[jcadam]

Can it be so?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

As far as I know this just means you need a ROM like chip on your computer so you don't install it on Non-apple hardware.

What's the big deal?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Palladium. Never would have suspected it would first be seen in Apple machines.

Heh.

cheers

W-Y

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Palladium. Never would have suspected it would first be seen in Apple machines.

Heh.

cheers

W-Y

Since Apple is not part of the Palladium consortium, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that we will see it on any Macs with Intel chips in them. The chips have SUPPORT for DRM, NOT DRM built in to them.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

As far as I know this just means you need a ROM like chip on your computer so you don't install it on Non-apple hardware.

No, a TPM chip is more than that.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Since Apple is not part of the Palladium consortium, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that we will see it on any Macs with Intel chips in them.

I'm sorry, I don't see any connection there.

Apple has chosen to move away from OpenFirmware. OpenFirmware does not support DRM or Palladium. Apple has chosen Intel. PPC does not support Palladium or DRM. Apple has chosen DRM. Sad but there you are.

cheers

W-Y

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by jcadam

No, a TPM chip is more than that.

How so? What is bad about it?

[AB^2=BCxAC]

It's only bad if you're not into paying for legal copies of your OS or software.

So what's anybody got to worry about? : )

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

It's only bad if you're not into paying for legal copies of your OS or software.

So what's anybody got to worry about? : )

Nah it's bad if you want to have fair use of your legally purchased copies. Especially since DRM is just some set of dos and don'ts set up by the copyright owners, completely regardless of the copyright laws in countries.

Good example is the current DVD, well it has a protection that can't legally be breached in the USA. Although you could copy your DVD for private use, you can't anyway because breaking the "lock" is illegal. Umm. Retarded.

Now here in Europe you can break the "lock" of a DVD and make your personal copy. Now they still have this lock on the DVDs although it serves no purpose here. Just the US market.

Now fast forward to the Palladium world. I'm sure US laws will be (or are already) of such nature that you can't hack the Palladium without breaking the law. OK fine, Americans voted assholes into their lawmaking bodies. Whatever. Everywhere else in the World where people want to exercise their right of fair use of their legally bought intellectual works, well they can't. Until someone hacks it.

Point being: DRM is a bad thing in my POV because it is being thrust upon me even though there are no laws supporting it in my country. In fact the DRM is trying to prevent me from exercising my right as a private consumer.

Pardon me for not jumping up and down with joy.

cheers

W-Y

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm sorry, I don't see any connection there.

Apple has chosen to move away from OpenFirmware. OpenFirmware does not support DRM or Palladium. Apple has chosen Intel. PPC does not support Palladium or DRM. Apple has chosen DRM. Sad but there you are.

cheers

W-Y

Aside from your statement being logically dubious, you're wrong. The Slashdot thread on this has some good stuff:

I know a great deal about TPMs, I have a computer with a TPM. They are very common. Many high end laptops and desktops have TPMs. Here [tonymcfadden.net] is an up to date list of systems that have TPMs. They include manufacturers such as HP, IBM, Acer, NEC, Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Fujitsu, and Samsung. You've probably heard of some of them. It's easy to get a computer with a TPM. Probably in a few years it will be hard to get a computer without one.

What does a TPM do? Essentially it is just a crypto chip. It can hold keys, and sign and encrypt data with them. It's completely passive. It never takes control of your system or does anything invasive. It doesn't even monitor the bus or snoop on data flows. It merely hashes, signs and encrypts data, on request from the CPU.

How is it used for DRM? It can't be done today. They way it would be used, sometimes in the future, is to ship the chip with a unique key pre-installed in it, and with a certificate from the manufacturer on that key. Then the BIOS and OS get enhanced to do a "trusted boot" in which every software component gets its hash reported to the TPM. This allows the TPM to send out a crypto-signed "attestation" about the software configuration on the computer. It is signed by the built-in key, and that key is known to be a legitimate TPM key by virtue of the certificate that was created at manufacture time.

This lets a remote server verify that you're running a genuine version of Media Player or iTunes and not some hacked thing that will strip the DRM and put it out on the net. Your system can report its software configuration and that attestation can't be forged, because you don't control a TPM key that has a cert on it from a TPM manufacturer.

It's a complicated system, and no part of it exists today. Manufacturers don't ship TPMs with pre-installed keys, and they don't issue certificates. Nobody wants to touch that stuff with a ten foot poll. I know, I've tried to get a computer with a certified TPM for research purposes, but they're just not available.

How would Apple use a TPM to keep the OS from running on non-Apple PCs? This is the $64 question, but I haven't seen much information about it. If they just look for the presence of a TPM, that won't help much - see above for all the computers out there that have TPMs.

My guess is that it is more likely that the mechanism Apple will use or is using to keep from running on non-Apple hardware is not the TPM. They will probably use a custom chip. The TPM is extremely standard, the Trusted Computing Group has hundreds of pages documenting it. It would be crazy to twist that standard.

Rather, I'm guessing that Apple uses the TPM for crypto purposes, possibly with an eye towards eventual DRM if and when the necessary massive infrastructure ever gets built. Due to its unique position as designer of both the computer and the software, Apple might even be in a unique position with regard to rolling out some form of TPM based DRM, just as they were among the first to create a commercially successful DRM system in iTunes. My speculation is that Apple is not using the TPM to stop hackers porting its software, they're using the TPM because it's useful. It just happens that the hackers don't have many systems with TPMs.

If so, then, it is merely accidental that the use of the TPM is a road block for experimenters determined to run the Apple software on non Apple PCs. It's possible that if they looked at the list [tonymcfadden.net] they would find some computers lying around that had TPMs in them, and if they tried on those computers, the TPM software would work fine. Maybe the OS would then run in its current form. It sounds like it's worth a try, anyway.

Additionally, this is a developer kernel, running on developer machines. We should wait to see the release version before jumping to conclusions.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Aside from your statement being logically dubious, you're wrong.

No I'm right, and I have read the Slashdot articles relevant to this subject.

My statement was: PPC does not support Palladium DRM (which is the type of DRM in discussion) and OpenFirmware doesn't support Palladium DRM either. Apple has chosen a processor and firmware that *can*. Not only that but they have the TPM in their develeopment systems. Every single component for a Palladium system is present and working. Right now Apple is using this Palladium type DRM to prevent people from installing OS X on your average Intel machine.

I find your dismissive tone and lack of substantial information to counter my claim insulting to me and other readers of this thread. Makes you sound like a know-it-all nerdy Apple fanboi, of whom we have lots here. Please prove me wrong there. We don't need more of them.

PS: the author of the article simply admits he doesn't know how Apple is using the TPM in this case. Heh, I hesitate to suggest but: perhaps Apple is using it *as it was designed to be used*??

cheers

W-Y

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Please prove me wrong there.

You said, Apple has chosen DRM.

Prove it. One piece of the developer kernel, which Apple didn't write, is calling TPM. Prove this means that Apple has chosen DRM.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

You said, Apple has chosen DRM.

Prove it. One piece of the developer kernel, which Apple didn't write, is calling TPM. Prove this means that Apple has chosen DRM.

You flat out told me I was wrong and my conclusions were hardly logical. I asked you to elaborate (probably "prove it" in your vocabulary) and you reply with this trite. You will pardon me if I won't take your post too seriously. I have already laid out how Apple is already using DRM to protect OS X for Intel so it can only be used on Apple machines. You can read all about it above.

cheers

W-Y

[Ganesha]

If this is just to keep OS X off non-Mac x86 hardware, it is perfectly fine with me.

To add (slightly off topic).

If DRM chips gets me:
- Movies, old TV shows, etc... on demand (like music on demand at the iTunes Music store). And I am allowed to backup the file with a simple copy operation (like the iTunes Music Store). I have no problem with it. I do not expect my files on unauthorized machines no more then I expect my VCR to start accepting DVDs, even if both devices/media types are designed for video playback.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

You flat out told me I was wrong and my conclusions were hardly logical.

They are. You said, Apple has chosen DRM. You can not prove this. You can show that one part of the kernel, not written by Apple, is calling to the TPM chip. That is all you can prove. You can not show that Apple has "chosen" DRM because you do not have access to the final release of the OS X Intel kernel. No one does. There are several conclusions one may draw from Rosetta calling TPM:

1) Apple will use TPM to make sure OS X does not run on Apple branded hardware;
2) Apple is using the TPM calls in Rosetta as a test bed for ensuring 1 above;
3) The TPM calls in Rosetta are a measure to ensure the developer releases of OS X for Intel don't spread too widely;
4) The TPM calls in Rosetta were put there by Rosetta's authors and Apple has seen no need to remove them;
5) The TPM calls in Rosetta mean absolutely nothing.

Any of the above may be true. Any of the above may be false. We do not, and can not, know the method Apple will use to ensure OS X does not run on non-Apple branded hardware. We do not, and can not, know any future plans for Apple's use of DRM. All we know is that, in this instance, one part of the kernel is calling TPM. Any speculation beyond the immediately available facts is just that – speculation. Anyone calling speculation "proof" is, by definition, wrong. You may think you have proven something, but, unless you are able to see the future, you haven't.

[Weyland-Yutani]

See every one of your listed reasons *is* DRM. DRM is not bound to music, media or anything in particular. It is a way to ensure ANY digital information from a .txt file to a movie or indeed an OS, as it is in this case, is not used on an unauthorized machine. The fact that Apple is preventing people from running OS X for Intel on anything but the Apple machines by using the TPM is DRM.

A fine show there, but Apple isn't hiding the fact they are using DRM to protect OS X for Intel. That is choosing and embracing Palladium DRM.

The kernel of OS X is written by Apple - of course it it open source but most of the work is done by Apple engineers. The firmware is not written by Apple, but then that is a given. That specific firmware is needed to use the Palladium chip. That the chip is there and being used at all shows and proves Palladium DRM is active. Apple is protecting their OS with it.

I never claimed to know what Apple decides to do with the final release of OS X for Intel, but right *now* they are applying Palladium DRM on their OS for Intel. Simple as that.

cheers

W-Y

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

right *now* they are applying Palladium DRM on their OS for Intel

Had you said that I would've had no problem with your statement.

That is choosing and embracing Palladium DRM.

This is what we will have to wait and see about. There are many ways Apple can protect OS X. Which one they choose is, at this moment, unknown.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Had you said that I would've had no problem with your statement.



This is what we will have to wait and see about. There are many ways Apple can protect OS X. Which one they choose is, at this moment, unknown.

Yes, we'll have to wait and see. While we wait it is of some interest to realize that Apple has all the technology and chips to use Palladium DRM and has tried it already on the developer releases of OS X for Intel. In other words Apple is ready if media companies push for Palladium DRM in the near future.

Let's just say I won't fall down with surprise when Apple announces their Intels will be fully Palladium (or whatever they call it today) compliant. As a consumer I have no desire to see my entertainment remote controlled. DRM is a royal pain IMO. I don't know if Palladium can be hacked but I do suspect it can. It's just a bother.

cheers

W-Y

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes, we'll have to wait and see. While we wait it is of some interest to realize that Apple has all the technology and chips to use Palladium DRM and has tried it already on the developer releases of OS X for Intel. In other words Apple is ready if media companies push for Palladium DRM in the near future.

Let's just say I won't fall down with surprise when Apple announces their Intels will be fully Palladium (or whatever they call it today) compliant. As a consumer I have no desire to see my entertainment remote controlled. DRM is a royal pain IMO. I don't know if Palladium can be hacked but I do suspect it can. It's just a bother.

cheers

W-Y

Huh? Palladium requires a Palladium server. Palladium is not fully working on these Macs, and further more, only works with Windows as far as I'm aware. I believe Microsoft plans to manage the servers for Palladium themselves.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

In other words Apple is ready if media companies push for Palladium DRM in the near future.

I think this is a possibility. I hope that, if Apple is involved in this, they find a way to make the DRM mildly intrusive (and easily circumventable) like they did with the iTMS.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? Palladium requires a Palladium server. Palladium is not fully working on these Macs, and further more, only works with Windows as far as I'm aware. I believe Microsoft plans to manage the servers for Palladium themselves.

What is your point? That Palladium isn't fully working on these "macs"? Well I expect you are right. A fully working Palladium isn't required to protect OS X from being used on other Intels.

Furthermore it only works with Intel processors and the EFI firmware. The OS is irrelevant.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

I think this is a possibility. I hope that, if Apple is involved in this, they find a way to make the DRM mildly intrusive (and easily circumventable) like they did with the iTMS.

That makes two of us

cheers

W-Y

[jcadam]

What frightens me most about Palladium is the prospect of non-Palladium compliant systems (say, machines running Linux) being 'locked-out' of the computing future.

[Salty]

I don't think Linux will be locked out of the future because of things like DRM. I don't think it can. It some day may be something that is not able to be part of your average family's home computer setup that the kids play on and the parents e-mail from. But frankly so what? Linux is already being pushed by companies like IBM and others. Frankly Linux isn't going to go anywhere. It just won't be able to expand everywhere. And honestly I don't mind.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

They are. You said, Apple has chosen DRM. You can not prove this. You can show that one part of the kernel, not written by Apple, is calling to the TPM chip. That is all you can prove. You can not show that Apple has "chosen" DRM because you do not have access to the final release of the OS X Intel kernel. No one does. There are several conclusions one may draw from Rosetta calling TPM:

1) Apple will use TPM to make sure OS X does not run on Apple branded hardware;
2) Apple is using the TPM calls in Rosetta as a test bed for ensuring 1 above;
3) The TPM calls in Rosetta are a measure to ensure the developer releases of OS X for Intel don't spread too widely;
4) The TPM calls in Rosetta were put there by Rosetta's authors and Apple has seen no need to remove them;
5) The TPM calls in Rosetta mean absolutely nothing.

Any of the above may be true. Any of the above may be false. We do not, and can not, know the method Apple will use to ensure OS X does not run on non-Apple branded hardware. We do not, and can not, know any future plans for Apple's use of DRM. All we know is that, in this instance, one part of the kernel is calling TPM. Any speculation beyond the immediately available facts is just that – speculation. Anyone calling speculation "proof" is, by definition, wrong. You may think you have proven something, but, unless you are able to see the future, you haven't.

The TPM module is a kernel extension. If Apple did not write that, I do not know who did.

Rosetta calling TPM is DRM in and of itself. Rosetta won't run without the codes from the TPM chip. Moreover, Apple left an application that is crucial to the GUI as a PPC binary, so the developer machines depend on TPM. I call this DRM, but you probably call it speculation.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Salty

I don't think Linux will be locked out of the future because of things like DRM. I don't think it can. It some day may be something that is not able to be part of your average family's home computer setup that the kids play on and the parents e-mail from. But frankly so what? Linux is already being pushed by companies like IBM and others. Frankly Linux isn't going to go anywhere. It just won't be able to expand everywhere. And honestly I don't mind.

You don't understand what Palladium is do you? Yet you participate in every single discussion going on about the subject. Good job there!

Linux and any non-Palladium platform goes the way of the dodo if Palladium becomes as prevailant as Windows is today. Macs will probably help. Files that are made on a Palladium system will be encrypted. Any standard file. See, Palladium isn't just a tool for the big boys, it is open for everyone. I create a file and set its permissions so it can only be played on my machine, that is what happens. I could give other machines licence to play that file too. What about the Palladium free Linux machine? Nope, all it can see is encrypted garbage. The Linux machine is out. Like every other machine that doesn't support the Palladium encryption. Please, go read up on this subject before posting about it again Salty. You are wasting everyone's time as it is.

I would like to take this moment to point out that the sky is not falling and neither Apple or MS have made finalized products using Palladium.. they are just darn close to it by the looks of things. We'll see.

cheers

W-Y

[jcadam]

Salty: Wikipedia is your friend

Embrace the knowledge, baby.

[smoke-tetsu]

The question is do you think that if they do use that (palladium) to it's fullest extent that all the current content and hardware will up and self destruct and people would line up for it in droves? I don't think so.

[thunderous_funker]

I think its misguided to put the blame on PC makers for uber-DRM. Fact of the matter is that stolen media sells PCs and the PC makers know that.

The problem is content creators. They dictate the terms. Unless PC makers play nice and make content creators happy, they will be left out in the cold. Imagine a PC that can't play CDs or DVDs because content owners decided PC makers weren't doing enough to protect them.

PC makers are playing along (which is certainly something to be concerned about) but they aren't the real problem or the ones that deserve the most criticism or derision. In that light, Apple is positioning itself so that it won't be left out in the cold. Sad, but neccessary.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

What is your point? That Palladium isn't fully working on these "macs"? Well I expect you are right. A fully working Palladium isn't required to protect OS X from being used on other Intels.

Furthermore it only works with Intel processors and the EFI firmware. The OS is irrelevant.

cheers

W-Y

Do you really think Apple would be moronic enough to give servers at Microsoft full control over what runs on Macs? I don't think so.

It's a stock Intel board that comes with all the stock Intel chips. Apple is using Trusted Computing, not Palladium. Trusted Computing basically just makes it so software can be paired to a computer. In this case they are pairing Mac OS X for Intel to actual Intel Macs, WHICH APPLE SAID THEY'D BE DOING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

Just because Palladium is on the board doesn't mean Apple will use it. They have a Pentium 4, chances are Apple won't use that. They have Integrated Graphics, chances are Apple won't use that. They even use BIOS, which as you said, isn't even compatible with Palladium anyway.

Trusted computing on the other hand can be very useful. Instead of using user names and passwords, your computer can simply become a trusted device and automatically be logged into servers, online accounts, and the such.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Trusted Computing *is* Palladium. I can see the rebranding worked on some people

Microsoft would have a server for theor OS, Apple for their. Palladium is not MS-only. Why doesn't anyone read a wee bit wbout this issue before replying with nonsense?

cheers

W-Y

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Trusted Computing *is* Palladium. I can see the rebranding worked on some people

Microsoft would have a server for theor OS, Apple for their. Palladium is not MS-only. Why doesn't anyone read a wee bit wbout this issue before replying with nonsense?

cheers

W-Y

No, Trusted Computing is *not* Palladium. Bluetooth, for example, already does trusted computing.

Palladium also is run by Microsoft servers, which keep track of authorized programs to run. The hardware contacts Microsoft to see if a program is allowed to run. Yes, this would work with non-Microsoft programs, but what if say one day Microsoft "accidently" took Mac OS X off the list of authorized programs? Suddenly no one's Macs would boot. This is why Linux people are so concerned. They'd have to get Linux onto the authorized list of programs, which takes time and money.

As I said, Apple would have to be moronic to buy into Palladium.

[budster101]

Are you SWF? Why teh attitude? You are not the only expert on the topic, and since you seem to be "an" expert, why not be a bit more personable and kinder to the less enfranchised as yourself? I need a smoke...

[thunderous_funker]

Palladium gets a name change

Trusted Computing is the umbrella standard, NGSCB (Palladium) is the MS attempt at compliance with TC ideas/standards. While they are not technically the same, they are arguably interchangable in the sense that Weyland-Yutani is arguing (very broadly).

But its still a mistake to make this out as an MS thing or even an Apple thing. Its not. TC has standards for making computers secure, some of which can include draconian restrictions on fair use of movies, music, etc. The bad guys on that front are the copyright holders and their tools in the US Congress, not the TC consortium or MS or Apple.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you SWF? Why teh attitude? You are not the only expert on the topic, and since you seem to be "an" expert, why not be a bit more personable and kinder to the less enfranchised as yourself? I need a smoke...

Probably because I've spent the last day dealing with all the people freaking out and saying they're going to switch because of this when really it's no big deal, and could even be useful.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Palladium gets a name change

Trusted Computing is the umbrella standard, NGSCB (Palladium) is the MS attempt at compliance with TC ideas/standards. While they are not technically the same, they are arguably interchangable in the sense that Weyland-Yutani is arguing (very broadly).

But its still a mistake to make this out as an MS thing or even an Apple thing. Its not. TC has standards for making computers secure, some of which can include draconian restrictions on fair use of movies, music, etc. The bad guys on that front are the copyright holders and their tools in the US Congress, not the TC consortium or MS or Apple.

Trusted Computing is very different in nature. It's basically hardware based PGP, again, very similar to what happens when you pair a Bluetooth device. Essentially it allows you to pair your machine to a web site, servers, whatever. You could set up your server to only trust your own computer for connections, and because it's hardware based, it would be virtually hacker proof.

Palladium is where your computer goes and talks to Microsoft any time it wants to run a program. Yes, I'm sure it's based on Trusted Computing. No, Trusted Computing does not mean Palladium. I had a long discussion about this with an Apple engineer last night.

Edit: For good measure, IBM is also on the Palladium board. However, Apple is not.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by goMac

Trusted Computing is very different in nature. It's basically hardware based PGP, again, very similar to what happens when you pair a Bluetooth device. Essentially it allows you to pair your machine to a web site, servers, whatever. You could set up your server to only trust your own computer for connections, and because it's hardware based, it would be virtually hacker proof.

Palladium is where your computer goes and talks to Microsoft any time it wants to run a program. Yes, I'm sure it's based on Trusted Computing. No, Trusted Computing does not mean Palladium. I had a long discussion about this with an Apple engineer last night.

I know. I was trying to bridge the disconnect between Weyland's rants about DRM and the TC/NGSCB issue. As far as Weyland is ranting about DRM, there really isn't much difference.

My point is that the DRM that gets people the most huffy is only a small part of the whole TC/NGSCB issue and actually a bit tangential. Copyright holders want TC to protect their content, but that isn't what it was designed/intended to do. Like I said earlier, PC makers have a real interest in avoiding DRM for music/movies for as long as they can because copying/stealing that stuff is a very real componenet of PC sales. How long they can resist that pressure depends largely on the laws the US Congress gets paid to create by the copyright fascists.

The PC makers (Apple especially) are moving parallel to the issue. They are positioning themselves so they could comply with DRM if they have to, but they don't really want to unless they have to. The sad truth is that if the record companies say they won't deal with Apple any more until it gets DRM on its PCs, Apple doesn't really have a choice.

Some people believe that consumers will resist such measures but I don't see that happening really. Most people will just muddle along and bear it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

The PC makers (Apple especially) are moving parallel to the issue. They are positioning themselves so they could comply with DRM if they have to, but they don't really want to unless they have to. The sad truth is that if the record companies say they won't deal with Apple any more until it gets DRM on its PCs, Apple doesn't really have a choice.

If Apple owns the distribution channels, they have plenty of control. Obviously trusted computing could be used to make your computer a trusted machine for playing the file, which isn't much different than it is today. I mean, we already have DRM under iTunes now. Not much is going to change. It's not like CD's you rip will automatically gain DRM.

[thunderous_funker]

For all its sucess, the iTMS is NOT a sacred cow to the record industry. Apple has very little leverage if the record companies decide the current DRM regime isn't good enough.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by goMac

If Apple owns the distribution channels, they have plenty of control. Obviously trusted computing could be used to make your computer a trusted machine for playing the file, which isn't much different than it is today. I mean, we already have DRM under iTunes now. Not much is going to change. It's not like CD's you rip will automatically gain DRM.

The only control Apple has is the revenue path... and they aren't alone. The record company still holds all the cards.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The only control Apple has is the revenue path... and they aren't alone. The record company still holds all the cards.

But again, DRM'd music isn't anything new. It's already here, whether or not it's on the hardware. At least now there will be a standardized system, and the ability to use your DRM'd music outside of iTunes and in other software because it's standardized, and trusted.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

1) Apple will use TPM to make sure OS X does not run on Apple branded hardware;

I think they'll use it so OS X does run on Apple branded hardware. (we all know what you meant, just pokin' fun.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac

But again, DRM'd music isn't anything new. It's already here, whether or not it's on the hardware. At least now there will be a standardized system, and the ability to use your DRM'd music outside of iTunes and in other software because it's standardized, and trusted.

As long as you can hear the music, there's no way to protect it. When they came out with those tapes that you couldn't record from, people just ran a line from their Headphone to their Mic port and recorded it.

Sure, it'll take longer. But I can't imagine people that pirate music and movies all day have anything better to do. It'd take one guy and an hour of his time, and the music will be all over the internet.

Instead of DRMing music, how about provide a service that's more convenient and more reliable than the channels piraters use? iTunes is working pretty well and it shows that a model like that CAN work. I think there was an article a while back that said that legal music purchases have outdone illegal music downloads. Not too shabby.

Also, I like the $1 a song idea. It'll force bands to stop making crap cuz then they won't make any money. Seems like nowadays people buy a CD for 1 or 2 songs, then rest are crap. Assuming the CD has more than 6 or 7 songs in the first place. That's the other annoying trend I've noticed. CDs with less than 10 songs on it.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I know. I was trying to bridge the disconnect between Weyland's rants about DRM and the TC/NGSCB issue. As far as Weyland is ranting about DRM, there really isn't much difference.

I like to think about it as "discussion" but to each his own

cheers

W-Y

[jcadam]

Just thought I'd like to mention, M$ would not have been able to implement NGSCB back in 1990. The success of this implementation depends, in large part, on the vast majority of computer users being ignorant of the way technology works (and its importance), and being apathetic about having their usage of technology monitored and controlled. The number of computing 'enthusiasts', in proportion to the total number of computer users is only getting smaller.