|
Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken |
|
Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 09:46 PM EST
|
Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM
~ by Victor Yodaiken
President and CEO, FSMLabs Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies are supposed to
protect digitized “content”, like movies and musical performances
from being illicitly copied or used. DRM technology is sometimes
described as security technology when it is really licensing
technology –- something very different. In fact, DRM may decrease
security and reliability.
Consider what might happen if a computer
equipped with DRM technologies was also used for the primary
telephone of some unlucky person who opened his email mail to find a
spammer had sent him a pirated copy of a song. The song begins to
play automatically just as our fictional victim recognizes that he is
experiencing a heart attack and he desperately clicks the Skype
window to dial emergency services. But all he sees on the screen is
a big notice:
DETECTION OF UNLICENSED USE OF
MEDIA: SYSTEM SHUT DOWN.
Is this a realistic scenario? Based on the recent Sony BMG fiasco,
it is.
Sony BMG put DRM software onto CDs that broke the basic system
security and made the entire system slower and less reliable. Imagine
that your children put such a CD on your computer and opened an
avenue for hackers to make copies of your business memos and personal
email. Imagine what would happen to the PC running a safety
monitoring system for a nuclear power plant that was also used by a
technician who wanted to listen to CDs on the job.
We are entering
the era of ubiquitous and safety critical computing, but the
developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are
nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers. This
belief is convenient, because creating DRM mechanisms that respect
security, safety, and reliability concerns is going to be an
expensive and complex engineering task. Our company sells real-time
control software that runs on standard platforms –- the combination
of standard operating systems and processors and we have customers
using Linux and PCs to control robots, telecommunications switches,
electric power lines, and machine tools. We're worried about how DRM
technology either built into the base hardware or into network
services will interact with software that provides safety critical
services or that manipulates confidential data or that has timing
constraints.
Here are some issues:
One goal of DRM developers is to prevent “digitization”.
For example, they want to make sure it is hard to play a CD on one
device in front of a microphone that records it, free of DRM, onto
another device. But it would be bad if our poor heart attack victim
had evaded his email-induced problem only to find the Skype call
interrupted because a music CD playing in his office triggered an
anti-copying DRM mechanism. Another example I like to bring up is an
armed robber wearing a Mickey-Mouse t-shirt with some embedded DRM
triggering patterns in it –- and a security camera that obligingly
shuts down when it detects the pattern.
If DRM is going to work, it will need to be enforced by a web
of reinforcing mechanisms: the processor will have a hardware ID and
a hardware locked key that will be inspected by the operating system
which will have its own keys that will be required by databases and
media players and network devices. What happens if a network card
breaks and is replaced -– causing the DRM system to conclude
hardware has changed? Do we need to wait for new keys?
How will DRM-locked and DRM-free systems interact? The
computer that controls a medical blood test machine should not have
DRM mechanisms on it, but will that cause problems when it tries to
transmit results to a DRM-locked server? It's certainly plausible
that DRM mechanisms will be built into the network hardware/software
combination on the server and it will be tempting to make servers
that refuse messages from “unsafe” (DRM-free) sites.
Who controls DRM authenticity keys? Can a record company in
dispute with an artist deny that artist keys needed so that her new
works can be published directly or by a second company? What
happens if your company's design documents or advertising or
spreadsheets get caught up in DRM controls –- who do you call to
get a key? If you have data in one database or file system and you
switch, can you export the data without permission of the vendor of
the first system? Will DRM keys be under the control of companies
with an interest in denying their competitors access to the market?
If someone wants to develop a media player used in a
manufacturing system, will a DRM-enforcing operating system or
computer board refuse to allow the media player access to video
ports without a DRM key? What about drivers for nonstandard devices
-– will these trigger DRM issues?
Will DRM actions interfere with system timing? If DRM
mechanisms are built into the BIOS software or board or processor
firmware, can the processor be diverted from controlling a robot arm
or monitoring a valve on a nuclear power plant to check licenses?
Will DRM-locked technology be clearly labeled and inform
users of possible problems? Is it going to be easy for a technician
upgrading software on a computer controlling an intensive care unit
vent or an airplane communication system to inadvertently install
DRM-sensitive software instead of the DRM-free software?
If all commercially available notebook computers are
DRM-locked how will we assure that a portable digital diagnostic
unit carried around by visiting nurses doesn't start to misbehave
when the nurse loads a photo of her family from a digital camera
with DRM requirements?
Will virus writers be able to trigger DRM falsely on infected
computers? Can a virus that purposely tries to copy DRM-locked music
cause the computer to shutdown or lose functionality? Once one
machine on a network is detected as possibly insecure will other
machines refuse to talk to it? How can a network that has been
marked as compromised be reset?
Will DRM mechanisms trigger if they are placed behind a
firewall? Currently, DRM mechanisms appear to be being designed to
allow remote checking from the “license owner”. If it is
possible to defeat those mechanisms by blocking some network
traffic, DRM will be easy to evade. If not, DRM will battle network
security.
Will DRM network hooks provide security holes for virus
writers? This question has already been answered by SONY BMG and the
answer is not reassuring.
To summarize, DRM is a potentially dangerous and intrusive
licensing technology that is being pushed into production before
safety and reliability issues have been addressed. The widespread use
of standard computer products to control all sorts of important
systems is being ignored and DRM is being introduced as if there was
no role for computers except as personal entertainment devices and as
if computer users were purely consumers of prepackaged “content”.
This approach seems sure to create more problems as time goes by.
Victor Yodaiken is the creator of RTLinux and President and CEO of FSMLabs, a
software development company headquartered in New Mexico. Yodaiken has
been working on operating systems in both industry and academia since
the early 1980s, when he was one of the developers of one of the first
commercial distributed fault tolerant UNIX systems. In a technical article published in Linuxdevices
in 2002, he argued that without a major attitude change digital
rights management technologies would cause software security failures
and generate safety problems for everything from medical equipment to
military systems. There is an updated version of the article here. See also DRM Out of Balance at LinuxDevices.
© Victor Yodaiken 2006.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM EST |
It's not about safety or reliability though, is it. It's about profit and
business models.
Were it not about these, your points would be listened to by the medai
companies. As it is, they'll deny the ship is sinking even when they have to
cling on to the side of the ship to do it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:25 PM EST
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 03:35 AM EST
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:11 AM EST
- Safety is: -and can Intel's new DRM chip insure that MS or Mac boxes can't dual boot = lock-in? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST
- Corporate Use of DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:37 PM EST
- Storm in a teacup - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 02:03 PM EST
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 05:14 PM EST
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST
- Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM, by Victor Yodaiken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:26 PM EST
- OT: But Dangeorous, please READ IT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:03 PM EST
- OT: But Dangeorous, please READ IT - Authored by: turbopro on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:11 PM EST
- Gates also spreading 'communist' FUD - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:21 PM EST
- hardly dangerous - just rubbish - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST
- OT: But Dangeorous, please READ IT - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:55 PM EST
- It'd be communism if the government forced everyone to use it. - Authored by: archonix on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 05:36 AM EST
- Yuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 01:55 PM EST
- Yuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 02:12 PM EST
- OT: But Dangeorous, please READ IT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 02:09 PM EST
- nurture the young - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:00 PM EST
- GIVE me a break - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 05:47 AM EST
|
Authored by: Ossymoon on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 09:54 PM EST |
Please place corrections here
Thanks
---
He's a technomage... He appears when you want him least, and need him most.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ossymoon on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 09:56 PM EST |
Please place off topic things here
Don't forget to link!!!
Thanks
---
He's a technomage... He appears when you want him least, and need him most.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux is Not Windows - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 04:24 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:49 AM EST
- Two problems ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:15 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A not so Hypothetical Answer - Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: marcosdumay on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 04:13 PM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:54 PM EST
- USE OPEN SOURCE - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 05:49 AM EST
- Linux Rootkits--A Hypothetical Question - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 04:58 PM EST
- Linux Rootkits: safety in diversity - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 23 2006 @ 12:25 PM EST
- A little more education needed - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST
- Does the DoJ Use Microsoft as a Shill Against Linux? - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:39 AM EST
- Virgin Records - Authored by: jimwelch on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST
- Virgin Records - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:35 PM EST
- Printing an Article - Authored by: jimwelch on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST
- Humor - Authored by: sunnyfla on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:23 PM EST
- Authentic Commercial MS Windows to Linux Desktop Migration Tool! - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:28 PM EST
- Windows XP Home: obsolete sooner than you expect - Authored by: Bill R on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:34 PM EST
- OT-Copyright law limiting availability of music - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
- DRM'd content - what if your system crashes? - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 05:29 PM EST
- FUD in so many ways.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:05 PM EST
- SEC Opens Formal Probe Into IBM Earnings - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:12 PM EST
- HDCP - why would we want this - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 14 2006 @ 07:47 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 09:58 PM EST |
"Imagine what would happen to the PC running a safety monitoring system for
a nuclear power plant that was also used by a technician who wanted to listen to
CDs on the job."
A technician who plays CDs on a PC that's running a (critical) safety monitoring
system for a nuclear power plant is grossly misusing the system in a manner for
which both he and the system designers (who allowed this to be possible) should
be fired. Regardless of DRM concerns, that PC should not be running any
programs -- such as music players -- that it has not been completely certified
to be able to run safely while doing its job.
There are perfectly good examples of cases where DRM software could get onto a
mission-critical computer and cause trouble. This particular scenario is,
however, one that is completely implausible, and insofar as it is plausible, is
a dangerous situation for far more reasons that DRM. Thus, using this as an
argument is FUD. We should not stoop so low, particlarly when we have no need
to.
- Brooks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:13 PM EST
- Installing Software on Secured PCs - Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:41 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:51 PM EST
- And you think this hasn't happened? - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:56 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: TheMohel on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:04 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:15 PM EST
- Which FUD do you want to stop ? - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:43 PM EST
- Yes... except... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:42 AM EST
- And they shouldn't use their radio using mission critical electricity - Authored by: thorpie on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:29 AM EST
- FUD or just human nature? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:47 AM EST
- 100% agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 02:56 AM EST
- 100% disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 03:49 AM EST
- 100% disagree - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 05:03 AM EST
- A few thoughts - Authored by: pjcm on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 05:54 AM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 04:59 AM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:53 AM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: shiptar on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM EST
- Can't Happen on the Job, Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Microsoft EULA exception - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:31 AM EST
- CD's are the tip of the iceberg - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:46 AM EST
- Point has been made - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:35 AM EST
- DRM = Facism - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 06:12 AM EST
- I'm a nuclear safety assessor ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:26 AM EST
- A REAL Example.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:01 PM EST
- Not entirely FUD, unfortunately - Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:34 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: davcefai on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:41 PM EST
- ... this FUD ... - Authored by: tanstaafl on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 06:14 PM EST
- ... this FUD ... - Authored by: tanstaafl on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 06:21 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: rlbell on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:41 PM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 12:44 AM EST
- Look, can we please stop this particular FUD? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 08:19 AM EST
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:29 PM EST |
Okay share isn't part of the corporate mindset and they'd really like to go back
to the days when they delivered the content and consumers consumed.
But now it's interactive and all those old "rights", that didn't
matter because they couldn't be used, have now been labeled piracy.
Let's enforce the consumer's rights and make DRM that gets in the way illegal.
When that's clear we can address the piracy issue.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 10:55 PM EST |
If I become a cultural vagrant unable to access any electronic content, then
I'll read books from the library. They have millions of them so I'll never run
out. Millions of used CD's without DRM are always available for music. As for
movies, am I really missing anything?
I paint watercolours and imagine if I built a big black box to install DRM
around one of my paintings. Then I'd charge people just to look at it and no
money back if you don't like it. What a great way to trash a career, prevent
people from appreciating my work. Limiting my audience should drive down the
price of my art right through the floor!
How great it feels to watch people's expressions as they view my work. Nothing
I've ever done has given me such satisfaction. I don't care if they buy it or
not, just that they liked it is enough for me. Someone else will buy it.
Art, any art, is communication. Communication is most effective when it reaches
the most people. DRM is the opposite, it prevents communication. Any art that
is wrapped up in DRM is dead. In 10 years will you still be able to play the
$3,000 worth of iTunes songs you own? Won't all the culture that is locked up in
DRM become inaccessible as technology changes? Doesn't that mean that to
historians the DRM era will a big blank space in our cultural heritage. All the
art and culture of a generation locked up and lost forever with DRM.
That's why I'm not buying into any DRM system. I know my art will be appreciated
by generations to come. Will yours?
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST |
is that if DRM becomes ubiquitous, in fifty years time all of our culture will
be gone. It is bad enough with the legal obstacles provided by copyright now,
but while it may be illegal, at least there are no technical obstructions to
playing an old 75 and preserving the content into a digital format. Imagine if
all music video and books were to be protected by DRM. Just how usable do you
think they will be in 20 years time; in 50 years time: how usable will they be
in 150 years time when they FINALLY come out of copyright! This is a mechanism
for the total destruction of our culture. Our descendants will curse the tragic
loss of early 21st century popular culture to DRM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:20 PM EST |
Piracy has often been the scrapegoat for the "need" for effective
Digital Rights Management technology. The theory goes something like this:
"If P2P did not exist and people had no way of massive distribution of
copyrighted content, then DRM would not be necessary." However, once the
underlying objectives of DRM is examined more closely, an astute audience begins
to realize that DRM was going to come. P2P and "piracy" simply
accelerated the process.
DRM has only one purpose: To make you pay multiple times for the content you
used to be able to pay once and enjoy. Instead of owning a CD, you might only
own some bits that evaporate after being viewed a number of times, or an
expiration date. The content cartel wants to create a future where you never
really "own" any content, but only "rent" it.
That is, instead of keeping copyright in the realm of public performance,
distribution, and copying, the content cartel wants to expand the scope of
copyright-- through legislative means via anti-circumention laws, through
contract laws with EULAs, and through technical means via DRM. The ultimate
goal is to effectively transform "copyright" to
"use-right".
Once the content cartel can control every use of a work, then a whole bunch of
new "business models" open up. Every little use that you thought you
had the right to perform day is an opportunity for money to be made.
Time-shifting? That'll cost you some money. Space-shifting? That'll cost
money too. If you want to listen to the song more than twice, you'll have to
shell out the dough. If you want to excerpt, or make "fair use", or
create a backup, then you'll have to pay too. Oh, the future player (controlled
by the content cartel via restrictive licensing terms on the player technology)
will detect how many people are in your room when you try to play, and multiply
the costs accordingly. If you can think of a use, then the content cartel will
want to monetize it.
The content cartel is well on its way even before "piracy" took center
stage. Remember "software licensing"? Ten years ago, everyone knew
it was a myth. Then a few court cases (like ProCD) started to make it a
reality. Now you talk to a good percentage of people, and they'll say that
software licensing is a natural thing, even though no one ever
"licensed" a book. And in five years? Who's to say that everyone
won't think software is licensed, not sold?
Of course, a reasonable person would suggest that even Congress would not be so
bribed as to take away Fair Use, or the Doctrine of First Sale. The problem is
that while the law might permit Fair Use and other rights, you will not have the
technical means to exercise those rights. Anyone trying to create the tools
will risk the wrath of anti-circumvention. And the content cartel is happy,
too-- after all, you still do have the right to Fair Use. But if you want to
exercise the right, the RIAA has the chance to make some money. No one ever
said Fair Use had to be "free".
Consider the possibility that the public library could exist given the IP regime
today, if it was not born years ago when IP was much more reasonable? Would
Congress be brave enough to protect libraries with special exemptions to
copyright law, if it did not have the benefit of hindsight in the value of the
public library to literacy and education? Given the DMCA, could anyone afford
the legal liability of opening a public library?
Every time someone loans a book from a public library, that book reflects the
loss of a "potential sale". Isn't "lost sale" a familiar
tone coming from the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA? The public library is a vehicle
for massive copyright infringement by taking away sales. Even if no (illegal)
copies of the book were made, you can bet that the content cartel wants to
maximize their profits and find a way to charge for each use. DRM allows them
to do this. The RIAA already tried to shut down secondhand (used) CD sales once
before.
When everything is taken under a broader light, then it is perfectly clear that
piracy really doesn't have anything to do with DRM at all. Its a smokescreen.
Because all of the reasons for wanting DRM comes from economics, and maximizing
profits. That's why DRM was going to come around one day, piracy or not.
As far as the customer or user is concerned, DRM is a losing proposition. DRM
does not really create any value, but rather it takes it away from you and gives
it back to the copyright holder.
In the future, you will have to pay more, but you'll end up getting less.
Cheers![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:33 PM EST |
I used my my commodore 64 as a real time controlling device. It was really bad
at it. Conclusion: Computers are not suitable for real time controlling tasks.
The above conclusion is approx. just as flawed as this article. Just because
Sony's semi-DRM solution has all kinds of flaws doesn't mean that such flaws are
inherent to DRM in itself. Just like the fact that Kazaa installs all kinds of
malware doesn't imply that P2P software is inherently flawed.
Victor could have made a valid point by pointing out that running content from a
CD can compromise the security of a system. Whether that's due to bugs, criminal
intent, or an incompetent DRM implementation is hardly relevant.
The health care and nuclear industry examples that victor provides are
interesting from a trusted computing platform point of view though. A trusted
platform can help to ensure that hardware with the potential to be
life-threathening is running the exact software that people expect it to be
running and not infected with viruses, Sony's DRM or other non-authorized
software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:42 PM EST |
Easy, just run everything under a "Virtual Machine Monitor" and all hardare is
simulated! For any user actions, like for instance running an Illegal DRM
incumbered CD/DVD, hence the "users VM environemnt" being put "on hold" but the
reatime processes running in a different partition (heart pace maker monitor,
etc) are unaffected?
In the mean time someone writes a "Virtual Machine
HostOS Driver" module for the simulated "Video/Sound Processor" redirector
module that shunts the simulated Video/Audio hardware driver of one VM (pick
your OS of choice of course) to pump the Totally "illegal" Video/Audio Stream
content directly into another unrelated VM User's OS partition Video/Audio input
channel which then proceeds to copy that covert stream to its final
Covert/Illegal/CD/DVD/VM/non-DRM simulated
non-DRM/CD/DVD/hard_disk/copy/clone/replicated virtual destination for all kinds
of fun and personal pleasure. That way everyone is happy, arn't they? According
to the DRM nothing was copied, and the CPU says the heart pacemaker monitor
didn't skip a real-time beat, and the bandit sure made off whith a Gazillion
copies at $10.00 a pop! So, err, whats the problem here? Oh, you think that
Sony might object? How would they ever know they were supposed to be upset, Even
with their SUPER ROOT kits deployed? Do I see a problem here? Yes, they just
won't stop a dedicated hacker, that is for sure. If they can "play" the CD/DVD
then thay can not stop you from "playing" the CD/DVD!! Its just a good thing for
their sake that i'm and honest hacker, unless of course they do something sooooo
*stupid* as to make somebody like me angry - lol; Good thing for them, I guess.
because I have yet to buy one of those CD's! ;*}
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, January 11 2006 @ 11:42 PM EST |
Nice article, but if I may put in my $0.02.
I do not believe DRM has anything to do with stopping illicit copying. That's
what the RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft is saying (so "supposed to be"
might be an accurate statement).
However, this whole thing has just been about the large media companies trying
to exert greater control over content and extend copyright restrictions not for
the sake of justice, or the protection of the artist, or even for morality. No,
the real reason is just sheer greed.
Why do movie and record companies whine about their "intellectual
property" when they SELL content? If they sell an album or a movie, the
customer gets a piece of that intellectual property! True, he/she has very
restricted copying rights (that's the whole point behind copyright law) but the
customer is buying something! If the media companies want absolute control over
content, they should just lock it away in their vaults and not try to sell it.
But greed pops up, and they think that "intellectual property" means
they can sell things without selling things, and fix prices, and crank out
lifeless soulless garbage and are somehow magically entitled to the publics
money. Then when they alienate their customers and their sales drop, they whine
to their bought-and-paid-for congressmen and senators about the
"pirates."
I remember Jack Valenti trying to justify region coding on DVD's, "well you
see, the pirates... blah blah blah." Region coding has nothing to do with
piracy. It has everything to do with greed and attempts to keep control over
something that they sell. "Have your cake and eat it too" comes to
mind... or maybe "eat your cake and sell it too."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gibodean on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:09 AM EST |
The article seems to blur the line between what is DRM and what it a
rootkit/spyware/virus type thing.
They are not the same.
The fact that a rootkit can be used by Sony to try to "Manage" their
Digital "Rights" does not mean that all DRM is necessarily going to
destroy your computer.
DRM is bad, no doubt, for many reasons that you mention, especially lack of
"fair use" provisions, and use of the product after copyright
expiration. But, you computer slowing down, and becoming "infected"
is not a result of DRM. It's a result of over-zealous companies going too far,
and treating your computer as if it's theirs.
Most DRM is simply a pain, which makes you not able to use your data.
And most rootkits and viruses are written by spammers and crackers.
Companies using DRM should be avoided by consumers. Companies using rootkits
should be criminally charged.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:26 AM EST |
It just means that US manufacturers of DRM compromised PC's will lose sales to
Chinese and Indian manufactured PC's that don't have the technology. The same
has happened with CD readers already, and DVD players that have region encoding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pallmall on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:32 AM EST |
... that the record companies, movie studios, and their contracted "artists"
have no more right to exist in their present form as candle makers existed
before the light bulb came along.
Let them disappear. If their
"high-quality" content goes with them, so be it. New forms of content and
distribution business models will take their place if technology is allowed to
progress free of DRM restrictions.
Remember, the DRM they want will be
included in device hardware and software whether you want it or not, whether you
play any of their "property" or not, whether you know it or not. Look at the
legislation being proposed in the US Congress and it is clear that it may become
a CRIME to even possess a device that does not include DRM. It's already a
CRIME to even contemplate ways to circumvent current DRM.
Also remember
that DRM doesn't stop with songs and movies. It allows monitoring of all
information on your hardware/software, all use of your hardware/software, and
all changes in your hardware/software. The decision of what can and can't be
viewed will not be up to you. Think of it -- TOTAL CONTROL OF INFORMATION in
the hands of a government/media-industry alliance.
The DRM battles
fought now are for our children. What kind of "intellectual rights" will they
have if we give them away now for a song?
--- Groklaw! -- If I had better
things to do, I'd still be doing this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:29 AM EST |
Well, will those devices that are going to be DRM-free become just more
expensive, prohibitively so for the ordinary person?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 03:35 AM EST |
It is a theory for PHB's and ignorants in general that DRM has something to do
with digital content.
However, digital content can not be protected, period.
The only feasible DRM schemes are based on cryptography and involve a secret,
digital key. The key cannot be protected, as it is digital too.
Therefore, all DRM schemes involve hardware peripherals that are kept outside of
the control of the consumer. All DRM is about taking away the hardware from the
consumer. That is, all DRM involve letting outsiders control YOUR PC and home.
A fitting analogue is installing video camera's (with audio) in your house that
let an outsider activate your TV, audio, and VCR. But only if they are convinced
that you are using them in the correct way. They might even warn you if a
burglar enters, but they promise nothing. And they promise, really, to not look
at what you are doing in your house. Honest. Never. So, hey, you can feel safe
now.
Rob
---
Revenge, Justice, Security, and Revenge, chose any two.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 03:44 AM EST |
Now here's a case (from The Register) where the use of DRM is have a bad
impact on a member of the film industry. Spielburg film
looses any chance of a BAFTA award [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moonbroth on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 05:53 AM EST |
Developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing
more than personal entertainment systems for consumers.
Even if this
were true, the developers of DRM technologies ignore the fact that I don't want
my (gaming-optimised, expensive, bleeding-edge) PC's performance to suffer a
1-2% CPU overhead and performance hit, multiplied for every brand of DRM that's
been unwillingly or surreptitiously installed on it.
I'd encourage anyone
who's concerned by this overreaching nonsense to sign up to the PledgeBank
pledge to boycott all DRM'd CDs forever (see this
BoingBoing article and the related PledgeBank signup page) and show
the music labels where you stand.
Cheers, Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RPN on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 06:07 AM EST |
The problem is not for me DRM per se (though I think it's a nonsense anyway).
The real problem lies in having multiple DRM's in place and it isn't just about
music and video. Anyone and everyone with 'IP to protect' will get in on the act
if they think they can get away with it. You could end up with DRM applications
from music sources, film sources, software companies, web sites.... A total
nightmare under any OS (and for the OS companies and security companies - it's
real hard to feel sorry for MS but I bet they are, rightly, furious about the
Sony and Norton actions) because you cannot quarentee their interactions with
each other and the rest of your system; and DRM absolutely can't begin to work
without going low level in the OS. Not only that but you may well not be able to
figure out which one is causing the trouble and in theory at least it's illegal
in many places to poke around trying to work that out let alone what is wrong
with the particular DRM involved. This really reminds me of the eighties when
so-called 'dongles' were tried for a while by some software companies as a way
to stop software piracy. They were a nightmare and a user revolt meant they did
not last long. I hope that will prove the case with DRM but at the moment there
is no sign of a strong enough backlash sadly.
I also think other posters are right to see this as a very real push to a
subscription/micropayment model for everyone and everything which, perhaps not
wholly rationally, really gives me the creeps for a variety of security,
personal finance management, ownership versus rental and other reasons. I've
never been comfortable with 'renting' anything and I understand part of the
swell of dislike with MS in the business world is about the shift to
'subsciption' versus purchase pricing. It's certainly a real issue for my
employer and a reason we have not upgraded anything for quite a while and new
purchases for new hardware have been purchased singles rather than through a
business licencing scheme.
Sorry MS/EMI/Sony/etc etc etc if you shift to this sort of pricing you can
forget me as a future customer. I am simply not prepared to mess about with
multiple DRM implimentations on my computers and I have absolutely no interest
in 'pay per view/listen' in any shape or form. Treat me like a customer offering
me a quality product and I will be a customer. Otherwise forget it. Especially
if your actions imply I am a criminal.
It is also a reason my employer, albeit a small one, may very well go FOSS when
obsolesnce really bites with the software we currently have in use. Not the only
one but one that really should give software companies some pause for thought.
Richard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 06:09 AM EST |
then his doom was his own making, not that of DRM. You can't make emergency
calls over Skype. Why didn't he just pick up the phone like everyone else?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 06:59 AM EST |
We all go along with the "PC" name DRM, AKA Digital Rights
"Management". What DRM really is, would be named Digital Rights
Restriction.
We should start calling the wolf a wolf, not some pet name created by wolves.
Everyone goes along, merrily repeating the "management" line; DRM is
restriction, not management.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 07:24 AM EST |
If I rent an auto for a day, that's a contract between me
and (say) Hertz. If for any reason the auto is
unavailable, like it breaks down, then I expect Hertz to
fix the problem and get me on my way with whatever I
wanted to do.
It's also quite reasonable for me to want to own an auto
'forever', or to lease an auto for a fixed number of
years.
So what's different about DRM ? Provided the terms of the
contract are clear before money changes hands; and
provided the copyright owner respects my rights too (in
this case, if Sony break my PC, then Sony need to show up
and fix it again; and if the CD is unplayable then Sony
need to show up with a replacement), then things should be
OK.
Besides, Sony need 'free' music, too. How do you think
they find new artists ? The current ones will eventually
get old and retire; there must be renewal.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- read your EULA - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST
- read your EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:49 AM EST
- Careful - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:56 AM EST
- Careful - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:56 PM EST
- it's a sig line - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:38 PM EST
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 08:09 AM EST |
One question that the TPC has always avoided: who is the "owner" of the
computer? Their documents keep referring to that "owner" but they have
steadfastly refused to clarify who that is.
Either the "owner" is the person
or company that paid for it (etc.) or some other party. If it's the titular
owner
- The owner can recover keys stored in the computer (for instance, to
move them to a backup machine.)
- This is unacceptable to the **AA, since
it totally defeats DRM
- The owner can flush keys (etc.) rendering
encrypted files unreadable
This is totally unacceptable to law
enforcement.
- Theonly way it is going to be accepted would be with a built-in
backdoor
- Hmmm ... built-in backdoor. How long until that gets
cracked?
- For that matter, you can bet that Microsoft will know the "back
door." Please roll a paranoia check.
On the other hand, if
the "owner" is some other party (e.g. Intel)
- Data becomes hostage to the
"owner"
- The "owner" who may be a competitor
- In any case, the delay
may be expensive (as VY notes)
- This would seem to be totally unacceptable to
the business community
- Any claim of "unbreakable security" goes out
the window, since this has the classic problems of key escrow.
- How is this
going to go over with non-US governments?
My read is that the DRM
demand is not negotiable, so the titular owner won't normally have key-recovery
capability. I also think that the business community won't (long) accept having
to beg Intel for recovery keys; if nothing else the bookkeeping expenses are
likely to be staggering. Finally, there isn't a snowball's chance that
any government will accept a scheme that can't be gotten around with a
court order.
My (tentative, paranoid) conclusion is that the chip
manufacturers will keep the master keys and that "trusted users" (read large
companies, governments, etc.) will be able to get the keys to purchased
computers at the time of purchase, but that ordinary users won't. The
contractual terms associated with corporate purchases should be a treat. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST |
To me this looks like the content rights owners are against *ALL* copies, even
the ones they sell. What they want is to collect royalties on every
"play" of the content. You think you just bought a CD? Well, no, you
just bought the convenience of being able to play their content at your
discretion. You still have to pay for each playing. As wireless networking
begins to saturate our world even the most portable players can be in constant
contact with the licensing and billing servers. Temporary off-network periods
can be accomodated much the way pay-per-view cable boxes handle this.
As for the inclusion of DRM into everything, I see this also in monetary terms.
Look at any movie credits and you will see credits for the camera, the tripod,
even the film used. Now look at the attitude some digital camera manufacturers
have toward their proprietary formats. Next? These manufacturers will want
rights to photographs you take using their equipment. Sure, the photographs
themselves are copyright by you, but if you bought an "amateur" camera
did you notice the term in the EULA that states that if you use a photograph in
any publication for compensation or use the camera for professional, compensated
work you both need their permission and owe them compensation? (fictitious, but
plausible future restriction) You want to use a camera professionally? Buy the
more expensive camera with a "pro" license or buy a usage license.
We are realistically headed towards both of these kinds of scenarios.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:05 AM EST |
Given this storyline, it seems I posted this a bit too early:
I know it's
old (December 9 2005), but it's relevant to the general tone of topics here on
Groklaw. If it's been discussed here before, I obviously missed it.
The full
article is here. And it's
written by another Pamela ;-)
"U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. in
D.C. ruled that obtaining a username and password from a third party that has
authorized access does not violate the DMCA. Kennedy cited the only other court
to rule on improper use of a legitimate password, holding that gaining access
to a third party's legitimate password is not the same as hacking. (My
bold).
"It is irrelevant who provided the username/password combination to
the defendant, or, given that the combination itself was legitimate, how it was
obtained," Kennedy wrote in Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, No. 04-876HHK. Use
of a legitimate password does not "circumvent" a technology used to control
access, Kennedy concluded."
So let me get this straight: All I have to do to
get around the DMCA is to (a) go dumpster diving, or (b) hang around the
local bar and start buying drinks for anyone with a beef about my intended
target. So we penalize university researchers who probe protection mechanisms to
find their flaws, but any gumshoe is off the hook if they play like Sam Spade?
The DMCA makes any technological circumventions illegal, but good old detective
work is OK?
I guess this article defining Soci
al Engineering as a hacking technique is completely and legally wrong then.
As one poster in the other thread said, "Since when is hacking a legal
term?"
I know that there are other laws that would cover things the DCMA
does not, but I still feel that the more the DMCA gets poked and prodded, the
more its foundations seem to be a bit sandy.
On a tech note, I can't
remember the trick to get around the bug in Geeklog that inserts spaces in the
label of a long url tag (Social Engineering above)... --- NetArch -
building a better Internet one subnet at a time... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:08 AM EST |
There's all sorts of ways that this issue is less critical than the nuclear
safety example would indicate.
First of all, I wouldn't deploy Windows as part of a safety-critical system.
That's a no-brainer. Next, if I did have to make a Windows client part of a
safety system it wouldn't have a CD drive or a USB port, so the operator would
be unable to load DRM'd music. Furthermore, any attempt to do so would be a
breach of the Security Operating Procedure, and the operator would very soon be
not an operator, after all. I'd like him/her to be concentrating on the Nuclear
Safety, not Girls Aloud!
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lyndon on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 11:08 AM EST |
We've recently been discussing the ODF format, as being potentially future
proof. How future proof do you think DRM will be? The recent Sony example CD
wouldn't actually work on Win2003 as the OS prevents software from doing what
that program that did. (Essentially hooking into and replacing an OS function).
How long will todays DRM schemes last? Until the next version of Windows, do we
get our money back then? So you have all your DRM'd music CDs and you upgrade
your OS. Oops, bye bye music. to me this is at least as bad as the loss of 'fair
use', not that there's such a thing as fair use in the UK anyway....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 12:23 PM EST |
Some of this stuff is pretty implausible. Anyone who uses a computer capable of
playing music CDs for a life safety or security critical purpose is negligent.
In fact, anyone who uses a commodity computer for such purposes at all is
negligent. In any case, there will be two classes of computer: DRM-free
industrial and commercial machines that will be very expensive and very hard for
"consumers" to get, and "consumer" appliances. This will,
of course, drive up the cost of many industrial and commercial applications that
could have safely used cheap commodity computers but for the DRM and cripple
innovation and education by blocking exploration and experimentation.
---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: unixgeezer on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:01 PM EST |
Victor has given us a landmark position paper on the evils of DRM. It reminds
me of Edsger Dijkstra's classic "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."
What is it going to take to get the political community to disown this
illegitimate offspring of the "content" industry? Will there have to
be some shocking and catastrophic failure that can be laid squarely at the feet
of the DMCA and Sen. Fritz Hollywood? Of course, several federal agency heads
would have to be thrown off the sleigh before the wolves get to the members of
Congress.
To call DRM and the DMCA "wrong" is a faint approximation of how bad
they are. They would have to notch up several levels in many areas (appropriate
remedies, protection of fair use, etc.) to even rise to the dignity of error.
---
Unix Geezer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST |
10.
Will DRM mechanisms trigger if they are placed behind a
firewall? Currently, DRM mechanisms appear to be being designed to allow remote
checking from the “license owner”. If it is possible to defeat those mechanisms
by blocking some network traffic, DRM will be easy to evade. If not, DRM will
battle network security.
No, the DRM software won't have to
battle network security. The content vendors will merely pressure Congress to
pass a bill that makes it illegal to manufacture or use any router, firewall,
switch, or any other packet-filtering device that interferes with DRM-related
network traffic.
Welcome to the new 1984. >:^|
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 04:37 PM EST |
> We are entering the era of ubiquitous and safety critical computing,
> but the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that
> computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for
> consumers
You, sir, are either incredibly naive, or a demagogue.
"Computers" *are* personal entertainment systems for consumers.
"Computers" are also IBM, Siemens, and Hitachi mainframes doing
high-volume, secure processing of bank and stock-exchange transactions.
"Computers" are also dedicated boxes monitoring and manipulating the
control surfaces on Boeing and Airbus passenger jets.
"Computers" are also corporate file servers, which shouldn't even have
something as unnecessary and dangerous as Windows Media Player, or any other
media player software, installed on them.
"Computers" are also embedded controllers that manage automated
manufacturing facilities, oil refineries, nuclear power plants, medical test
equipment, and other industrial processes.
And this is only scratching the surface of all the different kinds of devices
that you are carelessly lumping under the one-size-fits-all heading of
"computers." Your sedulous conflation of all these very different
kinds of devices is only muddying the issue.
I completely agree with you that the companies pushing media-oriented DRM would
like to treat consumer PCs as "personal entertainment systems for
consumers," but frankly, that is exactly what they are: no more, no less.
Welcome to the long-hyped Digital Convergence. They have many other
capabilities, being "general-purpose" computers and all; but the
consumer PC industry, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed that they shall all be
"personal entertainment systems for consumers."
Your understanding of the situation is so sketchy that I can't even get beyond
your first example of a presumed VoIP-based 911 failure. Skype, Vonage, etc.
are all very clever applications, but because they live or die based on the
reliability of these consumer PCs, they *are not* POTS, nor can they ever be.
Do you have a consumer Windows PC that can compete with an ILEC on reliability?
Until you do, expecting VoIP to be a replacement for POTS in *any* situation is
merely wishful thinking.
The fact that VoIP apps are being marketed as a POTS replacement -- and that
ISPs, telcos, and cablecos are marketing them as such -- is one of the sleaziest
cases of corporate irresponsibility that I've ever seen. It's even worse than
marketing cellphones as POTS replacements, which is already pretty disingenuous.
POTS evolved extensively over a hundred years or so, and incredible amounts of
research and engineering (essentially, all the money that could be gouged by a
regulated monopoly, except maybe the bits that went into research and
development of such things as active semiconductor devices) went into making it
reliable and predictable enough to *mostly* be an effective emergency system.
But even POTS has limitations and pathological failure modes as an emergency
system, as you would know if you had bothered to study the subject.
VoIP is not POTS; it was not designed to be POTS; it has a different
architecture and different failure modes; and anyone who believes that it is a
plug-compatible replacement for POTS in any critical situation has drunk the
kool-aid. VoIP is a different thing, and insisting that it act just like POTS
is not only foolish, but retrogressive. The US FCC does not understand this,
and apparently neither do you.
If you want to rail about how the DRM-mongers are wrecking consumer PCs, go
ahead. Just stop expecting things from consumer PCs that they are not capable
doing, and leave the rest of the computers out of it. And perhaps you'll find
that when you do that, most of your arguments evaporate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 09:08 PM EST |
The RIAA have had their day in the sun. Wait until the recording companies have
their first class action suit. And not a simple one like the Sony annoyance
suit. One because their unnecessary software brought down critical systems,
such as medical or emergency systems, and some lives are lost. After they cough
up a few Billion $$$, the downloading of some songs may not seem so bad. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 12 2006 @ 10:56 PM EST |
After all of the discussions about this topic it is simple to say that we need
to ensure that the DRM concept is not embedded into our electronics hardware.
This is a particularly insideous issue that could cause far greater harm to
everybody, even the people with the big money who run the media companies.
Anybody who reads this comment can get further info from the
www.eff.org/endangered/list.php. One of the endangered devices, the basic 'D to
A' converter, is being attacked by the media industry. The media industry has
expressed that they'd like to see the electronic manufacturers include an
'enhancement' that would shut down the D/A converter. Imagine what would happen
to a simple answering machine with this embedded option. Anybody calling your
home could control your ability to listen to the recordings simply by adding the
proper coding to the message they put on you machine.
DRM is 'BAD'.
We really need to fight hardware DRM and keep the media industry straight by
forcing them to stay away from our electronic devices. And we should stress that
the media industry express DRM for what it really is meant for; licensing and
control of their products. DRM has absolutely no value for security and should
have never been expressed as such.
The only purposes for DRM are to support greed and protect the power base of
the currently strong media corporations. But of course this is just an
opinion!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 03:27 AM EST |
I think that, as a group campaigning against the use of FUD, we must be sure
that we don't use it ourselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 07:38 AM EST |
You may have security or convenience, but achieving both at the same time is
extremely difficult. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 09:53 AM EST |
Number 2) alredy is a problem with some software licences.
Specifically, some propriatary compilers require a license
key that has the ethernet MAC as part of its ingredients.
Change the card or MB and you are down until you can get
a new license. That is fine if you have the time and are
in a place where you can contact the vendor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM EST |
The issues with DRM extend well beyond the traditional Internet. Not all
computers are connected to the Internet, or are connected at all times. If DRM
"calls home" and will not allow access without Internet access, there will be
problems for disconnected users (play that movie on your laptop on the plane, a
multi-media system on a boat or car, a sensitive corporate or Government
network, or even classified network). Some systems must be loaded from fresh
media and must NEVER touch external networks (think nuclear power plant
management networks). For many reasons, these systems may need to display/play
multi-media content, both open and DRM restricted (think training materials).
DRM must not impeade their operation in these environments (think about what a
PITA Microsoft's authentication for XP is for these networks).
I have been a
fan of Open Source and Open Standards for a very long time. Users need
to be able to freely and openly access their own and public content (think video
from their camera). Public and Government documents must be freely open and
accessible (think Mass.). Systems need to be freely interoperable (Linux, Mac,
Solaris, Windows). DRM, especially at the hardware level, threatens ALL
of this. The entry price point for software MUST be low for true public
access to data (think $100US laptops) and DRM threatens this as well.
A
publisher DOES have the right to put controls on their content. However,
their controls MUST NOT force a general purpose computer into a box where
it can only operate in one mode of operation (Internet connected, hardware DRM,
etc.). When that computer is not accessing the DRMed data, the computer should
be freely usable without being impaired by installed DRM hardware or DRM
software (think Sony Rootkit). Computers are, and must remain, general purpose
systems.
Modern computers are multitasking and now often run multiple
operating systems at the same time (Xen, UML, VMWare, VirtualPC). DRM should
not interfere with or preclude these operations (think DRM that forces you to be
in the lowest level/base/ring0 O/S to access the media). DRM must not interfere
with low-level capabilities like real-time kernels (think RealTime
Linux).
My 1C worth (after taxes) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|