Applelinks reader Josef Schneider writes:

"Bad news, Charles. It seems that Steve Jobs and Apple have gotten behind the Gang of 4C and their copy prevention technology. See Andrew Orlowski's latest at The Register. 

"If the Electronic Frontier Foundation's John Gilmore is correct in his analysis, then this technology runs counter to Jobs and Apple's strategy of promoting do-it-yourself culture embodied in such technologies as iMovie and iDVD. Apple's descriptions of their DVD-RW Superdrive 'neglects to mention that it blocks copying, recording or time-shift playback of copyrighted media.'

"So much for accepted 'fair use' standards. Now for Mac-users boycotting Apple is difficult at present. The best we could do is boycott their commercial software (Filemaker Pro, AppleWorks, etc.). But down the line, I expect that someone will port OS X's open-source kernel, Darwin, to the x86 architecture. From there it may not be such a large step to running the proprietary, higher-level parts of OS X on x86.

"Then we could run, OS X apps on an AMD box.

"Just gets sleazier and sleazier, doesn't it?

"Josef Schneider"

It sure does, Josef. I had been apprehensive of this, considering Steve Jobs strong ties to the Hollywood community. Heck, he is a major member of the Hollywood community.

In the article Josef mentioned, Andrew Orlowski writes that "The 4C Entity is still misleading people about CPRM, says EFF co-founder John Gilmore."

You can read John Gilmore's lengthy and comprehensive essay here:
http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm

Gilmore contends that technologies like the Gang of 4C's CPRM hard drive putsch "will drive roughshod over existing social practices and legal entitlements."

"My recording of my brother's wedding is uncopyable, because my MiniDisc decks act as if I and my brother don't own the copyright on it."

Gilmore predicts that: "By 2010... few consumers will have access to a recorder that will let them save a copy of a TV program, or time-shift one, or let the kids watch it in the back of the car... Do we get any say about it at all?"

Particularly germane to Mac users, Gilmore notes that:

"What is wrong is when companies who make copy-protecting products don't disclose the restrictions to the consumers. Like Apple's recent happy-happy web pages on their new DVD-writing drive, announced this month (http://www.apple.com/idvd/).

"It's full of glowing info about how you can write DVDs based on your own DV movie recordings, etc. What it quietly neglects to say is that you can't use it to copy or time-shift or record any audio or video copyrighted by major companies. Even if you have the legal right to do so, the technology will prevent you. They don't say that you can't use it to mix and match video tracks from various artists, the way your CD burner will. It doesn't say that you can't copy-protect your OWN disks that it burns; that's a right the big manufacturers have reserved to themselves. They're not selling you a DVD-Authoring drive, which is for 'professional use only.' They're selling you a DVD-General drive, which cannot record the key-blocks needed to copy-protect your OWN recordings, nor can a DVD-General disc be used as a master to press your own DVDs in quantity. These distinctions are not even glossed over; they are simply ignored, not mentioned, invisible until after you buy the product."

Put succinctly, this sucks.

Meanwhile, the Gang of 4C's spin doctors are working overtime to pour snake oil on the waters of burgeoning consumer discontent.

A couple of days ago, Doug Hood of PMA Consulting, emailed me to say that a "correction" had been posted on PMA's website entitled: "You only *think* it's your Hard Drive!" It reads:

"Content protection technology misinformation generates negative web-press coverage:

"An article on *The Register* website 'Stealth plan puts copy protection into every hard drive' contains false information that the 4C's (Intel, IBM, MEI, Toshiba) Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) is to be applied to all PC hard drives. It is misinterpreting a specification for use of CPRM with the Compact Flash media format (which supports either semiconductor flash memory or IBM microdrives) probably because Compact Flash uses the same command protocol interface as standard PC harddrives. The technology is neither intended nor licensed for use with PC harddrives and is optional even for the supported media types (flash memory and microdrives). John Gilmore, a noted privacy and consumer advocate, has picked up the article and further propagated the erroneous information and mentioned Intel 'IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives.' I have alerted public relations at Intel and they are disseminating accurate information within Intel and among our industry contacts."

Getting dizzy from the spin yet? This is of course what 4c's "Ministry of Truth" folks want you to believe, but I'm not buying it. Andre Hedrick, who sits on the T.13 ATA standards committee, takes the HD threat seriously. Check out this Slashdot interview with him:
http://slashdot.org/interviews/01/01/10/1427235.shtml

As I said in my letter to T.13 officer Kent Pryor of Quantum Corporation:

"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..."

As John Gilmore notes:

"If you try to record a song off the FM radio onto a CPRM audio recorder, it will refuse to record or play it, because it's watermarked but not encrypted. Even when recording your own brand-new original audio, the default settings for analog recordings are that they can never be copied, nor ever copied in higher fidelity than CD's, and that only one copy can be made even if copying is ever authorized (if the other restrictions are somehow bypassed)."

It's time, gentle readers, for the mother of all boycotts. As Josef Schneider noted, this poses particular problems for the Mac-using community, given our one-source supply of systems. However, we can refuse to buy Apple applications software. Apple monitors, and so on. And as Josef muses, an x86 port of OS X, or even perhaps one of the PPC Linuxes could be the escape hatch.

Lets hope it never comes to that, and that these corporate bullies, including the redoubtable Mr. Jobs, can be brought to their senses.

My series of articles on the topic on Applelinks:

Intel Sneers At Anti Hard Drive Copy Protection (CPRM) Campaigners
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2001/01/20010112124225.shtml

More On The ATA Hard Drive"Copy Protection" Scheme And Related Issues
http://www.applelinks.com/cgi-app/news/news.pl.cgi?action=detail&f_id=20001227120243

Industry Propaganda Machine Cranks Up On Hard Drive Copy Protection Issue
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2000/12/20001228132412.shtml

The Hard Drive Copy Protection Fiasco Revisited and Updated
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2001/01/20010111134145.shtml

It's Up To Consumers To Derail The Hard Drive Copy Protection Scheme
http://www.applelinks.com/cgi-app/news/news.pl.cgi?action=detail&f_id=20010101130645

Charles W. Moore

.