DRM = Microsoft Jumping the Shark?

[doornail]

In 1996, Circuit City stores wasted $205 million bringing consumers the latest in anti-consumer technology -- DIVX (not to be confused with the now-popular video codec of the same name). This DIVX was about encrypting DVD's so your personal video library became pay-per-view. Naturally, it tanked. Hard. DVD prevailed and I buy a lot of them but I still cannot stand when I tell my player to fast-forward and it responds, 'I'm sorry, Dave, but at the moment my master is Disney Corporation and Disney Corporation says you are to sit quietly and give these previews your full attention.? That should be illegal.

A while back, I noticed Microsoft's growing interest in DRM. They snuck it into Media Player, they snuck it into Windows patches, they partnered with has-been Phoenix to develop hardware based DRM BIOS's to ?protect users from the installation of unathorized hardware?. Hint to MS: Unlike the swinging screen door that is your operating system, chances are good that any HARDWARE that gets stuck in my PC I know about.

Today, I read this <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/04/13/0413microsoftpinnacor_ii.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=">story</a>:]http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/04/13/0413microsoftpinnacor_ii.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=[/L]:[/L]

Now, I honesty don't know if Forbes is a real news site or not as the last three articles I read there have been embarrassing transparent FUD pieces but some quotes:

?By agreeing to license InterTrust's DRM patents, Microsoft can now move freely to develop software that restricts illegal sharing of digital music, movies and games.?

?The company appears to be setting itself up ''as the big intellectual property protector,'' says Matt Rosoff, analyst at research firm Directions on Microsoft?

?Marshall Phelps, Microsoft deputy general counsel, says the software maker aims to 'provide peace of mind for our customers and partners' ?

I can see DRM becoming ugly and annoying. I have absolutely zero interest in an operating system that wants to govern what I do. We have laws for that already.

Is this just an elaborate form of consumer lock in?

 

[Nothinman]

they partnered with has-been Phoenix to develop hardware based DRM BIOS's to ?protect users from the installation of unathorized hardware?. Hint to MS: Unlike the swinging screen door that is your operating system, chances are good that any HARDWARE that gets stuck in my PC I know about.

Hardly. For the most part the 'DRM' in the firmware on future motherboards will be used to hold encryption keys for many uses like to authenticate you (no more password since your computer would now have a unique identifier for you) and to authenticate applications. Imagine a world where a virus can't run because it's not been cryptographically signed and allowed to run and that you can be 100% sure that explorer.exe is the one MS shipped because it's been signed by MS and something like a virus infecting the file would invalidate the signature. Obviously there are bad uses too, like now that there is a 100% sure way to authenticate you sites, software developers, etc can accurately enforce what you can do with their products, something they really have every right to do.

I can see DRM becoming ugly and annoying.

Depends on what you want to do with your computer.

I have absolutely zero interest in an operating system that wants to govern what I do. We have laws for that already.

If used properly the cryptography in that hardware can be used to let you better govern what happens on your PC, not vice versa.

Is this just an elaborate form of consumer lock in?

Lock in, how? Maybe if hardware companies only develop the stuff for Windows and don't let Linux run in the 'protected' modes, but that won't happen atleast not across the board. Maybe an elaborate form of consumer restriction, but really most of that is no big deal as all they'll be doing is stopping you from stealing things you shouldn't be having for free already. Can it be abused? Sure. Will it? Probably, atleast by some. Will it matter in the long term? Probably not, Windows itself is the biggest consumer lock in project ever and people love it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Don't like it? Support consumer friendly products.

 

[bsobel]

You forgot to enclose your post in <rant> </rant>

As for DRM, you don't have to take advantage of it. But if you want to be able to access certain content (like those Disney video's), Disney will want some reasonable way of securing the content. This is no different from what your cable box or satellite receiver do today. Are you going to say you know exactly what hardware is in your cable box and it infringes on your rights too?

Also, DiVX failed (at least it can be argued) because of pricing (it wasn't enough less than just buying the movie) and the fact that CC was behind it and as such none of the other big B&M stores would touch it, and as there where no late fees, the rental industry wouldn't touch it. "This DIVX was about encrypting DVD's so your personal video library became pay-per-view" Actually DiVx was about building a replacement to the video rental industry which wouldn't require movies to be returned.

It's being tried again (and I suspect more sucessfully) with dvd's which degrade when exposed to air. You buy it, watch it for a few days, then throw it out.

Bill

p.s. I do agree with 'I'm sorry, Dave, but at the moment my master is Disney Corporation and Disney Corporation says you are to sit quietly and give these previews your full attention.? That should be illegal. 😉

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Don't like it? Support consumer friendly products.

Yep. (That works, just as long as you don't have laws, then it doesn't matter)

Take dvd regional encoding. It's not as popular as it once was, people don't like the idea of being a b!tch to the movie industry. Once it's gets to the point were by using the bad-side of DRM automaticly locks off 5-10 percent of the market, because a segment of the population has strong feelings about it. Then you will have people re-evaluating their business positions on it.

Most people don't know enough to care, but there are quite a few movie buffs out there (for example) that would care enough to educate themselves, and then you have other people that will have moral positions on it, etc etc etc.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Are you going to say you know exactly what hardware is in your cable box and it infringes on your rights too?

What's in a cable box that restricts your rights like DRM?

 

[Nothinman]

What's in a cable box that restricts your rights like DRM?

The stuff that makes it so you can only watch something once when you pay for it or the the stuff that only lets you watch the channels you paid for. Obviously DRM has additional uses since computers are much more versatile, but one of the biggests pushes for DRM is media license enforcement.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What's in a cable box that restricts your rights like DRM?

The stuff that makes it so you can only watch something once when you pay for it or the the stuff that only lets you watch the channels you paid for. Obviously DRM has additional uses since computers are much more versatile, but one of the biggests pushes for DRM is media license enforcement.

That's not a violation of your rights. It's just annoying, and you don't need to use a cable box, or use the cable company's box, you can use third-parties and that legal. But it's still illegal to use it to descramble broadcasts.

You don't have to buy pay-per-view, you don't have to subscribe to digital cable.

All normal broadcasts are aviable for free from satalite broadcasts, and higher quality, too.

I am not talking about those little gay digital-subscriber dishes. Those are scams. You can get the same broadcasts the cable company uses if you go out a buy one of those redneck 8-foot dishes to pick up the prestine pre-mpeg2 broadcasts that the cable company rebroadcasts into your cable line. All analog, all much higher quality then avaible anywere else.

So if you don't like it, don't use it. I don't like it, I don't use it.

"Rights" is a heavily misused term.

 

[Nothinman]

That's not a violation of your rights. It's just annoying, and you don't need to use a cable box, or use the cable company's box, you can use third-parties and that legal. But it's still illegal to use it to descramble broadcasts.

That was my point.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

That's not a violation of your rights. It's just annoying, and you don't need to use a cable box, or use the cable company's box, you can use third-parties and that legal. But it's still illegal to use it to descramble broadcasts.

That was my point.

Well that's a problem to take up with our government, not the cable company. (it pisses me off, too, btw. Those f-ers aren't getting any of my money for stuff like that.)

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What's in a cable box that restricts your rights like DRM?

The stuff that makes it so you can only watch something once when you pay for it

They don't let you record it?

or the the stuff that only lets you watch the channels you paid for.

If that's DRM, then wouldn't the magnetic tags on CDs in stores also be? DRM is about restricting the stuff that is given to you, not preventing theft of the stuff altogether (at least IMO).

 

[bsobel]

They don't let you record it?

You can record it analog. The whole FCC mess about the "don't copy bit" is so your cable box can disallow you from recording the digital content directly. Take your PC, add some DRM, you can still make an analog recording of the sound card output. The industry isn't as concerned with that as it's a) fair use (but so is digital-digital recordings) and b) lossy. They just can't wrap their heads around perfect copies made of other perfect copies.

DRM is about restricting the stuff that is given to you, not preventing theft of the stuff altogether (at least IMO).

It's both. DRM for your PC (ala Palladium, etc) is moving the same technologies that your cable box has today into the PC so they can ensure you can purchase content but only use it as per what was agreed.

Bill

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: bsobel

They just can't wrap their heads around perfect copies made of other perfect copies.

Yeah I take issue with that. Thankfully I'm stuck in the dark ages here with non-digital cable and no dvd anything within sight, but I still have some big problems with how they're (interpret "they" however you want) crippling CDs, DVDs, cable, etc. I guess most people don't care and that's how they can get away with it, but it causes people like me to stop buying the stuff altogether. Seems like a losing battle (for them) to me anyways. It's like instead of doing a good job of training your dog and treating him well, you just lock him up in a cage to make sure he doesn't mess anything up -- not a very good long-term solution. And you're always having to fix the damn cage anyways, because he figures out how to escape.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Various DRM related issues have kept me from buying certain products. I'll pick up DVDs if I *really* want them because I don't usually do anything with those but watch them with an MPAA approved viewing device. But these things have kept me from buying certain cds.

 

[drag]

Just as long as they don't make it a law saying that DRM has to be included with all hardware, then I can sit here and not get to pissed about it.


This is a capitolist system, and while corporate people can try to push things on the rest of everybody, it goes both ways. Customers who don't buy stuff puts more pressure on them then anything they can do to customers. This is because coporations are optional, disposable, and replaceable. Customers aren't. They can only afford to piss so many people off before they start to feel the pressure, and that pressure will come from someone else just as agressive, but knows how to cater better to the demands of their customers.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Just as long as they don't make it a law saying that DRM has to be included with all hardware, then I can sit here and not get to pissed about it.


This is a capitolist system, and while corporate people can try to push things on the rest of everybody, it goes both ways. Customers who don't buy stuff puts more pressure on them then anything they can do to customers. This is because coporations are optional, disposable, and replaceable. Customers aren't. They can only afford to piss so many people off before they start to feel the pressure, and that pressure will come from someone else just as agressive, but knows how to cater better to the demands of their customers.

First, how could they make a law like that? Retro fit all older computers, or just ignore them? Ignore them and you run the risk of someone not having DRM :Q

Second, unless the hardware is invasive it shouldn't affect anything but DRM enabled software.

Third, there was enough outrage from customers and just about everyone that Intel (big bad evil!) disabled the p3 id number thingy by default, it would happen the same with DRM.

Forth, chances are there would be hardware available that would be DRMless. Think server. 😀

EDIT: I don't know what I just typed...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
Just as long as they don't make it a law saying that DRM has to be included with all hardware, then I can sit here and not get to pissed about it.


This is a capitolist system, and while corporate people can try to push things on the rest of everybody, it goes both ways. Customers who don't buy stuff puts more pressure on them then anything they can do to customers. This is because coporations are optional, disposable, and replaceable. Customers aren't. They can only afford to piss so many people off before they start to feel the pressure, and that pressure will come from someone else just as agressive, but knows how to cater better to the demands of their customers.

First, how could they make a law like that? Retro fit all older computers, or just ignore them? Ignore them and you run the risk of someone not having DRM :Q

They'd ignore them, just like they ignore non-region enabled DVD players or even 3-wheeled ATV vehicles. In 5 years time all computers would be DRM.

Second, unless the hardware is invasive it shouldn't affect anything but DRM enabled software.

Well, you would just have to pass laws saying that any software that is designed to circumvent DRM stuff is illegal.

Oh wait....

Third, there was enough outrage from customers and just about everyone that Intel (big bad evil!) disabled the p3 id number thingy by default, it would happen the same with DRM.

Hopefully, but right now they could pass a law and most people would be too ignorant to care less about it. Once they (I mean the majority of people) find out how much something like this can suck, it will be to late. How easy is it to undo a law vs make a new one?

Forth, chances are there would be hardware available that would be DRMless. Think server. 😀

Sure, but if people begin to use it to circumvent DRM, then they would have to provide a liscencing sceme for people that could own "powerfull" server hardware.

Anyways you would impliment DRM stuff on servers, too. You don't want a hacked server to reveil all your internal documents? DRM would be a usefull tool in servers, just like it is in desktops.

EDIT: I don't know what I just typed...

Neither do I sometimes. I am a paranoid person, but I know whatever you do in sociaty is reversable. If DRM realy sucks people won't buy it and it will go away. If DRM is usefull then people will buy it and it will flurish

But make it a law and it will always be there, irregardless of it's real value to sociaty. I want to aviod that.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
First, how could they make a law like that? Retro fit all older computers, or just ignore them? Ignore them and you run the risk of someone not having DRM :Q

They'd ignore them, just like they ignore non-region enabled DVD players or even 3-wheeled ATV vehicles. In 5 years time all computers would be DRM.

Maybe. I'd be using the same machines in 5 years then.

Second, unless the hardware is invasive it shouldn't affect anything but DRM enabled software.

Well, you would just have to pass laws saying that any software that is designed to circumvent DRM stuff is illegal.

It is one thing to circumvent the software (DMCA comes to mind here), and another to just not interface with it. From everything I've heard so far, DRM has been about "enabling consumers," instead of being forced on everyone. Take that with a grain of salt. 😉

Oh wait....

Third, there was enough outrage from customers and just about everyone that Intel (big bad evil!) disabled the p3 id number thingy by default, it would happen the same with DRM.

Hopefully, but right now they could pass a law and most people would be too ignorant to care less about it. Once they (I mean the majority of people) find out how much something like this can suck, it will be to late. How easy is it to undo a law vs make a new one?

I think more people would know something about that than the ID in the p3. The ID in the p3 is still there, but it's an option, just like DRM is supposed to be.

Forth, chances are there would be hardware available that would be DRMless. Think server. 😀

Sure, but if people begin to use it to circumvent DRM, then they would have to provide a liscencing sceme for people that could own "powerfull" server hardware.

I'm not sure I understand this. It's probably because I'm REALLY tired. 😛

Anyways you would impliment DRM stuff on servers, too. You don't want a hacked server to reveil all your internal documents? DRM would be a usefull tool in servers, just like it is in desktops.

The key word here is tool. It won't be a requirement, it will be a tool to get more content.

EDIT: I don't know what I just typed...

Neither do I sometimes.

I'm just really tired. I had to edit some things out because I didn't understand how they fit into my post at all. 😕

I am a paranoid person,

I don't know about you, but I spent a good part of my weekend in an aluminum foil hat complaining that I couldn't find tin foil.

but I know whatever you do in sociaty is reversable. If DRM realy sucks people won't buy it and it will go away. If DRM is usefull then people will buy it and it will flurish

But make it a law and it will always be there, irregardless of it's real value to sociaty. I want to aviod that.

Is there talk of making it a requirement in the US again? There was talk when the whole TCPA stuff started getting released about the US government requiring DRM hardware and software on all machines, but the talk either stopped or went "underground." This was all hand in hand with "banning FLOSS." I don't think it will happen. With IBM and various other companies behind Linux, FLOSS won't get banned from the US. There will be a Linux implimentation for DRM, and some people will use it not realizing the hypocracy.

I'll continue using software from the land of the free, where law makers can tell the difference between bombs and encryption.

 

[drag]

Ya, FLOSS is never going to be banned, nobody is that insane.

As far as talk about wanting to make TCPA a legal requirement, that sort of crap will never go away. That's how the stuff like this works, they figured it was to much of a big step for everybody so they impliment it in baby steps. The reasons they still want it a legal requirement are still here, so they still want what they want. They just can't risk people getting all excited and maybe they will start educating themselves.

I'll continue using software from the land of the free, where law makers can tell the difference between bombs and encryption.

Encryption laws suck @ss. :frown:

Like everybody else in the world is to stupid to figure out how to make their own or break encryption, it just doesn't make any sense.

(edit:
btw exportation laws are not what they once were, it's now mostly legal to export to most places, just not no enemies of the state sort of countries. Still stupid stuff, though.)

edit: from a 2000 "fact sheet" regarding the partial liberation of encryption export laws, since then they have gotten a bit less restrictive then this in latter acts

Encryption source code which is available to the public and which is not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed with the source code may be exported under a license exception without a technical review. (continued.. )

Just FYI.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Ya, FLOSS is never going to be banned, nobody is that insane.

If hardware/software DRM is a requirement, FLOSS is gone.

As far as talk about wanting to make TCPA a legal requirement, that sort of crap will never go away. That's how the stuff like this works, they figured it was to much of a big step for everybody so they impliment it in baby steps. The reasons they still want it a legal requirement are still here, so they still want what they want. They just can't risk people getting all excited and maybe they will start educating themselves.

We'll see what happens. I was going to type something else, but I got distracted and can't remember what it was. Oooh shiny things...

I'll continue using software from the land of the free, where law makers can tell the difference between bombs and encryption.

Encryption laws suck @ss. :frown:

Like everybody else in the world is to stupid to figure out how to make their own or break encryption, it just doesn't make any sense.

AES, pretty much the new standard in the US, wasn't developed in the US. If I wrote a strong encryption program, the only way I could distribute it without government interference is on paper. That should tell us something about these Draconian laws. They're forcing us to play catch up with the free world.

EDIT:

(edit:
btw exportation laws are not what they once were, it's now mostly legal to export to most places, just not no enemies of the state sort of countries. Still stupid stuff, though.)

No, that's wrong, unless the site I read last week hadn't been updated recently. From memory (so I'm probably off): You can export 56bits and down to pretty much everyone except for the 7 enemy States (Syria, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, something x3). Any software with backdoors can be distributed after a one time 30 day review or a notification, I can't remember. Something else for a 30 day review I think. Anything that doesn't have a backdoor and is using decent encryption has to be reviewed by the government.

I can find the site again, if anyone's interested.

 

[drag]

see my edit to the last post.

It seems that you can export any source code to anybody as long as it's free software. Just as long as you send written notification of it's internet address prior to posting it. You don't have to wait for a technical review or anything.

Post-export notficiation is required for some products that involve over 64bits. However if it's from a anonymous or free download over the internet then no notification is needed.

I am no lawyer though, I could easily be missing something.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
see my edit to the last post.

It seems that you can export any source code to anybody as long as it's free software. Just as long as you send written notification of it's internet address prior to posting it. You don't have to wait for a technical review or anything.

Post-export notficiation is required for some products that involve over 64bits. However if it's from a anonymous or free download over the internet then no notification is needed.

I am no lawyer though, I could easily be missing something.

It looks like the page I was looking at is a little out of date. If I followed links correctly, the legalese should be here. If that is the right stuff, it looks like everything has been updated recently.

EDIT: here is what I was reading the other day.

EDIT2: the first site (gpo.gov) appears to be about all export regulations, I think. I can't read legalese. it's a horrible language.

EDIT3: I think this is the important one...

 

[drag]

EDIT3: I think this is the important one...

Arghh... that's the most head-ache inducing one...

That's I beleive is just for "retail" stuff, that is the stuff that open source code is excempt from, I think. The f-d up part were something like OpenBSD would be concerned is: Would sales of the CDROM product constitute retail sales and be subject to the export law and require a techinical review and liscencing? Or would the "open source"-ness of the product be enough to excempt it? Would OpenBSD have to make sure that it's not shipping it to any foreign government institution, or to any of the "7 terrorist" states? Is their a big difference between allowing posting the source code of encryption software and a ISO image containing software that was created with that source code? Would they have to provide Post-export notification for each CDROM installation set they mail out?

What a pain. At least they haven't created any import laws, that is still completely free.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

EDIT3: I think this is the important one...

Arghh... that's the most head-ache inducing one...

That's I beleive is just for "retail" stuff, that is the stuff that open source code is excempt from, I think. The f-d up part were something like OpenBSD would be concerned is: Would sales of the CDROM product constitute retail sales and be subject to the export law and require a techinical review and liscencing? Or would the "open source"-ness of the product be enough to excempt it? Would OpenBSD have to make sure that it's not shipping it to any foreign government institution, or to any of the "7 terrorist" states? Is their a big difference between allowing posting the source code of encryption software and a ISO image containing software that was created with that source code? Would they have to provide Post-export notification for each CDROM installation set they mail out?

No offence, but I don't think either of us could figure it out. 😛

Thankfully OpenBSD is grounded in Canada. I keep meaning to ask one of the developers I know if there are any issues with export and him working on the encryption parts of the system. Maybe that's why he writes so many drivers 😛

What a pain. At least they haven't created any import laws, that is still completely free.

If hardware/software DRM becomes a law, an import law would be redundant. Plus it might hurt allies like israel (checkpoint was an israli company last time I checked).