Similar in spirit? [LWN.net]

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 2:19 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: Similar in spirit? by corbet
Parent article: Similar in spirit?

No shit.

For DRM you have to realise that ALMOST EVERY major hardware maker is pro-DRM. They see it as a way to attract content providers to the computer so that they can finally say that they have truly 'multimedia' PC.

They want to make the PC the hub of the electronics in people's living rooms.. As the television, stereo system, games, dvr, etc etc. The whole nine yards.

Sure today the 'Tivo' is used as a example. But now EVERY computer you buy is going to have trusted computer stuff on it. Now this have a viable security use, but in reality it's #1 purpose is DRM.

The is the main reason why we now have extensions like VT and Pacifica to help with VM! Back when Microsoft was touting 'Paladium' the idea was that with Paladium you would have a sort of mini-system seperate from your host operating system. The VM would provide the division to protect the data stream from being tapped software-wise, and the trusted computing modules ensured that you were unable to tamper with the VM or the software in it.

Now this stuff is in every PC your going to buy. It's a good thing for Linux (better VM, better security), but it's bad because of what it was and is going to be used for.

Now the DRM provisions in GPLv3 is bothersome for embedded developers who want to make their devices 'user proof' to cater to major copyright controllers of media. (they can easily work around any free software restrictions by doing a palladium-vm of their own anyways for media playback.. which I expect a number of people are already looking into)

HOWEVER the DRM issue is a problem for _all_of_us_. Not just users of embedded devices. Because the same restrictions (or better then) restrictions that are present in a TiVO is present in all PCs, in all servers.

So don't think a second this is just about embedded devices or some anti-tivo rampage.

The difference between 'GOOD' trusted computing (the kind that you can use to fight off rootkits) vs 'BAD' trusted computing (the kind that allows people like Sony to install rootkits which are illegal for you to remove) is weither or not you hold the keys to your own computer.

If you hold the keys, then all this stuff is great. The DRM provisions are attempting to protect your right to have control over your own hardware.

Weither it is in your DVR, your 'open source' router, your PC, your server, or whatever else.

(Log in to post comments)

Similar in spirit?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 16:05 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I can't speak to whether "most manufacturers" are pro-DRM. I'm not sure even what that would mean.

Manufacturers DO want to be able to play the content that their customers want access to and they DO want to be able to build devices that talk to services that their customers want to use, both of which often require some kind of DRM, so you could say that manufacturers support having hte ability to DRM when producing such devices.

In more general terms, manufacturers aren't crazy about DRM. It raises the cost of their hardware, increases the complexity of their designs (and, therefore, the development and maintenance cost of their products), and creates downstream user problems. You say "Customers have to replace their products for newer versions of the DRM" the manufacturer says "I have to redesign my product more often." Manufacturers love it when they can use the same design over and over, for years and years; it builds margins.

On the other hand, manufacturers generally would like to be able to keep consumers fingers out of the insides of their products, because it adds support costs and potential civil liabilities. Even if you say "Modifying this device voids your warranty.", in practice, people STILL expect to get support in that case. Also, when a modified device breaks and causes damage, either to the user or to a network or a content provider, the manufacturer STILL can get sued, both for direct liability and for negligence in not preventing the user from making the change. It also offers opportunities for bad PR - when cell phone batteries explode it is virtually always non-manufacturer batteries that are involved, bu the press usually just uses the manufacturer's name in the story.

And, remember, the number of people who want to change their software is a tiny fraction of the total device market. So, the manufacturer has to spend money and accept risks to support a community that has no real impact on the market for the device. Those costs end up factored into the price of the devices, so people who have no interest in the freedom to modify the device end up paying something to support the wishes of the small group that do want that freedom.

It's just not a simple equation...