Intel laumar DRM í D línuna og 945 kubbasettin.
Getið lesið um DRM hérna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
Létt og auðveld lesning fyrir háttinn
Létt og auðveld lesning fyrir háttinn
-
gumol
- Besserwisser
- Póstar: 3929
- Skráði sig: Sun 27. Okt 2002 00:12
- Reputation: 0
- Staðsetning: Kópavogur
- Hafðu samband:
- Staða: Ótengdur
Bara til að fá eitt á hreint. Digital Rights Management hefur ekkert með réttindi okkar notendanna að gera. Þetta er til að takmarka það sem við getum gert, þangað til við borgum einhverjum fyrir að nota það.
Hérna er áhugaverður fyrirlestur sem Richard M. Stallman sem er einn af helstu andstæðingum "Digital restriction management" eins og hann kallar það. Þetta var tekið upp þegar hann kom hingað til lands í fyrra og hélt tvo fyrirlestra. Sá fyrri var meðal annars um þetta, hvernig fyrirtæki eru að nota tölvuna þína og hubúnað sem þú hefur keypt eða fengið frá þeim til að koma í veg fyrir að þú getir gert eitthvað.
Fyrri fyrirlesturinn um frelsi tölvunotenda:
ftp://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/rglug/rms-rglug-1.ogm
Ef þið fylgist með neðstu röðunum í fyrra myndbandinu þá sjáið þið hvar ég kem (seinn
)
Og seinni fyrirlesturinn um einkaleyfi á hugmyndum í hugbúnaði:
ftp://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/rglug/rms-rglug-2.ogm
Hérna er áhugaverður fyrirlestur sem Richard M. Stallman sem er einn af helstu andstæðingum "Digital restriction management" eins og hann kallar það. Þetta var tekið upp þegar hann kom hingað til lands í fyrra og hélt tvo fyrirlestra. Sá fyrri var meðal annars um þetta, hvernig fyrirtæki eru að nota tölvuna þína og hubúnað sem þú hefur keypt eða fengið frá þeim til að koma í veg fyrir að þú getir gert eitthvað.
Fyrri fyrirlesturinn um frelsi tölvunotenda:
ftp://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/rglug/rms-rglug-1.ogm
Ef þið fylgist með neðstu röðunum í fyrra myndbandinu þá sjáið þið hvar ég kem (seinn
)
Og seinni fyrirlesturinn um einkaleyfi á hugmyndum í hugbúnaði:
ftp://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/rglug/rms-rglug-2.ogm
Ég ætla að passa mig á því að hlaupa ekki að neinum ályktunum og kynna mér þetta mál áður en ég tjái mig um það.
En ég var aðeins að lesa um þetta á ArsTechnica forum'inu og hérna eru athyglisverðar tilvitnanir og pælingar:
En ég var aðeins að lesa um þetta á ArsTechnica forum'inu og hérna eru athyglisverðar tilvitnanir og pælingar:
DaveJ skrifaði:"Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller."
How long until this is remotely exploited? Networking the system at the BIOS level is a VERY bad idea...
LordFrith skrifaði:So, let's start by assuming the Intel people aren't idiots technically, and they made this work.
So, what would DRM do to work?
Well, the point is that you only allow the purchaser of a piece of IP to use it, and to not make copies. For now, let's assume that they aren't going to try to fight the analog exploit.
So, you encrypt the music in some way, and decrypt it with your software player. Perhaps the DRM is effectively a complex hardware key that tells the company how to encrypt the music before giving you the file? So, you say "Give me a song, here is my key(K)", it encrypts the music using your key, and then the program unencrypts it using your key to play it. Without knowing the key at the other end, you can't decode the music for playing with a different player.
I guess this could work for executables as well, given some OS-level support for decoding executable files and libraries on the fly.
But does it take away any abilities that you once had? That I'm not so sure about.
Doomlord_uk skrifaði:You guys are getting this wrong... DRM in hardware is a *GOOD* idea - this is what we need for secure software and OSs - signed system files and other executable files. You can really only do this properly with hardware support ie DRM features in hardware. Once we achieve this, viruses, trojans, worms etc are history. This is also, of course, a boon for content creators - whether music, movies, games, OSs, you name it... no unauthorised use, no hacked copies...
There are two dangers, though. The first was covered in the article in passing, without even acknowledging the danger of it, and the second they did mention. I'll mention the second one first.
Intel are keeping this new tech secret. Security through obscurity. This is dangerous, as security is fundamentally based on trust, which comes from open scrutiny and validation. There are unaswered questions about remote control of hardware (of the IDE interface) - and no sysadmin is going to want something that fundamental vulnerable to remote exploits. On the bottom line, the knowledge that this technology is secure can only come from independant and therefore public scrutiny. Intel will, I am sure, at some point bite this bullet happily. And I'll bet that the tech will, for now, have a secret switch in it somewhere to disable it if it does prove flawed, otherwise Intel will find themselves replacing a lot of new Pentiums and mobos. My guess is that they don't want to go that route again.
The second danger lies not directly with this tech, but the way it can be misused by software and content creators. DRM technology in software would allow for significant restraints upon, and diminution of, user rights and freedoms. This has been well covered in the past in the reaction to Microsoft's proposed Palladium DRM system, and rightly so. The problem is that over the last few decades fair use rights have been established through the way the public at large has come to expect to receive, keep and use media and software. Despite the lies and propaganda of Big Content's lobby groups (you know who) this open, trust-based, lightly (if imperfectly) legislated system has worked, and worked well. Generating multi-multi-billion dollar industries whilst consumers enjoy considerable freedom over the use, storage and redistribution of storage media (think vinyl, CDs, videotapes etc).
But the commercial opportunities available from DRM technology are vast, and these opportunities stem fundamentally from diminishing user freedoms and rights over what they've paid for, forcing them to pay more, again and again, where once they paid once and transferring control and therefore effective ownership back into the hands of the content producers.
For example, for the last four decades you could buy a piece of music, or software, and you could use it where you wanted, when you wanted, as often as you wanted. You could share it with friends - a networking effect that massively benefits the content industry, despite what it claims. And when you were finished, you could sell on your music or software. It was yours. Now, with DRM technology, software and content producers can control when, where and how you enjoy media. And they can revoke your ownership at any time.
Although few seem to recognise it, your user rights have already been eroded through the MP3 market. Online music sales have lead to a market that believes the degraded quality of mp3 is the norm and therefor acceptable. Whilst not every online music download service and media player enforces DRM restrictions and 'licenses', this still occurs and the market 'conditioning' is occuring. In other words, the market is already dimishing user rights and qualitative expectations. When hardware DRM comes along, it's not going to be a shock to many. It'll be just one more potential erosion of your rights.
Now, I say *potential* because it's not the hardware that's the problem, it's what software companies do with it and what the content companies try to do with it. Worst case scenario, you'll be stuck with "pay per play" 'micro'charges and time-limited use. No screen caps, no usage with non-DRM compliant devices. Even no use with non-'sanctioned' DRM devices. You could see music sold that only plays on Dell computers, for instance. This is all speculation, but in the absence of mass market rejection (unlikely) and market-friendly legislation (unlikely so far, but this may change) you can expect to see this happen.
The second danger is legislative. DRM technology is essentially new to the mass market. Governments don't understand it but appear all to ready to listen to the big companies that do. With the wrong legislation, like the DMCA, you'll see your worst expectations realised. With the proper legislation, everyone will benefit.
My personal fear is revocation of licenses. Think about it, when was the last time you got a license with your CD or Vinyl record from Tower Records? Exactly! You didn't get, or need, a license. And the industry worked just fine like that. But download an mp3, aac or wma file from a legitimate download service, the most degraded audio experience you can pay for, and it's likely to come with a license. Hell, even if you rip an mp3 with media player or the like, it's likely to impose a license. Now imagine those licenses are hardware enforced. Suddenly, 'your' music collection isn't yours any more. Revocation works where a digitally signed file - the license without which you can't play your music - is checked up on first. What happens is the file has an ID, possibly tying it you(!!!), and the file application checks with a remote server to see if the license is valid. Now imagine the server said no. Perhaps you had the old version of a film, and for six months before the remake is released, Time Warner don't want you watching the old film, they can just revoke the license on the server. It really is that simple, and if you deal in computer security you'll be familiar with digital signatures and certificates - it's the same technology. For the user, it means getting DoD'd out of nowhere, but there's a wider implication.
All copyright laws allow the copyright owner an exclusive right to derive an income from exploiting the IP. But this copyright has always been time-limited. After that time, all IP has passed into the public domain. The benefits of this are enormous and apply to everyone. Go to any library, concert hall, theatre etc and you can enjoy, at mimimum cost, the works and creations of past generations. Imagine someone still owned the copy right to Dickens, or Mozart, or Shakespeare. All copyrighted works ultimately belong in the public domain, yet with DRM this is effectively shut off. If any license for a media file or executable file comes with a revokable license, then our libraries will ultimately become empty. The ONLY way to prevent this I believe is to legislate against revocation directly, and to allow legal protection of DRM schemes and licenses ONLY where the keys are lodged first with public libraries. When the copyright period expires, the keys are released to the public (perhaps only to libraries, but the point is there is free, unrestricted public access to the material thereafter).
DRM technology will fundamentally change the way we distribute and use digital content and hardware of any kind. It's wide open to abuse, with legislators proving devastating ignorance and corruption and a public market widely ignorant and uncaring of what is being done to their rights. And it's not just the consumers of content who will lose out.
I've not seen this mentioned before, and I've not thought of it before myself, but what if OS vendors (hello Microsoft!) produced new OSes that only ran signed executables? In theory, they could block any non-signed code from running regardless of the user's wishes. Would they do that? There is an incentive - control of the user experience and market, and the market for signing code. Preposterous? This already happens in home computing devices globally. Did you know that? Those devices are called consoles. In the past, they played blocky, slow, low-res games and nothing else. The next gen will be extremely powerful, general-purpose (if graphics oriented) computing devices and they all have DRM built in, just like past consoles. You can't just write your own Xbox game and run it. MS have to check it and sign it, and they charge a levey of your game sales to do that. WHich is why only 'published' software is available for consoles. Sure that system ain't perfect, but it's designed to be that way. Now, we're all used to it on consoles. And we're seeing consoles and home computing converge pretty well entirely within the next two generations of console. My point? Signed-only software machines are already standard and excepted, and there's a good chance MS in particular will seek to have all software signed - for a fee - by MS. You might think MS would be happy to leave the 'windows' computer of the future open, but why would it? The benefits of a fully closed, console-style system are obvious to MS - from both a security standpoing and - importantly - from a user experience standpoint. MS are only too painfully aware that most crashes and glitches are the result of badly coded software, yet MS get the flack. How many bluescreens are caused by Windows fouling up, and how many by erant third-party code fouling up? Mostly the latter. Hardware DRM puts a lid on that once and for all.
Hardware DRM is both a blessing and a bane. It will come down to how governments legislate to control abuses by the commericial powers that create and drive the market, and the willingness of those same commercial powers to be open and trusting. Given the financial incentives to lock down the distribution and use of signed content, and the incentive to create closed systems that only run signed content, I can see massive changes in the digital world over the next decade, as DRM tech becomes widely implemented. What Intel is proposing now is just one more attempt at establishing DRM in the marketplace. It isn't the first time, with the PIII ID number, the CPRM mechanism once proposed to lock down hdds, etc... I don't think yet that there is a need for tin-foil hats, but we should definitely be aware of the abuses of this technology, the potential restrictions of our user rights, and the potential for our elected legislators to give away the market to big companies without understanding what they were ever doing.
DRM can and will take over digital hardware and software at every level. The advantages are massive, for everyone, if properly implemented and properly controlled, and potentially devasting for society at many levels if it is not understood and not properly legislated for. The truth is that really this is in your hands as a consumer and as a voter. I believe you need to watch and learn what is happening closely, and maintain a meaningful dialogue with your legislators, directly or through relevant organisations, to ensure it works for you and not against you. Tinfoil hats aren't required - but speculation and paranoia are certainly warranted.
Það sem mér hugnast ekki er að Microsoft ætlar að læsa á stillingar í Longhorn sem gera það að verkum að maður fær bæklað Longhorn ef maður er ekki með allt DRM í gangi. AMD fylgir örugglega í kjölfarið því þeir eru of litlir til að segja nei. Ef þeir myndu reyna það myndi MS bara loka á þá. Þetta á eftir að ganga yfir Apple líka. Spurning um IBM.
Segið bless við P2P eða hæ við Linux.
Segið bless við P2P eða hæ við Linux.
