Poll: What do you think about the plan to add Hardware copy protection in all hard drives by 2002?

[putergeek]

I read in several different forums recently that the hard drive manufacturers and the Hollywood movie industry are readying specs to embed hardware copy protection in all hard drives within a year from now. I'm curious what people think of this, since it will probably cause a host of hardware issues.. Basically, from what I read, it will end making backups as we know it..(since the encryption will be tied to specific addresses on your hard drive..) Yes, I know it does sound unbelievable.. but from what I gather, it is true..

People need to speak up now..at least that is my feeling.. this could have such an effect on computer sales that it could start another big depression..

 

[borealiss]

it bites.

 

[ElFenix]

this is almost like when ibm tried to force everyone to MCA.

this will probably be opposed by every major oem and their customers (big IT departments) as well as microsoft.

 

[nippyjun]

Any copy protection can eventually be cracked.

 

[xtreme2k]

It arent protecting crap,
just that these companies wana make even more money

 

[Gstanfor]

Hell will freeze over before I purchase a drive with copy protection built in.

Greg:disgust:

 

[GustySoul]

It doesn't seem like something like that would be successful, mostly because it appears to be way to complex for most people to really understand or like. It would take alot of control out of the users hands over and intoduce lots of complexities. Sorta reminds me of DIVX (The DVD-like Disc, not the compression).

obispo21

 

[Shagga]

I agree with both gstanfor & obispo21.

Can't see me buying one unless it speeds up my system tenfold.

 

[Niege]

If implemented it will be a nightmare. I'm not sure they could actually do it either legally or practically. I use an older HD as a backup in my rig. Now I can't back my data up unless I buy a new special copy-protected-ID-verified HD? I don't think so.

 

[TravisBickle]

It actually seems illogical. Copy protection is built into DVDs, software and even audio CDs now. Copy protection is a choice for the producer of the intellectual property and their responsibility to implement on their chosen medium. I think the industry will manage to squirm around this new rubbish.

 

[lagvoid]

hehe i agree with Shagga

"I agree with both gstanfor & obispo21."

 

[zippy]

Heh, the hard drive manufacturers can do what they want and so can Miramax or whatever hollywood companies are supposedly "in on this" but the software manufacturers will have to wrote a buttload of extra code to take advantage of this. Plus, I guarantee that some hacker groups would crack this a few weeks after it's release anyway. Seems like a waste of R&D.

Not to mention that making back ups is completely legal and I don't know if the companies would be within the law to say that you can't!

putergeek, you wanna show us some proof or are you just gonna piss us off with unsupported nonsense?

EDIT: I see your poll, wanna give us some specific articles at the register (<sarcasm>an ALWAYS reliable source...</sarcasm>) and slashdot?

 

[Rifter]

Even if its faster 10 fold i would only buy a small one for my boot partition and use older drive for storage

 

[fir3wir3]

it doesnt bite

it mega-bytes

umm...yeah

it sucks

 

[putergeek]

Any circumvention of this scheme would be punishable by some pretty severe penalties now that the DMCA is law, predictably.



Sure, I can post some references.. The spin-doctors are trying to say all sorts of things.. (like this scheme is only for removables, etc..) but its there to read in the spec... Yes, I do agree, it is like DIVX, but there's a lot more weight behind this than DIVX, so if it happens, I dont think it will be as easy to change ex-post-facto.

.....welcome to the 'New World Odor'.

Here you go with the refs.....

Alan Cox posted a message to the Linux-Kernel mailing list about it recently here:

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0012.2/0659.html

Others:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&amp;sid=2000/12/20/161311/22

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/15620.html

http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/30/0457211.shtml

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15718.html

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/top/docs/copy122900.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html

Here's the text of a letter John Gilmore, one of the founders of the EFF, wrote to the cryptography mailing list about it.


To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: IBM&amp;Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800
From: John Gilmore

The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright
mania in the computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and
are pushing a change to the standard spec for PC hard drives that
would
make each one enforce &quot;copy protection&quot; on the data stored on
the hard drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own
hard drive to another drive, or back it up, without permission from
some third party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique
keys, and would encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU,
the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST
you.

The same guy who leads the DVD Copy Control Association is
heading the organization that licenses this new technology -- John
Hoy. He's a front-man for the movie and record companies, and a
leading figure in
the California DVD lawsuit. These people are lunatics, who would
destroy the future of free expression and technological
development, so they could sit in easy chairs at the top of the
smoking ruins and light their cigars off 'em.

The folks at Intel and IBM who are letting themselves be led by the
nose are even crazier. They've piled fortunes on fortunes by
building machines that are better and better at copying and
communicating WHATEVER collections of raw bits their customers
desire to copy. Now for some completely unfathomable reason,
they're actively destroying that working business model. Instead
they're building in circuitry
that gives third parties enforceable veto power over which bits
their customers can send where. (This disk drive stuff is just the
tip of the iceberg; they're doing the same thing with LCD monitors,
flash memory, digital cable interfaces, BIOSes, and the OS. Next
week we'll probably hear of some new industry-wide copy
protection spec, perhaps for network interface cards or DRAMs.) I
don't know whether the movie
moguls are holding compromising photos of Intel and IBM
executives over their heads, or whether they have simply lost
their minds. The only way they can succeed in imposing this on the
buyers in the
computer market is if those buyers have no honest vendors to
turn to.

Or if those buyers honestly don't know what they are being sold.

So spread the word. No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in
generic computer hardware! It's up to the BUYER to determine
what to use their product for. It's not up to the vendors of
generic hardware, and certainly not up to a record company that's
shadily influencing those vendors in back-room meetings. Demand a
policy declaration from your vendor that they will build only open
hardware, not covertly controlled hardware. Use your purchasing
dollars to enforce that policy.

Our business should go to the honest vendors, who'll sell you a
drive and an OS and a motherboard and a CPU and a monitor that
YOU, the buyer, can determine what is a valid use of. Don't send
your money to Intel or IBM or Sony. Give your money to the
vendors who'll sell you a product that YOU control.

- John


Hope that helps!

 

[Jhhnn]

Yep, pretty miserable, although the follow-up stuff in the Reg seems to indicate that the powers-that-be may be backing off to making it possible to choose which way you want the drive to work, which would be OK. Just be real careful about that downloadable freeware...

And I'm sure that there will be many inducements to go along with the program. It's a two way street, software can be configured to run only on protected drives as well as vice-versa. Some sysadmins will undoubtedly love it, just imagine a whole network in complete lockdown. No bootleg apps, no unauthorized surfing, email, virii, nothing. Total control, zero liability.

So far as what's legal, just because something is legal does not mean that manufacturers have to make it possible....

 

[beat mania]

stock up now?

Anyway, why the hell would I want to buy more HD if I can't put music or movies on there? So I can install a 10GB copy of microsoft Word 2003?

 

[Adul]

That would severly piss me off if they do implement it. Would this effect how I can move my own stuff around or just thrid party stuff? I like to copy my windows cd to the hard drive and install it from there. WIth this stupid rule I would not be able to do that.

 

[fallenoncrack]

this means nothing, what would happen is the following:

1) Internet hard drive sites would pop up everywhere, allowing you to store gigs and gigs and with the faster bandwidth, this is a viable solution.

2) 3rd party products would bypass the hd electronics or create some sort of modification to the scheme to fake it.

3) There will always be a manufacturer that will run a few million non-copy bullcrap scheme hd for all of us to buy.

 

[ToXiCRaGE]

one thing to say. GAY GAY GAY! soon they'll put a protection means on toilet paper. &quot;Can't whipe ur ass without Microsoft's knowledge, not speaking about unwrapping the paper!&quot;.