Ken Kutaragi on Playstation3 as a computer, Linux on PS3 HDD

http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3011

Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.1 : "We Change Computing by
PLAYSTATION 3"

The Reason Why PLAYSTATION Is In Capitals

Goto: PS3 is, if you look at just the spec, a full-spec computer. Why did
you make it so rich?

Kutaragi: Since the beginning, we've been trying not to do a game console
for children, but to do a computer for entertainment that grownups around
the world can enjoy. We've been thinking about doing a computer thoroughly.
Meanwhile, finally, PC has come to the dead end. So, this time, we want to
do the next computer with partners such as IBM in an ensured way.

What we are thinking about this time is to change computing itself
thoroughly. We want to change the paradigm. We want to set PS3 as the
benchmark of everything.

G: Though its goal is a general computer, you took a game console as its
form in the beginning.

K: A game console... maybe. At E3, it's a game console, and its applications
are games. We really want to do computer entertainment. Other companies may
call theirs game consoles, but we've been calling it as computer
entertainment in press releases all along. It's entertainment and computer
as well. It's important.

At this '3', for the first time we made the word PlayStation all capital
"PLAYSTATION". We named it "PlayStation" at first, as workstations were our
dream computers. We added the "PS" logo to it as PlayStation is a trademark
and starts with P and S. But this time we use "PLAYSTATION" in capitals.

It's because, basically, with PC and all going to the dead end, it leads to
nowhere if you ask whether it's a PC or a game console. I think we've
entered the era in which you ask what is the next playstation. So
PLAYSTATION is "The playstation". We do it for a bit of pride too.

Until now, it's said "let's take functions in arcade boards or
workstations", or in the case of Microsoft, they said they'd use a
cutting-edge PC as a game console. But it's no more. PLAYSTATION will
develop as PLAYSTATION.

Calculations by A Cell Processor Will Produce Difference

G: So PS3 is a computer and its purpose is entertainment.

K: Of cource, in the beginning, it's about what's interesting as a game
console, and as computer entertainment.

In PS1, making 3D or not was the biggest differentiation factor. In
PlayStation 2, it was the mission to bring 3D in the complete
single-standard format - complete NTSC and PAL - in full color. This time,
it'll be the crucial difference from other platforms that we make it all
computing. In the background of graphics, it does vast calculations, and it
produces difference.

G: It does various simulations such as physics simulations, and operations
such as AI, synthesis, in its background.

K: You can't see by just a glance if it's calculated by a Cell Processor or
not even though it can show a beautiful HD video. But, if you look at it
carefully, calculated things and only converted things are clearly
different. You can feel it as an awesome thing when you see it, as it's
calculated. You can do thing you've never seen, you can enjoy contents
themselves.

In the case of other companies, the inside is the same even though its
graphics becomes HD. They hardly calculate things. Like hardly doing physics
and just adding a motion by a motion capture. Even though you can't tell by
just a glance, such differences can be seen quickly.

G: Do software developers understand that point?

K: I think developers have an undestanding of it. At E3 demo, they tried to
do it in real time on the spot rather than prerendering and precalculation.
At E3, many demos do various calulations in the background. Also in
graphics, how it moves is all done by calculations. Things that couldn't be
calculated without huge time until now, they can be done on Cell (in
realtime). They'll try to create games that take advantage of it.

Also for audio, it's natural that it doesn't have an audio chip. It's
because we calculate it (with Cell). The audio is not like how many voices
you have - the audio itself becomes an object.

Between our demo and their demo, such contriving is the difference. They are
different more than just the look. I think most people who attended the E3
press conference understood it. A certain famous journalist let slip a word
that XBOX is 1.5 while PS is 3.5 as it was above the expectation, they are
different like that.

The Difference Between PS3 and XBOX 360 You Can't See From The Specs

G: The messages are clearly different between XBOX 360 and PS3. XBOX 360
pushed the image that they could prepare a solid game console as a platform.
PS3 emphasized the possibility of the technologies.

K: This time, Microsoft clearly profess that they are chasing PlayStation.
However, what they are chasing are not PLAYSTATION 3 but PlayStation 2.
Because they don't know PS3 we are just making now. They become like that as
they look at PS2. The goals are different. However, most people can't tell
the difference just by looking at the specs. We got mistaken in a similar
way in the time of PS1. We'd been evaluated that the both were 3D, along
with 3DO. Even though we argued that PS1 calculated 3D while 3DO didn't, we
were said that the both were 3D and had CD-ROM, it's terrible like that.

This time, either, they may not be able to see the difference between PS3
and XBOX 360 if the spec sheets are shown side by side. But, at E3, many
people said it was good to be able to come and see it, not by the spec.
It'll be more infected and understood when it's released.

G: By PC getting to the dead end, do you mean with PC dragged by legacies
innovation is difficult and you can't go nowhere?

K: (Current computers) can't make the most of it as a total even though
individual devices have their performances. Various bottlenecks are found
when you assemble them. If you can make the most of it, you ought to be do
decent things if you combine 3.X Ghz Pentium 4 and boards by NVIDIA or ATI,
but you can't.

What I call total is the buses, the loads, and other factors when they work
together. You can't know it unless you do games (that have a high load). We
made the architecture considering all those things. For instance, each SPE
works indepedently, and SRAM is attached there, also large GPR (general
purpose registers) are attached too. Because of that it can do huge
calculations in realtime. Such an architecture is important.

(the excerpt of Goto's comment:

This time, Playstation aims, with a will, at the post-PC, next-generation
computer. In PlayStation 2 it was not enough by various factors such as
flexibility of the hardware, but in PS3 it seems he thinks he could get an
innovative architecture as a computer, with IBM. The "playstation" as a
general noun suggests various form factors in the category of playstation.
SCE's message for games is that games can be innovative on a computer that
pursues computer entertainment.)

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0609/kaigai187.htm

Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.2 : "Put a full-blown Linux on
PS3 HDD"

The Age of Network Drive

G: PLAYSTATION 3 doesn't have a local HDD even though it boasts that much
spec. Why?

K: We don't put an HDD in default. It's because it runs short no matter how
much you add it. The next thing that will come is, without a doubt, a
network drive. (A storage is) on a Cell server, you can access it via the
network from anywhere. In your home, in your friend's home, from anywhere,
you can see logically (the same network drive). Such a world.

However, the console itself requires HDD sometimes. So this time you can put
a 2.5 inch HDD in there, 80GB and 120GB. It's very short, but it's for
running an OS in a single console. Even though you have a tera-byte storage
somewhere with a network drive, you have to have a drive in which an OS can
run when you get an authentication as a single computer.

Put an OS To Be Seen As A Computer

G: Is it that you run an OS to use it as a computer?

K: What I find strange is that while we've been calling it as a computer all
the time, in the same business world Nintendo affirms it's a toy, it's a
toy, to the outside world. So, even though we make supercomputer-class
things that require an export control, the offices regard it as a toy.

Even PlayStation 2 is seen as a game console though we made an awesome chip
such as EE and run Linux on it. I'd thought it might become a bit better as
Microsoft came from the IT world. But the awkward thing is that they don't
say that as they don't want to break their own business. As they are
thinking that it becomes a trouble for them if Xbox runs Windows, they are
insisting that XBOX is a game console. What a troublesome thing.

This time, we position it as a supercomputer. However, as there are people
who don't see it as a computer if it's not filed as a computer, we make it
run an OS. Cell can run multiple OSes simultaneously. So, to run an OS as it
is and to say it's a computer, it needs an HDD.

So, I think we'll put Linux (on an HDD) from the beginning... as a bonus. To
file it as a computer.

G: For an OS to be run on Cell, Linux comes to mind.

K: Though Linux is also a legacy, it can be a initial lead. For Cell, an OS
is merely an application (laugh). The kernel runs on Cell (Cell OS
hypervisor) and it takes the style in which multiple OSes as applications
run on top of that (virtual machine). Linux will be put of course. If Linux
can be put, Lindows or anything can be put.

Also other PC OSs, if the vendors think they want, Windows or Tiger (Mac OS
X 10.4), can be put on it. Perhaps even a different OS may emerge.

Drive The Ecosystem By PLAYSTATION 3

G: With an OS, people who write programs on it will appear. To make Cell
succeed as a computer, an ecosystem must be run on Cell. It needs the
establishment of an ecosystem where many people spontaneously write programs
to impel further permeation of Cell.

K: Just like Apple Computer was open back then, if PLAYSTATION 3 is released
and becomes open, an ecosystem will be driven. When it became Macintosh,
even though Apple didn't do everything, Adobe came and someone came, the
ecosystem took off. PC was like that originally. But they absorbed
everything (into MS Windows)... Well, it may be their aesthetic, but it's
become uncomprehensible even what an OS is.

Until now, we'd provided libraries and game makers had made things in-house,
it's not possible anymore though. To do anything, you need a larger
expansion. But it'll turn out like that I think. For example, what surprised
us is that an iTunes-syncronization software for PSP was released quickly.
If it's evaluated as interesting, various things that run on it appear.

G: Non-game softwares that take advantage of Cell will be released in a
stream.

K: It'll be about what kind of software on what. For instance an HD video
authoring software is basically the same as a non-linear authoring system in
TV stations. What we want to do on PS3 is a software of that level. A
non-linear authoring system is amazing, but it'll be more amazing if you
bring it on Cell. You can manage to do it on a PC, but on PS3 it can be done
with ease, you'll see the difference like that. Also, various applications
that have been on PC, for example, a photo retouching software. Such
softwares will be released rapidly. User interfaces will be interesting too.
On PC, you have to wait for years from the XP UI to the next Longhorn. But,
ours develop faster. For example, with an interface controlled by gestures
and speech like Eye-toy, it becomes Minority Report. Of course such
development will be reflected in games too.

G: Will the Cell computer of that time retain the PS3 form factor?

K: This form will prevail first. A keyboard can be connected, it has all of
the interfaces required. You can do anything media and network. A thing as
much general as this is open.

For instance, you can use everything openly with Linux, so everything is
possible (for programmers). Also for graphics, it's the same as it has
Shader (with its programmability).

(The excerpt of Goto's comment:
Executives at Intel and Microsoft criticized Cell with its lack of software
ecosystem, and it seems SCE understands this point and is taking concrete
measures.)

[Algida]

Post by
http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3011
Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.1 : "We Change Computing by
PLAYSTATION 3"
The Reason Why PLAYSTATION Is In Capitals
Goto: PS3 is, if you look at just the spec, a full-spec computer. Why did
you make it so rich?
Kutaragi: Since the beginning, we've been trying not to do a game console
for children, but to do a computer for entertainment that grownups around
the world can enjoy. We've been thinking about doing a computer thoroughly.
Meanwhile, finally, PC has come to the dead end. So, this time, we want to
do the next computer with partners such as IBM in an ensured way.
What we are thinking about this time is to change computing itself
thoroughly. We want to change the paradigm. We want to set PS3 as the
benchmark of everything.
G: Though its goal is a general computer, you took a game console as its
form in the beginning.
K: A game console... maybe. At E3, it's a game console, and its applications
are games. We really want to do computer entertainment. Other companies may
call theirs game consoles, but we've been calling it as computer
entertainment in press releases all along. It's entertainment and computer
as well. It's important.
At this '3', for the first time we made the word PlayStation all capital
"PLAYSTATION". We named it "PlayStation" at first, as workstations were our
dream computers. We added the "PS" logo to it as PlayStation is a trademark
and starts with P and S. But this time we use "PLAYSTATION" in capitals.
It's because, basically, with PC and all going to the dead end, it leads to
nowhere if you ask whether it's a PC or a game console. I think we've
entered the era in which you ask what is the next playstation. So
PLAYSTATION is "The playstation". We do it for a bit of pride too.
Until now, it's said "let's take functions in arcade boards or
workstations", or in the case of Microsoft, they said they'd use a
cutting-edge PC as a game console. But it's no more. PLAYSTATION will
develop as PLAYSTATION.
Calculations by A Cell Processor Will Produce Difference
G: So PS3 is a computer and its purpose is entertainment.
K: Of cource, in the beginning, it's about what's interesting as a game
console, and as computer entertainment.
In PS1, making 3D or not was the biggest differentiation factor. In
PlayStation 2, it was the mission to bring 3D in the complete
single-standard format - complete NTSC and PAL - in full color. This time,
it'll be the crucial difference from other platforms that we make it all
computing. In the background of graphics, it does vast calculations, and it
produces difference.
G: It does various simulations such as physics simulations, and operations
such as AI, synthesis, in its background.
K: You can't see by just a glance if it's calculated by a Cell Processor or
not even though it can show a beautiful HD video. But, if you look at it
carefully, calculated things and only converted things are clearly
different. You can feel it as an awesome thing when you see it, as it's
calculated. You can do thing you've never seen, you can enjoy contents
themselves.
In the case of other companies, the inside is the same even though its
graphics becomes HD. They hardly calculate things. Like hardly doing physics
and just adding a motion by a motion capture. Even though you can't tell by
just a glance, such differences can be seen quickly.
G: Do software developers understand that point?
K: I think developers have an undestanding of it. At E3 demo, they tried to
do it in real time on the spot rather than prerendering and

precalculation.

Post by
At E3, many demos do various calulations in the background. Also in
graphics, how it moves is all done by calculations. Things that couldn't be
calculated without huge time until now, they can be done on Cell (in
realtime). They'll try to create games that take advantage of it.
Also for audio, it's natural that it doesn't have an audio chip. It's
because we calculate it (with Cell). The audio is not like how many voices
you have - the audio itself becomes an object.
Between our demo and their demo, such contriving is the difference. They are
different more than just the look. I think most people who attended the E3
press conference understood it. A certain famous journalist let slip a word
that XBOX is 1.5 while PS is 3.5 as it was above the expectation, they are
different like that.
The Difference Between PS3 and XBOX 360 You Can't See From The Specs
G: The messages are clearly different between XBOX 360 and PS3. XBOX 360
pushed the image that they could prepare a solid game console as a platform.
PS3 emphasized the possibility of the technologies.
K: This time, Microsoft clearly profess that they are chasing PlayStation.
However, what they are chasing are not PLAYSTATION 3 but PlayStation 2.
Because they don't know PS3 we are just making now. They become like that as
they look at PS2. The goals are different. However, most people can't tell
the difference just by looking at the specs. We got mistaken in a similar
way in the time of PS1. We'd been evaluated that the both were 3D, along
with 3DO. Even though we argued that PS1 calculated 3D while 3DO didn't, we
were said that the both were 3D and had CD-ROM, it's terrible like that.
This time, either, they may not be able to see the difference between PS3
and XBOX 360 if the spec sheets are shown side by side. But, at E3, many
people said it was good to be able to come and see it, not by the spec.
It'll be more infected and understood when it's released.
G: By PC getting to the dead end, do you mean with PC dragged by legacies
innovation is difficult and you can't go nowhere?
K: (Current computers) can't make the most of it as a total even though
individual devices have their performances. Various bottlenecks are found
when you assemble them. If you can make the most of it, you ought to be do
decent things if you combine 3.X Ghz Pentium 4 and boards by NVIDIA or ATI,
but you can't.
What I call total is the buses, the loads, and other factors when they work
together. You can't know it unless you do games (that have a high load). We
made the architecture considering all those things. For instance, each SPE
works indepedently, and SRAM is attached there, also large GPR (general
purpose registers) are attached too. Because of that it can do huge
calculations in realtime. Such an architecture is important.
This time, Playstation aims, with a will, at the post-PC, next-generation
computer. In PlayStation 2 it was not enough by various factors such as
flexibility of the hardware, but in PS3 it seems he thinks he could get an
innovative architecture as a computer, with IBM. The "playstation" as a
general noun suggests various form factors in the category of playstation.
SCE's message for games is that games can be innovative on a computer that
pursues computer entertainment.)
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0609/kaigai187.htm
Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.2 : "Put a full-blown Linux on
PS3 HDD"
The Age of Network Drive
G: PLAYSTATION 3 doesn't have a local HDD even though it boasts that much
spec. Why?
K: We don't put an HDD in default. It's because it runs short no matter how
much you add it. The next thing that will come is, without a doubt, a
network drive. (A storage is) on a Cell server, you can access it via the
network from anywhere. In your home, in your friend's home, from anywhere,
you can see logically (the same network drive). Such a world.
However, the console itself requires HDD sometimes. So this time you can put
a 2.5 inch HDD in there, 80GB and 120GB. It's very short, but it's for
running an OS in a single console. Even though you have a tera-byte storage
somewhere with a network drive, you have to have a drive in which an OS can
run when you get an authentication as a single computer.
Put an OS To Be Seen As A Computer
G: Is it that you run an OS to use it as a computer?
K: What I find strange is that while we've been calling it as a computer all
the time, in the same business world Nintendo affirms it's a toy, it's a
toy, to the outside world. So, even though we make supercomputer-class
things that require an export control, the offices regard it as a toy.
Even PlayStation 2 is seen as a game console though we made an awesome chip
such as EE and run Linux on it. I'd thought it might become a bit better as
Microsoft came from the IT world. But the awkward thing is that they don't
say that as they don't want to break their own business. As they are
thinking that it becomes a trouble for them if Xbox runs Windows, they are
insisting that XBOX is a game console. What a troublesome thing.
This time, we position it as a supercomputer. However, as there are people
who don't see it as a computer if it's not filed as a computer, we make it
run an OS. Cell can run multiple OSes simultaneously. So, to run an OS as it
is and to say it's a computer, it needs an HDD.
So, I think we'll put Linux (on an HDD) from the beginning... as a bonus. To
file it as a computer.
G: For an OS to be run on Cell, Linux comes to mind.
K: Though Linux is also a legacy, it can be a initial lead. For Cell, an OS
is merely an application (laugh). The kernel runs on Cell (Cell OS
hypervisor) and it takes the style in which multiple OSes as applications
run on top of that (virtual machine). Linux will be put of course. If Linux
can be put, Lindows or anything can be put.
Also other PC OSs, if the vendors think they want, Windows or Tiger (Mac OS
X 10.4), can be put on it. Perhaps even a different OS may emerge.
Drive The Ecosystem By PLAYSTATION 3
G: With an OS, people who write programs on it will appear. To make Cell
succeed as a computer, an ecosystem must be run on Cell. It needs the
establishment of an ecosystem where many people spontaneously write programs
to impel further permeation of Cell.
K: Just like Apple Computer was open back then, if PLAYSTATION 3 is released
and becomes open, an ecosystem will be driven. When it became Macintosh,
even though Apple didn't do everything, Adobe came and someone came, the
ecosystem took off. PC was like that originally. But they absorbed
everything (into MS Windows)... Well, it may be their aesthetic, but it's
become uncomprehensible even what an OS is.
Until now, we'd provided libraries and game makers had made things in-house,
it's not possible anymore though. To do anything, you need a larger
expansion. But it'll turn out like that I think. For example, what surprised
us is that an iTunes-syncronization software for PSP was released quickly.
If it's evaluated as interesting, various things that run on it appear.
G: Non-game softwares that take advantage of Cell will be released in a
stream.
K: It'll be about what kind of software on what. For instance an HD video
authoring software is basically the same as a non-linear authoring system in
TV stations. What we want to do on PS3 is a software of that level. A
non-linear authoring system is amazing, but it'll be more amazing if you
bring it on Cell. You can manage to do it on a PC, but on PS3 it can be done
with ease, you'll see the difference like that. Also, various applications
that have been on PC, for example, a photo retouching software. Such
softwares will be released rapidly. User interfaces will be interesting too.
On PC, you have to wait for years from the XP UI to the next Longhorn. But,
ours develop faster. For example, with an interface controlled by gestures
and speech like Eye-toy, it becomes Minority Report. Of course such
development will be reflected in games too.
G: Will the Cell computer of that time retain the PS3 form factor?
K: This form will prevail first. A keyboard can be connected, it has all of
the interfaces required. You can do anything media and network. A thing as
much general as this is open.
For instance, you can use everything openly with Linux, so everything is
possible (for programmers). Also for graphics, it's the same as it has
Shader (with its programmability).
Executives at Intel and Microsoft criticized Cell with its lack of software
ecosystem, and it seems SCE understands this point and is taking concrete
measures.)

[Peter Grandi]

xenon360> http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3011

xenon360> Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.1 : "We
xenon360> Change Computing by PLAYSTATION 3"

Usually the many Xbox 360/PS3/Revolution posts strike me as a
bit sensationalistic and not that useful, but this pointer is
very useful, as the interview is quite interesting and revealing.

[Robert Myers]

Post by Peter Grandi
xenon360> http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3011
xenon360> Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.1 : "We
xenon360> Change Computing by PLAYSTATION 3"
Usually the many Xbox 360/PS3/Revolution posts strike me as a
bit sensationalistic and not that useful, but this pointer is
very useful, as the interview is quite interesting and revealing.

Care to elaborate?

RM

[Peter Grandi]

Some possibly engaging architectural trends may seem to emerge
from some disparate but aligned trends...

Lets' start with these engaging plans by Sony for PS3, thanks
again to <xenon360>:

xenon360> http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3011
xenon360> Ken Kutaragi Interview by Hiroshige Goto - pt.1 :
xenon360> "We Change Computing by PLAYSTATION 3" [ ... ]

[ ... ]

Post by
G: For an OS to be run on Cell, Linux comes to mind.
K: Though Linux is also a legacy, it can be a initial
lead. For Cell, an OS is merely an application (laugh).
The kernel runs on Cell (Cell OS hypervisor) and it
takes the style in which multiple OSes as applications
run on top of that (virtual machine). Linux will be
put of course. If Linux can be put, Lindows or
anything can be put.

[ ... ]

Post by
G: Is it that you run an OS to use it as a computer?
K: What I find strange is that while we've been calling it as
a computer all the time, in the same business world Nintendo
affirms it's a toy, it's a toy, to the outside world. So,
even though we make supercomputer-class things that require
an export control, the offices regard it as a toy.
[ ... ]
This time, we position it as a supercomputer. However, as
there are people who don't see it as a computer if it's
not filed as a computer, we make it run an OS. Cell can
run multiple OSes simultaneously. So, to run an OS as it
is and to say it's a computer, it needs an HDD.
So, I think we'll put Linux (on an HDD) from the
beginning... as a bonus. To file it as a computer.

[ ... ]

This seems to say that while Linux will be bundled with the
optional HDD, it will run as a guest operating system within the
Cell hypervisor, alongside games and DVD players and network
daemons.

Now, to my naive eye this is strikingly similar to Intel's DRM
and AMT hypervisor, both of which I suspect to be just sides of
the same technology:

http://WWW.DigitMag.co.UK/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915

«While Intel steered clear of mentioning the new DRM
technology at its Australian launch of the new products,
Intel's Australian technical manager Graham Tucker publicly
confirmed Microsoft-flavored DRM technology will be a
feature of Pentium D and 945.

"[The] 945g [chipset] supports DRM, it helps implement
Microsoft's DRM ... but it supports DRM looking forward,"

Tucker said, adding the DRM technology would not be able to
be applied retrospectively to media or files that did not
interoperate with the new technology.

However, Tucker ducked questions regarding technical details
of how embedded DRM would work saying it was not in the
interests of his company to spell out how the technology
in the interests of security.»

«Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls
"active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as
a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT.

Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the
chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both
monitor or control individual machines independent of an
operating system.

Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE
redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely
enable, disable or format or configure individual drives
and reload operating systems and software from remote
locations, again independent of operating systems.

Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network
interface controller.»

Compare with a comment by usual pundit Cringely on the Apple
Intel lovestory, mentioning some interestng speculation:

http://WWW.PBS.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

«Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls
are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors
have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating
music and movies.

Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on
the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced
years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it.

The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to
tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.»

In which I detect however what seems to me a grave understatement
of the issue, because if the DRM/AMT above is semi-accurate,
that's is not merely a CPU id.

Amazing coincidences?

Now let's imagine: how do you enforce DRM? For example:

* Well, there is a social and overt way: purchase some
congressmen and senators or whatever and make it illegal
to run operating systems written by an unlicensed party.

But this in effect turns Microsoft from an illegal monopoly
into a legally mandated one, hardly in the interests of IBM,
Intel, Sony or Apple, as well as being a bit confrontational.

* The technical and subtle way is to never allow direct access
from any code running on the CPU, including the OS, whichever
it may be, to any peripheral (including perhaps RAM).

Having a two level CPU, in which the real CPU runs a ''trusted
firmware'' or hypervisor which controls a virtualized CPU in
which OSes are run, can help a great deal, especially if, by
coincidence, DRM primitives have been added in the meantime
not just to DVD-ROMs but also to hard disks. It is also easy
to introduce it quietly.

Such an architecture then delivers for free things like Intel's
DRM and AMT or the ability to run simultaneously Linux, a game,
a DVD viewer and network daemons on the PS3.

Is this is the shape of things to come?

In this fine picture of a happy future there is also an added
bonus: the ''all your bases are belong to us'' effect, where
''us'' is whoever has the ''keys'' to the hypervisor, especially
if the hypervisor is remotely accessible as in Intel's AMT (and
most likely also in the case of the Cell hypervisor).

Sure, Intel will give _some_ of the keys to the corporate IT
managers to which AMT is directed, but who knows if they will
give all of them? One can also imagine that friendly government
agencies will be extremely grateful for some access to that
gigantic and tightly controlled backdoor called ''hypervisor''.
After all, such backdoor will allow them to nail all the usual
subhuman unpeople, terrorists, paedophiles, drug gangsters and
(whoever is today's hate figure for the middle classes). :-)

Note: maybe some people at Intel, IBM, Sony, and perhaps also
at those friendly agencies have read that good SF about Pham
Nuwen's training as a software archeologist and discoveries.
Not unlikely, there is even a company trying to realize a
crude version of ''smart dust''.

What else? Well, the Chinese government does not seem stupid, and
if they are not stupid they will probably try to fund their own
CPU companies (as well as OSes and backdoor, sorry, DRM free
media tech). Wait a moment, indeed, that's been happening on an
however small scale, for quite a while, even if obviously not
just for reasons of national security. Probably many comp.arch
regulars have noticed this:

http://WWW.Techimo.com/articles/index.pl?photo=16

«While the name of the project has changed over past couple
of years, the current generation of the Dragon microprocessor
core is known within international markets as "Godson." The
first Godson processor rolled out in the last half of 2002
and generated great amounts of speculation and interest from
all sectors of the semiconductor industry.

The Godson-1 is considered to be China's first internally
engineered design, and is built atop a proprietary core with
support for the popular RISC-based MIPS instruction set.»

http://WWW.EETimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160911551

«BLX IC Design Corp., one of China's best known developers of
homegrown processor technology, has released a 64-bit version
of its CPU that reportedly matches the performance of the
Pentium 3.

The company signed a handful of agreements this week with
local Chinese firms to include the Godson-2 core in products
ranging from routers to a system chip designed to implement
the audio visual codec specification, known as AVS, which is
emerging in China.»

and that some guy has done an ''open source'' implementation on
FPGA of something similar to the MIPS ISA minus the patented
instructions:

http://WWW.Opencores.orgo.UK/projects.cgi/web/mips/

and of course VIA from the province of Taiwan have bought out
years ago the Cyrix and Centaur x86 clone technology. Good
thinking ahead, for many reasons.

Bah! Time will tell. In the meantime I guess we can all feel
properly assured that companies like Intel, IBM, Sony, Apple and
Microsoft and all the friendly agencies are benevolent and care
very much about the best interests and freedoms and privacy of
their subjects. :-)

[Colonel Forbin]

Post by Peter Grandi
Some possibly engaging architectural trends may seem to emerge
from some disparate but aligned trends...
...
In this fine picture of a happy future there is also an added
bonus: the ''all your bases are belong to us'' effect, where
''us'' is whoever has the ''keys'' to the hypervisor, especially
if the hypervisor is remotely accessible as in Intel's AMT (and
most likely also in the case of the Cell hypervisor).
...
Bah! Time will tell. In the meantime I guess we can all feel
properly assured that companies like Intel, IBM, Sony, Apple and
Microsoft and all the friendly agencies are benevolent and care
very much about the best interests and freedoms and privacy of
their subjects. :-)

Heh, wait until "hackers" get hold of the hypervisor 'keys' and
the technology to exploit them. That'll likely put a quick stop
to Hollywood's dreams of media monopolism.

"Pentagon shut down by hackers, warships disabled at sea."

The stupid part of all this is that Hollywood and the RIAA or their
predecessors have panicked over every form of consumer accessible
recording over the past century, including such things as player
piano rolls. What has ultimately come to pass almost exclusively
is that they end up making more money on selling the recordings
in the new form than they do on the original art/medium. There
are many cases now where Hollywood makes far more on DVD sales
than on a cinematic release in movie theaters.

Part of this absurdity is the unwarranted assumption that every
"pirated" copy of a work reflects a lost sale. This is patently
silly. Such logic approaches writing off the jackpot amount of
the state lottery on one's tax return as a loss because you might
have won if you picked the right numbers. The media moguls have
never been able to successfully demonstrate that the people who
purchase/download "pirated" works would have paid to purchase
the same works from a legitimate source. Indeed, there is some
evidence to support the notion that people who purchase pirated
copies often end up paying for legitimate copies once they become
available, often due to quality issues. The rest couldn't afford
them anyway.

The entertainment industry is one of the most notoriously sleazy
industries in existence, and has been for most of recorded history.
The term, "casting couch" pretty much sums it up.

[Tony Nelson]

Post by Colonel Forbin

Post by Peter Grandi
Some possibly engaging architectural trends may seem to emerge
from some disparate but aligned trends...
...
In this fine picture of a happy future there is also an added
bonus: the ''all your bases are belong to us'' effect, where
''us'' is whoever has the ''keys'' to the hypervisor, especially
if the hypervisor is remotely accessible as in Intel's AMT (and
most likely also in the case of the Cell hypervisor).
...
Bah! Time will tell. In the meantime I guess we can all feel
properly assured that companies like Intel, IBM, Sony, Apple and
Microsoft and all the friendly agencies are benevolent and care
very much about the best interests and freedoms and privacy of
their subjects. :-)

Heh, wait until "hackers" get hold of the hypervisor 'keys' and
the technology to exploit them. That'll likely put a quick stop
to Hollywood's dreams of media monopolism.

By breaking into Intel / No Such Agency / other Three Letter Agency and
stealing their private keys? The chips would have the public keys. (I
expect that each agency would have its own key.) It might even be
manageable to give each chip its own secretly hidden public keys, as
well as publicly acknowledged private keys for which the public key for
DRM is available, thus limiting the damage.

Post by Colonel Forbin
...The media moguls have
never been able to successfully demonstrate that the people who
purchase/download "pirated" works would have paid to purchase
the same works from a legitimate source. Indeed, there is some
evidence to support the notion that people who purchase pirated
copies often end up paying for legitimate copies once they become
available, often due to quality issues. The rest couldn't afford
them anyway.

...

Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished by
piracy. It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.
________________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' *firstname****@georgea*lastname*.com
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

[Colonel Forbin]

Post by Tony Nelson
Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished by
piracy. It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.

The whole Mexican economy was rooted in piracy. Claiming that there
was some sort of meaningful industry which was "demolished" by piracy
there is absurd.

[Bernd Paysan]

Post by Colonel Forbin

Post by Tony Nelson
Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished by
piracy. It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.

The whole Mexican economy was rooted in piracy. Claiming that there
was some sort of meaningful industry which was "demolished" by piracy
there is absurd.

We have something similar to Mexico here in Europe, it's North Africa
(Maghreb). There, the whole record economy is based on piracy, too, but
there are several active and quite popular artists (some of them are even
popular in parts of Europe, such as France). They earn their money by
performing concerts and by selling into Europe. If they would stop piracy
in their rather poor home-countries, they would - as a side effect - stop
advertising for their concerts, and in turn sales into Europe. You
basically can't sell a CD at $15 into Maghreb, but you can sell a pirated
one at $1 or below.

If you manage to sell legal CDs at about the same price as pirated, you can
also stomp out piracy. It requires to have a highly efficient sales
channel, though.

[David Magda]

Post by Bernd Paysan
We have something similar to Mexico here in Europe, it's North
Africa (Maghreb). There, the whole record economy is based on
piracy, too, but there are several active and quite popular artists
(some of them are even popular in parts of Europe, such as
France). They earn their money by performing concerts and by selling
into Europe. If they would stop piracy in their rather poor
home-countries, they would - as a side effect - stop advertising for
their concerts, and in turn sales into Europe. You basically can't
sell a CD at $15 into Maghreb, but you can sell a pirated one at $1
or below.

This is all based on the assumption that the music industry should
continue on like it has in the past 70 years or so.

Recording technology (not talking about sheet music) for music is a
fairly "recent" thing: musicians and composers used to earn a living
through patronage and performances. Selling a physical product only
came about in the 20th century. Even now there are a lot of musicians
that manage to pay the bills by touring and live concerts. I would
also assert that the majority of music even now is not being recorded
or available in stores.

Do we want to preserve the current status quo? Perhaps it's time for
change?

[Peter Grandi]

[ ... ]

Post by Colonel Forbin

Post by Peter Grandi
In this fine picture of a happy future there is also an
added bonus: the ''all your bases are belong to us'' effect,
where ''us'' is whoever has the ''keys'' to the hypervisor,
especially if the hypervisor is remotely accessible as in
Intel's AMT (and most likely also in the case of the Cell
hypervisor).

[ ... ]

Post by Colonel Forbin
Heh, wait until "hackers" get hold of the hypervisor 'keys'
and the technology to exploit them. That'll likely put a
quick stop to Hollywood's dreams of media monopolism.

The chips would have the public keys. (I expect that each
agency would have its own key.)

Here ''key'' does not necessarily mean a crypto key, even if for
example it is such in an Xbox etc. It is whatever ''knowledge''
allows one control over the hypervisor in the CPU or the chipset.
It could be a carefully designed ''flaw'', even if that risks
discovery, much less so though in a chip than in sw.

The sort of ''keys'' corporate IT managers would users are
likely to be configurable, a bit like setting the BIOS password
(while the Xbox ''key'' is factory set). They will then probably
be stored in some non volatible memory in the CPU or chipset or
some other chip attached to it.

The big problems are:

* The extraordinary amount of power over the CPU/chipset given
to the owner of the ''keys'' thanks to the AMT backdoor.

* That operation of that backdoor most likely is or can be made
essentially undetectable by the user, because I guess that it
is designed to be transparent to the OS, both on the CPU and
in the chipset.

* That it can be made undetectable _who_ has the keys to operate
the backdoor, as short of extraordinary effort it is hard to
exclude that there may be more keys than officially announced,

It might even be manageable to give each chip its own secretly
hidden public keys, as well as publicly acknowledged private
keys for which the public key for DRM is available, thus
limiting the damage.

[ ... ]

[Peter Grandi]

On the social architecture implications of CPU/chipset
architectures that can be used to enforce the control of third
parties (the ''good guys'' of course) over systems which are the
property of others, for DRM or ''security'' purposes:

[ ... much omitted ... ]

Post by Tony Nelson

...The media moguls have never been able to successfully
demonstrate that the people who purchase/download "pirated"
works would have paid to purchase the same works from a
legitimate source. [ ... ]

As far as I know (and I have been somewhat attentive as to this)
the media moguls (and the patent moguls) have not been able (or
even willing, strangely :->) to prove or corroborate the idea
that the current IP regime does provide the (net) benefit to the
public, without which (net) benefit it is illegal in the USA.

I do reckon that there is _some_ limited evidence that in some
narrow circumstances there is probably narrow public benefits in
some countries from some small degree of IP protection, but the
wilder claims by those who derive large vested private benefits
from much more advantageous (to them) regimes are another thing.

Some academic and government studies in the USA and other
countries have strongly suggested that except in very narrow
cases it does not, even if *limited* copyrights seem to provide
smallish but more easily demonstrable benefits than patents.

Also, I guess that record company executives are in part within
their rights to try and seduce computer companies into providing
them with monitoring and enforcing architectural backdoors.

If the customers of the computer companies care, they will buy
something else. But then Congress is ready to help, many there
are ready to grant another monopoly to ensure that the
''something else'' is not legal.

Post by Tony Nelson
Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished
by piracy.

This statement implies the number one fallacy used by the vested
interests of the current IP regime: that Congress owes them an
easy, comfortable living, and if it is hard for them to come by
that living, Congress owes them more protection.

A number of industries have been demolished in the past, and
while they did try to get Congress to give them legal monopolies
(against ''piracy'' of steel, cars, timber, ...) they have never
been as successful as the media vested interests.

If the record industry were to disappear because say either in
law or in fact they lost the vested advantage of the legally
enforced monopolies that underpin they salaries and perquisites,
well, why worry? Those advantages are an almost entirely an
artificial creation of those monopolies.

Note: there is an interesting 18th century satiric tract by
a French author about an imaginary petition by the candle
makers to the King, who was keen to issue Letters Patent
granting private monopolies to his good friends. The issue
was that the Sun was illegally competing with them because
by being un unlicensed provider of light it depressed their
licensed business, leading to lower living standards in, or
even the demolition of the candle industry.

Post by Tony Nelson
It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.

This statement contains another fallacy: that some people are
owed the right to an easy comfortable living by «selling records»
instead of having to debase themselves earning a regular living
by performing their music, as (evidently stupider) musicians
from time immemorial have done.

Living off the fruits of rent and monopoly is so much easier
than having to work every day that I am not surprised that some
Mexicans have moved to where Congress has generously (for very
modest industry contributions) made it possible. Most Mexicans
however move to the USA to do backbreaking daily work, not to
cash royalty checks while living large. Suckers! :-)

Also, consider this analogy: imagine that Congress decided to
make farming peanuts a federally protected monopoly, and that
it were illegal (criminally so in the end) to farm or import
peanuts in the USA without one of a fixed number of peanut
farming licenses/patents/copyrights granted by Congress.

If it were so, then the peanut farmers with a licence might
vigorously complain that the criminals farming peanuts in their
own yards even for their own consumption would be ''pirating''
peanuts (and recent legal trends imply they would have an
enforceable case), and that abolition or weakening of their
monopoly system would demolish their industry. What a terrible
thought! :-)

Note that the analogy here is about the legally mandated
monopoly, not the specific mechanisms of ''pirating''.

I can even imagine that an abolition or weakining of the
monopoly would be argued to be a government taking without
compensation of their ''property'', just as mere reductions in
the duration of copyrights and patents would apparently be
according to some sources.

Now to me many of these things look absurd... Perhaps not to
record company executives whose huge salaries and bonuses,
options and expense accounts depend crucially on the (cheaply
purchased!) generosity of Congress.

Note: the interested reader might want to check about those
peanut farming licences, what might have been the (quite vile)
campaign finance buying reasons for them being generously
granted by Congress, if they ever were (surely not :->).

Record company executives, peanut farmers, candlemakers of the
world unite, defend your sacrosanct right to earn an easy living
thanks to a grateful Congress! :-)

And thanks for inflicting gigantic virtualization and backdoor
risks (not to mention high peanut butter prices) on everybody in
the pursuit of that noble goal! :-)

[Tony Nelson]

In article <***@base.gp.example.com>,
***@0502.exp.sabi.UK (Peter Grandi) wrote:

[Tony Nelson wrote:]

Post by Peter Grandi

Post by Tony Nelson
Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished
by piracy.

This statement implies the number one fallacy used by the vested
interests of the current IP regime: ...

No, the statement is an existance proof that Piracy can harm an
industry. There used to be a record industry in Mexico.

Post by Peter Grandi

Post by Tony Nelson
It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.

This statement contains another fallacy: that some people are
owed the right to an easy comfortable living by «selling records»
instead of having to debase themselves earning a regular living
by performing their music, as (evidently stupider) musicians
from time immemorial have done.

No, it means that Mexico is deprived of their own musicians, who have
moved away in order to make a living. They don't perform in Mexico;
they perform in the US. This harms the Mexicans who live in Mexico,
that is, most of them. By having successful IP laws, the US has
competitively acquired musicians from Mexico -- outcompeting Mexico --
/winning/.
________________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' *firstname****@georgea*lastname*.com
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

[Bernd Paysan]

Post by Tony Nelson
No, it means that Mexico is deprived of their own musicians, who have
moved away in order to make a living. They don't perform in Mexico;
they perform in the US. This harms the Mexicans who live in Mexico,
that is, most of them. By having successful IP laws, the US has
competitively acquired musicians from Mexico -- outcompeting Mexico --
/winning/.

Isn't the US winning on everything when competing with Mexico? A lot of
Mexicans immigrate to the US, even if the job they'll do there is cleaning
cars or serving burgers. Do you think that there's something that destroyed
the cleaning cars market in Mexico? Yes, it's there, it's called poverty. I
simply fail to see how a working IP laws im Mexico could offer Mexican
artists a similar benefit as going north, leaving the third world behind,
and entering the first.

There are other markets with non-working IP laws, the example I gave
(Maghreb) is just one. Think of mainland China. All these markets do work,
despite of the lack of a comparable first world IP law. They work
(following their own rules), because there is a benefit for the artists to
stay at home, and/or a sufficiently rigid immigration restriction policy on
the nearby first world countries.

Note also that the US media industry outcompetes even media industries with
comparable IP laws (such as the one in the EU). It's simply stronger. We
have more US music on the radio than local one. We have more US movies in
the cinemas as local ones - usually, there's maybe one local movie per year
that's competes successful with the two or three US blockbusters running at
the same time. If you are movie maker or actor in Germany, you emigrate to
the US if you can. A lot of them actually do.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:38:17 GMT,

+ No, it means that Mexico is deprived of their own musicians, who have
+ moved away in order to make a living. They don't perform in Mexico;
+ they perform in the US. This harms the Mexicans who live in Mexico,
+ that is, most of them. By having successful IP laws, the US has
+ competitively acquired musicians from Mexico -- outcompeting Mexico --
+ /winning/.

You have *got* to be effin' kidding me.

Right?

If not, that's one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on Usenet
in a while. Tell me, my friend, how many people in Mexico can afford a
CD let alone a concert. Let this number be A.

Now, tell me, how many people in the USofA are able to afford not only
a CD but concert tickets at, oh, say $20 a pop. Call this number B.

Now, is A greater than B? I'm gonna guess the answer is "no". But you
tell me.

James

[Tony Nelson]

Post by I R A Darth Aggie
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:38:17 GMT,

+ No, it means that Mexico is deprived of their own musicians, who have
+ moved away in order to make a living. They don't perform in Mexico;
+ they perform in the US. This harms the Mexicans who live in Mexico,
+ that is, most of them. By having successful IP laws, the US has
+ competitively acquired musicians from Mexico -- outcompeting Mexico --
+ /winning/.

You have *got* to be effin' kidding me.

James, you ignorant slut, you must live in Mexico to be such an expert.
What I said was news recently, and you could see for yourself whether
I'm kidding.
________________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' *firstname****@georgea*lastname*.com
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:30:46 GMT,

+
+ > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:38:17 GMT,
+ >
+ > >+ No, it means that Mexico is deprived of their own musicians, who have
+ > >+ moved away in order to make a living. They don't perform in Mexico;
+ > >+ they perform in the US. This harms the Mexicans who live in Mexico,
+ > >+ that is, most of them. By having successful IP laws, the US has
+ > >+ competitively acquired musicians from Mexico -- outcompeting Mexico --
+ > >+ /winning/.
+ >
+ > You have *got* to be effin' kidding me.
+
+ James, you ignorant slut, you must live in Mexico to be such an expert.

No, actually, it's all the Mexicans I see around town working hard to
send money back home to Mexio. But if Mexico is such a worker's
paridise, I must have been mistaken.

+ What I said was news recently, and you could see for yourself whether
+ I'm kidding.

Ok, so do you have a counter for my *economic* arugment, or are you
just a wanker?

James

[Del Cecchi]

"Peter Grandi" <***@0502.exp.sabi.UK> wrote in message news:***@base.gp.example.com...
On the social architecture implications of CPU/chipset
architectures that can be used to enforce the control of third
parties (the ''good guys'' of course) over systems which are the
property of others, for DRM or ''security'' purposes:

[ ... much omitted ... ]

Post by Tony Nelson

...The media moguls have never been able to successfully
demonstrate that the people who purchase/download "pirated"
works would have paid to purchase the same works from a
legitimate source. [ ... ]

As far as I know (and I have been somewhat attentive as to this)
the media moguls (and the patent moguls) have not been able (or
even willing, strangely :->) to prove or corroborate the idea
that the current IP regime does provide the (net) benefit to the
public, without which (net) benefit it is illegal in the USA.

I do reckon that there is _some_ limited evidence that in some
narrow circumstances there is probably narrow public benefits in
some countries from some small degree of IP protection, but the
wilder claims by those who derive large vested private benefits
from much more advantageous (to them) regimes are another thing.

Some academic and government studies in the USA and other
countries have strongly suggested that except in very narrow
cases it does not, even if *limited* copyrights seem to provide
smallish but more easily demonstrable benefits than patents.

Also, I guess that record company executives are in part within
their rights to try and seduce computer companies into providing
them with monitoring and enforcing architectural backdoors.

If the customers of the computer companies care, they will buy
something else. But then Congress is ready to help, many there
are ready to grant another monopoly to ensure that the
''something else'' is not legal.

Post by Tony Nelson
Consider Mexico, where the record industry has been demolished
by piracy.

This statement implies the number one fallacy used by the vested
interests of the current IP regime: that Congress owes them an
easy, comfortable living, and if it is hard for them to come by
that living, Congress owes them more protection.

A number of industries have been demolished in the past, and
while they did try to get Congress to give them legal monopolies
(against ''piracy'' of steel, cars, timber, ...) they have never
been as successful as the media vested interests.

If the record industry were to disappear because say either in
law or in fact they lost the vested advantage of the legally
enforced monopolies that underpin they salaries and perquisites,
well, why worry? Those advantages are an almost entirely an
artificial creation of those monopolies.

Note: there is an interesting 18th century satiric tract by
a French author about an imaginary petition by the candle
makers to the King, who was keen to issue Letters Patent
granting private monopolies to his good friends. The issue
was that the Sun was illegally competing with them because
by being un unlicensed provider of light it depressed their
licensed business, leading to lower living standards in, or
even the demolition of the candle industry.

Post by Tony Nelson
It has, at least, resulted in many acts moving to the US where
they can make a living selling records.

This statement contains another fallacy: that some people are
owed the right to an easy comfortable living by «selling records»
instead of having to debase themselves earning a regular living
by performing their music, as (evidently stupider) musicians
from time immemorial have done.

Living off the fruits of rent and monopoly is so much easier
than having to work every day that I am not surprised that some
Mexicans have moved to where Congress has generously (for very
modest industry contributions) made it possible. Most Mexicans
however move to the USA to do backbreaking daily work, not to
cash royalty checks while living large. Suckers! :-)

Also, consider this analogy: imagine that Congress decided to
make farming peanuts a federally protected monopoly, and that
it were illegal (criminally so in the end) to farm or import
peanuts in the USA without one of a fixed number of peanut
farming licenses/patents/copyrights granted by Congress.

If it were so, then the peanut farmers with a licence might
vigorously complain that the criminals farming peanuts in their
own yards even for their own consumption would be ''pirating''
peanuts (and recent legal trends imply they would have an
enforceable case), and that abolition or weakening of their
monopoly system would demolish their industry. What a terrible
thought! :-)

Note that the analogy here is about the legally mandated
monopoly, not the specific mechanisms of ''pirating''.

I can even imagine that an abolition or weakining of the
monopoly would be argued to be a government taking without
compensation of their ''property'', just as mere reductions in
the duration of copyrights and patents would apparently be
according to some sources.

Now to me many of these things look absurd... Perhaps not to
record company executives whose huge salaries and bonuses,
options and expense accounts depend crucially on the (cheaply
purchased!) generosity of Congress.

Note: the interested reader might want to check about those
peanut farming licences, what might have been the (quite vile)
campaign finance buying reasons for them being generously
granted by Congress, if they ever were (surely not :->).

Record company executives, peanut farmers, candlemakers of the
world unite, defend your sacrosanct right to earn an easy living
thanks to a grateful Congress! :-)

And thanks for inflicting gigantic virtualization and backdoor
risks (not to mention high peanut butter prices) on everybody in
the pursuit of that noble goal! :-)

Not only peanuts, but sugar, cotton, and tobacco. And then the holders
of the tobacco permits demand large payments when the permit system is
done away with....

It is always easier to make money when the folks with the guns are on
your side, like the government or the mafia...

del cecchi

[Niels Jørgen Kruse]

Post by Del Cecchi
It is always easier to make money when the folks with the guns are on
your side, like the government or the mafia...

It is *much* easier to read posts with proper quoting!

[Del Cecchi]

Post by Niels Jørgen Kruse

Post by Del Cecchi
It is always easier to make money when the folks with the guns are on
your side, like the government or the mafia...

It is *much* easier to read posts with proper quoting!

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened to the quoting. OE
munged me over. And I see that my email is messed up too. damn.

del

[Stefan Monnier]

Post by Colonel Forbin
The stupid part of all this is that Hollywood and the RIAA or their
predecessors have panicked over every form of consumer accessible
recording over the past century, including such things as player
piano rolls.

Yes, the problem is that they don't trust the law-enforcement. If they
could just stick to the idea that making copies (for use other than
personal) is illegal and that them being illegal will be enough to deter the
masses from piracy (which has been show to work just fine in many
countries), they wouldn't waste their time with DRM crap which doesn't
prevent piracy anyway.


Stefan

[p***@prep.synonet.com]

Post by Colonel Forbin
Part of this absurdity is the unwarranted assumption that every
"pirated" copy of a work reflects a lost sale. This is patently
silly. Such logic approaches writing off the jackpot amount of the
state lottery on one's tax return as a loss because you might have
won if you picked the right numbers. The media moguls have never
been able to successfully demonstrate that the people who
purchase/download "pirated" works would have paid to purchase the
same works from a legitimate source. Indeed, there is some evidence
to support the notion that people who purchase pirated copies often
end up paying for legitimate copies once they become available,
often due to quality issues. The rest couldn't afford them anyway.

Case in point, for everyone to use as an example if they wish. Go to

http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm

and read `Prime Palaver'. Especialy read #6 and contrast that with
hellyweirds screams of doom and death...

OK, all the stuff there can be LEGITIMATLY downloaded for free, but
still.