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."'"
It's funny how the RIAA and MPAA both seem to be using a public forum for their brainstorming technique. Most groups would come to a conclusion in private and announce their final and ultimate strategy. Nope, these guys just come up with idea after idea and announce them before they've even contemplated what they mean or their reprocussions. If my company announced every brain-dead idea we came up with before bouncing it around in the brainstorming sessions we had- we'd kill ourselves off with bad PR alone!
If you read TFA he goes on to admit that it's unlikely to get people to install the filterware themselves, but maybe if they put it into routers and modems....It's worth noting that the decryption doesn't take place there, and it'd be no more effective.
It just seems like this guy has it figured out- he understands what won't work, but he still wants to move foward with the bad plan. If you're going to go down, might as well go down swinging..?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Yeah you guys go spend a bunch of money on that.
We are so fast approaching the time when bands just have concert promoters rather than record labels. I think this is a very good thing.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
So we're talking ubiquitous DRM that is transparent (or at least, not terribly intrusive upon the overall user experience), doesn't piss people off, doesn't get broken, can be deployed everywhere, does not add too much complexity to playback devices.
So, is Mr. Sherman planning on buying every music consumer a pony too? That has as much likelihood of happening as the DRM.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
I think it's apparent that it's only their complete ignorance of how technology works--evidenced by these ridiculous statements--that lets them have any hope that their organization can possibly continue to be relevant in the face of the increasing numbers of technological workarounds for every countermeasure that they come up with.
One might get the impression that were they to receive adequate education in The Way Things Work, they might possibly lose all morale altogether...not necessarily a bad thing, methinks.
Perhaps we should sign them up for a correspondence course in basic computer science?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
The Right to Read. If you haven't read it yet, read it now, while there is no filter preventing it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Does this mean that copyrighted Microsoft software won't run (assuming hardware-based encryption)?
ISP: Hello, how can I help you?
Advanced User: My Internet stopped working. I can't figure it out.
ISP: Hmmm... What version of Windows are you using?
User: Well, It's umm... It's not windows. It's OS/2.
ISP: Sir, if you read the contract changes we made last week, you would know that the Internet needs Windows now.
User: ???
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
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.
Or we could buy from a Korean manufacturer or something. Imagine, an underground CPU market...that'd be something to write dystopian sci-fi about.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
You want me to run your software? I'll consider it, but you have to remember that my computer is just that... MY computer. Time on it will cost you just like it would cost from a mainframe from IBM. How much are you willing to pay me to run this software that only benefits you? If this takes too much RAM, CPU the overflow charges may be... up there.
Your security is not my concern, and should not be expected to be my concern. Otherwise you also have a responsibility to make sure no one breaks into my house. (You should be happy to, they could steal my CDs!)
Of course, the conditions under which I'm willing to run your software may change without announcement from time to time but will still be considered binding, much like whatever the "licensing" consists of on a CD is this week. Like your CD licensing, the wording behind this agreement will never be readily available. Perhaps I'll add extra charges for running the software on weekends...
I'd do the same if my whole business model was suddenly fucked.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
"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."
Perhaps not if we stop doing free "friends and family" support if they buy the junk.
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
New business models are expensive and dangerous (See: DotCom Bubble) in the short term and shareholders don't like them.
I don't even know if they need a new business model. I'd stop pirating if the per song price was reasonable ($0.10 - $0.20).
Between Radiohead and a few other new players I've come across Old Media is set to take some more bruises. Innovation will win out.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Based on their behaviour, you'd think buying the CD encourages piracy. They can't understand why we don't just hand over our cash and walk away empty handed & happy.
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.
Don't ever use this as your example of why DRM is bad, because it's complete bullshit.
Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.
Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.
1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough!
2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements.
3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price.
4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?
No, Beta was not superior to VHS, except on paper. In every instance that mattered, Beta failed miserably compared to Beta. Being better on paper is irrelevant, it's real world results that make a difference, and Beta had no advantage there.
Then the computer is no longer able to perform arbitrary or "general-purpose" computing. Either the computer can virtualize its computation and obfuscate its output enough to get around such a filter, or it must be unable to perform general computation. As far as I know, the Incompleteness theorem guarantees this.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Betamax is still used *extensively* in the US for filming TV shows. Its pretty much still the *defacto* standard for production that isn't using film or dv.
It was (and still is) technically superior to VHS in every way, which is why they use it. The difference does matter, and it shows.
I think the moral is that it's easy to form opinions based on your peer group, but unless you're a 52 year old white male making $65k a year and living in Boise, ID, your reference group probably doesn't reflect the larger populace.
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Does it run on linux?
At what point do you need to stop and consider your own sanity? When does a rational person recognise that their sheer greed has become so great that it is reinforcing what is essentially psychopathological behavior?
I am learning to play guitar. Last night I plucked a bunch of strings in an interesting and novel way. I will copyright that. I am concerned that Cary Sherman may violate the copyright on that music. He has a variety of devices in his home, and may install more, that he could use to violate that copyright. It has been shown before that members of the recording industry have violated copyrights in the past.
As such, I feel that I am justified in expecting video cameras and microphones be installed in every room of his house, a master key to every lock and the freedom to enter his house and shuffle through his belongings at any time. Also, in case he should try to "hide" my music entering his house through encryption, I believe I should be entitled to search him and his family and any prostitutes he has visiting him to ensure they are not violating my copyright. I will also make it mandatory for him to wear a microphone at all times to ensure he does not listen to my music without my permission.
Does that sound fair to you? It is copyright after all, I am protecting my rights. It is therefore fair for me to assume that Cary Sherman is guilty and intends to infringe my copyright.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
So guess which congresscritters are taking the most from the entertainment industry.
Mods, please don't shoot the messenger.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Yeah, see the thing is, I bet I'm older than you and recall the war quite clearly... where as I suspect you were a 5 or 6 year old kid who thought he knew what was going on when Mommy and Daddy bought their deck. I bet you even programmed the time for them, yes?
Or 5 hours? Perhaps it is just because I am old enough to remember instead of reading (only part of) what is online about Beta? Very shortly after the initial format was released, Sony addressed that issue, which resulted in longer format tapes (hence movies being available on Beta), and different recording speed selections (as our Beta deck had).
No, the initial tapes were 1 hour long. They stayed that way for a time until too many people bitched. You might have been able to buy specialty tapes somewhere prior to that, but the tapes that were available in the store were 1 hour long until near the advent the advent of VHS, and longer play tapes trickled out. The problem then became trying to cram enough tape into the Betamax tape dimensions without making the tape too thin that it would break after being played or rewound. This introduced another set of problems for Betamax.
Almost as many as VHS... but maybe it's because in NY there were a bigger selection of Beta tapes - or because I am old enough to actually remember....
Right, so that's why we have Betamax in every household today. Oh... gee, wait a sec, no we have more VHS. My mistake. Because the consumer is going to choose the format that has LESS availability to them. Silly me. I'm sure you're going to correct me through the haze of your youthful memory.
Irrelevant (cost) as has been proven in such areas as Windows ($$$) vs Linux ($0)
Because software and hardware are exactly the same. Where can a consumer go out and buy a Linux PC? Few places (though it's increasing), 5 or 10 years ago you couldn't buy a PC loaded with Linux. The comparison is ludicrous. Let's compare something that makes a little more sense. How about PC's and Macs? Which one is cheaper? Which one has the vast majority of the market share? Don't like that one, how about something more recent... like Flash memory formats. Let's use Sony's product, the Memory stick vs say SD. How many more SD devices are out there vs. Memory Stick devices? Tons... why? SD is cheaper for the manufacturers and thus for the consumers. In this case, we're talking about EQUAL formats, not even a superior format, and yet SD still won. It's pretty much the defacto standard now a days. Don't like that one? How about hard drives... back in the day you had IDE and SCSI (We won't get into MFM, RLL etc...) - which one won? SCSI was technologically superior on every front, yet IDE won the day... why? Cheaper. The list goes on and on. Price has EVERYTHING to do with it. Saying it's irrelevant shows that you know exactly dick about the subject.
Sure it was... TV's weren't good enough to SHOW the difference... but you are on the right track with that one... the difference made no difference to the average consumer, because they didnt have anything to watch it on to notice the difference.
Sure it was? Then you continue on and admit that no one could see the difference... why did it make a difference then? You got some Betamax tapes you want to watch today on equipment that you could see the difference on? If there was nothing in reach of the consumer that could show the difference between the formats, then the difference is clearly immaterial to the subject. That's a big duh.
And the same thing is replaying itself with Blu-Ray. Since Sony is currently trying to prevent adult products from moving onto Blu-ray, it's unwittingly pushing those videos onto HD-DVD -- and therefore shooting itself in the foot once again.
In any case, even if you don't believe me in this one instance -- this is not the only example there is. At one point, the copyright industry was trying to outlaw mp3 players. In the end, the mp3 format won over *precisely* because it was what kids were using. And it's not that those kids really understood the technical distinctions between music encodings, it's just that most of those kids were goal-driven -- and they simply adopted whatever format they found their chosen music in.
The terms copy protection and DRM do not appear anywhere on www.trustedpc.org
Right, that's exactly the game they are specifically playing. They very carefuly dance round NOT using the word DRM.
I am a programmer and I have studied the Trusted Computing Chip (TPM) technical specification document version 1.1b. 332 pages of hardcore dense technical specification.
Yes, TCPA/TPM/Palladium/TrustedComputing/NaGSCaB/obscure-name-of-the-week is in fact explicitly designed for DRM. The primary theme throughout the technical specification is that the owner is forbidden to know his own master keys (PrivEK Priavte Endorsement Key and RSK Root Storage Key), and constantly listing that the owner is forbidden to know this and forbidden to control that and forbidden to be able to read his own data. The entire specification is exactly laid out as as a DRM system complete with sections explicitly stating the goal that under no circumstances should it be possible for the owner to ever have access to his own data on more than one computer at a time, and that the owner's data MUST be impossible to back up and MUST irretrievably lost if the chip should ever glitch.
In one section they explicitly refer to the owner as an attacker and the various requirements explicitly designing the system against the owner-as-attacker. Other related documents detail the situation of revoking the chip's key if it is ever discovered that any owner has somehow managed to read his key out of his chip.
Yes, TCPA or whatever you want to call it is explicitly designed against the owner.
Oh, and as for the Clarifying Misinformation on TCPA, yeah MOST of the "clarifications of misinformation" is valid or at least technically true. Yes, SOME of the criticisms on TCPA/TrustedCompuing/Whatever are are flawed and based on misinformation. However just because they hand pick the ones that are wrong doesn't mean the other information is wrong. And several of their "rebuttals" are of the form "item X is not a part of the TCPA specification" or "speculative". That's like saying that a lighbulb has nothing to do with light because it doesn't come with any electricity and the lightbulb doesn't create any light until you connect it to electricity, and it is "speculative" that the lightbulb might ever be connected to electricity.
Yeah, the TCPA chip doesn't necessarily have anything to do with DRM.
Just like a lightbulb doesn't necessarily have anything to do with light.
You can use it as a buttplug instead. There's no DRM or light if you use it as a buttplug.
And as for any "it's just a tool and a tool can be used for good or for bad" balony, that's easy to disprove. It would be absolutely TRIVIAL to fix the design to keep ALL of the benefits to the owner while eliminating ALL of the anti-owner absuses. Simply allow the owner to get a printed copy of his master key(s) if he wants them. Just drop your printed key into your safety deposit box at your bank if you wish. Since the hardware is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL, it has ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL capabilities to protect you and secure your data for you and protect you against viruses or any other benefits they claim for it. However since you have your master key you have full control over your system and you can unlock and read or modify anything you like if you wish. Since you have your master key you can override or alter your security settings at will. Which of course would make the system useless for DRM because you could read your files, and make it useless for any sort of anti-owner vendor lock-in or any sort of anti-owner lockout. If you know your master key you are in control.
And they absolutely positively refuse to allow you to have such a system. They refuse to allow you to buy an identical system where you do get your key if you want it, exactly because it is designed to secure the computer against the owner.
They are trying to sell an apple with a poison pill inside, and trying to tout the great vitamins a
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I'm surprised that no one here is referring back to Peter Gutmann's paper on Vista. Yes, it contained some things that were subject to misunderstanding (that could have been construed as factual errors to sticklers) but the point of the paper was this: Microsoft engineered Vista primarily to benefit content producers, not the people who buy the OS. And if you will recall, their requirements for Vista certification mostly concerned arm-twisting on the part of Microsoft: Show that you support DRM in all of your hardware or you don't get Vista certification; Oh, and by the way, make sure that your hardware will disable itself in any OS that doesn't toe the DRM line.
Sure, in the case of Vista, the more egregious steps are aimed at HD content, but the lion's share of Vista technology was aimed at digital restrictions management, not end-user functionality. Which is one of the reasons why Vista has been less than a stellar success: Microsoft didn't engineer it for the people who buy it; they put most of the engineering into satisfying the corporate obsession with control. This ticked off all of the end users who had a clue. Sure, the OS has a large lemming constituency.
But Gutmann's paper made clear that Microsoft was unsatisfied with leveraging lock-in of simple computer operating systems. He may have gotten a few things wrong, but he clearly understood the main fact that their (Microsoft's) main motivation is the extension of their hegemony into the realm of content. They ignored older content, concentrating on HD stuff.
It's still an open question of whether this is merely the flailing of a dying dinosaur or not. It will take a few years to see. Dinosaurs survived for a long time after their extinction became inevitable. The real irony of Microsoft is that they, as a computer company of all things, haven't realized that we live in a postmodern, information-age culture. Microsoft is simply one more institution governed by modern, industrial-age assumptions.
In this period of cultural liminality and transition, there are plenty of institutions like Microsoft (and the RIAA and MPAA) who are bewildered by the facts of the new economy. The old economic formulas are based on scarcity of goods, and even according to them, price always approaches incremental cost. Digital content, however, is produced at an effective incremental cost of zero, and the flailing of the RIAA, MPAA, and companies like Microsoft reflects resistance not only to the new paradigm, but also to the prevailing economic rule that price ALWAYS approaches incremental cost. In an economy of abundance, different models must emerge, but media companies and would-be channel monopolies like Microsoft have not even shown the ability to apprehend, much less operate according to, the newly emerging formulas that govern an economy of abundance, and it is unlikely that they will read people like Eben Moglen, Larry Lessig, or Yochai Benkler in an effort to understand the emerging reality, since they aren't interested in understanding; they only view these thinkers as enemies.
But please don't miss the fact that the issue is larger than just the RIAA and the MPAA. The incremental cost of digital media is merely one of the first fields to be impacted by the emerging economic paradigm. It's already affecting publishing and the general field of knowledge and education. Look for industrial-age institutions across the entire economic and political spectrum to be just as resistant to change as the RIAA and MPAA are.
These institutions will fight to preserve their business model, just as the RIAA and MPAA are fighting to preserve theirs. The business models are dinosaurs, and are extinct already de facto, but it will take a while before the walnut-sized brain gets the word that the heart stopped beating some time ago.
Change will be disruptive, but what will drive it is not rage against the existing institutions. Though that will obviously play a role, the real driver will be the emergence of new institu