Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
rms on the subject if someone hasn't read that yet.
They are right about DRM, by limiting the amount of time a user can view the file, they are just increasing demand for a cracked one.
If you had downloaded something, and it had DRM on it limiting the number of times you could view it or how long it could be viewed - it would just be a hassle, and would cause most people to either go looking or just wait for a unlocked version of it.
Business Voyeur
Okay, so I've asked this before... I'll ask again... (refer to my previous post... )
I had hoped for definitive answers to these questions, but if you'll re-read some of the responses to my post, while thoughtful, they were divergent and inconsistent among themselves. Again I am concerned what the "trusted computing" platform truly means... mostly because it appears to me it is mostly negative for the linux community.
A scenario played out last summer for me with... a local Mom and Pop grocery store kept EVERYTHING on their Windows XP PC, and one day it went toes-up. They were understandably distraught -- all of their business spreadsheets and wedding pictures (over 1G) were on the hard drive and they couldn't get to them. They were prepping the machine to be sent in to be re-imaged. I asked them if they knew that meant they were likely to lose their data. She was almost in tears. I went home, got my Knoppix CD, and with their permission, played... and, recovered ALL of their data and burned it redundantly to CD's.
So I ask, if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to? I'd hate to think this is one (of many) of the things we lose in this "better" world. Help!
(I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this, but maybe it's like boiling frogs in water... by the time we realize what's happening it's too late?)
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...
liqbase
...the BBC is publicly funded and so doesn't need to make a profit. They don't care if people go and download their stuff (in fact, they're soon going to be offering their archives online) because they don't have advertising revenue to lose and have already made their money from everyone in the UK with a TV who pays £120/year to them. I'm sure that a commercial company that actually had to turn a profit would be singing a different tune.
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.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing
Bill Thompson is the Beebs geeky, slashdotty type technology editor. His articles are not representitive of BBC corporate policy, as the headline seems to imply.
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.
It is an interesting twist of fate, though, that a significant fraction of the BBC Enterprise's income come from Black and White footage that the BBC Archives destroyed in the 1970s, but was later recovered by enthusiasts, media history fanatics, broadcasters with a sense of history, etc.
Had DRM existed in the 1960s, virtually everything prior to 1970 would have been lost forever. This would have included virtually all the Doctor Who stories, the BBC coverage of the moon landings, and many other recordings now regarded as historic and of extreme interest.
Fans of The Avengers would also have lost out, as many Catherine Gale episodes were recovered from a landfill site, as were the two known surviving episodes from the first season with Dr. Keel.
No, television today would be poorer, had they had DRM back then. The BBC would appear to have learned the hard way, but nonetheless have learned that copyright cuts both ways. It hurts EVERYONE and not just those supposedly targetted.
Orrin Hatch and American broadcasters have never really experienced the devastating losses that can result from a single bad decision. (Well, at least, not in broadcasting. The US has suffered many losses due to bad decisions in other areas of life.) Their refusal to recognise the lessons demonstrated so clearly by others is frightening. Faulty policies, through ignorance, can be excused. But there is no ignorance here. They know perfectly well what others have experienced, and either through arrogance or contempt, do not make any effort to avoid repeating those experiences here in the US.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hardware security is still only as good as the software that is, ultimately, in charge of it. For the bulk of TC users that will mean Windows, and that will get be exploited as it always has been. Face it: Microsoft is looking for a hardware hack to take care of all the software hacks that are their flagship operating system. They want this for two reasons. A. to assuage all the complaints about operating system security and b. to ingratiate themselves with the media moguls. And yes, I'm sure that Trusted Computing will help make our systems less exploitable, for a time and to a certain degree. But the loss of control of our machines that the black hats will suffer will be nothing compared to what we lose if we accept this poor tradeoff. It wouldn't even be an issue, really, if those promoting Trusted Computing were subject to free market forces. They aren't though. The power of the Federal Government has been conscripted to shove it down our throats. Oh, I know ... Trusted Computing hasn't been mandated (yet.) But DRM has, and Trusted Computing is little more than an extension of that, from a conceptual standpoint. In this connected world, somebody always wants to own your machine ... it's a toss-up, in my mind, whether we're better off with the MPAA, the Office of Homeland Security, or some Bulgarian hacker. They all want a piece of us and don't much care how they get it.
... hell, whether we can even continue to maintain a high-technology civilization and a standard of living that even approximates what we've enjoyed in the past. These are actually very important things that should concern all of us. But sometimes I feel like I'm spittin' into the wind.
What disturbs me is how easily people buy into the sound bites they're being fed every day. "Why, how can open source possibly be secure if everyone can see how it works?" "I think Trusted Computing sounds great! How else can we stop all the piracy?" And so forth. The larger issues for Americans are about Constitutionality, how far our government's authority should extend, how far foreign oligopolies can influence U.S. government and private-sector technological development
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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!