More Longhorn News. Making Music safe.

[drag]

Interesting news bit, here relating to DRM and trusted computing and all that in Longhorn.

Basicly the idea is that since PC's are less and less mere 'computers', but more and more consumer devices, that in order to make them palatable for media makers Microsoft (and the rest of the PC industry) needs to make assurances that their digital media data will be safe from their customers.

Some notable notables, like encrypted audio streams all the way thru your computer to be decrypted by your audio card's hardware and revision of the PCIe 1.1 specifications to allow possible 'TCS' devices in the actual PCIe add-on cards so that they can reject working with non-approved software.

Some interesting stuff.

 

[rmrf]

when I first heard of "blackcomb", there was a big buzz about only being able to play a song or cd a certain number of times before it "ran out", then you would have to buy a new cd, or song.

not that I condone pirating, but it makes me happy that I've moved to linux for the most part, just because of all the restrictions that microsoft is trying to push on us.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: rmrf
when I first heard of "blackcomb", there was a big buzz about only being able to play a song or cd a certain number of times before it "ran out", then you would have to buy a new cd, or song.

not that I condone pirating, but it makes me happy that I've moved to linux for the most part, just because of all the restrictions that microsoft is trying to push on us.

I second this. Once you lose the ultimate, final control over your computer's operation---which, to a degree, is slightly true already (BIOS)---why do you even have a computer in the first place? And I know it's fallacious thinking, but the slippery slope: once they have a backdoor basically embedded in the hardware, who knows what else.

I really wish that everyone paid attention to the corporate assault from all sides. "Trusted" computing from one side, software patents from the other, perpetual copyright already having struck, and the DMCA from all other remaing directions---and we who are aware of these only have a limited number of things that can be attended to at one time, so the larger community of computer users is welcomed to stop being completely selfish pragmatists at any time.

The great fear that drives us to oppose "trusted" computing is that the corporate sector at large will use its legal influence to make it illegal to run anything but TC-enabled hardware and software. They have used it many times before. Stop following the herd and take a look at where you are being led.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: rmrf
when I first heard of "blackcomb", there was a big buzz about only being able to play a song or cd a certain number of times before it "ran out", then you would have to buy a new cd, or song.

not that I condone pirating, but it makes me happy that I've moved to linux for the most part, just because of all the restrictions that microsoft is trying to push on us.

This will never happen. The movie industry tried to push this type of technology with Divx and it failed miserably.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: rmrf
when I first heard of "blackcomb", there was a big buzz about only being able to play a song or cd a certain number of times before it "ran out", then you would have to buy a new cd, or song.

not that I condone pirating, but it makes me happy that I've moved to linux for the most part, just because of all the restrictions that microsoft is trying to push on us.

This will never happen. The movie industry tried to push this type of technology with Divx and it failed miserably.

Yep. What I see instead is a subscription based services. Like cable TV or whatnot.. you pay to play, when you stop paying then you loose the ability to watch whatever you pay for. In order for that to work then you have to stop people from recording what they are watching on their harddrive (at least in such a way that you give up control of the media.).

Seems to be the way things are going.

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: rmrf
when I first heard of "blackcomb", there was a big buzz about only being able to play a song or cd a certain number of times before it "ran out", then you would have to buy a new cd, or song.

not that I condone pirating, but it makes me happy that I've moved to linux for the most part, just because of all the restrictions that microsoft is trying to push on us.

This will never happen. The movie industry tried to push this type of technology with Divx and it failed miserably.

Yep. What I see instead is a subscription based services. Like cable TV or whatnot.. you pay to play, when you stop paying then you loose the ability to watch whatever you pay for. In order for that to work then you have to stop people from recording what they are watching on their harddrive (at least in such a way that you give up control of the media.).

Seems to be the way things are going.

I agree, the subsription industries in America are where the money is being made. People used to have telephones and maybe cable. Now, they have telephones, cell phones, Internet Access, cable or satellite TV, satellite radion, on demand movies, DVD rental subscriptions, etc.

Also, isn't this what Napster is already doing? (The pay to play thing).

 

[Dragonbate]

Blockbuster is also moving to subscription...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: drag
Yep. What I see instead is a subscription based services. Like cable TV or whatnot.. you pay to play, when you stop paying then you loose the ability to watch whatever you pay for.

As I've been suggesting - MS is moving towards an "XBox Live" model for the formerly-open PC platform. Either you go all-MS, and only-MS, and continually "pay to play", or you don't play at all, and your TCPA-enabled PC's serial number and your "Windows Update Validation account" (or whatever) gets banned - permanently. You want updates? You want to play the latest games? Buy another complete PC. Oh, and just coincidentally, that forces you to pay for another copy of OEM pre-installed Windows to go with it too. How fortunate for MS.

Originally posted by: drag
In order for that to work then you have to stop people from recording what they are watching on their harddrive (at least in such a way that you give up control of the media.).
Seems to be the way things are going.

Is it my PC, or is it MS's PC? That's really the key question here, and it's a very, nearly deadly-serious one, because it could be used as a strong precident for everything modern and technologically-related. Are we to return to a feudal/slavery model, in which we are not even allowed to own the tools and spaces in which we use to make a living? Will we have to relentlessly submit to the arbitrary whims of rich and powerful corporations, in order to appease them, lest they cause us no end of harassment in our lives, due to the increased intertwining between corporations and gov't law-enforcement?

This is nothing but a return to a modern-day "Technology Dark Ages", and a decent into pure corporate-greed-fueled madness. It is sure to lead, eventually, to a societal revolt. Is that what MS truely wants? The US federal gov't, acting on behalf of the will of the people, was unable to stop them. So then, what will? I shudder to think.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: drag
In order for that to work then you have to stop people from recording what they are watching on their harddrive (at least in such a way that you give up control of the media.).
Seems to be the way things are going.

Is it my PC, or is it MS's PC? That's really the key question here, and it's a very, nearly deadly-serious one, because it could be used as a strong precident for everything modern and technologically-related. Are we to return to a feudal/slavery model, in which we are not even allowed to own the tools and spaces in which we use to make a living? Will we have to relentlessly submit to the arbitrary whims of rich and powerful corporations, in order to appease them, lest they cause us no end of harassment in our lives, due to the increased intertwining between corporations and gov't law-enforcement?

This is nothing but a return to a modern-day "Technology Dark Ages", and a decent into pure corporate-greed-fueled madness. It is sure to lead, eventually, to a societal revolt. Is that what MS truely wants? The US federal gov't, acting on behalf of the will of the people, was unable to stop them. So then, what will? I shudder to think.

It can be your PC entirely. Just disconnect it from the internet.

America's highways are free for public use, but you must abide by traffic laws in order to drive on them. The internet is no different. As the internet evolves from an information delivery system to a content delivery system, a set of rules must be established to make it economically viable. Yes, you can receive movies and music and games over the internet, but you must abide by certain rules in order to do that. Otherwise, we'll have to remain in the 20th century and walk or drive to nearby stores to purchase these items in person.

The biggest obstacle is that the internet has grown so rapidly as a realm of anarchy that no one knows quite how to reign it in. No one can deny that the lack of rules and regulations surrounding the internet has been one of the key factors in its explosive growth. But content companies still need business models. And content delivery cannot be effective on a network without rules and rule enforcement.

Is digital rights management the answer? I don't have too much problem with the DRM concept, but the problems arise when the rules governing online content delivery conflict with traditional content delivery. I don't want MP3s that I rip from CDs I purchased to be controlled in the same way as MP3s I download from iTunes or Napster. I should be able to rip MP3s from my CDs in the first place. If I buy a game from the store, why do companies automatically treat me like a criminal and assume I'm going to try and distribute it illegally? Why do I have to go through ridiculous hoops to use something that I purchased legally? The line between protecting business interests and driving away customers is razor thin, and there have already been major consequences when that line is crossed (witness the TurboTax product activation fiasco a year or two ago).

I don't have quite the pessimistic view you do Larry, but I can definitely foresee big changes in the internet as we know it over the next 5 years.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: MrChad
It can be your PC entirely. Just disconnect it from the internet.

America's highways are free for public use, but you must abide by traffic laws in order to drive on them. The internet is no different.

LOL. Please, not another "information superhighway" metaphor. That's so... 1997.

I'll give you a hint - the interconnected networks that make up the collective "internet", are not publically-owned, nor publically paid-for, like the public roadways are. Nor are there any legitimate issues of physical safety at work. There is no way that someone could injure me, via the internet, from "posting drunk". (However, they can often be a great source of amusement...) So the gov't has no legitimate authority to regulate the internet, in the interest of public safety. Nor is it their jurisdiction, since it is still private property, unless you are accessing it from a state-owned computer system. (A civil servant at work, for example.)

But that also totally sidesteps the issue of vehicle ownership itself, and the private use rights that entails.

Do you know what the biggest difference between a slave and a "freeman" is? A "freeman" is allowed to own property, real-estate. A slave is not. Society needs to wake up, and take a closer look at what is really going on in the technology field today. Do we want to be slaves? Or free men.

Originally posted by: MrChad
As the internet evolves from an information delivery system to a content delivery system, a set of rules must be established to make it economically viable. Yes, you can receive movies and music and games over the internet, but you must abide by certain rules in order to do that. Otherwise, we'll have to remain in the 20th century and walk or drive to nearby stores to purchase these items in person.

Yes, fine. But I own my DVD player. Not MGM, not Universal, etc.

Originally posted by: MrChad
But content companies still need business models. And content delivery cannot be effective on a network without rules and rule enforcement.

And those business models and "rules", should not involve their control over my private property, in order to protect their profit models.

Originally posted by: MrChad
If I buy a game from the store, why do companies automatically treat me like a criminal and assume I'm going to try and distribute it illegally? Why do I have to go through ridiculous hoops to use something that I purchased legally?

That's exactly it. Indeed, that's one reason why in the US, you are (theoretically) innocent until proven guilty, and why there is a prohibition against soldiers being allowed to be quartered in private homes. Yet, what MS and others are proposing with this whole TCPA thing, is exactly analogous to that - "a (technological) LEO in every PC, in every home!"

Would you want your own corporate-controlled, private police-person, in your own home, watching over every private action that you take, in order to constantly regulate what you can or cannot do? That's insane!

Originally posted by: MrChad
The line between protecting business interests and driving away customers is razor thin, and there have already been major consequences when that line is crossed (witness the TurboTax product activation fiasco a year or two ago).
I don't have quite the pessimistic view you do Larry, but I can definitely foresee big changes in the internet as we know it over the next 5 years.

But the problem is, it's not just the internet - it's society itself and the intertwined interactions with modern technology, in ways that we very nearly cannot escape. (Unless you live in some Amish enclave, far away from the rest of "modern" society.) Although I'm not exactly a "follower", I have to admit, RMS's rantings are seeming more and more relevant every day. His well-known "Right to Read" essay, seemed "extreme" only a scant few years ago, and now it seems like simply a documentary piece on the sad state of affairs today.

Just wait until the next "super DMCA" law comes around, and what you are allowed to do (with your own PC - your very own private property, being utilized often in the context of private communications exercises), will attempt to be strictly regulated, ostensibly in the defense of both corporate profits, and to protect the interests of fascist and intrusive LEO depts. (Now that nearly every citizen is "on the internet", will that lead to all LEOs becoming "BOFH"s? That's a scary thought for the future.)

"Freedom" only exists as the exercise of such, not as mere words on paper or on the screen. If you can't actually say it or mean it, then it is dead and means nothing at all. I truly hope that that doesn't happen in America. It's time for some change here, and for wrongs to start to be righted, before all is lost.

 

[bersl2]

It might be too much idealism for you to handle (since it's rms), but try reading The Right to Read and Can you trust your computer?.

Assertion that TCPA != Palladium/NGSCB && TCPA != DRM: http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf

TCPA FAQ

News.com article on trusted hardware forthcoming

Not linking to any MS documents, but they exist.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Anandtech forums, I advise you that while TCPA proper might be acceptable (I have yet to see what the details of its differences are), Microsoft's implementation will likely not be so. Anybody who, upon the activation of this system of "trust" and in the event that it turns out to be as bad as it looks, continues to comply with such a system, will lose all respectability in my eyes, for the duration of his use of that system.

You have been warned, and you will continue to be warned. If this system becomes pervasive enough, I guarantee that the Internet will fork, and a great many of those who made the Internet what it is today will purge all ties. The new network will return to the BBS roots, since in the worst case we may be locked out of the routing system and my have to use modems, and we will attempt to bootstrap the network.

And if you think I'm being paranoid, well I am. I'm just telling you what I imagine the collective contingency plan is, regardless of how likely a dystopia is.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bersl2
You have been warned, and you will continue to be warned. If this system becomes pervasive enough, I guarantee that the Internet will fork, and a great many of those who made the Internet what it is today will purge all ties. The new network will return to the BBS roots, since in the worst case we may be locked out of the routing system and my have to use modems, and we will attempt to bootstrap the network.

The future is open-access wireless (802.11-based) mesh networks, built from the ground up like BBS infrastructure, but capable of mesh-routing, both over local physical links, and potentially remotely via internet/ISP-based backhaul tunnels between nodes, when local physical wireless transmission isn't possible. Encrypted, of course. Will this happen? I hope so. Will this be fully necessary to maintain online freedom of speech/expression? I sincerely hope not... but the option is there. At least for now, as long as that frequency range remains "open", and no further draconial FCC marshalling of that spectrum range takes place.

Originally posted by: bersl2
And if you think I'm being paranoid, well I am. I'm just telling you what I imagine the collective contingency plan is, regardless of how likely a dystopia is.

There's no such thing as paranoia. As they say in the boy scouts, "be prepared". For the worst is yet to come.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" - Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation

 

[tk11]

I think everyone needs to relax a little. Bottom line is this sort of thing has been going on for years. Circumventing literally any type of security system is always possible. Usually tools and techniques to do so are available almost immediately.

As the expense and inconvenience of various security technologies increase so will the number of alternatives. All attempts to prevent people from using such alternatives will be just as futile as every previous attempt to do so has proven to be.

I think it would be wiser of corporations to be more concerned with making better products to attract customers rather than introducing restrictions and incompatibilities that alienate their customers; but that's just my opinion.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: tk11
I think everyone needs to relax a little. Bottom line is this sort of thing has been going on for years. Circumventing literally any type of security system is always possible. Usually tools and techniques to do so are available almost immediately.

As the expense and inconvenience of various security technologies increase so will the number of alternatives. All attempts to prevent people from using such alternatives will be just as futile as every previous attempt to do so has proven to be.

I think it would be wiser of corporations to be more concerned with making better products to attract customers rather than introducing restrictions and incompatibilities that alienate their customers; but that's just my opinion.

This I agree with. As these dumb a$$ corporations spend more and more money on trying to control the medium and jack prices higher and higher to cover it, they will see more and more people move to those companies that have the vision to offer reasonable alternatives.
By reasonable, I of course mean completely unfettered access

 

[kylef]

Make no mistake about it: Copyright laws will prevail, and service contracts will soon require you to use specific types of technology in order to access certain content. It's as simple as that.

For the majority of you tinfoil hat people, who think this his happening because Microsoft wants to kill all Free Software: you're just plain wrong. This has been in the works long before Linux was even in the vocabulary. This is a legal compliance issue, designed to address a longstanding problem with digital technology: never before has it been so easy to make illegal copies of artists' works without detection. This threatens the very nature of Copyright Protection by rendering it utterly unenforceable.

There are technological solutions to this problem, and they do usually involve ensuring that your hardware's copy protection is intact: e.g., that you do in fact have a secure audio channel path set up and can't merely click a button to direct the digital bitstream to a file, thereby making a de-facto digital copy of the content.

IMO, the Free Software Foundation is making a big mistake here. Rather than attempting to solve this problem using Free Software to make computers less of a vehicle for rampant copyright abuse, it is instead effectively fighting against 200+ years of Copyright Law by saying that techniques to solve the problem are "draconian" and will stop the free spread of ideas.

In other words, they are using a scaremongering defense. Such defenses (thankfully) rarely hold up in court.

 

[drag]

This is were your wrong completely.

Free software and such depends greatly on copyright law. It's utterly at the core of the system.

And it's not 200 years of copyright law, it's thousands of years. Without strong copyright laws and copyright enforcement the GPL license and all of free software would fall appart competely. There would be no way to enforce compliance in GPL licensing.

What copyright law is designed to do is not to restrict the rights of the people using material. It's designed to prevent businesses from ripping each other off. That's the only reason.. The idea that you need to have DRM on indivudual computers to protect against customers from copying the material that they own is perverse.

It is perfectly acceptable to make a dub tape for a freind. It's perfectly legal to photocopy a page out of a book to be used in a report. There are thousands of instances of were copying copyrighted material is perfectly legal.

If I video tape a football game for my dad, I can send it to him. If I want to do the same thing digitally, even in HD this is still perfectly and 100% legal. Completely moral behavior, nothing wrong with it.

What DRM and trusted computing is is about control. That's all. The anti-piracy crap is a sham. As tax payers we already have good anti-piracy, it's called the FBI. It's called the Federal Government.

Didn't the court system go after suprnova.org? Didn't they put Napster out of business?

The reason this was able to happen legally is because they WERE MAKING A MONEY stealing and distributing copyrighted material.

This is what copyright is designed for. To prevent Microsoft from ripping off Redhat and visa versa. To prevent people selling copyrighted material in a store without paying royalties. To prevent radio stations from playing music and not compinsating the artists.

It's not designed to allow people to 'enforce' their own copyrighted by forcing controls on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

DRM, and trusted computing will NOT stop piracy. It's not designed to.. the price of going after real pirates is to high. They will mearly work around it. They will program their own chips, they will fool the software. They will hack and burn thru any digital protection anybody can figure out. If you can make it digitally protected, yet allow customers to view it, they they will be able to steal it. It's a fact.

In reality it's about direct/focused marketting, it's about securing distribution channels to lower costs, it's about forcing people to use certain software and hardware to view content (and thus inspsire sales of said software and hardware). It's about locking people into a paticular platform, its about allowing control over other people's computers.

The anti-piracy stuff is mostly a shame. Sure it will stop 'casual piracy', but casual piracy isn't anywere near the problem that people like the RIAA want to make it out to be.

Remember that copyright isn't designed to stop all over people's rights. Enforcing it in such a way is stupid. It's designed to stop businesses from screwing each other over, and to stop them screwing customers over.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: drag
What copyright law is designed to do is not to restrict the rights of the people using material.

Your post belies a fundamental misunderstanding of Copyright Law. Defining "fair use" rights of people attempting to make copies of copyrighted material is precisely what Copyright Law is designed to regulate! The laws are applicable to both private and commercial use.

Don't think that just because private copyright abuse is rarely prosecuted that it isn't illegal!

It is perfectly acceptable to make a dub tape for a freind.

No, it is not! This is a commonly misunderstood side effect of the 1992 AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act). The AHRA introduced SCMS (a copy protection scheme), which gave Digital Audio Recording Devices the right to make royalty-free single-generational copies, in digital format, of all content. In exchange, manufacturers of these devices would pay a 2% per-device royalty and 3% per-medium royalty (from $1 to $8). This royalty was designed to make up for the loss of revenue due to the fair-use exemption granted by the single-generational copies.

The problem is, the AHRA applies only to devices whose specific or primary function is the digital recording of audio content. Computers and CD-Rs, whose primary purpose of existence has always been copying program data, do not apply. There is no fair use exemption for private parties to make copies of copyrighted content unless they are in the standard 1976 Fair Use exemption list (criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research).

It's perfectly legal to photocopy a page out of a book to be used in a report. There are thousands of instances of were copying copyrighted material is perfectly legal.

This is correct, and in each of these cases, the copying was performed under the "Fair Use" doctrine. But NOWHERE has "Fair Use" been interpreted to mean "making a copy of your music to give to your friend"!!

If I video tape a football game for my dad, I can send it to him. If I want to do the same thing digitally, even in HD this is still perfectly and 100% legal. Completely moral behavior, nothing wrong with it.

This is from the famous "Betamax" case, and it applies very narrowly. Specifically, the content in question MUST have been broadcast for public consumption, and the resulting "time-shifting" recording is done for non-commercial purposes. The decision was silent on distribution of said copies; this means you are in legal gray area even here. And besides, this would explicitly NOT apply to the caes of copying your music CDs, which are not broadcast publicly!

What DRM and trusted computing is is about control. That's all. The anti-piracy crap is a sham. As tax payers we already have good anti-piracy, it's called the FBI. It's called the Federal Government.

Absolutely, utterly wrong here. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have cited repeatedly that they have no means to tackle the rampant copyright abuse currently taking place. The current enabling technologies makes it impossible for them to enforce the Copyright Laws as they are written.

The reason this was able to happen legally is because they WERE MAKING A MONEY stealing and distributing copyrighted material.

You are completely wrong here. There are plenty of documented cases of Copyright Holders winning lawsuits against non-profit organizations and even School Boards for non-fair-use copyright infringement. The most famous was the Encyclopedia Brittanica case against the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (a consortium of public school districts). Re-distributing for a profit is not what makes this a crime! The Law also provides for losses of copyright revenue due the copyright holder.

It's not designed to allow people to 'enforce' their own copyrighted by forcing controls on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

No, no, no! Copyrighted material is not your property unless YOU are its author! Purchasing a copy of a Copyrighted work does NOT mean that you own that work! Specifically, you are explicitly forbidden from making copies of said work! This is the most fundamental aspect of Copyright Law.

DRM, and trusted computing will NOT stop piracy. It's not designed to.. the price of going after real pirates is to high. They will mearly work around it. They will program their own chips, they will fool the software. They will hack and burn thru any digital protection anybody can figure out. If you can make it digitally protected, yet allow customers to view it, they they will be able to steal it. It's a fact.

I agree that it will not stop piracy: but it will make it much more difficult than it is today, where 95% of the public has the means to do it with a simple mouse-click.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying to mean that we should pass laws REQUIRING said copy protection on all computers: but if an industry wishes to add copy protection capability to its software/devices, then it's entirely up to them to do so. You have the choice of either participating and enjoying the content available, or not participating and not enjoying the content. It's really as simple as that.

 

[drag]

It's not designed to allow people to 'enforce' their own copyrighted by forcing controls on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

No, no, no! Copyrighted material is not your property unless YOU are its author! Purchasing a copy of a Copyrighted work does NOT mean that you own that work! Specifically, you are explicitly forbidden from making copies of said work! This is the most fundamental aspect of Copyright Law.

The 'other people's property' I was talking about is their computers. You say that in order to protect copyright you have to allow copyright owners control over their customer's computer. This seems wrong to me, and getting a 'industry' standard to enforce this is as much as government as anything else and is getting very close to violating anti-trust law.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: drag

It's not designed to allow people to 'enforce' their own copyrighted by forcing controls on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

No, no, no! Copyrighted material is not your property unless YOU are its author! Purchasing a copy of a Copyrighted work does NOT mean that you own that work! Specifically, you are explicitly forbidden from making copies of said work! This is the most fundamental aspect of Copyright Law.

The 'other people's property' I was talking about is their computers. You say that in order to protect copyright you have to allow copyright owners control over their customer's computer. This seems wrong to me, and getting a 'industry' standard to enforce this is as much as government as anything else and is getting very close to violating anti-trust law.

I think that largely depends on how it is implemented. Everything I have read from official sources suggests that computers will still be able to run non-"trusted" OSes, but these OSes will not be able to play back various forms of encrypted content. This is all at the content provider's discretion.

So you're still free to run Linux or whatever other OS or Free Software you want. That capability has not changed. The only difference is that you won't be able to access various services that require your underlying system to be "trusted" (i.e., secure). In other words, your hardware will run in one of two modes, secure and unsecure.

This all goes back to what I was saying originally about the FSF: it should be focusing on offering an alternative "trusted/secure" platform. Rather than just complaining about the potential for "content lock-in", offer the world an alternative secure platform that is open source, enabling secure content delivery to those platforms too! Maybe even push to get such a system standardized so that the industry would be more likely to adopt THAT standard rather than a particular vendor's implementation.

Richard Stallman has done the free software crowd a disservice here. He has played this issue as though it is a Evil Corporations vs. The People issue. But the entire motivating factor here is the eliminating of copyright infringement. (Yes, this includes software copyright infringement.)

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: kylef
Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying to mean that we should pass laws REQUIRING said copy protection on all computers: but if an industry wishes to add copy protection capability to its software/devices, then it's entirely up to them to do so. You have the choice of either participating and enjoying the content available, or not participating and not enjoying the content. It's really as simple as that.

I agree with most of what you said, kyle, but to me, DRM really only works with newer, all-digital content delivery systems. The problems arise when content manufacturers attempt to retrofit new copyright protection schemes onto older technologies. I don't mind if the MP3 I download from Napster is restricted for use on my PC and my portable music player. But why should I be prevented from ripping MP3s from a CD I purchase at the store? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable application of fair use statutes? Sure, I could send copies to all my friends, but it's more likely that I will just play it on my HTPC or on my portable MP3 player. Isn't there ANY room to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt in some cases? Aren't the software and content industries going to alienate consumers by assuming that their behavior will be criminal?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: drag

It's not designed to allow people to 'enforce' their own copyrighted by forcing controls on OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

No, no, no! Copyrighted material is not your property unless YOU are its author! Purchasing a copy of a Copyrighted work does NOT mean that you own that work! Specifically, you are explicitly forbidden from making copies of said work! This is the most fundamental aspect of Copyright Law.

The 'other people's property' I was talking about is their computers. You say that in order to protect copyright you have to allow copyright owners control over their customer's computer. This seems wrong to me, and getting a 'industry' standard to enforce this is as much as government as anything else and is getting very close to violating anti-trust law.

I think that largely depends on how it is implemented. Everything I have read from official sources suggests that computers will still be able to run non-"trusted" OSes, but these OSes will not be able to play back various forms of encrypted content. This is all at the content provider's discretion.

So you're still free to run Linux or whatever other OS or Free Software you want. That capability has not changed. The only difference is that you won't be able to access various services that require your underlying system to be "trusted" (i.e., secure). In other words, your hardware will run in one of two modes, secure and unsecure.

This all goes back to what I was saying originally about the FSF: it should be focusing on offering an alternative "trusted/secure" platform. Rather than just complaining about the potential for "content lock-in", offer the world an alternative secure platform that is open source, enabling secure content delivery to those platforms too! Maybe even push to get such a system standardized so that the industry would be more likely to adopt THAT standard rather than a particular vendor's implementation.

Richard Stallman has done the free software crowd a disservice here. He has played this issue as though it is a Evil Corporations vs. The People issue. But the entire motivating factor here is the eliminating of copyright infringement. (Yes, this includes software copyright infringement.)

FSF only cares about the rights of end users and the average person.

To the extent that you can use 'trusted' hardware to protect against unauthorised software (unauthorized in the way that USERS don't want software to run, like spyware or viruses) it is already supported by Linux. Linux already supports DRM and such. It's possible to use it in a practical way that doesn't infringe on the ability of the end-user to use their hardware.

If you noticed one of the things that was in the article I originally linked was that you'd have PCIe devices that will reject software themselves, irregardless of the wishes of the owners of the hardware.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: drag
FSF only cares about the rights of end users and the average person.

The FSF's motivations are offtopic, but since you brought it up, I think the FSF has become a political lobbying organization that seeks ever-increasing amounts of power, like any lobbying organization, and is willing to do or say anything to get more power. For instance, they have quite successfully lobbied the EU's trade commission to do their bidding regarding Microsoft's anti-trust "settlement" in Europe. But again, this is offtopic.

To the extent that you can use 'trusted' hardware to protect against unauthorised software (unauthorized in the way that USERS don't want software to run, like spyware or viruses) it is already supported by Linux. Linux already supports DRM and such. It's possible to use it in a practical way that doesn't infringe on the ability of the end-user to use their hardware.

I disagree: hardware must trust the software and vice-versa. Linux currently has no way to offer a Secure Audio Path, for instance. There will always be a way around any scheme with the current system, such as compiling a new kernel that traps the data before it is sent to your sound interface.

If the Linux community really wanted to solve this problem, then they could propose a method for a trusted organization (like the FSF itself, which does abide by the law) to digitally sign specific kernels and drivers or something like that so that the non-flashable part of the BIOS or some other hardware platform could verify that it is running trusted code at the lowest levels. This could thwart kernel-level components from sniffing unencrypted content.

You could make every device vendor solve this issue by embedding some kind of public-key decryption technology in each and every device, I suppose. That way, ALL communication with the device would effectively be secure. But this severely limits the type of encryption technology you can use, and any such hardware keys/certificates would be a gigantic target for crackers to expoit. Not to mention it would make such devices more expensive to manufacture. Providing a secure platform eases the burden on hardware vendors and places it primarily on the system software vendor.

If you noticed one of the things that was in the article I originally linked was that you'd have PCIe devices that will reject software themselves, irregardless of the wishes of the owners of the hardware.

This is already possible today: it is easy for vendors to intentionally disable their equipment when they detect particular usage scenarios. (Of course, it is also usually easy to fool this equipment into thinking that you ARE running in a supported scenario.) So I don't see how introducing platform-level DRM will change this behavior. Vendors are free to implement their hardware however they see fit: if they want to introduce specific incompatibilities, nothing can stop them except your refusal to buy the equipment in the first place.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: MrChad
I agree with most of what you said, kyle, but to me, DRM really only works with newer, all-digital content delivery systems.

Yes, I completely agree. Retro-fitting DRM onto older content delivery systems is a fruitless effort that only pisses people off. This is quite evident in the attempt to produce a truly copy-proof CD.

Additionally, I think it goes beyond that: there are some basic consumer rights regarding digital copies of content that distributors should be forced to permit:

1) license holders should be able to make backup copies of the content (so that if the content is ever lost or destroyed, the backup may be substituted at minimal expense to the user)
2) license holders should be able to edit, time-shift, or transcode the content for private (non-commercial) use
3) license holders should be able to "transfer" the original license to another holder, either temporarily or permanently, and charge a fee if so desired (such that only one license exists at any point in time)

That's my opinion on the matter. Congress should pass some kind of "Digital Conent Bill of Rights", if you will, that makes these Fair Use exemptions explicitly clear.

But why should I be prevented from ripping MP3s from a CD I purchase at the store?

You should be able to, I agree. The restrictions should only apply when you attempt to distribute said copies.

Isn't there ANY room to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt in some cases?

Absolutely: for content that has already been released in an insecure format, the consumer MUST be given the benefit of the doubt. For the system-level DRM discussion above, we're only really talking about future encryption mechanisms that have yet to materialize.

Edit: clarified point #3 above

 

[imported_Hi]

If it does ever happen i will move back to linux