More About Copy Control on Hard Drives 344
ErikSev writes "I know there's already been one /. story about this, but The Register is running a few more that might be of interest regarding the whole scheme to put copy protection on hdds. First is the proposal, then Alan Cox and RMS' responses, and finally the IBM spin on the whole deal. This is definately something we need to be afraid of."
Anyone here remember the 'bozo' bit on the Mac? (Score:2)
Didn't we learn in the 80s that copy protection, as the jargon file says, is "a scheme to prevent incompetent pirates from copying it and legitimate users from using it." Did you audio CDs have a 'no copy' bit associates with each track. Again, no one uses it. I fully expect DVD region coding to become yet another bozo bit.
Re:Back-ups (Score:2)
Re:Economics will kill this. (Score:2)
From a user standpoint, these hard drives will be just like other hard drives except they'll be able to fail in new ways that will make recovering your data from them impossible. Where's the sense in paying extra for that (and you will have to pay extra for that, if only for the technology license required)?
And all this is just to make it safe for the MPAA to let you put movies on your hard disk? Well, for one thing, they don't have any movies available yet that can be put on your hard disk, and no promise of any, so why buy a drive with these new features you may never be able to take advantage of? Also, do you think companies will want their workers to store movies on their corporate hard drives? So why do they need the capability to do so? (Substitute "RIAA" and "music," or other terms, as appropriate in the above paragraph.)
In sum, this harebrained scheme makes about as much sense as using a bar code scanner on your computer to save yourself from having to type in "www.altoids.com"...and we all know where that scheme has gone...
Eric
--
To make CPRM work (Score:2)
CPRM can be made to "work" in a way that the second group is - massively - in favor of it and I expect it to become so in about five years. In order for the second group to adopt CPRM it is necessary to make a CPRM-like mechanism compliant with the file system abstraction. This is easily done as soon as you abandon the sector based ATA concept for a file based storage device.
Imagine a lot more intelligence as part of your hard disk, and imagine the hard disk running an operating system independent file system abstraction on the hard disk electronics itself. In fact, only the lower half of a file system abstraction is needed, that is, free space management and block-to-file mapping. The upper half of the file system, name space management, is not sensitive to copy control and can remain in an untrusted device.
In such a device CPRM would run on top of the filesystem abstraction and therefore not interfere with it. Currently, CPRM runs below a filesystem abstraction and inhibits low level reorganisational operations. A device implementing file level access at the device itself would offer a standardized interface for such operations which would be able to deal with the details of copy control management in the context of such operations on the device itself.
This is a very scary idea, and it will be much harder to lobby against it, because the OSS lobby will not have backing of the software industry that time.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp [koehntopp.de]
All rights reserved.
I read soemthing that said MS did not like it (Score:2)
If MS is agenst it it will probably go down in flames.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
Re:Thoughts, and some light article exploration (Score:2)
Re:Tides are changing... (Score:2)
only a small number of people are affected by racial discrimination.
Re:And the question is... (Score:2)
I know that there are many people that don't care about the laws of the US, take a look at the number of people that use Napster. I doubt more than 1% of the use is legal or ethical by any stretch.
Re:DVD region codes = non-issue (Score:2)
I was simply disagreeing with the original assertion that everybody hated the region-codes. It's not true because most DVD buyers aren't even aware of them.
Consumers don't care about stuff that doesn't bother them. Prevent them from being able to play that same DVD on a friend's player next door and you'll see outrage.
Prevent a computer user from being able to backup files off their computer, and you'll see outrage.
I refuse to buy music off the internet with these silly copy-protection schemes because it keys the music to my machine. If I want to backup the files because I'm getting a new computer... I'm screwed.
But all the protection systems on DVDs don't impact me in any way shape or form.
Re:Flame me (Score:2)
All that happens is that if you try to download an MP3 that is copy-protected with this mechanism, you get an error message saying "Your hard disk cannot store this data because you have CPRM turned off." So what?
I wonder what part of the Linux kernel generates this message.
--
Re:Copy Protection Syndicates (Score:2)
Hell yes. We have speech recognition, it's not too far-fetched to imagine a "dictionary" of CD tracks. Purple Haze is always going to start with the same two alternating notes, same pitch, same rhythm... Easier than spoken word by far.
--
Re:Attention all hard drive manufacturers: (Score:2)
UCITA. Not like that silly little license game would work under any remote circumstance on anything resembling this planet.
--
Microsoft could kill this scheme with five words: (Score:2)
This entire scheme requires new device drivers or filesystem drivers, and likely both. If Microsoft states it won't write them or accept them from OEM's in the windows distribution, this scheme will simply end up in the trashcan.
--
Re:And the question is... (Score:2)
Canadian flag is nylon.
Which country do you live in?
Re:Tides are changing... (Score:2)
The one silver lining I can see in this is that such things would qualify as what I hear sales people bitching about all the time: sales prevention. Let's go with a ferinstance:
Joe User in the US buys a really cheap computer over the net. Part of why it's cheap is that it's all manufactured overseas and hence doesn't have the fancy CPRM (or whatever) drive in it. He goes out and buys the latest game that is hyped. It won't install on his disk because he doesn't have the CPRM drive. So he has the choice of a) buying a new hard drive and reinstalling just for this bloody game, or b) returning the game and saying gimme my money back idiots.
I think most Joe Users would opt for door "b", regardless of their politics or experience level. And that would have a serious impact on the game manufacturer's bottom line. (not to mention, given all the OTHER hacks through copy protection on games, how long before Joe User just goes out to the net and downloads the latest hacked version that doesn't care what drive it's installed on, or more likely gets a copy from his geeky friend who already did?)
I just don't see this scheme as working out in any practical way, unless of course as someone else mentioned, it becomes legislated as mandatory. And we all know that won't happen...right? RIGHT?
Sigh.
Time to stock up... (Score:2)
Can you fake it? (Score:2)
All you have to do is implement these new ATA calls, and just return the exact same values for every single hard drive you manufacture. You could get some nice vendor lock-in this way, "unlike everyone else's drives, you can copy ANY files between any of our drives, and they're compatible with all your 'protected' software and data".
There's got to be some reason why this won't work, but I can't see it.
-jon
UUEncoded filesystem? Civil disobedience? (Score:2)
It seems almost certain that:
1: Someone will come up with a filesystem that avoids verboten bit combinations (e.g.: UUencoded). Hey -- it's a 30% hit on capacity but drives keep getting bigger, and you could just keep usenet downloads in 'native' format. Alternately imagine using plex86/vmware style virtual drives (with virtual copy protection).
2: Someone will come up with a codec that ignores the encryption, or simply extracts the content and re-encodes with a different codec, not unlike using de-css to rip DVDs and then burn as vcds.
3: The content companies will foam at the mouth with rage. The FBI will start doing wholesale raids of homes to enforce the existing legislation.
4: The presence of suspicious filesystems, unapproved codecs, and of course 'illegal' copies, will make the consumer guilty before proven innocent. Several (dozens?) of people will get jail time. Hundreds will lose their computers for months at a time until they are cleared or impounded permamently.
This latest initiative will fail in a technical sense. From a legal perspective it would seem to provide some good evidence that you're doing something illegal, and an unfortunate few will pay the price by being scapegoats.
The only way I can see to deal with this is through civil disobedience. Ghandi style hunger strikes. Mass-revolt against the DCMA. Protest rallies. Egging and TP'ing of content company executives. Handing out thousands of free copies of a popular movie (with Chinese subtitles) that's just hit the theatres.
The target of this protest should be, must be, the basic premise of the DCMA and other copy-protection legislation, get it repealed, and prevent any replacement. Better yet, replace it with a law that prohibits copy protection.
Re:New Advertising Campaign (Score:2)
What geeks should do is band together and buy HUGE lots of these drives, then return them because they are "defective." - i.e. "hey I can't seem to get my data off this drive".
Accepting returns cost retailers a TON of money, and if it is the same type of drives that constantly cause unhappy customers, the smart retailers will eventually stop dealing in those products.
Re:If You Aren't Doing Anything Wrong... (Score:2)
Another Nail In The Coffin (Score:2)
We should stop bellyaching and realize that these sorts of systems will just drive more people to use free (as libre) software.
Re:If You Aren't Doing Anything Wrong... (Score:2)
And guess what, movies have budgets that most software products can only *dream* about. But, Microsoft wants to charge $200 every time you upgrade your computer. If they want to charge you like that, their prices should reflect it.
I don't pirate. But, I find it aggravating that everytime I install WinME, I have to provide a CD Key, and if I lose the case, then tough shit, theirs nothing I can do about, but buy a new copy. If the Motion picture industry can afford to produce a $100,000,000 movie, and release it to the public, at a cost of $6.00 a pup, and then make a massive profit, there is no reason why Microsoft can't do the same thing.
The truth is, that the software industry has a vested interest in doing nothing but screwing the costumer. They've been getting along with it for years, and now want legislation to force consumers into it, for years more.
Here's what software companies want. A world where they take no responsiblity for their product's quality, and can completely control the way it is installed, used, and then force the user to purchase upgrades. Let's face it, if you find a bug in your latest software purchase, there is nothing that you can do about it. You can't return it. You can't dissassmbe it and fix it yourself. You can only wait for an upgrade. And if the company ducks under, tough shit, you'll have to start the same process with another company altogether.
Software users aren't the ones doing the stealing, they're getting robbed blind themselves.
Re:So what can *I* do? (Score:2)
I already told my cable company that if the proposed video copying restrictions are implemented, my loss of timeshifting ability would greatly reduce the usefulness of my cable TV service.
Re:Excellent opportunity for hard-drive makers (Score:2)
Any hard-drives that don't conform to this standard will be in high demand
I doubt it. Most people are probably too clueless to know the difference, and anyway buy their PC's ready-made from OEM's like Dell, so if the OEM's bite, we're screwed. When told about any limitations inherent in the "evil" hard disks, most people would not even have the capacity to have the creative thought that things could be different. Consider that most Win9X users think that crashing and freezing is some sort of inherent thing that computers just do. They simply do not have the mental frame of reference of any alternatives to realise that that is not the case. How many people understand hard disk technology? Most people probably couldn't even tell you, if you opened up their computer, which part is the hard disk. A few years from now, most people are not going to have any idea that hard disks do not just inherently have to have those built-in draconian limitations.
On the whole, people swallow what is stuffed down their throats. A statistically insignifcant percentage of people might make a noise and have a tiny boycott, but it won't make so much as a dent on bottom lines. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I don't see why this crap will be any different.
On the other hand, DIVX pretty much died, and I see this as quite similar to DIVX. So maybe there is some hope.
Re:Goodbye Encrypted Filesystems? (Score:2)
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
are you sure the DMCA makes cracking it illegal? (Score:2)
First, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." I would assume that "a work protected under this title" would mean any work which is copyrighted. So accessing uncopyrighted data on your hard drive (say, a dump of
Next, "to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner" (emphasis added). Well, as long as you give yourself authority to access anything you personally have created, then that should be alright as well.
Finally (and this one's a bit less clear-cut) "a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." Now, say your encrypted hard drive is made by IBM. Let's further stipulate that you have some Microsoft-copyrighted software on your hard drive. Though accessing your hard drive requires the application of information and a process to gain access, it doesn't require the authority of the copyright owner. Microsoft is not involved in authorizing you access of their copyrighted work. The simple proof of that is that if these hard drives were created and used without Microsoft's knowledge, you could still access the data as long as you had the authority from IBM's side. The authority comes from IBM, not Microsoft.
So although this is of course a despicable proposal, it seems that cracking it is perfectly legal, until they discover this loophole and plug it with further legislation.
Disclaimer: Of course I am not a lawyer--no one on
--
Re:RMS is a total loon, but in this case so is IBM (Score:2)
/.
Re:Need to alert print journalists (Score:2)
Can anyone arrange protesters at the Feb meeting?
Re:well shit. (Score:2)
Re:copy control (Score:2)
Hardware key control (Score:2)
... is where this discussion ends up.
For security, everybody (including you!) needs some kind of keys you can carry around and know are physically secure. You'll typically mix keys when you need real security ... passphrase and encrypted private key, say; or maybe you like
biometrics. This proposal makes you unduly dependant on some keys that you have no reason
to trust, and which you can't manage when the
operational issues come up. Or audit to know
nothing's being stolen from you (election?).
The policy question is who controls the keys. As RMS noted, Free people need certain things. Having control of one's own culture seems basic, but theft happen all the time ... not just
corporations from the public, or the other way
around. Makes things always evolve.
Re:Copy Protection Syndicates (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a great idea! (Score:2)
Re:How It Really Works (Score:2)
Re:Good for business (Score:2)
Re:Education and the Market. (Score:2)
Re:Maybe RMS is right (Score:2)
Re:DVD region codes = non-issue (Score:2)
Re:Tides are changing... (Score:2)
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
Re:Time to stock up... (Score:2)
you won't be able to install it because your
HD is not "Copy Protected".
Man, this sucks.
Evil Copy Protect vs. Good Crypto-Capable Objects (Score:2)
pushed by Nasty Software Hoarders opposed to Honest Open Source,
and by Nasty Music Hoarders who want us to Pay Per View for
music, videos, e-books, and other products that we've bought,
using them technical workarounds for activities that
would normally be covered by First Sale and Fair Use
and only be covered by the limited protections of copyright,
and they richly deserve to Die Like DIVX (remember DIVX?*)
and get rejected by the market like Lotus Copy Protection.
(*I'm told DIVX's cracked format has been recycled
as a convenient tool for Napsterizing videos...)
Much worse, these Mindshare Marketing Thugs are in league with
the sleazy DMCA-abusers who got a law written badly enough that
it not only directly confiscates the previous rights of
information consumers but goes far beyond that to
criminalize people who are engaged in the legitimate activity
of seeing what it is they bought and using it in interesting ways.
The technical side is bad enough, but left to itself,
either Darwin would get them or they'd find a market that's
willing to be couch-potato consumers we can sneer at,
either of which are ok, while the legal side is outright evil.
But what happens if we look at this from a cypherpunks crypto enthusiast viewpoint?
Cypherpunks write code. Nasty MusicHoarderPunks can too.
The right way to protect information isn't to write laws,
which are ineffective against crackers (whether government or
free-lance), usually contain loopholes for cops to abuse,
and can be changed if the government wants to -
it's to write code and algorithms and hardware designs
that actually protect the information.
That's what these guys are doing, and it's what we WANT them
to do, though we'd rather have them operate a gift economy,
the way the folk music profession did before it commercialized,
and the church music and hacking professions.
(I'm not counting the use of DMCA to criminalize
working around bad software - that's still evil.)
How do you build tools to protect information,
at a level of granularity that someone who'd
cracked root on a Unix box or bought or cracked User on a
Windows box can't break into? You use crypto to encrypt data,
with public-key algorithms to do appropriate parts in public,
use objects that maintain their own data and keys,
and maybe you build capability-based operating systems,
or partition functions into separate devices like smartcards
or intelligent peripherals to keep the private parts more isolated.
If you want to build a For Your Ears Only secure telephone,
it's much easier if you can ship an encrypted data stream
that only the recipient's headphone can decrypt.
And if you want a digital signature system that
can't easily be forged by FBI spook who shoulder-surfs
your passphrase, or want a digital payment system that
can't easily be ripped off by some online store clerk,
it's easier if you can use some hardware object in the process.
To a large extent, the threat models are critical to your security -
but if being overprotected doesn't interfere with regular use,
and doesn't interfere with the other protection you're building,
it's not a Bad Thing. Of course, it cuts two ways -
if you're not a Good Guy building hardware protection against
virus crackers, but an NSA Spook building cracking tools
to workaround for the software protections, it's nice to get
down and dirty in the hardware and hire Chip-R-Us to include
an undocumented Export Chip Private Key instruction in addition
to the Export Chip Public Key instruction...
Music Hoarders have a somewhat harder problem, in that they
want to copy-protect information while providing near-identical
copies to large numbers of people, while you're more likely
to want to provide your personal transaction information or
private messages only to a small number of recipients -
but you may still want some kind of watermarking to identify
who sold your "private" information to somebody you didn't authorize.
As long as watermarking isn't seriously obnoxious, the fact
that different listeners hear slightly different versions
isn't that bad - listeners at a concert also hear different versions
depending on whether they're in the front row, the nosebleed seats,
or the Phil Zone, as well as how hard they've been dancing,
how bouncily the people in front are dancing, whether Jerry
forgot some of the words or had a magical guitar night that reminds
them of a previous concert, and how, umm, chemically enhanced they are
Somebody allegedly wrote to RAH:
Intel and IBM know that Windows isn't going to protect their data -
if they want it protected, they'll have to work around it,
using techniques like CPUs, speakers, and disk drives that
share public keys and only pass encrypted data through the OS.
User-Hostility Will also help kill this. DIVX (Score:2)
Dropping your VCR+Camcorder like a Betamax; DIVX (Score:2)
Or you may find your New-Copy-Protection-Mafia-Capable gear stuck in the attic next to that DIVX lame-o format which failed quickly in the market.
Re:Information wants to be free... (Score:2)
The scary thing about this technology is that it could mean eventually all media whatever it is gets fully encrypted & signed through all the parts of the chain.
Looks like the media industry is investing in the future... they probably know it won't be possible to enforce using this technology soon, but let's consider the following scenario :
2000-2010 : hdd manufacturers implement CPRM in hdd, part of the consumers mass buy them, but a non negligeable part of it work around the limitations, by using old hdd or SCSI drives. Foreign manifacturers still produce hdd with the old uncrippled ATA command set
2010-2020 : The industry realizes that a chain is as weak as its weakest part, and that CD-ROM drives still have the ability to dump raw audio data that can be saved without the copy protection bit. The next move is not pressure hw manufacturers to include CPRM v2 into CDrom drives, enforcing the copyright bozo bit that's been here for ages.
2025 : the media industry start complaining to SCSI manufacturers, alledging their drives makes it easier for people to pirate music & video. CPRM v3 is proposed as part of the SCSI command set and implemented a few years later.
2028: Video capture devices now handle the multiplexed copyright control data sent along with video signals. You can still digitize and distributes the movie of your summer hollidays, but you can't capture StarWars 11, let alone distribute it.
2030-2040: the media industry realizes (at last) that foreign hw manufacturers still produce hw (cd drives, hdd, sound & video capture cards) that ignores copy protection. Time to change how we distribute music and video, digital era is here since 30 years anyway, so the industry simply stops producing solid media, thus making CD drives and video capture devices only usefull to anything that is not copyrighted, and getting rid of the foreign technology problem altogether. It takes about 30 years, but finally the only reason to have CDs, DVDs & videotapes is as collectors items.
2060 : The entire chain is encrypted and signed, there is just no way to dump digital media as raw data, simply because all hardware is "authorized" in order to get a decryption key, and using such a key to dump data as raw binary would violate DMCA v5. Software industry has no choice, data travels on networks completly encrypted, so if they want to use that data, they have to Pay And Conform (the new media industry slogan)
2100: there has been no challenge to the 100% controled media system since 40 years. Very few people are aware that just 100 years in the past, there was no dinstinction between copyrighted data and non copyrighted data. OSes make the distinction at the very core of their architectures, a media file automatically inherits security properties.
No media software has been developped independently since 50 years because the process of being a trusted media processor(tm) is 1) much too expensive for an individual, 2) only granted to software giants who could pay giant amounts of money in case of misuse of the key they've been grated.
2130 : By now, the media industry starts to relax, hardware and software are all CPRM v5 compliant. A Media file now IS an encrypted file by nature.
Since you can't develop independantly a media player or producer anymore, and since a media file is a secure file by nature, independant artists fade away. The only way to distribute media is through "proper" channels: the media industry.
2200: There has been no way to produce or manipulate media independently from the media giants for more than a century. People don't even think this is wrong, it's just the way the system works.
Digital books, digital music, and digital video is now everywhere. And all of it has been approved. There is now no ned to worry anymore, you won't run into pornography or anything BAD, whatever that means.
Our children are safe
lone.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
Seagate
Western Digital
Quantum / Maxtor (merged in October, I beleive)
Fujitsu
IBM (although I doubt they're actually making the drives, for some reason, although it doesn't really matter)
There may be a few other very minor manufacturers.
The implications are this: If they sign on this small list of companies, we are FUKT. Any small companies won't be able to sell at any kind of volume, and the premiums will shoot though the roof on "non-corrupted" drives.
Fortunatly, one of the few things we have on our side is that hardware manufactuers could give a damn about things like this. In fact, it's bad, because it might stifle demand. If Joe Shmoe want a 500 gig drive for his mp3s, these companies want to deliver and get his money. They have no moral qualms about what he uses it for. Same thing with ISP's and anyone else. Thats capitalism.
Take mp3 players for example...how many do you see with SDMI capabilities? How many that have SDMI enabled won't allow non-SDMI mp3s to be played? This pretty much sums it up. The time for terror isn't here yet, but it's getting closer.
See it on your computer today! (Score:2)
This technology is already in your DVD drive! Believe it or not, you actually *can't* copy a DVD without using DeCSS, despite what the zealots say.
If you want to try it out for yourself, try this: Mount up "The Matrix". Now, *without* using CSS-auth, go to the directory with all the .vobs, and try to cat one of the bigger ones. You'll get a big, fat I/O Error. No, that isn't Linux that is preventing you from reading that file. It's your DVD drive. And it won't let you read it until you run css-auth, which is part of DeCSS.
In order to actually copy a DVD without DeCSS, you need a non-compliant drive. Good luck finding one.
What really annoys me is that the last time I pointed this out, someone responded to me and said essentially "No, you're wrong", and he got modded up and I got modded down. I'm not kidding, folks! Try it!
------
Information wants to be free... (Score:2)
Sure, this will mean that all those MP3's you've been downloading off the web might have some trouble residing on one of these "new" ATA devices, but someone please explain how one of these devices would possibly impact a user who simply doesn't make use of copy-protected data?
I'm not saying this isn't a bad idea...I think it sucks that hardware manufacturers are being forced to cave into software demands (much like Intel did years ago with its "protected access mode" on its CPUs to assuage M$), and I don't believe the RIAA/MPAA cartel should wield as much power as they seem to over data replication issues. But I'm still waiting for someone to stop yelling "The sky is falling!" and show me exactly how this will affect someone who uses free software in lieu of proprietary software.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
Do you have any confidence in the court system at this point to correctly define a circumvention device?
Will it be mandatory later? (Score:2)
I suppose it is possible that the people behind this are confident they will get the law changed, but I think it is more likely that they are sitting in an ivory tower somewhere and talking only to each other, not letting the real world intrude on their thoughts.
Think about it: since non-copy-controlled drives are not supposed to work at all with copy-controlled drives, each Zip disk, floppy, or backup tape will also need to be copy-controlled, or else not work. You will need new drives for all of the above, too. In other words, for this proposal to go forwards, everyone will have to scrap all their storage devices and buy complete new ones.
And why would people do it? Suppose the copy-prevention goes wrong; you just lost all the data on that drive. It's a catastrophic failure mode. And you cannot swap out the drive without getting authorization from an external authority? You would also need to get authorization before using each and every Zip disk, backup tape, etc. I hope the copy-prevention guys are buying lots of net bandwidth and lots of fast servers; they will need them. And they will pay for all this how? By passing costs on to anyone who buys in to the scheme?
IBM couldn't even sell MicroChannel and that isn't a tenth as odious as this; it's dead before arrival. Unless it's mandatory.
steveha
go where the real power is (Score:2)
In reality, when writing to {insert target}, you are exerting a greater influence on the makers of the paper, envelope, pen, and stamps you bought for money. You support the stationary industry, more than you influence laws. That's the vote that counts - the one you make with your wallet. So, don't write to politicians, they don't understand any of this anyway, and if they did they wouldn't care.
Vote the important way, with money. Write to IBM, Seagate, Maxtor, whoever your favbourite hard drive makers are. Tell them how much money you have spent on their hard drives in the past. Tell them that if they implement this consumer-serfdom scheme, you will never buy another drive from them. Outline precisely how much extra you will be willing to pay to whichever of their competitors offers drives that are uncrippled.
Corporations aren't afraid of governments in N AMerica anyway, they already own the governments. They are afraid of you, their customer, because they are petrified that you might figure out that you own the corps, not the other way around.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
I have absolutely nothing against the Chinese, but I feel compelled to mention this.
Given the insanely tight tolerances required for modern Winchester hard disk design, there is no way I will buy a hard drive made by some unknown Chinese company. Some things I buy that are made in China are of excellent quality, but unfortunately that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Since it won't be a name-brand manufacturer manufacturing these drives in China (since the name-brand manufacturers will all have this blasted copy-control system in their drives), for all I know it'll be some unknown Chinese sweatshop pumping them out.
I simply cannot, and will not, accept the risk that shoddy QC/QA will result in the loss of my data. As a result, I will only buy a hard drive made by a reputable manufacturer that's been making hard drives for a looooong time.
Therefore, it looks like I will have two options:
- Buy a cheap Chinese hard drive that may fail prematurely due to substandard manufacturing and/or quality control
- Buy a name-brand hard drive with CPRM, and take it up the tailpipe
Either way, I lose.--
They want to break backup? (Score:2)
There may be an upside to the Bush administration. Bush doesn't get along with Hollywood. But he likes big business. Try to get corporate opposition to this going.
One interesting point is that it might leave hard drive and computer vendors open to litigation. If you lose data because of this, no disclaimer can save them, because it's willful, not accidental, harm.
Re:Attention all hard drive manufacturers: (Score:2)
Re:Attention all hard drive manufacturers: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.. SCSI? (Score:2)
Attention all hard drive manufacturers: (Score:2)
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
One point that hasn't been mentioned is that corporations might love this. They can use this technology to make sure that their software is all approriately licensed and so forth. And the home user market is getting very saturated. Tons of people have computers, and either find them to be not the useful or use them for chat rooms, pr0n, and mp3's.
Speaking of that, it amazes me that people replied to this post with comments about how the average computer user would be oblivious to the differences in hard drives. Have they been living in a hole? Do they know how huge Napster is? All these people will be _very_ away of something that will prevent them from exchanging free music.
Even if there is big money backing this idea, it won't work without some sort of legislation or something. Too many people are dealing with pirated software and mp3's for this to make any input. Maybe we'll all be ordering our hard drives from some shady place in Singapore, but that will be the case...
well shit. (Score:2)
on this one, i SERIOUSLY urge you to take action. if that means calling your local legislator, do so. If that means doing something more provocative such as (oh my god!) forming a f---king protest line outside these guys' front doors, DO SO!!!
this isn't about companies getting ripped off anymore. This isn't about that "evil" napster corporation fucking everyone over. This is about big business trying to take away consumers' rights to fair use. All of the sudden you can't make a tape of that album you love so much. You can't do ANYTHING with it except play the original on compliant hardware. Same goes with any digital media that can be encrypted/have a copy bit set. Anyone see a problem here?
pure and simple: if you take a back seat on this one, you've effectively allowed big business to take away your fair use rights.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
HDs not licensed? Try telling that to patent owner (Score:2)
Now, to take a different view, hardisks aren't licsensed in the way that DVDs are. That means that hardisk makers aren't bound to follow the coding standard. That means that you'll likely end up with 2 standards: encoded (E) and (N) not encoded.
Parts of the Serial ATA standard are encumbered by patents on technologies that are necessary and irreplaceable to comply with the standard. One of the terms of the patent license will most likely be along the lines: "Licensee shall manufacture only E drives."
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
The manufacturer of such a device would be sued (Score:2)
All you need is a little device between your controller and your harddisks, which replaces the serial number given by the harddisk with another one or even return an error. Such device should not be too complicated to build
Except for a little four-letter word: DMCA. This law, in effect in the largest market for such devices (United States), would kill demand.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
My prediction -- ultra cheap for RIAA/MPAA version (Score:2)
1) For a given drive size, a "Media Consortium" offers huge rebates for your old drive, or choosing a new "copy protected" drive.
Who is going to buy a 70 GB. RMS-approved drive for $150 when you can turn in your old 8 GB. drive and get the copy protect version for $50? Not many people.
2) The second way is to just make it the only thing available. Given that 250 GB. drives are on the horizon, if it's the only way they're made, you don't have a lot of choice.
I'm actually quite happy about all this. I've always had a bit of the problem with dystopia, and now that the rats are coming out of their holes and passing flurries of hardcore legislation w/ the politician's help, I can rest much easier.
There really is a small group of ultra powerful, ultra wealthy a-holes that control the government and technology in ways such that they become incredibly wealthy, while the average Joe suffers.
Dystopia? Ha, more like reality.
Economics will kill this. (Score:2)
This can't be done in hardware (Score:2)
Re:well shit. (Score:2)
Every copy protection system automatically makes even fair use operations which the system tried to make hard automatically illegal. "Hacking" will get around the technical protection, but not the legal protection. It will not save you from a civil judgement against you. Fair use is no defense, the DeCSS trial set the precedent that the copy protection system has the same force as law.
I wonder if thayt could be viewed as an unconstitutional delegation of power from Congress to the copy protection system implementers. Only the former should be able to make law, but de facto power is being given to the latter to do so - even if such "pseudo-law" only affects media protected by the specific system being used.
Re:Not so... (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, can someone confirm the above?
Re:How is it going to work anyway ? (Score:2)
1. Software queries the drive for its ID when installing. It stores an encrypted version of that ID in the registry or a config file, or embedded in the executable it writes to the disk. If the software is moved, it detects a different ID from the drive than it expects and fails. If the drive is not ID capable the software fails. If the software is hacked to ignore the check it could work. Hard to do if the software self-encrypts/decrypts itself with the ID. Theoretically anyone could ask the drive for its ID. Unless the drive manufacturers require a special key to be sent to the drive to get its ID. And then they have to dish out keys to software companies. What do they do when a new company wants a key, which no current drives have?
2. Software downloads from a pay site would have you first get special software from the site to do the download. The ID is sent and the software is modified on the fly to only work on a drive with that ID.
ID spoofing is quite possible in both scenarios. Of course, any ID spoofing software could be illegal under the DMCA.
Re:Oops (Score:2)
Case in point: You're allowed to make personal backup copies of any media you own, so you might want to make a backup copy of a DVD you just bought. Perhaps it's your all-time favourite movie, and you don't want to lose it if your copy gets wrecked. You have a right to back up that DVD to videotape, but the DVD player adds Macrovision (analogue video copy control) to the analogue video signal output from the player. You could buy a device to defeat the Macrovision copy control, but that would require someone else to distribute a "device designed to circumvent the scheme regulating access to a copyrighted work" (more or less the wording in the DMCA). So, it's illegal to acquire a device to exercise your right to make a backup.
Here we have two legal issues conflicting with one another. There's the "liberal" right to make backups, and the "conservative" DMCA which says, "no acquiring devices to defeat control schemes". You can't even create such a device; the DMCA disallows that, too.
So, which is right? Well, in these times, it would appear the "conservative" issue takes precedence. Who cares about you're right to make backups? It's quite sad.
I'm rather pissed that the stories on Slashdot scroll down the front page so quickly, because with this story in the "older stories" sidebar, very few people will read it and your comment.
The public is being sedated. Few people want to stand up for their rights. It's sad when hosts of AM- and shortwave-radio talk shows and readers of websites like this are the only ones who care. The rest of the public has been lulled into a stupor by the entertainment industry whereby we just accept what we're given. I could comment a bit more on the inaction of today's population, but I don't think anyone else will read it.
Anyway, thanks for that post. One's computer has a sanctity almost equivalent to one's home. I don't allow the tendrils of the intellectual property police into my home, and I will not allow them into my computer.
Re:Oops (Score:2)
Yes but in the case of DIVX there was a more viable alternative, DVD. This may go more the way of the Pentium III debacle, where initially there was a furor over the rights infringing serial number propagation, but as people realized they had no choice if they wanted multiple x86 processors, etc they bought them anyway.
Also businesses bought the PIII's because they had no problem with these things. I think that what these people are banking on is that the big OEM's and businesses are not going to care about the content protection problems as long as a viable fix for their current manufacturing processes is provided. Since IBM is one of those and is backing the proposal, I'd think they probably have some ideas about how to shut them up.
So basically the denizens of /. are free to use l0phted and otherwise old hardware all they want, but anyone wanting a modern box will be forced to help these goons. That is what is so bad about this.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
Uh, I'm not so sure. At least here that's the main marketing buzzword right now. "Region-free" is part of every ad for a DVD player I've seen recently.
Now, any computer buyer will have to check what CPRM is. Why? The same reason you can't buy mac stuff for a PC. Your normal programs simply wont work with the data, only approved programs will. If a program could get the raw data, then nothing prevents it from writing it to another disk, or output in whatever format it likes... so, this really means access control just like the DVD case. So either you buy an 100% CPRM-compliant computer, or you buy a 0% CPRM-compliant computer.
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:2)
If the average consumer goes to a store and sees a Compaq computer that says "40GB hard drive, CPRM compliant!" they're not going to say "uh oh, it's that evil CPRM, I'll go elsewhere." They're going to see yet another fancy acronym and assume that it is somehow good because fancy acronyms make something more advanced. They will buy the computer, take it home, and when they start running into problems will simply accept it as "computers aren't perfect." And by the time the general public figures it out, it will be too late, and will have become an accepted part of the computer age. The average corporate purchasing department has even less grasp of what is going on, so they're no help either.
It is scary. Very very scary.
--GrouchoMarx
Re:Back-ups (Score:2)
This is exactly what happened when GEMA, the German answer to the RIAA, experimented with a copy control protocol called "Cactus" on some audio CDs. A person would take a CD home, and their machine wouldn't play it, then they would bring it back to the record store as "defective." Eventually GEMA backed down and the CDs were reissued without "Cactus" copy control.
Also think back to the time when key disking and other copy control measures were used with computer software. Programs like Copy II PC and Copy II Mac were big, big sellers back then.
Backing up your HD is a RIGHT even under the DMCA. In fact the DMCA specifically states that people have the right to make a backup copy of anything they own.
This will go down like DIVX:-( . How long did it take the market to kill DIVX:-( ? One year? Two? Don't worry folks. This is bad but not the end of the world.
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Re:See it on your computer today! (Score:2)
Flame me (Score:2)
You can buy the new drives and just turn the "feature" off. From one of the articles:
So what's the big deal? You turn off the mechanism. RMS notwithstanding, you can now do whatever you want with free software. All that happens is that if you try to download an MP3 that is copy-protected with this mechanism, you get an error message saying "Your hard disk cannot store this data because you have CPRM turned off." So what?
People who create information have a right to encrypt it. You have a right not to bother with their stupid encrypted information. Who cares?
Actually, this could be the best thing ever to happen to free information. It will drive people away from copy protection and into the arms of free information. By making it an all-or-nothing choice, they're forcing people to embrace free information wholeheartedly rather than halfheartedly.
</don flame-proof body armor>
Why would hd manufacturers bother? (Score:3)
Goodbye Encrypted Filesystems? (Score:3)
While I have not read the new specification in detail, it would appear to rely on data being sent to the drive in a very specific manner so that it can be verified by the hardware. Seems to me that this is a serious privacy issue.
What is to prevent governments from adding different kinds of tags to other kinds of data. What if the government of Fooland decided that disk drives should not be able to store content marked with the "no Fooland" bit
It isn't going to work. It relies on data being written "in the clear" to the disk drive. Not everyone does that.
A suggestion for our side (Score:3)
DVD region codes = non-issue (Score:3)
That's not really true. It was a non-issue to 99.5% of DVD buyers.
Now DivX on the other hand created a lot of questions with consumers. It failed in the market place because consumers could see no benefit from all the restrictions.
I don't quite understand this harddrive thing. What possible benefit would I get? What restrictions is this going to impose?
On the surface it doesn't seem to be a particularly good idea, and the consumers will very likely reject it.
More illegalities (Score:3)
It's also illegal to "import" (and there goes our offshore developer defense) or "otherwise traffic in" such software. Now maybe "downloading an (illegally distributed) copy for personal use" doesn't fit that final catch-all category, but do you want to be one of the defendants in the test case?
New Advertising Campaign (Score:3)
Well, one thing worth noting, is all it would take is a single smart CEO of a hardware or computer company to realize that this standard is a bad thing, and then launch an advertising campaign hinged on the fact that their hard drives don't hinder what you can copy. "Dell computers won't keep you from copying files! No wonder they're number one!"
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:3)
Of course you can buy a chinese drive. But you won't be able to install the software your company needs on it, so you can keep your job. And you want to buy that piece of music you like so much. And you need that book for college. And you heard a lot of good critiques about that book.
The point is that although people can prevent you from downloading a certain book, no one can prevent you from spreading a book!
We still have some time before Fahrenheit 451 kicks in.
Thoughts, and some light article exploration (Score:3)
I'm not entirely clear on why the NCTIS has the right or ability to force the industry to do it, although more than likely that's because I don't know very much about the NCTIS.
From the article:
However, what's likely to create a firestorm of industry protest is that the proposed mechanism introduces problems to moving data between compliant and non-compliant hard drives. Modifications to existing backup programs, imaging software, RAID arrays and logical volume managers will be required to cope with the new drives, The Register has discovered.
It seems to me that the industry response to the technical difficulties imposed by the "standard" make it far less likely to actually happen.
Also from the article:
The proposal makes use of around a megabyte of read-only storage on each hard drive that isn't usually accessed by the end user for a "Media Key Block".
Although this seems like a pissant technicality, we might be able to raise a fuss over that one meg of space.
And from the article again:
The Register understands there is fierce opposition to the plan from Microsoft and its OEM customers. Generating hundreds of thousands of images each week, the PC industry relies on data going from one master to many reliably and smoothly. Imaging programs face the same problem as restore software: the target disk isn't the same as the originator disk. Microsoft Redmond already has put in a counter-proposal that eschews low-level hardware calls.
As much as most Slashdotters hate Microsoft, they may be helpful in stopping this (at least, for now). RMS' response is also quite interesting.
Our main hope is that industry and consumer opposition will blow this piece of crap out of the water. The two less likely hopes are that (a) the standards committee will realize what an asinine action (and, probably, invasion of privacy) this would be, and (b) that manufacturers will give the finger to the standards body.
inigima
That's the hypocrisy of the 'drug war.' (Score:3)
Arguments like "Nah, he only has a couple ounces, it must be for personal use" won't stand up in the digital age. You can't sector-by-sector replicate a gram of coke.
The DMCA may not state you can be persecu-- er, prosecuted for owning one copy of DeCSS, but they may certainly tell the judge that "He's got it, and most likely distributes it to all his friends."
Re:Goodbye Encrypted Filesystems? (Score:3)
The software installs as encrypted software plus key in your CPRM sector.
Any use will require encryption keys plus encrypted media.
No way in he!! open source will ever be allowed to read CPRM sectors, as that would make the encryption keys copyable.
Totally illegal to defeat this measure under DMCA.
Copying original enrypted media is accepted as commonplace - the protectiion resides in the keys that you cannot even legally see unless you are software provided by the media copyright owners.
That is right - the installation program will give more rights to YOUR hard drive to copyright owners than to you.
Copy Protection Syndicates (Score:3)
now from an unposted thought from earlier, I wonder if there's a connection with the following :
. .
The International Herald Tribune has a piece [iht.com] which suggests that new software may be used to monitor for stolen music on your PC.
The company in question, EMusic, proposes to use the DMCA to shoehorn its software into a policing role for Napster users, as well as, no doubt, any other user of digital media, on behalf of the rights of copyright owners. Their chief, Gene Hoffman, baldly states, "Privacy is not the issue, Piracy is."
His statement implies that the trade for using the technologies which have themselves created an era of stunning growth for media companies, is a blunt, painful, surgical implant into our private equipment and facilities.
Whilst, In a update yesterday [wired.com], Wired reports that the DMCA is said not to impact the rights of customers under first sale doctrine, an aggressive, "policing" stance such as the one proposed by EMusic, appears it would infringe that.
At a blunt guess, EMusic would effectively be placing a toll gate on the legitimate transfer of a legally purchased work. Under its plans to hoop up ISPs into blocking "infringing" accounts, it creates a lopsided penalty for alleged infirngement.
It is not stated how EMusic's system is or could be audited. If a legitimate owner of a work wished to sell or trade, in an error, trust could be reduced, impeding a sale. If the vendor's ISP account were incorrectly blocked, it is conceivable that the action might be a restraint of trade.
Either way EMusic wants to introduce a burden of proof on your ownerwhip of digital media. The company may be bandwagon jumping, or monkeying on the back of the "great fear" promulgated around Napster, but EMusic looks hawkish, and copyright lawers are becoming increasingly aggressive.
. .
Dear Slashdotters, I think the corporate wagons are circling. Are you up to the argument? Or have we left things too late?
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:3)
- Yeah, well you do know that you wont be able to copy mp3s on that disk don't you? Nooowwww, we have this other disk, which is just slightly more expensive...
Haven't you ever thought of the fact that salesmen always have this "slightly more expensive" model that has just the right things? They also don't want to be part of the support disaster.
- Hey, yes is this customer support? Yes, hello, I get an error message when I try to use my programs. Oh, err, it sends files over the internet, uh, yes, ok... what? Not Possible?!?
Re:What about lesser-known makers? (Score:3)
Judges should never be allowed to jail ANYONE for contempt. That is unlawful imprisonment and a violation of the Constitution. It's one of those powers that the courts have "assumed" as it's part of British Common Law, even though it does not actually exist in the Constitution. There have been statutory limits placed on how long someone can be jailed for contempt.
If there is cause to jail someone there should be charges then a trial. Until then, no judge should be allowed to sentance. I know of a lowly district judge (county) who abuses his power to jail people for contempt.
"Maybe if stopped relying on White Power advocates like Rush Limburger for your "political wisdom" and took Political Science 101"
Woah there! I had PolySci 101, and thankfully it wasn't taught by a neo-Marxist. White power? How did THAT get into my comments? Sure the Brown vs the Board of Education decision was a great one. It struck down Jim Crowe segregation laws as Unconstitutional, as the ARE. I can name a slew of BAD court decisions, going AGAINST the law and the Constitution, that CAUSED segregation to begin with. For example, the Dred Scott decision, etc. That Supreme Court MADE a law (ie, blacks are not humans) that stood as an abomination that required the bloodiest war ever fought in this country's history to right.
And that court was packed by partisan DEMOCRAT appointees too. Lest we forget, it was the REPUBLICAN party that freed the slaves, and it because of REPUBLICAN senators that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Senator Al Gore Sr. BTW, was one who voted against it.
All factual, and all can be checked in the history books.
Simply put, the courts are the way to get illegal things into law. And yes, judges DO make these "speeches" all over the place for obscene sums of money. And where do you think the money comes from? You guessed it, huge corps like Time Warner, and other MPAA affiliates.
How else can you explain Kaplan's decision in the 2600 case? The DMCA at BEST has parts of it that have problems with the 9th, 10th, 5th, 4th, 1st, and 14th amendments, not to mention the articles regarding patent and copyright. At least SOME of it IS illegal.
Kaplan either expressed
1. Extreme ignorance of the law (and he's supposedly been educated in this, this is assumed if one is a judge)
2. Extreme prejustice/bias.
Nothing else can explain his decision. There is no basis for it except in relying on an untested law, and he refused to perform the required Constitutional test. Also, he MADE A NEW LAW out of thin air by ruling on hyperlinks.
Explain for me please, how any of this is justified?
Here is how to kill the idea (Score:3)
If the unique chip identifying code could be used to track you around the net, so can the unique code on these hard drives.
There is no privacy if anything is unique on the computer, chip or drives.
Anyone can write the software to query it.
Eh... (Score:3)
The "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" argument that you seem to be using is a dangerous one, becuase it can be used (and has been used) to justify taking away rights. Hitler used that argument, as did Lenin. As, no doubt, did Caesar (since you mention him) against the Christians.
It is also a meaningless argument. I have no contraband or drugs in my pocket. So do I object to being searched at every corner by a policeman? Or to being strip-searched when entering the country? YES!!
Let's look in practice. I have a lot of software. Probably 100 apps. For Windows as well as for Linux. But let's concentrate on the Windows apps. Yes, I paid for them! But here's the problem: Every time I switch PCs (I am on my fourth laptop this year, and have 8 PCs at home that I frequently switch around) I need to be able to move the app to the now-current PC. That is my RIGHT. And anything that prevents me from doing that is not a good thing. Call a 1-800 number? I spend half the year in Hong Kong and apart from the fact we do not have 1-800 numbers there, it is also 12 hours later there. Forget calling.
Remembering passwords? I ever forget where I wrote them down.
DVD regions? This means I have to buy TWO players (one for Canada and one for Hong Kong) an d I have to buy each movie TWICE. This is obviously insane! I should have the right to buy one portable player and one of each movie, and them to watch it whether I am in Hong Kong or in Toronto.
This kind of initiative is a slippery slope. We had copy protection once and it failed, because users them were vocal and clever. Users now are not (AOL is the world's largest provider...). Please, try to be a clever, vocal user and do not accept loss of rights, and inconveience, to do these corporations a favour!
Michael
---
Re:Oops (Score:4)
We have the 'fair use' right because we can purchase equipment that allows us to make copies of digital content.
So the Entertainment Industry (EI) can't break/challenge the courts ruling that allows consumers to have 'fair use' (personal use, archiving, time shifting, etc). So what does the EI do? Lobby the hardware standards bodies to create a method to control content in the hardware that consumers use to copy content (for whatever reason). Bingo, they neatly bypass any 'fair use' problems. Sure you have the RIGHT to make copies of content, but you do not have the RIGHT to equipment that will make copies of content. Once they remove the equipment that anyone can use for copying, the EI neatly excises the 'fair use' thorn that has been in it's side for the last 20 years, neatly putting any/all control back in their hands.
Modify the hardware to make copies of content that has been marked 'do not copy' or 'copy once'? Oops, that falls under the DMCA.
A nice, calculated one-two punch to give the control of 'content' back to the media houses. Stop and take the long term view of the situation. The EI is doing everything that they can to become big brother to all the consumers in the world.
Education and the Market. (Score:4)
Repeat ad infinitum: Educate the consumers, educate the consumers...
Let people know the following: 1. These new hard drives may break their old software and data. 2. The new drives will not be defragable and will degrade in performance over time. 3. The new drives will be inherently more prone to become corrupted and/or require expensive repairs. 4. They are being presumed dihonest and are being asked to pay the freight for piracy in a way that will inconvenience them far more than a hard drive tax would.
Consumers will say "NO" in the market place and the tech will be DOA. Remember too, a "consumer" is not just joe sixpack shopping at Best Buy. Consumers are: RAID solution providers, OEMs, IT departments who might have to buy all new equipment and software.
If enough large corporate consumers sign some sort of statement to the effect that they won't tolerate this, they can kill it.
Even as a long time defender of intellectual property rights, I am firmly opposed to this technology. It places an undue burden on the innocent in order to punish the guilty (already a disturbing trend in other aspects of society). It will create a lot of uneccessary problems for a lot of people. Efforts can be (and are) better spent going after people in Asia who illegally mass produce copyrighted materials. Don't make my life inconvenient just because of what some overseas criminals and teenagers are doing.
Back-ups (Score:4)
A point of order (Score:4)
It is only illegal to * create or distribute* such software.
Anything you can leagally do with your IP you may still do with DeCSS without breaking the law. Only your SOURCE of the software has broken the law.
Read the DMCA very carefully, as well as the decisions handed down by the judges and you will find that this is true. If fact, note that the MPAA and the DVD consortium have not ONCE prosecuted for possesion and/or use, even though they have charged people who both possess and use said software with its distribution.
The law is VERY specific, and again, ONLY its distribution has been, so far, banned.
Maybe RMS is right (Score:5)
Re:This can't be done in hardware (Score:5)
Will free software become extinct through judicial order soon? Will Linux become an circumvention device?
I would *think* not since it should be easy to prove that Linux's sole reason for being is not to circumvent this protection scheme, but who knows these days... :(
What about lesser-known makers? (Score:5)
What's going to happen is IBM and others will make these drives, meanwhile overseas companies like in China will continue to make non-compliant drives and everyone will just buy them instead.
Frankly, I think if I was a stockholder in any company that makes hard drives, I think I'd want to make it very clear that caving to SOFTWARE interests is finacially a stupid move.
It's like 3COM implementing dongles for the PalmPilot to appease software developers. A) it costs 3Com a lot of money B) makes the devices more expensive C) pisses off customers who now have to deal with it and. So, if 3COM did it anyway, their shareholders could sue them for it.
Hardware manufacturers should be like backbone providers and common carriers. It isn't their jobs to regulate or restrict content.
- JoeShmoe
Re:A suggestion for our side (Score:5)
Tides are changing... (Score:5)
The real differences here are that everyone will be affected, and that the coding won't be easy to circumvent. You see, the hard disks will be made with the coding, well, hard-coded into them. And the principles behind the idea are outragous. It's like telling a person "Yeah, you paid for the book, but you'll have to send us an extra $5 every time you want to read it again." Tell me that doesn't piss you off.
The concept behind Pay Per Read (PPR) is that the people you pay have to have access to your computer. Ergo, companies will gain complete and total control over your computer. Once your can give direct signals to the hardisk, you can do anything you want!
So, if you disagree with anything I've said above, please reply to this comment. I'd really like to hear why having to pay to read a book every time doesn't piss you off.
Now, to take a different view, hardisks aren't licsensed in the way that DVDs are. That means that hardisk makers aren't bound to follow the coding standard. That means that you'll likely end up with 2 standards: encoded (E) and (N) not encoded. However, the E manufacturers will probably want software to recognize that their drive is an E drive. Uh-oh. That means game/software makers can keep their software from being installed on your computer! So now we're back to the "it's-a-problem-again-dept."
So, if that prophecy comes true, what will happen then? Well, you'll end up with a lot of consumers who are even more pissed off. There are 2 solutions to that (for the companies). 1) Team up and beat down the revolt (which, surpriseingly enough happens often), or 2) Give up and go home.
Obviously, you've got to get a lot of people already using the E drives to implement that strategy and be able to use solution 2. So, as long as an initial uprising happens, we'll be OK, right? Probably. And it most likely will happen (everyone, admit it or not, breaks at least one copyright law a week. It's like speeding. Everyone does it, most people do it often, some don't do it often, but everyone does it.) So, since none of what I said above is going to happen, I've needlessly spent 20 minutes pondering and pecking at my keyboard...:(
Conclusion: Make sure you go against copyright protecting drives!
It's all about the Karma Points...
Moderators: Read from the bottom up!