heqdvd
01-16-2003, 10:55 AM
seems like the world is turning upside down and inside out. Few things ever seem to make sense in worldly terms, but the events of recent days have truly threatened to turn what's left of our freedom in the U.S. into a surreal nightmare.
First, some VarLinux.org readers noted that Congress is considering a bill that would allow recording companies and other content providers to crack into P2P networks to protect their content from piracy. As one reader pointed out, this would give content providers more power than the FBI to not only invade your privacy, but to sabotage your network and software.
To quote the Yahoo news story on this topic, "The proposal would lift civil and criminal penalties against entertainment companies "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" the online trading of pirated songs and movies. Wholesale attacks knocking an Internet user off-line would not be permitted "except as may be reasonably necessary" to prevent a copyright violation. Copyright owners would be required to explain in advance to the Justice Department (news -- Web sites) the methods they intend to use against pirates."
In other words, Megalorecords, Inc. will have to tell the D.O.J. it's going to use a lead pipe as the murder weapon before it knocks off Colonel Mustard in the study. How reassuring.
Allow me to be clear on one point. I don't use any P2P software, so I can't comment on any of it. I have stated I believe many if not most people using Napster were stealing copyrighted music, and I believe people should not have been using Napster for that purpose. I am not on the side of those who think fair-use covers making your music available to anyone who happens to have Internet access. Nor do I think it is a valid argument to have defended Napster on the grounds of free speech. Again, I don't know how much of this applies to P2P, but I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm in favor of violating existing copyrights.
Palladium
I do happen to think that the answer to the problem of piracy is not to enforce copyrights (especially through the use of digital rights management) or even entirely eliminate copyrights (I don't think that would be necessary), but to overhaul copyrights and the way companies make money on things like music. That's a topic too complex to tackle in this column, but the latest digital rights management connection deserves some attention.
Microsoft recently announced its Palladium initiative. The Palladium is a warmed-over Clipper chip. Microsoft is selling the idea as a hardware-enabled way to make your PC software secure, but all it really amounts to is a digital cop that arrests any software that tries to use copyrighted content in an unapproved manner. In plain language, your computer will only play songs or movies if you've paid for them. That's right. It's chip-enforced digital rights management.
It seems natural for Microsoft to be interested in digital rights management because Gates and company are perhaps the most paranoid creatures on earth when it comes to piracy. However, I believe there is an even more ulterior motive here. Microsoft has a patent on the concept of a digital rights management operating system. If Microsoft can make the Palladium successful, it can present the open source community with two choices. PCs running Linux or any other non-Microsoft OS may not use the chip, in which case these PCs will not be able to play any copyrighted DVDs or music CDs. If the open source OS uses the chip, someone has to pay Microsoft for the right to do so, since it owns the patent.
Some people are dismissing the Palladium chip because they equate it with Intel's plans for the CPU ID, plans that were thwarted by the massive public reaction against the ID. Nevertheless, Palladium is likely to get the backing of huge content providers. If these content providers have the power to sway Congress on issues as outrageous as cracking P2P networks, then they have the power to get Palladium installed on every motherboard by default. That's what makes Palladium scary.
First, some VarLinux.org readers noted that Congress is considering a bill that would allow recording companies and other content providers to crack into P2P networks to protect their content from piracy. As one reader pointed out, this would give content providers more power than the FBI to not only invade your privacy, but to sabotage your network and software.
To quote the Yahoo news story on this topic, "The proposal would lift civil and criminal penalties against entertainment companies "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" the online trading of pirated songs and movies. Wholesale attacks knocking an Internet user off-line would not be permitted "except as may be reasonably necessary" to prevent a copyright violation. Copyright owners would be required to explain in advance to the Justice Department (news -- Web sites) the methods they intend to use against pirates."
In other words, Megalorecords, Inc. will have to tell the D.O.J. it's going to use a lead pipe as the murder weapon before it knocks off Colonel Mustard in the study. How reassuring.
Allow me to be clear on one point. I don't use any P2P software, so I can't comment on any of it. I have stated I believe many if not most people using Napster were stealing copyrighted music, and I believe people should not have been using Napster for that purpose. I am not on the side of those who think fair-use covers making your music available to anyone who happens to have Internet access. Nor do I think it is a valid argument to have defended Napster on the grounds of free speech. Again, I don't know how much of this applies to P2P, but I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm in favor of violating existing copyrights.
Palladium
I do happen to think that the answer to the problem of piracy is not to enforce copyrights (especially through the use of digital rights management) or even entirely eliminate copyrights (I don't think that would be necessary), but to overhaul copyrights and the way companies make money on things like music. That's a topic too complex to tackle in this column, but the latest digital rights management connection deserves some attention.
Microsoft recently announced its Palladium initiative. The Palladium is a warmed-over Clipper chip. Microsoft is selling the idea as a hardware-enabled way to make your PC software secure, but all it really amounts to is a digital cop that arrests any software that tries to use copyrighted content in an unapproved manner. In plain language, your computer will only play songs or movies if you've paid for them. That's right. It's chip-enforced digital rights management.
It seems natural for Microsoft to be interested in digital rights management because Gates and company are perhaps the most paranoid creatures on earth when it comes to piracy. However, I believe there is an even more ulterior motive here. Microsoft has a patent on the concept of a digital rights management operating system. If Microsoft can make the Palladium successful, it can present the open source community with two choices. PCs running Linux or any other non-Microsoft OS may not use the chip, in which case these PCs will not be able to play any copyrighted DVDs or music CDs. If the open source OS uses the chip, someone has to pay Microsoft for the right to do so, since it owns the patent.
Some people are dismissing the Palladium chip because they equate it with Intel's plans for the CPU ID, plans that were thwarted by the massive public reaction against the ID. Nevertheless, Palladium is likely to get the backing of huge content providers. If these content providers have the power to sway Congress on issues as outrageous as cracking P2P networks, then they have the power to get Palladium installed on every motherboard by default. That's what makes Palladium scary.