oh joy... more DRM hysteria. I wrote a tutorial about this awhile back and found myself dismissing similar concerns.
I for one hope they do... it will make them more directly accountable.
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
Removal does not constitute a violation of the DMCA, however efforts to prevent removal does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again if you let it... it will explicitly ask you each time if this action is ok.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
It serves no legitimate purpose to the actual user of the computer that the DRM is installed on.
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.
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.
Looks like they have their first case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or more accurately, because the monopolistic practices issue won't be any more applicable than they are now.
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.