Slashdot Mirror
Flash Memory with Copy Protection
Castar writes "Mercury News is reporting that SanDisk has created a new type of flash memory with copy-protection logic built in. From the article: "Today, much of a consumer's digital content is held hostage on a particular kind of device, such as an iPod or a PC, because that is the only way to prevent massive piracy. But with the SanDisk flash memory card, a consumer can move the digital content to another device. If the music company insists the data can only be copied five times, the memory card itself enforces that policy in the new device, be it a cell phone or music player." Rejoice that your data can be "liberated" from the confines of your PC or iPod!"
Presumably, future card-readers such as MP3 players and PDA's can only play certain types of content from such protected flash cards. So essentially this is not a standard flash card at all, just a completely new type of card with the same form factor as far as the consumer is concerned.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The way easy, low-cost hackability and freedom is disappearing fast.
It the old days, processors with DRM, on board boot flash and encryption didn't exist, because it would have cost too much, the theory wasn't known and it wasn't so obvious that schmucks would pay so much for fucking ringtones.
In the last decade, it has become clear that:
* hardware encryption is key
* schmucks (by the millions) will pay for ringtones
* downloading music is the future
* encryption works -- you can build a good cryptosystem for DRM
* hacker-types are the small, small minority of computer users (as opposed to 1977 -- when they helped make Apple the DRM-king that it is today)
So why would a businessman cut off 99% of the market, just to please a bunch of fat, bearded GNU/Linux fans, or a bunch of old, crabby BSD guys? Billions want their ringtones and pop tunes -- what do they know from freedom anyway? What is freedom, when you live in China/Africa/India and are bascially poor as dirty anyway?
More and more the question is just -- "why not" load it with DRM. The hacker types can either A) use other hardware or B) have a reduced-content experience.
Which makes me think hackers have had it pretty "easy" all along.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
They just don't realise that a mere recording from line-out to line-in in any half-decent sound card will sound as good as the original to 99.% of the users. So they should try and prevent that as well.
They understand that perfectly well. They also understand that sound cards and speakers can be chipped to refuse to reproduce the sound of a file that does not have a valid license code. See DVD players. See the current issue of the broadcast flag.
They're working on chips for your ears and brain. I think they're just going to duct tape mittens on your hands and a super ball in your mouth. Don't even think about nose flute, if you know what's good for you. You won't like the solution with mittens on your hands and that super ball already in your mouth.
KFG
This is how it liberates the 'standard' user from music being stuck on their iPod. Most consumers (and trust me the slashdot community IS NOT most consumers) have no idea how to remove DRM from their iTunes purchases or know how to get the songs on their iPod back off.
That's all well-and-good, but does it accomplish the stated objective of detering massive piracy? I submit it does not. As you imply, the people who *can* circumvent the DRM (and there will always be circumvention) will initiate the on-line propagation, and these "regular" citizens of whom you speak will download and continue to further "piracy."
In that case, they are merely providing another inconvenience for the "average" citizen, while not stopping, or even slowing, the massive "piracy" they are constantly whinging on about. As the average citizen can now download the songs they want (and *only* the songs they want, rather than a whole crappy album for a single good song), what is the benefit to the average citizen? What does it gain us, as society? Anything? Anything at all?
It is disingenuous to claim they are doing this to combat piracy. If anything, they are doing it to regain control of the distribution channel, and in the process to further their control over what a citizen can do with the music they lawfully purchased, essentially circumventing the doctrines of fair use and first-sale, two bugaboos of the music industry.
This is a blatant attempt to shore up the industry's control, and nothing more.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
discovers that they can't do the simple and obvious things that they had come to expect that they could do with it; like backing it up
Would you please stop using this example?
Most people don't make backups. It's a fact of life, and it's well known. That means every time you break out the "backups argument" it's automatically parsed into the piracy argument by practically everybody. From the point you mention backups on, you've lost all credibility with everbody except for the people who already agree with you.
When you're talking about music, talk about using it in your car. Talk about mix CDs. Talk about the iPod... Don't talk about backups!
When you're talking about images or video, talk about watching them in the car. Talk about watching them on your computer. Talk about getting a print made at the local photo shop. Talk about sharing home video made on your camcorder with the family. Don't use the word backups!