OpenBSD Journal

DRM -- Defective by Design

Contributed by marco on from the rms-no-likey-drm dept.

This was sent to us and it might interest some:
Stallman's Free Software Foundation recently opened the long-promised campaign against DRM technology, also known as Treacheous Computing. The new web-site is called DefectiveByDesign.org, and is aimed at identifying "defective" (i.e. DRM-enabled) products that must be avoided in the fight of retaining your control over your own computer systems. On 23 May 2006, the first public protest was organised in Seattle, WA, USA, where Bill Gates was to deliver his speech of the Vista features to a bunch of Microsoft developers. A photo-session is available. Needless to say, it is important for all of us to unite in this fight for our freedoms to use computers as we wish.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

    Although not really the same thing, Apple's new Intel boxen all have a form of DRM chip which is required by compatible builds of MacOSX in order to work. From what I can tell people are flocking to buy these new machines, so they are quite right, people will switch over to Trusted platforms easily and without a second thought.

    Comments

    1. By gwyllion (213.119.12.110) on

      You are totally misinformed. Intel-Macs have a TPM (trusted platform module) like most modern PCs (IBM/Lenovo, HP, Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Fujitsu, ... see TPM Matrix for an extensive list). This has nothing to do with DRM.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        I wouldn't say I was totally misinformed, I said it wasn't the same thing, I am well aware it is TPM. Is it a form of DRM ? certainly appears to be, and Apple are using it to prevent you from running the OS anywhere you want to. Could you elaborate ?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (198.175.14.5) on

          > I wouldn't say I was totally misinformed, I said it wasn't the same thing, I am well aware it is TPM. Is it a form of DRM ? certainly appears to be, and Apple are using it to prevent you from running the OS anywhere you want to. Could you elaborate ?
          >
          >

          The chip itself is actually kind of cool and could be used to accelerate hash and crypto operations in openbsd.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

            > The chip itself is actually kind of cool and could be used to accelerate > hash and crypto operations in openbsd.

            really ?

            Comments

            1. By djm@ (203.217.30.86) on

              > really ?

              Yes, it could be but it isn't yet.

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (134.58.253.114) on

                > > really ?
                >
                > Yes, it could be but it isn't yet.

                I would not call it "acceleration". In essence the TPM is a smartcard chip located on the LPC (low pin count) bus which is rather slow (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPC_bus).

                The TPM can only do SHA-1 and RSA, but this is not very fast:
                * Atmel AT97SC3203 claims to do a 2048 bit RSA signature in 500 ms and a 1024 bit in 100 ms
                * STMicro ST19WP18 2048 bit RSA signature in 416 ms and 1024 bit in 62 ms

                The TPM can not do bulk encryption (AES); this should always be done on the CPU.

                The TPM was never designed to be a crypto coprocessor. Its main applications are sealed storage (binding secrets to a configuration) and attestation (reporting/proving the configuration to a third party).

                However, it should be very straighforward to feed the kernel random device with the true RNG of the TPM.

        2. By gwyllion (134.58.253.114) on

          > I wouldn't say I was totally misinformed, I said it wasn't the same thing, I am well aware it is TPM. Is it a form of DRM ?

          No. Solid DRM requires a lot more stuff, mainly trusted I/O (encrypted channel to video card). Just look at Microsoft: the Output Content Protection of Vista (see http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx) has nothing to do with the NGSCB work (which will not likely be part of Vista ).

          > certainly appears to be, and Apple are using it to prevent you from running the OS anywhere you want to. Could you elaborate ?

          Apple uses software obfuscation to prevent MacOS X from running on other Intel machines. The MacOS X Intel hacks just removes/bypasses some obfuscated software check that queries the TPM.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

    "We see this as the tip of the iceberg and it is our duty to do something about it."

    So their entire movement is based on the logical fallacy of the slippery slope? Fantastic. I suppose the open-source DRM frameworks are often glossed over in their messages about the evil we should be afraid of?

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (71.240.63.114) on

      Which open source DRM frameworks are you talking about?

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (68.125.49.54) on

        > Which open source DRM frameworks are you talking about?

        Maybe this one?

    2. By Harpalus (192.197.95.253) on

      "So their entire movement is based on the logical fallacy of the slippery slope? Fantastic. I suppose the open-source DRM frameworks are often glossed over in their messages about the evil we should be afraid of?"

      Explain to me what you find so wonderful about technology designed to strip away consumer rights, and in many cases, seizes control of technology so that the buyer becomes a "renter".

      Given that you're posting on Undeadly, a hypothetical situation -- Microsoft teams up with major motherboard manufacturers and they implement DRM to prevent the user installing their own operating system, under the guise of preventing "pirated copies of Windows". An extreme example, yes, but I'll have to be cynical and say that this may actually happen.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

      Put down the pipe dude. DRM is as useful as a turd in my drink.

    4. By Jason (216.94.28.170) on

      > "We see this as the tip of the iceberg and it is our duty to do something about it."
      > So their entire movement is based on the logical fallacy of the slippery slope? Fantastic. I suppose the open-source DRM frameworks are often glossed over in their messages about the evil we should be afraid of?

      Ok, I'll bite this troll.

      There is substancial evidence that (a) media/entertainment companies see DRM as a butress for their failing business model and (b) both the players from the previous points and many hardware/software producers want to use DRM to exert more control over end users for whatever ends (often exampled is the enforcement of (a)).

      So, what logical fallacy? They are not saying that 'if we don't stop A, Z will happen' skipping the about steps B to Y and with no argument for the inevitability Z.

      The argument is that the most beneficial position for many of these companies (media/hardware/software/combo) is to have total control over how you use their product, there are intermediate steps and different means to acheive this goal. Depending on your perspective, some of these means have very objectionable primary or secondary effects.

      I'm not going to rehash well made arguments already offered concerning 'Blobs', but the fact is we are already having *real* problems with some of the steps companies are making along these lines. If this weren't happening, and there weren't realistic motivations, then this would be FUD but I think we can establish that it obviously isn't.

      Aloha and Mahalo,
      Jason


      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (64.62.167.198) on

        > The argument is that the most beneficial position for many of these companies (media/hardware/software/combo) is to have total control over how you use their product

        Actually, I think the point should be made that companies *believe* such control is beneficial. The rational actor model applies to corporations about as well as to people, maybe even less so. That is to say, companies do not, nor are they so equipped to, account for the larger social and economic context within which their customers live and from which those customers have derived their wealth.

        An easy example: Disney fights tooth and nail to extend and deepen copyright protection. And yet, their entire franchise derives from symbols, themes, characters and stories which resided in the public domain. Disney is biting the hand that feeds it.

  3. By Anonymous Coward (202.45.98.115) on

    Yeah alot of this DRM technology makes for defective products.

    I had a CD burner which couldn't burn something due to DRM technology so I took it back to the store and got a free replacement that could.

    If I can't burn stuff with my CD burner, im not buying it, if they don't disclose the flaws prior to purchase im getting a refund.

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]