| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft's DRM vision
Seth Schoen attended Microsoft's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference
and wrote up what he learned in a series of four articles on the EFF site
(part 1, part 2, part 3,
and part 4).
It is a scary view of a world where our computers do not serve us - and it
appears to be where we are heading. "In the near future, when you
try to install software to time-shift your favorite Real Audio webcast,
your PC might disable all media player applications. Until you remove the
software, your PC will remain crippled. Or perhaps you want to watch a
downloaded movie on a wide-screen TV, but your PC might turn off its video
card's analog output. Welcome to the world of Windows Longhorn (now known
as Vista) and the Protected Media Path, where Microsoft, copyright holders,
and DRM licensors may grant or revoke permission to use your own computer
and digital media."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:33 UTC (Mon) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] All those people obsessing over what software Linus uses or the purity of a particular device driver need to take note of this item. Because this is where the real battle begins. Microsoft knows exactly what they are doing. And what the prize is.
Bug, feature; who can say? Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:39 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] I foresee a thriving market for motherboard manufacturers using GPL code from Linux BIOS onwards.If you like chess, go GPL. If you like poker, go somewhere else, and whine not when the ante is in orbit.
dont dream on it! Posted Aug 2, 2005 18:38 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " I foresee a thriving market for motherboard manufacturers using GPL code from Linux BIOS onwards... "
Only if Linux attracts a substancial proportion of common user base( many now on Windows), and even then, they will hesitate much more to trow something in GPL, than to a closed NDA inspection of their "driver source code" by Microsoft.
Something could *should* be done in the driver model in the realm of out of tree non-derivative coding in Linux kernel, to overcome this *MS Major Lock*, or your statement above could only encounter as an answer: keep on dreaming!
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:44 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Better keep obsessing. That closed-source Linux driver is likely to enforce DRM-like restrictions, and your attempts to work around them might be DMCA violations.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 1, 2005 18:19 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Yep.
Which means that we NEED cards with open-source drivers.
It's getting harder all the time.
As far as I can tell, the newest 3D video card that has succesful open-source support is the Radeon 9200. Is that true? Or are there newer ones?
Likewise, I'm not sure what the deal is with wireless cards, and it's very hard to find the information.
The real problem is that the Common Joe and Common Jane do not understand why this is going to be bad for them. I don't quite get why they don't understand; all that talk of "you will be locked out from doing things on your own computer" ought to scare them, but I don't think it's getting much mainstream play. What IS getting mainstream play is how much the MPAA and RIAA claim they are hurting because of piracy, and how much we need to do about it. Very, very, very sad.
-Rob
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 1, 2005 20:21 UTC (Mon) by gurulabs (subscriber, #10753) [Link] There is now open source support for R3xx based cards such as the Radeon 9600/9800. My laptop has a FireGL Mobility T2 (aka Radeon 9600) and I have been using the r300 DRI driver for a couple weeks now with heavy 8+ hours a day use. Not one lockup or issue at all.
The 3D performance is very very good as well.
Supposedly on the 9800 cards there is one or more hang bugs that are being tracked down.
The driver lived out-of-tree for awhile at http://r300.sourceforge.net/. However, last week or so it was accepted into the official X.org/Mesa trees.
You can get it here now: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/
Dax Kelson
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 0:01 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Excellent. Good news, thanks. (Especially now that X.org is in Debian, and presumably will get over to testing at some point in the next few months.)
It seems to be following the late-90's trend of "you get support, just later." I remember a period when a whole bunch of laptops got NeoMagic chips, and it became near-impossible to run Linux on a recent laptop without using one of the commercial X servers. Fortunately, that day is past....
I do miss the days when ATI was sending programming information to people writing free drivers.
-Rob
wireless cards Posted Aug 2, 2005 22:21 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] I don't know about video cards, but wireless card info can be found overat Jean Tourrilhes' site: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/ I recently bought a Zonet ZEW1500 802.11g card, based on the Ralink RT2500 chip. The driver is under GPL, and is at: http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 2:11 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] I hope you'll forgive me if I worry more about wether I'll even be able to boot Linux on new hardware five years from now.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 17:15 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] But that is the point isn't it? Therefore, the reason why we need to worry about freely licensed open source, in drivers, BIOSes or whatever. If you can't give the thing a tuneup as you go along, it isn't as useful and may be useless.
If we don't work for our Freedom it will slowly be lost, because people with power will mandate that their Freedom is more important than ours.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 17:32 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] You're confusing policy with law.
I don't really care if a particular company chooses to only supply non free drivers. So long as those drivers are functional and well supported. It is their right to do so and I will not argue otherwise. And if somebody else wants to go to the effort of reverse enginering a driver and making it freely available then more power to them. The market place will decide which is the more desirable choice.
The thing to worry about is laws that restrict the ability to do that reverse engineering or implament widely desirable features. And shrilly harping on companies to only create open source drivers does not in any way shape or form encourage them to be friendly to our interests. And while they do not make the laws they can either be a friend or an adversary in that battle.
You don't increase choice by eliminating choice. The other side doesn't want to increase choice. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't think it makes any sense at all to emulate them in this regard.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 21:22 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] > You're confusing policy with law.
Not sure where that comes from, care to explain?
> You don't increase choice by eliminating choice. The other side doesn't
And I wouldn't want to eliminate choice. However, if you choose hardware that requires closed source drivers, that will become the status quo. And I would expect the hardware manufacturers to start saying; we tried offering open source drivers but our customers seemed to prefer closed source, so that is all we offer now.
Thus you will eliminate the choice by default. I made no statement regarding "shrilly harping on companies...", the point is to buy hardware from companies that offer open source drivers and politely request the same from those that don't. Those that don't, can be made aware that you would like to buy their products if they would provide maintainable drivers at some point, at least.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 3, 2005 0:49 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] My point was that it would be far better for people to concentrate on legal issues and less on harassing vendors.
I'm not worried about DRM per se, I'm worried that it will be legislated as mandatory. That is the poisen pill Microsoft is hoping for in regards to Linux, at least as we know it.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 3, 2005 17:57 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] And I believe we would generally agree. For instance, I respect copyrights therefore I don't download material that I believe would be against copyright law for me to have. The problem with the DRM is that it potentially infringes rights that we should legally have, basically fair use rights. DRM also punishes all of us for the actions (or lack of action) of others. The problem is that the interface between software and hardware can be used to cause the same types of problems. For instance, it isn't acceptable to stop maintaining proprietary drivers, causing the hardware (that would be functional otherwise) to become unusable. But that is not the only reason. The bad parts of DRM and other evils can be in the driver code. When I buy a product I want to know if it will infringe on my rights or collect my personal information. I don't want to be owned by the hardware companies that I purchase products from.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 13, 2005 10:21 UTC (Sat) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] I agree with your reasoning but my conclusion is the opposite. Law is easier to fight. Fighting policy is next to impossible, and must be done now before there is a problem.
The comparison with non-free 3d drivers is a good one. Yes, the market would decide -- if the consumers had a choice in the first place. You would expect with so many million Linux users that there was a market for well documented graphics cards, but we haven't seen one in almost ten years. There is no such thing as the freedom of the consumer.
Another more closely related example is the DVD. Yes, it was a bad first try from the movie industry but still causes no end of grief since you can't install a Linux distribution and watch your movies right out of the box. The Linux-on-Xbox project was a superhuman effort just because Microsoft did just a little bit better. Expect it to be close to impossible if they do a good job next time.
I say go after the manufacturers. Let them know right in advance that we're not interested in crippled hardware. Otherwise we'll soon find ourselves up to our knees in cheap but crippled hardware, and even if there still exists expensive but non-crippled hardware, we both know what everybody's going to buy.
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 19:08 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Better keep obsessing "
You know what ?... you might be intirely right, because it might very well be no alternative!
Noaday, as before, it is very difficult to encounter *independent* hardware reviews with systems running Linux. When MS DRM schemes kicks in heavly it might be almost impossible to run any hardware besides those runned and tested by the Linux development party. In all this there is perhaps a 'force window' to make hardware manufactors open source more of their stuff, but the MS logo and certification policy is build to counter this by requiring a proportional fee, enough for cleaning the competition arena(their speciality) for the big boys and make them comply(what they want), leaving only in dire strait the smaller and almost unheard of the hardware manufactors. Everybody wins in software/hardware arena as prices tend to rise a little, and honest end users on open source with multimedia requirements will be totally screwed!
* i will not be glad to run an almost exact official copy of Linux tree on a Biostar Mobo, would you ? "
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:41 UTC (Mon) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link] Projects headed up by Microsoft always follow the same path, which leads to Microsoft being in a position of control and ownership. Whether it's control of your network, your PC, your software, your identity space on the web, etc. None of this is suprising. What is suprising though, is the number of people who still act as if it just can't be so (or else they like getting free stuff from MS salespeople too much to care), even after decades of this type of behavior and the company being found guilty of operating an illegal monopoly.A company run by arrogant bullies will always produce arrogant bullish ideas.
There's another possibility Posted Aug 1, 2005 18:25 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Remember (the original) DivX, where you paid $100 more for a DVD player with less functionality, and video rental shops couldn't quite figure out why they should stock DVDs that didn't require the renter to come back to the store to return them?
Remember copy protection on floppies?
Remember copy protection on CDs?
The great unwashed public has better things to do than worry about theoretical hassles in the future. They'd rather worry about what's on the bbq next weekend. But when they get hit directly by stupidity, they revolt. I simply can't see the mass of people putting up with such nonsense. Microsoft can put in all the DRM they want, but when people find they can't play CDs under normal circumstances, if they find out they can only play their rental DVD on one machine, and then only once, that they can't take it over to a friend's house for a second showing, that if they install certain games, the CD player stops .... people will complain, and it will be to Dell, or Gateway, or Microsoft itself, and those 800 calls will pile up. The advantage of having a great uninformed public is that when things go wrong they complain, without knowing they are supposed to put up with it. And when they find out the powers that be are trying to ram such stupidity down their throats, they get mad.
I simply do not believe this is going anywhere other than the same trash bin that holds the late unlamented DivX evaporating DVD.
There's another possibility Posted Aug 1, 2005 19:59 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] All true but don't extrapolate too far. Remember copy protection on DVDs?
There's another possibility Posted Aug 1, 2005 21:19 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] I also know that the last three DVD players I have owned are region free and ignore Macrovision. Region encoding affects almost nobody, yet region free players are easy to get. Copy protection has an even more pitiful effect, yet is also ignoreable to those who want to.
I believe that if DRm were to intrude into Joe Sixpack's ability to share movies and record football games, there would be such an outrage at 800 call centers and people returning computers to stores so fast, that the DRM would be rescinded within days.
There's another possibility Posted Aug 2, 2005 8:50 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Ross is right, don't extrapolate too far. Remember iPods, iTunes store and "FairPlay" DRM restrictions? Are people returning them to stores like crazy?
The difference Posted Aug 2, 2005 14:04 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But there is a difference here. The copy protection on DVDs hasn't evergone away. In fact, people don't seem to care about it. It is true that you can pretend that CSS was never created but only if you are willing to break the law. That's not the same as the other copy protection measures which people outright rejected leading the company to go out of business or remove the protection. Note I'm not arguing the protection is good or useful, just that it is still there.
It's entirely too possible, given some self-control by the Dark Side Posted Aug 1, 2005 23:21 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] The great unwashed public has better things to do than worry about theoretical hassles in the future. [....] But when they get hit directly by stupidity, they revolt. If the studios have any self-control, they can take over. MS, Intel, Dell, HP, and friends, will happily sell the HW. Hold off invoking any of the restrictions, and people will buy it. Face it, those following this issue are a very small minority. Most of the public won't hear the warning voices, and those who do won't listen, because it's not affecting them. Given the replacement rate, courtesy of Moore's Law, two-thirds of the hardware in use will quickly be subverted. (Three years? Five?) If the vultures hold off enforcing the restrictions until then, it'll be too late. My hope, I believe well-founded, is that the studios won't be able to control their greed, and people will start getting hit while there's still time to reject the hardware. Max ``who, me paranoid?'' Hyre
But that misses my point Posted Aug 1, 2005 23:45 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] My point is that people WILL revolt, since in all their ignroance, they assume that once they have rented a DVD, they can play it anywhere, any number of times. Sure, if only a few geeks revolt, no one cares. But if even 1% of the Joe Sixpacks call 800 numbers or bring their PCs back to stores, it will destroy the system. Suppose the stores refuse to accept the returned PCs, or the 800 call centers tell them too bad. If even 1% of those who complain follow up with complaints to the PUC or the congress critters, that will get someone's attention.
Look. How many PCs are sold every year? Suppose it's 10 million in one shape or another. Suppose 100,000 (1%) try to take them back or call the 800 number. Suppose 1000 (another 1%) follow up with complaints to the political or legal system. That's a HUGE number. Congress critters don't like getting 1000 complaints. And it wouldn't be long before some class action lawyer smelled the money.
Even lead balloons fly for a short while, given enough launch money.
There's another possibility Posted Aug 2, 2005 19:45 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Microsoft can put in all the DRM they want, but when people find they can't play CDs under normal circumstances, if they find out they can only play their rental DVD on one machine, and then only once "
You are forgetting about "global revocation list". they will allow people to do all that as long as they run only windows. Better they will force people to run only MS approved stuff, since common end users are not that so much more stupid then professional developers ans sellers since those later ones dont rebel to the point of adapting and overcome, and you expect end users to do so.
Soon will be the notion that only MS approved stuff work, and even as soon you put Firefox on it, the system can came to a very reduced functionality state.
Then it will be clear that the open source philosophy on Linux will be an effective proprietary party for big vendors, thought the code *is* open, and zealots of any kind only see this openess and forget that real freedoom only cames from controlling your live not from be habble to run all over the world, no matter how nice this last possibility looks.
Microsoft's DRM vision - It won't work. Posted Aug 1, 2005 19:15 UTC (Mon) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Just read part 3. I think you must live in Redmont to invent something like this. Just read this paragraph:
"Perhaps most significantly, the PE will be subject to a "global revocation list" maintained by Microsoft and distributed through Windows Update and possibly other channels. Microsoft will maintain and sign the revocation list, and its updates will have ever-increasing version numbers. Works meant to be played back through PMP can require a particular minimum revocation list version number; the PE will not allow a restricted work to be played at all unless the computer has loaded a revocation list at least as recent as the one specified by the work. If a software component appears on the revocation list, the PE will not load it, or will warn applications that a revoked software component has been loaded."
The system is too complex, too shortsighted, too centralized, too single vendor to work. It won't happen and if it happens, it will be broken. If it happens and is not broken immediately, it is against several laws that protect competition.
Gee, what a chain of hardware, software and network requirement to enable you to play the music you bought.
Just one thought. The rights on a recording of a performance will last for 50 years, after that the recording will be free of rights (unless law changes during these years). Will the system work for five decades? Will it evaporate after that? Will I have to use the same hardware for 50 years to execute the rights I have bought. Where do I go if I can't play my music after 15 years? (Ever tried to open a 15 yoears ol MS Word document?)
The demand for this functionality is not a real demand but just some paranoia from the entertainment industry. An industry build on the idea that recording, duplication and distribution is difficult, and now wants to keep the world from turning. You had the same kind of stupid ideas about Xerox machines. There were some restrictions like these in DAT and DCC hardware. DCC failed completely, DAT never reached the consumer market. Professional users of DAT are not at all amused by these features. When will the industry understand that "making copies" is fair use in most countries.
The schema reminds me of the stupid SCO license enforcement schema. That schema helped a lot to convince management to completely dump SCO and switch to Linux.
Microsoft's DRM vision - It won't work. Posted Aug 2, 2005 20:03 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "... it is against several laws that protect competition "
Geez i can't hardly miss the *fact*, or feeling, that Microsoft has pulled stronger from every anti-monopoly law action. What's next?;... they will be allowed to shoot on the head everybody that uses non MS approved stuff, but they will be forced to sell a stripded, *drivers only*, to the bone windows/vista version!?
Censorship infrastructure Posted Aug 1, 2005 20:01 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Indeed, if DRM *did* work, it would make an excellent infrastructure for generalized censorship. As people read and write more things with their comptuer, having central control over what people are able to do with their computer is just ideal for somebody who might want to have in place a system that allows curtailing of free expression.
Not that anybody is planning that now or anything... but they sure could do it, and I bet there are some who would think it would be great if they could. (Would the Senate, for example, like the idea of being able to disable all computers that have "Grand Theft Auto" installed?)
Although-- people are planning to do that now. Strictly speaking, copyright *is* censorship. (It's a law passed by the government that limits what you can say or publish. It fits the definition....)
-Rob
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 4:15 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] Trying to say that copyright is a form of censorship is a distortion.
Sure copyright law limits what one can "say" to the extent that one cannot "say" any substantial portion of what another person already said without a license from the original author. However censorship is not defined so broadly as to include every possible utterance or composition that someone might say. It is not censorship to forbid people from publishing credit card numbers, nor to enforce non-disclosure agreements (contracts which are used to protect trade secrets).
Censorship has to do with limiting the spirit of expression. The principle of free speech allows one to express any ideas or sentiments one wishes without fear of legal reprisal or limitation by a government. Those ideas must, however, be expressed in one's own terms (or by drawing from the public domain, or within the constraints of fair use, etc). There are some *forms* of expression that can be limited. So, while I could be a sexist or racist or otherwise vile as I like I cannot do so in a form that can be reasonably construed as an inducement to harm those who I disdain.
I suspect I'm wasting my pixels even trying to make the distinction here. However, it should be obvious that the statement "copyright is censorship" is non-sensical hyperbole. If one wishes to debate the ethical and legal foundations of copyright (and other forms of "intellectual property") than this is not a productive starting point.
JimD
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 5:08 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Yes, it's hyperbole.
But it's not non-sensical hyperbole.
Copyright *is* censorship. That doesn't mean that it's therefore necessarily wrong and should be completely thrown out. We accept other limitations on free speech -- clear and present danger, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.
My point is that the debate might be a lot more balanced if we recognized copyright for what it is -- a limitation on the freedom of expression. Calling it "intellectual property" makes people feel all warm and fuzzy about property rights. If we recognzied it as a limitation on the freedom of expression, then we might recognize that more copyright isn't necessarily better. We'd be much more considered going in to figure out just how much of our freedom of expression we are willing to sacrifice to accomplish the goal of copyright (i.e. to promote the progress of the arts, to allow creators to survive at doing what we as a society value).
-Rob
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 10:22 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] "Trying to say that copyright is a form of censorship is a distortion."
Just read articles like: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11259
With a quote: "We don't want them to further discuss it," said Cisco spokesman John Noh. "This is about protecting our intellectual property."
Sounds like using copyright for censorship. (Trying to avoid publication of Cisco security problems)
Not so fast Posted Aug 2, 2005 14:40 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] First of all, it depends on how copyright is implemented. But the simplefact is that because it gives one group the right to tell other groups to not do certain things that it can be used for censorship. It conflicts with the first ammendment. The answer to that has always been to limit the coverage of copyright: it is only on the fixed expression, not the idea; it can't protect parodies or commentary; it can't limit usage of small portions; it can't limit usage at a different time/place; etc.
However DRM isn't directly the same as copyright. And the DMCA is not
Essentially the way it is designed is that the person who designs the DRM
Microsoft's DRM vision Posted Aug 2, 2005 1:20 UTC (Tue) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] While I agree that ramming stupidity down people's throats will fail, Microsoft have already gone down that path and got that treatment they deserved - remember how they tried to bring in software subscription where you'd pay $1000 or more for Office, and next year have to pay it again, ad nauseum.
That's why they are introducing the exact same system, but subtly. First, they make legal precedent that applications that run on their operating system are "integral" to its operation - using something innoculous as a web browser. So next time, when its an application that provides DRM and cripples the functionality of the system, they can call back on that precedent to say "we can't remove it" when the proverbial fit hits the shan. Next, they aquire services that have traditionally relied on a subscription model such as anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. They can then claim it makes good business sense to shift their other software to this model for any number of reasons you can think of - streamlining their business practice, it cuts costs, easier to train staff in a single sales process, whatever. Since the inception of Windows NT they have had security levels higher than Administrator, effectively taking control out of the hands of the human owner/operator. They could potentially argue that this is an accepted industry practice that has gone on for over a decade with little disagreement.
Also, don't forget that their illegal monopoly worldwide means that a US company has ultimate control of the majority of computer systems on the planet - something their government isn't about to take away given the huge military/strategic advantage that is to them. It's no surprise why they were not punished like every other company that has been found guilty of breaking the same law(s).
DRM - why play their game? Posted Aug 2, 2005 3:01 UTC (Tue) by leews (subscriber, #4690) [Link] Folks,
I believe we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Look at the legislation that has been commandeered to sustain such an ecosystem, and follow the money. In almost all cases, it's not the original content creator, but the distribution channel middleman. As comsumers, if we don't like it, we should take our money elsewhere.
My buying/renting of traditional music/video has dropped to almost NIL.
What's the difference? The Creative Commons Licence. Is it perfect? Probably not. However, it's one of the ways to keep things sane, and empowers the author, and yet allows for true "fair-use" and the production of "derivatives" without presuming everyone a criminal. Artistes/authors should be encouraged to publish under such a licence by the support we give them. The idea is that if there is no inherent upstream "need", then the DRM schemes are moot.
It is almost like moving to a new country with different laws to escape governmental or religious domination, but I won't elaborate on that analogy here.
Regards,
|
|
||||||||||||