Slashdot Mirror
Intertrust Plans Universal DRM System
Rushmore and others wrote in with news that Intertrust, which has a large DRM patent portfolio, is planning a universal DRM scheme for consumer electronics.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
For the company, doesn't diversity in standards actually help them protect their materials? It seems that having only one standard would just concentrate everyone's efforts on breaking it and therefore would get cracked faster.
From TFA:
... I would much rather see a DRM standard that is vendor-neutral from a computer platform perspective, instead of Palladium Everywhere (also known as "Dystopia" to us Linux folks).
"The electronics industry recognizes that Microsoft is a formidable player, but consumer electronics makers do not want to become dependent on Microsoft. They need an interoperable and independent system," Peters said.
DRM sucks, DRM is evil, DRM is the tool of terrorists, robber barons, and Republicans. That having been said, though
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see no DRM at all, and I intend to vote with my wallet as much as possible. But if DRM does happen anyway, I would have a very strong preference for Intertrust instead of Palladium. At least with Intertrust there's the possibility that some vendor will offer a Linux version of the protected player.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
the only purpose of DRM (or at least the only purpose that is likely to work) to restrict the rights of users over the works they "purchase" and the machines they "own". Professional-grade copiers will crack DRMd works and sell them - preventing that from occurring is likely impossible. DRM is here to take users' fair use rights and give them (mostly) back to them, charging them for the privilege. That way, companies can make money while providing less of a product - the dream of corrupt, evil industries or regimes everywhere. No wonder they keep pushing it.
The FBI stopped by to see me earlier this morning.
Apparently, they found an unlicensed compiler on one of my student's computers. Copyright central has visited the campus on more than one occasion, so I expected this to be fairly routine. Far from it - for the better part of the morning, they questioned me about this kid's activities. Being a college professor, I couldn't tell them much. This was probably the first time that a student was glad his professor didn't pay more attention to him.
I don't think he's been charged yet, but I was able to discover the nature of what he'll be charged with. The unlicensed compiler is problematic, though not technically illegal since it can't sign object code (illegally). Instead, he was found with a great deal of original material - some dating back 10 years or more - that was never registered with the copyright office. Some was on paper, but most of it was on disk. At a dollar per kB, he's looking at close to a million dollars in fines, not to mention a felony conviction.
But I think that's the least of his worries. About 15 years ago, unlicensed media formats became illegal. In order to record music or video today, you must use one of the state-approved formats which incorporate DRM, and you have to digitally sign the file. Given that the encoders are patented and held by private companies, it's not surprising to learn that leasing a music encoder (just the softare!) costs about $50,000 per year. And after you are finished recording, a general distribution license costs another $50,000 per year. Writing your own encoder would land you in jail for creating a "circumvention device". Which is why anyone who owns a compiler is viewed with suspicion, even though such ownership is not strictly illegal.
Apparently, this kid had a few mp3 files (illegal format), a few mp3 encoders (illegal tools - a felony), and a plethora of original content which hadn't been registered with Copyright Central. He's probably looking at about ten to fifteen years in jail, plus some pretty hefty fines.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
e'll only have to crack it once and then we'll all be set. :)
No, they want this new "Universal DRM System" to prevent exactly that.
22. What's TORA BORA?
This seems to have been an internal Microsoft joke: see the Palladium announcement. The idea is that `Trusted Operating Root Architecture' (Palladium) will stop the `Break Once Run Anywhere' attack
The whole thing runs on top of Trusted Computing. They are pushing for this new "Universal DRM system" becuase it is very very different. You will no longer own your own computer or your own devices. They will have a "Trust" chips inside that guarantee them control.
To "crack the system" you need to dig your own personal encryption key out of the chip soldered to your motherboard. Breif info on one such chip. See page one "Physical security circuitry" and page 2 where it says "if it has been removed from the PC in any way and can also take actions internally"? That means chip is tamper resistant and programmed to wipe your key if it detects you trying to get at it.
And lets say you do manage to dig out the key - every computer has a different key! If you dig out your key that only cracks that one machine. One key extracted, one PC liberated. The TORA BORA plan includes plans for "traitor tracing". If you aren't extremely carefull how you use that key they will detect it and revoke that key. Hell, they might even track you down and throw you in prison.
And before people say they simply won't buy computers with these control chips built in I suggest they look at my other post here. In a few of years you may be denied internet access unless you submit.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.