Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology Your Rights Online

Flash Memory with Copy Protection 365

Castar writes "Mercury News is reporting that SanDisk has created a new type of flash memory with copy-protection logic built in. From the article: "Today, much of a consumer's digital content is held hostage on a particular kind of device, such as an iPod or a PC, because that is the only way to prevent massive piracy. But with the SanDisk flash memory card, a consumer can move the digital content to another device. If the music company insists the data can only be copied five times, the memory card itself enforces that policy in the new device, be it a cell phone or music player." Rejoice that your data can be "liberated" from the confines of your PC or iPod!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flash Memory with Copy Protection

Comments Filter:
  • by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:12AM (#13665422) Homepage
    Presumably, future card-readers such as MP3 players and PDA's can only play certain types of content from such protected flash cards. So essentially this is not a standard flash card at all, just a completely new type of card with the same form factor as far as the consumer is concerned.
  • Re:Copied? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:13AM (#13665426) Homepage
    It seems that these constraints are either unenforceable or just plain silly.
    Or both? But shhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anyone. Screwing up regular users (let's get real, they will be the ones screwed with ill-devised devices) seems to be their credo these days, so I say let them do it and we shall see if it proves to be a good business model.

    History will tell.
  • by putko ( 753330 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:42AM (#13665518) Homepage Journal
    The way easy, low-cost hackability and freedom is disappearing fast.

    It the old days, processors with DRM, on board boot flash and encryption didn't exist, because it would have cost too much, the theory wasn't known and it wasn't so obvious that schmucks would pay so much for fucking ringtones.

    In the last decade, it has become clear that:

    * hardware encryption is key
    * schmucks (by the millions) will pay for ringtones
    * downloading music is the future
    * encryption works -- you can build a good cryptosystem for DRM
    * hacker-types are the small, small minority of computer users (as opposed to 1977 -- when they helped make Apple the DRM-king that it is today)

    So why would a businessman cut off 99% of the market, just to please a bunch of fat, bearded GNU/Linux fans, or a bunch of old, crabby BSD guys? Billions want their ringtones and pop tunes -- what do they know from freedom anyway? What is freedom, when you live in China/Africa/India and are bascially poor as dirty anyway?

    More and more the question is just -- "why not" load it with DRM. The hacker types can either A) use other hardware or B) have a reduced-content experience.

    Which makes me think hackers have had it pretty "easy" all along.

  • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @06:45AM (#13665529)
    They just don't realise that a mere recording from line-out to line-in in any half-decent sound card will sound as good as the original to 99.% of the users. So they should try and prevent that as well.

    They understand that perfectly well. They also understand that sound cards and speakers can be chipped to refuse to reproduce the sound of a file that does not have a valid license code. See DVD players. See the current issue of the broadcast flag.

    They're working on chips for your ears and brain. I think they're just going to duct tape mittens on your hands and a super ball in your mouth. Don't even think about nose flute, if you know what's good for you. You won't like the solution with mittens on your hands and that super ball already in your mouth.

    KFG
  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @07:05AM (#13665596)
    Anyone care to explain how this is any different to "protection" scheme used (or rather, un-used) in SD/Secure_Digital cards?
  • by FlopEJoe ( 784551 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @07:50AM (#13665710)
    So, the only difference between this new flash and ordinary flash is that this one can do LESS?

    And the next step will be the "copy X times byte" and all flash drives will be required to honor it. And a bill will put up to congress over and over again to enforce it.

  • Money Pit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WolfZombie ( 918513 ) <immortalwolf AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @08:55AM (#13665966) Homepage
    Have these corporations involved in this "protection" ever seen "The Money Pit"? They lose money from people copying their music (even though it becomes widely distributed and popular, and we pay a gazillion dollars for a concert), then spend billions coming up with new ways to keep people from copying their music... which is then broken and copied again. This will be an infinite loop of copying and then hacking. Not every single person who comes out with a cd can make a million dollars. Period.

    If they keep all this digital protection up, I guess I'll just have to go back to making mix tapes :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @08:58AM (#13665985)
    Yes, and that's the key to its success! Isn't it nice?

    Actually, I doubt they will discontinue non-DRM flash production. If so, they will walk away from their embedded system market. We buy 256 MB flash now like popcorn for Linux kernel-driven embedded systems. DRM would be ineffective if an open source driver were provided that could facilitiate reverse-engineering (regardless of DMCA provisions for/against).

    More likely, we'd shift purchasing completely to microdrives and dump the flash market altogether. I'm aware of quite a few network appliance manufacturers who represent a significant amount of flash purchases that would be in a similar situation. Granted, we're not the consumer market, but losing 15% to 20% of your volume does wonders for eliminating coverage of fixed costs in a manufacturing operation. Certainly it'd be enough to drive the foolish DRM manufacturer into materially higher costs than their competitors.

    Then again, SanDisk has pretty much taken the embedded market for granted and might need to discover what happens when volume disappears. Unless they can get significantly higher prices and margins for their DRM-crippled product that consumers usually resist, this plan is DOA.
  • Excuse me? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @09:02AM (#13666008) Homepage Journal
    Rejoice that your data can be "liberated" from the confines of your PC or iPod!

    What do you mean your data?

    Why can't you hear the message being sent? The content cartel is admitting the culture they created was a mistake and doing the best job they can to clear the way for the culture we are to create ourselves.

    Create your own culture, and don't buy into the rules they setup for their own stuff. Then all the DRM and content control technology will just fall into history's dustbin with the old fogies who created it.

  • Re:Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @09:44AM (#13666318) Homepage Journal
    Probably not.

    I haven't installed a Microsoft product on one of my systems in a long time, but Windows used to arbitrarily refuse to install on a system that had a partition type it didn't recognize. Back when I was working OS/2 tech support we had no end of customers who installed OS/2 first and then wanted to install DOS/Windows on a separate partition. Turns out there wasn't an easy way to do that and naturally IBM took a lot of blame for this.

    I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to add some code to Windows Vista that refuses to boot if there's a "Non-Trusted" operating system on the same system. They'd be running the risk that the DOJ would not look kindly on that but really what are those guys going to do? Fine them the change in the couches at the Gates mansion after a 10 year legal battle?

  • by quibbler ( 175041 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @09:58AM (#13666444)
    I wouldn't worry too much, Divx lives again: (quoting article)

    "music studios can release albums or whole collections of musical groups on a single memory card that consumers could buy at stores [ . . . ] They can listen to the music tracks they paid for, or pay additional money to get a security code that unlocks additional songs."

    ...like this will ever happen; yet again, the content-industries simply don't understand their customers. So, if all of the anti-iPod guys can kindly simmer down seeing how much this could be made, Apple did it right (first), playing fair to the involved parties. This is SanDisk and the content-industries being nasty, greedy, and wanting still more. The best part is this is just a marketing gank on the part of SanDisk:

    "The toughest thing was to convince the studios that this was more secure than anything else out there"

    Lame.

  • Not the point at all (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @10:53AM (#13666915) Journal
    This is how it liberates the 'standard' user from music being stuck on their iPod. Most consumers (and trust me the slashdot community IS NOT most consumers) have no idea how to remove DRM from their iTunes purchases or know how to get the songs on their iPod back off.

    That's all well-and-good, but does it accomplish the stated objective of detering massive piracy? I submit it does not. As you imply, the people who *can* circumvent the DRM (and there will always be circumvention) will initiate the on-line propagation, and these "regular" citizens of whom you speak will download and continue to further "piracy."

    In that case, they are merely providing another inconvenience for the "average" citizen, while not stopping, or even slowing, the massive "piracy" they are constantly whinging on about. As the average citizen can now download the songs they want (and *only* the songs they want, rather than a whole crappy album for a single good song), what is the benefit to the average citizen? What does it gain us, as society? Anything? Anything at all?

    It is disingenuous to claim they are doing this to combat piracy. If anything, they are doing it to regain control of the distribution channel, and in the process to further their control over what a citizen can do with the music they lawfully purchased, essentially circumventing the doctrines of fair use and first-sale, two bugaboos of the music industry.

    This is a blatant attempt to shore up the industry's control, and nothing more.
  • Re:Laws of DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ediron2 ( 246908 ) * on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @11:10AM (#13667062) Journal
    Nice post. I utterly agree with A. Maybe I'd cross out 'limited' and change inevitable to 'viable'. And b and c are also quite close to my opinion. That said,

    b: bypassing is the key weakness here, since hard crypto can create a mechanism that isn't easily broken. XBox discs and satellite TV are two examples that come to mind. A crypto arms race goes until the crypto becomes unwieldy enough to deter all but the most-dedicated hacker. A side thought: the UMD drives for Sony PSP are an interesting/common wrinkle: they add physical (media) robustness: if nobody else has burners or media, engineering costs can run high enough to be a part of the DRM scheme. Wide success is needed before someone makes a competitive/compatible drive or media.

    c: trying to restrict behavior isn't always death to a product. A well-designed product with enough flexibility to be interesting to joe consumer can thrive under DRM. DivX failed, but macrovision in both VHS and DVD formats has kept movie-copying lower than it might have been.
  • by coralsaw ( 904732 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @11:11AM (#13667068)
    • Software rules hardware
    • It takes one person to break the system
    • Geeks work faster than corporate types

    Thus, I believe, DRM (hardware or software) will fail.

    To be honest, I couldn't care less about the millions of schmucks that download their ringtones, as long as the geek community is around. There's no evidence that it's withering, quite the opposite I should think.

    Mass and Energy sit on opposite sides, I'd like to remind you.

    /coralsaw
  • by Hosiah ( 849792 ) on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @11:29AM (#13667191)
    Probably an urban legend, but I remember reading something about "the first light bulb", or one of the first, that's still burning in a firehouse somewhere in the US. It was one of Thomas Edison's earliest. I think about that every time I change a light bulb that I just changed this month. I also think about cars I used to own like a Ford Fairlane and a Dodge Dart, that kept running well past the odometer rolling over, and compare that to today's cars that you're lucky to make it all the way off the lot before they break down.

    It seems that computers "work too well" and are "too cheap" by everybody's standards, and they can't jump all over themselves fast enough to break them in every concievable way. One day, you'll hear people saying "Of course you lost your data! That's a USB drive, you only get five uses out of it and it wears out!" Doubtless, they'll only hold 10 Mbs at a time, as well.

    All the more reason why I've resolved to never buy anything that's electronic new if there's a used/discarded item available. I have simply gotten too good at fixing old hardware...I never see the time when I'll need to buy a new computer, just spare parts, and even those I usually get used. I'm glad I already did my USB flash drive shopping, while I still had choices.

  • Re:Orwellian madness (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday September 28, 2005 @02:35PM (#13668894)
    discovers that they can't do the simple and obvious things that they had come to expect that they could do with it; like backing it up

    Would you please stop using this example?

    Most people don't make backups. It's a fact of life, and it's well known. That means every time you break out the "backups argument" it's automatically parsed into the piracy argument by practically everybody. From the point you mention backups on, you've lost all credibility with everbody except for the people who already agree with you.

    When you're talking about music, talk about using it in your car. Talk about mix CDs. Talk about the iPod... Don't talk about backups!

    When you're talking about images or video, talk about watching them in the car. Talk about watching them on your computer. Talk about getting a print made at the local photo shop. Talk about sharing home video made on your camcorder with the family. Don't use the word backups!

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...