Apple's New MacBooks Have Built-In Copy Protection

raque writes "Appleinsider is reporting that the new MacBooks/MacBookPros have built-in copy protection. Quote: 'Apple's new MacBook lines include a form of digital copy protection that will prevent protected media, such as DRM-infused iTunes movies, from playing back on devices that aren't compliant with the new priority protection measures.' Ars Technica is also reporting on the issue. Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back? Is this a deal breaker for Apple or will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines? Is this a new opportunity for Linux? And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?"

Comments

To Steve

[JYD]

Built-in copy protection is a bag-of-hurt.

Sincerely,

Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray

Re:To Steve

[Wesley Felter]

Good luck finding a computer without it.

A 2007 MacBook.

The fact that the same video will play fine on a 2007 Mac but refuse to play on a 2008 Mac proves that the copy protection is not necessary -- if it was necessary it would be applied to all computers equally.

Re:To Steve

[Hurricane78]

You forgot the best of all options:

6) License Bu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, require HDCP for any external screens trough a updatable firmware. Then "leak" a "hacked" firmware (the original one) which does allow playback everywhere. And be sure, to make a big press release, that you will get "them" and sue "them", for creating such an incredibly well working "hacked" firmware *hint* *hint*.

At least that's what I would do. And I'm pretty sure some companies already did similar things.

Re:To Steve

[vux984]

PS There are surely ways around it.

Doesn't matter. I shouldn't be restricted. I shouldn't have to go 'underground'.

The fact that I can is irrelevant.

The fact that you could still get alcohol during the prohibition doesn't make prohibition any more palatable.

Re:To Steve

[MrNaz]

I'd like to see you say that when asked the same question in a few years from now.

The cheap quip, "so use last year's machine" is so myopic that it's ridiculous. The principle is "DRM is bad" and, now that Apple have fully embraced it, I am no longer even going to consider trying a Macbook, regardless of what the Apple guys I know tell me about the wonderful OS.

DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.

Incidentally, if you think the DRM situation is getting bad now, imagine a world where all your computing gets done "in the cloud" (forgive me for using that idiotic buzzword) and you have no control over the platform you use to do whatever it is you want to do with your computer.

Big business wants to control your actions, so they can dictate what you need to spend money on. Recognize it. Fight it by not buying into it.

Re:To Steve

[JWW]

Forget my MOD points on this story....my goodness. I'm not a fan of BluRay, but wow. Why the heck would I EVER want a BluRay player when I have other options to watching HD video.

Those above comparing this to prohibition are spot on. Let's make it REALLY hard for people to do what they want with their content when its REALLY easy for them to steal the content and do whatever they want to do with it. Brilliant!!

What really bothers me is that it appears Apple fell for the same trap as BluRay with their on-line content. They could have really had a differentiation in their stuff vs. BluRay, but it appears they don't mind opening up "bags of hurt" after all....

Re:To Steve

[arotenbe]

I've often wondered how long it will be until mainstream computing consists entirely of thin clients with web browsers and servers that provide all storage and applications. You can encrypt everything to make sure the server can't read it, but you have no guarantee that the server will give you back your data after you've stored it.

But no one will care, because, despite all of the horror stories of their friends' favorite storage sites going under and losing all their data, people will think, "It won't happen to me!".

Re:To Steve

[MacColossus]

I've been accused of being a Apple fanboy before. But I am sticking with a Macbook Pro (Early 2008) for several gripes I have with Apple and the new laptops. Glossy screen only (no matte option), new laptops don't come in a 17 inch version, mini displayport?!, they could use regular displayport to be compliant with the rest of the industry, no mini displayport to displayport adapter, no mini displayport to s-video adapter like they had for DVI, no mini displayport to HDMI adapter, HDCP support in the new ones as mentioned here, etc. I'm aware that one can overcome some of these. For example, one can probably use the mini displayport to dvi adapter with a dvi to hdmi adapter to get HDMI. I shouldn't have to hop through bastardized hurdles to get there and wonder what kind of video quality will be at the other end of this hodge podge. Apple SERIOUSLY needs to rethink mini displayport or start cranking out the adapters.

Re:To Steve

[penix1]

My problem with cloud computing is two fold. First, how do you know, for a fact, that Google isn't indexing your data or worse storing it for later use even after you delete it from the cloud? You don't. You only have their word and when push comes to shove if they can profit somehow on your data they will. Second, most cloud computing zealots want everything on the cloud. The cloud isn't suited for every application but just try to convince some PHB who was talked into it by one of these zealots and you got a fight on your hands. I speak from experience on this.

Re:To Steve

[coolsnowmen]

...Also the HDMI signal isn't digital, really, it is a digital bitstream on an analog carrier. (at the frequencies involved everything is analog).

Praytell, at what frequencies can there be a digital signal then?

How about I skip to the point:
A Digital signal realized using electricity is an encoding on top of an analog signal.

Saying that it isn't digital because it is really a digital signal modulated on top of an analog signal shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Re:To Steve

[Mattsson]

Obviously people shouldn't buy old computers to avoid DRM; that's inefficient and unsustainable.

It's only inefficient and unsustainable if most people don't buy old computers to avoid DRM.
If enough people do it, having DRM in computers will be too expensive since they don't sell, and we will have computers without it again.

Problem is, most people will think "I must have the latest model!" and not care if there's DRM built in or not.

Re:To Steve

[moderators_are_w*nke]

It is kinda odd that we're all used to using fibre for digital audio, but no for video, which requires more bandwidth.

Re:To Steve

[hairyfeet]

Uuuuhh......Why didn't you just point her to Staroffice instead of being a jerk? You do know with the economy in the toilet and folks everywhere afraid of losing their jobs telling her to go out and buy $2000+ worth of gear just to do some office work was kinda being a jerk,don't you? If a customer comes in and says "How can I make it so I don't ever get a virus again" THEN I would tell them about Linux and Apple. But to tell someone in this economy to "buy a Mac" when all they need is a piece of office software is kinda being an asshole when asked a legitimate question.

Don't really care

[Trillan]

I don't buy any videos from iTunes: I prefer to rip my own.

Questions? Answers.

[bigstrat2003]

Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back?

It seems likely enough to me. I guess I have no proof either way, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that this was NBC's idea.

Is this a deal breaker for Apple?

No.

Will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines?

Yes. Just like they always do.

Is this a new opportunity for Linux?

No, since it won't hurt Apple.

And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?

Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie. Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[onefriedrice]

Sweet. Once MS put DRM in the OS layer of Vista, Apple felt the need to one-up them with DRM built right into the hardware. Take that, Microsoft.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[bigstrat2003]

Interesting point of view, but I don't think that applies to Apple. In the case of taxes, there is more or less a gun held to your head that forces you to do such a thing. Not so with Apple.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Draek]

So, under which laws Apple will go to jail if they don't put DRM in their notebooks?

Thought so.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[truthsearch]

Most of Apple's growth for years has been tied directly or indirectly to multimedia. It's what's most differentiated them from Microsoft in the eyes of the common computer user. All of the big content owners demand DRM. So the choice was between DRM and corporate growth or no DRM and Apple going nowhere.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[TrekkieGod]

That was a lie then, and is still a lie.

I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.

Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.

Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?

The difference is that you're describing something that you see as a disadvantage. You dislike paying taxes because you wish you could do something else with your money.

Now describe to me why Apple dislikes DRM. As far as I can see, not only are they playing the so-called "game that needs to be played" but since they're the market leaders in that particular business, it also serves as a lock-in. If you've been buying your tv shows from iTunes for the convenience of buying stuff online, you know you can watch your stuff on the goal with an ipod. Better not buy a zune, your videos won't work there!

Ok, that's going too far. Nobody would buy a zune either way. However, do you want to set up a media center that lets you watch all those videos in your living room? The AppleTV is the choice for you! You sure as hell can't set up a mythtv box. If you buy a windows media center box from dell, that won't play those videos either.

So, I know why you don't like to pay taxes. Tell me again why apple hates drm?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Moebius Loop]

There's no gun to your head to pay taxes, just a financial threat (yeah, you can go to jail for tax evasion, but only because you can't afford to pay the taxes you owe).

If Apple didn't support DRM in iTunes, few if any of the labels would have signed on at the time. Even now, it's clear that the majors continue to believe it's a requirement, and would quite possibly not sell their music through iTunes, thus impacting Apple's bottom line.

I think it's an apt analogy.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Lemmy Caution]

If this is true, why do Amazon an eMusic have such huge collections of DRM-free music? Is the difference between their catalogs and the iTunes catalog that big?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[c_forq]

That is the record companies responding to the fear that Apple might get too much bargaining power (like how Walmart forced them to lower CD prices). They were willing to make concessions in hopes that iTunes would lose a bit of power (and I think that at least Amazon worked out very well).

Re:Questions? Answers.

[mstone]

You're joking, right?

Apple hates DRM because it takes a shitload of time, money, and effort to design and implement, and an even bigger shitload of time, money, and effort to show 'plausible efforts' to keep it working once it's deployed. Anyone who tries to do DRM simply agrees to climb on a treadmill of trying to stay a fractional step ahead of the people who will break the protection.

Apple hates DRM because DRM is inherently futile. You simply can't build a system that puts both the lock and the key in the hands of the end user, then impose rules on what the user can do with those two pieces.

Apple hates DRM because the longer DRM is allowed to exist, the longer the content cartel will continue to make this massive, futile investment a requirement for any access to content. Apple especially hates DRM because it puts the content owners in a position where they can say, "I don't have to know how it works, or whether it's even possible. I have the power to say what has to be done, and making it happen is your job. And thanks to the laws that we've bought and the contracts we've written, if you don't manage to do the impossible to our satisfaction, we can sue the shit out of you then nail you on criminal charges."

Apple hates DRM because using DRM simply manufactures enemies with the technical knowledge to rip apart any technical measures Apple tries to build. And while defeating DRM may be a socially acceptable goal, a lot of that knowledge can potentially be reapplied to general malware.

Apple hates DRM because it sucks for the user. Remember: Apple doesn't make money licensing its OS to a bunch of OEMs who then try to sell a product to consumers, or with massive, umpty-thousand-seat software licensing deals. Consumer dissatisfaction hits Apple in the pocket much harder than it hits Microsoft. On top of that, Apple sells in the premium-priced segment of the market, where people are willing to say, "if I have to put up with something that sucks, I can buy another product for a whole lot less."

It would take Apple a hell of a lot less effort to make a product that users like a hell of a lot more if they could ditch DRM. Given that less than 1% of all the music on iPods was purchased through the iTunes store, the idea that Apple sees some kind of benefit from consumer lock-in just doesn't scan.

The only upside of DRM is that it gives Apple access to the content cartel's catalog. And tens of millions of consumers voting with their dollars have said that they prefer devices that do have DRM and cartel content over devices free from DRM that don't have cartel content.

So in the long run, it comes down to a question of philosophy versus economics. If you hate DRM so much you won't buy a Mac, iPod, or iPhone, so be it. The few thousand people who agree with you on that score are less valuable to Apple than the 15-20 million who will buy new DRM-encumbered Macs, iPods, and iPhones in the next quarter.

Who cares?

[vanyel]

If you don't buy crippled content in the first place, it's just wasted, unused, hardware.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[Grishnakh]

The problem is that, in a sane society, a company makes a profit for its shareholders by producing products that customers want to buy, and in general by treating the customer as king. Remember the old phrase, "the customer is always right."

So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.

Lies

[EdIII]

This article is totally misleading. It's just HDCP. The media has to be HDCP aware in the first place.

If you don't by defective DRM laden media, then you do not have a problem.

In some ways, this is actually a GOOD THING. Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.

So to SUM UP, all the PIRATED MEDIA WILL STILL PLAY.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[Free the Cowards]

The problem is that the obligation is getting twisted into "make a profit for shareholders soon", with an almost total lack of concern for the long term.

Apple is actually one of the better companies in this regard, but a lot of companies are running into trouble because they think that shareholder value means pumping up their upcoming Q7 results no matter what.

Re:Two screen dilemma

[Free the Cowards]

Think of it as an implicit endorsement of piracy. If you can't play purchased media on your 100% legitimate hardware, then the choice is clear.

How many people care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of Slashdot's readership, nobody cares about DRM.

There are vanishingly few "screwed over" customers "angry" about HDCP. Most people never even see the "restrictions" on their "freedom." They subscribe to cable, buy their BluRay players, buy their disks, and it all works just fine. If they didn't, then these stories would be in Time Magazine (or, better yet, TV Guide) and not on Slashdot.

Re:How many people care?

[caitsith01]

It's only a matter of time. Slashdotters are just the amphibians of the DRM-world, we are more sensitive to small changes in the climate than the average organism. The levels of idiocy imposed by hardware and software manufacturers has not yet reached its zenith.

"Normal" people will start getting angry pretty soon, when they can't hook together ordinary AV hardware and have it just work, and when their seemingly physical media of various kinds mysteriously stops working under certain circumstances. The market for DRM-free gear will also grow, I predict (it already exists, and is a touted feature on some hardware and software).

Re:old

[Surt]

Please go back to Digg. Slashdot is not better than Digg because of the timeliness of the stories. Slashdot is better than Digg because of the user community.

It will never stop

[www.blogLinux.org]

Yet another example of the grip proprietary corporations will continue to impose on their users.

Re:My guess is this is what they had to do

[GFree678]

in order to get Blu-Ray playback licensing

Most likely. And yet when Microsoft did it first by implementing it in Vista, they were (and continue to be) flamed for it.

Yes I know DRM exists in other areas of Vista (eg. protected audio path), but still, now that Apple have gone with this, will they be flamed too as should be fair?

Get pissy with me and I'm gone.

[Qbertino]

I'm a mac user. I've used Linux for 11 years now, I've used Windows back in the day for StarCraft or when it was neccesary for work (and on my jobs workstation) and I use OS X today whenever I want zero-fuss integration and need to run the Flash IDE to draw up some RIA components. I still use Debian and Ubuntu aswell, however.

I'm typing this on my Mac Mini with Tiger - with the pricey but neat new aluminum mac KB attached - and my last computer purchase was the famous classic 12" G4 macbook, trusted subnotebook of hackers and geeks all around the world. The fluorescent light needs longer time to fully light up, but after 5 years it still is a piece of integrated hard- and software that I love to use on a regular basis. In a nutshell: I'm a computer expert and I like my macs and I can name solid reasons why I do.

Apple has a rock-solid multiplier in me, as I - as most geeks - am the opinion-leader in all things concerning IT and computers for at least 50 people that know me well enough to know my profession. I can inmediately think of at least 3 people who have gotten macs also due to largely my influence on their decision.

That aside I can only say: Get pissy with me and I'm right back to Linux on x86 only. As soon as I have to fuss around with media not playing on my computers I'm gone, mac mini and 13" unibody MacBook be damned. I'd rather fuss around with half-finished OSS projects or crappy printer integration on a dell laptop that looks and handles like a piece of shit than having some DRM scheme wasting my time. If Apple even thinks about pressing the lock-in game, I'm gone and I will stop recommending Apple instantly. And I'll start discouraging people from buying them.

My 2 Euros.

Would that include getting the free copy?

[MattW]

I'm thinking the easiest way around it is to just download a copy. Seriously, wtf, people - do you not like having customers?

I damn near gave up buying media of any kind because of copy protection, and so I do without. Yay Amazon MP3 store to the rescue. But I'm getting completely sick of this.

It's time to push Congress for a Consumer's Digital Purchases Bill of Rights that forces compatibility. If you want DRM so bad, it's your job to make it work.

So 1984...

[kulakovich]

... will be EXACTLY like 1984... Twenty four years. Oh well. They had a good run.

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[superbus1929]

If that's their definition of "legal", then fuck legality.

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[jedidiah]

> So what's the advantage of Linux regarding this now again?

        Linux won't suddenly cripple your output hardware because
it thinks you are doing something that the MPAA disapproves of.
Once you allow the MPAA into the core of your OS, then that
becomes a very real problem.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[mr_zorg]

And I suppose that you're similarly boycotting Blu-Ray discs, HDTV tuners, HD DVRs and anything else that uses HDMI? Because if not, that's hypocritical. This DRM is nothing more than HDCP and anything using HDMI has it.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[aqui]

Actually I've avoided anything HD particularly for that reason (DRM)...

I'm hoping that before I'm forced to change because normal DVDs aren't available anymore that the industry will have come to its senses (wishful thinking I know... :} ) and be producing technology without DRM crippling features.

I don't know about you but "nothing more" than _not_ being able to use the technology I paid for the way I want to use it is a big deal.

The next step after DRM is in place is to charge you again for every copy of a movie or song you already own. In other words you cant copy music from you CD collection to your MP3 player or your PC and listen to it. DRM will prevent that. You will have to pay again for each copy...

After that... the next step is to charge "per play" 5 cents every time you listen to the song...

Then the next step is to create cycle of new player technologies and the next generation player won't play the previous generations content and you'll have to pay for the music again...

It's a slippery slope once you accept lock in...

The only way to send a message is not to buy crippled hardware. If a technology won't sell then it sends a clear message.

I'd rather give up some features in a product than my freedom to use it the way I want.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[KlausBreuer]

Well, *I* certainly am.

The switch from VCR Tapes to DVD Disks was well worth it. The movies look very nice and clear, the medium doesn't wear out, and takes up a lot less space - in addition to supporting several languages and the like.

Tell me the advantages of HDMI again? Higher resolution? Don't really need that, DVDs pretty good. DRM out the wazoo? *Really* don't need that. Higher prices? Oh wow, how lovely.