Slashdot Log In
Transmeta to Incorporate DRM in TM5800 Processor
Posted by
michael
on Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:38 PM
from the great-way-to-boost-sales dept.
from the great-way-to-boost-sales dept.
smiff writes "Silicon Valley is reporting that Transmeta will embed 'security' features in its TM5800 Crusoe processor. 'Transmeta said its Crusoe processors...would be slightly altered to tackle security and address requirements for securing sensitive data and intellectual property.' With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Transmeta to Incorporate DRM in TM5800 Processor
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 255 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course I forgot who said that....
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it makes sense to a lot of people. Say, for example, that I want to write a book. While I could write the book, the odds of a publisher picking it up are incredibly small. Even if it did get picked up, an author only gets a small fraction of each sale. Then there is the Self Publishing [spannet.org] route, but this requires that I put significant time and effort into developing my own publishing methods. Lastly, I could simply sub-contract the actual creation of the book, but I've got to have significant cash up front in order to buy in the quantity required in order for this to work. And then you've got to manage inventory (storage and accounting thereof).
Or I could simply publish an eBook under the context of secure DRM. If the book is successful, then I've got some capital to work with in order to bring the book to the bookshelf.
It isn't all evil, people. But this is slashdot so I'd better go screw myself, eh?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Normal publishers don't get to dictate these terms - why should you? That's the problem with DRM.
Consumers have a right not to buy something if they do not like the terms. If Joe Consumer does not want to buy an eBook because he can't copy it to multiple devices, then there is nobody forcing him to do so. If Joe Consumer wants to buy a real, hard copy book, then his rights have been restricted as well.
For the record - I *am* writing a book. And my work will be released only in hard copy format because an unsecure digital work would quickly remove the need for most people to actually *purchase* the book (I realize that there are a few honest people out there but not in the demographic that I will be targeting).
What you are not realizing is that secure DRM *creates a new market* rather than restricting the current one. Everyone associates the term with the MPAA and RIAA. And yes - these companies would like to remove some of our fair use rights with this technology. What they don't realize is that it will remove the need for many authors and artists to require the terms of the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated Big Corporate Evil.
If a proven secure DRM makes an inroad, then I would consider releasing my work at this level. And if Joe Consumer wants to pay a few bucks to preview it for X number of days, then he will. But realize that this is a new market and not a restriction on an existing one.
As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say.
DRM as a concept isn't evil. It might be even good. Problem is in the details, namely in the way it is implemented. And I bet it will be implemented in a way that will benefit only the big evil corporations.
Assuming that I would like to buy an ebook, I'd like to be able to use it in a way no more restrictive than a dead-tree edition. Which means ability to tranfer to laptop, PDA, smartphone or whatever device I would carry - just like I can carry the normal book in my bag or in my pocket and don't need to pay for separate bag and pocket editions. I could even agree with some form of deactivating other copies so only one is accesible at a time. Current approach however is that I would have to pay for new copy for each device I want to have the book on. Which suddenly makes ebook more expensive than normal one even though the production cost is much less... Guess what, I won't be buying one.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if they do not understand the terms that's a different matter. When Joe Consumer finds out the eBook he paid for can't be used under basic fair use terms this will all end up in court faster than falling down a mineshaft with a tailwind.
Problem is that DRM tries to imply a license for use rather than an actual product purchase. Most punters won't get the difference (and others will disagree with it) so that will create problems.
And my work will be released only in hard copy format because an unsecure digital work would quickly remove the need for most people to actually *purchase* the book
Every one wants it so bad they'll steal it! Wow. It's that good is it? How about if it's any good, they'll pay for it. I've paid for PDF documents and I'll do it again, but not if they come with strings attached IN ADDITION to those of the existing law.
What they don't realize is that it will remove the need for many authors and artists to require the terms of the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated Big Corporate Evil.
So where do you think you will get your DRM authorization from? Yep, Big Corporate Evil - aka Microsoft or Verisign or Adobe or similar.
As a side note, Linux will lose bigtime if it doesn't adopt a fair DRM system. Otherwise, Microsoft will be the only player in this new market.
Ya reckon? I think you'll find that Linux users will be those against DRM in general, and hence will not be in the DRM "market" anyway. Linux (and other OS) were developed for free use, not to be part of any "market".
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me, like all it gets you is a smaller market for your book (and thereby, lower sales), combined with some additional fees and contractual obligations from you to whatever organization is in charge of the DRM "technology."
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet if the economy hadn't tanked, we wouldn't be seeing so much of this.
I feel I speak for most people here... (Score:4, Funny)
Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
With everyone looking out for security, why don't I feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Because it is not security for you, but security from you.
DRM seems to be more DRRM: Digital Rights Removal Mechanism.
Boycott? (Score:3, Interesting)
Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" (Score:4, Interesting)
If all DRM hardware don't sell then the technology
will be abandoned.
I believe that a true open design for open hardware
will result out of this. And we will be running
Linux or FreeBSD.
Apple I believe is fighting to stay out of this.
Who knows, maybe Apple will get a surge of new business.
I do not want a nutered computer.
Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" (Score:5, Insightful)
will be abandoned.
Not entirely true. If the cost of selling DRM technology exceeds the benefit, then it will be reduced in market share, perhaps to oblivion. On the other hand, if the benefits, which may include demands, or more precisely protection from, from entertainment and media conglomerates, exceed the costs of creating DRM, it will expand in use.
If it becomes standard, through de facto expansion, or mandate, then it will have marginal extra cost to manufacturers. This may enable market players to created added value in non-DRM technology, but the value-proposition, in lieu of wanted protections from aforementioned conglomerates, is exceedingly small. (ie. make something non-DRM and get sued.)
Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" (Score:5, Insightful)
It it the clear intention of Hollywood and the Whitehouse that this would mean doing without a computer of any kind. Sounds like a fun future, doesn't it. This is the reality of consummer capitalism: the public is free to choose from the options the plutocrats set out for them, whether it is computer chips or presidents. In the later case, of course, they sometime have to fiddle the figures a bit if you're tedious enough to pick the wrong one but the reality is that a choice of two nobodies suits them much more than a real choice of people that might actually try to do a good job.
TWW
Re:Boycott any hardware that supports "DRM" (Score:4, Insightful)
NO, NO, NO! As someone who works in the consumer digital media industry, this is not the right idea. The B2B (that's business-to-business) companies, e.g. Transmeta and many others, who produce hardware, firmware, and software support are bound to do what their customers (consumer electronics companies) want them to produce. If they don't, someone else gets the contract, period. The failure of Transmeta or TI or ARM does *nothing* to stop DRM. But there is a means that will work:
Boycott end-user products that use unacceptable DRM technologies. A few good market failures will send a loud message to the CE companies that no one wants DRM products. They stop asking for it, and companies like Transmeta will be more than happy to no longer waste development effort on a feature their customers will no longer pay for. Then the CE and the B2B hardware companies become your allies in the fight against DRM -- because you've taught them that to do otherwise limits their bottom lines.
security is a double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think the whole DRM thing is just FUD. There are so many agendas at work, the true nature of it is only known to the designers at work. And knowing how hardware architects work, I don't think theres much to fear.
Re:Reasons? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this story [foxnews.com] has something to do with it? Essentially, the entertaiment and tech industries have "struck a deal" which means we won't have CDBTPA, but won't have fair use either.
Chinese (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a list (Score:5, Interesting)
While there are very valid and good reasons for this technology to exist, I don't ever want to see it on my desktop/laptop. Server side makes sense to me, but I only see potential for abuse on the desktop side.
Inside connection (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait... Dangit.
Non-Story (Score:5, Insightful)
A. Ignore DRM solutions and the coming tidal wave of hollywood support and cash and apps that will work with Palladium-type processor hacks.
B. Make your chip support and embrace DRM.
As an investor, I can guess "B" might be your answer...
In other [bbc] news (Score:5, Informative)
Basicly the RIAA are going to stop lobying for imposed DRM and the tech companies are going to put DRM inplace.
BBC News Story [bbc.co.uk]
Not quite DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Though it does have "secure" storage for "confidential information." The article also mentions that it that the architecture can be extended to support new "features." So don't panic (yet), but it looks like this is a start towards full on-chip DRM.
Just a bunch of X86 extensions! (Score:4, Informative)
They say DRM because it sells, but you can use it for signature checking your executables against troyaned versions (and you calculate the signatures when you install from a know, secure media), accelerating your encrypted FS, chat and web traffic. So if you install MS system you get an accelerated DRM PC. You install Linux/xBSD and get an accelerated privacy protected PC. I'd rather have this choice.
Transmeta Sold Out (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't panic because Transmeta has a miniscule market share. When Intel announces they will incorporate DRM into all current and future Intel chips and AMD follows suit, THEN panic.
All they are doing (Score:4, Informative)
Useful Features (Score:3, Interesting)
Much like the Intel P3 features, it is quite useful to have a good random number generation and increased speed for software cryptography. Even the hidden storage registers have non-DRM uses (although I suspect they won't make the FIPS 140-1 level 3 or 4 that I'm used to).
Here are some non-DRM uses to consider:
* Increased crypto speed helps servers (don't forget Transmeta sells chips for dense servers).
* Network identification and IPSEC support (increasingly important in these wireless days)
* Local encryption options (protect data on vunerable computers, like laptops).
My point is that not all cryptography is bad.
Hardware Encryption - Cool!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The title of the piece is "Transmeta Embeds Security in TM5800 Chips", it does not mention DRM or Palladium.
The 1st paragraph comments that there will be a Crusoe that has "embedded technologies for securing sensitive data and delivering tamper-resistant x86 storage environments", now it seems to me that they are making it possible for me to protect MY data.
The next paragraph is slightly less clear in their intentions, with "for securing sensitive data and intellectual property", as it doesn't mention who's intelectual property we are talking about.
I will put the next paragraph in in ts entirety as is says quite a bit "The new security technologies include secure hidden storage of confidential information, encryption acceleration and a processor architecture that can be extended to support new features and industry standards, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)"
I am going to stop quoting now as the link to the story is available in the initial posting.
Lets look at my current config on my web server to see where this new chip could benefit me.
The server is running SSL versions of Courier MTA, Courier IMAP server, and Apache. Then there is the fact that the only way to log onto the box is via SSH.
Do I see rather a lot of encryption going on there - I think I do.
So if my processor can accelerate that then its a bonus not a problem.
Add stuff like tunnelling X through SSH tunnels and I would be a happy person.
So this is a rather useful tool, rather than the thin edge of the wedge, at least as it looks to me from the available info, I could be wrong, but at least I am not just seeing Palladium/DRM lurking around every corner.
And no, I am not pro-Palladium, in fact I have posted previously about my fears of Palladium, and its possible negative impact on my ability to do what I want with the computers that I own.
But lets not get hysterical people
It's transmeta. It makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a lifebook P 2000, and I can tell you that watching movies and listening to music are two things that just dont happen on it. I would LOVE to be able to lock it down, but it isnt really possible past PGP/Zonealarm/NAV/etc.