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."'"

Comments

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Captain Splendid]

How the hell did these clueless fucks get so much power?

Oh yeah. Lobbying. God bless free speech!

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[dreamchaser]

You laugh, and while I agree he is an idiot, if they built DRM into CPU microcode we're fucked. They are already laying the foundations with crap like TPM and the like.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[GregPK]

Then, no one will buy a new CPU. Intel and AMD aren't stupid. they know the consumer will run if they add this crap to thier products.

Personally, I might buy a new CPU, but I'd never use it for music. If they suddenly required that I had to have a new CPU to play or download new music then I'd just stop buying music and just listen to the classics I do have and only buy the independent artists out there who don't use the DRM like I do now. I'm not alone in my practice. I personally know a half-dozen people who follow the same practice.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[LiquidCoooled]

You could buy the cpu if you want and let it attempt to work out whether the result of this innocuous calculation results in a waveform or bitmap which happens to be contained somewhere in its enormous brain.

Besides, there is a bigger reason this will never be implemented:

How can it detect infringement without having something to compare it against?

Remember, google have pretty much said to the big movie people "Sure, we will block all your shit but you have have to give us a copy of everything you want blocking first".

Do you think the RIAA will give us all a full copy of everything we aren't allowed to view or listen to?

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[jellomizer]

"Analog Hack". There is always the Analog Hack, Get an audio cable plug one end into Line Out and then the other end into Line In or microphone, Play and open up an other app to record... There you go. If you want to get more detailed take your sound card figure out where it goes the DA Conversion and reroute it to a input device (a harder hack but heck it will work too, and without any loss in quality). It only takes one person to de DRM a file then it can be spread. If there is DRM in the microcode there is no reason why you can't do the work on an older computer wihtout it. Yea it will take longer but once it is done you can share it with the world.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[spazdor]

It doesn't matter. The DRM can go as deep as they like but they will never be able to escape virtualization. Alan Turing has already explained, better than any of us ever could, why their goals are impossible.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[RobertM1968]

Then, no one will buy a new CPU. Intel and AMD aren't stupid. they know the consumer will run if they add this crap to thier products.

This is where I sadly think you are wrong - in what would happen - even though you are right in what consumers' reactions should be.

Most "high end electronics" consumers do not have the knowledge or tech savvy to make such a decision, and will continue to buy the "latest and greatest" they are told to buy - unless it sufficiently curtails their actions. Most of the people who will be affected by such a theoretical move (by the CPU manufacturers) are the tech savvy computer community - not the computer users who are otherwise (technologically) computer illiterate.

Unfortunately, they comprise the far larger share of computer users, leaving those of us who are technologically literate, stuck with such theoretical choices because that will thus become all that is available.

It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.

I'd expect (most) everyone here on /. who has the friend/relative/neighbor who comes to them to solve (what to us are simple) computer problems, would remember that when looking at the tech world, what is better (technology wise, user rights wise, performance wise, could keep on going on this list all day) is irrelevant to the mainstream user community, regardless of what the small (yet vocal in places like this) tech oriented community knows is the actual truth.

Just my thoughts... which covers my quota for thinking for the week... :-)

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[daem0n1x]

I'm certain the guys in emergency room will be very happy when the machines they are connected to suddenly decide their heartbeat is copyrighted music and disengage life support.

CPUs aren't used only for PCs, they are everywhere. If my CPU prevents me from doing what I want, I'll install Linux in my refrigerator and use it as a PC.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[Shakrai]

I'd do the same if my whole business model was suddenly fucked.

Wouldn't it be more effective to use the millions (billions?) of dollars you have in the bank to come up with a new business model? They'd still have a pretty big advantage -- after all, if you or I wanted to start a new business model we'd probably have to go to venture capitalists to get the funding.... the labels can just move some money out of the legal fund and into R&D.

I guess using the legal system is what passes for "innovation" these days.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[trolltalk.com]

Instead of cracking the DRM, why not crack their skulls?

Not everyone listens to music all day.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[nexuspal]

"if they built DRM into CPU microcode we're fucked."

And you're 1 Windows Update away from not being able to see the leaked video the politicians don't want you to see. Thats the scary part imo.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[lgw]

All that TCPA does is allow someone to control what happens on a computer. It's not dripping with evil. If you're an admin and your users keep getting rootkits, it's a blessing! Just don't buy a computer where you don't get the master key: problem solved. Why would you want to buy a computer that you don't get to control in the first place?

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[Anonymous Coward]

An open source CPU will not save you, if you need a TPM to report that your software is signed correctly (ie, that it is from a vendor who obeys DRM rules). You won't get the content if your TPM does not report you as trusted... and you probably won't even be able to connect to the internet either.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[renegadesx]

Intel and AMD will never comply to putting DRM at the processor level, the open source market is too big to entirly cut them out and its obvious any RIAA DRM solution will NEVER make it's way into the Linux kernel.

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[RobertM1968]

How long do you think it will take for them to get educated once they notice their 20Gb of downloaded mp3's won't play anymore?

Oh, I dunno... as long as it takes them to realize that they could have stuck with XP, as opposed to buying new Vista compatible versions of various programs because once they upgraded (even with tons of gripes - often exaggerated - about incompatibilities) they still upgraded to Vista and were forced to upgrade (buy newer versions of) software as well.

So, your guess is as good as mine - because I surely don't have on on this subject... just stating the current situation... and even if they "educate" themselves quick enough, do you think the CPU manufacturers will suddenly, re-revise everything leaving out the DRM features, followed by the same with the chipset manu's, and the same again with MS getting rid of the new drivers and functions that rely on those new DRM features that are part of the CPU? Perhaps... if enough people complained... but even educated users rarely complain to the right people (or in the right way) about such things... look at all the gripes on /. that are legitimate, that rarely ever get to those who can address the issues...

I hope your inference is correct, in that they will learn quickly, and my guess on your further inference (that they CPU manufacturers will correct such a problem by dropping in CPU/chipset DRM support) is also on target... but current track records on such matters seem to indicate otherwise - though with a smaller, vocal set of people "in the know" about such issues... maybe you are right in that what the computer industry needs is a Snafu on such a big level that the "average user" is affected to an extent that they complain...

Re:LOLOLOLOLOL

[electrosoccertux]

They've preemptively cracked mine already thanks to the stuff they put on the radio. Can't get away from it either, cause EVERYBODY listens to it.

By the way, it really bothers me that some people feel uncomfortable with the radio off; as if they're afraid of thinking.

job safety for RIAA exec

[justdrew]

this is total BS. just a worthless executive filling the people who pay his wage with a load of nonsense so they'll keep paying. stop funding RIAA now and the companies would save a hell of a lot of money.

Re:Brainstorming broken?

[orclevegam]

Seriously, it makes me wonder why these people are even let out in public without chaperons. At the very least they should have a lawyer and someone technical around at all time. The technical guy to hopefully whisper "uh, that won't work, and it's a bad idea" in their ear every time they come up with one of these stupid ideas, and the lawyer to say "that's not our official opinion, and this is all off the record" every time one of these guys opens their mouths.

Re:But does it

[orclevegam]

[But does it] work under Linux Work? Why on Earth would the RIAA care if it works? In fact it's better if it doesn't work at all, less chance of people cracking it.

How about installing a greed filter...

[syousef]

...on his PR statements, and a bullshit filter on his mouth?

I have better things to do with my PC than protect your artificial and increasingly indefensible "rights". People and organizations buy PCs to conduct business, science and for their entertainment, not to put money in your coffers you greedy fuck!

just enforce the law as it exists

[Grampaw Willie]

Notes

a PC is not primarily a music recording device. thus it does not qualify for protection under HMRA. thus if I copy music to a PC I have committed a copyright violation.

now if I copied to a local directory probably no one will care

but if i copy to my web site or to a p2p share directory then my evil deed is presented in public ( bad move on my part )

now if RIAA has trouble locating copyright violation copies on p2p machines they could just hire some college kids to help them learn how

and when the find the offending material, just ask the owner to remove it from the public/share area. if the owner does not cooperate then take whatever action is warranted

this ain't rocket science kids and we don't need to stay up nights fussing over it

King George III of RIAA ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else remember the Second Amendment? You know, the one forbidding the Government to station soldiers in people's homes without their consent during peace time?

Just make a few substitutions, and it's clear that this "proposal" completely violates the spirit (if not the letter) of that Amendment.

"Government strongarming citizens" ===> "Corporations strongarming citizens with the aid of Government and device vendors"
"Soldiers quartered in your home against your will" ===> "DRM stationed in your home against your will"
"Entire population presumed to be criminals" ===> Check!
"No freedom in your own home because the unwanted guests can tell you what to do" ===> Check!

I'd like to believe that this would not happen...

[argent]

But in 1995 I honestly believed that no company would be stupid enough to automatically run code delivered in an email message, and in 1997 that Microsoft would be forced by public opinion to back down on the obviously absurd integration of the browser and the desktop, and in 2000 that people would reject an operating system with components to lock them out of their own computer... after all, dongles had proven to be a passing fad, surely people were wising up to things like this.

I no longer believe in any limits to the complaisance and naivete of the computer-using public.

MAFIAA to Bully ISPs?

[Silentknyght]

FTA:

The only way to make it work is to mandate the filters or have ISPs mandate that users install them to get on the Internet. The consumer backlash from such a plan would be like the force of a thousand supernovas, and it's hard to visualize this happening.

Actually, it's not hard to visualize this happening. Most people connect with what, one of four major ISPs in the US, and there are usually no more than three competing ISPs, except in big cities? That's only four companies, each headed by a relatively few number of individuals whose motives are driven by shareholder (not necessarily customer) demands. If the MAFIAA writes a solid-gold check to Comcast, Qwest, Verizon, and Time-Warner, you can bet that find ways to impose an end-user filter on your PC as a requirement to connect, and with a limited number of broadband ISPs in the area, you can bet that people will suck it up and deal with it.

~SK

Re:It'll never work

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of two...

Two words

[MrNougat]

Analog hole.

Re:*rolls eyes*

[pryoplasm]

"yeah when it comes down to it, its illegal but they aren't going to enforce it"

Time shifting and fair use are both legal examples of non infringement of copyright. Just because you take a copy of something you own and put it on a device does not make you a pirate. That would most likely involve ships, murder, rape, and actual stealing, not any of this denying a sale crap....

almost right.

[JonTurner]

The solution is simple: Just don't play^H^H^H^H^Hbuy ANYTHING unless it passes the DRM check (e.g. "is it DRM-free?")
I think it's the only way to end this nonsense. Defang the industry by striking at what gives them power -- profit. When the money dries up, the investors will force the company to change or it will perish. Or, they'll behave like the newspaper industry, deciding to favour biased political viewpoints over profit and they watch their subscriber base drop %20 year-after-year until they are no longer relevant. Any of these is an acceptable outcome.

"if people are creating their own music they're just stealing from the music industry anyway."

That's pretty funny! But it's also very, very close to the totalitarian ideas of the ex-Soviet Union (a Worker's Paradise, dontchaknow?) The State owns everything, and controls the means of production, including the people. We saw how well that worked out.

Re:almost right.

[jandrese]

If you boycott the industry they'll just assume you're pirating and convince Congress to pass even more bad laws that let them snoop on you and control your life.

Re:almost right.

[JonTurner]

Not without money they won't -- Congress is only interested in being bribed... uh, I mean "lobbied" by those with bags of money, especially around re-election time. In their death throes (which is fast approaching) they'll certainly lobby for more bad laws. That's inevitable, but once the industry bottoms out, they'll be reduced to having as much influence as the average voter. That is to say, none.

Re:almost right.

[DM9290]

That's pretty funny! But it's also very, very close to the totalitarian ideas of the ex-Soviet Union (a Worker's Paradise, dontchaknow?) The State owns everything, and controls the means of production, including the people. We saw how well that worked out. now that the competing "workers paradise" is out of the way, our unelected hegemony of massive corporate concerns can look beyond the business of marketing and spinning the wonders of unfettered capitalism and get back to the business of maximizing profit. That is to say: busting the unions and teaching our work force to work faster, longer and harder for less pay, less compensation, less education, and a lower overall quality of life).

What kind of oppressive society would infringe on my natural born right to own the means of production and do with it as I see fit? If I want to own the only automobile factory in the world, (and buy out the other automobile manufacturers) the state should protect my right. If I want to be the sole owner of the means of producing food, only a terrorist would deny me! If a pendemic threatens to kill a million people. Well who are they to infringe on my intellectual property rights? The government should bomb them if they try making generic drugs. Its not my fault if they dont want to pay me whatever price I set? my ideas are my own. I paid my employees fair and square! I own them!

Men have no right to produce for themselves. They'll need to deal with big business if they want to avoid starving to death. They are lucky that they still get free air! If we didn't live in such a pinko bleeding heart society we'd auction off the atmosphere to the private sector. Use the proceeds to lower taxes. Think of how much the GDP would go up if we could turn breathing into a profitable business?

Where does the State get off owning the means of breathing? I thought protecting the minority (the wealthy) from the oppression of the majority (the poor) is what our country was about?

Re:Fiddling while Rome Burns.

[greenbird]

You're assuming that there are paying customers. Given the number of people who seem to think they're entitled to free music, I'd expect to see much longer lines at the backdoor than the ticket office.

I don't think anyone thinks they're "entitled" to free music. I think people would gladly pay the creator of said music a reasonable amount, say a nickel a song, for the music if it was made easily attainable and useful (no DRM). What the RIAA members want is for people to pay a huge amount the majority of which goes to a bunch of leaches and bums who in no way, shape or form contribute anything to the music while enslaving and controlling anyone who has the audacity to step into the realm that they have ruled with an iron fist for the last 80 years. You see the difference there.

Re:TCPA != DRM

[jhol13]

This is utter bullshit and I can prove it.

If TCPA is not about DRM then what is the purpose of TCPA chip?

It it were only to "provide protection of a user's private keys and encrypted data" and "protect sensitive data from many software attacks, including viruses, worms and trojans" then why the content is protected from BACKUP? Why cannot I, the owner of the keys and the computers, copy the keys to an another computer?

No, "DRM is just one possible application of a trust component", DRM is practically the only application.

Tried Already

[EdIII]

This was tried already. It's called DRM. It only worked for files that were locked in the first place, and left all the other files alone. So apparently since DRM failed, and now they have to release the music DRM free, they need to enable a whole new DRM type scheme?

I know some people might want to say that DRM is different then copyright protection and content filtering, but DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. If you think it's the consumers rights that it "manages", you would be a little naive. So copyright protections, content filtering, and DRM are all really the same thing. They are designed to forcefully protect IP rights, and at the expense of consumer privacy and fair use.

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."

So he admits here that they need to get "behind" the encryption in order to filter the files. Forgetting the hugely clueless aspect about this, and the frightening implications about it for our privacy and peaceful enjoyment of our property, it is amusing to watch him admit it's futility:

But who would voluntarily install software that would continually scan incoming P2P streams for copyrighted material after that material has been decrypted? Or software that would watch every song you played and tried to figure out if it was legit? Sherman knows it's a tough sell. "Why would somebody put that on their machine?" he asked rhetorically. "They wouldn't likely want to do that."

I think a tough sell is putting it lightly, how about an impossible sell. But wait he has a plan!:

But Sherman's idea is that customers install filtering software such as virus scanners all the time because they see a tangible benefit to it.

Tangible Benefit? That is really reaching there. I think you could sooner convince people to voluntarily accept cavity searches at airports since it would provide a "tangible" benefit to security and they would be patriotic in doing so. Of course he realizes his error immediately and admits that is not going to happen. Then he back peddles to an idea he already admitted was technically futile:

He appears to suggest installing the filter in a customer's cable or DSL modem, which wouldn't act as anything more than a network filter (the encryption and decryption happens on the PC). There's also some talk of putting the filtering tech into "applications" such as P2P apps, but again, this seems unlikely, especially for the open-source ones.

He already stated they need to be behind the encryption in order to filter, so why put it at the modems? Convincing the coders responsible for uTorrent to put filtering in is downright futility. That idea is about as ridiculous as Freenet and TOR coding in monitoring mechanisms for government intelligence agencies.

I don't know about anybody else, but listening to this guy is like watching a retarded kid continually try to get the square peg into the round hole. It might be funny, if this guy did not wield so much influence with the ridiculous amounts of money funding them and Senators getting wet everyday trying to "turn tricks" with the special interests like him.