Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix Bios to Incorporate DRM
defishguy writes "Extreme Tech is reporting that Phoenix Technologies is shopping a DRM-capable BIOS to OEMS. Reportedly the BIOS with DRM enabled allows for software to be tracked and traced from one PC to another." See also this older story about AMI.
how long before someone comes up with a 'workaround'? As long as there are security measures, there are people with no goals in life but to circumvent those measures.
[ Don't reply to this ]
Why would OEMs buy something that would piss off their customers? I can see Sony doing it to their VAIOs but would Dell?
If something like this sells, it just makes custom building of PCs more attractive IMO.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Until no one sells one without DRM.
That's why opposition must be raised now.
...Looks like the next time I upgrade, I'm trading in my P4 2.4c for a new G5 instead of a new P5. Perhaps someday Mac might be the majority not due to their software or design, but the fact that they like to have customers...
This is going to be a big bitch and complain session about liberties and what not, and I agree. However complaining never solves anything. The simple and most effective solution is to *not* buy boards with these chipsets.
Also don't think that your purchase won't make a difference.
E.
Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
And don't try to say, "Well, they'll need a subpoena." See how well that worked with the RIAA.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
>Since when does these schmucks start thinking that I as a consumer doesnt have the right to take apart, enable/disable features, and smash to smithreens whatever shit I buy from them?
Since the US passed the DCMA.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The best opposition to this would be and Open Source BIOS. I've no idea if this is possible, likely, or already being done. It simply seems like the best response to DRM enabled BIOS.
Well, DRM and open-source technology aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, any protection of this scope (e.g., relying on a flawless interaction between the CPU, the hardware devices and drivers, and the OS) really should be so securely implemented that publishing the details doesn't weaken it - i.e., "obscurity isn't security."
(Whether or not this level of coordination is achievable is an interesting point to consider. The fact that Microsoft's implementation of DRM is breakable by a routine, authorized use of their DirectX processing-filter functions is striking.)
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
I'm reminded of one of the only TV commercials ever published by 3dfx. An engineer introduces his new chipset, capable of billions of calculations per second. With pride and courage in his voice, he speaks of how this chip will allow them to revolutionize medicine and scientific research, saving billions of lives. An interruption over the intercom says, "Excuse me people, we changed our minds; we're going to use it to play video games."
We have remarkable technology at hand, capable of verifying the source and integrity of data transmissions, communications, financial records, all manner of irreplacable information. We're going to use it to keep people from listening to music. Irrespective of copyright and how poor and hungry Metallica and Dr Dre are right now... that's a totally different issue. We're going to use it to keep people from listening to music. I hope somebody's proud.
-j
Right, but the problem is that as DRM becomes an accepted technology, your non-DRM compliant computer will go the way of the personal check. It will be one large pain in the ass to buy something online from major distributors. You'll "need" DRM. Then of course there is even the possibility of further legislation in this arena that requires computers connected to the internet to have signed OSs that booted from valid BIOSs.
But thats not going to happen. There is no government agency that can legislate "only signed OS's can use the internet". There are no hardware manufacturers willing to piss away billions of dollars in revenue so the entertainment industry can make a paltry couple of extra million.
I don't do the conspiracy thing. This technology seems directly targetted at the office workstations of the world, and is a feature that PC's have been sorely lacking for much too long.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Embedding DRM in hardware is great news - it ensures that DRM will die a huge, flaming death.
Any protection mechanism of this scope - designed to work on many kinds of media, on all kinds of hardware, and on a host of operating systems - is bound to be full of holes when it's first released. Even Microsoft's audio-processing filters can be used to strip out DRM (i.e., to transform a locked sound file into an unprotected stream.)
Since this is known, the only really sensible way to implement an encryption method like this is to engage in an arms race with hackers. Release a first version, let hackers rip it to shreds, then release DRM v2.0 with those holes patched. Lather, rinse, repeat. If your encryption system has a sound basis and you're patching it in a smart, sensible way, the hacks will have to get more and more creative. Soon users will have to go to great lengths to defeat the scheme - mod chips, soldering connections onto circuit boards - so you've essentially made it tight enough that casual users won't bother. You can then crack down on the big sources of hacked media (e.g., large file-sharers on Kazaa), and voila, your scheme is fine.
But here's the key: Inherent in this arms race is the ability of the protection scheme to evolve in a robust way to patch holes. You can't do that if you create a hardware platform. Every new generation of DRM will (a) have to be backwards-compatible, in which case it can be broken on hardware running the older (unsecured) version; or (b) not be backwards-compatible, in which case you're breaking all of the old hardware.
Practical example: Look at today's media players - Quicktime Player, WMP, RealPlayer, DivX player. When new encoding mechanisms are invented for them, users have to grab a new version of the player, or at least download new codecs, to interpret files encoded under the new scheme. The new media won't play on the new players. This is greatly annoying, but users put up with it because it's software and it's easy to update.
Hardware is no such thing. Every time you release DRM version x+1, users have to download new drivers for their video card, sound card, hard drive, and bus and flash-update the ROMs on each device. Forget it. Users aren't going to put up with having to update their hardware devices every six weeks.
So, be happy: embedding DRM in hardware ensures the grand defeat of the whole thing.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Is there any real benefit to the user with the inclusion of this technology. I know the article claims "rovides an enhanced BIOS that allows greater interaction with the operating system"; but does this affect the users experience? Or is this simply a move to force DRM down our throats? I'm not trolling; I just wonder if there is an upside to the consumer.
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs" - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
The truly big problem will be the need to repurchase your huge software investment each time you upgrade to a new machine. This will put momentum AWAY from buying new hardware. It seems the hardware OEMs will be shooting themselves in both feet if they use this.
I think you're missing the fact that in order to capitalize on the DRM feature in the BIOS, new applications have to be written. You would not be able to install(pirate) a DRM enhanced AutoCAD on a Windows98 PC. You'd need Windows 2010 or newer. Ditto for Linux. If Matlab for Linux is DRM enhanced, then it would require Linux w/ DRM as well.
Phoenix probably couldn't care less if you elect to install a DRM unaware OS. It's just one more feature in the BIOS that's going unused. But by including the feature, they're opening the door for others to build off of it.
But thats not going to happen. There is no government agency that can legislate "only signed OS's can use the internet". There are no hardware manufacturers willing to piss away billions of dollars in revenue so the entertainment industry can make a paltry couple of extra million.
You're vastly underestimating the momentum behind this thing.
You know the *AAs' current actions? Suing Napster, cracking down on Kazaa users, non-rippable audio CDs? Why do we think they're foolish? That's right, because they're a whole lot of effort for not much copyright enforcement.
The *AAs know this, too. These are really just treading-water exercises - making an attempt to squelch the big offenders, and plant the idea in peoples' minds that piracy = theft. It's all they can do, and everyone knows it.
Their long-term strategy has to focus on making media completely non-rippable. Digital encryption will be how digital media is distributed in the future. By digital media, I mean all digital media that big corporations want to protect - music, movies, streamed video (i.e., all TV shows), electronic texts, you name it. It's the big gun that media producers intend to wield in the future.
This isn't conspiracy-theory stuff. It's sound business sense. Just look at the trends and listen to the *AAs talk about the future of distribution - it's obvious.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Earth to dickheads: Your main customer is supposed to be motherboard manufacturers, and then ( indirectly ) computer users. Since when is the entertainment industry a customer?
Oh wait. I suppose if you count those brown paper bags that Sony and Disney have been sending...