no sense of humor

Quote:

---

Benifits to a DRM marketing solution posted Today 12:04 PM
(post #1)

With the advent of DRM technologies in the past few years, it is amazing that companies have not embedded DRM in their latest marketing software.

Here are some of the benifits in embedding DRM in your companies marketing software:

1) More targeted advertisements: DRM can read memory and process information from the computer that the marketing software is installed on. This can provide targeting advertisements based on programs that the client is running on their computer

2) Ability to control users market decisions better: DRM can remove competitors programs from the clients computer, allowing you to provide "solutions" to their programs being removed.

3) User data gathering: DRM provides advanced "call home" features. This would allow your company to use the marketing program to collect information such as user's cookie contents, cache contents, visited pages, viewed DVDs (if client has Windows Media Player 9 or higher installed), played MP3s, and even software/music licenses on the client's computers.

4) Client control: Advanced DRM technologies even would allow you to connect to the client's computer as if it were a server and manually control what programs they open up and even delete files from the clients computer if they violate your companies objectives.

5) License control: Your company can use DRM to read and control licenses on the client's computer. This would enable you to void any licenses for competitors software programs.

6) Legal issues of circumventing DRM: Your company can sue the user or any other company that makes programs that remove the marketing software from the client's computer due to the fact that any circumvention of DRM is violating the DMCA.

---

Someone made the thread go suicidal before his lordship rcgreen had a
chance to pronounce upon the matter. That wasn't nice.
I personally thought it was hilarious.
:cool:

I did think it some what ironic, have a look at the sig.


We all know that DRM (digital restriction managment) is the devils work. We realy should have had the opertunity to play with this one a bit.

Quote:

---

Here he comes . . .

---

Who :D ...................Here comes Johnny :eek:

The actual point I am trying to make that if the companies that develop spyware programs could get a hand on DRM and imbed it into their program, than programs such as Spybot S&D & Adaware, as well as commercial anti-spyware and anit-virus programs would be unable to remove (and detect) these programs based on the fact that the common DRM rule is that "Any attempt to cirumvent" DRM technologies is a violation of the DMCA.

Not only would it be illegal to remove spyware and/or viruses using DRM, but the "copyright" holder would have the ability to legally challange those who attempt to remove it in court and would have an easy win - as easy as the RIAA is sueing grandmas for their grandkids downloading music.

Additionally, spyware that could implement DRM technologies could get a complete profile of users DVD collection, MP3 / WMA collection, and collection of files on the users hard disk. Already, Windows Media Player 9 and higher sends "anonymous" data (even if you opt not to, it still does it through the license gathering process) about how many times you play a song file, DVD, or any other file that takes advantage of the DRM in the media player. When Windows Vista comes out in 2006, it will have DRM in the OS level. This will enable the OS to literally communicate and get licenses for each file that is part of the opperating system, and potentially even files that are not such as any applications, documents, images, movies, music, etc. All one would have to do is create a program designed with DRM to read the contents of these files and submit it back to the crafted licensing server and viola - you have passwords, product serial numbers, cookies, cache, etc. of the user who uses the computer.

DRM is a great technology in its ability to be misused and abused. It serves no legitimate purpose to the actual user of the computer that the DRM is installed on. DRM actually has given me the thought to download files illegaly at least once in the past few years - however I have resisted that temptation and just have done without listening to music. Unfortantly, DRM is now starting to spread throughout the whole media field. Intel has recently included DRM into their CPUs. Imagine a spyware program litterally being able to "burn up" your CPU... It could easily happen if the spyware or virus implemented DRM and caused the CPU to use that dual core and execute a flood of license requests. This would compromise your networks bandwidth and your computers CPU time and possibly cause it to overheat.

The possibilities are endless.

Oh - and for you people that use Linux and think you are invulnerable to this DRM burocrocy, think again.

The FSF has recently released a statement concerning its revision of the GNU license stating that it will not abide by DRM technologies and that anyone who develops programs that utilize DRM will be subject to lawsuits and all this other stuff. Do you think that people who develop software for free actually have the economic and intellectual rights and resources to stand up to big media and companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Novell, Dell, Compaq, HP, etc... and the list goes ON and ON... who back DRM and would fight to their death just to get every chance to continue to invade consumers privacy of what they purchase???

This is the stupidest mistake the FSF has made since it has been conceived. I can gaurentee you that if the FSF fights for what it believes then there will be no more linux and no more "Open source" in the future.

Intel is already implementing DRM in their chipsets. All they have to do is make it so that the computer will not support software that does not have DRM imbeded in it and viola - end of Linux. End of Open Source. And the U.S. government wont have any ability to charge Microsoft with monopolistic practices on this one because it contradicts the DMCA that they earlier passed with the funding from the RIAA.

oh joy... more DRM hysteria. I wrote a tutorial about this awhile back and found myself dismissing similar concerns.

Quote:

---

The actual point I am trying to make that if the companies that develop spyware programs could get a hand on DRM and imbed it into their program

---

I for one hope they do... it will make them more directly accountable.

Quote:

---

commercial anti-spyware and anit-virus programs would be unable to remove (and detect) these programs based on the fact that the common DRM rule is that "Any attempt to cirumvent" DRM technologies is a violation of the DMCA.

---

Removal does not constitute a violation of the DMCA, however efforts to prevent removal does.

Quote:

---

Not only would it be illegal to remove spyware and/or viruses using DRM, but the "copyright" holder would have the ability to legally challange those who attempt to remove it in court and would have an easy win - as easy as the RIAA is sueing grandmas for their grandkids downloading music.

---

Where on earth did you pull this from? The removal of licenses in completely acceptable and not only that, but you must explicitly agree to the license in the first place, no more covert installations. The RIAA issue is completely different (and they all have bad lawyers, I was contacted by the RIAA... I explained to them how I was going to handle the court case and they dropped their complaint) that is an issue of taking data you are not licensed to, there is no law... I repeat there is NO LAW that prevents you from ending a licensed agreement at your discretion.

Quote:

---

Additionally, spyware that could implement DRM technologies could get a complete profile of users DVD collection, MP3 / WMA collection, and collection of files on the users hard disk.

---

Yeah, if you let it... I am sure Ikea will come up with some adware that uses your webcam to scan your room and sends you furniture advice.

Quote:

---

Already, Windows Media Player 9 and higher sends "anonymous" data (even if you opt not to, it still does it through the license gathering process) about how many times you play a song file, DVD, or any other file that takes advantage of the DRM in the media player.

---

Again if you let it... it will explicitly ask you each time if this action is ok.

Quote:

---

When Windows Vista comes out in 2006, it will have DRM in the OS level. This will enable the OS to literally communicate and get licenses for each file that is part of the opperating system, and potentially even files that are not such as any applications, documents, images, movies, music, etc.

---

Um... actually Vista merely checks for integrity of the TCB (Trusted Computing Base) level... there will be no media files at this level of the system.

Quote:

---

All one would have to do is create a program designed with DRM to read the contents of these files and submit it back to the crafted licensing server and viola - you have passwords, product serial numbers, cookies, cache, etc. of the user who uses the computer.

---

Um no... personal content (passwords, cookies, cache, etc) would not be controlled by the DRM... since YOU CREATED THEM there is no license to acquire. And just because an application utilizes the DRM technology doesn't mean it can magically bypass all the system security. DRM exists within the systems existing security policy, not below or instead of.

Quote:

---

It serves no legitimate purpose to the actual user of the computer that the DRM is installed on.

---

Sure it does... now I get that you've prolly never had a valuable, unique idea in your life, otherwise you'd understand the benefits of protecting such ideas, but that doesn't make DRM evil. The most obvious advantage of having DRM installed on your system is that it allows you to use DRM controlled information. If you have no use for such information, then you are right, you have no use for DRM.

Quote:

---

Imagine a spyware program litterally being able to "burn up" your CPU... It could easily happen if the spyware or virus implemented DRM and caused the CPU to use that dual core and execute a flood of license requests. This would compromise your networks bandwidth and your computers CPU time and possibly cause it to overheat.

---

Ok... this is getting beyond foil hats... do you live in a foil covered van? Why would a DRM enabled spyware application have any more ability to do this than a non-DRM enabled one? DRM is MORE RESTRICTIVE not less. It's not like the OS says "Oh, you've got DRM, feel free to run hog wild!" In fact, the OS says "Oh, you've got DRM... ok I'll trust you for handling related DRM stuff, but your bitch ass still doesn't get access to the TCB.

Quote:

---

The FSF has recently released a statement concerning its revision of the GNU license stating that it will not abide by DRM technologies and that anyone who develops programs that utilize DRM will be subject to lawsuits and all this other stuff.

---

Looks like they have their first case.

Quote:

---

This is the stupidest mistake the FSF has made since it has been conceived. I can gaurentee you that if the FSF fights for what it believes then there will be no more linux and no more "Open source" in the future.

---

Software that doesn't utilize DRM or the TCPA will not go away... as I said in my above tutorial... it just want have the same level of protection and usability as software that does.

Quote:

---

Intel is already implementing DRM in their chipsets. All they have to do is make it so that the computer will not support software that does not have DRM imbeded in it and viola - end of Linux. End of Open Source.

---

See above... all this fritz chip does is allow a simple hierarchical segregation of the system. It does not prevent software from running, merely stops it from running at more trusted levels. For a non-DRM OS user, there will be no difference in operations. You don't get hurt, you don't get the advantages either.

Quote:

---

And the U.S. government wont have any ability to charge Microsoft with monopolistic practices on this one because it contradicts the DMCA that they earlier passed with the funding from the RIAA.

---

Or more accurately, because the monopolistic practices issue won't be any more applicable than they are now.

cheers,

catch

Quote:

---

Software that doesn't utilize DRM or the TCPA will not go away... as I said in my above tutorial... it just want have the same level of protection and usability as software that does.

---

...Assuming that DRM would be voluntary. Even then, I fail to see what it would do for me.
Try to take off the Pollyanna glasses for a minute and look at the history of copy protection.
For god's sake the movie industry seriously tried to have the video cassette recorder
outlawed!

Of course, without hardware support, DRM is DOA. What they really want is legally mandated
copy protection embedded in hardware.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/CPRM/20010404_eff_t13_pr.html

People have already tried to change the industry standards for hard drives
to facilitate copy protection. Obviously, no one would willingly buy crippled
hardware in exchange for the dubious privelige of listening to copyrighted
music. If DRM ever becomes the established standard, it could only be
by force of law.

Anyway, I'm buying stock in tinfoil companies, just in case.
:cool:

You can't stop the media industries from switching to DRM... just a matter of if you want access to their goods or not.

Quote:

---

If DRM ever becomes the established standard, it could only be by force of law.

---

The media industry is client driven, not regulations driven.

The only thing... the ONLY thing DRM does is stop people from stealing intellectual property, the rest is silly paranoia. If you have a problem with that... well that is a seperate issue.

cheers,

catch

I think you need to step out of your igloo. Obviousley, you do not have any clue on the true essence of DRM.

Quote:

---

Posted by catchI for one hope they do... it will make them more directly accountable.

---

Accountable for having legal access to your personal information since you handed the license for that information to them

Quote:

---

Removal does not constitute a violation of the DMCA, however efforts to prevent removal does.

---

If the copyright holder makes it clear in the EULA that he implemented the DRM to prevent removal, than the copyright holder holds the right to make the EULA state whatever the hell he wants it to. Any attempt to violate this EULA can be made clear that it is illegal in the EULA. Even if the EULA is not made present to the recipiant of the program (this is the same method companies like Jupiter Media and Gator make with their adware software).

Quote:

---

Where on earth did you pull this from? The removal of licenses in completely acceptable and not only that, but you must explicitly agree to the license in the first place.

---

You dont have to agree to the license when you install software. Most spyware does not even show you the license agreement. Other programs show you the license agreement after you have purchased it - and nobody takes back an open software package. Not even Best Buy. Third - I have seen programs crop up (Age of Empires 3 Trial) that dont even show the license agreement until after you install it.

Quote:

---

Yeah, if you let it... I am sure Ikea will come up with some adware that uses your webcam to scan your room and sends you furniture advice.

---

Again, many spyware programs are installed without users knowing it. Most users have no clue and are stupid, and would just click accept to any software license agreement anyhow.

Quote:

---

Again if you let it... it will explicitly ask you each time if this action is ok.

---

Ever fired up a packet sniffer while listening to a MP3 downloaded from a music service such as Napster? It actually transmits the name of the song, artist, file size, and a key over the internet (rather unencrypted, also) to the napster licensing server. I should run another packet capture tonight when my dad gets on Napster downstairs. It does not ask you if it is ok, the only way it will ask you is if you set your firewall up to block that trojan horse called Windows Media Player.

(Word of Advice: Downgrade to pre-SP2 XP and just install a freeware program called Media Player Classic)

Quote:

---

Um... actually Vista merely checks for integrity of the TCB (Trusted Computing Base) level... there will be no media files at this level of the system.

---

Quote:

---

Um no... personal content (passwords, cookies, cache, etc) would not be controlled by the DRM... since YOU CREATED THEM there is no license to acquire. And just because an application utilizes the DRM technology doesn't mean it can magically bypass all the system security. DRM exists within the systems existing security policy, not below or instead of.

---

How do you think the RIAA gets the information of how many songs users download off of illegal services? Bypassing security and snitching in on ISPs. Most ISPs dont have the balls to stand up for their users or even at least pass the blame down to their Teir 1 providers, but thats a different story. Again, most users will recognize programs that utilize DRM (such as WMP9) and think "oh, lets give it access to the Internet, it wont harm me". If the program uses usualy masking techniques, it can easily identify itself as WMP and the firewall will only prompt the user to allow the "Updated" version of Windows Media Player to access the Internet. With Automatic Updates in the latest XP SPs, the user will think to himself "Oh, the program updated. Better update firewall rules for this".

Quote:

---

Sure it does... now I get that you've prolly never had a valuable, unique idea in your life, otherwise you'd understand the benefits of protecting such ideas, but that doesn't make DRM evil. The most obvious advantage of having DRM installed on your system is that it allows you to use DRM controlled information. If you have no use for such information, then you are right, you have no use for DRM.

---

I strongly believe in protecting copyright laws, dont get me wrong. If I create something I want to make sure that it is not being ILLEGALY DISTRIBUTED. However, I, as an end user do want to be able to backup (any damn time I want to) my software, music, (and yes, even girly pics) on my computer without having to worry about breaking any DRM in the process. I also believe that as a end user, I should have the right and ability to be able to copy game CDs onto a single DVD to save space in my CD wallet, be able to copy all my audio CDs I purchased from Best Buy onto a MP3 CD for use in my car stereo, and be able to use Norton Ghost to perform bi-weekly backups of my computer incase something out-of-the-ordinary happens.

DRM takes the approach that you should not be able to use your software on more than 1 computer, even if you completely uninstalled that software from the original - and it also does not want you playing music on more than one device, or even legally backing up your DVDs. (You know how easily a bad DVD can get scratched? Know how much kids like to play with DVDs? - of course, I am baseing this off of when I was a kid. I don't have kids. I'm only 20 for crying out loud.)

Quote:

---

Ok... this is getting beyond foil hats... do you live in a foil covered van? Why would a DRM enabled spyware application have any more ability to do this than a non-DRM enabled one? DRM is MORE RESTRICTIVE not less. It's not like the OS says "Oh, you've got DRM, feel free to run hog wild!" In fact, the OS says "Oh, you've got DRM... ok I'll trust you for handling related DRM stuff, but your bitch ass still doesn't get access to the TCB.

---

A DRM enabled spyware application would'nt have more ability to do this than a regular trojan horse, however, it would be a hellova lot easier to develop one since DRM is a back door already (by definition). Additionally, many companies (Microsoft, Intel, etc) have invested interest in DRM - so a spyware program developed in DRM would first be overlooked because they would want to deny that their technology can be misused.

Quote:

---

Looks like they have their first case.

---

Check your links before you post them.

Quote:

---

Software that doesn't utilize DRM or the TCPA will not go away... as I said in my above tutorial... it just want have the same level of protection and usability as software that does.

---

Actually, it will be less functional. The software that does not comply with DRM will be subject to constant bombardment from the big companies, and it will have problems interfacing with software that does run on the trusted side. For an example, I don't think Open Office will work good on Windows Vi. And don't count on it being able to decrypt Office Vi files w/ embedded DRM. (Office Vi [or whatever the next MSO is called] will likely have embedded DRM. Even if the user chooses not to assign "rights" to the file, it will still likely contain at least a trace of a header or some indication that it was made with DRM compatible technology)

Quote:

---

See above... all this fritz chip does is allow a simple hierarchical segregation of the system. It does not prevent software from running, merely stops it from running at more trusted levels. For a non-DRM OS user, there will be no difference in operations. You don't get hurt, you don't get the advantages either.

---

Again, you misunderstand the exact implications of the fritz chip. (Sidenote: Did you know that they are using fritz chips to track the clothes that europeans are wearing.) Any application that uses the untrusted side of the opperating system will have less access to the CPU and hardware resources. In some cases, hardware that is "designed for Windows Vi" may require it to be accessed on a trusted platform.

With different levels of trust comes more possibility for incompatibility and instability. I would like to see how many times Vi will crash if it detects Linux (if it even lets Linux be installed on a system with Vi).

Quote:

---

Or more accurately, because the monopolistic practices issue won't be any more applicable than they are now.

---

Actually, this will give Microsoft the edge technologically over Linux - enough to where it has already bought out all the CPU manufactures (Yes - Intel AND AMD are on the list of TCPA aliance.

Open source does not have a chance. Especially if you are used to running open-source programs on Windows.


Get your facts straight, and quite buying into corporate burocracy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by catch
You can't stop the media industries from switching to DRM... just a matter of if you want access to their goods or not.


The media industry is client driven, not regulations driven.

The only thing... the ONLY thing DRM does is stop people from stealing intellectual property, the rest is silly paranoia. If you have a problem with that... well that is a seperate issue.

cheers,

catch

---

Actually, the people who actually PAY FOR the product are the ones who end up SUFFERING. The legit. users actually loose their ability to backup, save, and sometimes even view their own product ala FAIR USE. The software pirates already crack DRM within hours, and they just bypass it. It does not effect software pirates as much as end users, because they are more intelligent than regular users and know ways around it.

You know its a problem when you can't even view a music video off of MTV.com (none the less download it with stream recorder and save it to your hard disk and view it) because it has DRM, but that music video in higher quality and full length is downloadable off of file sharing networks without DRM.

You say that it's silly paranoia - but I couldn't even fire up Nero 6 to create a backup of even one of the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition DVDs.

You try it - see if it limits your rights at all. I bet it does, and you are just in a state of denial.

Don't deny your consumer rights.

Quote:

---

You can't stop the media industries from switching to DRM... just a matter of if you want access to their goods or not.

---

i don't

Quote:

---

The media industry is client driven, not regulations driven.

---

That's why they want to put adware on my computer, because I asked for it, eh?
:cool:

Actually, they are neither client or regulation driven. Money is the drive behind all things for the entertainment industry right now. They are willing to pay lots of their money to get around any legal and ethical boundaries - and with DRM they are doing that.

How do you thing the DMCA came into legislature in the first place? The big media companies paid Orin Hatch (R) UT to introduce the legislature.

Ever wonder why the RIAA gets so much and the artists get so little, and then the RIAA goes around and bitches how the music pirates are stealing their property? Money. Cash. Moolah. $$$$$$$$$.

And it's not even their IP.

Crazy. But that's how the music industry works.

The MPAA is getting just as bad lately.

Microsoft, being as money hungry as they are, along with other companies see this as a golden oppritunity. The cure-all for the dot com bust of the early 00's. They are jumping on this DRM bandwagon that the RIAA has jumped on and providing the technology for a share of the wealth that the RIAA makes off of their practice (inflating the price of CDs and keeping that inflated cost difference to themselves). Ever wonder why the price of Windows XP was sooo much higher than Windows 95/98/ME? Microsoft wanted an extra buck from the user. In MS's case, though, the money was paid all to the "artists" of the software. But it's the same concept. With DRM, all these companies just want to make a quick buck at the expense of your rights, using the excuse that it's to protect their rights - when the whole DMCA violates everything copyright stands for in the first place (freedom of expression, etc..)

I am willing to bet that Microsoft makes money from the RIAA through some sort of royalty system for the DRM technologies they have invented.

Money.

Thats one of the many reasons why Windows is going to become a subscription based O/S soon - so they can collect money from you annualy. Microsoft implemented DRM, and subsequently, realized that they can control their users and better monitor them - and in the long run, make Vi a annual cost much like the X-Box live is right now. And don't expect that cost to be cheep, either. Probably like $199 / yr to use their Vi software.

"You go in business to make money, not to help the consumer." -Professor Risley, DeVry University, Kansas City, MO


http://www.lafkon.net/tc/TC_HIGH.html

You mean well, but your knowledge is lacking.


-Maestr0

f00dl3... no offense here, but you are very poorly educated on this subject. I think keeping user rights in mind is very important, but to do so through the voice paranoid hysteria is more damaging then helpful. It makes the arguments easier to just dismiss.

Quote:

---

Accountable for having legal access to your personal information since you handed the license for that information to them

---

Here you go with double talk again... they have access... you handed to them? Well yeah, I suppose if you decide to hand over your personal information to someone, they will have access to it. (Imagine that!)
This is no different than an application lacking DRM... excepting of course that you have better assurance of who the information you handed over is going to.

Quote:

---

If the copyright holder makes it clear in the EULA that he implemented the DRM to prevent removal, than the copyright holder holds the right to make the EULA state whatever the hell he wants it to. Any attempt to violate this EULA can be made clear that it is illegal in the EULA.

---

Actually, a EULA cannot interfere with normal use of the system, any EULA which does is considered non-enforceable. The removal of packages is considered "normal use." The EULA can state that you need to give over your first born... not only does it not mean that you have to in fact give over your first born, but any attempts at enforcing this will be meet with a good old fashioned class action lawsuit.

Quote:

---

You dont have to agree to the license when you install software.

---

Yeah, which also makes it non-enforceable.

Quote:

---

Again, many spyware programs are installed without users knowing it.

---

Which will not be the case within the TCPA.

Quote:

---

Ever fired up a packet sniffer while listening to a MP3 downloaded from a music service such as Napster?

---

Yeah... if the MP3 is protected by a DRM, it will attempt to acquire the license. Does this surprise you, no one makes any secret of this process.

Quote:

---

It does not ask you if it is ok, the only way it will ask you is if you set your firewall up to block that trojan horse called Windows Media Player.

---

If you configure WMP to not prompt you... mine always asks before doing fetching any licenses.

Quote:

---

How do you think the RIAA gets the information of how many songs users download off of illegal services? Bypassing security and snitching in on ISPs.

---

*sigh* Do you really believe this?

Quote:

---

However, I, as an end user do want to be able to backup (any damn time I want to) my software, music, (and yes, even girly pics) on my computer without having to worry about breaking any DRM in the process.

---

Backup your licenses... it's not complicated.

Quote:

---

since DRM is a back door already (by definition).

---

Um... not at all, DRM DOES NOT GRANT ANY ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGES!! Sheesh, DRM enabled tools are treated no differently by the system security policy.

Quote:

---

Check your links before you post them

---

I have, it works fine. It is a link to the TPA extensions for the Linux kernel.

Quote:

---

Actually, it will be less functional. The software that does not comply with DRM will be subject to constant bombardment from the big companies, and it will have problems interfacing with software that does run on the trusted side. For an example, I don't think Open Office will work good on Windows Vi.

---

Based on what? There is no reason why non-DRM software would have issues interfacing with DRM software, though a hierarchical relationship would exist. Open Office will work just fine on Windows Vista, but it will only function in the untrusted level... until it supports the appropriate DRM.

Quote:

---

Any application that uses the untrusted side of the opperating system will have less access to the CPU and hardware resources.

---

This is completely false.

Quote:

---

With different levels of trust comes more possibility for incompatibility and instability. I would like to see how many times Vi will crash if it detects Linux (if it even lets Linux be installed on a system with Vi).

---

Um... I give up.

Quote:

---

Get your facts straight, and quite buying into corporate burocracy.

---

Get your facts straight... Linux already has TPA support, and open source, non-DRM applications will run just fine on Windows Vista. (in the untrusted level)

Quote:

---

The legit. users actually loose their ability to backup, save, and sometimes even view their own product ala FAIR USE.

---

Seriously, how uneducated of a user are you? It seems that you are angry with DRM because you have no end of problems with it. I for one have never had any DRM issues and neither has my 80 year old grandmother who is constantly downloading operas and Disney movies involving cats (there are more than you might think). I think the DRM issues you describe are more of a you problem than an architecture problem.

cheers,

catch

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Maestr0
You mean well, but your knowledge is lacking.


-Maestr0

---

Sometimes, theory is more important than knowledge. In this field, theoretical uses of DRM can outweight actual uses of DRM.

When you do security analysis, you have to look at all sides of the picture. College has helped me do this. But in SA, you have to look at not only what the companies intent to do with this is (which is already startling as it is), but also what a hacker would potentailly attempt to do if they got their hands on the technology and exploited it to their own interests.

Sure, believe what you want. If you look back at this thread 5 years from know and think "maby I should have listened to him", than you may acutally appreciate this more.

This is the same response I got to my threads I started posting in 2002 about Why invading Iraq had no point to it and how dumb the idea that Iraq had WMDs was.

DRAMA LLAMA!

Quote:

---

A lot has been said about DRM, and it occasionally appears in the mainstream news. But there is one cold hard fact about DRM, which is typically underemphasised (or not emphasised at all) by the mainstream media. Which is that DRM will only work if some central organisation controls:

* all the computers in the world
* all the computer peripherals in the world
* all the connections between all the computers in the world

About the only time this point of view appears in the media is when Richard M Stallman gets an article published in a newspaper (e.g. Who controls your computer?). There is also Cory Doctorow

There are other well-known "copyfighters", such as Lawrence Lessig, and members of the EFF, but most of them seem to be more interested in advocating "balance" between copyright and computer freedom.

Unfortunately, there is no balance. Either DRM fails completely, or we live in some sort of technical dictatorship.

---

http://www.1729.com/blog/AbsoluteDRMCorrupts.html

The reason I agree with this view, is because otherwise, DRM will remain
a software system only, and will be cracked. Then people will go on copying
and sharing files as they always have. Since the DRM advocates have
very little chance of attaining control over the hardware market,
"rogue" hardware makers will continue to manufacture devices that will
be able to access DRM protected files, and thanks to the software
cracks that will invariably be available, you will be able to access their
precious content without honoring the restrictions. That's politics.
That's technology. Deal with it.
:cool:

Here's the TCPA FAQ:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html

f00dl3... you are making yourself less trustworthy all the time...

Quote:

---

Here's the TCPA FAQ

---

No. That is not the TCPA FAQ. It is a TCPA FAQ. Big difference.

cheers,

catch

Quote:

---

How do you think the RIAA gets the information of how many songs users download off of illegal services? Bypassing security and snitching in on ISPs.

---

There is nothing underhand in the way the music/movie industries moniter and catch file sharers. It is such a simple system. Download and install <insert what ever P2P client> fire it up. Do a search for any of your works, brows shared folder, find your works, download from sharer, verify files, log IP and time.

Thats all it takes.

First, here's that article that the FSF's new GNU public license is challenging DRM - and why I believe that the companies will force the FSF to go bankrupt. (Even though you argue that you found evidence that linux already supports TC).

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9225821/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...on+drm&spell=1

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by catch
f00dl3... you are making yourself less trustworthy all the time...

No. That is not the TCPA FAQ. It is a TCPA FAQ. Big difference.

cheers,

catch

---

Oddly enough, there are more sites that voice the same information (or slight variences) that I am voicing about TCPA and DRM than there are that support the technology (parting from the actual companies that are involved in this.... thing)

One interesting piece of info: Most of the people who support TC are businesses that have a invested interest in it. Most that oppose it are end users.

The end users are the ones who will become the "victim" of the TCPA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/tr...0031001_tc.php
http://www.newsforge.com/business/02...0.shtml?tid=19

Quote:

---

(Even though you argue that you found evidence that linux already supports TC).

---

Catch posted this link in another thread: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/k...ivers/char/tpm

I would say that is pretty conclusive.

jinxy... he claims that link doesn't work ("Check your links before you post them")... DRM must be to blame!

cheers,

catch

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by catch
jinxy... he claims that link doesn't work ("Check your links before you post them")... DRM must be to blame!

cheers,

catch

---

The link works. However, the real article in question (now) is the article from MSN.com. Since you seem to be on MS's side of this argument, explain how MSN claims that the FSF plans to "fight" DRM? Please discuss your take on the article, I would like to hear it.

I make a point to excuse myself from the politics of such things and focus on the technology involved... so I cannot comment on MSNBC's motives.

However, if you wish to concede the point in this thread and start a new discussion about what you view as Microsoft's double talk... feel free. I don't think I'll join the conversation for the aforementioned reasons. It does seem however that a conversation based on rumors and innuendo might be better suited to your comprehension of the situation.

cheers,

catch

Putting the issue of MSNBC's reporting aside.

The problem with TCPA: While Microsoft and all the TCPA members are providing the documentation of what they intend (and therfore claim) the technology to do, the technology in reality has not truely hit the market yet. All they have released are drafts of how the technology works - not of how it is to be implemented and the ways it will be implemented. Given the unstable history of DRM solutions to date, it is easy to debate the ethical and legal implementation consequences of the technology.

Until the technology hits the market, we simply do not know what the true implementation (yes - we know what Microsoft and the RIAA plan to implement it to do) that those who wish to abuse the technology will come up with.

I think that they should weigh the benifits with the extreme socialogical drawbacks to implementing this technology.