Who posted this distrubing thought...

[anphanax]

I couldn't help but notice as I was uncarefully browsing through most of the posts on this subforum, I ran into something that scared the shit out of me.

What I picked up:
Eventually 3rd party software will have to be approved by MS?

What I think this means:
Programmers are gonna have to get special licenses from MS to program applications for it.

Is this really true? I've heard of similar things possible over the years, but I never thought MS would be able to completly control who makes apps for there OS? Doesn't that seem like a lawsuit waiting to happen?

If i'm wrong sorry for my ignorance, but that was just to upsetting not to get any facts onand just sit and wonder about.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: anphanax ]

[rtgwbmsr]

Welcome to the boards anphanax!  

If M$ uses Palladium and the TCPA to it's advantage (which it undoubtedly will, it's just a matter of time before they go on a power trip with it) then yes, all programs will have to be approved by Microsoft as "safe".

This may lead to having to obtain a license to make applications for Windows, if Microsoft wants.

You may want to search Palladium and TCPA in the forums for more info.

[MacUser3of5]

I honestly doubt this would be the case. MS wants your wallet.

If software required MS approval, people would run away in droves to Linux or even Apple. MS does not want that. It's good business sense.

[RudeCat7]

Go for it microsoft!  

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: RudeCat7 ]

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by anphanax:
I couldn't help but notice as I was uncarefully browsing through most of the posts on this subforum, I ran into something that scared the shit out of me.

What I picked up:
Eventually 3rd party software will have to be approved by MS?

What I think this means:
Programmers are gonna have to get special licenses from MS to program applications for it.

Is this really true? I've heard of similar things possible over the years, but I never thought MS would be able to completly control who makes apps for there OS? Doesn't that seem like a lawsuit waiting to happen?

If i'm wrong sorry for my ignorance, but that was just to upsetting not to get any facts onand just sit and wonder about.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: anphanax ]

The simple answer to your question is: yes.  M$ is planning, along with Intel and AMD plus a few other companies to set up a new type of computing platform.  Palladium.  It will have elements ingrained into the hardware to allow computers to only run 'trusted' or M$ approved software.  Programmers will have to get their software signed in order to get it approval for use on windows.  This signing will be done by one of two companys, verisign, a company completely under the control of M$, and I'll let you guess the other company.  Another note, if will cost a LOT of money to get somthing signed.  If I remember correctly, there is a bill being pushed through congress right now requiring all computers to have this sort of DRM protection included.

So then, anphanax, what OS are you using right now?  Is it windoze?  If so read on, its probably time for a change and I think you'll agree.  Contrary to popular belief Linux is not very hard.  You'll find you can do anything with Linux that you can with Windoze.  www.linuxiso.org is a good start.

V

[distortion]

this is probably a stupid question but, with palladium in place, will current distrobutions of linux still run on it? or is that information known yet?

[Calum]

the correct answer is "it depends".

basically i cannot see them making a computer that linux cannot be ported to, however i think this new hardware will most likely run linux not as well as a real computer. that's just a guess though. And certainly existing versions of linux will not run on it. Somebody will need to actually post (*port) it to the new machines, which means that somebody needs to be convinced that it will be worth it before it will even start to happen.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
the correct answer is "it depends".

basically i cannot see them making a computer that linux cannot be ported to, however i think this new hardware will most likely run linux not as well as a real computer. that's just a guess though. And certainly existing versions of linux will not run on it. Somebody will need to actually post it to the new machines, which means that somebody needs to be convinced that it will be worth it before it will even start to happen.

Heh, Linux programmers have enough trouble making Winmodems work in Linux..so I seriously doubt they would be able to make Linux work on a Wineverything(not just winmodem) machine...or maybe it would be more appropriate to call the hardware a WinCPU and WinMotherboard.

[Calum]

well i did think that myself, but a modem is most likely easier to emulate in the software than a motherboard and CPU is, don't you think?

also, it depends on the incentive. there are hundreds of different modems out there that are supposed to only work with windows, and many of them have linux drivers now, how many different windows only computers will there be? one. or maybe two or three different models. Plus, if some organisation (like mandrake or red hat) decides that their distro will be the first to work on this new platform, then the sky is the limit.

While we're at it, let's not forget that linux has been ported to TWELVE or so different CPU architectures in its time. I have yet to see Windows running on an Alpha or a Sparc.

[mobrien_12]

MS once made a version of NT4 for Alpha.  Many hold to the opinion that it was made solely to teach Intel a lesson when Intel told MS that they wanted to start developing multimedia software.

[tr_one]

I find it sad that while the rest of the world will go on without palladium. the USA will no doubt be required to adopt the new "standard".  The US(of A) will fall farther/further(?) behind as it has with (almost) everything else.

 

quote:  Doctor V

If I remember correctly, there is a bill being pushed through congress right now requiring all computers to have this sort of DRM protection included.

 

Anti-piracy bill may hit consumers
 

quote:Biden's new bill would make it a federal felony to try and trick certain types of devices into playing your music or running your computer program. Breaking this law -- even if it's to share music by your own garage band -- could land you in prison for up to five years. And that's not counting the civil penalties of up to $25,000 per offence.

 

quote: Then there's Microsoft's Palladium approach and the separate Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) project, both of which anticipate the embedding of special security chips in PCs. Since Biden's bill prohibits "illicit authentication features" attached to software, it could become unlawful to distribute software that would run on a Palladium-outfitted computer without Microsoft's permission.  

this was from just one of the web page found through Google

[Calum]

well aren't you lucky that in the states you can always vote against something that you don't like.

Some countries do not have the four pillars of democracy (we do have those four pillars here but the papers are all full of shit, the prime minister controls the commons and the lords do not consist of elected members, which leaves maybe one and a half pillars of democracy at best).

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
well aren't you lucky that in the states you can always vote against something that you don't like.

Some countries do not have the four pillars of democracy (we do have those four pillars here but the papers are all full of shit, the prime minister controls the commons and the lords do not consist of elected members, which leaves maybe one and a half pillars of democracy at best).

In America the vote means little really, the co. will get what they want in the end no matter what.  In America democracy has died.  

Japan takes the bad points of both USA and UK to make a government.

V

[Calum]

and, without wanting to seem insulting to anybody, but Australia seems to take the worst points of the USA and... the USA to make a government, although i don't think even the US would vote in somebody as creepy as little johnny howard. I can't even work up as much disrespect for Dubya as i can for howard...

anyway this is OFF TOPIC so maybe we want to get back to talking about restricted access to your own computer...

[Refalm]

quote:Calum: anyway this is OFF TOPIC so maybe we want to get back to talking about restricted access to your own computer...

On topic:

 

quote:Quote from the Anti-DMCA website. Content from the Anti-DMCA website quoted under the practice of fair use for comment and discussion purposes.

Content from MS DRM OS Patent quoted under the practice of fair use
for comment and discussion purposes.

The DRM OS Patent can be found here:
http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm

The following are quotes from the DRMOS Patent itself:

-------------

The Content Provider (ISP) must maintain a registry of "subscriber
computers". This is the SPA and Central Licensing:

Therefore, the content provider would have to maintain a registry
of each subscriber's DRMOS identity or delegate that function to a
trusted third party. ... Because the basic DRMOS and additional
components always have the same identities when executing on a
specific type of processor, the content provider has only to maintain
a list of the identities for the combinations of the basic DRMOS and
additional components that the provider trusts. Each identity uploaded
is then checked against the list.

------------

Soon, changing your PC's system clock could become illegal:

This alternate embodiment requires a secure time source to be
available on the subscriber computer so the user cannot simply
turn back the system clock on the subscriber computer.

------------

Pay-per-use operating system and components:

As described above, components may be valid only until a specified date
and time, and content may also be licensed only until a certain date and time.
The monotonic counter described earlier can also be used to ensure that the
computer's clock cannot be set backwards to allow the replacement of a
trusted component by an earlier, now untrusted version.

------------

Stallman is right again, DEBUGGING IS NOW ILLEGAL, enforced under Section
1201 of H.R. 2281 (The DMCA):

DRMOS Patent:
An example of one kind of procedure that must be prohibited is loading a
kernel debugger because it would allow the user to make a copy of the
content loaded in memory. If the user of the subscriber computer attempts
to load a kernel debugger into memory, the DRMOS can either 1) refuse
to load the debugger, or 2) renounce its trusted identity and terminate
the trusted application that was accessing the content before loading
the debugger. In the latter case, the memory must also be purged of the
content before the debugger is loaded.

See The Right to Read, Stallman:
There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing.
They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software,
Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used
it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had
told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA
for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal).
In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing
a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging
tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable
over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright
monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal
use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers
were sent to prison.

-------------

You can no longer delete specific data from your hard drive:

DRMOS Patent:
For example, the DRMOS can allow the user to delete an entire content file but
not a portion of it. Another example is that the DRMOS can allow the user to
terminate all the threads of execution for a trusted application but not just
a single thread.

-------------

Again, debuggers are not permitted:

DRMOS Patent:
Finally, a DRMOS must protect the trusted application itself from tampering.
The DRMOS must not allow other processes to attach to the process executing
the trusted application. When the trusted application is loaded into memory,
the DRMOS must prevent any other process from reading from, or writing to,
the sections of memory allocated to the trusted application without the explicit
permission or cooperation of the trusted application.

-------------

Users may not share data:

DRMOS Patent:
Such a facility is used when downloaded content can be accessed only by a
particular user. Moreover, if downloaded content is to be accessed only by a
particular user and by a particular application, the secret to be stored may
be divided into parts, with one part protected by an application-specific key
and the other part protected by a user-specific key.

Applied to Stallman's Right to Read. Bear in mind these are e-books and sharing
would be a form of copyright circumvention:

He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books.
Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting
someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like
everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was
nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.

--------------

The "Key Vault" and trusted third party (Central Authority):

DRMOS Patent:
Once the data is encrypted using the storage keys, there must be a way to
recover the keys when the DRMOS identity changes (as when the operating system
is upgraded to an incompatible version or an unrelated operating system is
installed) or the computer hardware fails. In the exemplary embodiments
described here, the keys are stored off-site in a "key vault" provided by a
trusted third party. In one embodiment, the DRMOS contains the IP addresses
of the key vault providers and the user decides which to use. In another
embodiment, the content provider designates a specific key vault and the DRMOS
enforces the designation. In either embodiment, when the user requests the
restoration of the storage keys, the key vault provider must perform a certain
amount of validation before performing the download.

-------------

Your computer cannot be used to copy content:

For example, one property might be that the application cannot be used to copy
content. Another example of a property is one that specifies that the
application can be used to copy content, but only in analog form at 480P
resolution. Yet another example of a property is one that specifies that the
application can be used to copy content, but only if explicitly allowed by an
accompanying license.

-------------

Looks like the MPAA has been engaged in some Retail Politics:

In one embodiment, the access predicate takes the form of a required properties
access control list (ACL) as shown in FIG. 10. The required properties ACL 1000
contains a basic trust level field 1001, which specifies the minimum rights
management functions that must be provided by any application wishing to process
the content. These minimum functions can be established by a trade association,
such as the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), or by the DRMOS
vendor.

-------------

More Pay-per-view OS functions:

As described briefly above, the license data structure 1100 can limit the number
of times the content can be accessed (usage counter 1101), determine what use
can be made of the content (derivation rights 1103), such as extracting still
shots from a video, or building an endless loop recording from an audio file,
or a time-based expiration counter 1105.

-------------

Pay-per-listen feature:

The sublicense rights 1107 can impose more restrictive rights on re-distributed
content than those specified in a license for content downloaded directly from
the original content provider. For example, the license 1100 on a song purchased
directly from the music publisher can permit a song to be freely re-played while
the sublicense rights 1107 require a limit on the number of times the same song
can be re-played when redistributed.

-------------

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]