Slashdot Mirror
Install Copyright Filters on PCs, Says RIAA Boss
Don't squeeze the Sherman writes "At a conference last week, RIAA president Cary Sherman said he didn't support mandatory filtering by ISPs, but in a video clip posted by Public Knowledge, Sherman offers a far more troubling 'solution': installing filters on users' PCs. From Ars Technica's coverage: 'The issue of encryption "would have to be faced," Sherman admitted after talking about the wonders of filtering. "One could have a filter on the end user's computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from encryption because if you want to hear [the music], you would need to decrypt it, and at that point the filter would work."'"
"Or maybe someone'd come out with an open-source CPU--by the time that they'd be able to implement such a thing, those desktop fabrication plants would probably be capable of wrangling silicon."
http://www.news.com/Sun-makes-Niagara-an-open-source-chip/2100-1006_3-5984935.html
UltraSparc T1.
Furthermore, one of the partners in Sony BMG makes the PLAYSTATION 3 video game console that is designed to run GNU/Linux.
This boils down to tagging. A file would have to be tagged in some way that is has a copyright. It would also need to know who DOES have the right to listen and distribute. Don't forget that every work not 95 years old is out of copyright in the US and can be freely shared, copied, traded, etc. Also, there is the possibility that people may have been given the right to share, copy, trade, etc a piece of music that has a current copyright.
I'm just not sure how any filter could determine all of the characteristics without some sort of tagging. Following that logic, all that would need to be done to circumvent the DRM would be to remove/modify such a tag. DRM like this is easy to defeat and has been done.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
As IBM says themselves in their paper Clarifying Misinformation on TCPA :
The terms copy protection and DRM do not appear anywhere on www.trustedpc.org. They were not the main business objectives, and the resultant chip is not particularly suited to DRM, being poorly defended against owner tampering. The main goals are to secure the user's private keys and encrypted data against external software attack.They have more reasons in that paper why their chip won't work with DRM.
c++;
http://www.opencores.org/
You don't even need to fabricate them yourself, an FPGA is all you need.
http://www.mhall119.com
I'm not so sure about that second part. Millions of regular consumers download DRMed music from iTunes and the like everyday and don't seem to mind. Perhaps they don't like it, but their dislike is disproportionate to their love of media. Back when MS put DRM into WMP as the default rip/encode method for wma's... I can't tell you how many people I knew that had no idea, and really didn't care. So they filled their My Music folders with tons of locked down music (and sucky quality at that). If consumers don't like the idea of DRM, it certainly doesn't show in their usage patterns.
--- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
I'm sure this response is related to M$ Vista. Has everyone forgotten about all the DRM associated dross associated with M$ flagship product?
... but is essentially correct!
I guess that very few people realize much of the Vista kernel is devoted to something very much related to not correctly playing "content" if the "chain" of protection is not complete. (IE: the HI-RES monitor connected to the machine has no (or revoked) keys.)
To do this, M$ encrypt the video data BEFORE sending it to the video card on a potentially hostile databus. (Thus inhibiting spying on that digital data by third party hardware connected to the video cards databus.) Part of the full Vista "experience" requires a video card that has hardware decryption of incoming video data as an integral part of the devices operation. To this end, M$ has essentially forced the vendors of Graphics hardware to add hardware decryption to their hardware, although (apart from Vista), it adds nothing to genuinely speeding up any graphics operations. This may also explain why ATI & NVIDIA seem so reluctant to release full details of their latest hardware. (Thus annoying the crap out of those with Linux, etc). Also goes a long way to explaining why Vista is so much slower than XP.
NB: above explanation is a simplification
So, the RIAA/MPAA have already convinced (or coerced?) the major players at least part way down the road to full lock down. Next, it will be Apple, and then all they need to do is outlaw rogue operating systems like linux/bsd, etc.
Read up on SoundExchange.
The RIAA, through SoundExchange, collects a toll on every song played on internet radio. But get this - they collect for music from bands who aren't RIAA members! They collect for every song, no matter what. Because nobody would ever play a song for free. And they hold that money until you come to claim it (you have to join SoundExchange to claim it, btw).
And if you don't ever claim it, they keep it.
Fucking unreal or what?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I can do one better. I had a friend that was convinced I was pirating DirectTV because I had a ReplayTV. After all it ended in TV and let me watch shows that it got from a DirectTV box. Now this was right after the ReplayTV was released, so it was the first DVR he had heard of, but still...
I think it's apparent that it's only their complete ignorance of how technology works - it is more fundamental than that. They have no idea how anything works.
It's as if they see the world as a magic place where everything happens on a 2-dimensional screen, where people are really just cardboard cut-outs with no real depth at all. The ideas of cause an effect are not really universal or understandable. They can't understand those ideas thus the cardboard cut-out figures on the other side of the money trail (those who are supposed to pay for whatever passes as a service) can't understand them either.
In that world there is no reason to spend time thinking through an idea, ideas must be all presented as pictures, never as abstract notions and anything that takes longer than 15 seconds to understand is discarded as too complex and basically irrelevant.
The problem is that these people are the mirror images of their own ideas about the rest of the world. They are the 2-dimensional cardboard cut-out figures with less then 64KB of volatile memory and an undeveloped inference engine. There is no need to have a technical background to be able to think your way through a problem as abstract as a working DRM scheme to understand that there is no solution that cannot be broken. Even if DRM was working, it only would take one single non-DRMed copy to make all DRM protected copies irrelevant.
I am not even against DRM, I think it could be a neat tool to force certain restrictions on treatment of data if the originator desired to do so. But in case where everyone prefers the non-DRMed version of a particular piece of data, if anyone at all has that piece, then this is the piece that will be propagated to everyone who desires to have it.
You can't handle the truth.
Here's what he meant to say: Most of the ISPs threw us out of their office but Microsoft thinks a filter on every computer is a great idea.
Just a nit... Professionals use nothing approaching betamax. They use Betacam SP and Digital Betacam; the electronics and recorded format are different, Betacam is a component format compared to Betamax's composite format, the tape speeds are different, etc. Really the only things the two formats share is the physical format of the cassette box, and the word "Beta" somewhere in the name.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Microsoft changed a lot of stuff in the Vista kernel for DRM. Things like process spawning have become trickier. Take this blurb from MSDN:
"Protected Processes
Windows Vista introduces protected processes to enhance support for Digital Rights Management. The system restricts access to protected processes and the threads of protected processes.
The following standard access rights are not allowed from a process to a protected process:
DELETE
READ_CONTROL
WRITE_DAC
WRITE_OWNER
The following specific access rights are not allowed from a process to a protected process:
PROCESS_ALL_ACCESS
PROCESS_CREATE_PROCESS
PROCESS_CREATE_THREAD
PROCESS_DUP_HANDLE
PROCESS_QUERY_INFORMATION
PROCESS_SET_INFORMATION
PROCESS_SET_QUOTA
PROCESS_VM_OPERATION
PROCESS_VM_READ
PROCESS_VM_WRITE"
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Intel and AMD will never comply to putting DRM at the processor level
Sadly you have it pretty much backwards. Intel has been WANTING to do exactly that, at least since 1999. I dunno how you got +5 Insightful, I thought pretty much all the regulars here knew it was old news Intel to Build DRM into Next-Generation CPUs. The only good thing is that it keeps getting pushed back to "Next-Generation" CPUs. Intel has already shipped DRM-enabled CPUs:
Intel Pentium D series comes DRM-enabled and will, at least in theory, allow copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard rather than through the operating system as is currently the case. This issue was "quitely" passed by Intel but it is possibly the most important feature of the new chipset. Intel steered clear of mentioning the new DRM technology.
Intel officialls have not yet given technical details of how embedded DRM would work saying it was not in the interests of his company to spell out how the technology in the interests of security.
Remember the PentiumII CPU Serial Number fiasco from 1999? That was actually intended as the first step in their roadmap at the time to roll out CPU DRM. They intended add features peicemeal, building it up. They didn't anticipate the backlash to CPU serial numbers. So then Intel go together with Microsoft and IBM and a host of other majors in the computer industry to create the Trusted Computing Group to build an "Industry Standard" compete DRM system on a chip to shove into computers in one fell swoop, with an entire public relations campaign to fight down any backlash, and an entire industry deployment pretty much meaning you would get STUCK buying one in ANY new computer. Don't like it? Tough luck, they intend all new PC's to include at as standard hardware. And then of course later to move it into the CPU. Windows Vista was supposed to make this DRM chip mandatory, but.... well Vista was a fiasco and everything got delayed and stripped out, including the new DRM hardware support. Last I heard Microsoft still intends to make it mandatory in a future release.
Intel's MultiMedia initiative - Viiv - was one gigantic hardware DRM system. Happily that particular project fell flat on its face and has been abandoned.
Intel has a major hard-on for DRM hardware.
And don't expect AMD be some knight in shining armor rushing to the rescue. AMD has been relatively quiet on the subject, but they too built CPU support for it. I don't know if AMD actively want it, but they aren't against it and they sure as hell don't want to get left behind without support for it if/when the Intel puts DRM in all their main-line processors. There's no way AMD could survive if the Latest Greatest release of Windows only ran on Intel CPUS. So yeah, AMD is doing all the work they need to do going along with it.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.