipient MUST have the decryption key in order to use the content.
Does Palladium solve this?
Personally, I would much rather live without a computer (I cirtainly would not use a paladium infested computer) than be horifically killed when a United States smart bomb ripped through my bomb shelter in an effort to get some cheap petrol for some twit in Ohio.
It saddens me to think that someone is so self obsessed that they don't give a shit about bombs, carcenogenic depleted uranium rounds and death to civilians but is more interested in some esoteric brand of freedom. Not freedom to live without fear of having ones country invaded, but freedom to run insecure binaries on ones computer.
Sure paladium is evil but pull your head out of your arse!
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
If the convicted monopolist that is Microsoft prevents other operating systems from being run on OEM hardware, they not only just completely and blatantly broke the law, but also a COURT ORDER instructing them to follow said laws.
Microsoft can't be THAT stupid. No way. They can afford lawers who would know better than to let them just do that.
...but I'd love to see them die trying.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
[[["Mac OS X is not unix"]]]
The Open Group -- the official holders of the Unix trademark -- classifies UNIX as such:
"UNIX - the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4 and additional standards. The majority of commercial vendors have registered UNIX products, with most at the UNIX 95 level and newer products registering for UNIX 98."
Obtaining an official UNIX title is merely achieved when key functionality is added, thus allowing the OS to meet the requirements of the UNIX brand. In this context, Windows NT could obtain UNIX status. Believe it or not.
Either way, your argument is moot. The open group has already clasified Apple as an official suporter Supporter of the "Single UNIX Specification".
See for yourself
The only Microsoft monopoly that has any leverage is the Office productivity market.
However, there is a solution to that monopoly if DRM comes in full effect. A person can run Office on a Mac, and a person can run OpenOffice on a Mac (if necessary).
As a consumer, if DRM becomes the norm for Wintel systems. I'm going to switch.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
I personally think Palladium is a Very Bad Thing (tm). A platform which allows one company to control the vast majority of personal computers in use worldwide, thanks to its defacto market monopoly, raises privacy and antitrust issues that (almost) give me nightmares.
BUT
I'm not entirely sure what the UK stance is on fair usage as far as copyright law goes. IANAL, but I understand it to be something along the lines of "If you have a CD, you want to listen to it in your tape-only walkman, you can make a copy to listen to it." or whatever. I don't see how allowing tens of thousands of other people to have a copy of someone's copyright music over P2P is fair usage. It isn't.
I admit, I too download illegal copies of music using kazaa, gnutella, etc, etc. It's nice - I get lots of music, I don't have to pay lots of money. It isn't entirely fair on the copyright holders, who weren't expecting one album sale to cover 10,000 end users. If they choose to let people share the content, fair enough. If they don't choose to do this, they shouldn't have to.
A lot of people of /. talk about enforcing copyright law in the same kind of terms as those used to describe Hitler's Endlosung final solution. The basic idea of copyright law is that if you create something, YOU own it. If you let someone listen to your music, it doesn't mean they can pass it on to other people. These laws have allowed authors, musicians, and many other artists live above the poverty line. Just because record companies, publishers and the like get a large amount of money, doesn't mean copyright law can be ignored.
Knowledge is different.
Sooner or later everyone will have to upgrade, because parts malfunction. Whether one will be able to purchase an Athlon without DRM at that point is an open question. I don't feel confident that the majority won't upgrade, because "the majority" is comprised of non-technical people who respond well to marketing buzzwords. If there is a good time for those aware of the issue to try to educate that majority by loud, vocal, repeated means, now is certainly it.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Yep, been there, done that. Oh wait, not on my Mac? IE for OS X stinks and my bank only support older OS 9 based browsers. What a pain.
:)
CTRL-ALT-DEL --> loads VirtualPC. You pick the OS, I have licensing over the years for them all. Sad, but Microsoft thinks THAT is illegal and STILL wants more money. I agree -- screw them.
Navigate sub-system as needed. Heck, I encrypt a text file to a EXE on Windows once a week (about the most it's used anymore) to send info to the bank...
Of course Linux is running the house from the basement and the office from the data centers.
Is it just my opinion, or does anyone else think that Palladium will allow "desktop linux" to attain widespread use? I don't think that people will go for Palladium at all... nobody will like to have their usage of a computer limited by some Big Brother organization.
.mp3s that I could only play on my computer
The solution to copyright infringement is new incentives to buy copyrighted material (like cheaper CDs). For example, who would pirate a book by scanning every page and OCR'ing the text? That would be way to time consuming. However, if CD's were distributed in cheap packaging, and record companies lost all their bloat, they could sell them for a few dollars a disc and make a profit. I know that I would rather own the original undistorted CD of an album that I could play anywhere, rather than some crappily encoded
The DRM does start with the hardware, yes. But the hardware does not force you to use software with DRM.
You will still have some access to the BIOS, and so be able to choose your boot media. That being so, you will be able to boot up into a non-DRM system. However, any documents or data that you have saved from the DRM system will be encrypted and unavailable for use (other than attempting to crack the encryption, I guess). Finding the key will be next to impossible as it will only be available in unencrypted form in the hardware.
Besides this, if worse comes to worst, you can always reformat your hard-drive using the "Big frickin' magnet" method.
The scariest bit of Palladium is the network effects. When Grandma's email or your employer's latest job contract comes in a Palladium encrypted format because that's just the standard, what do you do? Beyond that, what happens when the internet routers start dropping non-Palladium packets so as to guard against viruses and DoS attacks?
Also scary are the criminal possibilities Palladium provides. How much do you think the Mafia, Enron, or Microsoft would give for a system that ensures not only that they're the only ones that can read their data, but can also ensure that the data is destroyed after a certain amount of time, so that even their partners can't keep incriminating evidence around.
I personally think the whole idea for Palladium came after the Microsoft emails were subpeonaed into court. You can bet Bill G's first words after seeing those emails were "Make this not happen."
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Nah...just use the DMCA to slam anyone who touches said computer into jail for a maximum prison sentence.
What's this Submit thingy do?
When MS releases the source for Palladium, nobody tell them about the security holes. Then, once Palladium ships with security holes, use the holes to install Linux over top the OS. Joy!
Though Paladium is an interesting idea (I work in IT security) that needs to be evaluated, I don't think that it addresses some major issues:
* buffer overflows: even if you program really really tight with programming languages like C++ you will leave some holes. Check the number of security issues involved with buffer overflows and you will know.
* application security: in the current state any game can overwrite your complete hdd. Does it need full access? To the drive? To the internet? Should it be able to completely take over your computer (keyboard, mouse, video processor etc?)
* a security design that works: internet explorer with system rights, numerous holes and friendly email trigger system for instance is not high on my "best security designs" list
Neither of these points are addressed with Paladium I think.
Furthermore, signing/encrypting code is a nice way to show your trust in software, but how are you going to establish that trust? I mean, MS can not hold it's own with certain signed dll's that are "scripting enabled". Maybe they should ask for Open Source code, so they can check that no problems like the three mentioned above can occur?
Currently if you send MS your sw, I do not think they test ANYTHING, they just sign. If someone malicious is sending them some proprietary code, they will probably sign it without thinking.
All in all, Paladium is MS way to solve their own problems. And those of the entertainment and software industry in one strike. They think.
Maarten
ps. will laugh my ass off when an offline machine needs to safely run code with Paladium
pps. and when patches will go out late because they need to be signed first (and probably then tested)
Why are 50% (or more) of the stories here about Microsoft? We all claim to not use Microsoft products, we don't work for Microsoft. Who cares?
Lets just worry about ourselves, we all know OSS is going to be the future right? It is inevitable!
on tcpa systems "we only prevent software attacks", "we're completely innocent", "the other guys are the bad guys" etc. the operating system can enforce palladium-like systems. (it can verify at boot time it is the only program running on the machine, which is enough for palladium to be implemented "securily", and the sealed storage will make it utterly impossible to make compatible programs)
You know what the response from a crypto researcher was ? "They will not do that, surely people will not accept it". I wonder, but I most defineately will not take the chance.
It's pretty safe to conclude that consumers have abused fair use. Not to mention the piracy by non-consumers. I cannot wait for the day that DRM switches on. I will get EVERY penny I am due. If some people don't buy my stuff, no problem. This means more resources to support those that do.
My stuff will get bought, not pirated.
You need to stop debating what it can do, what it can't do, who is covered how legally and how many beowulf clusters it takes to change a lightbulb.
/. being a fight fest / bitch at MS fest, lets try to make each new DRM post have more methods offered on how to stop this.
:), but I'm not much for thinking up creative solutions,... sorry - so no "hypocrite" replies, please)
It's time you guys started asking yourself what can WE do about this, on a big scale - proplerly, what can we get others to do, instead of every damn MS / DRM / Palladium post on
No more chest thumping boasting technical skills with "I beleive DRM does this via that and uses this buffer blah with the cpu code of X and hardware integrated from manufacturer Y according to Z who signed on to the palladium initiative according to URL blah"
More people thinking in a different kind of smart on how to stop this shit once and for all.
(a note for those who have read this far, I'm a sheep, you give me idea's I'll follow em
I wonder how long it will take before someone finds a way around this.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I won't buy a palladium system.
Let them lock up digital rights all they want - if they're going to waste millions/billions building hardware/software that will flop, maybe it will teach them a lesson:
Give the customer what they want.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Now why don't you let me have some ?
So you're saying you would let me have it ?
1). Linux
2). WINE / WINEX / Crossover Office/Plugin
3). Free software galore
Palladium will end Free Software. Palladium will end private ownership of computers. Palladium will end free private, tribal, business, and public use of the Net.
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/palladium
We face a problem of rhetoric:
Palladium is so bad that many people refuse to believe that it is what it is.
Please go to
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/palladium
and write your own letters telling Transmeta and AMI that you will never buy any computer with the wiretapping and remote control hardware that enables Palladium. Every letter that you write in your own words counts. The more letters the better, but each one should be your own words. If the letter is short that is OK, as long as the message is clear: You will not buy any machine with Palladium enabling hardware inside.
I am Jay Sulzberger and I am a working member of New Yorkers for Fair Use.
We need volunteers to stop Palladium cold. Please write if you want to help. We particularly need people to help with the list of computers with Palladium enabling hardware inside. Already computers are being shipped with the spyware and remote-control hardware inside. Home users are not being told what is inside the machines. We also need volunteers for direct outreach. New Yorkers for Fair Use holds at least one outreach gathering each week.
http://www.nyfairuse.org
You may write to me at
(string-append
(string-append "j" "a" "y" "s")
(string-for-at-sign)
"panix"
(string-for-dot)
(string-for-commercial-domain))
and
then come exam time all the poor CompSci majors may actually be forced to suffer through the same hell that all of us gentle poets experienced in Science 085...MWAHAHAHAHA!
(Where "research", of course, means "plagiarizing from multiple sources, not just one". Interestingly, that would mean you would need to type in a quote in a research paper but outright copying of pages would even more of a PITA.)
Palladium will:
Run programs that could prevent illegal copying of or unauthorized access to information stored in PC's.
this is not useful for the user, but only some other dudes in some other places trying to get money out of me. dont want.
Permit owners of digital information, whether copyright holders or registrars responsible for student records, to set tamper-proof controls on who can see, copy, and alter digital files.
unix. configure your servers properly.
Prevent unauthorized access, via a computer network or the Internet, to Social Security numbers, credit-card information, and other personal data stored in PC's.
again, can be done now. why palladium?
Palladium will not:
Replace the Windows operating system.
ok, whatever.
Search the Internet to detect and delete pirated software, music, and movies.
it would be cool if it could do that. really cool.
Eliminate spam and software viruses.
too bad
Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features.
too bad.
so it is absolutely of no use. sucks.
Point #1:
...
From the article:
Palladium will:
Permit owners of digital information, whether copyright holders or registrars responsible for student records, to set tamper-proof controls on who can see, copy, and alter digital files.
Prevent unauthorized access, via a computer network or the Internet, to Social Security numbers, credit-card information, and other personal data stored in PC's.
Palladium will not:
Eliminate spam and software viruses.
Prevent a digital thief from gaining access to a computer in person and disabling its hardware security features.
Is it only me, or are these extremely contradictory? If a "digital thief" can gain access and disable Palladium, then what is gained in security? Who says she can't spoof valid Palladium requests, eg. by snooping traffic, etc. In the end, it'll only be as secure as the OS (and we know how secure that is...)
Point #2:
When talking about good or evil, you all fall into the same trap. You forget that objective good or evil doesn't exist! It's based on subjective opinion.
For the publisher, being able to stop fair use is "good", while for the users it is "evil". Etc, etc. The discussions turn ignorant and meaningless from then on.
If Palladium doesn't stop viruses and hackers, possibly it can be cracked in time, then what is gained in security for the users of said system?
I have yet to see a valid example of something truly "good" (for users) coming from Palladium, that you wouldn't gain with a properly programmed and audited OS.
I don't buy Palladium. When users find out they can't copy & paste, they'll paint Redmond red.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Here is the thing: You (and I) may be a geek, and have a NEED (real or imagined) for the latest, greatest hardware all the time. However the average user does not. In teh last few years the increase in CPU power, disk size and so on has been outstripping demand. Most people are perfectly content on older hardware.
Now if users believe that Palladium = evil, they will just not buy new computers. Sure, some peopel will, but what matters is the public at large.
So suppose all the major comptuer makers go Pallidum only (you seem to forget that 50% of comptuer are purchased form a non-major manufacturer like local shops). Fine, if the puublic believes that Palladium = the sux and just doesn't buy it, then the consequence is that the big makers loose money. A lot of money.
Now the computer makers really couldn't give two fucks about MS or the media industry. Like all companies, they care about their own bottom line. If they start loosing massive amounts of money because noone will buy Pallidum shit, they'll dump it and start selling non-Pallidum shit. It's that simple, their shareholders won't give them any choice (and shareholders actually have direct voting power over a company).
The comparison to DVD and Divx really is a valid one. There is a VHS of the computer industry: All the current systems out there. Also, unlike DVD, new systems aren't going to offer some huge quality increase. IF people believe that Pallidum is bad they'll continue to use what they have. IF that happens, it won't take long before the profit motive will force companies to fall in line. If they don't, the shareholders will force them to.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/07/183824 0&mode=thread
Sorry about the non-formatted format. In Hurry. Seeing Flanders.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
1) No. They aren't. People who circumvent are breaking copyright law. They are not stealing. Therefore they are not thieves. I'd ask you to consider that unauthorized copying may prevent a content "owner" from leveraging their government mandated monopoly, but copying their stuff does not deprive them of the use of it. Laws regarding property rights are only useful as regards scarce resources. Ideas are not a scarce resource. A person who shoplifts a CD is a thief. A person who makes a copy of one may be a criminal but he is not a thief.
At this point our discussion is ended. Until you are able to distinguish between copying and stealing we are not going to be able to have a meaningful debate.
I do not have a signature
The problem with Palladium lies in who exactly implements it. The easiest example is...eBay.
You can already sign in to eBay with your Miro$haft Pa$$port. Oh yeah, and you also give Miro$haft your information when you sign up for Windows XP. Credit card information is stored in your wallet. Microsoft has sold off customer information before, too. So - they FORCE use of the Microsoft Passport and Microsoft wallet.
Now if Bill Gates were smart and crafty, he'd want a fee per transaction used with the Microsoft Wallet, charged of course to the merchant. Now if he just owned PayPal, he could make a transaction fee on every credit card transaction. Or bypass credit cards altogether. Microsoft is in bed with eBay already. eBay owns PayPal. Microsoft buys out eBay, and thusly PayPal. This scenario might seem like the rant of a lunatic, but let's just keep exploring it. Remember, Microsoft has bought out and/or bankrupted THOUSANDS of companies.
Let's say eBay implements Palladium (or whatever they call it this week.) It's not about whether Palladium is insidious or not. It is about what it forces the general public to DO. If you want to sell on eBay, then you must upgrade your hardware AND your OS. This is the only way Microsoft will be able to sell large numbers of its new operating systems. We don't NEED an upgrade to XP, or for that matter 98. If this happens, you either upgrade (and are forced to submit all of your user info to Miro$haft), or lose out on your eBay account. If you earn your money from eBay exclusively, then you MUST do the "upgrade," much to your detriment.
Let's keep going with this example. In Windows 2006, the next NEXT release of said OS, they have included a new Passport feature that allows you to sign in to ANY bluetooth enabled Palladium ridden computer. Ever hear of Home Again?
Home Again
It's a chip that is implanted under the skin so that pets can be identified and returned to their owners. Well, in Windows 2006, you just get one implanted, and then scan it under the chip reader that all new motherboads come with. Remember, MICROSOFT has set the standards for the new "legacy free" motherboards, NOT Intel or other board manufacturers. The link below and others at Microsoft outline the specs for getting your motherboard to be Windows compliant.
Legacy Free Specs
It's the mark of the beast. Use the new "Biometric XP" chip and you can log in "securely" to any Windows equipped PC!
Here I stand, the lone ranter on the corner with a sign that the end is near. If Microsoft implements it, all it takes is ONE major company like eBay to implement it. Once we've all upgraded to the new hardware, we're screwed.
Fight Palladium. Hack it. Bitch to eBay about the Microsoft Passport. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about patent infringements here. They are focused on implementation. They still implement the Microsoft tax, but now it is MANDATED that you use THEIR OS with the motherboard. Microsoft's defense - they're not forcing you to upgrade to the new Windows and motherboard - eBAY is!!
I could keep going with this scenario, but then I'd lose any ability to get additional points.
Joe Schmoe copying my work means I get NOTHING. If I pay a "tax" to MS, then I'm still making something. (Sales - MS tax) is a whole lot more than the $0 I would get from Mr. Pirate.
If Palladium is evil, then it's the lesser of the two evils. It didn't have to be. Piracy forced my hand. Blame the pirates.
Hmmmmm...
Copyright law is an agreement between the public and content creators - the public grants (and defends) the creator's right to control their work, and in exchange gets fair use during the copyright term and public use after that term. Since an architecture like Palladium would allow creators to assert any control they choose over their work, there would be no need for the public to continue to grant legal copyright protection. Copyright law could be ended, millions of taxpayer dollars could be saved, and nobody would have to worry about the legal or moral implications of file sharing.
Ergo, if I could get a DRM-free copy of Britney Spears' latest disc (58 years old and still mostly naked), I could feel free to share it with all of my closest friends (or worst enemies), because the technology would be the boundary of creator's rights - if it's possible, it's permissible!
Just a thought....
Code red, WinCIM, hell even Stone B is still going around.. A nicely written virus never goes away.
Sure, the guy might do jail time, but when 90% of your customers have been hit and billions and billions of dollars of equipment is, for most intents and purposes, trashed, you better bet Microsoft is going to be held responsible by every large company their questionable 'security' has ever screwed.
A software controlled 'self-destruct switch' in any Microsoft product (or any product for that matter)?? May as well burn whatever money you'd spend on software for the platform, low-level format the hard drive, and smash the BIOS chip yourself now, so you can buy something else and save yourself time reimplementing everything that ran on the platform.
.sig: Now legally binding!
But publishers could use Palladium's controls to unilaterally limit use of their materials, such as by restricting professors to a read-only view of the article, from which they could not "cut and paste" the text.
What magic allows this restriction? An interested and technically inclined user can take a screen dump and run it through an ocr. Articles can be retyped (what professor doesn't have a dozen grad students to (ab)use?). What if I take a split off my monitor cable, page through the article and save the results as a movie? The movie isn't copy protected; that's what happens. Throw a couple frames from the movie into a document and call it good. For crying out loud, there are *telephones* that allow the prof to circumvent this by taking a picture of the screen and sending it to their ten students. This technology that supposedly prevents cut and paste is a lot less scary than the monsters in my friggin closet, and even *they* jump when I say 'boo'. People (you) are going to continue to copy and share any digital information they (you) want to, and there is no easy way to stop them (you). People get bootleg copies of movies by taking camcorders into the theater. Who imagines that Palladium is going to stop them from doing the same damn thing in front of their own monitors, if that's what they need to do to be happy?
Read It
-
Anything man has conceived is weakest at the base.
Subversion is the key, Weakness your Strength.
Feel the power, fight the system, wake your dreams.
Infiltrate, Eradicate, and Make your Presence Known.
- The 1&(!0) Enigma
The Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
This means I wont be able to write documents in Linux and save them in word format!? This usually wouldn't be a problem for me seeing that I try to stay completely independant from Windows, except that sometimes my high school classes require me to save the word document and bring them in. I don't use windows for this very reason! Now it looks like I might have to. Bill, I hope your pround.
www.foldoc.org