Microsoft's Palladium and the "Fritz Chip"

You all should know about Senator Fritz Hollings, and his tireless attempts to make PCs incapable of copying music files or running "unauthorized content". The Trusted Computing Platform Alliance" or TCPA, is a hardware and software based system for preventing computers from doing many of the things they are now capable of. Microsoft, AMD, Intel and many other companies say they are now working very hard to integrate TCPA features into hardware and software, including future versions of Windows.

At the heart of TCPA is a new chip added to motherboards, which have been affectionately dubbed "Fritz chips" after the good Senator. But there is a double meaning here, since you can expect computers based on TCPA technology to go on the fritz far more often than their non-TCPA counterparts. Eventually, Intel and AMD say they will incorporate TCPA into future processors. Lucky us.

Palladium is the software end of the business, and will be built-into future versions of Windows. The basic idea is that the Fritz chip will constantly check the machine state, and the "authorizations" for the OS and each application on the machine. The OS will only boot if nothing is "amiss", that means no "unauthorized components or content". The spin they are putting on this draconian move is that "PCs won't necessarily get faster, just more secure".

Is that what computer owners want? Slower computers that can't copy MP3 files without paid authorization? I don't think so, and I doubt that talk about "secure computing" will change many minds. So the question is, will folks run out to buy a "Fritz chip" computer, or will they shop around for Fritz-less options? My guess is the later. However, most computer users are far from techno-savvy, so if they get bombarded with propaganda about TCPA making their computers secure from hackers, maybe the IT industry will be able to bamboozle large numbers of casual computer users. But the relatively smaller community of power users will certainly not go quietly into this good fight. So the next question is, will there be "Fritz-less" computer manufacturers that specifically sell only systems that have no TCPA components or operating systems? What will become of Linux as Microsoft moves completely to "Palladium", especially if the internet becomes TCPA-ified?

The bottom line is this. Computer and software makers are desperate to lock down the ability of modern computers until they are nothing more than paid content providing systems. This is not what computers were made for, they were made to be multifunctional, programmable devices with almost unlimited capabilities. Capabilities that the MPAA (motion picture assoc. of America) and RIAA (recording industry assoc. of America) want eliminated ASAP.

Finally, will TCPA create a black market for Fritz-less motherboards, or will it just make the last, fastest, Fritz-less computers the most popular on earth? I can imagine a big run on the last round on non-TCPA hardware as soon as it becomes known that all motherboards after a certain date must have the Fritz chip installed.

See this article for the technical explanation: "MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you" http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25940.html

Do I really have to explain the difference to you?! The difference is that everything you outlined was legal to start with. Bootlegging is illegal, has been for a very long time.

No you haven't presented a solution. With thousands all over the country sticking MP3s on their work computer and sharing the directory just how is anybody supposed to stop them? When one person can toss a file on an internet site tracelessly (it's not that hard to dump your tracks on the net), how can they be stopped. Show a way we can keep the current definition of fair use and still stop the massive distributions of illegal MP3s.

I don't have poor impulse control. When somebody slanders you in public you should pop them in the face. The new vogue is to sue them, but I don't like the court system. Only take half a second to show some one the error of their ways the old fashioned way. Be curtious it's not that hard.

Sorry, but steve-b is right, overreaching IP protection is just as anti-constitutional as overreaching gun regulation and overreaching speech controls. In fact, if I figured out how to defeat a Fritz chip, the DMCA makes me a criminal for speaking what is in my head. That, to me makes the DMCA an evil law and anyone who supports it just as evil as people who support campaign finance "reform" and "hate speech" laws.

You may have to wait in line behind the Drug Warriors for a clue as to why you ain't a constitutionalist conservative.

Foreign Muslim Mass Murder terrorists have made travel a living hell for everybody, and now losers who feel they have a "right" to use copyrighted material are about to make computing a living hell for everybody else.

Any "solution" that fails to distinguish between my using MY OWN CDs to make music files for my own use and illegally copying CDs is a defective solution without merit.

It works great for an infinitesimal minority of musicians. In macroeconomic terms, so what? If I could meter and charge passers-by for the aesthetic beauty of my house (it is singularly attractive) I could make a nice crust from that. But I can't, no matter what cost and effort went into it. Injustice I say! There ought to be a law! Why isn't there a Beautiful House Appreciation Association (the BFAA) that would tag your car with an RFID (or perhaps just a subcutaneous injection) and charge you a small amount every time you pass my house?

Show a way we can keep the current definition of fair use and still stop the massive distributions of illegal MP3s.

I already did: prosecute people who break the law. The fact that not all violators will be caught is irrelevant -- a few well-publicized examples will scare most of the casual bootleggers straight.

Look, I understand that after eight years of the Clowntoon Crime Cabal it's easy to fall into the cynical belief that most people are crooks. It just ain't so.

Your analogy doesn't stand up: prescription medicines are generally controlled substances.

If you've read what Senator Hollings wants, he wants DRM down to the file level, certified on any code or hardware that has the ability to copy ANY file. So, if I write code that, in the process of normal operation, moves data from one file to another, I'd need a certificate and to pay for that certification, even if I want to GIVE AWAY the code for free. It doesn't matter if it's a database move, a printer enhancement, or an MP3 maker.

As for "controlling piracy", I heard the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS in the 1970's, dealing with that guaranteed-piracy device, the VCR. My interest in piracy is in making sure that the artists in question get their piece of the pie, instead of 99 44/100 percent of revenue eaten by RIAA or MPAA.

As for your logic being Simple. . . Need I remind you of this quote ???

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists,and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Last I read the Constitution, the ruling principle in this country was the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. The "Fritz Chip" sets this all on its' head. . .

Why are you guys such dicks? for your info I'm anti-WOD and give just about anybody on this board a run for their money on the meaning of the Constitution as referenced with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

What I'm looking for here is an answer. On the one side we have the RIAA admittedly over reaching. But the only "alternative" anybody is willing to propose is some BS variation on the ever popular hacker contention that "information wants to be free" (reread the post I originally replied to, his answer to not having your IP copied was to not store it in a way computers can copy it... clearly a stupid answer).

What can we do to maintain the currently existing definition of fair use (which is a lot broader than most countries, which is good this is America we should be better than everybody else) and stop the massive MP3 bootlegging that's going on (and it's pretty serious, people at my new company don't understand why I buy CDs they just hunt down DL and share MP3s... note i just don't like MP3s as a format I like CDs, I did some ripping for personal use and never used them thus ended my MP3 life)? I don't like the RIAA's current asnwer, but I know you just can't tell a whole industry to suck it up. People are breaking the law, they are breaking good laws, how can they be stopped?

How do you catch them? You're presenting a goal. Goals are nice but without a method they're just campaign promises. WOD gets a couple of well publicized busts a month, hasn't slowed down that industry, why would it slow down this one? It's impossible to catch all violators, that's known but it should be possible to catch the top 10%. Given the way the internet works, and the way corporate LANs work that's not an easy nut to crack.

What chafes me here is how this is similar to the gun debate. Gun grabbers want you to register because you might use a gun in a crime. It appears here that they want to penalize you for what you might copy, instead of just going after those who violate copyright protections.

It's not the inanimate object; it's the person using the inanimate object for nefarious reasons.

A quick perusal of the Billboard archives will show that selling crap hasn't slowed down the record industry at any time in the past (found some site once where you could look up what song was #1 when you were born, not one person i know was born when the #1 song was remotely listenable... Neil Sedaka owned the air waves when most of my friends were born). And the pop "artists" you rattled off are the part of the industry that's making money, partly because it's a rapidly renewing market. They're not trying to tempt the palate for long, they're draining the money from this decades teenagers with the full knowledge that by the time they're 21 they won't be listening to music anymore anyway.. but they'll be a whole new crop of teenagers to gobble up the next round of prefab pap.

The why's and wherefores for RIAA loosing money are certainly many and varied. But the fact that I walked into a 100 person company and people were shocked that I was bringing my music in the form of CDs (and then immediately asked if they could rip them) can't be helping the bottom line.

I know you are antiWoD and that is exactly why this should cheese you off. I bet the WoD could be won by installing a drug use detector in your house. When shall I have the installers arrive? Trust me, it will not be used to spy on you.

Oh, don't like it? Presumption of innocence? Security of person, documents, and effects? Are these things important? Then maybe you ken why nobody wants the damned 666 Fritz chip.

Now the really bad news: There may be NO ANSWER. It may be that recorded music as an industry will shrink massively, only because it is more important to more people that they retain their privacy and Ist and Vth rights than it is that the recording industry continue to thrive.

The Constitution was written to protect individual rights against everything short of national security. If IP protection cannot be enforced without trampling those rights, then the working presumption of the Founders would have been: Too freaking bad, it is not as important. Read the IP protection clause: it is not one of the primary rights. It is not considered to be derived from a natural right. It is the only thing I can think of in the Constitution based almost completely on a collective benefit. Lots of worthy-seeming laws could be enforced if the Constitution could be ignored - and it is a good thing they cannot be.

When you listen to a concert at a hall or arena your
ticket includes a payment for copyright. Such a system is understandable, if not agreeable.
This palladium manure is nothing more than eliminating
the stand alone no need to be on the internet system. Will the system keep me or any ordinary user secure from
microsoft? Doubtful, their security lapses are probably holes they left for themselves figuring no one would find them. Microsoft wants to outlaw the garage inventor.

Does the Microsoft Monopoly case judge know about this
run microsoft is making? Do the plaintiffs?

Do not blank video tapes have a similar fee?

More importantly, the technology ALSO allows the musicians to inexpensively sell their recordings DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC. Folkies and other "niche" music genres have been doing this forever. Some big bands are releasing their music direct to the Net.

The real point of all this is, the "Fritz" chip is the RIAA/MPAA/MS/et al trying to hold on to a monopoly that they see is crumbling. I'll run GPL code on an older box before I buy a box with built-in DRM. . .

OK I'll give you deliberate chain jerking, well done.

But here's our problem: if there isn't an answer the RIAA will get everything they want. I present this same challenge to hippy landmine haters (you're reaction is better than theirs, they call me a baby killer). Landmines suck, especially if the people that put them out aren't real good about cleaning up after themselves. But the fact is that on a dollars/effectiveness reading landmines do give you (I have to say it) the most bang for your buck. They're a very effective perimiter defense (something armed man has had to worry about for the entire history of war), they're cheap and it takes about 10 minutes to learn how to use one and less time to deploye it. Subsequently no amount of hippy whining will get rid of landmines (OK stupid places like Europe will get rid of them... until the next time they're invaded). If you want to get rid of landmines you've got to replace them with something better.

Same thing here. If you want to get rid of the Fritz chip you need a better answer. I hate it. I know when it hits mass deployment I'll be watching the smart techs like you and downloading your short circuits (just because, like I said I don't even rip for personal use). I don't have an answer, but I know if we really want to fight back we need one. And "don't store your IP in a machine readable format" just ain't gonna cut it and people that use that should be shouted down because they make the people with rational complaints look like idiots by association.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.