BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"

Comments

Re:Article buys industry lies

[LiquidCoooled]

Digital rights management is about controlling the data on your machine and deciding who has the rights to run it.

That data can be images, movies, mp3s or executable code...

Re:Trusted System

[yagu]

..., most of us, most of the time, will pay a reasonable amount for good quality material , ...

Absolutely... as a matter of fact I think it's more than most, it's close to ALL. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while some take to the challenge of stealing... most don't. So, while some in the past would make illegal copies and share "illegally" (downloading, etc.), the record companies' response by tightening the screws eventually I think will have an unintended effect. At some point the extra onus on the customer to "unlock", and jump through all of the drm hoops just to use something they already paid for and thought they were just going to sit down and enjoy will push them to their path of least resistance... e.g., not bother with buying cd's anymore, not bother with dvd's anymore, not bother with iTunes anymore...

Instead they'll just use the radio, go to the movie theater, whatever. What a wasted amount of time and effort to "trust" we the consumers.

BBC

[Lord_Dweomer]

As an American, I'd like to express my gratitude to the BBC for being one of the most, if not THE most outstanding media organization in the world.

I know they have their faults, but when they need to come through, they really come through, especially on matters of public interest.

I for one welcome our new BBC Overlords, in hopes that they will be a big ally in our struggle to further media distribution on the net.

Re:BBC

[Spodlink05]

I for one hate the extreme liberal bias exerted by the BBC. It's laughable that anyone could think otherwise.

Here in the UK everyone complains that the Beeb are biased - the conservatives, the liberals, the government. They must be doing something right.

+1 Informative

[Sanity]

This is a very important point, lest anyone in the UK be lulled into a false sense of security as to their vulnerability to this kind of thing.

If anything Europeans need to fight harder against this stuff because often those arguing against it are arrogant Americans whose argument is often "we do it in the US, therefore you must too". The irony often is that they have a harder time pushing it in the US than elsewhere.

I had a recent experience of this type of thing in teh debate over software patents in the EU.

"trusted computing"? Framing issue

[MikeCapone]

Lets not use the language of the opposition.

By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".

George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...

Re:re-asking the question

[lakeland]

Since we don't have trusted computing implemented yet, it is hard to say definitively. Given current chips, it is possible for the answer to be yes, and also possible for the answer to be no. Therefore in answering your question I am second-guessing how microsoft will set the defaults rather than what the chip can do.

My guess as to the most likely scenario is that you will be able to boot knoppix. I just cannot imagine the amount of pressure the linux community brings to bear if this happens. The TC chip will however PROBABLY not permit knoppix to unlock the hard drive. So at this point you're kinda stuck. It is likely you'll get low-level access to the disk, but dumping encrypted data isn't of much use.

It is possible the TC chip will trust knoppix once the user enters their password, in which case your recovery would go just fine. It is also possible there is a back door and if you send the encrypted partition to the NSA they will unlock it for you, though I doubt they'll offer the service even if it is possible.

One simple criterion for what is trustable

[file-exists-p]

If the device includes a private key known by the manufacturer and not known by the customer, the device is trustable by the manufacturer and not anymore by the customer.

There are no user-friendly feature which requires such a key, and there are no way to take your right away without such a key.

--
Go Debian!

Freeloaders

[bonch]

Unfortunately--at least on /., anyway--the loud opinions of those "freeloaders" usually makes rational discussion of copyrights, intellectual property, and DRM meaningless. You can't get past the "RIAA IS EVIL AND I AM A FREEDOM FIGHTER" mindset. I think we'll start seeing some real progress and some valid compromises made by both sides if we can get past the reactionary attitudes that really only exist to shift blame away from downloaders and onto some faceless corporate entity, because demonization is easier than acknowledgement of one's own guilt.

The truth is that the portrayal of both sides is usually wrong. Most companies aren't big, evil, cigar-smoking Republicans sitting in dark rooms plotting economic takeovers to maintain their monopolies. They're just companies trying to protect their media content because of the explosion of piracy. And pirates aren't freedom fighters riding the wave of a big cultural movement. Most are just freeloaders looking to get stuff without having to pay for it (it's basic human nature).

So far, iTunes has been a big success, so apparently a lot of consumers have no problem with DRM and online legal music-downloading. So to be quite honest, I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes. Legal online music is already here, which makes the argument for piracy appear even more self-serving.

Re:Freeloaders

[Doctor_Jest]

DRM is a technological solution to a social problem. It's been said many times before, but it's still true.

The problem with the Big labels' acceptance of the "new" business model like Napster (subscription) is that if they could, they'd rent you content and charge per use. A "pay-per-view" society is the content providers' wet dream. A funnel of money coming from your wallet and going to their bank account each time you turn on your TV, read a newspaper, or get on the internet.

Don't think that's what they want? DiVX was a piss-poor version of what they REALLY are after. You not having a physical copy of anything, and they controlling both ends of the pipe.

Can't do it? No, not yet they can't. But Trusted Computing and the legislation to back up their lockdown (DMCA anyone?), and they, not you, are in control. Each step is making it harder and harder for people to exert their rights over the rights of content owners, not the producers, the OWNERS. The biggest cry is from those who create NOTHING. They just OWN it. Who are the REAL freeloaders in this debate?

Explosion of piracy? You sound like a PR statement from the RIAA front desk. They are making billions. Still raking it in.. and by the way, increasing sales, in the face of "the explosion of piracy." How can they explain this? Well, they'd be making TRILLIONS if it weren't for those bastard college students. In other words, they don't. Don't look at how much we are making. Look at how much we claim to be losing. (That's another debate entirely.)

Every technological advancement has been met with the same brand of resistance and sometimes even from the same people (MPAA and VCR, anyone?) Every time the content providers adapt and innovate, they tap into yet another stream of revenue. Every time they stifle, legislate, sue, and whine, they disappear. It's called progress. Get on the train, or be left at the station. Sad thing is, the current content providers want to obliterate the train and the station.

They won't innovate anymore. Now their course it to control. I am not a freeloader, but I am also not going to give up any control. The things these people are trying to control are worthless pieces of entertainment that are not essential to your or my daily life. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the importance of this whole debate will return to the level it should. These providers aren't making anything we can't live without.

I for one would rather do without than to live under someone else's control. Nothing they have is worth losing your freedom over. Nothing.

law??

[Fuzzums]

i didn't know it was the duty of software writers to enforce the law.

let's look at cars. speeding is prohibited. should cardesigners make it impossible to speed?

you're not allowed to kill. should bullet makers make bullets that don't kill?

then why....

The customer is not the only concern these days

[sevinkey]

Most of the major content producers I have talked to about DRM services want to get their content out there to customers for reasonable prices and fair levels of control, the problem is that these major studios are for the most part middlemen.

The reason they require DRM for their online services is the spaghetti of contracts the entertainment industry has built up for themselves of the past several decades. For example if one studio released an album online unprotected, and the artists who created the content can demonstrate that piracy caused a loss in revinue, the content provider can be held legally liable for that loss.

As long as these studios took reasonable steps to prevent this piracy from occuring, their collective asses are covered, even if the DRM scheme used is cracked down the road.

I know why...

[mangu]

I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes.

Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.

I would gladly pay for online music if the price was in the same order of magnitude as the cost the distributors have. But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.

The "business model" is still obsolete, it's done in the same way John D. Rockefeller used to do business. It's a cartel (or a "trust", as it was called in the late 19th century) that fixes prices and imposes artificial barriers to competition. Things like the broadcast bit and closed binary formats have the same use as the different train gauges the "robber barons" of the 19th century used to push independent railroads out of business.

No, the media cartel uses unethical business methods, and should be broken up. No new legislation is needed, any honest government could get rid of the ??AA using the same laws that were used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, what you call "piracy" I call "freedom fighting". Happy Boston Tea Party!

Re:re-asking the question

[Alsee]

Trusted Computing is more insidious than you realize. The problem is that it will spread because it does *not* have the problems you think it has.

A Trusted computer can do anything a normal computer can do. A Trusted computer is a normal computer *plus* an extra handcuff mode. Outside handcuff mode it is a normal computer that can do anything you can do now. It's like a computer with speakers, when you turn the speakers off it's just as good as a normal speakerless computer.

It is such a threat becuase there is never any reason *not* to have a Trusted computer.

Not upgrading your computer will not help you. There is no need to outlaw normal computers because normal coupters aren't a threat to them, because normal computers will be increasingly useless. Trusted Computing it about new software that cannot be installed except in handcuff mode. New software that that can only be run in hancdcuff mode. It is about new media files and e-mail and WEBSITES that can only be seen in handcuff mode. And in a few years you may only be able to get an internet connection while in handcuff mode.

Yes all of the new stuff is crippled crap when you're in handcuff mode, but none of the new stuff will work at all outside handcuff mode, will not work on a normal computer. You're prefectly free to keep your old computer, you're perfectly free to manufacture and buy normal computers, but you'll get nothing but error messages from half the websites on the internet. You won't be able to read the e-mail your mother or your boss sent you. And your mother and your boss are going to blame you for not being able to read their mail, blame you for having a compatible computer, blame you for having an old obsolete computer.

The strategy is so insideous because there is no reason *not* to have a Trusted computer, and about making people increasingly suffer if they do not "upgrade" to a Trusted system.

-