|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last month, just before the holidays,The Register's Andrew Orlowski broke the story of how technical committees of NCTIS, the ANSI-blessed standards body, with the blessing of the so-called "4-C Entity," an alliance of IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba, has hatched a scheme to incorporate Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM), currently used for certain removable storage media into the next generation of industry-standard ATA computer hard drives. If this plan proceeds, we should see copy protected hard drives for both the OEM and replacement/ upgrade drive markets by this summer, with every drive being branded with a unique identifier during manufacture. And if you think that this will mainly be a problematical issue for music and software pirates, think again. According to Orlowski, "the proposed mechanism introduces problems to moving data between compliant and non-compliant hard drives. Modifications to existing backup programs, imaging software, RAID arrays and logical volume managers will be required to cope with the new drives." And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. For an example of how the industry intends to manage the spin, check out this article by John Lehmann-Haupt in IBM Research's house magazine, "Think!" entitled, aptly, "Chained Melodies." Lehmann-Haupt notes that "The ability to replicate and transmit digital audio files with absolute fidelity is revolutionizing the distribution of music. At the same time, however, it's creating a major headache for the music industry." And that, gentle reader, is what this hard drive copy protection fiasco is about. I'm not even going to take a swipe at "journalistic objectivity" on this issue. I can't think of a single mitigating aspect of this misbegotten scheme that would be of benefit to the consumer. John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is urging computer users to mount a boycott of hardware containing CPRM copy-control mechanisms, both pre-emptively and after the fact if it comes to that. In a letter published by The Register, Gilmore notes that under the CPRM scheme, "you wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to another drive, or back it up, without permission from some third party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you." The mail I have been getting (some of it published previously) is overwhelmingly opposed to copy protection for hard drives. From Bill Emerson: Hello Mr. Moore, Always enjoy your articles and insights, keep it up. In reading the article detailing how the 4-C's are looking to 'protect' our future hard disk drives it reminded me of a conversation I had earlier today regarding CD Players. One thing that came with most of the new models released this fall was the inability to read CD-R and CD-RW. Not all are like this but most are. This includes the home entertainment systems, DVD players, car stero systems, even some boom boxes. The PC industry opened a huge whole in the entertainment industries 'protectionist' practices and we now see how mergers, acquisitions and monopolies can change an entire industry, almost overnight. If anything, the DOJ better get busy, only the consumers will be hurt as we are rounded up like cattle and force fed the 'correct and paid for' content. Best Regards,
From Jim Hartneady [cc of letter to the T.13 technical committee of NCTIS, the ANSI-blessed standards body] Subject: Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) Gentlemen, Congratulations, you have caught our attention. Your organization is the talk of the Web, very unusual for a standards group. Mr. Moore has done an excellent job of outlining your intent. His article is at: http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2001/01/20010101130645.shtml It is your right as manufacturers to set workable standards. It is our right as consumers to reject those standards and find other sources. If you feel it is in your best economic interest to meet the entertainment community's requirements and not ours that is your right and fiduciary obligation. You may feel you know more than your customers. Newer Technology was a company with an excellent product, they also knew more than their customers. I don't pirate software and I don't deal with companies which start with that assumption. I hope you reconsider your implementation of the CPRM. Regards,
From: Jim Hartneady: To: Charles Moore: For your info. Would you or Mr. Gilmore care to reply? I have a general understanding of how it may impact on me, but, it would be very easy to lose me in the technical detail. Regards, Jim Hartneady [Mr. Hartneady forwarded the response he received from Kent.Pryor, of Quantum Corporation, who is the T-13 Committee's Vice Chairman Secretary]
I sent the following reply to Mr. Pryor:
Kent Pryor
Dear Mr Pryor;
Jim Hartneady forwarded me your note to him.
I think Andrew Orlowski addressed most of the salient points in his very thorough overview here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15718.html
Perhaps my objections to this copy protection iniative, and those of others like-minded, fall under the dynamic: "if I have to explain it, you'll never understand anyway."
In a nutshell, I refuse to let anyone, either potentially or in fact, control how I manage data on my hard drive.
Quoting John Lehmann-Haupt in IBM Research's house magazine, "Think!" entitled, appropriately, "Chained Melodies," who in turn quotes Alan Bell, director of digital media standards and commercialization at IBM's Almaden research center commenting: "It is of paramount importance to the music industry that it acquire the means to offer the consumer an equally convenient, yet legitimate, alternative to Napster-style services through online retail outlets, but with full copy protection... Without the technology to ensure compensation to creators and distributors, there will be little motivation to continue to produce new music."
Is that not the real rationale behind this scheme?
As John Gilmore of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted, "Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you."
And as he further noted: "It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their product for. It's not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and certainly not up to a record company that's shadily influencing those vendors in back-room meetings."
If I have failed to grasp something here, I would genuinely appreciate further explanation. Meanwhile, my question remains, if this ATA CPRM plan is not in aid of allowing corporate control of content on users' hard drives, at least potentially, then what is it in aid of?
To reiterate, from my philosophical perspective, absolutely no inhibition of or interference with my personal control over data content on my hard drive, either potentially or actually, is acceptable or meets my "customer requirements."
Yours respectfully,
Mr Pryor did not respond. From Jim Hartneady: Dear Mr Moore, Thank you. I knew on a gut level why I was angry, but, I would not have been able to express it as well. Regards, Jim Hartneady And The Beat Goes On In an article posted on The Register yesterday, Andrew Orlowski reports that Linux developer Andre Hedrick, who sits on the T.13 committee, has been involved in brokering a compromise in the CPRM copy protection issue. Orlowski notes that while, IBM and Intel have tried to dampen public outrage by suggesting that the CPRM in ATA plan only deals with removable drives, CPRM on ATA is specification overkill for removable media, since it contains calls that only hard drives require. "So," deduces Orlowski, "we couldn't quite see the need to add a powerful copy control framework to a specification used primarily for fixed-storage... unless the plan involved fixed storage somewhere down the line." He also reports that Intel's Chuck Molloy has promised that the 4C Entity won't license CPRM for use on fixed drives, but then, "Intel's promised a lot of things over the years." However Hedrick now suggests that a compromise is in the works, quoted by Orlowski saying:
He writes: CPRM would still go into ATA subsets used for removable media to pacify the powerful entertainment lobby. Orlowski isn't buying it, noting that: "With CPRM implemented on removable drives, users would still need access to their keys when moving, copying or deleting their CPRM-enabled data: dependent on the permissions set by the media "owner". So much as today, you'd better keep that DVD or music CD disc in a safe place. And that goes for backups containing CPRM'd files, too." You can read Andrew Orlowski's article here:
Slashdot has published an interview with Andre Hedrick On Hard Drive Copy Protection Highlights: "Think about all the software you own for backup -- WORTHLESS in a CPRM environment. OPEN wallets!!!! " Would it be hackable? "Unlike DeCSS that has media with seed keys that can not be updated, ATA devices (not ATAPI) can be updated as old keys are hacked." "Don't you what to download the movies you would not pay 7-10 bucks to see at the theater, in exchange for screwing up your computer? Boycott Hollywood and all movies, and see them crumble, is a counter-attack." One slashdotter asked: "Last week we read that a copy-control scheme similar or identical to CPRM has been already approved for SCSI and Firewire (without objection...probably because no one knew about it.)" Andre:
CNET News.com's John Borland reports that "The plans are initially likely to affect removable data storage, such as Zip drives or the Flash memory cards used in MP3 players. But the standards could ultimately serve as a way to keep consumers from copying copyrighted files directly onto their hard drives...If adopted widely, it and other hardware-based copy protection ideas stand a chance of easing fears among record labels and movie studios about selling content online." Andrew Orlowski says that CNet was suckered by CPRM spin-doctors: "Alas, the author has ignored the fact that removable drives Zip and Jazz use the packet-based ATAPI cousin of the ATA specification, the standard used by fixed hard disk drives. What's under consideration by the T.13 committee are extensions to the ATA interface itself." However, he also notes in another piece that The 4C group "appears likely to approve modifications to its proposed CPRM content control mechanism, handing a degree of control back to the end user. " He quotes Mr. Hedrick explaining that uder the revised proposals, "Users will be able to turn it off and lock it off, so effectively it's not there anymore." The entertainment industry would still be able distribute CPRM-aware content, but the ultimate decision on accepting such content would be left to the end user, who will also be able to isolate the files to a separate partition. Orlowski further explains: "In practical terms, the user keys in a PIN number which may permanently block CPRM media from being written to the drive. Embedded systems such as digital TV recorders could be exempt from the passcode." Still sounds like a lot of egregiously unnecessary hassle and bother to me. LinuxJournal's Don Marti has published an interview with Andre Hedrick on the implications of CPRM on ATA, including the text of Hedrick's proposal to the T 13 committee: You can read it here:
A PC World article by Tom Mainelli posted yesterday, begins: "Hollywood wants a piece of your hard drive." Mainelli reports that "representatives from the... 4C companies ... are cloistered to create a document that addresses common questions about the plan." He also notes that "CPRM is basically an encryption scheme... compliant with the Secure Digital Music Initiative supported by the big music companies that limits reproduction of secure content." The article reviews the CPRM conspirators' "don't worry, be happy" spin, countered by Andre hedrick's more lugubrious assessment, and his challenge to Intel's claims that hard drive backups won't be affected, explained thus: "If you try to back up CPRM content to an unsecure drive, you'd lose access to that content because your second drive can't read the CPRM encryption. You might need new utilities even for backups between compliant drives -- the software also needs to recognize CPRM to properly manage the content." And Hendrick contends that "Intel's suggestion that you can download CPRM content to a non-CPRM hard drive is also incorrect. Although you could theoretically perform the transfer, you wouldn't be able to access the content..." Duh. You've got to wonder if these guys perception has been so dulled by corporate think that they really can't comprehend why this plan is so offensive to users, or are they just cynical? "CPRM satisfies the 'paranoia' of people who want to sell movies and music but don't want to cede control of it. The Hollywood sewer wants to protects its content," Hendrick is quoted observing. Brad Templeton, chairman of the board for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is quoted arguing that "The announcement that you can shut it off doesn't address the issue." If the T13 approves copy protection at its February 20 meeting, they must post the standard for public review for at least 45 days. Keep their feet to the fire, folks. NCITS Secretariat
The T-13 Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman Secretary are: Pete McLean of Maxtor Corporation
and Kent Pryor of Quantum Corporation
Since IBM seems to bein the vanguard this iniative, here is their feedback page URL:
And please folks, no flaming. A polite, well reasoned critique is much more likely to be read and seriously considered. And watch out for those spin-doctors!
|
. |
Cool Mac Gear• iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Keyboard Skins • Garageband
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
