scott wrote:
> 
> Yeh but AMD, Intel etc have not signed a license agreement for their
> CPUs with some DRM company that stipulates they go to reasonable efforts
> to prevent the DRM system being reverse engineered.  

Well, that's true.

> Typically this
> means your software shouldn't store any important decryption keys in a
> fixed RAM location for any significant length of time, and that access
> to the hardware is limited by eg cutting off unused IC pins or covering
> the IC itself in some very-hard-to-remove-without-destroying-the-IC resin.

They could eg. make two-layered system, where first layer passes DRM'd
or plain audio to the second layer, which decodes the DRM and passes the
audio forward and give access to the first layer. That way different
control mechanisms, UI's etc (even support for new file formats, which
could be a no-bonus option from the DRM-parties) without letting to
crack the DRM's.

> But yes, if MS decided that on Vista they would offer a mechanism to
> save DRM files unencrypted, I imagine there would be some law suits :-)

They do offer a layer (OS), which makes possible to drive programs,
which decode DRM. Actually, the most famous and used one of such layers.
I think they just curse the pirates loud enough that they are believed
to be purely* on the DRM-gang's side.

*) Lets face it - piratism has made a strong part of userbase for
Windows and it still makes part of MS's profits. It also does decrease
MS's profit a bit, but I wouldn't be sure if the ending line is either
positive or negative. It would be best for them if their products
couldn't be pirated but everyone else's could, since a lot of other
companies products need MS-software to run on.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message