Tech Firms Fight Copy Protection Laws 217
buulu writes "CNET is running an article about Alliance For Digital Progress going on the offensive against Hollywood over digital copy protection. The alliance consists of some of the big names: Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard,
Information Technology Association of America,
IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, etc."
Wait, did i see (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course Microsoft is in on this - they want to set the antipiracy standards themselves.
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:5, Interesting)
First, sales of newer operating systems will drop as customers, afraid for their individual rights, hold off on upgrading their OS or buying a new PC. This won't be a mass swearing-off of the next-generation of computers, but it will be a noticable dent.
Second, if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory, Microsoft suddently has to go from saying that is the future to devoting huge numbers of programmers to make it the present. And then what happens when the MPAA sues them for having bugs in their software, and not making the updates automatically install on client machines?
I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though, so you can't share music with it using Apple's software. It comes with a "don't steal music" sticker on it, showing Apple's preference for personal responsibility - something the courts seem to have nearly [yahoo.com] forgotten.
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft claims it's for providing "safe computing", citing viruses, etc., but does it seem like a coincidence that Microsoft is also currently pitching a DRM system to the entertainment industry? Without something like Palladium, DRM is dead in the water.
If Microsoft was only worried about susceptibility to viruses, it can solve the problem without having to redesign the entire platform from the chips up...
Given the effort Microsoft is putting in, Palladium is more about providing additional revenue streams for Microsoft--DRM licensing. Everyone knows Microsoft products are buggy and prone to viruses, but I doubt Microsoft views those problem as immediate to the company's bottom line. But, a cut of the action any time someone buys music or video? That's where the action is...
Re:Why Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
You are either astroturfing or you don't understand Palladium. A lot of people are missinformed about what Palladium is and does. Microsoft and the TCPA alliance have done an increadible job of spreading false and missleading information. They have decieved many intelligent people. Unfortunately you practicly have to be a programmer to fully understand what it is and does. And I am a programmer.
There is absolutely NOTHING you can do with Palladium that you can't do without it except take away control of someone's own machine.
Palladium is a crypographic system and digital signature system. You can do all of that in any "normal" program. The ONLY thing special about Palladium is that it does not allow the owner to see his ownAGAINST it's owner. Anything that increases the security FOR the owner can be done without Palladium. Period.
Palladium "trust" means one thing and one thing only - that "they" do not trust the legitimate and authorized owner/user of the machine. Anything that improves the OWNER'S trust in the machine can be done without Palladium. Period.
-
Re:Why Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
So what does TCPA/palladium provide beyond this? The only thing really is that it designed to make it harder for a person with physical access to machine to break root - on a normal PC is it typically no harder than breaking the case lock and setting a jumper to reset the BIOS - with TCPA, barring software attacks it will take serious hardware reverse engineering (though I doubt software attacks should be barred - nobody has made an OS with privilege escaltion exploits yet - do we really believe MS will this time?) The former is certainly enough for in-office PCs - but I guess corporations would like to retain control of laptops and machines that leave their property.
For this purpose one could imagine a class of corporate user hostile laptops - built so that employees could take home machines that are still loyal to the employer rather than the user - but trying to justify the entire TCPA/Palladium technology on that is naked lie. Firstly, a niche market for such technology hardly makes it a necessity in every computer sold, yet that is pretty clearly where we are headed, and secondly, in this case it would be the employing corporation that should control the keys that give ultimate control of the computers - but under TCPA it is the vendor.
The purpose is clear - TCPA is aimed not at corporate computers that need to be controlled by there owners, but at privately owned computers that "need" not to be controlled by their owners. Thus the vendor controls the keys, and magically the users are turned into consumers, subjects of the technology companies who are ready to trade their power over them to the media industry.
Advantages to trusted computing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Trusted computing as an idea predated the digital media issues. The government uses it. In "primitive" Unix permission, a file has an owner and group with permissions, plus default permissions. ACLs allow you to go a step further and assign different rights to different groups, something that the Unix style doesn't allow. Government certified systems are different.
With a basic trusted system, you start with layers (normal, secret, top secret, for example), and based upon your clearance, you can or cannot access it. But it goes beyond files. If I am reading a secret file, I shouldn't be able to write to a normal file, otherwise I could copy and paste the information out.
The system can enforce these sorts of requirements, but only in a trusted environment. The problem with Microsoft's solution isn't the introduction of trusted environments, its the business policy of forbidding non-trusted environments.
For example, my non-forwarding email. If I sent it trusted do not forward, non trusted environments shouldn't be able to access it at all. If you move all data to trusted, then non-trusted individuals can't access the data.
This may or may not be a bad idea. If I want a home user to be able to VPN in and check email, I have a problem. If they don't have (and don't want) a trusted client at home, i need to provide them with one. That means that they have two machines, trusted and non-trusted. And none of the trusted data should be able to enter the non-trusted machine.
The problem is that corporate users in certain environments would like trusted machines. The government would like trusted machines (for employees, not all citizens). The media empires saw trusted machines as a solution to their problem. They saw that their watermarking and other absurdity was doomed to fail, although they spent years looking for an impossible solution. Trusting computing research has a solution, but it was never intended for the consumer market (who had no demand).
The content companies concluded that if they moved their content into a trusted environment and only let people play in a trusted environment, they might be able to save their business models. Trusted computing was NOT developed to prevent MP3 swapping.
Alex
You don't need Palladium for that (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need Palladium to implement this. You can use an email client with this feature, and assume that your colleagues won't intentionally go to the trouble of breaking it.
If someone really wants to distribute that email without your permission, they can just type it into a non-trusted email client and send it off.
Re:Advantages to trusted computing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple. The owner of the computers can simple use software that does that. The email will be encrypted and any unauthorized people will not be able to access it. There is no need for TCPA/Palladium.
Trusted computing as an idea predated the digital media issues. The government uses it.
Right. And they did it without TCPA/Palladium. Theere is absolutely no need for TCPA/Palladium for the "conventional" definition of trusted computing. The owner of the computer can simply use the right software.
With a basic trusted system, you start with layers (normal, secret, top secret, for example), and based upon your clearance, you can or cannot access it. But it goes beyond files. If I am reading a secret file, I shouldn't be able to write to a normal file, otherwise I could copy and paste the information out.
Right. And you don't need TCPA/Palladium to do that.
The problem with Microsoft's solution isn't...
No, the problem with Microsoft's "solution" is that they are requiring special hardware and they are inventing a new and deceptive definition of "Trusted Computing". Trusted Computing (capitals) has nothing to do with trusted computing (lowercase).
non-trusted individuals can't access the data.
Yeah. that's called ordinary encryption.
Palladium/TCPA is all about GRANTING access to non-trusted individuals.
If I want a home user to be able to VPN in and check email, I have a problem. If they don't have (and don't want) a trusted client at home, i need to provide them with one.
The Palladium "solution" says you have to buy them a new computer.
The ordinary solution is to just give some software to run on their computer. Problem solved.
Of course NEITHER of these solutions work if you consider them to be the enemy. If he's the enemy then he could just copy the email over to the other machine by hand anyway.
The problem is that corporate users in certain environments would like trusted machines. The government would like trusted machines
Then they just need the right software. If they don't have the right software then TCPA/Palladium wont help.
Trusted computing was NOT developed to prevent MP3 swapping.
You are only right as far as the normal definition of trusted computing(lowecase). But the new definition of Trusted Computing(capitals) was designed for exactly that purpose.
The new definition of Trusted Computing(capitals) is that the the owner of the machine is not trusted. The machine treats it's owner as the enemy. There is no justifacation for my property to treat me as the enemy. If it is my employer's machine, fine, it can treat me as the enemy. It should never treat my employer (it's owner) as the enemy.
-
Re:Advantages to trusted computing... (Score:2)
Actually Microsoft has completely solved that problem. They use a semi-trusted environment to run both multiple trusted sub-environments and a single untrusted sub-environment. So you can have a file open in the untrusted environment but the clipboards will only work within each sub-environment. So you'd be able to copy and paste into "trusted" wordpad but not into "untrusted" wordpad. Trusted wordpad might for example encrypt the data on the harddrive using a hardware key you don't know while untrusted wordpad leaves the data in plain text format.
Thus your home computer might have permissions for for AT&T and also trusted by the DoD. If AT&T gave trust to the DoD environment you would even be able to copy from AT&T wordpad into DoD wordpad but not vice-versa.
Re:Why Palladium (Score:2)
Akk, I should have preview more carefyully. The correct text should read:
The ONLY thing special about Palladium is that it does not allow the owner to see his own passwords and keys.
Aside for that one "feature", any thing palladium can do can be done without palladium.
-
Re:Why Palladium (Score:2)
The classic capability problem is something like this:
Person A has some data
Person B has a program that can perform an operation on person A's
A would like to use B's program
B does not trust A with his program
A does not trust B with his data
There is no party C which they both trust.
That is the classic capability problem; how to construct operating systems that can act as a person C between users. So far Unix with a strange setup could handle this. But now we go a little futher, one of the key differences between capability systems and Unix systems is that A and B need to trust the system but not necc all the system administrators. In other words access to administrate the system should not translate into access to the data and the program. That's where a meta administrator comes in verifying to A and B that the system can really act in role C.
That's what Unix and NT currently do not support. A can't grant permission for B to use A's data on a particular program. A can either grant you or not grant you read access. B can't grant A permission to run his program on a particular data set he can either grant or not grant run permission.
Typically in Unix the proxy for the "owner" is the system administrator. But that's just another employee. As a result of the Unix security model computer knowledgeable employees have tremendous power within corporations. The idea of capability systems was that technical employees would not have the kinds of power and access they have today. In the end ease of development won out over security (like always) and Unix (non capability) triumphed over Multics (the king of capability computing). What is happening now is that a generation has passed and the arguments for Multics are being rehashed. These aren't bad arguments and history could have easily gone the other way in the 1970s.
I would suggest you look at the EROS website [eros-os.org] in general and non-equivelence [eros-os.org] in particular.
Re:Why Palladium (Score:2)
I took a breif look at your links and as far as I can tell it does not have any need of TCPA hardware.
As I understand it the EROS system allows you full access to your own data. Sounds fine to me.
What Palladium does is removes the notion that the owner of a machine is the owner of the digital data on the machine. It seperates the two.
If I bought a song then it is MY data.
If someone owns a machine and wants to run a multi-user system and wants to enable EROS-style permissions between users then fine. It doesn't need TCPA hardware.
The ONLY difference between normal security and TCPA/Palladium is that it does not give people access to thier own passwords and keys and thereby denies them access to their own data.
-
Re:Why Palladium (Score:2)
I took a breif look at your links and as far as I can tell it does not have any need of TCPA hardware.
Correct; and someone with physical access to the hardware and time could circumvent the protections. The assumption of Eros is these are users not people with high levels of physical access. Hardware was used to eliminate the problems of people with physical access Multics but Multics doesn't have a cool website
As I understand it the EROS system allows you full access to your own data. Sounds fine to me.
In EROS "your own data" would be data you own not data you have permission to use on certain programs. The analogy for say music would be that you buy the right to "play" the music with Real Player but Sony Music "owns" the data.
jbolden1517: What Palladium does is removes the notion that the owner of a machine is the owner of the digital data on the machine. It seperates the two.
Alsee: If I bought a song then it is MY data.
At least under US law it isn't your data. If it were you data you'd have the right to sue Sony unauthorized distribution of copies of your data. What you have in the current situation is a copy of the data on your machine and the machine itself does nothing to prevent you from violating Sony's copyright.
If someone owns a machine and wants to run a multi-user system and wants to enable EROS-style permissions between users then fine. It doesn't need TCPA hardware.
Actually can help a lot. Here is a pretty simple example. Eros doesn't have a file system; all data is in a database and this database is in memory (including tons and tons of virtual memory which is stored on the harddrive). Eros systems shutdown using somethign like a laptop "hibernate" function. If someone "hiberanated" the Eros system and ripped out the harddrive it wouldn't be too hard to reverse engineer all the information on the harddrive (including encrypted information because the encryption keys were in ram which is now on the harddrive). A shutdown and a backup tape would be enough to emulate this process. Now imagine if the system used a 3 key encryption where you had
a) An Eros key
b) A CPU key
c) A system admin key
Then a person would need to steal
1) Steal a backup
2) Have the system admin password
3) Have Intel give them the CPU key
Remove the CPU key and an admin would be able to do this at home without his boss catching him (after all who is going to notice a set of backup tapes missing, and he has the boot password already). But Intel might require the CIO (as stated by fillings with the SEC) to release a CPU key.
Now you might say "what about stealing the box". The thing this gets noticed; where stealing the backup tape won't. Because it gets noticed the admin doesn't have time to reverse engineer the filesystem before he gets the "go directly to jail do not pass go do not collect $200 for selling company data".
Another example:
How does Eros know its running in a debugger. Inside a debugger a system admin can pretend to be any user he wants (remember there may be noone with permission to "su Jane_Smith" including admins). As this user he can get Jane_Smith's data. OTOH if Eros were running under TCPA enabled hardware it would refuse to boot inside a virtual environment.
Its not foolproof but the goal of security is to make people go after softer targets not to make system's foolproof. Its hard to imagine anyone but a valid user getting through all those hoops.
The ONLY difference between normal security and TCPA/Palladium is that it does not give people access to thier own passwords and keys and thereby denies them access to their own data.
Who is "you" and what are "your passwords" what are "your keys"? That's my point about capability systems they change the whole Unix notion that root is god. Root is just another employee who has access to some stuff the janitor doesn't while the janitor has access to some stuff the system admin doesn't. In the Unix sense of the word, there is more root.
Baloney (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the worst kind of apologist propaganda imaginable. TCPA and Palladium serve one purpose and one purpose only: taking away the root control of our own machines from us. It is that simple, and it is indeed true that once our freedom of informational self determination has been taking from us, there are many applications, good and evil, for those to whoom we grant it: that is the nature of having power over people. You are absolutely right that this power can be used in fair ways, just like any power over us, but once we have given up control of our computers this is no longer for us to decide. If we accept hardware DRM, we are giving up all our freedoms on the promise that if we are nice they'll give most back. Such power is evil in and of itself, regardless of whether it is used for evil or not.
Defending user hostile computers on the grounds that they can be used for fair applications is like defending totalitarian regimes because they can stop crime and corruption. Both statements are true - a totalitarian regime can indeed protect us in a way an open society cannot, and many intellectually honest thinkers have argued that it is necessary and preferable (Plato, Hobbes, Marx etc.) But history has shown us again and again that open societies prosper, where as those that wish to concentrate power, no matter how convincing the utilitarian argument, lead us down a path of insanity and darkness.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends - for this is not a new battle, what we are seeing with those who would promise us gold riches for the small price of our freedom in cyberspace are the same devils, if with different faces, that have offered this deal since time immemorial. Choose your side, and remember that history will be our judge.
great googly moogly... (Score:2)
It's simple, turn off TCPA mode. You want root? Don't run TCPA. Yeah, you can't download movies now in pure digital form from Blockbuster (because they don't _TRUST_ you that you won't make copies of their digital library) but your root.
oh god, you're a drama troll.
Except the fact you can not only elect NOT TO PARTICIPATE, but you can also PURCHASE the device, and DISABLE the "totalitarian" mechanism.
Seems to me, what your saying is, "currently, i have the ability to simply ignore laws i don't agree with in terms of digital rights. If they go ahead with this DRM coupled with Hardware support, i might not be able to simply ignore the laws anymore. I might actually have to play by their rules. And I don't like their rules."
In this case, you should work to CHANGE those rules. Not bitch that enforcement is too perfect. Fine, go back to civil disobedience then. Boot with TCPA disabled, rip the tracks from the CD, and offer them on your file share. Then, boot back into TCPA mode, order up a PPV movie, and have your HDTV out redirect into your TV IN, and encode it in a non DRM compaitable fashion, so you can again, share it with your budddies. See, it's still possible to be the disobedient, unhappy citizen you will always be.
-malakai
Re:Why Palladium (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh say again? If you create something that is modifyable (like say under a GPL licence), what the hell is stopping anyone in using it for whatever they want? Compiling it, sell it and never release the source? If you want to prevent that, you'd need a trusted OS + trusted developments tools to even see the source, to enforce the licence of the resulting program. One approved tool(tm) to rule them all. That would be the exact opposite of today, and would be a complete failure.
Kjella
Re:Why Palladium (Score:3, Insightful)
> ways. If you create something for free
> distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no
> one can use it for commercial purposes.
Not at all. If there was ANY copy protection system that could detect the intent with which a copy was made, we'd have no problems - the system could detect whether a copy was going to be used for illegal piracy or for the music owner to be listened to in the car.
This also ignores the fact that most of the time, in order to get the tools to apply DRM to stuff you produce, you have to pay - and normally you have to pay an amount of money so great that a non-commercial business wouldn't be able to do so (which of course is exactly what the DRM vendors intend, so that pirates can't obtain the application kit and reverse engineer it)
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:2)
Microsoft may sit up and talk about Palladium, but they aren't doing it for the benefit of limiting the rights of the users.
That is exactly why they are doing it. It is the ultimate "embrace and extend". It literally gives them the potential to "swallow the internet". Sound absurd? Have you considered the fact that the internet is nothing but copyrighted "content"? Websites, text, documents, email , images, files, sound, video. Anyone running a Palladium "enhanced" web browser (the next Internet Expolorer) will be able to access the entire internet. Anyone NOT running Internet Expolorer will be locked out of the "protected" portion. The more internet sites that move inside the Palladium network the more pressure that can be brought to bear to move other websites inside the Palladium wall.
if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory
I agree the the threat of CBDTPA is bad. But that is in no way evidence that Palladium etc is good. If anything it is evidence that Palladium is bad because Palladium is EXACTLY the sort of thing CBDTPA would require.
The CBDTPA lobby has tech companies scared so shitless that they are ready to chop off one leg and hand it to the **AA lobby because they are afraid the CBDTPA will chop off both legs. When someone asks for something insane it is NOT reasonable to "compromise half way".
I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though
Except that coping music off of an iPod is not piracy. It is merely a crippled product. Just becuase the ability to violate copyright is ONE of the things that is crippled does not justify it. It is no more justified that if you imprisioned 10 people because 9 of them each stole a pair of jeans, or if you imprisioned 10 people because one of them stole a pair of jeans.
DRM does not enforce copyright. Period.
Even the most restrictive DRM still allows you to violate copyright in several ways such as making a public performance and selling tickets to it.
Even the most "generous" DRM blocks all sorts of perfectly legal and legitimate activites. There simple does not exist any way to allow all aspects of fair use and still retain any protection whatsoever.
DRM and DRM laws certianly enforce something, but whatever it is it isn't copyright. Publishers have absolutely no right to the things that DRM enforce.
-
DRM & Old Hardware (Score:2)
But, just as it's difficult to find an XM Satellite receiver made for a '57 Chevy, you probably will find plenty of media/programs. that requires DRM-enabled hardware. As businesses upgrade and new documents won't work with older computers, people will be forced to make the switch.
Hopefully, we can avoid the whole issue, and move into an unprecedented era of common sense and personal responsibility.
Re:DRM & Old Hardware (Score:2)
Exactly. Key word being FORCED. The TCPA and Palladium lobby keeps trying to defend itself from VALID critisism by claiming "it is optional, you can turn it off, we're not forcing it on anyone". All of their supposed benefits to the computer ownaner and all of their defences to critism of their system are pure deception.
-
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:2)
You did. Here's why: (Score:5, Informative)
They are specifically part of this because they do NOT want government regulation of this sort of control of digital content. Because they care about their users rights? Of course not! Because if the government is setting the agenda on digital content protection, then Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is all for DRM (WMP9,TCPA,Palladium, etc.). Just on their terms exclusively. They do not want to have to answer to Washington. Only Bill. Always Bill.
Of course (Score:2)
And anybody who'd let one of those evil monsters near their children deserves the dire consequences sure to follow.
I don't personally tax religions anymore. I've been enjoined.
Re:Wait, did i see (Score:2, Informative)
embrace and extend
If you want new policies shaped to your liking you have to be at the table to make it happen...
Fun times ahead ? (Score:2)
Re:Fun times ahead ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I agree with the "Alliance for Digital Progress," as they're calling themselves. They just don't want to slow down progress by putting digital copy prevention in every product (according to their site [alliancefo...ogress.org].
Yes. pirating happens, but the movie industry is still very strong [imdb.com] (and if you don't think "Kangaroo Jack" netting $21.8 million dollars in a weekend is strong, then you need to have your head examined
Go for it, 'Alliance for Digital Progress'!
Apple?! (Score:3, Interesting)
They have been going after Holywood and TV studio business for the past couple of years. I.e. the Purchase of Final Cut Pro, Tremor, Shake, etc.
Re:Apple?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple?! (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a movie industry employee and I very much fear what they are trying to do.
Re:Apple?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple?! (Score:5, Insightful)
> I think it really odd that Apple is on that list.
Apple is the first company I would expect to be on that list. Since the 2002 Grammies, Apple has taken this stand:
- Intellectual property owners and consumers both have rights that should be upheld.
- The consumers have a right to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own.
- Copyrights should not be violated.
- Copyright violations (piracy) is a behavioral problem that cannot be solved by DRM.
- DRM will always be hackable, and is therefore useless.
The above is taken from various speeches by Steve Jobs and other Apple execs, especially from Steve Jobs' acceptance speech at the 2002 Grammies.
The companies in the Alliance For Digital Progress represent a broad spectrum with Apple on the end upholding fair use rights and Microsoft on the extreme proDRM end. They are interested in keeping the government out of DRM, so they can resolve the issue between themselves. (With Apple no doubt hoping that many will run screaming from Palladium right to the DRM free Mac.)
Actually, I'm a bit surprised to see Microsoft there. For a time, they were taking out DRMOS patents and acting like they were going to embrace and extend CBDTPA into a 100% government mandated monopoly for themselves. Looks like either the government or the MPAA wised up and started mumbling something about open standards. When it started looking like Microsoft wasn't going to be ordained the official DRM provider to the US, Microsoft started speaking up against the CBDTPA. It just wouldn't do to have somebody else come up with a standard that Microsoft would have to abide by.
> They have been going after Holywood and TV studio
> business for the past couple of years. I.e. the Purchase of
> Final Cut Pro, Tremor, Shake, etc.
Apple has sworn to democratize the tools of music and movie making like they once did desktop publishing. The intended audience isn't just privileged members of a movie making or music recording cartel. The intended audience is anybody who wants to make a movie or record a song. That's why they just released a $299 trimmed down version of Final Cut Pro called Final Cut Express. Now even a wedding videographer can use a less expensive version of the program that was used to edit "When Dinosaurs Roamed America".
"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0203/
Computer industry vs. Media Empire - film at 11:00 (Score:5, Interesting)
Which puts Apple (and the rest of the computer industry) in direct opposition to the media conglomerates. The computer industry has some new "killer apps" to sell - along with new boxes to run them. And it's the audio and video publishing empires on the receiving end of the killing. Or else the empires can hang on by getting the new tech crippled or banned by government intervention. But then the apps - and the computer industry - get killed.
And government is in the position of picking sides. The media empires got it to pick THEIR side in the first couple battles, and the computer industry has finally woken up and JUST STARTED to strike back.
But what I'm waiting for is the Republican Party to wake up and see which side the bread is buttered on. Hi tek tends both to avoid politics and contribute at least some to both major parties. The media are almost totally and rabidly on the Democrats' side - both with money and with more-expensive-than-money free propaganda that isn't touched by "campaign finance reform" laws.
So when the government choses sides, in a battle where the winner becomes richer and the loser broke, which side would a self-interested Republican-party-controlled government pick?
Of course the Republicans have repeatedly shown themselves to be clueless about such things. So let's see if they rent a couple on this issue.
Repubs are all about titties. (Score:2)
The Repubs, of course, probably salivate over the ability to legislate technology to prevent people from seeing titties.
The Repubs, also salivate over kickbacks and bribes from tech companies to allow them to pollute and exploit third world labor.
So the tech industry must like the Repubs.
But if they let the Repubs clamp down on the Titties, then there's no more compelling content, and nobody will want to buy DVD players and TV's that automatically put a black-bar over their titties.
This is why the Repub platform and philosophy is just plain broken. It conflicts with itself.
The Dems, on the other hand, claim to defend the "little people" while selling them out to the big media corps with fascist copyright policy. (Hollings, Bono, etc.). So they're broken too.
Re:Media Democrats? Nope (Score:2)
wanted to stay on the good side of the executives, who after all are rich and therefore Republicans.
This is so wrong as to be laughable. First: many of the biggest liberals are incredibly wealthy. This is reasonable; people of average incomes can't afford to adopt the "what's mine is yours" point of view. Second: Ted Turner. 'Nuff said.
The bottom line is that reporters, like any middle-class, working-class citizens, tend to be liberal
I'm glad to see that none of your father's assumptions have become your own.
The chorus of one of the songs includes the line, "You get to be famous, I get to be rich." This is obviously a very liberal view Petty is expounding.
Obvious to whom? Listen, and listen closely: I am probably somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh, politically speaking, but I hate the despicable way that recording studios treat their signed artists. Liberals do not, repeat not have a monopoly on an inate sense of justice.
Re:Media Democrats? Nope (Score:2)
Maybe you're not as conservative as you think you are...
My friends and associates would take great mirth from that statement. :)
Seriously, a conscience is not a liberal thing (or conservative, for that matter).
Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this group merely wants to fsck us over without congresses involment.
If you look at this page [alliancefo...ogress.org] you'll see their agenda is:
DTCP (Digital Transmission Content Protection), which protects digital content within the home network environment and prevents unauthorized retransmissions to the Internet;
This means all home audio and video and computer equipment will LOCK all your media and files. This means if you record something you CANNOT view it when and where you want - an entirely legal and legitimate activity.
CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media), which prevents unauthorized recording of audio and video;
Which means VCR's and boomboxes whith BROKEN record buttons. It is perfectly legal and legitimate to record stuff.
HDCP (High-definition Digital Content Protection), which protects video transmissions sent to high-definition digital monitors.
Which meand they want to make the next generation High Definition TV's more expensive and severely cripple them.
government must enforce laws against piracy.
That statement is a bit vague, but I'm willing to wager they are not talking about copyright laws, they are talking about DMCA anti-circumvention law. There are many perfectly legal and legitimate purposes for circumvention.
companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of engineering hours creating tools that successfully prevent illegal copying of digital content
Yeah, they spend hundreds of millions on DRM that cripples products and HASN'T WORKED. The idiots could have just PUT THAT MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS AS PURE PROFIT.
Industry is increasing that investment
The wildly inflated and almost purely fictional losses to piracy are what, 2 or 3 billion? They've spent hundreds of millions, and plan to increase that. They are going to spend more fighting the problem then any real losses, if they haven't already. They are going to whine about losing money and they are going to stick us with the bill for their spending. And more expensive hardware.
From another page:
In December, 2002, the nation?s largest cable operators agreed with consumer electronics industry representatives on a proposal that would protect digital television programming
Crippled TV. Lovely[sarcasm].
These companies are pushing for TCPA and Palladium.
The MPAA and RIAA have the tech companies scared shitless of the TOTALLY INSANE CBDTPA that they are "compromising half way" *cough cough*.
When someone wants to chop your legs off you don't "compromise half way" and cut one leg off and hand it to him. This "alliance" is cutting one leg off of ALL of us.
-
Re:Freedom of choice vs. legislation (Score:2)
I wish it were that simple. The "freedom" to choose is useless when there is no alternative available. The next Windows operating system will be a DRM OS, and it will not work without DRM hardware. The next generation of motherboards will not be available without DRM chips in them. Many sound cards ALREADY have DRM restrictions built in. The next generation of TELEVISIONS will have DRM built in. The FCC will be enforcing DRM restictions. Cable televions companies have ALREADY implemented a DRM system, they just haven't activated it yet.
they are also going to continue to release non-protected systems and these systems will be the ones that people buy.
No, because any non-DRM system will either illegal and/or incompatible(useless).
Tech companies are not (all completely) stupid.
No, but the copyright lobby has them scared shitless with the CBDTPA and Microsoft has them strong-armed with it's monopoly power. Any computer that does not implement DRM hardware will not be compatible with the next Windows. And no hardware manufacturer can affored to be incompatible with Windows.
-
Re:Freedom of choice vs. legislation (Score:2)
Lets try and be accurate here. People need to understand the issues. The next version of the Windows operating system will report to applications it is running in "untrusted mode" when running without DRM hardware. That's all. What applications choose to do with that information is what we'd have to be worried about.
The progress is going to work something like this:
1) No one has it
2) Some people have it and op in
3) Everyone has it and some op in
4) Everyone has it and almost all op in
5) Everyone has it and a few op out
6) Everyone has it and no one can op out
(6) is going to take a long time; and may never occur. Frankly I don't think in a country with strong support for gun rights (4) is ever going to occur. The amount of resistence to DRM is going to be intense.
This is eyewash... (Score:5, Insightful)
The alliance consists of some of the big names: Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Information Technology Association of America, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, etc.
Yeah right. Microsoft, they are surely concerned about user rights. So are HP (please buy original cartridge, and oh, it's only filled to half capacity). Motorola, hahaha.
The only reason these companies are "fighting" for user rights is because they don't want Hollywood/Media moguls to dictate them technology.
On the other hand, they are themselves perfectly willing to incorporate "features" so as to protect the "rights" of their users. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Re:This is eyewash... (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean I'll stop fighting for the individuals' rights when the tech does the same things. Sometimes, you just have to pick your battles.
actually.. they probably stand for what they say (Score:5, Insightful)
From the mission statement:
ADP strongly opposes efforts to make the government design and mandate copy-protection technologies
But notice they don't say anything about stopping the government from "enforcing" said technologies once the industry has adopted them. They aren't anti-DMCA, they aren't about copyright and patent reform.
Heck read what they stand for:
The Alliance for Digital Progress (ADP) strongly supports the protection of intellectual property, including digital content such as movies, music, and software.
ADP believes that private-sector collaboration among the technology, consumer electronics, and content industries creates the most effective tools to combat digital piracy. These tools provide innovative and concrete solutions that:
Meet the needs of consumers;
Succeed in the marketplace; and
Foster a thriving digital economy.
ADP believes the proper role of Government is to enforce existing laws against illegal copying.
Are you a member of one of the industries listed above? I'm not. This is simply a self-serving coalition to try and get the government to stay out of the way and let *them* make the rules.
Who would you rather fight (Score:4, Insightful)
While I don't like either solution I'd much rather battle Microsoft. Palladium without DMCA but the government going after commercial piracy is vastly better than government regulated technology enforced on providers and consummers.
Re:actually.. they probably stand for what they sa (Score:2)
Look, rules are going to be made one way or another. I'm not being defeatist here, I'm being frank.
The technology coalition wants to make their own rules for the products they develop and build. They feel, justifiably IMO, that it's not a government's duty to interfere in industry beyond what's required to ensure a fair and competitive market. Telling the tech companies how to implement DRM certainly falls outside of that.
But in the end, if tech companies make the rules, the consumers still have the final say. If they don't like something, they don't buy it. The tech companies, who exist only to get money from consumers, will change it.
If the government mandated the technology, the tech companies wouldn't be allowed to change it. The tech industries wouldn't have a voice. The consumers would not have a voice.
Re:This is eyewash... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is eyewash... (Score:2)
Look at history. They will backstab whoever they can, and 5-10 years later, when the lawsuit gets in progress, they won't care if they win or lose, because the competition will be long gone.
Oh, the poor, starving, artists (Score:2)
Now, the (MP|RI)AA can claim that "oh, those high-tech companies are so big and powerful, and they have so huge amounts of money, and they make that money by stealing the food off the tables of the poor, starving artists".
And, you know, there may be some truth to this too.
For us, it is important to emphasize that consumers (I kinda hate that word, to music, I'm a listener, not a consumer), and artists are in the same boat. The goliaths, the distributors and the tech industry are not fighting a fight for the rights of any of us. They are fighting their own fights, for their respective monopolies.
That's not a fight where neither consumers nor artists are winners, if we are to win, the problems that are facing us must be addressed in an entirely different manner.
MS and HP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:MS and HP? (Score:2)
Good or Bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
We could end up with coalition of groups who'll own the only means to access your CDs and DVDs, while other hardware and software companies are left out in the cold with the nerds.
Re:Good or Bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, as a group they're fighting just one specific RIAA-endorsed bill, Senator Hollings' proposed CBDTPA. The article brings out that at least one member [digitalconsumer.org] of the alliance actually favors some sort of government involvement to ensure that the fair use rights [digitalconsumer.org] US citizens now take for granted will be codified into law.
Re:Good or Bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good or Bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, regardless of their overarching aims, for now they are pursuing a tactic which is beneficial to those who respect consumer rights. So I hope this particular fight goes well for Microsoft and the entire alliance. We can only hope that this battle is well-publicized and helps to wake people up to the assault on our rights.
Re:Good or Bad? (Score:2, Funny)
Sir, this is Slashdot.
I must please ask you to refrain from actually reading the article as facts tend to hinder the MS/HP/Motorola/Dell/Whatever bashers out there that are getting worked up as we speak.
Now please write a 100 times "The penguin is my friend, trust the penguin."
Microsoft?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they want a non standard drm that only they own and fear if the industry got together and created their own that they would lose the multimedia market. Only microsoft can be the gatekeeper I guess. Isn't this what pallidium was designed for. To enhance security my ass. ITs about hardware level product activation with security marketed as an afterthought after it has been proved that it could provide this function as well.
Re:Microsoft?? (Score:2)
But if certain bills are passed and it should become illegal to produce or own anything that handles digital data and doesn't include copy protection then Microsoft would have a lead before other companies. The whole Palladium thing is just an insurance policy against such a case.
However, it seems that all this is turning out to cost way too much, and Microsoft isn't terribly happy to be involved in this mess (lots of pain, little gain), so of course it is logical to seek a way out while keeping one's options open.
... and in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Alliance's platform: (Score:5, Funny)
How do we really know what their goals are? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, that's not part of the SAW (Slashdot Accepted Wisdom). We all know Slashdotters are far more intelligent than any of these suits, but maybe some of the folks whose companies provide us with technology we can't live without are actually not brain-dead.
Is their composite track record on DRM really long enough for us to make any sort of valid assumptions about what this consortium will do? They may see the hopelessly backwards media tycoons as an impediment to the continued progression of computer technology.
While conspiracy theories are well and good on the X-Files and Fox News Specials, I'm inclined to give the technology companies the benefit of the doubt until their actions indicate their true intentions.
Re:How do we really know what their goals are? (Score:2)
Why Microsoft? Well, because... (Score:4, Interesting)
...Microsoft just doesn't want any competition [slashdot.org].
The irony is most painful... (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony is this: I've noticed that Hollywood seems to have no problems with using open systems (such as linux) for editing and special effects, and then locking down everything in sight after doing their production. This is regardless of the fact that some popular movies are drawn directly from the public domain of some very old children's stories.
I've noticed that certain tech companies have no problem making sales (even linux-based sales) to various Hollywood companies. I've noticed how tech companies spend a lot of PR on this novel concept of "Open-ness".
I've noticed how the
And I've noticed that the core developers for any major sub-system and application don't really seem to give a damn about any of the above-mentioned flak; they just keep coding, de-bugging, and doing what they think is right.
My personal reaction to this percieved irony (hypocrisy?) is this:
Will they all please sit down and STFU ?!
I'm not gonna have the least bit of respect, nor will I open my wallet ($$$), until I start seeing people and companies practice what they preach and scream so loudly about. After all, the core developers have been practicing what they've preached for years now. This last fact is evident in the working, day-to-day code.
Pot, kettle. (Score:5, Funny)
"You guys don't want people to copy your content, cutting you out of money. Tough luck with that."
Maybe Hollywood should return with, "You guys don't want people refilling their ink cartridges, cutting you out of money. Tough luck with that."
*snort*
Re:Pot, kettle. (Score:2)
You really think Hollywood suits would know an ink cartridge if it squirted them in the face? That's generous of you. :)
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
The only aim of this alliance is protection of their revenues. If government decides to legalise copy protection as proposed by Entertainment industry, that would make existing hardware obsolete and new products much more expensive, thus quickly reducing revenue streams. This is what they state on ADP web site, anyway.
Sure, not all members are technology companies but I have no doubts whatsoever that some of them ( Business Civil Liberties, Inc. Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Computer Systems Policy Project, Consumer Alert, Defenders of Property Rights) have already received fund injections, just to appear on that list.
No surprises here, my friends.
But remember one thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these companies actually lobbied for the DMCA when it came out! Oh the hypocrisy of it all...
Re:But remember one thing... (Score:2)
Not really. The alliance only seems to oppose government-mandated DRM tech; it firmly supports the industry coming up with their own tech. Consider that the DMCA is a powerful tool to make this possible, as they still get to throw people in jail who attack their tech.
It's not dissimilar to permitting these people to write their own laws, really. Without the DMCA, noses would continue to be thumbed at these guys, and any DRM they came up with would be destroyed faster than they could blink.
What about the Linux and BSD companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slackware, Debian, BSDI, and other Linux and
BSD companies are not on this list. Why? Am
I missing something obvious?
MCP
Re:What about the Linux and BSD companies? (Score:2)
BSDI is dead [windriver.com], dude.
:-)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
What about the idea of (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not surprised at all. As others have said this is about the difference between government mandated digital copyright protection and digital copyright protection coming out of the private sector.
Consider that the DMCA says that you can't backwards engineer any copyprotection code for any reason or risk jail time. If this is the law, then what is the incentive for stronger encryption and better code?
All this stuff filters down. Look at the contests to do things like break encryption. Remember when they said we would never break 128 bit encryption?
Where would we be if it was illegal to try?
If the government mandates copy protection and passes laws then we end up in that end-game.
However if we let capitalism and the private sector do the work then we end up somewhere just a little bit more fun. We walk away with new technology, new ideas, a new bread of hackers pressing technology to its limits.
That is what got us to where we are today.
And besides if we let the private sector take charge then we are still left with a choice. We will be able to choose not to purchase Palidium enabled hardware/software.
What is going to happen the first time a motherboard manufacturer has a non-palidium board outsell a Palidium enabled board?
These are all scenerios that cannot happen if we allow the government to mandate this stuff.
I know it is like bad medicine, but I support Micro$oft, Intel and Apple and anyone else that opposes the government in this.
Heck, with the point of view that copy protection is here to say, I say bring on Palidium. At least it is a known evil.
Re:What about the idea of (Score:2)
Now, I can understand your skepticism about some of the other companies on the list, but Apple? Apple has shown time and time again that they are focused on not hindering the rights of consumers to do what they want with legal content. At the Grammys, Steve Jobs explicitly pointed this out [macworld.com] when he said "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."
To date, about the only "anti-piracy" measure Apple has instituted is a little sticker on your iPod that says "Don't steal music." Apple has made it clear that you should not punish users who act legally because of the actions of those who break the law.
Re:What about the idea of (Score:2)
What is going to happen the first time a motherboard manufacturer has a non-palidium board outsell a Palidium enabled board?"
There's a problem with your line of reasoning-- and you'll see it if you ever try to buy a laptop without also buying Windows.
My money is on your NOT being able to get a non-Palladium board after industry hashes all this out.
Industry loves to conspire to deprive users of choice. Why compete to make money when you can collude and save yourself a lot of effort?
While I think this devlopment is better than Hollings-- hell, like some other poster said, the fact that it pisses off Valenti is good in and of itself.
But we still need to watch our backs.
Re:What about the idea of (Score:2)
The goverment needs to establish a (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the big fish want to be able to continue to make the decisions outside the law. Without some hard ground rules we are screwed...
I see digitalconsumer.org is there, so maybe there is some balance.
This is also exactly why RIAA backed off as well. They realize that they cannot realistically take away our rights through a lobby, so they punt and go to plan B.
Contract law.
How come? (Score:2)
Intersection with TCPA Members (Score:5, Interesting)
- Dell
- Hewlett-Packard
- IBM
- Intel
- Microsoft
- Motorola
Does this seem strange to anyone else?Re:Intersection with TCPA Members (Score:2)
Not at all strange. This group merely opposed to some of the obscene laws that have been proposed. The group is pro-DRM and TCPA. They want to see crippled hardware.
While it's nice that they are are opposed to the obscene laws, they can take their crippled hardware and GOATSE it!
-
Fred McClure (Score:5, Funny)
no, really... (Score:2, Interesting)
this is a GOOD THING(tm). But, my fellow libertarian geeks shout: "Hey! While on the one hand, M$ and HPQ are lobbying the government to ignore mandated DRM, with the other hand they're selling us Media Center PCs and Windows DRM 9 software!"
And I respond, "Yes! But if the tech companies can keep the government from mandating DRM, then these DRM technologies will have to compete in the marketplace. And they'll lose!"
Why do I think they'll lose? Well, we're talking about a marketplace that's already filled with readily available (free) tools for ripping, playing, and sharing video and music. And these tools are in widespread use, and everybody under the age of 30 knows about them. The cat's out of the bag, and any DRM imposed by these companies is simply going to fail. Period.
For example, let's imagine the destructive word of mouth publicity that Microsoft would have to deal with if the next version of Windows prevented you from ripping CDs to your hard drive. Suppose I'm a typical consumer; I buy a computer with this new OS and I install my favorite MP3 ripper and I try to encode the latest hit single. But I can't. And you live down the hall from me and have a computer still running Win2K (or MacOS!), and you have no problem. Either I'll just give the CD to you to rip and e-mail me and then I'll forget about it, or I'll go do some research as to why this happens. When I find out that Microsoft is trying to prevent me from listening to music that I paid for on my computer, I'll be furious and I'll tell everyone I know to avoid this new Windows like the plague!
Too many people are already accustomed to ripping and sharing music. KaZaa has more than 3 million users already and growing daily. If even a third of them decides to hold off on upgrading their Windows OS because of M$ DRM in the next version, that's 1/3 of a billion dollars in lost revenue for Microsoft. They'd kill the project right quick after that kind of a beating.
Frankly, it's too late for DRM on PCs. The cat's out of the bag. (CDs, of course, are a whole separate issue, but no matter what sort of trash they stick on there to confuse your CD-ROM drive, you've still got to be able to play it somehow, and that's where you've got them
RIAA $-$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Has to be good for the over all economy (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see. RIAA might be putting a lot of money, but it works only if the mandatory implementation of copy right function helps over all economy. Washington might have not realized what the internet really meant to the economy when they were looking at the Napster (because it appeared that some people started spending less money), but this move, the mandatory implementation of copy right function, looks like that it is going to hurt the over all economy (badly). Some already mentioned a potential effect; who's going to rush to get copy right protection built-in locked up can't do anything system? Washington might be not technically savvy, but even for non-technical people, this move does not look good; it just doesn't look like that this move will bring back glory days of the late 90s. This is my observation, but we'll see.
Simple question - what will be worse? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is worse, an FCC mandated copy-protection mechanism - or a defacto Microsoft/Intel copy-protection mechanism?
Unfortunately, it will probably come down to one of these (2) choices, and that will dictate how the studios will distribute their content. As much as I hate to admit it, I think a defacto, industry created copy-protection mechanism is in the better interest of both manufactures as well as consumers.
That said, I for one won't buy the content if I can't play it under GNU/Linux with an open source media player.
Valenti of MPAA (Score:4, Funny)
Valenti said, then rotated his head 180 degree, mummered in someone else's voice:
"If you only knew the power of the darkside..." [8m.com]
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose of this alliance is not to oppose DRM or copyright protection -- it's to oppose laws that mandate certain standards of protection. Basically, the heavy hitters are lining up and telling the govenrment that they don't want the Hollywood or the government telling them how to do their jobs.
That's why Microsoft, Apple, et al are involved. They have the opinion that they are better judges of what is/is not technologically feasible and appropriate than the government. This isn't at all about user rights.
This is analogous to me saying that I am against *thinks of controversial topic* laws regulating noncommercial sex between two consenting adults in a private place. I'm against this because I feel I'm a better judge of what's appropriate than the government. It's all about me; a heterosexual male. I'm not necessarily against it because it affects gay rights although it certainly does affect their rights. Now replace me with Apple, Microsoft, et. al., sex laws with copy protection laws, and the end user rights with gay rights. There's your analogy.
They're not even hiding it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The funny thing is that they don't even have to fight the government; this is just the result of the deal the BSA made with the RIAA. I guess the ADP was set up to keep the RIAA honest about its side of the deal.
Why tech companies hate content producers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Time went on and my PC got faster.. the postage stamp sized window became full-screen, but still no movies.
Broadband came along.. The selling point was 'Watch movies over your phone line'.. Broadband opens up loads of possibilities for video on demand... Customise your viewing... We all purchased broadband connections... And amazingly.. the content providers totally failed to provide content.
So.. we've all got super powerful machines that were sold to use with 'watch movies' as a selling point... and we've all got fast internet connections so that we can 'video on demand' and there's still no _legal_ content out there to be had.
I think the only legal avi I've ever seen is that 'Good Times' one that came on the W95 CD.
Technology companies spend their time _enabling_ other industries to work better... which has been an unbridled universal success for every market area except content producers. Accountants, Designers, Engineers etc... all do much better with computers.
Content providers would still be selling us vinyl if they thought they could.
_The_ killer app for almost all home computers is entertainment, and that's the one area where we're terribly let down... Not by the technology but the industry who'd benefit from it most... Content
Jeez (Score:2, Interesting)
All I have to say is, About F*cking Time. Other than Apple and Gateway, the Tech industry has been way too quiet on this subject. This gave the impression a $300B/Year industry was letting a $30B/year industry push it around simply because they didn't want to soil thier hands with politics.
Behind the scenes (Score:5, Interesting)
Among their clients, Dittus Commuications counts BSA (Business Software Alliance), Intel and Microsoft.
These simple facts are revealed by Dittus' press release [usnewswire.com], about yesterday's event and the actual press release from the event [alliancefo...ogress.org].
So, how does Dittus work? Go to dittus.com to find out. Clicking on "services", then "coalitions & grassroots" gives you this:
Now, click on "clients" on the main menu to the left, then "case studies". Read through a couple of the studies, for example "Americans for Computer Privacy" (text mirrored below). Interestingly, you'll find that Dittus was behind the strategy and campaign that in the end lifted U.S. export limitations on strong encryption. Now of course, the current DRM campaign they are running on behalf of their clients, is pretty much the opposite of the goals of "Americans for Computer Privacy". This campaign is no more than a call for unregulated, oligopoly-controlled implementation of TCPA / Palladium [cam.ac.uk], but of course they never mention TCPA/Palladium. I am not surprised to find all of the TCPA founding members in this so called "Alliance for Digital Progress".
This is a fight were it is in the public interest that both parties fail.
Here's Dittus' own case study on how they helped relax U.S. encryption regulations:
Ah, the joys of money.Re:Behind the scenes (Score:2)
You know Corporate America has reached a new high (low?) when you can outsource a grassroots campaign.
Upside of "crypto on board" chips? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about using the crypto co-processor to offload encryption overhead? You take a performance hit when you use strong encryption like that in SSH, IPSec and so forth. If the math-intensive encryption/decryption could be off-loaded to a crypto co-processor, you could have nearly effortless crypto protection of communications. Imagine VPN tunneling without feeling like you've downshifted into second gear. Imagine SSH that is as fast as cleartext Telnet. Encrypted VNC that doesn't feel like you're back on an analog modem again.
I don't like DRM. I like having r00t on my machines. That's why, when I run Windows 2K, (and that's getting rarer and rarer between Linux and MacOS)I don't apply Service Pack 3. That's why I am totally against Palladium and other TCPA crap.
But if TCPA is supposed to have an "off" switch so that you can run non-DRM OSes like Linux (and since Intel and IBM are both pro-Linux most of the time, and much of TCPA was formulated by IBM and Intel, it's a likely feature) then perhaps we can harness the crypto co-processor for good applications like accelerating encrypted tunneling. When a software company like Microsoft gets a hold of this technology, of course, watch out for your cornhole. But maybe there is an upside buried in the midst of all of this.
US Law is not global law (Score:2)
In order to make these clamp-down strategies work, imported electronics would have to be regulated, too. Otherwise, consumers can bypass the restrictions by buying imported media and players.
If that happened, the US restrictions could kill the domestic market.
If the imports were restricted, there would be the threat of trade wars: a political hot potato.
Where does Europe stand on this protection racket? It's one thing to prosecute DVD Jon for hacking in his home laboratory. It's quite a different kettle of fish to be telling major electronics manufacturers what they can and can't do.
Does this make sense? (Score:2)
Microsoft is part of this? I don't understand. Microsoft is creating/producing DRM garbage that will do exactly what it appears to be helping to fight against in this collection of companies.
The hardware companies don't want DRM garbage forced into their hardware. OK. Good and makes sense. But M$ is devising an OS and system for doing the same thing yet they are part of this coalition?
Re:So, these consortia... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
When Jack Valenti opens his mouth [mpaa.org], unfortunately a lot of people in government listen because the MPAA has a ton of money.
Re:whoa (Score:2)
Second, when its corporation vs. corporation it becomes a fair fight.