Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security

Stopping Palladium? 99

Posted by Cliff from the hopefully-dead-in-its-tracks dept.
jbwiv asks: "I've seen many articles/posts/opinions stating that Microsoft's Palladium could put an end to Open Source as we know it, thereby stealing away most of what I enjoy and appreciate about computers. With the big two (Intel, AMD) actively developing Palladium architectures, I'd like to get involved in the effort to combat it. However, I haven't found any person or group actively working to stop Palladium; plenty people are bitching, but no one seems to be doing much about it. Who can one contact regarding this, and are there any groups already involved? What other steps might be taken? It would seem that such an affront to our way of life would be met with more vocal and mobile opposition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stopping Palladium? More

Stopping Palladium?

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ThorGod ( 456163 )
    Buy a Mac, Sun, etc? I'd imagine those architectures won't be instating Palladium.

    Or am I going to have to go back to my handy-dandy etch-a-sketch?
    • we're already doomed. Ohio Arts has discontinued Etch A Sketch. Looks like we may be stuck using the abacus.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They didn't discontinue it. They just moved the manufacturing offshore. One presumes they won't reflect this by renaming the company: "Southeast-Asian Lowest Bidder Arts".

  • Liberty Alliance Project (Score:4, Informative)

    by argel ( 83930 ) <argel@NOspaM.msn.com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:54PM (#4323670) Homepage
    You want theLiberty Alliance Project [projectliberty.org].

    And here's a recent Slashdot article:
    Sun Releases Open Source Tool for Project Liberty [slashdot.org]

    First useful post?

    • Re:Liberty Alliance Project (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @10:02PM (#4324351)
      You want theLiberty Alliance Project

      Frankly, the Liberty Alliance Project, open or not, sounds like it'll do about as much for my privacy and security as the Patriot Act. Why would I want all commercial services I use to have the same login? It makes for a central point of failure (or security breach.. or gov't intrusion..). I certainly don't want Palladium, but I don't know that I really care for LAP either. We don't need universal logins. We need more intelligent browsers, smart cards, and people who know how to make decent passwords. (-:
  • ...they'll take over all the planet.
    Maybe USA (typical.. :)
    Other processor makers will pop out everywere to fill the gap.

  • First we have to know what it is! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by infohord ( 311979 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:57PM (#4323684)
    There has been alot of talk on this subject, almost all of it speculation. Do we have any concrete ideas about how it will stop open source? No we don't. We can only speculate (be like the x-box, secure hw, closed specifications). Short version, know thie enemy. We don't even know if it is the enemy.
    • The Greatest Trick the devil ever pulled was making the wold believe that he doesn't exist. Wouldn't it make sense for M$ to release as little info about the project as possible (its not like they release much info anyayws...but still) ...without any concrete info on what Palladium's implications will be, it can't be considered 'the enemy' , just as you said. But if its not seen as the enemy, and it really is, then they get their foot in the door by convincing everyone to try it, because, after all, its not the enemy, so why not try it out? ..then once their foot is in the door they'll dump gallons of feces in the form of rights loss on every user. I'm well aware that Microshaft relases code not much better than 1000 monkies at 1000 typewriters, but I can't deny that they're devilishly good in the business world, evil maybbe, but I won't deny their effectiveness.

    • There must be information about the hardware specifications, since AMD and Intel are working on building it. It would seem counter-productive to keep this part of it secret.

      Assuming that there is some core of the technology that makes sense, can't we find a way to use the hardware features to do something useful? We know the MS implementation will be just as effective as the rest of their security efforts, so it is most likely to just piss customers off.

  • just buy amd ...

    but really, and maybe i'm just not in the loop here (bummer, i thought i was one of the cool kids) => How is Palladium going to kill OS? I don't get it ...
    • just buy amd ...

      too late [slashdot.org]

      • no no no- he meant to *buy* amd, not just one of their processors. if we all pool our allowances, we can buy the company and change policy- from the top!

        (heh)
    • It's quite simple: Palladium can kill OS by preventing access to core processor and system functionality if the software doesn't have some means to be recognized by the system.

      Now, who would hand out those keys? Microsoft! It's their idea.

      I don't think this will pass DoJ rules and regulations, but with the Congress going nuts over protecting copyright and such, I can believe they would favor groups like the RIAA and Microsoft in agressively denying key information to OS software writers, and so you can kiss running Linux and *BSD on those new machines.
  • Say I am an employer who doesn't want my employees's computers to be security risks or I am a parent who doesn't want my kids running software (or visiting chat rooms) behind by back.

    Doesn't Palladium meet my needs? Doesn't Palladium have a place?

    • Does the moderator really consider this
      a flamebait, or does it mean "this will
      effectively be a flamebait, although it
      certainly is a legitimate statement inviting
      thoughtful discourse anywhere but /."?
    • If the parent or employer can change the key, then so can the children or employees. If physical tampering is not a problem, then existing access control mechanisms are fine. If physical tampering is a problem, Palladium will not help. The "content producers" are the only ones seeing a benefit from Palladium, and the only ones that physical tampering will not easily defeat.
    • Perhaps...
      really its the DRM aspects that are offensive...

      This initive wopuld prevently me from making copies of the music I own...that I find offensive...
      • This initive wopuld prevently me from making copies of the music I own...that I find offensive...

        I agree with you. It'll be a shame if you can't rip to MP3, OGG, etc. The problem is that we think that we own the music. By fair use rights, I think we should. Talk to a record industry exec and he'll tell you that you don't own the music at all, more of a licence to play it on your CD player. Sorta like MS does with Windows. I'm predicting that within a year we will see shrink wrapped CDs with licences stickered to them. when that happens I officially stop buying CDs. I haven't really bought any in about a year though anyway. It's utter shite that comes out now a day...oh god...did I just age 15 years? "Back in my day we used to copy CDs to mp3, it was legal"
      • What concerns me is the idea that it prevents me from making and distributing copies of what I create. Not that I'm a great musician or filmmaker, but with DRM controls will I be able to video my kid's birthday party and email copies to his aunts & uncles?

        What about software? With Palladium Microsoft is not only killing open/free software but also everything you can find at Tucows. That's gonna drive people to the Macintosh in droves.

        This simply will not last. It may be like the 55mph speed limit, which took about 10 years too long to repeal, but eventually the people will get real tired of paying $15 a month here, $10 a month there, for services (like voicemail or video on demand) that replaced what they used to own outright (like answering machines or VCRs) in the good old days of the DRM-free 20th Century.

        Palladium's just a symptom of a much larger disease, and eventually the public will give up on asprin and go for surgery. Or maybe just put the patient down and go back to books.

    • Given Microsoft's abysmal record on security, I wouldn't place my bets on either being done effectively. After all, it was a Microsoft executive that admitted what we all know: Security is an afterthought at Microsoft.

      I don't know about you, but every time someone comes out with hardware or software to "protect" me, it ends up making it harder for me to do perfectly legal things.

      I can't believe that Microsoft is capable of making anything secure that won't be hacked in days, if not hours, of hitting the street. Palladium may increase that time, but as with all forms of "copy-protection" and other hassles, it will only prevent casual violators, not the dedicated ones.

    • If you're so uninvolved in your kids' lives that you have to depend on software to keep them from accessing "harmful" content (or are dumb enough to believe that most of it is even damaging in the first place--I'm living proof it isn't ^_^), you have a much bigger problem than just issues with open source.

  • Stop it *how*, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:23PM (#4323840) Journal
    Unlike the CBDTPA, DMCA, UCITA, and other laws, we can't lobby against Palladium. We can't (and shouldn't!) lobby to have it banned at the federal level. It's a Microsoft product. If they want to make it, they will.

    All you can do is not buy it, and exercise your free speech to try to convince as many other people as possible to not buy into either.

    What more is there to do? Am I missing something?

    If you're looking for action to take, lobby against the CBDTPA, let your representatives know how you feel on these issues, and focus on the legal problems. Microsoft is perfectly free to offer Palladium if they want to, because as sucky as it is, it's not actually being mandated by law. (Yet. Re: CBDTPA, lest ye hurry to accuse me of paranoia.) Palladium is going to happen. (Since the first incarnation will be horrid [jerf.org], it may not even be worth worrying about; the market may well write it out of existance.)

    • Re:Stop it *how*, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <{slashdot} {at} {monkelectric.com}> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @02:13AM (#4325580)
      All you can do is not buy it, and exercise your free speech to try to convince as many other people as possible to not buy into either.

      You've got it man :) As an "independent artist" I cant *WAIT* for Paladium -- when the new Brittany album won't play in your daughters CD player, when you cant load your tunes onto your mp3 player to exercise, I'll be there giving away mp3s and selling cheap unprotected cds :)

      If the music industry screws up this DRM stuff, they really will deal customers right into the arms of independents (mostly smaller labels). Here's how I see the breakdown:

      DRM albums start coming out that have to be used on the PC, they can't be used on MP3 players (maybe secure ones), or on regular CD players (because if they could, we could rip the data). (Possibly they release a new format entirely). RIAA dangles some new format cookie in front of consumers "New music format delivers extra fidelity, new unreleased Beetles tracks in this format only!" (Really, they want you to buy all your old albums again)

      People realize it doesn't matter how many times you buy the white album, it was still recorded on analog equipment and 70db DNR sounds just as shitty at 32 bits as it does at 16 (DNR of a 16 bit cd is 96db). Same goes for even newly recorded albums, because the most accurate A/D converter on the market riight now and for the forseable future is ~120db (and just try to get 120db DNR out of a mic, its not possible). Consumers go FUCK THIS, meanwhile some "hackers" (good guys) figure out how to kill the watermark in the data, they release watermark tools, we have another DECSS on our hands, but the cat is out of the bag.

      Audio warez groups start to form using the illicit tools. They beg/borrow/steal albums, rip them and release mp3s or Oggs. Pirated mp3s start to have *MORE* value then actual cds, you can play them wherever you want, load them onto an mp3 player; you don't have to hassle with restrictions. RIAA tries to halt this by getting a few people sent to jail. Various free so and so campaigns pop up, further polarizing the community. RIAA tries some kind of attack on the internet itself it buys legislation to allow it to install filtering routers, live monitoring of ISPs. Government supports this because they want draconian control over the internet... for awhile P2P becomes a whack-a-mole game, but people become fed up with the instability this causes and the fact that legitimate transfers are being killed, and the RIAA gives up, leaving just the various 3 letter agencies using the equipment.

      RIAA persists and albums sales grind to a halt. RIAA blames this on music pirates, but the hassle over DRM forced consumers to find music elsewhere. Consumers find they are paying less money for [independent] music with more content and a wider variety. Independent labels and artists flourish. The giant media corporations are severely damaged and the glory days for the media industry are over. Some big stars persist but music becomes fragmented. New internet businesses pop up which help artists distribute and sell their music by producing professional cds and helping artists promote (like mp3.com but less bastardly). As these companies flourish all but a few are put out of business by consolidation and they BECOME just as bastardly as the current crop of mega-corps, and in 30 years our kids are having this same discussion.

      (and HOPEFULLY rap turns out to be just a fad) :D

      • Woah. I think you better seal your windows and lock your doors man, you just spilled the beans on one of the governments top secret conspiracy plans :D But I mean, don't you think the gov. has enough hardware now (Carnivore) to halt the distribution of MP3's or other file formats across the internet? On the other hand though....I personally think that the government does such a horrible job of technology management to begin with that they could never play an efficient role in stopping any kind of actions from taking place across the internet.
        • I dont think that the government has the means to stop MP3 trading or anyhting else, at this moment. However I think there are elements of the government who *want* this kind of control over the internet.

  • It's truly amazing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stubear ( 130454 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:24PM (#4323852)
    ...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft. On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die, regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans. You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is but you have no problems condemning the technology. Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.
    • Ummm, you are lost. theres no hypocrisy in wanting to stop people from destroying files on your computer and wanting to stop the technology which will enable this to happen more easilly.

      Palladium will not stop Virii/Trojans/Worms/Bugs or help with Security unless it stops all programs from functioning properly. A Virus/Worm/Trojan are programs which exploit a bug and Microsoft technologies and products are full of bugs at all times.

      Youd have to be clueless or a troll to say what you just said. Locking up a Windows computer with Microsofts keys is what Palladium is about. =)

      Hitler returns.
    • I try not to take pop shots at people and concentrate on their arguments, but I will this time. How in the hell did you of all people get a base score of 2?

      Here it is, point by point.

      ---
      ...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft.

      Why, yes, it does. For instance, sharing free music and providing better methods for downloading certain types of files, such as those hosted on fileplanet.com, which is notoriously slow. P2P technologies, as they are developed, will also help the internet in general as medium-end computers become powerful enough to run servers. Mainframes are no longer needed, nor are high powered server clusters for many tasks. P2P is here to stay in at least some of the market, and in the future, it might take over much more. Developing it and letting it continue without DDOS attacks from some techno-weenie at the RIAA is a Good Thing (TM).

      ---
      On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die,

      What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me.

      ---
      regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans.

      Microsoft will stop this by only allowing "authorized programs" to run. User authorization is pointless -- besides bugs (fairly attributable to Microsoft holes) and some poor "features", this is how things work now: the user must choose to run the code.

      However, if the user does not authorize it, someone else must. If you care to claim that Microsoft isn't going to be that body, I'd love to hear a feasible argument. If Microsoft controls this, that gives them control over your entire computer regarding what you can and can not do. They have proven in the past that they'll abuse power to push people out of their market. No reason to assume they won't now.

      If someone else gets it, the point still stands that that is too much power in the hands of one entity. Feel free to move to China if you prefer this scheme, I don't think many of us will mind.

      ---
      You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is

      Well, frankly, nobody knows exactly, Microsoft won't tell us much about it. But what they have said can be put through logical analysis, and the results are Not Good, including what I posted above.

      ---
      Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.

      Again, can you enlighten us all how arguing against vigilante DDOS and cracking attacks on private networks relates to condemning a system that will wrench control of a user's computer from them?
      • "What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me."

        Let me help you. The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.

        The bottom line is that some people like to swap music and movies without paying for it and some of those same people hate anything that MS comes up with. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we don't pretend there's some great moral high ground involved.
        • The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.

          I can understand that much, but just because something isn't black and white doesn't mean it isn't mostly white or mostly black. There are different shades of grey.

          And calling Slashdotters hipocrites because they disagree with one issue and agree with another is not only a *very* general relation between the two, it's complete retarded. Any matter of opinion can fit that definition.
          • "Any matter of opinion can fit that definition."

            Yes, it's damned inconvenient! Most people (myself included) argue just one side of an issue and neither acknowledge whatever truth the other side has nor the limitations of their own argument. I agree, this is not limited to Slashdotters, but whenever you find yourself in an environment with a dominant point of view that hasn't really been proven (such as: "Everything MS does is evil"), you feel it more acutely.
        • However that argument still misses an important point.

          We are arguing that we shoul dbe ALLOWED to use P2P because of its many uses, essentially an argument against a form of "guilt by association". That we should be allowed to continue to use p2p (not that much allowing needs be done, since it can't really be stopped) as we see fit, even though some people use it for things that they maybe shouldn't (or maybe should, given ones point of view)

          Palladium is another beast entirely. The fear is that once it is implimented it will stop us from using our own computers as we see fit, and will take control away from the owners of the computers and put it in the hands of large corperations.

          It may mean (and I say may as it seems most all of this is speculation) that we will have the simple choice of not upgrading our hardware, and not buying new computers, or on the other hand, buying new hardware and not being aloowed to run the OS and or software that we want.

          The two are very different beasts. Both argumnenbts are essentially the same... simply put, that the person who owns a computer should be allowed to use his system as he sees fit, and without prior restraint on his activities, (at least until he personally actually uses those resources to break the law or otherwise harm others).

          -Steve

      • Microsoft will stop this by only allowing "authorized programs" to run.

        That's not Palladium; that's Xbox. Microsoft, in its its Palladium Initiative Technical FAQ [microsoft.com], shows no intention of releasing a Microsoft Windows OS for PCs that prevents any application that doesn't load palladium.dll from running.

        Well, frankly, nobody knows exactly, Microsoft won't tell us much about it.

        Then read the Palladium Technical FAQ [microsoft.com].

        • I stand corrected. Thanks for putting me in my place. =)

          When the whole Palladium issue came about, the first article posted about it on MSNBC (which was pulled) mentioned that Palladium would stop viruses, trojans, etc. by only allowing authorized programs to run.

          And as of eh... a month or so ago (I haven't been keeping up with this, obviously), Microsoft still hadn't told us much about it.

          I was out of date, sorry for the old info.
    • Well since you have provifded no direct address, so i could be discreet about this I guess I have to call you an idiot in public...

      I have read all the documents...everything I can get my hands on about this new tech...and the reason I am against it, is because I infringes on my civil liberties, it does have the potential to take controlof my machine out of my hands, in a total view it goes to far...

      having to have everything digitally signed or otherwise it will not work on my machine is insane...

      This would keep me from running the OS I want to run because its not signed...

      This would keep me from writing my own software...

      This would keep me from being able to convert my legally owned music to the format I want to listen to it in...

      This is why this is objectionable....!
    • Good point. Unfortunately, that comparison has about as much validity as phlogiston chemistry. In both cases we're protesting an attempt to impose controls where they not only don't belong but do far more harm than good.

  • Best way to stop Palladium (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sl956 ( 200477 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:34PM (#4323899)

    Repeat after me : We will not win a lobbying/PR war. period.

    So let them (Microsoft, Intel, AMD, RIAA, MPAA) try to please Hollywood : if Joe User has a true alternative to the annoyances of Palladium, he will switch in no time.

    What about :
    - GNU/Linux instead of Palladium Windows
    - A PowerPC G4 based PC instead of a Palladium Intel/AMD based one
    - ogg/mp3 and divx instead of Palladium cds and dvds
    - P2P instead of Palladium Amazon

    Yes, Joe User prefers Windows/Intel/DVD/Amazon for now. But the choice will be very different when he will be annoyed by palladium every time he wants to listen to music or watch a movie.
    Just be patient : they're working for us. And in the meantime, you can help to improve the alternative (hint, hint.)

    Obligatory disclaimer : I'm not advocating the use of P2P as a means of avoiding buying music/movies. I'm just saying that if Hollywood impose unfair licencing terms, Joe User will switch to P2P, be it legal or not.
    • But the choice will be very different when he will be annoyed by palladium every time he wants to listen to music or watch a movie.

      I don't understand why you think the end user will be annoyed by palladiun. It will be resident and running by default on his system and because those services are running, the 'media providers' will allow said movies and music to stream to his system.

      The people who will be annoyed are the people not using Palladium systems. They won't be able to watch the movies, listen to the tunes, that everybody else is enjoying, except through awkward and ethically dubious hacks.
      • > I don't understand why you think the end user will be annoyed by palladiun. It will be resident and running by default on
        > his system and because those services are running, the 'media providers' will allow said movies and music to stream
        > to his system.

        What on Earth make you think that Microsoft will field a bug-free Palladium? They have enough troubles making the PC work when it's only trying TO work. Now they're going to add a TON of code whose whole purpose is to make the PC NOT work under certain circumstances. It goes a lot further, because when the PC is booting under Palladium, the PC is trying NOT to load its device drivers and other critical OS components, under certain circumstances.

        This thing is SOOOOOO rife with possiblities for things to go wrong that I'll be amazed if it doesn't backfire, or have better than a 75% success rate on first release to the real world.

        Besides....

        What do you do with your PC today? How often do you really use it to view/listen to media? For my own part, most of my media usage is on dedicated media machines, not my PC. I'm not going to "break" my PC so I can play media with it, and I suspect a lot of others won't, either.
        • Actually 100 percent of my music listening is played via PC; desktop, laptop and palmtop.
          • Do you go to your PCs to listen to music, or do you play music on your PCs while you're hacking or surfing? Would you want to compromise the capability and reliability of the PCs just so you can listen, or would you buy a Walkman? (or hack the DRM?)
            • Well, both. Mp3's are at hand when I'm working on the computer. There is a Toshiba laptop with video out hooked up to my stereo and VCR and the sole purpose of that laptop is as an entertainment center. Finally, there is an iPaq handheld with a 2gb PCMCIA HD. It has a headphone jack that I use with a cassette adapter in my vehicle.

              I don't want a compromised machine or spend any money on a dedicated Walkman. I don't want DRM. All I wanted was to point out that there are people out there, at least one, who are 100 percent PC based in their media content.

        • Now they're going to add a TON of code whose whole purpose is to make the PC NOT work under certain circumstances.

          Palladium doesn't take anything away that you already have. Palladium conforming systems MUST allow the user to temporarily disable Palladium hardware in BIOS configuration, and Windows will still boot, just without Palladium support.

          when the PC is booting under Palladium, the PC is trying NOT to load its device drivers and other critical OS components, under certain circumstances.

          Palladium won't make untrusted drivers Not Load; it'll only make untrusted drivers Not Load With Palladium Privileges. Apps such as Winamp that don't use Palladium features will not be affected at all. Frankly, the Windows OS won't be able to tell the difference between Winamp and the MPEG or Ogg background music in several video games, and Microsoft doesn't want to kill video games because games are Windows's biggest edge over BSD and GNU/Linux operating systems.

          The only thing Palladium will do in connection with digital restrictions management is this: it will provide an infrastructure for publishers to make copies of works available for rental. If an independent publisher wants to make copies available for sale or for free download, then the publisher can just choose not to lock the document.


      • I don't understand why you think the end user will be annoyed by palladiun.
        Good question, simple answer : fair use. In order to be effective, Palladium has to deny fair use.

        Here is a list of things any end user can do now which should become impossible with palladium-enabled PCs and media :
        - copy a cd to a tape in order to listen to it in his car
        - use legally licenced music/movie/software after a processor upgrade
        - lend a cd/dvd to a friend
        - play a home-made song/movie
        - burn backups
        - and so on

    • > Repeat after me : We will not win a lobbying/PR war. period.

      > So let them (Microsoft, Intel, AMD, RIAA, MPAA) try to please Hollywood : if Joe User has a true alternative to
      > the annoyances of Palladium, he will switch in no time.

      I agree 100%.

      But there is one other thing that we MUST fight for. Palladium MUST always be optional. It MUST always be possible to distribute non-encumbered media through non-encumbered PCs. At the very least, this leaves the door open for a new business model to emerge and compete with the ??AA on it's own content, leaving theirs under DRM.

      I'd like to bring back an old analogy I once heard with Clipper Ships and Galleons. Both were shipping and both had piracy problems on the high seas. The Galleons had armaments and even more heavily armed escorts, perpared to fight off any pirates. The Clipper Ships were simply FAST, and couldn't be attacked or boarded by pirates. Both were viable shipping models, and both got the cargo there. But the armed escort of the Galleon did *nothing* beyond make sure the cargo got there. The speed of the Clipper made sure the cargo got there, plus it got there faster, delighting the customer.

      Guess which won in the market?
      (The steamship, obviously. But in the days of sail shipping, the clipper was IT.)
      • I'd like to bring back an old analogy I once heard with Clipper Ships and Galleons. Both were shipping and both had piracy problems on the high seas. The Galleons had armaments and even more heavily armed escorts, perpared to fight off any pirates. The Clipper Ships were simply FAST, and couldn't be attacked or boarded by pirates. Both were viable shipping models, and both got the cargo there. But the armed escort of the Galleon did *nothing* beyond make sure the cargo got there. The speed of the Clipper made sure the cargo got there, plus it got there faster, delighting the customer.

        I don't know what your analogy has to do with fighting Palladium. Should we dismiss your analogy if it is built on bogus information?

        First, I suspect you will find that the period of the galleon [ucla.edu]didn't overlap with the period of the clipper ship.

        So the two different kinds of saliing ships never competed with one another. You say the clipper, "couldn't be attacked or boarded by pirates"? Umm. Can I tell you a feature of sailing ships? They depend on the wind. No wind, the sailing ship just sit there, drifting. It is called being becalmed. A becalmed ship is extremely vulnerable to being boarded.

        Now maybe by "galleon" you merely meant, big old slow merchant ship that is not a clipper. Maybe you think I am being really pedantic. But picking the wrong metaphors can really wound a good cause. Consider the story of Ken Keyes Jr.book "The 100th Monkey" [improb.com]. The intent behind Keyes book was to work toward disarmament and world peace. But, rather than think this was a worthwhile cause, in and of itself, he hitched his fight to a crazy analogy based on a bogus account of a psychic phenomenon that he took seriously. It made him look ridiculous and considerably undermined his argument...

        The fraud is a particularly interesting one, but it is off-topic.

        • > I don't know what your analogy has to do with fighting Palladium. Should we dismiss your analogy if it is built on bogus information?

          My point was that DRM has nothing to do with getting music to the customer. It does nothing directly for the customer, and exists only to protect the producer. The only way it conceivably helps the customer is by keeping the producer in business.

          OTOH, the existing business model for media production has problems. It's not a stretch to think that there might be a better/more efficient business model that can deliver music to the customer more conveniently and/or at a better price.

          My argument is that pervasive DRM may well prevent business model experimentation, and stick us in the ??AA age, especially if the DRM is mandated and the ??AA holds the keys.

          The analogy was an attempt to support the above idea, not the basis for it. Even if the analogy is bogus, it doesn't deny the potential existence of media business models better than the ??AA ones.

          > First, I suspect you will find that the period of the galleon [ucla.edu]didn't overlap with the period of the clipper ship.

          Oops. Urban legend strikes. I heard this one long ago, and thought it was interesting. Mr. Gorsky strikes, again.

  • Look (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PaddyM ( 45763 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:35PM (#4323907) Homepage
    It only matters if people support it. For instance, I download most of my music from video game fan sites. Are those composers going to suddenly start producing music using palladium technologies? It's a possibility. But if they don't, then I still get to play the music. So don't support anyone who uses Palladium as a means to protect their copyright.

    • Re:Look (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kcelery ( 410487 )
      With good marketing these Palladium machines will run everywhere. Just think about why people port Linux to XBOX. Because it is subsidized. This will happen to the Palladiums. MS will make a lot of money selling Palladium-exclusive programs, song, video etc. So MS can afford subsidizing. The real pain in the ass is, when you want to buy a nice software for you task but found that program only on the Palladium platform and nowhereelse. By that time, do you think the open-source community will face another big new challenge ? I know of no song-writer, singer refusing the Palladium idea.

  • Don't fight! Deflect! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:50PM (#4323963) Homepage
    Think Judo. You don't combat something by blocking it; you twist it slightly and guide it past.

    Ok, is Palladium bad? Probably if Microsoft has something to do with it. Can Linux use this tech for good? Is it a Windows only tech? Where are the factions that don't want Windows to rule all of the media? What does IBM think? Sun?

    Can this really fight viruses and worms?

    The real question is how can I use this to my advantage? What can we do to make this do something useful instead of merely lock up all the media in the world?

  • Plans and Countermeasures (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @09:09PM (#4324028)
    This is the method that the opposition will try:
    1) Make some CPUs implement opt-in DRM
    2) Make all CPUs implement opt-in DRM
    3) Make some CPUs implement opt-out DRM
    4) Make all CPUs implement opt-out DRM
    5) Make some CPUs implement mandatory DRM
    6) Make all CPUs implement mandatory DRM

    We have to fight at every step. The key to fighting during the "some" steps will be economic and technical (early adopters must be punished) and the key to avoiding the all steps will be political.

    I believe that our best opportunity is during step one. We need to be prepared to make END USERS who accept DRM suffer. This may be somewhat unnatural for us to do, but if we do that, the market will take care of the rest.

    Here are a couple of ideas:
    A) Open source licences should actively exclude installation on DRM *capable* hardware.
    B) Open source tools must inhibit interoperability with DRM enabled hardware. "I'm sorry, but your machine does not meet the minimum requirements to view this web page"
    C) At work, try to influence procurement policy:
    - "DRM is for playing games and watching movies, do we really want our employees doing that?"
    - "Some software breaks when you use that - let's keep our options open"
    - "Palladium will worsen our lock-in to MS products, do we want that?"
    - "When somebody cracks it, and they will, we'll get viruses we can't remove"
    • Sounds like a two-front combination of "Plans and Countermeasures" mentioned above perhaps, and the below suggestions:

      What about :
      - GNU/Linux instead of Palladium Windows
      - A PowerPC G4 based PC instead of a Palladium Intel/AMD based one
      - ogg/mp3 and divx instead of Palladium cds and dvds
      - P2P instead of Palladium Amazon

      Yes, Joe User prefers Windows/Intel/DVD/Amazon for now. But the choice will be very different when he will be annoyed by palladium every time he wants to listen to music or watch a movie.
      Just be patient : they're working for us. And in the meantime, you can help to improve the alternative (hint, hint.)
      ----------------------
      And keep on trying to make the barrier to entry less daunting to those on the outside who are willing to experiment--make dual booting easy--but who want to take their time to learn about Linux, not have to take a CS course before they can understand how to get their soundcards working.

      The more uptake in the regular world, the more the word will spread.

      PS. Also this:

      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.a sp

      (Apple/IBM team up on 64 bit Power4 architecture.)

      or even this as food for thought about compatible hardware that exists now.

      http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5610
      ----
      Gotta walk the penguin, I mean dog.

    • Open source tools must inhibit interoperability with DRM enabled hardware. "I'm sorry, but your machine does not meet the minimum requirements to view this web page"

      Nah, too radical. It is better to do the following: allow free use of the software on non-DRM platforms, and charge money for it - even a measly 1$/month, paid once a year - for anyone using it on a DRM platform.

      This would drive the point home for anyone considering to purchase DRM platforms - a taste of how things would be if DRM really catches on. These 1$/month would add up very fast (count the number of packages on the minimal Debian install for example).
    • a & b) I thought on of the main ideas behind open source was freedom of choice? By doing this, your purposefully excluding something. Although not as wide scale as "You can only use this", it still is creating an intended wall.
      c) a campaign of twisted/dis information? so it's fight fire with fire?

      Also, since it's open source, can't they just (depending on the licence) brance it off and make a DRM/Palladium friendly version?

      Also, if there was a $1 charge per month or such as mentioned below, where would the money go? And how would you enforce it? give them a key? Who manages the Key system? And what happens when people start sharing the keys? the whole thing goes under. Make it some key that is based off of something specific in their CPU? The CPUID or something? isn't that the same as what it is your trying to defeate? Once they get a new CPU they loose that software package because it doens't match up exactly. So your kinda creating a DRM type system to fight another DRM type system...

      Or am I just off?
  • Apple's Motorola PowerPCs still get more users than Linux Intels and AMDs - over twice as many. Where's the panic? IBM has a brutal 64-bit PPC and that has nothing in common with Intel or AMD - where's the panic? You don't really think Slick Willie is going to succeed with any of that, do you? Slow day at work?
  • somehow i doubt open source software is going to inform the cpu i'm playing music.

    let windows users rot in their self-made hell.

    the only problem i have is it'll probably add a few bucks to the price of the chip

  • As background material, consider Microsoft in general: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [hevanet.com]
  • The PC architecture is fundamentally flawed anyway. I think we should just remake the architecture.
  • "There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said. a recent article about AMD's stand [theinquirer.net]
  • HOW will Paladium kill Open Source??? i still have yet to see a valid argument.

    On top of that, you can't keep a good man down. in the end, open source will still be there whether M$ or anyone else opposes it. Its like anything illegal. Sure it may not be mainstream, but it still exists, its still out there, you just have to find it.

    again, my question is:

    HOW will Paladium kill Open Source???

    • Re:HOW will Paladium kill Open Source??? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think this is very straight forward, but is hard to see because it attacks open source from lots of different angles.

      When the media companies require you to have a player for their content, the only choices will be closed solutions so they can trust that their data does not get stolen.
      to be able to trust the application, you need to trust the underlying operating system.
      palladium enabled hardware (dvd drives etc.) will require a trusted operating system too.
      it won't work without a trusted operating system.
      parts of the web won't work without palladium being enabled. buisness on the web wants security. palladium tries to offer them that.

      by choosing open source, you are restricting what you can do with your computer.
      open source has a market with non geeks because it can offer comparible functionality at a lower cost of ownership.
      Now consumers will get the mindset "you get what you pay for".

      a lot of the reason open source is where it is today is that people use it. they use it because it's not much harder to use than commerical products and it's a lot cheaper. with palladium, that incentive leaves.
      • How bad is it that in the palladium future, open source software won't be able to use palladium 'enhanced' content?

        I personally haven't purchased any new media content in about a year, and thats not because I've been stealing it, its because I'm happy enough with what I have. Palladium won't make my cds break, or my dreamcast stop running, or stop the games in debian from being as fun as they are now.

        What is the big deal?
  • My knee-jerk reaction to Palladium has always been the same as your average /.'er: bitter hatred towards M$ and their stupid attempts to run your computer, control your life, and ultimately own your soul (I swear that clause is in the EULA somewhere). However, once I thought about it some more, I realized that this may end being a huge blessing in disguise.

    When it comes down to it, you can lump home computer users into 3 categories: Mac users, Windows users, and Linux users. (Yes I know there are others like *BSD, but these form the 3 of significant numbers). Look at how M$'s implementation of Palladium will affect each of these three groups:

    Windows users: They will be subject to the computer hell that Palladium has been predicted to be. Frankly, I have no sympathy for these people because they chose to run Windows in the first place.

    Linux users: When the new chips first come out, it may take a little longer to get the kernel working on the new hardware, but it will get done (a la XBox). Do you honestly think a kernel hacker is going to go out of his way to make sure that the kernel tells the hardware you are playing an mp3? Hell no. So maybe it's a minor inconvenience at the start, but business as usual in the long run.

    Mac users: We are going to be laughing at Windows users like we always have. Apple has ALWAYS put the users' needs as its top priority. Jobs has spoken about before about how people shouldn't be taking away the legal rights of users by taking away technology that COULD possibly be used illegally.

    In the end, I see this boosting both Mac and Linux marketshares. You can only screw people so long before they get tired of it, and I think this will hopefully be the step to knock a healthy chunk out of M$'s marketshare. If Apple and Linux gain more users, the developers will inevitably follow. No longer would we have to whine about the games that are only out on Windows. No longer would we have to search for software that there are not necessarily good ports or quality alternatives for.
    • Mac users: We are going to be laughing at Windows users like we always have. Apple has ALWAYS put the users' needs as its top priority. Jobs has spoken about before about how people shouldn't be taking away the legal rights of users by taking away technology that COULD possibly be used illegally.
      You are so tragically deluded.

      It's the mass-market entertainment industry that wants Palladium. 85%+ of the computers out there will have support for Palladium, because of Microsoft. The entertainment industry will write off the other 15% (just like most game developers and other software houses do). They will release mass-market content (movies, music) that requires Palladium.

      "Apple has ALWAYS put the users' needs as its top priority." And just what will the users' needs be? To play that stuff.

      Steve Jobs will have a choice. He can implement Palladium on his platform, or he can resign himself to the fact that you cannot play mainstream movies and music on Macs. I think like you do: I think he will address his users' needs. And that means implementing Palladium or something like it, so that the Mac will be allowed to have a player.

      Just like he got a DVDCCA license to be able to play DVDs, which is why Apple DVD players have those bizarre limitations. (Try to take a snapshot from a movie with Apple's player some time. Try to tell it to output the movie to the firewire port.) He addressed users' needs (being able to play a DVD) then, an he'll address them again.

      You are seriously underestimating the threat.

    • Heh, me again.
      Linux users: When the new chips first come out, it may take a little longer to get the kernel working on the new hardware, but it will get done (a la XBox). Do you honestly think a kernel hacker is going to go out of his way to make sure that the kernel tells the hardware you are playing an mp3? Hell no. So maybe it's a minor inconvenience at the start, but business as usual in the long run.
      A lot of stuff will only be available in closed file formats, and encrypted with a key that is only available from the hardware. The impact this will have Linux users is that they won't be able to play stuff. They won't be able to play it with a hacked Wine from Codeweavers. They won't be able to disassemble a Windows player to get a secret key that is stored inside the software, because that's not where the key is.

      Linux is relatively mainstream right now. Palladium will push it back into isolation, at least as far as multimedia is concerned. You'll still be able to play MP3s and Vorbis files and old-style music CDs and DVDs, you just won't be able to play any of the new stuff from the Big Players, since it will only be distributed in locked formats.

  • Easy way to fight it.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ksemlerK ( 610016 ) <kurtsemler@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @05:36AM (#4326064) Homepage
    :start
    ;
    Lack of consumer demand creates lack of money. Lack of money creates lack of development. Lack of development creates lack of production. Lack of production creates lack of product. Lack of product creates lack of intrest. Lack of intrest creates lack of consumer demand.
    ;
    GOTO start

    If you really want to fight it, the simplest way to go about it is to get it known on the net to Joe User. If enough people are aware of the scheme that MS, Intel, and AMD are planning, people will not want to purchase it, and will even make a concious effort to make sure that thier new computers do not come with this so-called "enhancement".

    When the big three realize that there is no customer base for a product like this, production of Pallidium will cease.
    • The problem with this argument...which is oversimplistic...is that I'm sure that there are lots of people who *do* want it.

      Example: You run the I.T. for a large company...the company uses M$ products, you don't want pirated software running on your system...rather than having to lock down user accounts palladium will do it all for you.

      Come on and wake up people...think of all the large businesses out there which upgrade regularly (one company I used to work for upgraded 30000+ computers every 3 years) why would they stop because of a chip which will actually make software audits etc. an annoyance which no longer has to be dealt with?!?


      And then what happens when the latest games require ever faster processors? "Oh no...I want to be able to play doom 12 but it requires a 4 gig processor to play it...hmmm...na, I won't bother upgrading coz then I'll have a palladium system"...don't see that scenario happening.
      • And then what happens when the latest games require ever faster processors? "Oh no...I want to be able to play doom 12 but it requires a 4 gig processor to play it...hmmm...na, I won't bother upgrading coz then I'll have a palladium system"...don't see that scenario happening. To me, the difference between a 1.7Ghz and a 2.8Ghz is so miniscule that there is no difference to the human sitting behind the chair. I type this from a P1 166 with only 256MB SDRAM running Windows XP SP1. I may in the future upgrade to a PIII 800Mhz, but I do not run graphically intensive applications, or complile code, so there is no point in me going any faster. I have no desire to find the 12*E10 digit of Pi, compile any code, or do graphical intensive work. I use my system to design websites, crack softwares, very light gaming, office work, burning CD's for people and myself, hacking, and surfing the net. Granted, if I did upgrade, there would be a noticable speed increase. I have no need for that speed however, so this would be boondoggle for me to go beyond a pentium three. There would be no point in this for me. Old technology has been proven, and I will stay with it until it costs more to maintain my system than it does to buy a new one. If an application will not run on my system, I will not upgrade just so I can run that application. I can live without it. Renember, the flight to the moon was calculated on a computer that was the size of a small room with only 500k of memory. By the way, I got this computer for free, somebody just threw it on the trash heap. Yes, I did improve it from what it was, but it is now adequate for my needs. If only people would realize that there is nothing wrong with old computers just because a faster system came out. That would be a miricle
  • Maybe it's good to let Palladium come around. Lots of dissatisfied customers will complain and not buy new hardware for a long time. Hopefully Microsoft will then lose some of its arrogance and start acting normally.
  • What happened to those Pentium 3 chip IDs? Remember all the articles in the papers condemning it? With enough bad publicity and public hatred, this will also go the way of the dodo.

  • For those of you who don't get it yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by marm ( 144733 ) on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @12:09PM (#4327965)

    ...here's a quick rundown on what I think is Microsoft's strategy with Palladium: it's quite beautiful actually in its cunning, and it's going to be difficult to formulate a solid response to it. It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping Open Source software from running on PCs, as this would be blatantly anti-competitive and PC manufacturers would run away screaming from it. It's more subtle than that. Instead, it is all about the age-old Microsoft tradition of decommoditization of formats and protocols that we learnt so much about from the 1998 Halloween documents, taking this low-ethics strategy one step further.

    Media companies have known as long as almost any of us that the public at large want downloadable digital media - music, films, TV-on-demand. With the growth of broadband and PC ownership this has now become impossible for them to ignore. However, the explosion of P2P networks has also shown Big Media that without effective copy-protection, their content is soon available to anyone and everyone that wants it, without paying them. The media companies see this as a threat, as they think it will cut into their bottom line. From their point of view I think that's a reasonable assumption to make. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with this or whether this is in fact the truth: the truth is irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is how the media companies see it, because they are the ones with almost all the content the public wants, and they have very deep pockets.

    We've already seen the media companies and their surrogates make attempts at addressing this perceived threat on their own: witness PressPlay, LiquidAudio, SDMI, several CD copy-protection mechanisms and all sorts of other schemes. The trouble is that the media industry is still fairly clueless about the Internet and its users, and lacks the clout to force these schemes on the public, so all of them have so far fallen flat on their face, or have been cracked in no time at all, reducing their copy-protection effectiveness to zero.

    Enter Microsoft and Palladium. Palladium is, in essence, a system which allows Microsoft to verify, through the use of hardware-assisted and hardened strong cryptography, that the PC that Windows is running on does not have any peculiar software or hardware attached that could divert and record an unencrypted digital signal - that is, the PC has a secure, verifiable digital path.

    This is how it works: Each PC has a unique public/private keypair stored on the processor itself, in addition to Microsoft's public key. When Palladium is enabled, the hardware will refuse to run an operating system that is not signed by Microsoft's private key, and then the operating system will refuse to load hardware drivers that have not also been signed by Microsoft, effectively removing any possibility for diverting the unencrypted digital stream. When you download Palladium-protected content, it is encrypted using the client machine's unique public key, so it will only play back on the machine with the corresponding private key. Your access to the content is completely dictated by Microsoft, and because of the verifiable software and hardware in the client machine, there's precisely nothing you can do about it - at least, barring Microsoft's usual quota of bugs, but expect Microsoft to be quite meticulous here. You'll almost certainly always be able to turn Palladium off, but then you won't be able to play Palladium-protected content - you won't have access to the private key stored on the CPU that can decrypt the content. It absolutely will not stop you from listening or watching to unencrypted content, not on its own, anyway, and Microsoft is too smart to cut off its own air supply.

    Microsoft can do this when the media companies failed because they have such total dominance over the whole client PC market and its architecture. Witness how they have already got Intel and AMD onboard to do the hardware side of things. Much of the software required to do this is already in Windows: driver signing, for instance, has been there since Windows 2000, although optional, and encrypted digital rights management has been in Windows Media Player for some time now too. It's plain Microsoft has been planning this for a while and has been doing the whole 'How to boil a frog' thing - i.e., slowly, bit-by-bit, all the time spinning it their own way.

    The media companies will love it: finally they get their secure digital path and can start distributing all their content over the internet, whilst screwing the public out of their fair use rights. No new laws have had to be paid for, although the DMCA and similar laws worldwide will help keep attempted cracking of the system to a minimum. They can gradually start phasing out CDs so that, in ten years time, Palladium-protected content is the only digital content you can get.

    Microsoft loves it because it gives them total control over the whole PC - they can dictate to hardware manufacturers exactly what they can and cannot produce, because if they don't listen, they don't get their drivers signed and the hardware won't run with Windows.

    Once they have a good lead in the amount of content produced for Windows Media/Palladium systems, it gives them an enormous amount of leverage in consumer media products: music players, TV, cable, you name it. Everything media-related will be subject to Microsoft's whims, because without Microsoft's approval, your hardware won't be able to play any content.

    It gives them complete control over what will probably eventually be the media industry's main form of distribution, which will earn them billions. Better still, with downloadable digital content becoming more and more important, it will be a major body-blow to Linux and Open Source - Microsoft will never sign a Linux distribution's kernel so that it can run in Palladium mode, so Palladium-protected content will never ever play in Linux. This will put an enormous dent in Linux's chances as an OS for the desktop - none of the media industry's output will play, and as CD/DVD supply gradually dries up over time, it will put Linux on the retreat back into its server homeland.

    You can bet that eventually Apple will cave in too, assuming Windows Media protected by Palladium becomes dominant. They simply won't have any choice but to side with Microsoft and implement Palladium, because otherwise the supply of available content will dry up, unless there's a revolution in independent, free media. Mac-heads should get on board the anti-Palladium train now, because if you don't, Apple will be just as vulnerable to Microsoft as the rest of us. You simply don't have the desktop share to matter on your own, unfortunately, but together we might.

    It is a domesday scenario for desktop Linux, and pretty ugly for consumer electronics manufacturers, PC peripheral manufacturers, Apple and other non-PC hardware makers, not forgetting of course the public at large. What can be done?

    Well, there's six things that I can think off the top of my head:

    1. Nothing. If Linux/Mac desktop usage can grow quickly enough, then the media companies may be unable to ignore this market. They withhold their media because there is no secure distribution system for it, P2P networks and MP3/Ogg thrive, and we're back to square one. It's possible that P2P networks with a very wide range of freely available media may cause Palladium-protected media to be DOA anyway. I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in this basket though.
    2. Crack it. Always a possibility, and if it comes to pass, then I expect some of the best minds in the world to work at this. There are a few potential areas of attack: getting the unique private key off the CPU and stored elsewhere for decryption when not in Palladium mode. Cryptographic attacks on the Windows Media carrier format, which have already had some success on previous versions. Tricking the hardware into booting an unsigned OS when in Palladium mode. Tricking Windows into loading an unsigned driver (to me this sounds the most promising, given Microsoft's notoriously poor code safety). Any others?
    3. Build an alternative secure digital distribution system that does not shut out Linux and does not give total control to Microsoft. Why not have something simple, like an external decoder/sound card/video output box that accepts crypto smartcards and that the OS only has to send encrypted data to? Why bother getting the OS involved in the decryption process at all? I think this is the most promising of all the options, because the media companies aren't going to give up their requirements for a secure digital distribution system, and they will probably appreciate a system that they control rather than Microsoft. Let's cut Microsoft's air supply off before Palladium gets a foothold and they start doing really nasty things to us. It still involves taking away fair use rights, and this sickens me, but it may be the only way. Palladium does this anyway, so it may come down to simply choosing the lesser of two evils.
    4. Revolutionize the free media. A nice idea, and something to aim for long-term, but unlikely to happen in the short-term. Big Media is just too powerful at the moment.
    5. Discredit Palladium. It worked for Intel's Pentium III serial numbers, it might work now. Invasion of privacy. Your fair use rights being taken away. On the other hand, Microsoft's PR is second-to-none. It'll be difficult, but we should give it a go.
    6. Indict Microsoft for anti-competitive behaviour. Leveraging the desktop monopoly to gain control of digital media? Sound sort-of familiar? I think Palladium is anti-competitive, and from my point of view it's a cut-and-shut case. Microsoft is more careful about these things these days though - Palladium doesn't immediately exclude Real or Quicktime or anyone else for that matter aside from Linux/Open Source, although in practise it probably would. Worth looking into, but with Bush in the White House.... difficult.

    I don't think the war is lost yet, but we need to start fighting. Microsoft has come up with a spectacularly shrewd bit of corporate strategy, and we need an equally good response - very soon.

    • When you download Palladium-protected content, it is encrypted using the client machine's unique public key, so it will only play back on the machine with the corresponding private key.

      But this assumes that you'll download Palladium-protected content. Which, given the experience of Liquid, pressplay, SDMI, et al., is quite unlikely to ever happen in volume.

  • You can't fight the tech. Everyone here should know that by now.

    The only thing to do that has a chance of working, is to fight the media companies that are going to release stuff that will require Palladium. That means stop buying MPAA and RIAA stuff. That way, when all MPAA DVD-NG release movies aren't playable on non-Palladium or Palladium-disabled machines, then you will only be locked out of n% of the market instead of 90%.

  • Really what else is there? I feel like the Subject Line Troll some days.
  • ...is still available. :)

  • A dictatorship?
    We know what's best for you, so you better do what we say?
  • For what it's worth, I'm in the process of forming an anti-Palladium/TCPA group. Currently we have no name and are somewhat un-organized, but we have several members already. In the near future we should have a website and mailing list, but for now I can be reached on irc.dal.net in #freedos (not really associated with the operating system by the same name) using the name FriedBob. Most of that channel is involved in this budding group, so bringing it up will not be off topic. At some point I may form a seperate channel just for this, on a more stable server.

    --FriedBob
  • Just for the sake of argument... Here's a question for all you people with an economic background: If there is a finite demand for a product, and a supply that's sufficient to satisfy any degree of demand, how much is the product worth? Why, whatever the RIAA-SS SAYS it's worth, of course! ...what's wrong with this picture? Anyone?
  • I agree and I too want to stop this 'security enhancement' from going ahead. Count me in :)

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close