Slashdot Mirror
Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection
prostoalex writes "Intel and Sony are trying to please the copyright-alerted content publishers and privacy-aware consumers by supporting and pushing Digital Transmission Content Protection standard. New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home. A PDF presentation from an Intel engineer is available on dtcp.com."
New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home
So, what happens if I turn up to volume a bit?
All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
God this sort of stuff pisses me off -
The analogy that springs to mind is that if you go to the public library, they let you borrow a book, only if you let them chain it to your wrist first.
Information was, is and should be free.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
is it closed?
;)
heck, play the music loud enough and it does leave your home! buy a bitching video projector and the images leave your home as well
.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I can't see any way to enforce that.
Of course assuming you are using linux or other open source OS.
> New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home.
Dang, I used to hand out mp3 cdr's on the street corner. Now I have to resort to sharing on kazaa inside my home.
It is interesting, because when it all comes down to it, the "good guys" are hurt due to restrictions, and the "bad guys" always end up pirating, etc. I am not sure there really is an answer as to how to protect information 100% without it both hurting the consumer and being crackable by a cracker. Of course, the governments can keep passing laws that make reverse engineering illegal, etc, but again, that's just going to scare the average Joe much more than it would scare someone who really wants to crack a DRM transmission. Only time will tell where the DRM issue ends up.
the new 40gig ipod
"Allow" the customer to use digital content at home. You mean the content you payed for? As opposed to not allowing you to listen/watch/use content you've payed for?
They always word these things like they're *granting* new rights instead of taking them away. I don't know whether to be amused at the balls of the PR makers or dismayed at the fact that there are twits who will read a press release like that and think "Oh goody, I've been wanting to do that."
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
people will keep their old PCs because of that. how are the sales supposed to increase then? will they sneak drm-enabled processors to customers without telling it? maybe with a new eXPerience of an Operating System?
:)
I really hope that some new company (from China, maybe?) will come up with new brands of processors without the DRM stuff. but then probably the US government will make them illegal in the country
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
-StarMaven
-StarMaven
I guess loads of people will moan about not being able to illegaly copy. But why would it be bad if technology allows the wishes of the copyright owner to be enforcerd.
.pdf, are:
What to me is *much* worse, is when these DRM techniques disable me (honest linux user, strictly using Free software), to do things MS users can. I might *want* to pay for a film/song, but if the technology disables me from vieuwing it, I'll have to become a criminal.
Fortunaltely, the requirements, as stated in the
Content Company Requirements for Digital Tansmission
* Stated Requirement:
"Keep honest people honest"
* Specific Requirements:
[...]
(page 11 of the document).
So I guess we're OK then??? (Hope so).
The encryption in the DRM will ensure that no untrusted application (or OS) will be able to decode the media file. That way they can easily enforce the constraints on the media (until a bug is found in the DRM code)
This has got to be fritz chip revisited... I mean come on... Plus, not to mention all the people who will refuse to buy the new cpu, and refuse to update an "eXPerience OS", and just do what a real man does. Go to Linux! Besides.. I fail to see how possible it is to make a CPU Block digital media... not to mention on how possible it really is to accomplish this without touching a very touchy subject of freedom of speech.
Just me
Stuff like this will be hacked a cracked inside of a few weeks. Stop spending so much money developing DRM technology, it's a total waste. Maybe if you did that, then it would offset some of the money you say you are losing due to infringement.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
If you can put it through speakers, you can copy it. Simple. It's only a matter of time before someone with high quality gear decides to make a copy for everyone. Sure it might slow down the spread of stolen music, but it can't be stopped.
When will the vendors finally learn it? CDs would still be a stable market if it weren't for CDRWs costing less than a set of coasters nowadays. You won't turn the weel back with copmetition just around the corner.
If Intel should start getting truly pesky to customers with TCPA, this new gadget and anything else, AMD, VIA, Motorola and any other Vendor will rejoyce and push out CPUs and Architecture variants that don't have this crap.
Why don't Corporations just go back to good ol' quality products for a fair price to make money? That used to be a reliable way to do it after all.
Sanely priced CDs with mp3s and oggs and mpeg videos included, along with interessting booklets should do magic to a declining market. But I guess they just want to sell crap for to much money and will use law enforcement to emphasis that and in the end really piss their customers of.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I'll wait six months until somebody outside US publishes something to crack this bullshit!
Just like CSS!
When will they learn that any kind of digital copy protection will ALWAYS be cracked in a few monthes? Don't they have TI advisors?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
That won't make much difference.
In the worst case, I'm moving to China to buy a Chiniese PC. Runs linux.
Yeah, because China is such a hotbed for freedom...until you do something the government doesn't like. Oh, and there's nothing stopping them from putting DRM into Linux.
The PDF was hosed and the CNet article was spartan, so I'm still left wondering about this great big definition issue in the term "home."
This reminds me of the crisis over defining "copy" that underlies all the legal arguments over file sharing. The fact is, these terms have long been de-stabilized. The advent of electronic media that began at the turn of the century created a whole new level of complexity in language that text based laws simply cannot encompass.
Just imagine the use of the term "home" in a filesystem. Where is home? Does that mean in relation to root? Which root? Or is it the user home? Does that include the virtual network or locally? Local meaning active or including backups?
Glazing over these things as if they didn't exist simply because a lot of people don't want to face it is not looking at the reality we live in today.
More competing standards will cause confusion and anxiety in the marketplace, as skittish "rights" holders wait on the sidelines to see which one will emerge victorious. This could only be helpful in the battle against DRM. I encourage more digital restrictions standards :).
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Well, I actually did RTFA (forgive me!) and note with some concern that the standard provides for "device revocation" under some clearly-defined terms, though those terms are unspecified. Can anyone shed some light on what those might be?
The obvious concern here is that the devices will be sold under some sort of license agreement that will permit unspecified others to figuratively fry your hardware if they suspect it's compromised (or are otherwise displeased with you). I imagine that one's recourse as a consumer (remember: we're "consumers" and not "citizens" here!) will be quite limited. Sigh.
What does it do?
The Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Rights Management (RM) client is required for your computer to run applications that provide functionality based on Windows RM technologies. Installing this client places software on your computer that allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information.
Now what interests me is, who is going to be the first software company to embrace this? Probably the next version of Media Player.
The watermarked content mentioned would not be played on a DRM system. It would be played on a typical current generation RIO, PC, DVD player, Etc. The DRM system simply won't be compatible with regular MP3's, expecialy those recorded from content with a watermark. However, everything else would play them no problem.
.net services & certificates instead? Somehow I don't see MS letting control of the DRM run by anybody else. They will be the gatekeeper no exceptions! Having it run on Red Hat and not using Passport and .net server won't be permitted.
Anyway I read the article. It's quite clear this the the Microsoft Media PC. It's no more a general use PC than an X Box is. It's a cable subscription box that plays rental and purchase pre-packaged media for general consumption. It is not a create and share or rip, mix, burn platform. It's a subscriber box and nothing more.
Those who want a subscription to a service like Cable TV or XM radio will need the subscriber box. This is designed to go in the living room. Everything else will still use your general use computer as always.
The real question is will Microsoft kill the Intel version by not supporting it in the OS and push their own Media Player 9 DRM
The truth shall set you free!
New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home.
Because you should have to pay twice if you want to play the music on a portable mp3 player.
And of course, no open source mp3 software, because I could compile it with -DNO_DRM.
Well, Sony, guess what? Having my music conveniently on my PC and on my mp3 portableplayer is what motivates me to buy the music in the first place.
And guess what? I do respect copyright; I won't even burn a CD for close friends, or rip their CDs -- despite the 32 GB of free space on my portable.
And I'll continue to respect your copyright: I just won't buy your cripple-ware.
I can find plenty of great music on old LPs, on real (Phillips-Sony Red Book Standard), from emusic.com, and from independent labels.
Let me repeat: I don't want your cripple-ware. It does me no good since it won't play on the hardware I control (it only plays on hardware I buy and you control). So it will do you no good -- I won't exchange my money for it.
The more new releases you distribute exclusively as cripple-ware, the more alternatives will be produced. And that's what I'll be buying.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Let them put DRM into Linux. That would be great!
Of course, there's a little clause in the GPL about modifying and redistributing the software...
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
As I read the article and then read the comments, it dawned on me after a few lines; there was advocation for breaking the law everywhere I looked. Comments such as 'this will be cracked' and 'we will find other ways to steal music.' What kind of immature attitude is being thrust into the open here? Honestly, if the community doesn't want to be portrayed as a bunch of thieves and black hats, then this kind of idiocy has to stop.
You don't want to be called a thief for running Linux? You don't want to be known as some script-kiddie hacker for using OSS? Well here is a good hint...stop advocating cracking and stealing music and software. You paid for it and it is yours to use, but, don't share it with the rest of the world.
Hypocrisy is found here in the more pure form I have ever seen outside of Hollywood.
I'll never use it and continue to create my free alternatives that are DRM free.
if this makes me a criminal then so be it, I'll be an underground criminal but at least I'll be DRM free.
My Freevo does things that no TiVO can (watch your shows on the subway with your laptop... oh wait you cant without ahack that makes making a freevo box look easy) and I'll always be able to create DRM free mp3's no matter what they try.
and I know that I'm not the only one that does not want DRM here nor some damned companie's fingers in what I do in my home.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Never, ever associate the unencrypted data with the encrypted.
2. Keep the encryption and decryption keys secret and change them.
3. Keep the encryption and decryption devices secret.
Even given all that, I'd be codes still get cracked.
So, RIAA and MPAA want to encrypt hundreds of millions if not billions of copies of known data thereby associated encrypted and unencrypted data then distribute them around the whole world, and millions and millions of decryption devices with static decryption keys, then distribute those around the whole world.
Thus completely violating the practices and procedures of those who entire job it is to keep secrets.
Prediction: it won't work.
When Intel comes out with "ultra-optimized .... [fine print] DRM enabled" systems...
DON'T BUY THEM.
That'll shut them up fairly quick.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Middle aged pundit: I can't play this on my dvd player, I think it's broken.
Salesperson: *looks at DVD* oh, that's one of those new DRM protected dvd's.
Middle aged pundit: Drmwhazit?
Salesperson: It's a security measure to keep people from copying the DVD.
Middle aged pundit: Ok, well why won't it play on the player then?
Salesperson: Becuase you have to have a DRM enabled DVD player to run it.
Middle aged pundit: *runs through mind, looks over at shelf, sees an expensive $300 player for the DVD, becomes slightly irritated* Can I get a refund then?
Salesperson: Sorry, it's store policy not to give refunds on CD's or DVD's.
Middle aged pundit: Why?
Salesperson: Because a lot of people copy them and try to return them. If we allowed for refunds we'd go out of buisness.
Middle aged pundit: *now very irritated* But I didn't copy this, hell, it has copy protection on it! I want my money back.
Salesperson: Sorry, can't do it.
Middle aged pundit: Ok then. *runs off to look at the non-drm'd dvd section or out of the store very angry to return and look at the non-drm's dvd section*.
This is how DRM is going to effect most people. The youngin's and technically adept are going to know about it and not even get caught up in that. Plus, with their system it looks like it needs an internet connection which is even more expensive.
Only when it's cheap will it catch on. Remember that folks.
Intel's going to have to put some money investment into a fritz chip. Unless they are getting some profit out of this it ain't gonna happen. The whole idea for the corperations is to gouge people on the media they by and if that fails then the entire scheme will fail.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Why are the big companies pushing for DRM? After all - consumers DON't want it - and we aren't likely to buy much DRM protected kit. I understand the IP debate - but if you don't have a product that people want - then you can't sell it. This seems like such a no brainer to me.
Fuck off and die.
Regards,
Your customers.
Uncrackable DRM isn't the point or the goal. The goal is DRM layered with enough hard encryption that it's a major pain in the ass.
It's not a question of how, but when. VHS has no encryption, but Macrovision was applied after development for content protection. CDs were a late 70s/early 80s invention, no encrytption at all, with various macrovision-style protection methods applied later. DVDs were a late 80s, early 90s invention, flawed encryption, with limited DRM via improved macrovision.
It's clear they're learning, and they'll only get better.
I couldn't view the PDF but it almost sounded like Intel's big invention was basically to only allow transfer among private IPs. Specifically:
The DTCP specification, embodied in home networks, would permit consumers to play downloaded music or movies on any PC or digital device in the home. However, the downloaded material can't be transmitted outside the home or copied
Now what embodies a "home" network as opposed to an "outside" network? Private IPs. Almost all the people I know with broadband and multiple computers are using some kind of NAT. Think how easy it would be to put a chip in a consumer electronic device that sniffed out the IPs of files as they come in or out. Anything with 192.168.x.x is allowed and anything else is denied.
Now, I'm sure the hard core networking guys could use PPTP or something to "extend" their home network around the world but for 99% of the people out there, they already can't figure out how to share files over NAT (try listening to all the complaints about DCC not working in any IRC filesharing channel) so it's doubtful that they would know how to bypass this either.
And because it's the a chip in the electronic device that controls the input/output you couldn't just write a program that would be NAT aware like the modern P2P sharing programs. You'd essentially have to modchip all your devices, which could end up being a lot more trouble than its worth.
So that's my theory on how it'll work.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
It's obvious that Microsoft's month for secuirty wasn't enough (after 20 years of feature creep, we only get a month for?).
I've read the TCPA specs and it's not a bad idea in a commercial & some home environments as long as you can turn it off so you can develop code or run someone elses' if you choose to (as opposed to sneak-ware like Gator). I have two computers at work & wouldn't mind if the one running email were "locked down" to keep corporate IS from losing their minds for every MSBlaster/Fizzer/MSwormoftheweek as long as they leave my "programming" box alone (where's the checkbox for USB compliance suite on their audit checklist???).
At home, it would be an advantage to have two copies of Windows installed- one that lets me play & one that I run video editing on & only runs trusted code.
By mixing DRM in, Intel, Microsoft, h-p & others are guaranteeing that
1) there will be strong opposition to the tech in the form of boycotts (see the anti-RFID flak) & cracks
2) the tech will be weakened to serve its new DRM masters by complexity not needed for simple rogue code protection
Comment removed based on user account deletion