Posted on 2003-10-10 21:16:18 by devilsclaw
The statements put forth in this document do not seem to be grounded in rational thought. The sources that are being referred to have nothing or little to do with Trusted Computing. The objective of the design is to protect consumers from unauthorized data theft by letting the owner of a system restrict the operations that can be performed by application programs coming from untrusted sources.
Posted on 2003-10-11 11:49:33 by Sephiroth3
The objective of the design is to protect consumers from unauthorized data theft by letting the owner of a system restrict the operations that can be performed by application programs coming from untrusted sources


What a load of cods.
This isn't about protecting consumers from data theft, its about PREVENTING THEM from doing the same. It protects the content provider, not the end-user. Furthermore, the mechanisms involved don't "let the owner of a system restrict operations", they remove the option from the user, and hand it to the software author, who then has more control over your machine (both locally AND remotely) than you do yourself.

Say, who do you happen to work for?
Posted on 2003-10-13 21:24:45 by Homer
First off guys, lets get the names down. TCPA is not a terribly bad thing, I have an ESS (the first TCPA chip) in both my Thinkpad and my PC, it can be used to protect it from theft. Microsoft is looking to pervert that system with Palladium and DRM (Digital Rights Management) . IBM one of the companies leading the TCPA standard calls Microsofts push towards software usage enforcing using TCPA "stupid and absurd" and have done so publicly in articles available on their website -> http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf (PDF document). TCPA was never intended to be a digital rights management tool, it was Microsoft and a few other large companies and RIAA that have twisted another good idea to their ends. Microsoft et al. have used IBM's respected name in the field of computers to promote DRM and Palladium even though they have nothing to do with it other than to develop the otherwise benign technology that Microsoft wishes to twist to their own purposes.
Posted on 2003-10-13 22:21:20 by donkey
Seeing as its basically being enforced in hardware, pray tell, how does RIAA et al actually gain access to your system remotely, in order to verify/destroy illegal content? You mean that I actually send THEM data? I PAY for this?Does this mean I should buy shares in some hardware firewalls? :)
Posted on 2003-10-14 09:53:11 by Homer
Hi EvilHomer2K,

I think the way it works is that when you download the music it will encrypt the file using the key from your TCPA chip. That key was originally meant to safegaurd data and uniquely identify your computer in case of theft, but RIAA and MS want to use an expanded version to encrypt files on your system so that only their software (and that of companies who pay for the priviledge) can open them and decide whether you have the right to do so. That way even if you have a hardware firewall you still cannot use any file Microsoft decides it doesn't want you to. As it said in the IBM article this can be used by MS to stop you from using data files that were created on a Linux system. It also prevents you from "lending" a file to a friend or in some cases can be used to shut down any type of rights you have to information transfer with a simple flip of a bit. Since it requires active participation in order to maintain your rights to the file, blocking Palladium will only result in the crippling of DRM and turn your PC into a boat anchor if you try to prevent it from communicating with the copyright distribution server. At least that's how I understand it.
Posted on 2003-10-14 10:15:39 by donkey
Nothing to say that all of the efforts of very good programmers here in this community will simply vanish because it is hard to think that the author will pay MS for authorization and then give the program for free.... and the sharing of source code, knowledge, experiences, ...we are going to renunce to them?

This *could* be a serious threat to this community but personally, knowing the buggy a MS programs are, there are a few probabilities for them to dumb all the computer users in the world. (think on all the problems related to bugs in palladium)

For instance, I will maintain my outdated hardware running in order to do what I love to do: coding assembly.
Posted on 2003-10-14 11:12:12 by pelaillo
M$ wants to end teh open source and free software -- they're a corpotation, a corporation's nature is to make money, not a better world (unless they see profits in it within a month :/ )

I won't buy any computer with this BigBrother chip, if there is to be a big brother in my computer it's gonna be me, the root, the chipset shall bow before me not I before them.

blocking Palladium will only result in the crippling of DRM and turn your PC into a boat anchor if you try to prevent it from communicating with the copyright distribution server.

If they succeed with making the DRM/TC/BigBro chit mandontory (=forced to be there and can't be ripped out of/removed from the computer in hw) I'm going to do somethign about it so that my computer obeys me or simply abandon Windows for Linux... Or to say it this way: convert the anchor to a sulphur-yellow submarine or move southern most...
Posted on 2003-10-14 15:34:33 by scientica
Hi Scientica,

Do you have Media Player 9 or Windows XP? If yes, you have already agreed to allow MS to do this and have already lent weight to their current argument in congress that most users world-wide would support such an implementation. They have been presenting the agregate count of license agreements you clicked OK on as proof that the majority of users agree with them. One of the main reasons I have an old version of WMP and Windows 2K :)
Posted on 2003-10-14 16:06:02 by donkey
No, for crying it out loud's sake, never will I {run XP on}/{cripple} my comuter! And second, I don't use WMP...
Btw, these scare cow agreement sagas are they really legally binding? (rember seeing something interesting at (IIRC)Fravias site)
Posted on 2003-10-14 16:49:35 by scientica
well XP comes with WMP 8.0 but i removed it from my OS completely its like a virus though because of the dllcache folder and a couple other places if you dont delete from them first Windows XP will put them back... and once you delete them from both places it tells you windows needs it even though it does not and you just click cancel and it wont bug you again... then i stripped out all references to the wmp exe and wmp name from the registeries.. and my systems been running fine :)... i use other third party softwares now..
Posted on 2003-10-14 17:02:06 by devilsclaw
The EULA is legally binding, however it could be considered a "Contract of Adhesion" and disputed on those terms. But generally as long as it is clear and understandable the courts will uphold the agreement and you are bound by it's terms to the limit your country allows. With WMP 9 and XP that includes allowing MS or anyone else who is acting for the copyright holder of the media to limit your ability to use that media at their discretion and demand payment for the use.
Posted on 2003-10-14 17:03:20 by donkey
They are unethically using massive disinformation in order to politically impose their law (perhaps a very common activity, as history teach us)

A bunch of "sheep users" going to be happy slaughtered because they don't understand very well what do they do when agreeing here and there.

Fortunately computers are far more than picture and DVD players and CD rippers. However, there is going to be a lot of damage caused by MS/DMCA/RIAA and other vampires trying to suck all your money out :mad:
Posted on 2003-10-15 04:24:13 by pelaillo

The EULA is legally binding, however it could be considered a "Contract of Adhesion" and disputed on those terms. But generally as long as it is clear and understandable the courts will uphold the agreement and you are bound by it's terms to the limit your country allows. With WMP 9 and XP that includes allowing MS or anyone else who is acting for the copyright holder of the media to limit your ability to use that media at their discretion and demand payment for the use.


not in every country.

American laws can bite me. EULAs mean nothing here in Europe.
Posted on 2003-10-15 08:10:23 by Hiroshimator
Hi Hiro,

That's why I said "to the limit your country allows" ;)
Posted on 2003-10-15 08:32:20 by donkey
if you read the whole artical in europe they are working on making new laws.. not sure if they are going to allow it or not though.. who knows..
Posted on 2003-10-15 13:42:59 by devilsclaw