PDA

View Full Version : Digital Rights Management and apple



Disko
4th February 2004, 03:06 PM
I'm sure most of you would have heard about microsoft's Digital Rights Management initiative (also known as "paladium" and "Trusted Computing").
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this, and if you think apple will implement it?

Trusted Computing was one of the factors in my descision to move permanently to a mac platform - and i will never use windows ever again.

I've been searching apple's website this afternoon looking for information on trusted computing, and have found nothing. So i'm casting this net out wide: What is apple's policy on microsoft's trusted computing? Will they follow suit?

the_argon
4th February 2004, 03:48 PM
I think (or maybe hope) that palladium will fall flat on it's arse... like intel's PSN debacle back when the PIII came out.

The inclusion of Processor Serial Number (PSN) was an initiative by intel (endourced by other companies) very similar to Palladium. Intel saw the opportunity to include specific unchangable serial numbers with all CPU's made and made it so that software can read the PSN. Making every CPU an idividual and identifiable from another. The general idea behind it was websites could easily identify customers securly, restore preferences etc. But the potential was much more than that...

The enthusiast backlash was huge, people were outraged by the idea... The sky is falling, big brother type stuff.

By the time the PIII was released motherboard maufacturers (Abit, Asus etc.) Already had boards out that overrode the PSN setting and disabled it by default.

Hopefully by the time MS release thier "Trusted Computing Platform" in what, 2020 is it now?? most of the world will be ready to migrate to Linux/Mac or any other platforms that suit their needs.

All people need is awareness, I don't think that many people will 'choose' to go with the trusted computing platform. I think that if people do go with it it's beacuse of ignorance rather than anything else. Buisnesses small/medium especially, they need to realise that MS isn't their only option, neither is Apple. With the amount of different operating systems that are around now and the quality of them you would be mad not to consider the alternative to MS based products.

LCGuy
4th February 2004, 06:47 PM
Palladium is M$'s Copland. It'll never get off the ground.

jameso
5th February 2004, 08:31 AM
Too many people know too mich for anything like this too work. I'm just glad that people are starting to pay attention to desktop linux. When microsoft and apple go major drm on us we can switch.

stevejay
5th February 2004, 12:09 PM
DRM will happen, sadly, no escaping it - even on linux. I doubt it will be Palladium, but then I doubted Doze would overtake the Mac as the main global platform.

If it was essential to keep the Mac platform relevant in this networked world, I'd accept it on Mac grudgingly, but I can't see any DRM system working unless its developed as an open standard (IEEE or ISO, not necessarily open source.)

As for switching to Linux if Apple adopt a "netcop" technology? Not me, I've played with Doze, Linux (various flavours on various boxen) and Mac and I've never found anything which works like I want it outside Apple. Just a personal preference, but truth for my small zone.

Besides, who want Linux when they have Unix? ;) (BTW, that bit's flamebait and doesn't warrant a reply as it is complete irony.)

jameso
5th February 2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by stevejay@Feb 5 2004, 11:09 AM
As for switching to Linux if Apple adopt a "netcop" technology? Not me, I've played with Doze, Linux (various flavours on various boxen) and Mac and I've never found anything which works like I want it outside Apple. Just a personal preference, but truth for my small zone.

Besides, who want Linux when they have Unix? ;) (BTW, that bit's flamebait and doesn't warrant a reply as it is complete irony.)
I agree, at the moment, the best platform for my desktop use is mac os x. I hope it stays like that as i've sort of been a mac lover for a while. things change tho.

Unix? who needs Unix when u have BSD? (lovin the burn)

jameso

cmetom
5th February 2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by LCGuy@Feb 4 2004, 06:47 PM
Palladium is M$'s Copland. It'll never get off the ground.
can someone explain the copland thing to me please? i know it was a planned OS, and i know it features in the anime "Serial Experiments: Lain"...


my take on M$'s DRM Palladium thingy is that while it's an interesting concept (i.e. a virtual computer environment that is encrypted from even the hardware it runs on), I see it as microsoft being too lazy or whatever to re-write windows - FROM SCRATCH - from a security-standpoint.

Perhaps because it will make all the programs incompatible, etc?? who knows.

windows nt, especially as an operating system core, is a very good system. my faves being 2000 and 2003. the thing we all bitch about constantly is the interface - which, granted, is a crapload of crap. anyway, if u can understand what i'm saying, all i think it needs is a more security-focused rewrite. i.e. what programs can run on it, etc.

i dunno how apple do it with OSX, but that was a full re-write with a new core (BSD instead of System9), similar to the NT core instead of the DOS core (all 9x versions of windows - including ME - are just a windows "program" running on DOS).

all NT needs is security stuff like OSX (not that i know exactly what, etc) and it'll be good as gold. then it'll have a perfectly honest reason to fail - the interface!!

Ahhhh!! *pulls out hair*

the_argon
6th February 2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by cmetom@Feb 5 2004, 10:35 PM
all NT needs is security stuff like OSX (not that i know exactly what, etc) and it'll be good as gold.
Apparently XP SP2 *should* fix many security issues with XP...

Hopefully they will revamp the whole RPC system, that seems to have enough holes in it to sink a very large ship. *cough* w32.blaster *cough*

"It really will guys... we are focusing on security now... really, we are"

Having said that the NT platform *was* good as long as is wasn't running IIS or pretty much any MS Software apart from the core OS

I don't mind NT for desktops/workstations but I prefer to use linux for any type of server

Oh, and Windows 2000 is by far the best MS OS...

stevejay
6th February 2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by cmetom@Feb 5 2004, 11:05 PM
windows nt, especially as an operating system core, is a very good system.
Exactly on what parallel universe is NT a good system. My employer inflicts Doze 2k on me and it gets in the way of everybody's work here. Half my daily workload would disappear overnight if the Mac fairy waived her wand over us and replaced everything.

cmetom
6th February 2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by stevejay@Feb 6 2004, 07:26 AM
Exactly on what parallel universe is NT a good system. My employer inflicts Doze 2k on me and it gets in the way of everybody's work here. Half my daily workload would disappear overnight if the Mac fairy waived her wand over us and replaced everything.
hehe relax. i mean stability-wise, mostly, and in comparison to windows 95/98/ME.

compatibility-with-windows-software wise, i'm NOT referring to NT4... 2000 (NT5) does a good job of being windows 95 with a nice system kernel..

i see you are talking about 2000.. well i dunno but it runs ok for me. it's not like i can run OSX on all the PCs i have / have to use at work... and trust me - Rhapsody for x86 isn't nearly as useful as i'd like it to be!

cmetom
6th February 2004, 03:24 PM
accidental doublepost.. sorry.

Comet
7th February 2004, 07:12 PM
On the topic of DRM, I just had an issue with Fairplay. It's supposed to allow you to use up to 3 computers the songs you download, but I apparently went over that. When I returned my DOA powerbook, I forgot to deauthorize the machine of the music, and my PC when I reformatted it apparently was taken as another machine. I had to email apple and tell them my story and request that they deauthorize all my computers so that I can reauthorize the machines. Fairplay is indeed good, but I think it fails to recognise when one is using the same computer or not when you have to reformat and forget to deauthorize. Like on a PC, the thign that most likely won't change in terms of hardware would be the CPU, so if it had some way of identifiying the CPU, then it'll be really helpful. Anyhow, Apple was quick to respond to my request and now I can listen to "I fought the Law" Green Day cover :)

Currawong
8th February 2004, 12:43 PM
The issue of DRM is a difficult one. Some people believe it's M$'s attempt to lock in more of the computing market, as DRM solutions from M$ will only work with other M$ software. This was the thought when they suggested incorporating it into Office, as it would possibly kill off all the Linux office programs by locking them out of the file format and allow Microsoft to sue Linux companies under various recent laws in the USA.

However, the number of companies that still use older systems, such as WinNT and Office 97 is considerable. They wouldn't take kindly to the suggestion that they buy software that will effectively ruin their ability to communicate with other companies. It would also require some kind of "back door" for intelligence agencies in the USA to be able to access documents, no doubt.

Does this affect Apple? If the Mac Business Unit continues to create Mac Office, then it shouldn't be an issue. That ITMS has built-in DRM is only because Apple pitched the idea to Music companies for years, to try and persuade them to take the middle ground with music downloading - that is, legalise in some manner that makes money for the companies and allows downloaders to be legitimate.

Although since 9/11 people are scared enough to let governments take away more and more of their rights in exchange for supposed "safety" (though it's very likely that the funding for these terrorist attacks originated in the USA), most people aren't aware enough regarding computer crime to tolerate attempts to remove their freedoms on the internet and control over their computers and what's in or on them.

My (big) $0.02 on the subject ;)

mhollis
20th February 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by cmetom@Feb 5 2004, 10:05 PM
can someone explain the copland thing to me please? i know it was a planned OS, and i know it features in the anime "Serial Experiments: Lain"...
Copeland was supposed to be Apple's new modern operating system. Apple announced it around the time they released System 7.5. At the time, Microsoft had announced that it would build Windoze based on a pre-emptive multi-tasking multi-threading model. Microsoft had just released Windoze 95 which kind of sort of did that but didn't really and Apple's model was still the "cooperative multi-tasking," single-thread model.

Apple had a lot of work to do. They had just exited from their Motorola CISC chip and were experimenting with the Power PC Processor. They had good partners and thought that the partnership with IBM would bear more fruit in the OS programming sense. They had also allowed clones, which seriously hurt Apple's viability as a hardware seller.

They simply could not afford to spend enough time and energy to come out with Copeland, though a few ideas were released in System 8.1. Jobs killed it, brought in NeXt programmers and laid a path to bsd, which is what NeXtStep was based on. Apple struggled to include a migration to OS X and still struggles today with software companies who have not yet left Carbon for Cocoa under OS X.