Slashdot Mirror


Intel Launches DRM-Enabled CPUs for Phones and Handhelds

squidfrog writes "AP reports, 'The next generation of Intel Corp. microprocessors for cell phones and handheld computers will, for the first time, include hard-wired security features that can enforce copy protection and help prevent hackers from wreaking havoc on wireless networks.' Or more ominously, 'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'" Intel has a press release.

308 comments

  1. Palladium by etnoy · · Score: 1

    Intel NGSCB for phones is here.

    --
    Quantum hacker.
    1. Re:Palladium by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 1

      i guess its time to stop buying intel products If enough people refuse to buy it, it will never succeed

    2. Re:Palladium by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 0

      I for one WELCOME our new DRM masters...

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:Palladium by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
      Intel NGSCB for phones is here.

      dit-dit-dit-diddit-dit-dit

      brrt-brrt-click
      "Hello, John?"
      "Yes, John Ashcroft here...oops, damn, I wasn't supposed to say anything, was I?"
      "wtf! What are you doing on my friend's phone?"
      "Just remember, son, it's all Clinton's fault."
      "Tell him he's either with us or against us!"
      "Damn Intel!'
      "That's what I say, we need better intel."
      "Did he just say something bad about my intelligence?"
      "No, Mr. President. So you see we'll be able to listen in on Iraqi terrorists like this."
      "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? BUGGING CELL PHONES?!!?!"
      WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!
      "Ow! That hurt! My ears are ringing, have him arrested for assaulting the President of the United States."
      "Oh, we'll get around to him, sir, we'll get around to all of them."

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Palladium by maevius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok. Now convince everybody who doesn't have a clue or don't care about DRM, to stop buying intel products so it will never succeed...<BR>

    5. Re:Palladium by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have some cash, print up some nice stickers that say "WARNING: DRM Enabled Product. This device is a half-assed product" or something, and go stick em all over the products at the store :)
      I've seen this sort of thing done to RIAA CDs somewhere, but i dont remember the URL

    6. Re:Palladium by archevis · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Possibly, but let's look at it from a broader perspective.

      If you think about it most people don't want DRM since it doesn't provide them with anything useful. What DRM really boils down to in terms of marketing effect is that when Joe Moron discovers that his fancy $100 Radio Shack mobile charges him 10 cents in royalties every time it rings old Joe ain't gonna be mighty impressed...

      DRM is simply bad juju, and people will inevitably catch on sooner or later.

    7. Re:Palladium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      www.downhillbattle.org

    8. Re:Palladium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ask all of Slashdot to join me and call it 'Palladumbass'

    9. Re:Palladium by westlake · · Score: 1
      DRM is simply bad juju, and people will inevitably catch on sooner or later.

      Or not. I don't see DRM holding back sales of DVDs. Digital TV. Digital Radio. All of this and more is closing in very fast now and DRM will be a part of it.

    10. Re:Palladium by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I wish it were as simple as a boycott. The problem is that hundreds of companies are involved to a greater or lesser extent. Some of them have been pretty much extorted into joining up.

      Microsoft SUN
      CPUs: Intel AMD Transmeta Motarola ARM
      BIOS: Phoenix AMI
      Video: ATI NVIDIA
      Networking: Cisco Broadcomm
      Computer makers and other consumer product manufacturers: HP IBM Compaq Dell Gateway American-Megatrends
      Sony Panasoic Philips Samsung Fujitsu Toshiba
      Chips, controllers, and signifigant overlap with most catagories above: Texas-Instruments National-Semiconductors

      The list just goes on and on. It's going to be almost impossible to effectively boycott them. We need a general public relations backlash against the entire Trusted Computing system.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Palladium by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      WARNING: This product has Digital
      Rights Restriction capabilities.
      For more information, visit:
      http://(insert URL here)

      BTW, it was DownHillBattle.org, as someone else said, and they also offered their labels in .pub (MS Publisher) and .pdf formats.

    12. Re:Palladium by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      OS: Linux? Mac OS (although it's quite likely to go DRM)?
      CPU: VIA? IBM?
      BIOS: Hmm... LinuxBIOS, OpenBIOS, BochsBIOS? If you go Mac OS, OpenFirmware is your only option...
      Video: S3 (I know, it sucks, but it's on VIA's boards)
      Networking: Umm... VIA? 3Com?
      Computer manufacturers: Tranquil? Hush? Other Mini-ITX builders? Apple?
      Chips? Hmm... good one. Any of these on Mini-ITX or Apple boards?

    13. Re:Palladium by essreenim · · Score: 1

      A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.
      I have always said that this is ludicrous. No matter what secure hardware they use, I will still eventually get pure sound outputted. Then I will just record this sound perfectly with a high quality mic as a wav and re-encode to ogg. I'm confident I can do this with almost no extra added lossiness!

    14. Re:Palladium by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Hang on a sec... you responded to the wrong post!

    15. Re:Palladium by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Thus far Apple seems to be actively rejecing Trusted Computing which is a good sign.

      Linux - IMB and probably others are developing a Trusted Linux. You can keep normal non-trusted linux, at least for now.

      IMB CPU? IBM is a Trusted Computing Group founding member.

      As for everyone else listed, it's hard to keep track of who is onboard with Trusted Computing and who's not. It doesn't leave many options. As Trusted Computing is deployed more and more of them will probably have to jump on board to avoid getting locked out of the 'new and improved' hardware market :/

      Assuming the Trusted rollout proceeds as they plan, somewhere around 2008 ISP's can start deploying Trusted routers. When they do it's game over. You will be denied an internet connection unless you are Trusted-compliant.

      I'm thinking one good tactic is if we (someone) print up Intel-Inside style logo stickers, except with BigBrother-Inside. They were pretty effective in helping kill the PentiumIII CPU ID numbers :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:Palladium by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      What, like these? (sorry about the Publisher file, but that's what I had - not my box...) It was modeled somewhat after a Intel Inside-like sticker on an old 386 box (I forget what the Intel ad campaign was before Intel Inside) saying something about enhanced technology with Intel, blah blah blah.

    17. Re:Palladium by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I can't see the Publisher file, but this is what I was thinking. Found it with a quick Google.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Palladium by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Mine had a worse logo, but an explanation of it. That logo would go good with mine, though...

  2. The bad part about this by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does.

    We as geeks need to inform people about this thing.

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    1. Re:The bad part about this by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will probably sell better than non-DRM hardware because of the way it can be marketed. It allows you to play DRM content that you can't play on non-DRM'd hardware. That sounds like a positive feature if you don't know the details.

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

    2. Re:The bad part about this by Johnny+Doughnuts · · Score: 0, Funny

      OH NOS! The American Infidels are going to get me!

      Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN. -> You have just violated the DCMA.

      OH NOS

    3. Re:The bad part about this by Jake+Diamond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the companies pushing these schemes tell Joe Consumer that it's going to make their devices "more secure", and Joe Consumer believes them. Even if they know it's there, I don't think there's going to be an outcry about it because most people think it's a good thing. Lots of people hear about the downsides of such technology, and write it off as a paranoid delusion.

    4. Re:The bad part about this by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does.

      We as geeks need to inform people about this thing.


      I have got a feeling that people will eventually realise what DRM is and it's disadvantages. Bear in mind that the early adopters of the kind of device this will be used in will likely be technologically literate, and the widespread use of mp3 by the general public mean that any DRM that is too restrictive will probably lead to failure.

      As long as there is a non DRM option people will choose the hardware that lets them do what they want.

    5. Re:The bad part about this by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 2

      I'd bet the phone companys will even advertize "New DRM Technology!" as a good thing, right on the box

    6. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Joe Consumer" is not as dumb as you might think. Calling him "Joe Consumer" and talking about how gullible he is compared to you, however, will NOT help persuade him to your cause. An adult human person isn't usually stupid. Ignorant, maybe, but usually fully capable of grasping the issue of DRM being a means for corporations to control what you can and cannot see and hear - and more importantly, what information you can and cannot pass on to your friends. Put in those terms, people cop on pretty damn fast.

      Remember, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

    7. Re:The bad part about this by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Joe Consumer is not gullable. He is ignorant as you said. However he's only ignorant when it comes down to computers. Joe Consumer has more important thing to worry about than some DRM thing in his cell phone. It's also important to realize that Joe doesn't read slashdot or fark or kuro5hin. The only exposure he'll have to DRM knowledge is the spin Intel puts on it. And of course it will be a positive one.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    8. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We as geeks need to inform people about this thing."

      So you inform them and they say, Good, there is a solution that makes the record companies happy enough to cell me music over the internet.

    9. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, plus it's not like the current or previous few generations that are still living have no experience with 'free' media. In previous generations, it was being able to record whatever, whenever to tapes without restriction. In this generation, it's the same only with CDs.

      A very restrictive DRM would work if this were not the case, since the masses would have no reason to believe there was a freer alternative. Obviously the cat's out the bag already, so even if there weren't a non-DRM option, people will get pissed.

      (Assuming there are people who haven't fallen into the apathy hole, as many in this Western culture have)

    10. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why, that's your fault. Well, not necessarily literally. But You Can Talk To Your Neighbour (for another few years anyway.). I've talked to the guy in the chip shop about DRM. I've talked to my barber about DRM. Have you?

      Social networking is what Linux/Open Source Geeks are "uncharacteristically" (for the geek stereotype) GOOD at - that is what Open Source people NEED TO REALISE - Microsoft and proprietary companies employ the autistic savants - open sourcers cooperate readily and willingly, even with the constant bickering, and open sourcers associate with other pople (at least compared to the scary-ass sociopathic freaks who work in Microsoft here (Ireland))

    11. Re:The bad part about this by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 1

      tell them "no, it just limits you to music they want to sell over the internet, and at lower quality, with less fluff (booklets/images/crap in the cd/record)

      The industry crys about music sales dieing down, i wonder why.
      Anyone have an old Pink Floyed Dark Side of the Moon vinal record?
      It had nice stickers and full-size posters in the box.
      Buy a cd these days, and you are luckey if you get a CD that works on your OS

    12. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed. The first rule of DRM, you do not talk about DRM.

    13. Re:The bad part about this by Jake+Diamond · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this. Joe Consumer was a generic term for someone who may or may not be a genius, but isn't a technophile. I never meant that they are particularly gullible.

      Case in point: some of the professors that I've encountered in undergrad and graduate courses are among the most intelligent people I've ever met--world-renowned experts--but they know little about computers because they choose not to. They don't use computers much, and when they do they aren't tinkering with internals and such. Therefore, DRM wouldn't affect them much and they are not very concerned about it.

      Like the parent says and as I alluded to before, all they know about DRM is what the companies that push it tell them. The people that DRM affects most are those of us who like to tinker, like to change things and hack around. The average person, even if they know exactly what it's for, won't care if it doesn't prevent them from doing what they need to do.

    14. Re:The bad part about this by Niten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Just last night there was a blurb on CNN that mentioned these new processors, after which the news anchor told the audience that these revolutionary new phones would surely protect them from the hacker threat. Kind of makes you wonder who was really writing his lines...

    15. Re:The bad part about this by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2

      Trusted Computing and DRM _done right_ could be good for the consumer.

      What wories me is half-assed DRM forced onto the consumer by a Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA-style partnership. Microsoft is dead-keen to go this way because it's the ultimate answer to 'decomoditizing' of protocols, backed up by the DMCA.

      And in three years when Longhorn's been out a while, you've spent a few grand on movies and music online, and all your mail is in an encrypted protocol, some virus is going to come along that erases everyone's encryption keys.

      It'll happen, because Microsoft's next OS is going to be little more secure than their last one.

      Microsoft's idea of 'code signing' is only going to be as well implimented as their idea of a Mail Client, Media Player, Web Browser, or Web Server.

      And when it does happen, nobody is going to have any un-encrypted backups of their content (well, Duh!) or a working backup of those keys (because that would allow you to unlock content on multiple computers)

      And a few people are going to realise that DRM has been really good for Microsoft and the content industry, but hasn't really helped the end user at all.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    16. Re:The bad part about this by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Is that it will sell just as well as non-DRM'd hardware because the masses are clueless as to what it does."

      If the difference between DRM and non-DRM is negligible, then why is Slashdot's panties in a bunch?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    17. Re:The bad part about this by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      It isn't. I never said that. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you got that out of my post.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    18. Re:The bad part about this by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      You said the average dude is clueless about what DRM does. That would imply that the differences aren't rocking the boat enough for him to become aware of it.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    19. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah i heard that before " geeks need to inform people about this thing."

      well? when is someone going to do it? where are the web sites? links? banners/ribbons for show of support on the web?

    20. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude go listen to frank zappa he was ahead of his time.

      I am gross and perverted
      I'm obsessed 'n deranged
      I have existed for years
      But very little had changed
      I am the tool of the Government
      And industry too
      For I am destined to rule
      And regulate you
      I may be vile and pernicious
      But you can't look away
      I make you think I'm delicious
      With the stuff that I say
      I am the best you can get
      Have you guessed me yet?
      I am the slime oozin' out
      From your TV set
      You will obey me while I lead you
      And eat the garbage that I feed you
      Until the day that we don't need you
      Don't go for help...no one will heed you
      Your mind is totally controlled
      It has been stuffed into my mold
      And you will do as you are told
      Until the rights to you are sold
      That's right, folks.. Don't touch that dial
      Well, I am the slime from your video
      Oozin' along on your livingroom floor
      I am the slime from your video
      Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

    21. Re:The bad part about this by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, a large portion of the consumer base is going to get pissed off when they discover they have to purchase their content again every time they upgrade their computers. Or have their faulty laptop exchanged. Or whatever.

      The only non-Orwellian solution I can see is to allow TCPA keys to be transferred on something like a secure key fob. That would be useful, because it would mean I could carry my keys around with me, and use them wherever I go.

      Of course, such a convenient solution would have to have legislation supporting it. Otherwise, legislation would get pushed through that restricted it.

    22. Re:The bad part about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there already some level of DRM on the average cellphone?

      I mean, most phones aren't open in a way that allows me to transfer my Tetris game to my buddies phone.

      And cellphones are already locked to individuals, so the privacy concerns of having your phone uniquely identified are moot.

      So this traditionally closed-box system stays closed-box... how is this a bad thing for the average consumer?

      So long as the cell phone connection protocols aren't requiring it to place a call - who cares what particular vendors choose to put in their box?

  3. So now... by rdsmith4 · · Score: 5, Funny
    will I have to pay royalties to use my favorite Rush song as a ringtone?

    Argh.

    1. Re:So now... by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 3, Informative

      your phone company, or whoever you donwloaded that ringtone from, already payed for the rights to have it available to its customers as a ringtone

    2. Re:So now... by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      Thank god freerushmidis.com* payed for the rights for me. How nice of them.

      *I have no idea if this is a real website or not.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    3. Re:So now... by rizawbone · · Score: 3, Funny

      A rush ringtone costs more than money, dignity too.

    4. Re:So now... by bubkus_jones · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ???? Oh no, I've lost my dignity because I listen to a band made up of 3 talented and gifted musicians who have been writing/performing/producing excelent music for the last 30 odd years, and are still going strong. Rush rocks.

    5. Re:So now... by rizawbone · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly why you've lost your dignity. You will die alone and unhappy with a copy of Roll The Bones clutched tightly to your chest.

    6. Re:So now... by bubkus_jones · · Score: 1

      Wow, I think this is the first time I've been modded flamebait. Go me!

    7. Re:So now... by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Rush *the band*, not Rush *the fat guy*

  4. Mod chip? by solid · · Score: 5, Funny

    So will I now have to get a mod chip for my mobile phone?

    1. Re:Mod chip? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Great, another subject for spammers to latch onto, PDA and cell mod chips.

      I wonder if we could sue to block this on grounds of conspiracy to create spam?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:Mod chip? by Goldfinger7400 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rather, could this be the catylyst that might prompt hackers to engineer their own equipment, rather than just taking a PC with Windows and some downloadable software to do mischief. The earliest traditions of hackers were based off of trying to avoid stuff like this, with big Intel locking down its architecture to keep out script kiddies might we see a new renaissance of serious hardware hackers working on hackable hardware?

    3. Re:Mod chip? by tyrani · · Score: 1

      Hold on...keep this quite. I'm just filing patent number 109180482 now!

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    4. Re:Mod chip? by slux · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That would be funny if not for the fact that it takes a little more than a modchip to remove DRM when it's actually inside the processor and not a separate fritz-chip on the board.

      It will not be modchipped.

      Not on the mobile phones (however absurd that may be in any case) and also not on the desktop computers which are getting their share too with Intel now including LaGrande silently on their new processors starting with Prescott.

      It's not used on the desktop yet but the hardware will be there when Longhorn comes out.

    5. Re:Mod chip? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will not be modchipped

      You're right. It will be emulated instead. That emulation may or may not be done on a "mod chip".

      It's your property. You rip your chip open, read out your master key, and you have regained control over your own property. Or you pay someone a few bucks to rip open your chip for you and read out your key for you.

      Once you know your own master key you have god-level control over your property. The entire Trust system falls apart. The Trust system relies entirely upon the assumption that people don't know their key.

      I sorta wish I was back in college with a suitable lab handy for scanning microchips. I'd run right out and buy one of these cell phones and get to work on it. I may not have the microscopes and other equipment handy, but I'd be more than happy to go to work reverse-engineering the boot-rom and programming an interoperable emulator.

      It's not used on the desktop yet but the hardware will be there when Longhorn comes out.

      Yep, and going to work on these cellphones will be GREAT practice for liberating PC's from Microsoft's NaGSCaB control.

      It's your property and they can't stop you from reading out YOUR key. Once you know your key you can liberate YOUR computer from THEIR control. All they can do is make it inconvienent. The whole "Trust" system is a load of crap. It would be a good system if they simply game the owner of the system a copy of his key in the first place.

      There is no POSSIBLE way your computer can be any less secure or protect you any less simply because you know your key. The system is still just as secure at protecting your data from attackers, at protecting you from hack attempts and viruses. There is NO legitimate justification to attempt to forbid people to know their own key.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Mod chip? by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm on your side, and I agree...but, this sounds an awful lot like circumvention of an encryption device.

    7. Re:Mod chip? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      sounds an awful lot like circumvention of an encryption device

      Yes, an interesting issue. I expect the DMCA to be overturned as unconstitutional the first time they actually convict someone for circumvention. Nope, no one has ever been convicted under it, chuckle. And without a convition there's never been any opportunity to overturn it yet.

      But anyway, even assuming the DMCA is valid, I'm pretty sure that reading out your key is not actually a DMCA violation. Their entire PR-machine has sworn up and down that Trusted Computing is not itself a DRM system - merely that DRM software could run on top of it. So you can use their own missleading PR against them, lol! Also, the DMCA only applies to a protection measure actually on a copyrighted work. You get your key on a blank system - it's not actually protecting anything!

      Also, the system involves two keys. A private endorsement key and a StorageRootKey. The endorsment key is only used for signing, it never protects anything. Everything is encrupted under the storage key. To defeat the system you only need to read the endorsment key. The storage key doesn't even exist when you first get the chip anyway.

      Using the endorsment key to run an emulated Trust system would not be a DMCA violation in itself. Accessing a DRM'd file on that emulated system would be a rather grey area. Altering the emulator to then export the unencrypted file would probably be a clear DMCA violation. Ooo, a violation of an unconstitutional law, chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. As long as it can be soldered by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful


    it can be hacked.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:As long as it can be soldered by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      The tip of the smallest soldering iron is orders of magnitude larger than the traces within a chip.

      Good Luck!

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    2. Re:As long as it can be soldered by pilgrim23 · · Score: 0

      Any sufficiently ridiculous technology is indistinguishable from a total waste of time.. Is there any truth to the rumor that DRM technology will be implemented on slash dot?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:As long as it can be soldered by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >The tip of the smallest soldering iron is orders of magnitude larger than the traces within a chip.

      I suspect that the original point was not that it you needed to break out the soldering iron, but rather that anything electronic can be hacked. I certainly don't need to solder anything when holding down the shift key works.
      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    4. Re:As long as it can be soldered by eclectro · · Score: 1

      The tip of the smallest soldering iron is orders of magnitude larger than the traces within a chip.

      You really don't need to solder the insides of a chip.

      The chip is connected to a number of external circuits. You can program an in-circuit emulator (ICE) to simulate the functions of the chip (without DRM).

      Granted, you might have to disect the chip to provide specific register access (like a key), but this has been done many years ago (like with satellite TV). This does not need soldering. If it is a two-die chip, it may be just a matter of monitoring the internal chip interconnects (easy).

      It does take relative skill and analysis, but it is all straightforward. Of course you want to be careful not to be under the jurisdiction of the DMCA or similar laws.

      This is beyond the reach of the casual hacker, but certainly not impossible. DRM is like safes - they do not promise invincibility, but rather a "Tool an Torch Resistance" in minutes. Which means that it is a question of time for someone to break in the safe, not whether they will or not. I'm sure the DRM makers want clients to think of the latter when they are sold DRM.

      The only cryptography that is currently unbreakable is quantum cryptography. The various RIAA labs probably keep up to date on this technology. Alternatively, DRM producers could (and probably will) use long key lengths and expoxy filled electronics. All these things have been done in the past.

      But there will come a point that DRM is so unworkable that people will not buy products containing it (whether it limits use or is difficult to use). The fact that you can put itunes on three computers and unlimited ipods is a nod to this reality.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:As long as it can be soldered by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      You can program an in-circuit emulator (ICE) to simulate the functions of the chip

      You move away from an industry for a while and everything changes. Sigh....

      Last time I did any serious work with chips, PAL chips were the rage.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    6. Re:As long as it can be soldered by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      It is possible to take layer by layer off of the chip and reconstruct how the individual transistors are connected. I remember reading in an article somewhere how this is done in industry to reverse engineer products. I'm sure there is some private key that is inside the intel chip itself.

  6. Yeah, right. by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.'"

    Right, unless you hold down the Shift key when you put the CD in... honestly people, as long as its digital, people will discover loopholes around the system and break it. I don't want to say the effort is pointless, but it definitely is a losing battle.

    1. Re:Yeah, right. by HrothgarReborn · · Score: 1

      The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.

      Read carefully what this says. You DRM encoded music file that you paid money to get as a ring tone will work. This does not equal your mp3 that you ripped yourself will not work. This sounds no different that the firmware in the iPod.

    2. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Right, unless you hold down the Shift key when you put the CD in.

      Ah, but of course in the next release of Windows, or maybe even a "Security Update" or Service Pack, Microsoft will modify the CD Autorun behaviour thusly:

      if (CD contains DRM content)
      {
      ignore_shift_key()
      do_autorun_anyway()
      }
      end if
      Paranoid? Me?
  7. What a grrrreeeaat name! by kclittle · · Score: 2, Funny
    Doesn't "PXA27x" just roll off your tongue?

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:What a grrrreeeaat name! by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Doesn't "PXA27x" just roll off your tongue?
      Jerk. I tried to say it out loud, and now my tongue is bleeding.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  8. I wonder... by ByteSlicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How long before someone finds a workaround for these security features? Until now, no DRM has been left standing.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except working around hardware isn't quite as easy as working around software. But as far as I can see you can just not buy products which use these chips.

    2. Re:I wonder... by xpl_the_myst · · Score: 1
      If they really do a proper (RSA) public key crypto, the only way to crack this is by physically tampering with the hardware. The good part, however, is this -- they must be using the same public key - private key combination for all the machines. This means that if you crack one private key, everyone gets it and the DRM is gone. Atleast, if they are implementing crypto straightforwardly.

      That is the only possible workaround I can imagine. Other than the fact that someone discovers an exploit in the firmware itself. Which is possible but not something to be relied on.

      --
      This sig is empty.
    3. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this also imply that no one can write code for these phones? (I guess they can forget about having downloadable games...)

    4. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm... what about DVD-Audio? Last I checked that hadn't been cracked. A damn shame, too. I'd really like to go back to being able to do what I want with what I own.

    5. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think the private key must be the same? Intel used to put software-readable serial numbers in their CPUs. So it is possible for it to put individual keys into its CPUs.

    6. Re:I wonder... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      they must be using the same public key

      Incorrect. This is thoughly covered in the Trusted Computing specs, and I've been reading everything I can get my hands on.

      The way it works is that every phone has its own public/private key pair. The public key is signed by the chip manufacturer's private key. As an added bonus the manufacturer's public key may (or may not) be signed by a further root private key.

      So teh DRM checks for a valid signature on the private key. A signature you can't fake unless you break into an Intel manufacturing plant and obtain their private key. Highly illegal, but I'd be most amused to read on Slashdot about it actually happening, chuckle. *That* would break all of the DRM at once.

      Aside from that, ripping the private key out of one phone liberates that one phone. It's your property and you have every right to rip it open and look at it under a microscope to read YOUR key. And you have every right to pay someone a few bucks to do it for you.

      The only issue is that if you want to liberate 100 phones you pretty much need to rip the private keys out of those 100 phones one at a time. If you try to use the same key in multiple phones then "they" can detect it if they try. At that point they can add that key to a revokation list and those phones all die.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:I wonder... by computational+super · · Score: 1

      I'm still not following how this would stop us. (Us? I mean them - them!) Ok, each phone (computer, DVD player, etc.) has a public key, signed by a private key, so the DRM hardware or software can now verify that the public key is legitimate. But if the file itself is not encrypted, using strong crypto, I can play it on any platform I want. It's trivial to write a software mp3 player that decodes MP3 files and send the proper signals to the audio card (well, ok, maybe not trivial, but people have done it in OSS).

      So, assuming that non-DRM hardware still exists (which the law, in the US at least, may outright ban - we've let Ashcroft stay for four years, so we'll pretty much put up with anything), I can play a "DRM protected" file, since the file itself is still just an MP3 file. In other words, there's nothing to unlock.

      Now, on the other hand, if the file itself is encrypted, it has to be encrypted for a specific public key (or a specific symmetric key). They're not going to manufacture a special version of every CD in the United States for each computer. So anyway - the OS & the hardware can collude all they want... as long as the contents of the file are unencrypted, it can be played, and if they are encrypted then the original poster is correct.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    8. Re:I wonder... by xpl_the_myst · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. All these files are encrypted using the same public key and there must be a corresponding private key on all the machines. Which means ....

      --
      This sig is empty.
    9. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except DIVX. Can you copy your DIVX movies by breaking the encryption? Oh... didn't think so. Because no one OWNS any! :)

      I'm sure there's others, but you're correct in saying the majority of DRM's are cracked.

    10. Re:I wonder... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      To reply to both you and computational super,
      the files are all encrypted. However you'll most likely receive the file is encrypted with a random key. Even if you receive it encrypted to a fixed key (dumb idea to save a little load on the sending server), then your machine will most likely immediately re-encrypt it to a new random key.

      So by ripping the key out of your machine you can for example extract a plain MP3. Obviously you can then give that Mp3 to anyone else. But (1) you can only do that for files you actually have yourself, and (2) every DRM'd copy of that song on every other phone will still be locked up. There's no software you can give someone else that will let them unlock their own files.

      No matter what they do they can't keep MP3's from showing up on P2p - worst case they can be recorded from the speakers. But they can totally lock up any "secure" files on any machine that hasn't had it's key ripped from the chip.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  9. Not for me! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'll just stick with my trusty ol' Z80 semi-portable -PDA, which I built myself and power of a motorcycle battery. *GRUNT*

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Not for me! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      You mean your trusty ol' Pentium 4 semi-portable PDA?

      The Z80 is actually quite low power - ever use a TI graphing calc or a pre-Advance Game Boy lately? Also, the first ever PDA, the Amstrad PenPad(?), though a flop, ran a Z80.

  10. Well that's just great by tyrani · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now I can be subjected to the COMPLETE lyrics of "hit me baby one more time" once ringtone makers find this out.

    Did you know that ringtone sales make up 10% of music relates sales now? That's a big number.

    --
    rejected (19) accepted (0)
    Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    1. Re:Well that's just great by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Is there some reason why some people have this inexplicable need to have something other than a "ring" as a ringtone? And that this need is so great that they'll actually pay for it?

      When my phone rings, it rings. My wife once wanted some song as the ring on her phone. So I used the phone's ring-editor and made it. I can't understand why anyone pays for such useless junk.

    2. Re:Well that's just great by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I do feel that ringtones are needed, but I wouldn't pay for a song.

      Ringtones are needed because when your phone rings, if there weren't ringtones, EVERYONE would look at their phone. Ringtones make it so people know it's not their phone that's ringing.

  11. Can these schemes really work? by eddie+can+read · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always figured that no matter what the makers try, if the machine is programmable then a layer can be built on top of the hardware, a virtual machine, that can in effect incapacitate any DRM.

    If there is some sort of foolproof hardware that can't be circumvented, no one has ever explained to me how such a thing could work without being non-programmable.

    Maybe software could be written that needs to hook into the DRM to run. But software is crackable, or seems to have been so far.

    1. Re:Can these schemes really work? by tyrani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your right, and I think that your reasoning is why console video game systems (XBOX, Playstation, etc) get hacked so quickly. However, with Cel Phones, the hardware changes so often, that it wouldn't be hard to keep changing the DMA hardware code every generation. Cel phones are almost disposable these days and as hardware gets even cheaper, it is going to become more of a problem for your friendly neighborhood cracker.

      --
      rejected (19) accepted (0)
      Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    2. Re:Can these schemes really work? by botzi · · Score: 1
      I always figured that no matter what the makers try, if the machine is programmable then a layer can be built on top of the hardware, a virtual machine, that can in effect incapacitate any DRM.

      False. If there already is a program that regulates all other software, you can't assume it's that easy.

      If there is some sort of foolproof hardware that can't be circumvented, no one has ever explained to me how such a thing could work without being non-programmable.

      By putting all code/hardware interferance into a ROM memory(ridiculous), for example, you can achieve some security.
      Of course, you can almost always write your own ROM, but it isn't pure programming anymore, it comes back to crafty code hacking.

      Anyway, for me, I can guarantee you that I'll never use a chip with hardware DRM as long as I know it's there.
      Even if one day this becomes a necessity(CISCO's routers idiocy, anyone???) I'll still search for a way to avoid it. Not because DRM is the enemy, I do have Microsoft's DRM package installed(if you have WMP9 or .NET framework, chances are you have it as well), but hell, I've done it by choice and if tomorrow Microsoft issues a vital system patch that requires DRM to work all I could say is - "Screw you guys, I'm going home." - E. Cartman. - and uninstall the whole blue OS.

      --
      1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
    3. Re:Can these schemes really work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the book on hacking the XBox to get an idea of why this CAN work. And since the hack was successful, you can see why new hardware features won't automatically stop hackers.

      Sorry, I don't remember title or author.

      The theory for DRM has been kicked around in acedemic papers for years now. Past failures have been in custom systems. As commodity parts acquire features that support DRM, you'll see the cost premium of hardening systems get smaller. Hardware hackers will rise again (remember the cable descrambler days?)

    4. Re:Can these schemes really work? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The way Trusted Computing works is that there's a key hidden inside one of your chips. A key that the chip refuses to let you see.

      If you don't know that key then it's impossible to build a virtual machine, all of the data is encrypted and you can't decrypt it without that key.

      However it is your property and you have every right to rip open your chip and read your key. Once you do that you can create that virtual machione and get full control over your own property.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. I’ll show them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By never buying a cell phone. Take that, you jerks.

    1. Re:I’ll show them! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another way is to buy the phone (since we may soon not have any non-DRM alternatives anyway), but just not buy any stupid ringtones and games for it.

      These phones are usually sold at a loss, and they make their money back on the monthly service fee (which you sign a contract for), and on the sales of overpriced games and ringtones.

      If you're like me, you've already figured out that, unless you want to be a hermit with no phone at all, it's cheaper to own a cellphone than to have a landline, so you might as well get that. But by not buying a top-of-the-line phone and getting a cheap subsidized phone instead, and then not buying the games and tones, you'll be keeping them from realizing any profits from this dumb strategy of theirs.

      Unfortunately, while this will save you money, it probably won't change anything, thanks to all the stupid, mindless hordes of teenagers who happily buy all these games and ringtones with their parents' money. But at least you won't be part of the problem, and you can spend that money on something better.

    2. Re:I’ll show them! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      STICKERS. Sticker the damn things:

      THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIGITAL RIGHTS RESTRICTION
      TECHNOLOGY. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! MORE INFO AT:
      http://www.fuckdrm.com (not a real URL)

      Something like this would definitely do the job. BTW, someone said it was the XScale PXA27x, in other words, what'll probably end up in the next Pocket PCs and Smartphones. We've got a little while on cellphones, then, but not long.

  13. No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The key here, to not get bent all out of shape, is to understand that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used. If you buy a song, and use it in accordence to the agrement that you purchased it's use under, you should have no problems. On the other hand, if you buy it for your own use, then use some flawed logic to give it away to all your friends, well, that ain't going to fly. This is as it should be.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      t copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used

      Sort of. They can control distribution for a limited time. Part of the bargain that allows this is that I can excerpt portions for my own use. In Canada, I can give a CD to a friend and let him copy it, and it's legal.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      No, when you purchase something there is a contract, implied or otherwise. If I sell you something under an agreement that says you can use that thing a certain way, and you use it some other way, you have broaken the contract.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw them. Die record companies die! I will boycott any such device and continue to pirate music until the record companies die! ahahaha! They have taken the hope away from almost any independant musician, and created an environment where creating music is only practiced by business people. They will die. And we will boycott intel! AHAHAAHA!

      Ethics? Talk to the record companies about ethics. They've been shafting anyone who they do business with. I'll be happy the day I can go somewhere and not have to hear brittany spears against my (and everyone non 13yr old female's) will.

      I repeat. Die die die.

    4. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by rokzy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, that's how it works in an ideal world. but then we wouldn't need DRM in the first place would we?

      consider the recently released PC game Painkiller that contains SafeDisc anti-copy protection. this contains a blacklist. if you have any of the blacklisted hardware/software, the game won't run. the list includes:

      -CD-writers
      -Nero writer software
      -virtual CD drive software

      the net result: people who have legitimately purchased the game cannot run it. they have done absolutely nothing "wrong" in either the legal, ethical or technical meanings of the word. their only hope to use the product they have purchased is to bypass the copy-protection, making them criminals in the USA under the DMCA.

      DRM isn't generally as bad as this case, but it is still fundamentaly flawed in that it can only work properly under perfectly controlled circumstances. that means saying goodbye to flexibility, and in some cases usability.

    5. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I disagree. Copyright is a right to control the spread of information. No humman should have that. Note that this is a separate issue to artistic control ("moral rights" in european parlance)- just because an artist (or, more relevantly, a dick in a suit) should not be able to stop me passing on information, does not mean I should be able to take his artwork and claim I did it (i.e. plagiarise) - I should, however, be allowed pass it on, if I don't claim it as my own.

      The important point is to recognise that right-to-copy and the right-to-plagiarise are SEPARATE issues. Copyright only provides weak protection against plagiarism, but that is usually how it is sold to artists, while the artists, idealists that they are, little realise that it gives corporate ruling classes carte blanche to control the flow of information to the populace -i.e. copyright enables fascism!

    6. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded the parent "flaimbait" is an idiot. Read it and think befor you mod...

    7. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by xiphy · · Score: 1

      So if somebody gets a modified GPL-ed program does the phone checks if the source code of the modifications are available to everybody? That'd be cool! But I doubt it does.

    8. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by whydoyouask · · Score: 1

      The problem is that these schemes ultimately redefine fair use in a much more restrictive fashion than what exists with traditional media. The net result is encouraging the piracy that they are trying to combat no matter how legitimate their claims may be.

    9. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      ETHICS? Oh, you mean the system where rich people who'd like to stay rich talk poor people into staying poor so that the rich people don't even have to pay for an armed force to protect their riches. Yes, it's a good system isn't it.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    10. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      consider the recently released PC game Painkiller that contains SafeDisc anti-copy protection. this contains a blacklist. if you have any of the blacklisted hardware/software, the game won't run

      This is different. The example above is terrible. The game maker should be shot. I, however am talking about to common practice of spreading mp3s of music you ave not paid for the right to distribute. Different animal.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    11. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      So, your argument is that because OTHER people have no ETHICS, that means YOU don't have to have ETHICS either?

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    12. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...is to understand that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used.

      It's NOT a right! It is a PRIVILIGE provided by the gov't without the consent of the public. Not only is it a right to break bad laws, it's an obligation. The only way bad laws are repealed is through violation of the law. It is because of lawbreakers that we enjoy the freedoms we have today. If nobody broke the law, we would still have alchol prohibition(still working on other drugs). Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus. Hell, the U.S. would still be a colony. But... if you're so dependant on the status quo, I can understand why you would say that. "Don't make waves."...right? Some people are just too comfy with the way things are to let a bunch of lawbreakin' hippies get in the way and try to set it right.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used. If you buy a song, and use it in accordence to the agrement that you purchased it's use under, you should have no problems

      Who determines these rights, and are this rights fair and in accordance with the law.

      On the other hand, if you buy it for your own use, then use some flawed logic to give it away to all your friends, well, that ain't going to fly. This is as it should be.

      That's the thing you see. Some artists / peformers actually want you to crank off a copy to a friend and consider this form of distro free advertising. I agree if the artist / peformer doesn't want you to you should respect their wish.

      It's neither immoral nor unethical for you to play a track for a friend. Nor is it illegal for you to bring your media over to a friends player and play it. DRM may have the unseen effect of actually taking normal tame use of our rights with physical media.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    14. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by invalid_address · · Score: 0

      "If you buy a song, and use it in accordence to the agrement that you purchased it's use under, you should have no problems."

      as a consumer, spending my money should allow me to do with the 'content' however i please, seeing as how i bought it. if i buy toilet paper and use it to make paper mache instead of wiping my ass, is the maker of charmin going to come down on me with a subpoena? didn't think so. how is this any different.

      yes you can copy the content and share it like an evil pinko commie if you please. that's your perogative. the back and forth on copyright/IP/patent issues is only set in place to protect bloated corporate business models of the 1970's and stifle any creativity via 'derivative works'. using file sharing as a rally cry to combat digital pirates is silly. i'm always wearing my tri-point hat and carrying a sword when i download shit off the net, oh hell yeah, er, arrrrrrrr!

      the fact that music as referenced hasn't decreased significantly in price goes against the model that technology as it ages gets more affordable. for years the RIAA has kept price points at artificially high levels, and when someone comes along a la shawn fanning and brings the music to the masses, he's demonized as an evil person.

      do i think artists should be compensated for their work, of course. do i think the current system of attempted lockdown on digital content is a worthwhile cause that will benefit the consumers in the long term, not at all. there is a middle ground somewhere in all this nonsense, but no one is looking for it, because to corporations it means lower divendends for the shareholders. that's the bottom line.

      it looks like i won't be buying an intel based phone on account of this. not that i was planning to in the first place.

      rawr.

    15. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Altizar · · Score: 1
      Wow, thats true. The problem is that the contract does not say that you can not modify it, it says that you can not modify the product and still expect them to repair/replace the damaged product even if the damage is not related to the modification.

      All contracts are a two way street, you will do something (not modify), and so long as thats true, they will do something.

      If i dont want their support, they cant say how i use the product i bought from them.

    16. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have ethics. My primary ethical principle is Total Freedom of Information - No human shall be punished for having information (knowing) or passing on information to another (teaching), or receiving information from another (learning).

      This applies to ALL information. Digital or analogue, encoded on a travelling bundle of photons or scratched onto clay tablets.

      Copyright is a direct violation of my core ethical principles and represents stalinist control over the dissemination of information. I reject it utterly.

    17. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well then. Please send me all of your work, so I can use it with no benifit to you. You want to be my surf? No problem.

    18. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      It's amazing the fantasies people will write when they respond to a post they couldn't be bothered with reading.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    19. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by phoneyman · · Score: 1

      If you "sell" me something and then tell me I can only use it a certain way, then you haven't "sold" it to me. You've leased it to me, or rented it.

      When I buy a CD, I buy a copy of the content on the CD for my personal use - I can make whatever private use of it I wish. Copyright law says what I cannot do with the content, and I *can* loan my CD to a friend. I *can* make a backup copy. I *can* rip the contents to mp3 for use on my digital devices. I *can* make a mix-tape of the CDs I have in my collection. I *cannot* make copies of the CD for distribution. I *cannot* play the CD in public for others. I *cannot* use the content on the CD to make a "derivative work"*.

      *Unless that derivative work falls under some limited "fair use" exceptions, such as satire.

      Pierre

    20. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. One, I would still have my copy, so I really don't care if you benefit or not, nor would I be your surf (sic). The primary utility of anything I produce is TO ME.

      And two, far more importantly: I'm under no obligation to give you anything. If you want a copy, you can pay for it. I just won't try and stop you passing it on AFTER I've given you a copy. Copyright is shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

    21. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      So how the hell does anyone with a reasonably recent computer run the game?

    22. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DRM would help the legitimate user here. None of those applications would have the ability to assist in copying and that DRM protected game.

      additionally by my understanding of TCPA, DRMed applications cannot necessarily be aware of another application's mere EXISTENCE on a PC unless there is a granted trust relationship between the programs. And if Nero (DRM enabled or not) can't make a usable copy of a DRMed game on a DRM system, they have no motivation to go the extra step and request that trust relationship with those applications.

      I think there are quite a few advantages to DRM, but to many people (myself included) the lack of control over one's own machine is disconcerting. But in this case, a law-abiding user wouldn't have a problem on a DRM system.

    23. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National laws overrule contracts, you know. Or if you can find away around that, let me know how I can sell somebody a cd, and slip in a provision in the fine print making them my slave.

    24. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think there are quite a few advantages to DRM, but to many people (myself included) the lack of control over one's own machine is disconcerting. But in this case, a law-abiding user wouldn't have a problem on a DRM system.

      Yes, and when they install the DRM in your head, and have a central server monitoring the thoughts of every single person on the planet, law-abiding users still won't have any problems...what's your point again?
    25. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in this case, a law-abiding user wouldn't have a problem on a DRM system.

      Right. Except for all of the OTHER cases where a law-abiding user WOULD have a problem with a DRM system.

      Such as when he wants to make perfectly legal backup copies. Or when he wants to make perfectly legal educational-related use. Or perfectly legal research use. Or a perfectly legal parody. Or perfectly legally use it on different hardware. Or perform perfectly legal reverse engineering. Pretty much any personal use. The list just goes on and on. All legal uses obstructed by DRM.

      TCPA

      The entire foundation of TCPA/Palladium/NaGSCaB or any other Trusted Computing system is the assumption that YOUR Trust chip will not let YOU know what YOUR master key is. It's your property and you have every right to rip it open and look at it under a microscope to see what your key is. And once you've done that the entire Trust system falls apart.

      Once you know your key you are able to make all of the perfectly legal uses I listed above. And yes, you are also able to commit copyright infringment.

      The point is that you can't put an innocent person in prison (one who has NOT commited copyright infringment) for those perfectly legal activities simply becuase it means he could - but DIDN'T - commit infringment. And if you don't imprison those innocent people then the DRM system has no legal protection and is worthless.

      The only way to protect DRM is to imprison innocent people. If you want to go after people who commit infringment, then fine. But you can't protect DRM itself. That happens to make the DRM worthless, oh well, the DRM is worthless.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      The key here, to not get bent all out of shape, is to understand that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their IP is used.
      No, they have the 'right' (temporary permission from the government, actually) to dictate who is [not] allowed to make copies of it. They have no say in how it is used, unless you sign a contract (or EULA, apparently) stating otherwise.

      Tim

    27. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus."
      have you rode on a bus lately? they still do and thier loud as hell... pity some people never change.

    28. Re:No issues here, if you have ETHICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they have a right to control: duplication, distribution and public performace.

      They have no right to control how the copyright material is used otherwise.

  14. Can you hear me now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Person: I think that I would like to buy some stock.
    Broker: Well chip maker ***STATIC*** is doing well, you should buy them.
    Person: What company? I could not hear you.
    Broker: ***STATIC*** you know they compete with Intel?
    Person: Oh AMD, are they doing well?
    Broker: What did you say? I could not hear. Did you say ***STATIC***?

  15. Thank god for AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm certain we'd be seeing DRM built into our computer CPU's already as well if it weren't for the competition from AMD. I dread the day that both companies get together and say "ok, let's do this thing." Then we'll be fucked.

    1. Re:Thank god for AMD by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 1

      Transmeta's Crusoe would be a nice third choice.

    2. Re:Thank god for AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD is a partner of Microsofts trusted computing efforts. Just a matter of time before it has stuff like this. Bring me an Apple or a Sun.

    3. Re:Thank god for AMD by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the i386 platform mutates into something that will enforce DRM, other platforms will probably gain momentum. That's not as bad as it might seem. As Unix (Linux, BSD, Mac OS X) community, we can easily adapt to this scenario...

      More interesting is the aspect of non-proprietary CPU architectures. It would be great if the OSS community were joined by a new ODH (open design hardware) community, so that we could get a fully open, non-restrictable architecture for our favorite OSes, apps, and playback devices to DRMed stuff.

      Call me a lunatic if you wish, but I really believe that if Intel/AMD and other mainstream chip makers are doing kotai before the almightly RIAA/MPAA/... cartells, the developer and hacker communities won't take it for granted and will take appropriate counter-measures.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Thank god for AMD by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then I switch to a mac.

    5. Re:Thank god for AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it really sucks that there aren't any open processors. Imagine if POEWER/PowerPC or Sparc chip specs were open and anybody could build them.

    6. Re:Thank god for AMD by DakotaK · · Score: 1

      If I still had modpoints, I'd mod you up, mate. I honestly thing that this is the course that the OSS community would take if this DRM bullshit continues: forming its own software and hardware that dosen't have meddling "we know better than you do" Trusted Computing crap. Sure, it'll work for the average user who only uses their computer to check stocks and e-mail Grandma. It's the people like Slashdotters who love tinkering with their system who will raise hell and break off to do their own thing. We can't really force Joe User to switch to a non-DRM computer, but what's it really matter if all he's doing is checking e-mail? It's not like Trusted Computing, as horrible as an idea it is, is raining fire and brimstone on him.

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    7. Re:Thank god for AMD by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      You don't need any open hardware or any trash like that, the DRM stuff is implemented almost entirely in software. The only hardware portion is a secure "nexus", a portion of memory that can not be accessed by other applications.

      There absolutely no good reason at all why DRM has to be implemented in any operating system just because the hardware supports it. If you ignore the feature (or, better yet, make use of it to improve security for sensitive applications).

      Despite the tin-foil hat crowds comments, all of these TCP, NGSCB and Palladium technologies will NOT in ANY way prevent you from installing Linux or any other operating system you so chose. People primarily make these comments because they are morons who take /. stories as the word of God and don't bother reading the publicly available specifications.

      For those that are actually interested in any fact, Intel's website has tons of info. The chip in question is actually almost never used in mobile phones, it's an XScale chip that is primarily used for PDAs. Nice little chip, 624MHz clock speed with only about 1W maximum power consumption, plus dynamic power saving technology.

    8. Re:Thank god for AMD by Mafia$oft · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm afraid you don't have a f***kin' clue about that stuff:
      AMD has been a FOUNDING MEMBER of the TCPA board!
      (repeat: FOUNDING, FOUNDING, FOUNDING MEMBER)

      In other words, better don't hold your breath too much that AMD will do what's in the interests of consumers...

      TCPA unfortunately really seems to be an almost industry-wide initiative by hardware vendors (and, of course, certain software vendors who are scared of the new-gained freedom of PC users...).

      We will have to fight it tooth and nail.

  16. This is why we need PCs and Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why there will always be a need for PCs and Macs, so that music/media files can be cleaned of nuisance DRM, enabling you to do what you want with your own files on your own players.

  17. They will sell a workaround for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where you replace the cpu chip and the display chip and the case and all the other chips.

  18. Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by dhowells · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course we can always `vote with our feet' and just not buy their product, but as always with the slashdot BOYCOTT $insert_company, it is doomed to fail because the non tech crowd just dont get it.

    Indeed instead of talking about it on slashdot (or other geek media) as I am now, we really need to talk to the MASS media about these things. When the EU version of the DMCA came out (EUCD) I put up stickers around my home town entitled `NO EUCD'. Perhaps people to whom this REALLY is worrying, ought to consider a similarly proactive course:

    Write to your MP/Govenor, Write to the Times/Herald_Tribune, Tell your friends. And remember, `If there is hope, it lies with the proles'.

    D.

    --
    use Blunt::Instrument;
    1. Re:Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful
      we really need to talk to the MASS media about these things
      MASS media? Wouldn't that be the forms of communication owned by the companies who are fighting for DRM? Thought so.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by dhowells · · Score: 1

      Some mass media may be owned by the companies which are fighting for DRM, but this is an unfair generalisation. I cant speak for America but in the UK, most of the mass media are not owned by DMCA/EUCD-promoting companies:

      The BBC, The Times of London, The Independent, ITV, The Sun, Private Eye, etc.

      --
      use Blunt::Instrument;
    3. Re:Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refuse to have a cell phone, so you can rely on me to boycott these DRM handsets.

      I can't wait to try the new voting machine you mention in your title, are these dibold machines?

    4. Re:Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by negacao · · Score: 1

      We can fight. Or we can lay down and die.

      With each new day, why is the second option looking more viable?

    5. Re:Vote with your feet for all it's worth. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Check out my sig. There may yet be hope that mainstream media will pick up the story on the malicious nature of Trusted Computing.

      I figure we'll start getting stories on it when Microsoft starts to roll out their DRM OS.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. worst case scenario by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    if the wintel cartel is still in business, then Intel's DRM may also be a way to prevent linux on PDA's. Luckily, if that were the case, I'm hoping that Sharp would complain (enuf to force intel not to implement the anti-linux portion of their conquest) as their PDA's use an OS based on Linux.

  20. Have you ever soldered a cell phone? by David+Hume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As long as it can be soldered it can be hacked.


    By what? One person in 100,000?

    Have you ever tried to solder the wiring of a cell phone... and still have it work?

    If all Intel, ATT, etc., etc., have to worry about is people soldering their cell phones, they've won. And gotten a good laugh in the bargain.

    1. Re:Have you ever soldered a cell phone? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Informative

      The number of people whose PS2's have been modded by soldering is far greater than the number of people with PS2's who can solder. That's why there are companies providing this service. And because there are companies doing this, and making non-trivial amounts of money, it's worthwhile for some individuals to invest an effort into cracking the system.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Have you ever soldered a cell phone? by David+Hume · · Score: 1

      The number of people whose PS2's have been modded by soldering is far greater than the number of people with PS2's who can solder. That's why there are companies providing this service. And because there are companies doing this, and making non-trivial amounts of money, it's worthwhile for some individuals to invest an effort into cracking the system.


      A cell phone is not a PS2. Soldering a PS2 is trivial. I suspect that soldering a cell phone is non-trivial. :)

      In addition, I don't know how many businesses will stay in business when that business is to circumvent copyright protection schemes and violate the DMCA -- while advertising that fact. Will some? Of course. Will be enough to cause problems to those who provide content to cell carriers? No.

    3. Re:Have you ever soldered a cell phone? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I expect that there are more chipped phones than modded PCs. Try here.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  21. Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters? Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?

    If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

    1. Re:Why is DRM bad? by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't be okay then.

      Right now DRM is fine and dandy. I've realized that the only restrictions opposed on me by Fairplay (iTunes DRM) is restricting things that are illegal anyhow.

      The problem lies in what's to come. With DRM in hardware, slashdotters can choose to say no. However, when the general masses eat this up (and they will), that means that DRM hardware will prevail. Soon all the major motherboards will ship with DRM'd BIOSes. We won't have a choice as to what to buy.

      And if you think this will drive down prices, you're dillusional. Or really optimistic.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    2. Re:Why is DRM bad? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright doesn't grant you anything resembling the rights granted by DRM.

      Assuming it does is philisophically/economically/legally bankrupt.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    3. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Well thats an absurd question, but of course the answer is no. Open Source is freedom, DRM is the antithesis of that.

      "Beware of those who deny you information ... for in their hearts they dream themselves your master"

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    4. Re:Why is DRM bad? by reverendG · · Score: 1

      I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters?

      Are you serious? Have you read any of the other posts in this thread, or any of the other DRM threads? DRM is for many many reasons. The biggest ones for me is that it prevents me from fair use of material and content that I have legally paid for. Another reason that DRM is bad is because it is a method of control over what sort of content I'm exposed to. For other reasons that DRM is bad, please read some of the other posts.

      From the article: Intel and other supporters of trusted computing believe the extra layer of security will spur content providers to make more songs and movies available on the Internet.

      From parent comment: If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.

      I have no trouble downloading songs from iTunes music store, or a multitude of other places. I've actually been pretty impressed with the variety of music that I can download for a fee. I think that the extra layer of security is going to do a lot more for Microsoft than for any content providers. I think that MS loses MUCH more on piracy than the RIAA or the MPAA.

      --

      Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
    5. Re:Why is DRM bad? by PoesRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      DRM is frowned upon for many reasons. Personally, I find it distateful because it erodes our property rights (i.e. the ability to control the computer I payed a substantial amount of money for) and that it operates under the basic assumption that we are all criminals, which I find offensive. I have yet to see copy protection that didnt hinder honest users more than those who steal it. The people who crack software are barely slowed down, and so really its the person who payed for it that gets bitten by the copy protection (and this holds true for all copy protected content.)

    6. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I know this comment will be modded down, but really why is DRM frowned upon by Slashdotters?"

      Mostly it's the notion that hardware is a tool, and we should be able to use a tool that we bought however we want, even if that use isn't specifically intended by the manufacturer. Also, DRM's big backer is Microsoft. Given their history of anit-competitive behavior, it seems reasonable to assume that DRM would be used to keep the commodity x86 hardware we like so much from booting an unsigned (read: non-commercial) operating system. Lastly, it seems like a futile effort. We think Intel should be designing better and faster processors, instead of wasting time trying to handicap their users.

      "Suppose DRM were required to prevent abuses of the GPL -- would it be OK then?"

      No. Nobody should be able to tell people what software they're allowed to run on hardware they bought and paid for.

      "If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content."

      They wouldn't *have* to, but they would keep prices high anyway. CD and DVD prices aren't high to compensate for piracy, they're high because the market will bear that price. If all illegal copying stopped tomorrow, there would be no reason for the record labels to lower their prices, because music isn't a commodity. No two labels sell the same music, so there is little competition between them to drive down prices.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    7. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Aldric · · Score: 1

      Why should a company get to tell me how to use something that I've legally bought from them? Once they have sold it to me, it becomes my property.

    8. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see that you're not a troll by reading your comment history. This is a common question that has a simple answer:

      Read the above two links, and see if you don't get the idea. It's not about the content, or access to it. It's about freedoms that we're not willing to give up. Hardware-controlled DRM for content distribution is just one step away from hardware-level control over what software you can and can't install on your machine. Imagine a future where you don't have sufficient priviledges to install Mozilla (for example) on your home computer. Should they be the ones determining what I can and can't install on my own computer? No. That's my decision. This is the problem with "trusted" computing.

    9. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Cytlid · · Score: 1

      DRM is by nature, designed to disallow people rights. It's a positive spin on a bad thing. Think about it, it's not like Rights need to be "managed"... the people who have the right to legally use something already can... it's the people who don't that you want to deny. So perhaps "Denying Right to Mankind" would be a better description. And in fact, it's 100% the opposite as to what the GPL was meant to do, give rights and freedoms.

      Speaking of putting a positive spin on something negative (time for a George Carlin moment)... would you drive a car with a new device or "feature" called a "Decaptiation Support"? You know, it's there in case you get your head cut off, it will still hold it on your shoulders, preventing it from rolling around on the mats, making a mess. Sounds pretty good, huh?

      --
      FLR
    10. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 1
      Maybe I'm confused, or maybe I haven't found the right Kool-Aid(tm) to drink, yet, but does DRM have to coincide with copyright law?

      I'm probably just missing some crucial piece of info, but I was under the impression that GPL was o.k.

      Why doesn't that work for DRM? That is, why can't they say that they want more restrictive protections than are afforded by copyright law?

    11. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Turmio · · Score: 1

      Because in order to protect their DRM secrets (or that's what they'll tell you) you'll be offered with the operating system/environment of the choice of the companies backing up these systems. Take it or leave it. Ok it's not an issue with phones (most probably wouldn't run your favourite free operating system with it anyway) but the thing is quite different when these schemes are made mendatory on general purpose devices. No more Linux (or similar, just an example) since it's not "trusted". That's why you might want to be critical from the beginning or soon you'll have no choice if you take everything that you're offered without questions.

    12. Re:Why is DRM bad? by whydoyouask · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact is that DRM is not designed to protect content creators. It is designed to protect the profits of the publishers and distributors that have a near monopoly on the channels of distribution. This gives them the ability to say take it or leave it to both consumers and the artists. This also allows them to keep the vast majority of talented artists out of the distribution channels artificially keeping supply out of balance with demand and inflating their profits. Their biggest fear is the loss of control of the distribution channels not that the artists will be cheated. Here At Roland we are awash in talented musicians that can't make a living at their art because the channels are controlled so tightly. Most of them don't expect to become rich, they just want their music heard.

    13. Re:Why is DRM bad? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I'm failing to see the connection between what I said and the GPL. I'd be happy to argue the point with you, but I'm just not understanding what your getting at.

      Could you explain what you mean when comparing the rights granted through GPL and the rights that are inherently given to producers by using DRM (especially under the DMCA).

      I think the reason I'm having a problem is the GPL does nothing but grant me the right to copy under limited conditions. DRM is intended to lock my useage in ways the copyright holder has no buisness attempting without some significant contract law upholding his newfound rights. Not to mention that under the DMCA these new 'copyright rights' are perpetual and can never be revoked if a file is encrypted under a DRM scheme.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    14. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 1
      Thanks! Given my vague questions, you did a really good job of answering my questions. Sorry - I didn't think you'd said anything about copyright, I was just thinking this might be the right thread to try to ask my question.

      I'm sort of unclear on what really is going on - I haven't read copyright law, and my "knowledge" of copyright law extends to having a vague notion that a personal copy is o.k. I'll try to re-word my original post so that it makes more sense:

      I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?

      Don't get me wrong, it seems obvious to me that giving greater rights is o.k, and restricting is not, but it seems vaguely disjointed somehow.

      Maybe it's just the pork burrito I had for lunch coming back to haunt me...

    15. Re:Why is DRM bad? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I'll attempt to be coherent, but I just finished a long day of coding so I won't promise anything.

      The GPL exists by using codified copyright law to grant you all the rights you normally get (the ability to use the software, make parodies etc), then it states your allowed to redistribute under certain terms.

      This is akin to me forming a contract with you stating "here is my code, you're allowed to do whatever you want with it so long as you don't claim it's yours" This is basic contract law, and no lawyer (well except SCO) would even attempt to balk at it.

      It is sometimes asked how is the GPL enforced? Well the thing is it doesn't need to be. The only way you can violate the GPL is by violating copyright law (since the only way to redistribute the work is under the GPL), so one simply has to take the other party to cort for a copyright violation. Anyway, I digress.

      I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?

      When it comes to DRM the situation changes radically. The copyright holder is claiming far more rights than he has under copyright law at the direct expense of the consumers rights. The thing is the RIAA(insert large copyright group) is a lobying group, not a goverment agencey. The basis for these rights grabs are pretty much fictional. Some of the rights being claimed (especially coupled with the DMCA) are irrevocable in such a way that it breaks the public domain. All of these end up equalling a net loss for everyone (with the exception of a temporary gain for the producers).

      Also, in a world where "Trustworthy computing" is obiquitous (sp?) it becomes impossible to use a general purpose turning machine (a computer) as one. The reasons computers have taken off so far is everyone can create content for them, removing that ability you simply have an interactive television.

      Um, that explination wasn't very good. I might try to fill in any blanks I left (I'm sure there are many) after I've had some sleep.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    16. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No two labels sell the same music, so there is little competition between them to drive down prices.

      That's why punk records are generally cheaper - they all sound the same. ;-)

    17. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I don't see the connection. DRM is just a way of enforcing through technology the same thing that the GPL is intended to enforce via the honor system and via the courts.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    18. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What is the difference between using DRM to enforce a EULA vs using the courts to enforce it? If widespread violation of the GPL began to occur, couldn't DRM be used to prevent abuses?

      DRM doesn't necessarily have to be draconian, all it does is allow the content provider to enforce whatever terms the consumer would be agreeing to accept at the time of purchase.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    19. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      So you don't differentiate between the concept of DRM'ed material being subject to a EULA defined by the creator? The DRM is just a way of enforcing the EULA, and nothing more. If you purchase the product and violate the EULA, then the courts could be used to enforce the license just as DRM is.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    20. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      DRM is just a way of enforcing through technology

      The problem is that DRM is worthless unless DRM itself is enforced by law. And enforcing DRM means imprisoning innocent people who have NOT commpitted copyright, and it means imprisoning them for the crime of doing math.

      -

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      So do you disagree with the concept of a software EULA (of which the GPL is one variety)? Are you saying that if the bits are on your hard drive you should be able to do whatever you want?

      I can relate to your slippery slope argument about Microsoft using DRM to thwart competition, but I honestly don't believe that AMD, Intel, Cyrix, IBM, etc., would all decide to include DRM that prevented the installation of Linux on all motherboards produced.

      Right now one of the costs associated with distributing music and software is the cost of piracy. Piracy also has some beneficial effects (spreading standards, awareness, etc.) but businesses generally think they'd be better off without it.

      While there isn't price competition for the same song, there is competition between different distribution media for the same song. A content provider would have more piracy risk when distributing via CD than when distributing DRM'ed files, and so they would have an incentive to lower costs to drive consumers to the more secure medium.

      Ultimately, I think there will be competition for the same song, since I think the future of music DRM will have to include a mechanism for resale of purchased music (via online auctions, etc.).

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    22. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You mean people who hack the DRM?

      I do agree that hacking it should not be a crime, since any sort of trustworthy system must be unhackable in a few million years. By the time the lawsuit were to occur, the hacker would be long deceased.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    23. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I meeant to say: imprisoning innocent people who have NOT committed copyright infringment

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    24. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      What about the EULA that you agree to when you download the music or open the package? Do you disagree with the validity of such contracts?

      Those contracts are currently enforcable by the courts, only enforcing them that way is impractical. DRM only makes it difficult to violate the contract that you agreed to in the first place.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    25. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      The GPL is designed to grant certain rights and deny certain others. So is DRM. So are most software EULAs.

      The courts are used to enforce all non-DRM licenses and agreements. DRM is used to enforce the terms of a EULA or license agreement, both the privileges granted and denied.

      If Microsoft started rebranding Mozilla and including it in Windows without the source code, lots of people would be up in arms about it. DRM is just a way of preventing the thousands of similar abuses that occur today with digital music, software, etc. The courts are ill suited to enforce the EULAs.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    26. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If widespread violation of the GPL began to occur, couldn't DRM be used to prevent abuses?

      Nope.
      The fact that you even suggested the question seems to indicate a flawed or incomplete understanding of how DRM works, what DRM can do, what DRM can't do, and/or understanding of what the GPL says.

      I don't mean to be insulting. I just really really can't even begin to imaging any comprehensible way to use DRM to enforce anything even approaching the GPL.

      I honestly invite you to descibe how you could ever use DRM to enforce the GPL. If you don't understand DRM well enough to give at least a general explanation then maybe you don't understand DRM well enough to advocate it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    27. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't hardware vendors include DRM support for linux too? The doomsday scenario you describe is rediculous.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    28. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Uh, ok...

      You distribute GPL'ed software as filename.htc or .ctc (trusted computing).

      The files are encrypted and can only be read by a trusted compiler (tcgcc) or edited by a trusted editor (tcvi).

      When you modify the code and recompile it, the resulting executable can be distributed, but it will only be able to execute if the valid source files are available somewhere on the internet. A tc runtime environment would perform this check the first time the program was run.

      Obviously, morphing tc into something that would be compatible with a source distribution license would require some creativity, but as you can see it would be far from impossible.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    29. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Why isn't DRM compatible with p2p distribution channels?

      Imagine the following: An artist creates a CD, and then applies DRM (tc) to it. The CD's tracks are then released over the p2p networks where people can download them. The artists wishes to allow 2 weeks of free playback before the tracks will become locked until purchase.

      Fans download the traks, enjoy them for a few weeks, and if they purchase them the artist gets some money (whatever price he/she wishes to charge).

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    30. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do you disagree with the concept of a software EULA (of which the GPL is one variety)? Are you saying that if the bits are on your hard drive you should be able to do whatever you want?

      False dichotomy! There is a middle road between total absence of license and hardware enforced DRM. You also seem to be confusing use with copying. The GPL makes no effort to restrict the use of GPL software, it's terms do not take effect until you try to distribute copies of the software. IMHO, that is the way to handle software licensing. Use it any way you want, just don't hand out copies unless the author specifically grants you that right.

      I can relate to your slippery slope argument about Microsoft using DRM to thwart competition, but I honestly don't believe that AMD, Intel, Cyrix, IBM, etc., would all decide to include DRM that prevented the installation of Linux on all motherboards produced.

      Probably not, but I'd rather not chance it. Big companies have been known to do blindingly stupid things for short-term gain in the past.

      While there isn't price competition for the same song, there is competition between different distribution media for the same song. A content provider would have more piracy risk when distributing via CD than when distributing DRM'ed files, and so they would have an incentive to lower costs to drive consumers to the more secure medium.

      That's not really competition. No matter which retail distribution channel you buy from, the same record label gets paid the same amount of money. The retail outlet may make a buck more or less, but there isn't competition between distributors, so there's no incentive to drive prices down overall.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    31. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and they tend to be minor labels that are only supporting the artist's drug habit. The major labels have to keep the artist, his agent, two producers, and their little army of lawyers in cocaine. That's a lot of $17 CDs to sell!

    32. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You mean people who hack the DRM

      I was thinking 9-year-old Tiffany working on a school book report who uses a handy-dandy utility remove the DRM from an e-book. I wouldn't really use the word "hack" there, chuckle.

      But yeah, the hacker who wrote the utility shouldn't be going to prison either.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    33. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Ok, you actually did better than I expected :D

      Even if you clean up the errors (your distrubution rule is wrong, but almost-fixable), even if you deal with a dozzen other issues I see that may theoretically be resolvable, no matter what you do the result will be crippled and radically more restrictive than the GPL. DRM is inherently over-restrictive because in any case that could possibly lead to infringment it must prohibit any access at all.

      I'll also ignore the issue that you can make an identical copy by hand or by Optical Character Recognition of the screen if you can ever see the raw text. Generally such a result is impermissable for DRM. The equivalent processes involving microphone/video capture of audio/video is only 'tolerable' because such copies are 'imperfect' redigitizations.

      Crippling problems I see off hand:
      You can't print. That also means you can't print it for a college text book.
      I can't copy those 100 lines of code into my 10 million line GPL project. I have to import my 10 million lines into your Trusted Compiler.
      Oops! Your compiler can't compile my code!
      Oops! I can no longer run any of my code-scanning utilities. I can't run the reformatter. I can't run memory-leak utilities. I can't scan for buffer overflows and other common bugs.
      You aren't just saying my code has to be GPL, you are forcing me myself to impose the DRM system on those who uses my code.
      I can't use collaborative or use version tracking systems like BitKeeper.
      Not only can't I use my own editor or compiler, I can't modify the editor/compiler that I have to use.
      The DRM system imposes the rules even if the code I add is public domain or BSD, or even if the copyright expires. It continues to enforce the rules even if the code involved uncopyrightable or unenforceable by court order.
      The GPL has three re-distribution options and I am supposed to be free to use any of the three, this system would pretty much require me to use one (packaging the source with the EXE) - the other two (mail offer for source) can't be handled by DRM.
      Like all DRM, it inherently prohibits any activity that falls under fair-use.

      I'm sure there are a ton of other problems, but I'll finish off with this final irony:

      DRM-encrypting the source code is itself a violation of the GPL :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    34. Re:Why is DRM bad? by Eastree · · Score: 1

      >If DRM enabled devices will make content creators feel comfortable making more content available, then I'm all for it. Also, since theft won't be an issue (unauthorized copying) they won't have to try to recover their losses by charging more for the content.

      Or perhaps the content creators will see a rise in demand (i.e. more purchases through vendors rather than unchecked downloads via other means). Unfortunately it seems believable that most industries would exclude all factors except what they wanted in order to get the results they desire. This could cause a rise in prices, to prevent the depletion of the product, or in this case the results of selling more: the increase in bandwidth due to more downloads from the "authorized" vendors.

      So yes, more variety will probably be produced if people begin paying for substantially more downloads. But it's as easy for the people who decide the standard price to raise the bar as it is to lower it.

    35. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I agree that DRM should stand on its own technological feet. If it's hackable then hacking it shouldn't be a crime. Misusing the content should still be a crime though.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    36. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You raise some good points, but one thing to keep in mind is that DRM will always be mostly optional. Linux may require some DRM-awarenes in its bootstrapping mechanism in order to initially boot on DRM'ed hardware, but once it gets past that, the rest of the OS and apps will work just as they do now.

      That will be fine for a while, until companies decide they want to sell DRM'ed content to linux users (this will happen, since Miguel is doing such a great job with Mono and Gnome). But how can they sell the content without DRM on the client OS? Simple, a kernel module.

      Or, client programs could be designed with their own way of accessing the DRM hardware on the motherboard (or in the processor).

      The main challenge I see with this is that Microsoft may not want to build the kernel module or the DRM media player for linux. The good news is that IBM likely will, or AMD will, or any of the other consortium members.

      Regarding DRMing GPL'ed software, it wouldn't need to be done unless the creators of such software deemed it important (to prevent piracy, license violations, etc). I could very easily see a fork in the license to accomodate this need, should it arise. I doubt it will be necessary any time soon, but you never know.

      DRM does impose some restrictions, but if the infrastructure were large enough and standard enough, then simple digital signatures would be easy to obtain and easy to control. The only control points that are relevent to OSS specifically are derivative works and source code availability, both of which can be handled by the encryption infrastructure and trust network required for other forms of content DRM.

      My point is that DRM (like, in a way, DNS) needs to be a basic part of the internet infrastructure and not only a proprietary license management tool used by Microsoft, etc.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    37. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      That's true, but if they lower the bar then someone else will step in and offer consumers what consumers want, and will make money in the process. Not all businesses are run intelligently, but the good news is that there is always someone else willing to step in.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    38. Re:Why is DRM bad? by whydoyouask · · Score: 1

      That is fine in the hypothetical, but my point is that the artists aren't clamoring for DRM the distributors are. The only time they show any real concern for the rights of artists is when their own bottom line is jeopordized.

    39. Re:Why is DRM bad? by PoesRaven · · Score: 1
      "So you don't differentiate between the concept of DRM'ed material being subject to a EULA defined by the creator? The DRM is just a way of enforcing the EULA, and nothing more. If you purchase the product and violate the EULA, then the courts could be used to enforce the license just as DRM is."

      Armed guards standing over your shoulder, or at least hidden cameras everywhere montitoring your every move would also do a fine job of enforcing the EULA. DRM is simply the digital version of those concepts. Are you fine with the analog? Because if you are then go ahead use DRM -- its about the same.

    40. Re:Why is DRM bad? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      If I value the content enough to put up with the DRM, then I'm fine with it. If not, then I'm not. I will make the decision on a case by case basis.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  22. Not the end of the world, folks... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    To provide system and application engineers the ability to fully utilize the features of the Intel PXA27x processor family, Intel is providing the Intel® Compiler and Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives, as well as optimized board support packages with drivers and power management software. Key OS vendors and ISVs like Sony Music Entertainment* have utilized these tools to create a comprehensive library of applications optimized for the new processors.

    The way I read that, is that this processor has a few commands built into it that help make or validate keys. Notice how the DRM is built into the application and not the OS. The article also says this:

    The Intel 2700G multimedia accelerator delivers DVD-quality video playback on VGA displays and supports a wide range of video formats such as MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and Microsoft* Windows Media Video9.

    I take that to mean that it can do some key-type checking, but again - it's not part of the OS. In fact, the article also says this:

    The phone platform supports full-featured operating systems from companies like Microsoft*, PalmSource*, Symbian* as well as MontaVista* Linux and Java* environments.

    It runs Linux, so...DRM is already optional.

    So, unless there's other documentation somewhere stating otherwise, I don't believe this is true "trusted computing" big-brother-knows-best DRM. I'd guess that the CPU has a few custom instructions that help doing RSA or something like that.

    Weaselmancer

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Not the end of the world, folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRM is optional... for the device developer. If someone sells you a phone based on this chip that's chock-full of DRM goodness, good luck turning the DRM off.

    2. Re:Not the end of the world, folks... by slux · · Score: 1
      So, unless there's other documentation somewhere stating otherwise, I don't believe this is true "trusted computing" big-brother-knows-best DRM. I'd guess that the CPU has a few custom instructions that help doing RSA or something like that.

      DRM has always been supposed to be optional. The catch is that you won't get to any of the media that utilizes it unless you use it and when all your games/applications/movies/music suddenly require it, you can either deal with it and not use them or budge and use DRM.

      MS/TCPA always loudly proclaim how you're going to be able to use GNU/Linux or whatever in non-trusted mode on the next generation DRMed hardware on desktop computers as well.

  23. Security? by archevis · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    ... security features that can enforce copy protection and ...

    So, now they gonna try to sell their sh*t under the excuse of "security" issues?

    Oh, this is just too cute...!

  24. lets all just hope... by chimericalburst · · Score: 0

    that this whole drm thing is about as successful as SCO linux licensing...

  25. Hah!!! Yet another "feature" from Intel by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Funny

    In my office I'm the guerilla marketer. I buy the latest and greatest and most useless tech and hype it up while I swagger around the cubes all day.

    It's done like this:

    "hey Fred, nice laptop!"
    "You betcha Bob!!! This is the latest thing, it has DRM"

    "ohhhh really!?!?" -- looks confused.
    "Really Bob." ...A week later...

    "Gee nice laptop Bob, looks like one of those new DRM models"
    "Yeah, but none of my MP3's work!"
    "But you got more features Bob... and besides, MP3's are illegal."
    "Really???"
    "Really Bob."

    1. Re:Hah!!! Yet another "feature" from Intel by zapp · · Score: 1

      "But you got more features Bob...
      What new features, specifically? Being told what devices I can use to play music is not a feature.

      and besides, MP3's are illegal."

      The MP3 format is not illegal. I own many CDs which I have ripped to MP3 to fit on one CD-R to take to work. I own the license to those CDs, do not share them, and use them at only one place at a time. This is fair use.

      --
      no comment
    2. Re:Hah!!! Yet another "feature" from Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the "feature" that recognises humour.

  26. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Not sure why the parent is modded "troll", it's true. Very soon, your phones and pdas' and quite posibbly most availuble CPUs will have DRM. The secret is, if you are not a thief, you have nothing to worry about. It's all "fun and games" untill YOUR ip is stollen, then you get bent, forgetting about all those mp3s you downloaded. What's the issue here? That you want the right to steal other peoples IP?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  27. naming by name773 · · Score: 0

    they should call the phone version the "Crippler Chip"

  28. What's the point? by HolyCoitus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DRM on a cell phone? Was there a lot of ring tone pirating going on? Were people downloading MP3s and playing them when they received phone calls? Jogging along listening to the tinny phone speaker? Who's market did that effect and what's the point of having DRM on a cell phone?

    I don't even see the point of DRM on a computer besides to kill the market. With music, it's always been easily obtainable. To make it the hardest to get and use on a computer is stupid. People will pick what is easiest for them, and that just happens to Kazaa. Remove the DRM on that crap. Most people won't pay for a crippled song when they can get the same thing for free. Another person will already make the copy, so crippling someone who has no intention of distributing it is DUMB!

    --
    That's scary.
    1. Re:What's the point? by Jason+Zaman · · Score: 1

      i certainly use my P800 as a music player and also have a few trailers on it. this would just stop me from being able to re-encode the trailers so that tehy fit on the tiny screen ... stupid

  29. Re:Only on planet slashdot.. by Adriax · · Score: 1

    Say what you will, just don't come crying back here when they start charging you $0.99 for "ring tone reproduction" every time you recieve a call on your cell phone.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  30. Great, better then the 8-track by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting


    8-tracks were so cool from a sales standpoint because as soon as the players were no longer made, you had to buy a new media player and new media.

    Now that we won't fall for that again... if you buy a spiffy new media player what assurance do you have that it will play your old media, not because it's not compatable but because you only bought the rights to play on your old one.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  31. I am not scared yet by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

    Even if this could detect all copyrighted movies and songs (which I don't think is possible because how can an intel chip know the difference between a dvd movie I ripped and turned into divx and my home movies) I still am not scared. Just think of all the encryption out there that gets broken. The more companies try to restrict something the greater the challenge of breaking it.

    Am I missing something, can someone tell me what to fear (I RTFA)

    1. Re:I am not scared yet by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The trick lies in the fact that since it can't tell the difference between a ripped DiVX and your home movies it will just not play either of them.

      I did not RTFA, per /. protocol, but I speculate that this (if it is really DRM as we have come to understand it) will be how they do it. Unless it is trusted media, and can be verified to be legally playable (licensed) by you it will not play.

      That is the crux of the matter with DRM, especially to me. DRM is fine, but the fact that my own music I produce won't play on such players without the DRM key/watermark (which I assume I'd have to pay for, per client license or a whole lump sum i could never afford...perhaps both) then I am once again ousted from the music industry market. But not because of lack of equipment, lack of songs, or lack of proper know-how to get these things available online...but because I lack the $$$ required to secure my music as 'trusted'...*bam*, RIAA distro monopoly back in business.

  32. Great news! Now I know where to invest! by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

    Time to buy stock in AMD, Via, or any other chip-maker that *doesn't* jump on the bandwagon.

    As long as there's an alternative, people will flock to it... especially when it comes to "locking down choice."

    I'm not making a moral judgement against Intel, just following a pattern seen in recent tech history.

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    1. Re:Great news! Now I know where to invest! by ComradeX13 · · Score: 1

      They're *all* jumping on the bandwagon to some level.

      http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-members.html

    2. Re:Great news! Now I know where to invest! by jthulin · · Score: 1

      Which they? The Wintel camp??? I don't see Apple or Sun on that list.

  33. Re:the lovely drm by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because _I_ decide what i do with the hardware i buy, nobody else.
    Thats why i wont buy a DRM product, because i want control of what i own.
    If someone else wants to retain control over the device, they can keep it

  34. Emulation by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    Im sure those hardware features will end up being emulated by some smart coder.

    1. Re:Emulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't emulate a private key that you don't have.

    2. Re:Emulation by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      but a telented EE could probably get the private key out of said chip

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  35. Well... it's only a phone after all... by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    ... not some kind of HDTV standard for industry gorillas to fight endless dominion wars (and kill the platform in the process). Oh, you say it could have become a platform for a new product market like mp3? Nah, don't be childish... it's just a playground for corporate exec super egos.
    Does it mean that 3g and all that umts is and will remain a dead cow? yes. Does it mean that consumers will carry useless silicon in their pocket like they did with wap cellphones only to use them for what they were designed originally? yes... like, phones you know?

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  36. Will not "prevent hackers from wreaking havoc" by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have that kind of misreporting. The implication in both the article and the press release is that wireless networks (such as cell phone networks) will be more secure because of these untrusting CPUs. But anyone seeking to hack the cell phone network won't work at the cell phone level -- they'll work at the transport portion of the protocol, sending bogus packets straight to base stations. The "secure CPU" won't have anything to do with it.


    One may also entertain serious doubts about the airtightness of the CPU lockout. Other DRM platforms, such as Xbox, haven't exactly stood the test of time.

  37. Re:ubiquitous DRM by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 1

    Vote with your money.
    Dont buy DRM prducts and they will stop selling them.

    If you have some cash, print up some nice stickers that say "WARNING: DRM Enabled Product. This device is a half-assed product" or something, and go stick em all over the products at the store :)
    I've seen this sort of thing done to RIAA CDs somewhere, but i dont remember the URL

  38. It is a law of nature by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    It comes to the cybernetics from the computational theory of math. "Anything which can be done in hardware can be also done in software and vice versa". There is nothing which can prevent emulation of DRM hardware in software. Of course, a legal law coud be enforced to suppress a nature law, but it looks rather silly to me. Human social paradigm is shifting, shame on those who cannot see it.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  39. Beside the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most posts rabbit on about how any DRM scheme can be cracked. For sure, but the majority of users won't know about this and will use the DRM. Even if geeks go around it, I think the majority of the content provider's market share will not be affected.

  40. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intellect is not property. As far as I'm concerned, your claim to MY COPY of some information is invalid, no matter if it's similar to YOUR COPY.

  41. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure why the parent is modded "troll", it's true.

    Most likely the moderator was one of the "idiots" that had been running around saying how DRM would never catch on.

  42. step away from the tin-foil hat... by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 1
    I thought this was supposed to be slashdot...

    Honestly, how long will it take to hack all this new DRM stuff? a month? maybe two? As many others have said, DRM systems dont last long.

    And besides, this is only for cell phones, right? God forbid someone should be unable to listen to a specific ring tone.

    Looking over this, I see little reason for concern. While this technology could be implimented on next to everything, there are millions of ways to circumvent it. The fact is, if you can use it, you can crack it.

    I see DRM as basically a short-term fix for a problem, but one that wont make much of an impact in the long run. The fact is, as long as there are one or two people out there with the skills to crack these things, the rest of us can access this info and pass it on to others. I predict DRM will fizzle out in 5-10 years, tops.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:step away from the tin-foil hat... by Aldric · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tin-foil hats are standard issue for all slashdot readers. Are you new here? ;)

    2. Re:step away from the tin-foil hat... by jthulin · · Score: 1

      What's the point in wearing one unless it's grounded?

  43. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Jake+Diamond · · Score: 1

    The DRM schemes trod all over fair use. The media companies seem perfectly content to completely prohibit copying of media in any format whatsoever. They ignore the fact that not everyone plays their CDs in a CD player (remember the flap about CDs that didn't work in computer CD-ROM drives?) They ignore the fact that people may want to have the files in digital format for transfer to an MP3 player.

    For me, it's not about having the "right to steal other peoples IP", it's about being able to make full use of the media that I've paid for the right to use. And DRM is attempting to take away all choice concerning how media are used.

  44. DRM to Protect "Choose your own Adventure" Books by handmedowns · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently the "Choose your own Adventure" series of books will also be implementing a form of DRM in their E-book series so that readers cannot just read all the way through. They will be forced to go to page 118 if they want to fight the DMCA in court or flip to page 62 if they want to download PlayFair. This, the authors say, was the "intended" use of the works and not to just be carelessly reading in a way that would violate the authors "rights" ..


    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
  45. fuck intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck intel

  46. Linux, Transmeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DRM shit like this is going to make people flock to less restrictive alternatives like linux/transmeta/amd in droves.

  47. Re:Wait just one minute... by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, but the alarm sound is (c) Britney Spears and only your father had the rights to this sound. Your watch is now disabled untill you pay Britney Spears 50c.

  48. BIOS setting, like processer serial numbers? by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

    Hopefully you'll be able to turn it off in the BIOS, like the processor serial number feature that never seemed to catch on. If not, another equally trivial workaround will be developed soon enough.

    1. Re:BIOS setting, like processer serial numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My cell phone doesn't have any BIOS that I've noticed; does yours?

  49. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Fine. Please work for me, and I'll take copies of your work and call it mine. You don't have a problem with that, do you?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  50. Why protect record companies rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I purchase all software I use, because I believe the money I spend on it actually goes towards the artists that create it.

    The case is not the same with record companies. 90% of the money you spend on a CD goes to marketing. Marketing of britney spears.

    I am a musician, and most any musician who has tried to make it knows that you will basicially be screwed on your first 3 albums (ie take huge losses on them) just to be on the shelf (and most often not). Anyone but the top 1% or less of signed artists lose money on the deal, and usually don't even get their CD's in stores. That last 1%, probably .00001% of the music that's out there is the crap that's pushed on MTV. Those guys usually can form their own labels and become the pimp.

    So, when you take the moral high ground about enforcing record companies rights, you should also enforce the right of a pimp on the street to push his ho's, because that's all the record companies are. Pimps. Living off other's talents and taking their proceeds. Destroying hope for those who just want to make a living.

    The sooner they die a slow horrible death, the better. We will all have access to better music cheaper, and won't be subjected to freaking britney spears and boy bands everywhere we go.

    DIE RECORD COMPANIES DIE!

    STEAL MUSIC!

    BOYCOTT INTEL!

    VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

  51. Wreaking Havoc by immel · · Score: 1

    "help prevent hackers from wreaking havoc on wireless networks." "making it next to impossible for hackers to tweak the device and cause trouble." Call me naive, but what kinds of "havoc" and "trouble" are we talking about here? I have heard very little on slashdot or elsewhere concerning trouble caused by people who crack cellphone networks. The article provided no specific examples of such malice. Intel is solving a problem that does not exist (yet?) and at the same time further deteriorating the rights of the end user.

    --

    10 Bits= $.25
    100 Bits= $.50
    110 Bits= $.75
    1000 Bits= 1 byte
  52. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what happens when I want to move my purchased music from one computer to another, because I'm retiring the old computer, or want to listen to it at work? I need to buy a new copy? Sorry, no.

  53. DRM could be a boon for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Hollywood continues to influence hardware in its
    country, perhaps this can make 'off-shore' hardware
    even more popular. Along with 'off-shore' everything
    else. Its very ironic that Joe Sixpack might need
    a Chinese DVD player to actually do what he wants with his machine.

    1. Re:DRM could be a boon for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Joe Sixpack wanted to watch "Escape from Stalag 17", "The Great Escape", "The Guns of Navarone", "Force 10 From Navarone", or "Midway", they will have to buy a DVD player made in the Peoples Republic of China (where the freedom to watch digital content is unrestricted), rather than in the US (where the freedom to watch digital content is restricted)? Ahhh I understand.

  54. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but that's an independent issue, you doofus. Whether I have any right to stop you spreading information I produced (COPYright) is different to you having the right to claim you produced that information (plagiarism).

    COPYright is stalinist control over the dissemination of information dressed up in pretty pseudocapitalist rhetoric.

  55. At this point by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    most people don't know what DRM is. As more folks buy this junk, they will realize the restrictions being put on them, and believe me, they WILL react negatively.(At least, that's the way it is in my fantasy). One of the reasons the laser disc never sold well is because it couldn't record.(Plus 12inch discs aren't too portable, which probably explains why DVD's do sell so well). Anyway, Let's spread the word, and hope for the best.

    --
    What?
  56. oblig. family guy quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    holy crip, that cell phone's a crapple!

  57. Music! by antic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How the fuck did we get to the point where music needs to be "secure content"?

    What happened to kids having jam sessions in their parents' garages?

    What happened to aboriginies hitting sticks against each other?

    Or bands playing gigs in pubs?

    Yes, these are careers and corporations, but just think about then and now. Music for the love of it then, music for the money in it now.

    RIAA/MPAA & friends need to step back and take a look at what they're doing and requesting from hardware, software, and people.

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    1. Re:Music! by cfuse · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did we get to the point where music needs to be "secure content"?

      What happened to kids having jam sessions in their parents' garages?

      What happened to aboriginies hitting sticks against each other?

      Or bands playing gigs in pubs?

      Answer: America

      Solution: China

      Seriously, like asia is going to give a damn about the latest American DRM stupidity.

    2. Re:Music! by antic · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. Nice succinct post too.

      Last time I was in China (been twice for a total of 3-4 months), I got 400 DVDs for about US$0.70 each. Nice, low production costs!

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    3. Re:Music! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck did we get to the point where music needs to be "secure content"?

      What happened to kids having jam sessions in their parents' garages?

      What happened to aboriginies hitting sticks against each other?

      Or bands playing gigs in pubs?

      Yes, these are careers and corporations, but just think about then and now. Music for the love of it then, music for the money in it now.

      RIAA/MPAA & friends need to step back and take a look at what they're doing and requesting from hardware, software, and people.


      The RIAA has not tried to stop kids from jamming in their parents garages, the aborigines have not been sued (yet), and just this weekend I saw a band playing in a pub, so I assume everything's OK there, too. Settle down. The RIAA is not trying to put a stop to all music. While I don't like DRM, I dislike melodrama and karma whoring even more.

  58. This is why... by deathazre · · Score: 1

    I still use my old analog phone. It does exactly what I want it to do-- make calls.

    --
    Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    1. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analog conversations provide great fun for my scanner listening.

    2. Re:This is why... by deathazre · · Score: 1
      which is why I:
      1. don't use it often
      2. don't talk about important things on it
      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
  59. pwned!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And most likely, you are the parent posting as an AC so as to make it appear that you have support for the stance that you suffered an injustice at the hands of a cavalier moderator.

    Please come up with better tactics or go back to Fark.

  60. Each time the phone rings you will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And your wireless service provider will auto-bill you the RIAA's fee each time a call rings on your phone.

  61. First Mobile phones, then your PC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a clever ploy. First you will buy a DRM mobile phone, so you can access the content you want.
    Next, you will need A DRM PC so you can use that content on your computer!

    people don't care about drm on their mobile phones, and people will just want to access their data on their computer - not caring they need DRM to do it. it is THEIR data!

    people buy things that make their data accessible.

  62. In other news... by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

    ...Apple launches iRingTones, allowing downloading of ring tones for 99 cents each, with 5 second previews. Linux users immediately complain about lack of OGG ring tones.

  63. Re:Only on planet slashdot.. by phoneyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rightsholders not only want to exercise their rights, but also forbid you from exercising yours.

    That is the true heart of the problem, and the protest. Personally I've got far more paid-for content than not, and I'm very willing to pay for content as long as I can make full use of it.

    However, I am not going to shell out my cash for content I can only use at home, on a Tuesday, if it's sunny, and I can get my DRM-enabled software to work. Furthermore I'm unwilling to repeatedly pay for content every time the distribution method changes - ie: from tape to CD, from VHS to DVD, etc. I want to be able to make the choice to "upgrade" my media based on the benefits of the media or the media delivery system. There are real benefits to be had by buying my movie collection as DVDs, but I want to be able to make that choice not have that choice forced on me.

    If DRM becomes ubiquitous then you can guarantee that content will be "leased" and not sold. The sale model will be deprecated and all your content will be rented on a schedule dictated purely by the rightsholders.

    DRM means you say goodbye to the general purpose computing machine. It means you say goodbye to home-brew software, homebew hardware, homebrew content creation - all that creative endeavour becomes illegal, or impossible. No more listening to CDs of your friends garage band - they can't afford a key to "sign" their content, and your CD player won't play unsigned content, and the DMCA says you can't hack it so you can.

    Fuck that.

    Pierre

  64. Microsoft, Oracle, IBM etc by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

    Its worth noting that these companies became some of the biggest without DRM at all.

  65. re-read the thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My message that was modded as troll was posted as AC. The guy that noted it was badly moderated was logged in. I can see how that might have been a little confusing for you.

  66. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No prob dude. If you can find other companies that have use for the exact same software I'm currently writing, I'd be hiring you instead:)

  67. Chip ID Scandal by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    The response to that one made it optional.

    Are we too worn out to to do it again, or is everyone trying so hard to be honest (not steal) that they're helping *AA to pretty much lock out new technologies in the service of those who know more about tech than they do (MS).

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  68. It's TCPA by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    The DRM + security features are those of the Group formerly known as the TCPA. TCPA has frequently been discussed on Slashdot.

    From http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/253820.ht m>:

    "The Intel PXA27x processor family incorporates the Intel® Wireless Trusted Platform that is designed to provide platform trust and robust security services required for today's wireless devices. Built around the concepts developed by the Trusted Computing Group* (TCG) industry forum..."

  69. IP Controls today, Content tomrrow by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This would open things up to content control.

    If you have 'unapproved information' on your pc, ( that just happened to be approved the day before ) *poof* it goes up in digital smoke... possibly even notifing the authorities of the transgression of knowledge.

    And in this case, you cant do anything abut it since its at the chip level.

    Sure, *we* may find a way, but the general public will have its core knowledge controlled and restricted.

    Don't count on buying others chips.. they will all follow suit to 'keep up' with markets.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  70. The euphemism is bad, tracking rights is good by expro · · Score: 1

    Real digital rights management would be a useful tool to track the nuances of many rights of all parties and not get into the always-flawed provider-biased enforcement at all. As such, there are many good applications of it.

    But in the industry, it is a euphemism for copy protection, which has never, that I am aware of, been used to accurately manage digital rights, other than the DMCA's argument that whatever right the copy protection condescends to give you is all the right you should ever have.

    1. Re:The euphemism is bad, tracking rights is good by rnd() · · Score: 1

      There will certainly be a few swings of the penudulum before DRM reaches a consistent type of presence in entertainment media. Markets are good at finding the right balance between the occasionally draconian wishes of businesses and what consumers will tolerate. Labor markets are a good example, as is the OSS movement in general.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  71. Re:You Get What You Deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD UP FUNNY!

  72. Hacked by abramul · · Score: 0

    I already have a workaround, it's called a microphone. As long as there are input devices and storage media, no copyright protection can possibly be effective.

    --
    There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
  73. s/PC/PS2/ by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    Spelling mistake.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  74. Geeky reasons why this fails ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geek boycotts tend to fail because you're right, geeks tend to their own flock, and geek boycotts too often stay confined to geek media. Is this because geeks have no ties to the press and no ability to be heard? No. I continue to contend it is because the average geek makes a piss-poor public advocate. Maybe it's a lack of innate ability, and maybe it's just a lack of ability to really get off that Aeron and do something, but time and time again geek advocacy gets all fired up just to run off and bite the big one and slump back down. It is sad that DRM is such a huge public consumer rights issue that only geeks seem to really grasp, as it seems more than likely that geeks will drop the ball on this one as has been done with so many advocacy issues ...

    Or can things change? For the love of all that is holy, please prove my misgivings wrong, but I won't hold my breath for now.

  75. Valuable CPU die space by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    That's right, lets just fill up valuable CPU die space with DRM crap. I would rather have more cache in it's place instead. No...fuck it. I know, lets just have a dedicated DRM co-processor paritioned into the CPU die. Ya...fuck consumers. We need all that CPU speed to make cracking DRM in real-time virtually impossible! Now all we need is some funding from the RIAA....

    Ya, I'm being cynical. But can you really blame me?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  76. Easy Fix by felonious · · Score: 1

    This is the future no matter what the platform be it pda's, phones, pc's, etc. and there's a really simple fix. Buy, if you don't already have, the previous generation's hardware and milk it for all it's worth. I'm sure that'd work for some years until there's a clear winner on the "hacked" side of things.

    --
    You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
  77. DRM is not meant for /.'ers by servognome · · Score: 1

    We all know any DRM technique can be circumvented given enough time and knowledge.
    As long as the DRM doesn't intrude on the perceived functionality most people wont notice or care. If as there is a sufficient library of ringtones, most people won't worry that they can't use non-DRM ringtones they find online Additional features are more a question of timesink vs reward. If average joe can just spend 5 minutes to download a crack program, click a button and DRM is gone he will, but many less will spend time to buy a mod chip on line, disassemble his phone, decipher the diagrams, and hope he doesn't break his $200 phone/CPU/etc.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  78. the name is "XScale" by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PXA-27x is the model number^Wname. The product name is XScale, ie it is an intel XScale CPU, PXA-27x model family, compared to previous models (families) of the XScale CPU such as the PXA-25x and PXA-21x. All of which essentially are revisions of the DEC SA-1100 StrongARM which intel acquired design rights to as part of DEC's sell-out to^W^Wsettlement from intel.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    1. Re:the name is "XScale" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel did produce parts designed by DEC but all of the XScale products are brand new designs, not just revisions of the original StrongARM.

      Of course, the architecture is ARM's, but all the RTL code, circuits and processes are Intel's.

  79. No... by Viceice · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now what it means is that whenever your phone rings, $699 is charged in your phone bill for royalty for public preformance.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  80. More than that: songs don't make decisions by Atario · · Score: 1

    Songs (and all data) don't make decisions about how to allow themselves to be used. All that would have to happen to get around crap like this would be that someone makes a DRM-ignoring player for the data. This might mean cracking some crypto to make the data open, or it could mean cracking an existing player to always allow playing, or it might mean cloning decryption code out of an existing player and embedding it within a DRM-ignoring player framework. (Any of these things could be carried out at software or hardware levels.) At any rate, the people who go along with the DRM program will find themselves penalized for doing so. That's the point where it's all over for the DRM in question. Then someone invents a new brand of DRM and the cycle repeats.

    With any luck, after enough cycles, the DRM pushers will learn.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  81. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Well, it's hard to respond to Anonymous Coward's. I have lots of work for Open SOurce developers. jjb@botteronet.net

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  82. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The secret is, if you are not a thief, you have nothing to worry about.
    Yeah, I'm sure that's what King George III said to the Colonists when he stationed soldiers in their houses in peacetime without their consent. "It's for your own good, and only a criminal would object." Fortunately, the Founders of this country were not sheep.
    It's all "fun and games" untill YOUR ip is stollen, then you get bent, forgetting about all those mp3s you downloaded. What's the issue here? That you want the right to steal other peoples IP?
    Copyright is not a deed, but a temporary incentive grant on something that by nature belongs to the public domain. If the would-be monopoly recipient is going to use DRM and interfere with future public domain use, where's the public's reward for granting copyright?
  83. DRM by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    I am of the opinion that humans are inherently good. This is a pretty important descision when you involve youself with technology. Every technological impprovement improves the capability of people and therefore their ability to do good or evil.

    When you limit what people can do you limit both of these aspects.

    If they implement this choice they remove the right of people to choose. They assume that people have been doing bad things because they are evil not because they have good reasons which we might not understand and you take away any posibility of providing information to "wrongdoers" to correct their ways.

    The entire thought process behind this is very american it is unfortunate that CPU's are almost exclusivly their domain. Let's hope they go about this in a stupid way allowing me to buy several of the last real generation of free processors.

  84. right by Grydon · · Score: 1

    if you ask me i would be more worried about the crime of humanity commited by people singing these songs over the phone then the copyright violation. but who knows maybe little jenny singing britney spears over the phone will cause them to lose millions.

  85. DRM might be good, or it might be bad by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    "This also allows them to keep the vast majority of talented artists out of the distribution channels artificially keeping supply out of balance with demand and inflating their profits"

    I don't think you understand the point of supply-demand optimization. Supply always (for whatever reason) matches demand. If it doesn't, there's a shortage or a surplus (which is bad). Of course, it isn't really possible to have a shortage or a surplus of music for a number of reasons.

    As the price companies charge for music increses, the demand for music decreases. This means that there is an optimum price which will maximize profits. Companies employ doves of employees whose job it is to find the price that maximizes profits.

    So, no they don't artifically inflate anything. If the price they carge is too high, or the selection is not good enough, people simply don't buy the music. It's differnt with essential services where there are limited choices, but in the music business artifical inflation is not possible.

    As for the claim that DRM won't cause prices to rise, maybe yes, maybe no. It's really hard to tell how it will shift the demand curve. It might result in a higher optimum price, or it might result in a lower one. One thing is for certian, it will increase overall demand, and therefore increase their overall profits.

    So the story is basically this:
    DRM might be good for the honest end user, or it might be bad for them, but it's definately good for the music industry.

  86. Unbelieveable misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I just can not believe the amount of BS people said in this forum about PXA270's trusted boot design. My friends at Intel who designed this would be in shock to see so much misinformation floating around. This is what the article says:

    "Also for the first time, Intel has integrated important security features through its Intel Wireless Trusted Platform to provide services such as trusted boot, secure storage of private information and cryptographic keys, and support for common security protocols."


    Trusted boot means that on bootup, the CPU validates the bootup image before transfering execution to it. That's it!! From that point on it is up to this 'trusted' image developed by the OEM to decide what to do. This image, in turn, could decide to validate other images on the system thus cascading the effect. This would allow the OEM to further validate the kernel, read-only file system images (i.e. CRAMFS), and "secure storage of private information."

    The PXA270 processor also provides a cryptographic acceleration engine. This can be used by applications to speed up encription and protocols through a provided library interface.

    This unit also can provide a list of device specific derived keys, derived from a secret private key stored in hardware randonly burned during manufacturing. Using such feature is entirely a design choice.

    So, I think people should first become familiar with the design before casting these crazy comments.
    1. Re:Unbelieveable misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trusted boot means that on bootup, the CPU validates the bootup image before transfering execution to it. That's it!!

      A lot of people are opposed to this, because they don't want any limits on what they can boot. (When it comes to phones this is pretty misguided, but what do you expect on Slashdot?)

      This unit also can provide a list of device specific derived keys, derived from a secret private key stored in hardware randonly burned during manufacturing. Using such feature is entirely a design choice.

      A lot of people are opposed to this, too (e.g. see the EFF paper about the danger of attestation).

  87. DRM puts individual rights at risk. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    The same technology also can be used to ensure that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder. A purchased song, for instance, would not play unless it's sure that it's authorized and running on secure hardware.

    Hmmm... That sounds like a really good deal. But I think I have a better one. How about, I give you the finger, and you let me play the songs that I BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH GOOD MONEY on whichever device I see fit, whether you believe that it's appropriate or not.

    Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a song if you're unable to hear?

  88. a couple of important points... by Bored+Huge+Krill · · Score: 1
    firstly, this is a processor for phones and PDAs, not for PCs. Phones are typically closed platforms in any event, and I can't think of any mid-range phones (leaving aside the full-feature-OS type of phones) that are frequently hacked with your own software.

    Secondly, calling this a "DRM" feature is a bit of a stretch. Whilst it could be used for such a function, what is being provided is a security processor with a locked key store. I don't see anything wrong with that per se. It does have useful applications.

    A particular phone manufacturer might be able to utilize it for "DRM" applications - but that's up to them. Nothing prevents them from installing non-"DRM"ed software should they choose.

    If you are looking at a phone or PDA on which you can load your own software (like a PalmOS phone, say) then this is doubly true. Don't want a DRMed application? No problem. Don't use it, and don't buy the DRMed content. Use some other application.

    While I recognize that some people (myself included) hate the idea of DRMed content, my concern is with the market for content getting monopolized as DRMed only. Application providers are going to write DRM applications with or without hardware crypto support, and most of it will get broken irrespective of hardware crypto support. I don't really see that as an issue.

    Having hardware crypto support, with locked key stores, is still a good thing, in my view. Ignore the stuff about how it's good for DRM. Recognize that it's good for security too.

    just my humble opinion, of course...

    Krill

  89. Now here's the freakin problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "that content such as music or movies is used in a way dictated by the copyright holder"

    The copyright holder has no right to dictate the USE of music or movies. He/she has the right to dictate the COPYING of music or movies.

    Copyright is the right to copy. It is not control of use.

  90. Tamper evident hardware by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's your property

    No, it's the phone company's property until you have fulfilled the 2-year commitment.

    You rip your chip open

    And the tamper-evident chip erases the master key. Ever heard of "Capcom suicide"?

    1. Re:Tamper evident hardware by Alsee · · Score: 1

      it's the phone company's property until you have fulfilled the 2-year commitment

      Or maybe I don't get one of those packages and I simply buy one and buy service.
      Or maybe I do it after the two-year period.
      Or maybe I lose it, intentionaly or by genuine accident, and I pay for it. Oh! I just found it again!

      Yada yada yada. One way or another that argument gets dismissed.

      And the tamper-evident chip erases the master key.

      Yes, I am acutely aware of that. Actually you mean tamper-resistant. A tamper-evident chip would not a problem, I don't care that I can see that the seal on my property is broken.

      So, back to tamper-resistant chips. Tamper-resistant is not tamper-proof. It may take several tries to figure out how to read one without wiping the data, but eventual success is inevitable. Once you figure out how to read one chip you have figured out how to read all of them. Then you can go into business extracting people's keys for them.

      We come right back to the foundation of my argument - it's your property. You have every right to open it. You have every right to read your own key.

      They can make it inconvient. They can make you spend money to accomplish it. But they simply CAN'T stop you from doing it anyway. They may as well give you that key in the first place. You still get all of the security benefits, you just lose the DRM abuses.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  91. The DRM-free competition by tepples · · Score: 1

    when all your games/applications/movies/music suddenly require it, you can either deal with it and not use them or budge and use DRM.

    Then you've made a wrong decision in the first place to rely only on games, applications, movies and music that require digital restrictions management. There exist Free 2D games (and a few Free 3D games), loads of Free apps (except in those niches that are cluttered with patents, such as color print work), no-cost Flash movies, and quite a bit of no-cost music on irate. As long as PC companies continue to sell PCs and not Xbox consoles, it remains straightforward to stay in the Free World.

  92. Patents by tepples · · Score: 1

    The MP3 format is not illegal. I own many CDs which I have ripped to MP3

    Which encoder did you use? The MP3 format itself is not illegal, but using LAME binaries is illegal in jurisdictions where Fraunhofer holds patents on audio coding.

  93. Re:ubiquitous DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa there butt head! No one is a thief just because they want freedom. Telling people what they have to listen to, and restricting them from listening/watching/saying something that isn't "approved" is stupid. My forefathers faught wars against people who tried this kind of crap. Calling someone a thief, implying they are a thief and restricting their rights "IN ADVANCE" because they might be a thief is what they do in prisons and countries where civil liberties are only a distant dream. If you want to live in a prison, find one, call the warden a jerk and hit him with a shovel. I'm sure they will accomodate you and your choice. I prefer freedom. DRM isn't freedom. DRM is someone telling me that I have to pay for one of five ring tones, none of which I like, but which I must have for my phone to ring. It's garbage.

  94. addendum: Re:I am not scared yet by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

    But, yes, it will be cracked sooner or later (my bet's are on 'sooner').

    That still doesn't relieve my gripes with the system. The mythical 'Joe Sixpack' isn't going to crack his phone, thus the very same 'Joe Sixpack' will not be able to play my 'untrusted' music.

  95. Re:More than that: songs don't make decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point is that the player can't read the song in a playable format unless the device its running on is authorised to read it.

  96. We need to do something about it!! by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to give up most of my Linux development activities for organizing a TCPA/DRM information website which will: - inform about current DRM activities - list DRM'd hardware and non-DRM hardware (buyers' recommendation) - properly organize 24/7 demonstrations in larger cities against DRM, e.g. in front of electronics chains selling DRM hardware, ... (would need a large database sorted by region, city, user registration, time frame, ...) I simply cannot bear the increasing flood of DRM activated hardware announcements. Preventing wide-spread DRM adoption is MUCH more important than working on a tiny negligible piece of Linux software. If the HW/SW vendors are able to push their stuff through, there probably won't be any Linux or other free "non-certified" software running any more anyway... If YOU want to truly help me in this effort, then please let me know so that we can coordinate something! Thanks!

  97. Could anyone please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    comment on the technical principles behind this copy protection technique.

  98. Bypass DRM by hashwolf · · Score: 0

    Whatever DRM is used for media one can always bypass it.
    Always.

    The use of media is to be seen/heared etc., with this fact in mind let's take music as an example; one can play a 'DRMed' music file, loopback the audio output to the audio input and record. Lo and behold, the resultant recorded music has no DRM protection! A similar setup can be used for video.

    Of course the resultant quality depends on the quality of the transducers used. But with most commonly available equipment the quality is very acceptable.

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."
  99. Why is DRM a problem? by peterkmoch · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the copyright holders of the song deciding how you listen to it, why don't you just not buy the song? Particularly since the next argument tends to be "the kind of music that these people produce is horrible". So why is it a problem if horrible music is DRM'ed?

  100. pardon my ignorance.. by this+takes+too+long · · Score: 0

    As I understand it the FILE(music whatever) wont play on a system that is not authorised to play that file. But how does the file know what system is authorised play it? How does the file sepperate one system from the other? As i have understand it its because of your personal code installed in your CPU, right? Does the file know your personal code before you start it, so that if there is a mismatch it doesnt start? If that is true cant you just make the file think you have the right code? I mean since its sofware that regultes the communication between the file and the chip, since the file itself is software, one should be able to alter the way the file percives the system. Am i right, or am i way off here?

  101. DRM stands and falls on tech-support by trezor · · Score: 1

    I can't believe this isn't moded up. If they, the content industry, want (and they do) total and bulletproof security, any handling of the encryption keys will be pretty restrictive as well.

    And I can't remember anyone I know (none business-wise) ever backing up their system. Guess if DRM hits on, there will be a consumer backlash against it when these problems starts to arise.

    Unless tech support geeks, as some of us, just go along with the old "Jeez. You haven't done that?!? No wonder you lost your data/media, your fault. Go away." and by those means make it a user-problem instead of a technology problem.

    Which in the end is what it really is. It is probihitive-technology. It is in it's very nature and purpose a disabling technology.

    But yeah. I can see that tech-support bummer legitimising DRM. It can happen just easily...

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  102. DRM loses by shish · · Score: 1

    As far as I can see, if I can get $media to come out of my $output_device, then I can just get a cable to pipe my $output_device into my $recording_device, correct?

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  103. No Nero...then why not... by thetorpedodog · · Score: 1

    I'm really surprised that Alcohol 120% isn't on the blacklist!

    I'd say...just rip out your CD-RW / DVD (re)writer and then copy to ISO w/ A-120, then burn that!

    There's always a loophole!

    --
    This sig is certified free of self-referential humour!
    1. Re:No Nero...then why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm really surprised that Alcohol 120% isn't on the blacklist!

      it is - it's virtual CD drive software

  104. DRM != Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the interests of full disclosure, I work for Intel.

    And Intel has consistently fought against DRM & related technologies. They aren't in Intels interest, because they stifle the industry & cost Intel money to implement, which cuts margins. Thats the same for every producer, Intel, AMD, whoever !

    So if you want to pi$$ & moan, talk to your Congress critter, cause they're the one's who are writing the laws that are forcing manufacturers to implement this in devices !!!!

  105. AMD will have to meet minimal standards by PhilTR · · Score: 1

    Look for Congress to mandate that *all* hardware meet minimal standards, i.e. support DRM et. al. The gate is slowly closing and you'll soon be daid.