Steve Ballmer (and the RIAA, MPAA and AFAA) are watching you

[Fairportfan]

Cheeze - talk about "Orwellian":

A few years back, an internet hoax about secret microphones in PC that Big Brother could listen to every sound in the same room with flew around the web (Right-wing talk-radio wowser Neal Boortz reported it on-air as fact). More recently, there's been that school district that was actually using the webcams built into laptops it issued to students to check up on their use.

Get ready for the next stage - MPAA and RIAA (and, likely, porn producers) watching your living room 24/7 to make sure nobody gets their content who isn't allowed...

Microsoft patent spies on consumers to enforce DRM

Summary: Microsoft has been granted a patent that makes sure consumers are paying for content.

A new patent application filed by Microsoft and granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office details a content distribution system which uses cameras to detect whether or not you've been paying for your content.

The patent, US20120278904, works as a surveillance mechanism, inbuilt within devices including television sets, computers, smartphones and tablets in order to enforce digital rights management (DRM). In other words, if you're streaming content without a license, it can be detected -- and your media stream cut off.

The patent summary reads:

A content presentation system and method allowing content providers to regulate the presentation of content on a per-user-view basis. Content is distributed an associated license option on the number of individual consumers or viewers allowed to consume the content. Consumers are presented with a content selection and a choice of licenses allowing consumption of the content.



The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.

Although an infrared camera may not be the only method of detection, and technology including Microsoft's Kinect, controllers and "facial recognition techniques" could be used, the patent continues by stating that DRM can further be enforced by "determining at least a number of users within a display area of a display device for a duration of the presentation exceeding a threshold." In other words, if a license only covers one individual viewing and you're watching a film with friends or family, content simply won't play.

The patent also mentions that age and identity can be detected in relation to whether a viewer is authorized to see particular content. The technology can also enforce time frames that users are allowed to see media. [Emphasis added]

The technology is designed to work with streamed content, downloaded material and media stored in either removable or irremovable storage systems. These include "RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, DVD or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices."

From a DRM perspective, the patent is rather smart, and makes sense in order to prevent consumers from exploiting the terms of their content licenses. However, when technology in the home can detect how many people are present, their ages and potentially store their facial profiles, if this is made commercial, it's unlikely the latest privacy intrusion will go down well with the general public.

[Jabberwonky]

With the commercial and PR success of the prosecution of file sharing that's happened so far, I can't see why anything would go wrong with this....

At what point does personal privacy start?

[Dave11]

At what point does personal privacy start?

I think that bus left a long time ago...

[Mark N]

At what point does personal privacy start?

And sometimes I think you forget the reasoning ability (or lack of it) of the average citizen. Many still believe that the press is unbiased after all.

[chibichibi01]

Uhm, no thanks. I watch movies naked because it's my house and I can do that.

They can't fuck with my right to be comfy. And you know, my right to privacy!

[Mark N]

Uhm, no thanks. I watch movies naked because it's my house and I can do that.

They can't fuck with my right to be comfy. And you know, my right to privacy!

Sorry I dropped my brain somewhere.

I also think that I have to go back to Georgia soon.

[chibichibi01]

Uhm, no thanks. I watch movies naked because it's my house and I can do that.

They can't fuck with my right to be comfy. And you know, my right to privacy!

Sorry I dropped my brain somewhere.

I also think that I have to go back to Georgia soon.

-blows a raspberry- My boyfriend does it too -eyebrow wiggle-

[shadowinthelight]

When citing an article like this please link back to the original. This is not a patent, it is a patent application filed on April 26, 2011. The number is definitely not in format of patent that has already been granted and I can't find any info showing that one has been.

Yes this proposed technology sucks in every way possible but at this point it seems Microsoft is just playing the classic game of filing vague ideas to collect fees in the future. If any product hits the mainstream consumer market with this level of integrated privacy invasion you can bet your ass there will be lawsuits from rights organizations.

PS: Charlie Osborne sounds like a man but she is actually very attractive.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

When citing an article like this please link back to the original. This is not a patent, it is a patent application filed on April 26, 2011. The number is definitely not in format of patent that has already been granted and I can't find any info showing that one has been.

Yes this proposed technology sucks in every way possible but at this point it seems Microsoft is just playing the classic game of filing vague ideas to collect fees in the future. If any product hits the mainstream consumer market with this level of integrated privacy invasion you can bet your ass there will be lawsuits from rights organizations.

PS: Charlie Osborne sounds like a man but she is actually very attractive.

Plus, it would be the least purchased hardware in existence. Or the most frequently disabled feature, if they try to bundle it into the next generation of GUI devices.

Not that I have much to worry about, since I run on Linux it simply won't work. There are some operating systems you don't have to buy, for everyone else... there's Microsoft. Or Mac, I suppose, if you want a more efficient hardware and much more stable and virus-free operating system in exchange for even MORE money.

[Bookworm]

I wish that people wouldn't be allowed to patent anything unless they do what they used to be required to do. Walk into the office with a proof of concept, or at least evidence that one has been built. (in case of a manufacturing line, for example)

No more "I thought this up, so I'm patenting it." - if you can't be bothered to try to build it, then you shouldn't 'own' it.

[Fairportfan]

When citing an article like this please link back to the original. This is not a patent, it is a patent application filed on April 26, 2011. The number is definitely not in format of patent that has already been granted and I can't find any info showing that one has been.

I saw no reason to link the article because i quoted the whole flippin' thing.

Also note that the article specifically says "granted by the US Patent Office".

And my posting it had more to do with the concept than whether an actual patent has been granted.

[shadowinthelight]

Linking back to articles is considered a common courtesy to make it easier for people to look more into a subject and decide for themselves if the source is credible. Not everyone's Google fu is strong enough to always find this kind of esoteric stuff. Frankly, (unless someone can point out more detailed info) I think that opening article summary is a failure of understanding by the writer. Clicking on the link to the patent application itself, which did not carry over in the quote you posted, takes you to Patent Office site. After clicking on Home you can see PatFT: Patents and AppFT: Applications are two different sections. I did a search in the patent section by application date and got plenty of results but none related to this Microsoft stuff.

I agree no good can come of this but was honestly having trouble understanding if you thought this is something to be just disturbed by or really alarmed about since you referred to both the hoax microphone story and the real school webcam story.

[The Old Wolf]

Not that I have much to worry about, since I run on Linux it simply won't work. There are some operating systems you don't have to buy

I've long been tempted to go that route, but being aware of my addictive personality, I'm not sure I have the time...

[Dave]

Frankly, (unless someone can point out more detailed info) I think that opening article summary is a failure of understanding by the writer. Clicking on the link to the patent application itself, which did not carry over in the quote you posted, takes you to Patent Office site. After clicking on Home you can see PatFT: Patents and AppFT: Applications are two different sections. I did a search in the patent section by application date and got plenty of results but none related to this Microsoft stuff.

Agreed.

The number on the document is that of an application, not an issued patent, and there's no notation of a patent grant.

Also, note that the "filed" date is just over six months ago. Currently the delay betwwn filing of patent applications, and having the application read by an examiner is on the order of a couple of years... the Patent Office is badly overloaded. One of my filings (for/by my employer) has been waiting for almost three years, and we haven't gotten the usual first-round rejection or questions yet.

I think this is an application which the PTO had just recently made visible to the public... this used to happen a year after filing but after the recent patent-law changes it may be only six months. Somebody (competitor or journalist or watchdog) saw the filing and brought it to somebody else's notice... and I think the 'zine story missed the mark.

The interesting thing is the very first claim, which is worded very broadly. It claims the invention (idea) of offering a choice of licenses, with restrictions on how many can watch, and then monitoring the viewing to see if the license terms are being honored or not. This claim does not restrict or specify how the monitoring is being one, at all (that's done in subsequent claims) and so would apply to any method of monitoring whatsoever!

That's an extremely broad claim... Microsoft is trying to put a "stake in the ground" that's about the size of a sequoia tree!

It's the sort of claim I would rather expect to see rejected by a patent examiner, either of the grounds of obviousness or of prior art. The music industry has been offering music with two different licenses for decades (private performance, such as when you buy a CD, and public performance as when you pay for music you can play in a store or club or for music-on-hold) and monitoring public performances to make certain that the "public performance" license has been paid for. That's a practice which would seem to fall within what Claim 1 is describing.

So, it seems to this nerd that Claim 1 is probably invalid due to prior art, and the PTO examiner will reject it and Microsoft will have to rewrite the application and be more specific in what they are trying to claim.

Claim broadly, get shot down, narrow and rewrite your claims one or more times, eventually get the examiner to agree that they are narrow enough to actually be novel and non-obvious... that's the usual way of it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Not that I have much to worry about, since I run on Linux it simply won't work. There are some operating systems you don't have to buy

I've long been tempted to go that route, but being aware of my addictive personality, I'm not sure I have the time...

Your concern is valid. Some distros are more... user friendly... than others.

If you're curious, you can dual-boot Ubuntu and play around with it a bit.

But yea... if you have to compile the kernel... just say no. Not unless you have a computer science or computer software engineering degree.

Debian is less user friendly than Ubuntu, but still fairly user friendly. Gentoo is... much less. Quite powerful, mind you, but... yea, you probably don't want to go there. Red Hat is the other common distro which is fairly user friendly.

Just remember... if it asks you to Sudo... stop and think 'Do I *REALLY* want/need to do this?'. If something demands Root access... if you aren't a developer, it's probably best left alone.

[Dave]

Must compile kernel...

Heh... been there, done that, got the scars and ulcers. I think my first Linux installation and kernel used Slackware and 0.99.3.

Back in those days, you often didn't have all that much choice about compiling your own kernel. Most of the distribution kernels were monolithically built (the module loading system was absent or far less sophisticated) and only a few were available for any given distribution. Usually they'd have support for the commonest device configurations only (e.g. IDE and floppy) but if you had any less-common hardware it wouldn't be recognized by these kernels. I regularly had to compile customized kernels to support (e.g.) SCSI disks and adapters that I wanted to use.

Fortunately, that problem is almost entirely in the past. Most distributions now ship with a wide range of driver and feature modules available in their "initial RAMdisk" images, so you can load up the necessary kernel extensions at boot time quite easily.

I think I've hand-configured and compiled precisely one kernel in the past couple of years, for a specialized application.

"Recover Is Possible"

The real bleeding-edge statement these days is "Must... debug... kernel".

[Fairportfan]

I agree no good can come of this but was honestly having trouble understanding if you thought this is something to be just disturbed by or really alarmed about since you referred to both the hoax microphone story and the real school webcam story.

Actually, i guess i should have said that i was warning people about all the fun we'll likely have watching the Internet Furore.

(Regarding the patent thing - another source i ran across ... though i didn't save the URL (and can't remember where it was - i hit it while chasing other links about something else ... also reports that the patent has been granted.)

[Fairportfan]

Not that I have much to worry about, since I run on Linux it simply won't work. There are some operating systems you don't have to buy

Responding to that line (which i didn't see): This has nothing to do (directly) with anything Linux could enter into. This is something that's supposed to be installed on TVs, DVRs, anything home entertainment/media device that can play DRMed content (iPads, etc) and (i'm guessing) video game consoles.

And, if the RIAA and MPAA and their ilk have their way in Congress (which they mostly have, up to now) the only way you'd be able to avoid this is to not own anything capable of playing DRMed content.

The article does not mention PCs as the primary place for this to be used, but apparently, some people (Linux and Apple Fanbois, i guess) automatically assume that if it's about something Microsoft is doing, it can't affect their Terribly More Elegant And Superior Systems. Tunnel vision and myopia are terrible things.

[shadowinthelight]

The article does not mention PCs but lots of products, like cash registers, arcade games, etc use a modified Windows kernel under the hood. Manufacturers have free, open source alternatives but none that are truly Microsoft compatible. ReactOS gets ridiculed for still being in the alpha stage after so long but the work they've done with such limited resources and personnel is amazing (and completely legal). Imagine if it gains more support and emerges as a viable alternative. Aside from us saving money on computers, hardware makers that need an OS would be freed from Microsoft's licensing fees. It would then become much harder for the **AA Content Mafias to impose their whims without one corporation dominating the market to work through.

[Fairportfan]

The article does not mention PCs but lots of products, like cash registers, arcade games, etc use a modified Windows kernel under the hood. Manufacturers have free, open source alternatives but none that are truly Microsoft compatible. ReactOS gets ridiculed for still being in the alpha stage after so long but the work they've done with such limited resources and personnel is amazing (and completely legal). Imagine if it gains more support and emerges as a viable alternative. Aside from us saving money on computers, hardware makers that need an OS would be freed from Microsoft's licensing fees. It would then become much harder for the **AA Content Mafias to impose their whims without one corporation dominating the market to work through.

Nopes. Congress will enact a requirement that a.ything capable of playing materials with DRM has to contain this tech.

Or, conversely, MPAA & RIAA will require allsuch material to be keyed to this.

(Note, this is a worst-case scenario, which i would give no better than a one-in-three chance, if that ... But if the*AAs get behind it solidly, it could happen.)