E01103r1
Email concerning e00148, CPRM
Pete McLean
Maxtor Corporation
2190 Miller Drive
Longmont, CO 80501
303 678-2149
Pete_mclean@maxtor.com
1/15/01
The following is email that I received concerning e00148 , CPRM. This is email
that was sent to me personally since my name is on the web site and this email
has not appeared on the reflector. To assist the committee in its deliberations,
I am providing this information to the committee.
The following was added in revision 1
********************************************************************
From: James F. Taylor, Jr. [jtaylor8@airmail.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:43 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM is Bad for the future of PCs
Dear Sir:
I would like to formally protest the proposal to add encryption to generic
hardware interfaces, specifically the ATA standard. Despite the recent
attempts by Intel and others to paint CPRM as a harmless "standard", anyone
who has been paying attention to CNN can see that CPRM is an attempt by
giant entertainment companies to stem the tide of progress and innovation
that we have enjoyed since the beginning of the personal computer
revolution. Their antiquated and barbaric business practices have no place
in the computer industry. Telling me that, as a consumer, I somehow will
use my PC to pirate music or movies no matter what is both offensive and
immoral. The mere hint that I could not copy my own data from one hard
drive to another without consent of the "keyholder" or other third party
organization smacks of totalitarian control and will spell the end of the PC
revolution. If CPRM is enabled in the standard, it will signal to consumers
that they cannot be trusted with entertainment content. Certainly, some
consumers embrace whatever is fed to them, but there are far more technical
users that view CPRM as Orwellian (and rightly so.) I am not writing this
in an attempt to squelch all concerns over priacy and copyright
infringement, but I do think CPRM is going to saddle the user with undue
hardship. It destroys the freedom to try new things on the PC, and it will
spell the end of the PC revolution.
In closing, I urge you and your committee to consider the harm that CPRM
will cause both the industry and any future technology. I can say with
considerable confidence, that my employer would abandon any development of
PC applications for our customer if CPRM is implemented. There is no
solution for classified data to be "approved" via a clearinghouse in order
for it to be copied. Disk cloning is a common practice for the data my
employer handles, and with CPRM, cost-effective PC solutions that enabled
easy methods for doing so will have to be moved to Unix and other non-PC
vendors unaffected by this protection. The sheer volume of PCs that are
purchased by my employer would impact many vendors and resellers. I do not
want to see the PC revolution ground to a halt because some mogul in the
entertainment industry feels he or she is being robbed of profits by
"rampant" piracy on computers. That sort of alarmist propaganda is what
started CPRM in the first place. Put simply, it is not the responsibility
of your committee to make sure someone's content is protected. The software
industry should handle protection, so that legitimate users of Linux and
other alternative operating systems can enjoy the freedom the PC provides.
If you eliminate choice, the only choice is not to purchase. Please
consider this as you evaluate CPRM.
Thank you for your attention and time. The views expressed above are solely
my own and not necessarily those of the Raytheon Corporation.
Sincerely,
James F. Taylor, Jr.
Sr. Software Engineer Raytheon Co. AIS Division
Greenville, TX 75402
(903)457-5366
work email: taylorjf@raytheon.com
home email: jtaylor8@airmail.net
*********************************************************************
From: S. Michael Patton [mpatton@nilles-nilles.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:08 PM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: The proposed ATA revisions by 4C
Sir:
I am 46, a patent attorney and a graduate of Harvard Law School. The
proposed additions the the ATA specification are not the product of
engineers or users seeking a faster, more efficient device, but are offered
solely to provide the technological basis for a flawed business model by
easily and effectively controlling access to data. I cannot respect
engineers who engage in social engineering. Your job is to provide good
tools and to make technical decisions based upon your superior technical
expertise. It is the job of businessmen to adapt to whatever useful tools
you develop. You do your job. Let them do their job.
Attempts to control technology by raising its price, limiting its
usefulness, and, in general steering it in a profit-making direction (for
one group) is not new. The same efforts were made by buggywhip
manufacturers when automobiles came on the market in large numbers.
Businessmen in the horse-and-buggy businesses made every effort they could
to stymie the development of automobiles by agitating for restrictive laws
and regulations. The electrical manufacturers tried to get their
proprietary connectors, wiring, relays, switches and other technolgies built
into standards and codes. All such efforts should have been rejected. I
ask you to resist the current efforts as well.
They will adapt, in time.
If they do not, they will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. The
sole function of the features the 4C group propose is to add dollars to
their bottom line, not by providing a better product, but by persuading you
to help them block free communication of information.
Best regards,
Mike Patton
*********************************************************************
From: Nelson, Steve [snelson@NATIONAL.AAA.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:51 AM
To: Piazza, Charles
Cc: Wills, William; Warner, Dan; Yrisarry, Rene; 'kent.pryor@quantum.com';
'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'; Gilliland, Kelly
Subject: New ATA CPRM Proposal
I am not real knowledgeable about hard drive standards, but I have four
reactions to the proposal:
Legal mumbo jumbo has no place in a hardware standard, especially when
it makes the hardware work less efficiently.
Okay, so you supposedly give copyright-holders a little more protection
for their materials. But you slow down large portions of industry with
cumbersome restrictions and complicated new difficulties. So overall
prosperity suffers and the copyright-holders end up with a slightly
bigger piece of a much smaller pie.
The marketplace will find alternatives. Some drive maker (Western
Digital?) will leap forward in market share by selling ATA-sans-CPRM
drives or Pre-CPRM-ATA drives, and some PC OEMs will do the same by
having such drives in their products.
Maybe we'll all be buying anti-CPRM (bypass-CPRM) software a year from
now, just like we buy anti-virus software today.
Steve Nelson
snelson@national.aaa.com, 407-444-8515, 407-444-7585 fax
-----Original Message----From:
Gilliland, Kelly
Sent:
Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:29 AM
To:
Nelson, Steve
Subject:
RE: FYI--NRN--New ATA Proposal
Thanks Steve ...
REALLY interesting story ...
---------From:
Nelson, Steve
Sent:
Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:20 AM
To:
Cortese, Barry; Falzarano, Lou; Gilliland, Kelly
Cc:
*Sarcom
Subject:
FYI--NRN--New ATA Proposal
A new ATA proposal, CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media) has many
of us alarmed.
Site
http://pcsupport.about.com/compute/pcsupport/library/weekly/aa010201a.htm?PM=n10
0108a
tells of the potential threat---enterprise deployment and support become
much more difficult if this standard is adopted as currently proposed.
Just FYI.
Steve Nelson
snelson@national.aaa.com, 407-444-8515, 407-444-7585 fax
*********************************************************************
From: Scott Norwood [scottnorwood@home.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:10 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Content Protection for Recordable Media
Sir,
I will not buy any devices that implement "Content Protection for Recordable
Media."
This answer to an unasked question is as ridiculous as the serial
number on Intel CPU's. I now buy only AMD processors just because of the serial
number issue; because I do not believe that there is a reasonable use of the
serial numbers any more than there is a reasonable use for CPRM.
Please sir, we do not need any more looming headaches which are "really there
just for our own good." I mean, what's next, are you folks going to turn my PC
into Orwell's telescreen?!?
Scott
Norwood
*********************************************************************
From: George Van Tuyl [gvtlinux@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:17 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM not what my customers want nor desire.
Dear Mr. McLean:
I make a living building systems for individuals, Corporate
customers Military and Government State and Federal. Your proposal for
CPRM like the serial number on the Pentium processors is unappreciated
by the consumers. Either make this option if you are most emphatical
about incorporating it into the ATA technology so that it can be turned
off or leave it alone and work on making the kind of improvements that
benefit consumers.
If Police enforcement in drive technology is so important to you and
you are being driven by people who do not want to be mentioned. then I
can understand your position. My position will be to boycott any drive
technology that incorporates CPRM that I can not turn off.
I am impressed with the ATA100 standard and look forward to more
advancements that benefit consumers.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely
George Van Tuyl
*********************************************************************
From: matt.nations@mail.waymark.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:22 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: I vehemently oppose the 4C Entity effort.
Dear Mr. McClean:
I vehemently oppose this effort.
If your committee wishes to promote world wide efforts toward maintaining an
unfettered shortage standard then go ahead and promote this scheme. Users like
myself will go to great lengths to buy storage that DOES NOT include an ATA
technology that cripples and constrains the media that I PAY FOR!!!
This month alone I paid several $$'s additional funds just to "upgrade" a couple
of computers that had been upgraded over time from Microsoft Office '95> Office
'97 > Office 2000. Now I'm stuck with Office 2000's copy protection nightmare. I
have already paid for the software but in Microsoft's view the software appears
somehow eternally linked to those virtually useless [excruciatingly slow]
Pentium 250 PCs. All I need is for folks like yourselves to complicate even
further my life with grief like this ....
Sincerely,
Matt Nations
Owner, Nations Laboratory Furniture
********************
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=37802
Descrambling the Hard Drive Copy-Protection Scheme
Plan to restrict copyrighted
confusion, draws conflict.
content
through
hard
drive
technology
raises
Monday, January 08, 2001
Hollywood wants a piece of your hard drive.
A proposal now under consideration by a technology standards organization lays
the groundwork for content protection capabilities on your next hard drive and
has privacy advocates crying foul.
The group responsible for the proposal is called the 4C Entity and is led by
industry heavyweights Intel and IBM. The 4C Entity submitted the proposal to the
industry committee that controls the standards for hard drives as well as other
removable media.
Balancing Copyright, Ease of Use
Opponents contend the plan will lead to content protection code on hard drives
that will curtail the exchange of digital audio, video, and information,
limiting how people can use their PCs. Some go further and claim it is the first
step toward the end of free content on the Web. They argue that the strategy
plays into the hands of greedy music and movie studios and that it could even
hinder basic--and legal--tasks such as hard drive backups.
Proponents of the plan claim such scenarios are ridiculous and say it has
nothing to do with hard drives, but rather with removable storage media such as
Flash memory, microdrives, and most rewritable DVD drives. Besides, they say, it
affects only protected content--not your everyday text files.
Which side's claims are accurate? It's hard to say, as the main architect of the
plan, IBM's Jeff Lotspiech, has twice accepted then later declined our requests
for an interview.
An IBM spokesperson says Lotspiech and representatives from the other 4C
companies (which include Matsushita Electronic, parent company of Panasonic, and
Toshiba) are cloistered to create a document that addresses common questions
about the plan. Lotspiech won't comment until the group posts that FAQ on its
Web site at an as-yet unspecified time, the spokesperson says.
Untangling the Proposal
It's easy to understand why this plan has caused confusion and concern: It is a
tangle of awkward acronyms, base-level technologies, and industry politics. It
starts with the National Committee for Information, Technology Standards, the
industry body that sets the common standards upon which all PCs operate.
The subcommittee in charge of the ATA standard--which controls hard disks and
other drives--is called the T13 group. This group is currently working to update
the ATA standard.
The 4C Entity is lobbying the T13 group change the ATA standard, introducing
base-level instructions that let device manufacturers implement a 4C-created
technology called Content Protection for Recordable Media.
CPRM is basically an encryption scheme. It is compliant with the Secure Digital
Music Initiative supported by the big music companies that limits reproduction
of secure content.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matt Nations, owner
Nations Laboratory Furniture
780 Shady Lane, Southlake , Texas 76092
(just northwest of Dallas - Ft. Worth Airport's north exit)
We offer premium architectural grade metal laboratory
casework at prices that are typically 20-40%
less than scientific supply house prices.
See our product and service offering at www.labfurniture.com.
Voice (817) 481-6126
Fax (815)328-1481
*********************************************************************
The following was contained in revision 0
*********************************************************************
From: Nelson, Steve [snelson@NATIONAL.AAA.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:27 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: I'm Writing OEMs against CPRM
I hope you'll stand against CPRM because of the problems it could cause for
support people and maybe even ordinary users pursuing legitimate activities.
Thanks,
Steve Nelson
snelson@national.aaa.com, 407-444-8515, 407-444-7585 fax
-----Original Message----From:
Nelson, Steve
Sent:
Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:19 AM
To:
'sales@gateway.com'
Subject:
Happy w/Gateway but Alarmed about ATA
I have two Gateway PCs at home---a >3 year old Destination and a 6-month old
Performance 750. I LOVE THEM BOTH! They are perfect and fantastic. I bought
them both new.
Yesterday I read about a new ATA proposal, CPRM (Content Protection for
Recordable Media) and was alarmed.
I hope you will help stand against this
standard, or at least find a way to provide an alternative (in your retail
products, if it is adopted).
It seems unlikely that ATA could ever become a "Beta Max" standard, but if they
dabble in stuff like this, that has nothing to do with hardware reliability, the
market could find an alternative and leave them on the scrap heap of history.
If CPRM is implemented, many informed buyers may turn to anyone who can bypass
or forestall CPRM, for their PC purchases.
I
read
about
it
at
http://pcsupport.about.com/compute/pcsupport/library/weekly/aa010201a.htm?PM=n10
0108a
A brief quote:
"The topic of PC support generally doesn't lend itself to editorializing about
controversial current events. But Content Protection for Recordable Media, or
CPRM for short, has serious implications...for anyone who supports PCs.
"Because CPRM restricts copying and moving files, it has serious implications
for support. It will limit the ability to:
a.. Implement RAID or other disk mirroring techniques
b.. Redirect restores
c.. Back up certain files
d.. Perform large installations using disk cloning
e.. Move files from one PC to another for any reason
f.. Utilize remote deployment techniques for software"
(At work I have some support-related roles. And it sounds like this proposed
standard could greatly interfere with legitimate activities other than support,
too, depending on how it is implemented.)
Thanks again for your great products and support.
Steve Nelson
snelson@national.aaa.com, 407-444-8515, 407-444-7585 fax
********************************************************
From: Paul Stimpson [paul@skyguy.plus.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:26 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com;
andy_grove@intel.com; harreld@us.ibm.com; abby@us.ibm.com
Cc: info@lmicp.com; andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk;
postmaster@mpaa.com; postmaster@riaa.com
Subject: CPRM in ATA
Dear Sirs,
I have been reading with dismay The Register's recent coverage of
content distributors' attempts to pervert the ATA standard for their
own commercial gain. As a previously loyal and satisfied customer
of your companies I am appalled that you appear to care so little
for my business that would participate in a such a process.
I see the proposals for CPRM in ATA devices (including the
current, totally unacceptable, compromise proposal) as the not-too-
thin end of a very large wedge. How long will it be before my
computing hardware will only run software from "trusted" sources?
(for my own protection of course.) How long before the compiler I
just purchased will not compile any code which some arbitrary set
of rules suspects might be used to breach someone's copyright or
if it will compile this code then the object code will be protected to
stop me passing it to anyone else just in case? How long before I
pay money for a hard drive and get a piece of paper which reads
something like this:
Licence Agreement: You do not own this hardware. You have
purchased a license to use it. We may revoke this license at any
time by giving a week's notice. At a future date we may charge an
annual license fee for the use of this product. This product will not
function until it has been registered at our website and you
personal details have been verified. You may not transfer this
product to any third party without our written permission. You may
not........
In my industry, one supplier of content encryption products has
previously refused to supply the necessary technology to decrypt a
content provider's material unless they entered into a contentsupply agreement with that supplier's shareholders. They have also
forced providers to accept a non-standard encryption configuration
to prevent their hardware's use with publicly-available decryption
equipment when they would not join their shareholders' alliance.
Both of these events happened after the encoding equipment had
been purchased and the provider was committed to that platform. I
have recommended my customers do not purchase any hardware
or software from this vendor as I consider it an unacceptable
business risk to commit to any platform when its vendor has the
ability to dictate how my customers or I may do business
retrospectively.
Should you decide to adopt these proposals in any form I will have
no option but to cease all purchase of all ATA compliant hardware
in order to protect my business. Additionally I will boycott all
hardware from your companies in protest and request that all my
customers do the same.
Last August Steve Heckler, VP of Sony, said "Sony is going to
take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that
transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source...
We will firewall it at your PC." In light of this and it's obvious
connection to CPRM in ATA I shall not be purchasing any further
products from companies in the same corporate groups as RIAA or
MPAA members or those involved in this proposal. This will include
but not be limited to Intel, Sony, Toshiba, Philips (Polygram) and
Panasonic/Technics/Matsushita.
I am currently replacing my cell phone with a new model and the
first choice for its replacement is the Sony CMD-Z5. I have put this
process on hold until after the CPRM issue is resolved. I have
decided that if the CPRM in ATA proposals are accepted I will not
buy from Sony and I have requested my supplier to research a
handset which meets my needs from an alternative vendor.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Stimpson.
Owner and Chief Engineer - SkyGuy Communications International
Copies to Sony, Toshiba, Matsushita and Philips via their websites.
********************************************************
From: Roy Borglund [rborglund@alitech.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:17 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: T-13 Committee and the CPRM ATA/ATAPI standards
Dear Mr. McLean,
As a consumer of computing products and a professional IT employee
and software developer I can only see that the set of standards being
proposed as damaging to consumers and damaging to companies other than a
select few. These standards are dangerous and inappropriate for inclusion
into an industry wide technical standard. Especially for such a widely used
devices removable and non-removable media.
At a minimum this standard, if applied to fixed media, is creating added
expense for many IT organizations that do large rollouts of similar machines
and breaking a number of widely used software programs.
As for removable media, the standard places controls on what I may choose to
do with that media. Assuming that the consumer is a criminal that the
large entertainment organizations with many lawyers needs protection against
is Orwellian and frightening.
I politely request that you consider the damage that will be caused by the
inclusion of these standards and take steps to remove these standards from
the proposals to modify the ATA/ATAPI standards altogether. They shouldn't
be there in the first place.
Sincerely,
Roy Borglund.
(please reply to roy.borglund@home.com if you wish to reply)
********************************************************
From: M S [yoedaa@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:46 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Please Stop CPRM
please withdraw the CPRM. i belive this technology not in the ineterest of
the consumer.
this standard seems to only benefit producers and songwriters who would not
use this technology themselves. i think that if they did use this and saw
the restrictions this place even on themselves they would also dislike it.
the average consumer did not ask for this. its was proposed by hollywood and
the people who already have milions of dollars. they beleive thta this will
prevent piracy by forcing people to pay for the content anyway. instead for
forcing would be pirates to pay, they are not actually going to make more
money from this. if people had the money to go out and buy the merchandise
instead of copying it, they would. also, many people like to sample songs
and movies before they go buy the cd. you wouldnt buy a car before test
driving it. but, if they have their way, they may make you pay fees just for
test driving. or paying for each time you listen to it. why? well you
already know, to make more money.
does this new standard benefit you any? why have you gone through the
trouble of even creating this standard? i have recently heard that the
choice may be given to the end user to opt-out of using CPRM. while this may
please many, i feel that even this may be destructive. hollywood seems to
have influenced your commitee, they could easily influence other software
vendors and hardware makers into using the CPRM software. like microsoft
bullying other companies to use microsoft products. in the end, forcing the
consumer to use CPRM like microsoft can force average user to use windows.
thank-you for your time.
-ms
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
********************************************************
From: Alan Stanley [n6vfpalan@EARTHLINK.NET]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:47 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: No to CPRM
Dear Sirs:
I strongly object to the inclusion of copy protection schemes in computer
hardware. As a support professional I will personally boycott and urge my
customers to boycott any and all hardware and companies that implement CPRM.
This will increase costs and time for the support professional, and create
headaches for the end user.
I do not support any CPRM on generic computer hardware. It's up to the buyer
to determine what uses a product is used for. We do not need an orwellian
scheme by some fat cats in the recording industry to head the new police
state. I work with RAID and other technologies to insure data integrity. The
CPRM initiative will make that nearly impossible to implement. I will make
sure that my and my customers money goes to vendors that sell me a product
without CRRM. I will also be reporting the status of this initiative to my
customers in my sales flyers and by word of mouth.
This letter (email) is sent to inform you of my disgust with the actions of
groups you are associated with and initiatives you are promoting.
Alan Stanley
********************************************************
From: Tim Cross [zephro_@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:57 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
I can't believe you're even considering this. When was the last time anyone
talked about implementing something like this for the security of us poor,
naive, incompetent end-users? It smakcs of information control to me.
I pay MY hard-earned money for a hard-drive. It then becomes MINE. This is
how trade works. Why should I then let *anyone* have any kind of control
over what I do with it? I mean, if Ford started building in a chip that
would let you drive on certain roads but not others without paying them
first, would you buy their cars?
Think very carefully about this. Most people have already had it up to
their eyeballs with all this police state crap. There's already been a huge
backlash, and that's only among the tech-savvy. What's going to happen when
the general public learn about this?
You guys built your companies on letting end users do what they wanted with
their PCs. You're abandoning this now, and shooting yourselves in the foot.
Oh well, one more victory for Corporate America, and some more companies
pissing on that Constitution you claim to be so proud of.
I for one intend to boycott this for as long as possible. If anyone can
produce a cracking device for this similar to a DVD region remover, then
I'll be the first one to download it. I've got a maxtor HDD now, and it's
never given me any problems. But I'm not about to buy any more.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
********************************************************
From: Wayne FitzSimons [Wayne@FitzSimons.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 7:08 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com
Subject: The ATA CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media) proposal
You people must be out of your minds wanting to incorporate CPRM (Content
Protection for Recordable Media) into the ATA specification on generic storage
devices.!!
Let the licence and copy-protection stay with read only removable media. If you
are concerned with the inevitable swing to download purchase then sell special
purpose CDR drives that incorporate the protection and will not re-record.
Let the brand-name PC suppliers incorporate CPRM on other storage devices if
they wish for special-purpose machines.
Unbelievable difficulties and consequences arise for almost all users only for
the benefit by a couple of companies who should instead change their approach to
suit the new era.
This has just not been thought through and I'd be surprised if the public let
you get away with it - if not in outcry but in terms of boycotting products.!!
regards,
Wayne FitzSimons
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
DOMAIN MAN Network, Website & Multimedia Services
Kilmore Vic. Australia
ABN: 96 386 654 561
E-mail: Wayne@DomainMan.com.au
http://www.DomainMan.com.au
Ph: +61 3 5782 2722
Fax: +61 3 5782 0002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
********************************************************
From: Fred Stephens [Fred@DancingCreek.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:08 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: No copy protection on my driver!
Have you guys gone nuts with copy protection. I will not buy a hard drive or
BIOS that requires me to 'get permission' from a third party every time I want
to backup or copy my data.
I do not have any illegal copies of anything on my machines. But I will not
tolerate this Orwellian trend.
You guys are nuts and you will not get my business.
Fred L Stephens
109 Clifton Circle
Oak Ridge, TN
********************************************************
From: RDDEROUSSE@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:38 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: copy protection
Your idea for copy protection on hard disc drives is so stupid its rediculous.
Get a life loser.
********************************************************
From: Mychailo Toloczko [mbtoloczko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:21 AM
To: info@lmicp.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: CPRM is a bad idea
Greetings,
I am writing to express my displeasure over the possible implementation of the
CPRM copy protection scheme into ATA storage devices. My understanding is that
the CPRM scheme is being presented to the public as something which would only
be added to "portable" ATA storage devices.
However, several people have
pointed out that the changes required to implement the scheme would be added to
the standard ATA command list, and thus by default could easily be added to all
ATA storage devices.
In fact, I just read that there will be a meeting in
Febuary 2001 to discuss adding the CPRM scheme to the ATA HD specification.
While I am completely in favor of protecting the rights of people who create
music, video, pictures, etc. and put it in digital format, I feel that end-users
should have the right to regulate their own activities. The implementation of
the CPRM scheme would remove the ability of end-users to manipulate products
they have legally purchased, and I feel that this is not fair.
Beyond the discussion on fairness/legality, I also suspect that adding the CPRM
scheme to storage devices would reduce performance of those devices and increase
the production cost, and that is also disturbing. I would not enjoy having pay
more for a lower performance HD.
In conclusion, please do not add the CPRM to ATA storage devices.
Best regards,
Mychailo
---Mychailo Toloczko, Ph.D.
Battelle/PNNL
PO Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
USA
509 376 0156
509 376 0418
phone
fax
********************************************************
From: DHudyma@williams-int.com
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:26 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM Hardware Protest
Mr. Mclean,
I am writing to protest the ill advised and poorly thought out plan to
implement CPRM (Copy Protection for Recordable Media) in the ATA
specification. I question weather the long term implications of such a
scheme have been reviewed and while technically feasible is it socially
responsible? This is clearly a power grab by big money interests in the
entertainment industry who have been seeing their monopoly on the
distribution and production of content slipping away. This specification is
simply the first step in a pay-per-read scheme in which the consumer will be
monitored, catalogued, controlled and billed.
In addition, as a fervent supporter of the free software movement and the
theories behind the GNU public license, this will be yet another tool to
kill the development of an open source system and hand control back to the
large media producers. Everyone knows the likelihood of a free, open source
operating system being allowed to access controlled content is unlikely. It
is as clear as day that the issue is NOT about copy protection rather it is
about content control. Hollywood only wants their product useable on
devices they approve in the geographic locations they approve. They do not
care if I legally own a work, if I do not also have an "approved" player
(that preferably charges every time I access the work) I will be unable to
view the work.
Remember the DIVX DVD player? That died a quick and painful death since
consumers were not willing to support a pay per view system on movies they
already owner. Therefore, since that power grab was unsuccessful, they are
going to try another avenue, this time through the T13 committee. If they
make this form of access control the default standard, it will be a simple
matter for them to implement the type of content control they want in the
future.
Even Microsoft and its OEM's oppose this standard being forced onto
hardware. Just as with DIVX, by forcing something such as this on consumers
it will drive people offline rather than expand the market upon which your
organization and employer depends. I for one will simply not bother if I
have to remember a hundred different keys every time I want to back-up a
drive, read story online or repair my system. This does not even address
the costs imposed on large corporate systems as they try to manage a system
incorporating this. Flexibility is the biggest thing I appreciate about a
PC and without that I may no longer bother.
CRPM is a horrible idea and its economic and social consequences promise to
be dire. The only benefits are to the large media corporations and it does
little if anything to protect individual artists and authors. You can be
certain that the individuals you are supposedly protecting will not see any
of the supposed royalties hollywood wishes to collect. In the end I doubt
very much this e-mail will do much as I am sure you already have your
marching orders signed, sealed and delivered by Hollywood through the 4C
Entity. I can only hope the courts or Congress see what is happening and
strike down CPRM as an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of
individuals.
David Hudyma
Livonia, MI
********************************************************
From: James Fowler [jamesf@hugghall.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:50 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM in new ATA specification.
I have been reading post all over the internet about a new copy protection
scheme integrated into the new Serial ATA specification.
My understanding of this scheme would be that any application would have to
be allowed to make low level hardware calls to the hard drive for this to
work.
Now correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this create a HUGE security whole
in you system. What would prevent a clever hacker from writing a virus that
would exploit this "feature". And at the least corrupt key data stored or
other information stored in the affected area of the hard drive.
Would it also not be possible for the same hacker, since your OS now must
allow level calls. To create a virus that would be even more destructive
than this?
Should not those who are responsible for creating new and exciting standards
for PC hardware, not have some concern for the possible security problems
that such proposals could create? Also should not the very same personal
hold the concerns of the end-users above those of a small well financed
special interest group?
Thank you for your time,
Jimmy
********************************************************
From: Adam Powley [apowley@uggabuga.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:33 PM
To:
cprm@linux-ide.org;
info@lmicp.com;
pete_mclean@maxtor.com;
kent.pryor@quantum.com
Cc: andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk
Subject: Re: CPRM copy protection for ATA drives
Hello,
The need to secure copywriten material is valid but not at the expense of
turning private computers into pay-per-view consoles for the entertainment
industry. The idea of having a central authentication server for file access is
fine for corporate environments but for private use it is unacceptable. The
thought of having to ask for permission for access to my own files is repugnant.
The arguments that CPRM is intended for removable media is amusing but
transparent.
How many removable disks use ATA commands. Castlewood's Orb is
the only removable ATA drive I can find. If CPRM was intended for removable
media wouldn't adding the instructions to ATAPI make more sense?
Also,
removable media is often used with portable devices that are not easily
networkable. How will these portable devices receive authentication to use the
CPRM locked files? For that matter, how will people without network or Internet
access be able to use these files?
Anyone who uses a computer should be
disgusted at the level of intrusion these new instructions inflict on their
systems and their lives.
Even if the CPRM is software controlled will people know enough to turn it off.
The average computer user barely knows enough to move files in their computers
or defragment their hard disk drives. Is this a realistic level of control?
If these instructions are adopted how soon will it before all files MUST has
CPRM ids?
When this happens CPRM will become not just a tool to protect
copywriten material but as a inescapable user tracking system. With is system
users and files could be tracked anywhere. What ever happened to anonymity or
privacy or free speech and a host of other rights and freedoms everyone always
inalienably has?
Even with the mechanisms for copy protection built into
hardware someone will find a way to copy CPRM content. All it takes is software
to reject the CPRM calls so the OS or other software need not store the CPRM
codes.
Once that happens the original purpose for this technology will be
reduced to more malevolent tasks.
As to alternatives, my recommendation to do nothing.
If companies are as
worried as they seen then they will simply stop distributing their material
electronically and pursue other revenue streams for their content.
These
companies will still make money regardless if CPRM is adopted or not. It's just
a question of how much.
Another alterative would be for the industry to simply adopted proprietary
encrypted file formats and file readers to store and view their content. It's
true these can be broken or circumvented but no more so than CPRM and certainly
not as intrusive or damaging to existing IT infrastructure.
I realize the prospect of regulating society and not just technology is not the
responsibility of this committee but the obvious social implications of this
technology can not be ignored. The CPRM commands should not be included, even
as optional, into the ATA command set though any means.
This system has the
potential to greatly influence the way digital information is stored, shared,
and used and must be carefully scrutinized.
Unfortunately, the separation of
society and technology is a luxury that is no longer available.
Sincerely,
Adam Powley
********************************************************
From: Jess McCarter [jmmccarter@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:18 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com; NCITS@ITIC.ORG
Subject: Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) on ATA drives
I am writing to express my opposition to the attempts by IBM, Intel,
Matsushita, and Toshiba (the 4-C Entity) to incorporate CPRM into the ATA
drive standards.
CPRM is a violation of the relationship between the consumer and the
corporation, as ATA hard drives, while sold to the consumer, are only
useable with "permission" from a central server. Further, I think it is
ridiculous to capitulate to the media establishment in their no holds barred
attempts to retain dominance over media distribution.
As a consumer I will not purchase a product that contains CPRM. I find it
offensive. I do not wish to have my hard drive, the repository of my most
confidential information, accessed to see if I have "permission" to copy
something from one location to another.
Mr. McLean, the most recent upgrade of my Apple desktop at work was the
purchase of one of your company's drives. Mr. Pryor, the most recent upgrade
I made to my Wintel system at home was the purchase of one of your company's
drives. I would like my input as a customer to be considered when these
decisions are made.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jess McCarter
********************************************************
From: martin [martin@step2media.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:05 AM
To: martin@step2media.com
Subject: i say NO to copy protection in generic hardware
To whom it may concern,
Please, I feel that no copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in generic
computer hardware! I feel It's up to me, the BUYER to determine what to use
my product for. It's not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and
certainly not up to a record company that's shadily influencing those
vendors in back-room meetings. I demand a policy declaration from your
vendor that they will build only open hardware, not covertly controlled
hardware. I will use my purchasing dollars to enforce that policy.
My business will go to the honest vendors, who'll sell me a drive and an OS
and a motherboard and a CPU and a monitor that I, the buyer, can determine
what is a valid use of. I will not send my money to Intel or IBM or Sony. I
will only give my money to the vendors who'll sell me a product that I can
control.
Sincerely
-martin leone
step2media
908-620-2000
********************************************************
From: Ezra Linley [ezra_linley@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:23 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: info@lmicp.com
Subject: CPRM - I mean, really...
Why do you feel the need to introduce a copyright protection system into the
ATA standard?
What do you stand to gain from it?
Surely, the protection of copyright is entirely a problem for content
providers and not the manufacturers of hardware or (especially) supposedly
impartial boards charged with setting standards.
The rise of the PC and the Internet has been a prime example of the power of
open, non-proprietry systems. It has been precisely the sharing of data,
legitimate or otherwise, that has lead to such explosive growth. Why would
you wish to shoot yourselves in the foot so utterly whilst attempting to
solve someone else's problem?
I ask this, as quite apart from moral objections to the shadowy introduction
of CPRM, it just does not seem like good business practice. I could go on
for pages as to why it is wrong to intoduce such a system, but it seems that
in a market place in which morality is based purely on the ability to turn a
profit, arguing that it's fiscally stupid seems to stand a better chance.
You owe these companies nothing. You stand only to loose. Do yourselves
(and co-incidentally, us poor end-users who find ourselves constantly
shafted by the marketplace) a favour and stop this madness. Now.
Yours sincerely,
Ezra Linley
********************************************************
From: Jim Hartneady [jhartnea@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:31 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM)
Gentlemen,
Congratulations, you have caught our attention. Your organization is
the talk of the Web, very unusual for a standards group. Mr. Moore has
done an excellent job of outlining your intent. His article is at:
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2001/01/20010101130645.shtml
It is your right as manufacturers to set workable standards. It is our
right as consumers to reject those standards and find other sources. If
you feel it is in your best economic interest to meet the entertainment
community's requirements and not ours that is your right and fiduciary
obligation. You may feel you know more than your customers. Newer
Technology was a company with an excellent product, they also knew more
than their customers.
I don't pirate software and I don't deal with companies which start with
that assumption. I hope you reconsider your implementation of the CPRM.
Regards,
J. P. Hartneady Jr
********************************************************
From: Gordon Wolf [gordon@wolfconsultinggroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:01 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Please do not support this.
I will boycott your products and work to have my clients( 80 Cities and
counties in California plus numerous Large Public Corporations) do the
same.
Gordon Wolf PhD
gordon@wolfconsultinggroup.com
********************************************************
From: Pro-Data Inc. [proinfo@pro-data.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:51 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com
Cc: andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk
Subject: No CPRM on Hard Drives!
I have worked many years in the computer industry and I have never heard of
anything more moronic!
First of all, you want to protect Digital Content! I
have yet to find any digital content worth having on the Internet. Example the Madonna Concert Fiasco! - try connecting to that streaming media! If you
want to use CPRM on that, go for it, no one would know.
I wonder if anyone
actually saw the show.
Every entertainment provider (other than Pornography)
on the internet is pouring red ink on to their financial statements! Get the
hint!
If I can't purchase, move, manipulate, digital content that I purchase on line,
what is the point? If I purchase music. I want to play it in my car, stereo,
etc. If I can't it's useless. And what happens when the computer fails. Where
are all of the keys then. And how long do I have to wait to get the content
back?
Can I get content that I purchase back?
How many hours do I have to
spend on hold with Tech support to get new keys. (I spent 4 days trying to get
the key to register Xing's Audio Catalyst after a hard drive failure, and this
is for a product I own! (Oh! Sorry Rent!) )
CPRM does not address the bigger issue.
Why are people becoming criminals?
Some other Questions
Why is it easier to get a cracked version of software that to purchase it from
the actual company?
Why is the average software upgrade since Windows 95 is a PATCH that costs
$150.00 or more? Examples - Office 97, Photoshop 5.5, Norton Utilities, Windows
ME
Why is it when I pay for content on the internet, I get more advertising than if
I went to Geo Cities?
Why is it that Software that I do pay for doesn't do what it promises?
Why is it after I purchase software from a reputable company, I get double the
amount of Spam than I use to?
Why is it that every anti-piracy initiative makes using the product harder for
honest citizens who actually purchase the product?
Well put CPRM on Hard Drives, make it even more of a hassle to use computers,
and I'll never buy one again. Instead I'll invest my money in a High Definition
Television ( until someone gets the brainwave that TV's should have quarter
slots on the top to view content).
Clifford Colter - Marketing Manager
Pro-Data Inc.
1560 St. James Street
Winnipeg, MB, R3H 0L2
Phone: (204) 779-9960
Fax: (204) 779-9961
Email: proinfo@pro-data.com
********************************************************
From: Robert, Kim, Kenzie, Sierra & Caiden [kehrer@geocities.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:32 AM
Subject: I will never put a CPRM Drive in my computer
I can't believe that any company would get any where near this scheme of
authenticating their users file copies and transfers against a remote server to
protect large third party companies against the company's own users.
While I've always been interested in my privacy, I've never been an activist.
This CPRM suggestion of IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba has just crossed the
line. I just want you to know that I will never put one of these CPRM drives in
my computer and I consider that I have joined the apparently growing tide of
outraged users who will fight this horrendous idea tooth and nail.
I will be sending letters to newspapers, calling radio programs, e-mailing, and
writing at every opportunity to inform the public of the invasive action that
IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba are trying to take against the public.
I urge you to not let your company have anything to do with this scheme. I, and
I expect hundreds of thousands of others, will be working to urge not only the
boycott of these CPRM enabled drives, but also the boycott of these four
arrogant companies.
-Robert Lawrence Kehrer
BS, MS, MBA (Marriott School of Mgmt)
Salt Lake City, Utah 84118
kehrer@mac.com
530 430 3192 (f)
********************************************************
From: Dave Bauer [dave@deepskydesign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:06 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Do not copy protect my hard drive. This scheme (CPRM) to extract every last
penny from consumers is ill-conceived. I do not want more barriers to using my
computer. Once I own information I should be able to copy and restore that data.
CPRM will hinder backup of hard drives and make it almost impossible to use
RAID. I am not against paying for content, but if I do pay for content, media
executives should not dictate how I can use it.
Dave Bauer
********************************************************
From: Michael Jardeen [michael@jardeen.com]
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 3:35 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; NCITS@ITIC.ORG
Subject: CPPRM is DOA
Kill CPPRM as it is a threat to Fair Use. I have emailed over 200 people and
asked them to pass along my email to request that they boycott any product
and any company that produces CPPRM compatible products. You are involved in
setting a precedent that will send a shiver through personal freedom.
Please end your support of CPPRM - do everyone a favor,
Michael Jardeen
********************************************************
From: Don [mitcdon@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 11:10 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Copy protection on hard drives and other products.....
Peter:
I have just been reading many discussions about the proposal to incorporate
copyright protection into the new ATA standard.
Just a few points I would like to make:
I really do not want a 3rd party deciding what I can and can not copy from
one hard drive I own to another device that I own for my own personal use!
I do not want any encryption on any of my devices that is not for MY
benefit, after all this is MY machine.
I do not want to have to rely on a 3rd party on-line data base to validate
any copies that I may wish to perform. Can you imagine the chaos (let alone the
legal repercussions) that would result
from the unavailability of this
validation process for what ever reason. To rely on the internet, with it's
volatile nature, for such a critical process is not , in my opinion, a valid
model.
I will NOT purchase ANY products from a company that incorporates this
copyright technology in to ANY of their products...... and will actively try to
dissuade any person from doing so on the principle of it all.
One last point - all this for an industry that is under investigation
for anti-competitive and price fixing practices?
Don Mitchell
********************************************************
From: Tim Ingalls [tingalls@mn.mediaone.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:30 AM
To: kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: why cprm on harddrives is a really bad idea
for the average home user that never does anything with there computer cprm
on there harddrive would be just fine. but for the advanced user that is
constantly testing new hardware and software and therefor constantly having
to reinstall operating systems this would be a huge annoyance. even if
only a few files on there harddrive used cprm it would still be annoying
that they couldn't back them up to a removable media. even if the files
were still available for download at no extra cost, since they already
purchased a license for them, it would still be annoying having to go
through the trouble of redownloading them. true, all of this could be
avoided by having one system to test with and another that is reserved for
daily use. but a lot of people that want to test new products can't afford
to do that, especially the people new to the wonders of computers that are
just starting to explore the possibilities. also, thinking about cprm
being implemented in a way that every harddrive on the internet would
require it for the internet to work just scares me. the only reason it
scares me if because of the HUGE cost of upgrading every harddrive that is
on the internet. by even thinking about doing something like this you are
setting the technology of the internet WAY out of reach for most of the
world. quite a few people on the internet could hardly afford to get on,
let alone now having to upgrade there harddrive because it is now a
stadard. thank you for your time in reading my opinion.
Tim Ingalls
********************************************************
From: add automation [add.automation@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 8:42 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: Please Retract CPRM Proposal
December 31, 2000
Pete McLean,
Maxtor,
Vice Chairman of T13
Kent Pryor,
Quantum Corp,
Secretary of T13
Dear Pete,
Please add my name to the rising chorus of those opposed
CPRM to hard disk drives.
to adding
I will not purchase or recommend to my customers that they
disk drives that include CPRM.
use hard
Your job is to protect customer data files, not to protect
profits of the RIAA.
the huge
Mike Ross, spokesman for IBM's Alamaden Labs, stated:
"As for
the
short-term
damage
to
commodity
RAID, file
optimisation, backup, and potentially imaging software too, Ross
says 'These are good points,
these issues will have to be
addressed in the marketplace and you're absolutely right - but
these have not even been discussed yet.'"
http://212.113.5.84/content/2/15684.html
This shows how ill-conceived your plans are. I cannot believe you
would propose changes to the specifications that introduce such
clear risks to the integrity of customer data. These issues should
have been addressed first, since they are so damaging to the
customer.
With the reports and analysis now available on the net, it is clear
that many of the statements being made in support of CPRM only serve
to confuse the real issues. This only destroys the credibility of
those who support this idea.
There is no valid justification for including CPRM in disk drives.
There is no reason to add changes that present such
losing irreplacable customer data.
Please consider
proposal.
your
primary
responsibility
and
high
risk of
retract this
Yours truly,
Michael R. Monett
ceo
Analog & Digital Design
Ontario, Canada
add.automation@sympatico.ca
********************************************************
From: Buckaroo [buckaroo99@mediaone.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 5:15 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
CPRM hardware is bad. It must be stopped.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/15686.html
********************************************************
From: Curt Wuollet [wideopen@ecenet.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 11:35 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Hi
Just aa note to tell you that I will boycott all CPRM equipment
applications, vendors and content. I will expend all possible
energies to bring this to the attention of government and will
participate in any and all class actions in this matter. I will
inform all my customers and their customers that you propose
to take control of their hardware. I will also work to publicize
this matter as fully as my resources allow. I will also support
any efforts to persuade backbone carriers to filter and reject
any CPRM content. Please forward this to the president of your
company.
Regards
Curt Wuollet, Owner
Wide Open Technologies
********************************************************
From: David_Meeker@trilogy.com
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:08 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM has no place in ATA
I'd imagine that at this point you're being inundated with emails on this
topic right now, so I'm just another voice to add to the cacophony. My
particular spin: I've personally purchased no less than 10 Maxtor drives in
the last 3 years for use in my Linux systems; should your company choose to
implement CPRM, I will have no choice but to look elsewhere.
I'd prefer, however, that you make whatever efforts you can to extricate
T13 from the undue influence that media distributors are apparently
exerting and return to the business that's actually important: furthering
ATA at the technical level, rather than developing something which has no
benefit to the consumers you serve.
Sincerely,
David Meeker
********************************************************
From: Tim Rice [Tim.Rice@Duke.Edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:44 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Cc: Tim Rice
Subject: CPRM Extensions to the ATA Specs
Dear Sirs,
After reading several articles on the subject of the proposed
changes to the ATA spec to facilitate CPRM, I feel the need to voice my
opinion. I feel that the proposed changes to the ATA spec (as I
understand them) are well intentioned if taken at face value, but I
deeply question the motives of those behind the changes.
There have been several public statements to the effect that the
proposed changes are only intended for removeable media (ATAPI devices),
but according to other sources, the changes are being proposed to the
ATA spec which relates directly to fixed disks.
As a computer professional at a large University Medical Center I
feel more than a slight amount of trepidation. I have no problem with
the concept of anti-piracy, in fact I support it whole heartedly, but I
also have a very large network with a substantial user base to support.
The prospect of a change of this nature to a very basic component of the
systems I have to support bothers me. There is too much spin. 4C seems
to say one thing while in fact doing/proposing another.
If media distributers wish to protect the value of their property,
fine. I cannot fathom why it needs to be done in such a drastic manner,
and I don't see that it requires a change to such a basic, low level,
component used in every PC produced. If they want to protect their
property, they should do it another way, and you and your committee
should not need to be a party to it.
Thank you for your time.
Happy Holidays!
Tim Rice
Network Systems Analyst
Department of Medicine
Duke University Medical Center
tim.rice@duke.edu
(919) 681-4466
********************************************************
From: Default User [mvandael@puma.dpg.devry.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:24 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Hardware copy protection.
Please don't adopt hardware protection schemes!
As many others have said, unrestricted copying is a huge boon to the HD
world. Now you wanna stop that and cut a thick portion out of your revenue?
Also, Lets face facts, the hard drive market is VERY competitive. Margins
are tiny. Only a single manufacturer has to look and see the demand for
non-protected drives. How many people would be willing to pay an extra $5,
$10, or even $20 for a drive that ignores this stupid scheme. Enough people
to kill it completely - no smart manufacturer is going to give a
competitive edge like this to their competition. I just wanted to make sure
that you know, if your company insists on implementing this, I will
purchase drives from another company who doesn't.
-Mark
********************************************************
From: cmorgan@aracnet.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 6:06 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: copy-protected hard drives
Hello. I'm a big fan of Maxtor. I prefer Maxtor drives and use them
whenever I put together a new PC or replace a dead drive.
But please be aware that if the new, proposed copy protection scheme is
added to Maxtor drives, I will not purchase them.
I will never purchase a drive that utilizes a copy protection scheme.
buy a drive for my data, not for intervention from a third party.
********************************************************
From: Leo Lipelis [aeoo@megapathdsl.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:59 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: CPRM - my pledge to fight it till the day I or CRPM dies
Dear Pete,
I
Please do not consider this a junk email. I am an extremely concerned computer
enthusiast, writing to tell you how I feel about CPRM. I should add that I am a
software engineer, so I am a bit more computer literate than the average person.
I absolutely LOATH the new proposed CPRM specs. I have read various news and
downloaded the slides "CPRM - Content Protection for Recordable Media".
I
pledge to fight this proposal forever.
I have already started spreading the
word.
I will be alerting and advising every single person I know about this
technology, what it does and doesn't do and to stand against it. In fact I have
already alerted all my friends and co-workers. I will continue this process of
raising CPRM awareness indefinitely.
I just wanted to add my voice to the avalanche of email that I am sure you are
getting, right about now. If you think you can sneak this one over us, you are
sorely mistaken. Let the freedom of Internet teach you a lesson you will not
forget. I don't mean you personally, but mostly the greedy music/video content
distributors -- may they rot in hell.
Personally, and this is a 100% truth, I have not a single pirated music or video
file, and couldn't care less.
I am against piracy.
But don't be thinking I
like your idea.
HELL NO!!!!
Even the most right-winged BIG BROTHER <tm>
lunatic can see where this one is heading.
It is time to stop this and all
similar developments forever.
I ask you to STOP NOW.
You will face serious, prolonged, and fanatical
opposition from millions of people, such as myself. MILLIONS of SMART, CLEARMINDED and VERY WELL RESPECTED PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THIS!!!! And those who are
FOR IT, can all be summed up with a description of nasty adjectives I'd rather
not mention.
You don't have ANYTHING going for you, no moral support, no
ethical
support,
no
popular
support
by
people
or
leading
scientists/technologists -- NOTHING!!!! Not a single person with half a braincell still left functioning wants this.
LET THE COMMODITY HARDWARE BE FREE, FOREVER.
Outraged,
--Leo Lipelis.
********************************************************
From: Gennadi50@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:27 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM Sucks!
I'm tired of this shit.
I hope you burn!
********************************************************
From: Bunch Of Fun [carleton@funbunch.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:12 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
I read about this copy protection system on The Register and am at a
loss to understand why this will work.
If consumers have a choice between buying a computer component that
analyses their data and reports possible infringements and components
which just store information (like we have now) which do you think they
will choose?
What about all the MP3s I have on my computer that are from CDs I
legally own? Would CPRM delete them?
Please drop CPRM before you embarass your organisation further.
Best regards,
Carleton MacGregor
Montreal, Canada
********************************************************
From: Hamel, Ben [bhamel@aqinc.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 1:49 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Boycott
I would just like to state that if your company implements the CPRM standards I
will never own/buy one of your products again.
I will also do my best to
convince my friends and family to do the same.
Non-customer for life.
Erik Hammil
********************************************************
From: Scott_Feinstein@trilogy.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:43 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Concerns about ATA
Mr. McLean,
I'm writing to add my voice to the growing protest over adding CPRM to the ATA
spec. I believe that CPRM represents an Orwellian move on the part of the music
and movie industries to restrict my personal freedoms, including fair use of
entertainment media.
I urge you to not support CPRM and act in the best interests of the public,
which hopefully you view as your charge.
Furthermore, if such things matter to you, I'd like to inform the T13 committee
that I will be forced to boycott any hardware, applications or content that make
use of CPRM. I'd rather go without computers than see this spec implemented.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
-Scott Feinstein
Scott Feinstein
Trilogy
Office: (512) 685 - 3687
Fax: (512) 794 - 8900
********************************************************
From: Bill Payne [billsplace1@entercomp.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:21 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Gentlemen, CPRM is not in the spirit of what makes the internet and "PERSONAL"
computers interesting and entertaining. In a nutshell it's "FREEDOM", and if I
have my way about it, I will NEVER, repeat NEVER buy any device that would limit
my ability to use it as I see fit.
Think About It!
Thanks
Bill Payne
********************************************************
From: Paul Fabris [alche@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:11 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Dear Sir,
I would like to inform you as both T13 Secretary and as an executive of
Maxtor Corporation that I am fiercely opposed to the measures proposed for
the Copyright Protection for Recordable Media. I will in no way support or
purchase any media which prevents me or my company from storing whatever
information we wish. I will not support or purchase any media which
requires verification of any kind against a central server, or requires key
authentication of software of digital files. This proposal is extremely
suspect, and its implications for free speech are far ranging. The
organization on which you sit would be ill advised to proceed with this
proposed extension to the ATA standard. You are a group of technical
experts controlling a technical standard, not piracy cops for the feckless
entertainment industry. This standard will impede your customers from
performing their daily tasks effectively, and remove their right to
determine what use to put their hardware. I speak on this matter as an
individual and as the primary decision maker for purchasing hardware for my
company.
Regards,
Paul Fabris
IS Manager
Market Connections Inc.
25 Sheppard Ave. W. Toronto ON
pfabris@markcon.com
********************************************************
From: Richard Turlington [31papa@getadvertised.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 10:30 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Encryption in Hard drives?????
You gotta be kidding me? When I purchase a product from you, I SHOULD BE
THE ONE IN CONTROL. Not some third party company! If your company follows
through with this you can guarentee that you've sealed your fate because
there isn't one person I know that ownes a computer that would buy something
that they aren't 100% in control of.
you lose millions of dollars.
Maybe you should rethink this before
********************************************************
From: Harrison Smith [smith.3738@osu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 10:22 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
I urge you to discontinue thought of including CPRM technology in future ATA
standards.
I concerns me on many levels, and I'm sure I'm not the first to
write you on the matter, however, I feel it is important to speak out against
this technology. CPRM will hamper the development of open and free OS's like
Linux and others.
It will strengthen many vertical monopolies in the
entertainment industry, and is a frighteningly big-brother concept that all in
all makes me feel a little queasy.
I hope that CPRM technology is removed from future ATA standards and made a
proprietary, and hopefully short lived, technology.
Harrison Smith
********************************************************
From: Xu Si Han [shianux@magix.com.sg]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 9:49 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: please, no CPRM!!!
Dear Mr. Mclean,
Please do not implement CPRM!!! For the sake of the freedom of our society and
its people, and the ideas of our people, please do not use this totalitarian
specification! Let our children live in a world where information is free and
ideas not be controlled by a select few.
Please, for our future, and the future of our children.
Xu Si Han
********************************************************
From: Lawrence Lee [llee@westnet.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:13 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: boycott of CPRM
Mr. McLean:
After reading an article about CPRM in The Register recently
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html) I am shocked that, having
been involved with technology for 15 years, a proposal such as CPRM could even
exist. I'm of the opinion that such a technology is wholly unnecessary for
general-purpose technology and, being responsible for technology purchases for
a major new-media concern, intend to boycott any manufacturers of equipment
supporting this standard.
regards,
Lawrence Lee
********************************************************
From: Regina Robinson [reginie@ameritech.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 8:06 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
I must admit I was disappointed to hear about this new copy protection scheme to
be built into new hard drives. I am newly a Maxtor had drive fan. I hope I will
not be newly an ex-Maxtor hard drive fan.
Regina Robinson
********************************************************
From: vidar.helgason@plus.idg.se
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 5:53 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: I am in support of Gilmore's call to arms:Here's the full text of Gilmore's call to arms:To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800
From: John Gilmore
The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright mania in the
computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and are pushing a change to the
standard spec for PC hard drives that would
make each one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on the hard drive.
You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to another drive, or
back it up, without permission from some third party. Every drive would have a
unique ID and unique keys, and would encrypt the data it stores -- not to
protect YOU, the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST
you.
The same guy who leads the DVD Copy Control Association is heading the
organization that licenses this new technology -- John Hoy. He's a front-man for
the movie and record companies, and a leading figure in
the California DVD lawsuit. These people are lunatics, who would destroy the
future of free expression and technological development, so they could sit in
easy chairs at the top of the smoking ruins and light their cigars off 'em.
The folks at Intel and IBM who are letting themselves be led by the nose are
even crazier. They've piled fortunes on fortunes by building machines that are
better and better at copying and communicating WHATEVER collections of raw bits
their customers desire to copy. Now for some completely unfathomable reason,
they're actively destroying that working business model. Instead they're
building in circuitry
that gives third parties enforceable veto power over which bits their customers
can send where. (This disk drive stuff is just the tip of the iceberg; they're
doing the same thing with LCD monitors, flash memory, digital cable interfaces,
BIOSes, and the OS. Next week we'll probably hear of some new industry-wide copy
protection spec, perhaps for network interface cards or DRAMs.) I don't know
whether the movie
moguls are holding compromising photos of Intel and IBM executives over their
heads, or whether they have simply lost their minds. The only way they can
succeed in imposing this on the buyers in the
computer market is if those buyers have no honest vendors to turn to.
Or if those buyers honestly don't know what they are being sold.
So spread the word. No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in generic computer
hardware! It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their product for. It's
not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and certainly not up to a record
company that's shadily influencing those vendors in back-room meetings. Demand a
policy declaration from your vendor that they will build only open hardware, not
covertly controlled hardware. Use your purchasing dollars to enforce that
policy.
Our business should go to the honest vendors, who'll sell you a drive and an OS
and a motherboard and a CPU and a monitor that YOU, the buyer, can determine
what is a valid use of. Don't send your money to Intel or IBM or Sony. Give your
money to the vendors who'll sell you a product that YOU control.
- John
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
********************************************************
From: doryds2000@freedom.net
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:55 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM in ATA specification
Dear Mr. Mclean:
I am writing this to express my revulsion at the proposal to embed CPRM
technology in the ATA standard. My computer is my property, and I will
fight strongly to retain the right to control it.
The ATA standard has served the hard drive industry well over the last
few years. If you persist in pushing CPRM, I will do all I can to fight
it. I will boycott any company that offers ANY hard drives with CPRM,
and I will encourage my friends and customers to do the same. If enough
people feel this way, then you will be left with a fractured ATA
standard, a prospect which will be negative for the computing industry
in general.
Do not be influenced by the narrow interests of the recording and
software industries. Their fascist efforts to control their customers
will almost certainly result in a large backlash. They are fighting a
battle which they cannot win. There will always be a way around the
controls they attempt to place on their products. We, the citizens
exert the final control over you. It is our choice to purchase what you
create. If you push us too far, then you might not like the consequences.
A concerned citizen
________________________________________________________________________
Total Internet Privacy -- get your Freedom Nym at http://www.freedom.net
********************************************************
From: Thomson [hftsai@home.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:29 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Don't let CPRM have their way!!!
We control what's inside out hard drive.
Any specs against consumers will and hurt consumer's right will FAIL.
just a friendly reminder from yours truely that I don't like to be controlled.
Jimmy Tsai
********************************************************
From: Kevin Higgins [goldey@surfree.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 5:34 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: No Copy Protection!!
Dear Pete,
I am protesting in the stongest possible terms the
move by the t13 committee to develop copy protection
for ATA drives.
No copy protection should
exist ANYWHERE in generic computer hardware!
Sincerely,
Dr. Kevin Higgins
Department of Ecology & Evolution
University of Oregon
********************************************************
From: Frank A. Love [falove@home.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 2:47 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Leave Yuor Cotton-picking fimgers OUT of my Data!
Sorry for the long subject line, but I figure the chances of your actually
reading this as slim to none.
I could give you reams of carefully reasoned arguments about why this extension
of the CPRM standard to standard computer hardware is a very bad idea- but
instead I'll simply say this: Would you want to live in the knid of world where
it would be possible for a third party to restrict access to info, be it music,
movie or a novel, that you have bought and paid for? What if the company goes
under? What if they decide, for all the best reasons, that they need to raise
the price and charge you per view, or a government decides you shouldn't have
access to that kind of data anymore?
The possibility for draconian governmental uses of this standard once widely
established should alone be enough to convince you to kill it, but in closing
I'll just say this:DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THIS OR YOUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR THOUGHTLESSNESS!
Yours,
Frank A. Love
********************************************************
From: Michael Hartley [Michaelh@mpcbc.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:57 PM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: CPRM in the Proposed revised ATA Standard
I would like to express my concerns regarding the proposal to incorporate
CPRM into the ATA standard as proposed. My company specializes in
Telecommunications and data solutions, and I am an avid home PC user.
First, I believe in a producers right to protect their intellectual
property. However, I have serious questions and reservations about whether
the proposed ATA standard is an appropriate vehicle for that protection.
The potential impact on RAID solutions and disk management software is one
serious concern, as is the difficulty presented to companies that may have a
mix of compliant and non-compliant hardware. Another concern is the
potential requirement to maintain hundreds of keys for individual pieces of
data to protect MY RIGHT to use them as licensed should I wish to transfer
them to another location (should the keys even be available to do so). And
finally, along the same lines, are the problems created in making and
restoring a LEGAL backup of media that I have either purchased or legally
acquired the right to use. As someone who has lost more than one hard-drive
in my lifetime, I can tell you that it was never replaced with an identical
drive and that I would have been DEAD without an easy to use, unencumbered,
and unencrypted tape of the data. I am NOT reassured by IBM statements that
such issues will "need to be addressed" in the future.
Lets be clear. The proposed standard does not just restrict illegal use of
intellectual content. It has the potential to SERIOUSLY RESTRICT,
COMPLICATE, AND IN SOME CASES PREVENT LEGAL USE AS WELL. This is an unfair
balance. My rights to legal use of content are no less important than the
owners right to prevent illegal use. And my rights as an individual and a
consumer should not be subordinated in favor of a few powerful and wealthy
media companies.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider this proposal.
Mike Hartley, V.P. of Operations
Method Products Corp
1301 West Copans Rd.
Suite F-1
Pompano Beach, FL 33064
Phone: (954)975-5289
Fax:(954)968-5392
********************************************************
From: r-bednarz@tamu.edu
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:05 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
I've read the Register's story about CPRM on hard drives and it sounds bad to
me. Don't do it.
********************************************************
From: Smallwood, Ed [Edward_Smallwood@ICTV.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:55 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: CPRM and the ATA spec . . .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----Hash: SHA1
Dear Mr. McLeanI have been reading the recent articles on CPRM on both ZDNet and The
Register with some interest. The bottom line is this:
I do NOT want someone else determining what software that I have
purchased will or will not work on my system. I do NOT want a third
party determining what I can place on my computer system. I do NOT
want CPRM made part of the ATA spec. PERIOD.
It is very VERY clear that CPRM is not intended only for removable
media. If it were, it would be part of the ATAPI spec, and not part
of the ATA spec. This is clearly not the case.
I will not buy any drives made by Maxtor, or any other manufacturer,
that has CPRM in the drives firmware, even if it is "not turned on."
Do not put it there.
Thank you for your time.
- -Edly
***************************
"Not one shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is
serious."
PGP Public Key available
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOkzb/YIkfulYgBQREQLYygCfe3uO1xvdcSpnc6cafKgxaZk7YxQAn1mS
0hrHxyLX4e6rWte4ky1juTZd
=zjqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----********************************************************
From: Antony Tovar [ATovar@tskm.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:26 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: No CPRM on hard drives
Mr. McLean,
I apologize if I am complaining to the wrong person but I am very upset over
what I have heard regarding the proposed Content Protection Rights
Management (CPRM) spec for ATA drives. Despite it's good intentions, I
believe it will only cause continuing problems for end-users as software
vendors inevitably try to use it to enforce software licensing.
Please consider this concern and act to remove CPRM from the updated ATA
spec.
Thank you,
Antony Tovar
Network Manager, TSKM Acct.
http://www.tskm.com
mailto:atovar@tskm.com
********************************************************
From: James P. Comerota [jpc@pronetisp.net]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:40 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com; customer.service@wdc.com
Subject: CPRM
I WILL BOYCOTT your products if you introduce CPRM compliant devices
James P. Comerota
Pronet, LLC
41 Chenango St.
Binghamton, NY 13901
(607) 724-0361, ext.227
Fax (607) 724-4403
E-mail jpc@pronetisp.net
********************************************************
From: Rob L [chipstockfan@lycos.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:30 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com;
lotspiech@almaden.ibm.com; info@lmicp.com
Subject: CPRM
To be sure, consumers will be enlightened as to which manufacturers are
promoting the heinous CPRM technology. Thanks, but no thanks; I don't need YOU
to lock down my computer for me.
Get
FREE
Email/Voicemail
http://comm.lycos.com
with
15MB
at
Lycos
Communications
********************************************************
From: Bert Garcia [hgarcia@imigo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:28 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Mr. McLean,
Remember the Pentium III cpu id fiasco, well I put off buying a PC until
I could disable it in the bios.
Should your committee decide to include CPRM into disk drives then I
will refuse to buy any new drives until at such time I can disable the
feature in the bios.
Should any software or media company distribute their wares requiring
the use of this feature then I will refuse to exchange my dollars for
their work.
You can't stop a leaking dike by putting more fingers in the hole,
at
eventually someone will put a tap on it and let the people drink.
-bert garcia
********************************************************
From: Sean Darrenkamp [sean@dejazzd.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:12 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com; NCITS@ITIC.ORG; info@lmicp.com
Subject: CPRM
I have purchased various products that were manufactured by you. As a
consumer I recently read about the attempt to put copy protection on
removable media and non removable media on ATA drives. I wish to state that
if your company supports and manufactures products that support CPRM
compliant devices I will seek other manufacturers who make normal hard
drives and removable media devices that don't infringe on my privacy rights
or the right for me to use my computer in an easy and hassle free manor.
Apon reading the articals on CPRM and some of the specs from the websites
that are affiliated with orgainizations developing it, I believe it will
imped my ability to choose an OS that will allow me to operate and use my
computer in the way that I see fit legally and freely.
I will boycot all products from companies that support this standard. I have
also forwarded news sites articals on this technology to all my friends and
family so they will see whats in the works. I quite frankly do not wish to
live in a digital police state.
********************************************************
From: Gregory Bohn [gbohn@stny.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 7:02 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Hi;
Just a quick note to voice my displeasure at the attempt to add 'CPRM' copy
protection
to the ATA Hard drive specifications. As mentioned in 'The Register'
( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15718.html ) it appears there is an
attempt to
foist this on hard-drive use.
Once again, it seems we will have to suffer the problems created by copy
protection
schemes which are never as transparent and innocuous as they purport to be. As a
legal
user I will be forced to suffer the problems created by a scheme with NO benefit
to me,
and only benefit to the manufacturers.
Thanks;
-Greg Bohn
********************************************************
From: mlazovjm@notes.udayton.edu
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 6:46 AM
To: info@lmicp.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: EFF's Gilmore calls for CPRM hardware boycott
From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/15686.html
-------------------------------------------------------------EFF's Gilmore calls for CPRM hardware boycott
By: Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 26/12/2000 at 09:35 GMT
John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has urged
users to boycott hardware containing CPRM copy-control mechanisms. Last
week we broke a story of moves to build CPRM (Copyright Protection for
Recordable Media) cryptography into the industry standard ATA hard disk
specification. If implemented, the initiative could rapidly end the use of
the PC and new emerging devices for freely exchanging audio, video and
information.
-------------------------------------------------------------I am sure you have been hit by a million e-mail such as mine recently
concerning the addition of CPRM to the ATA standard.
The following quote from Gilmore sums it up:
"No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in generic computer hardware!
It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their product for," writes
Gilmore. "It's not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and certainly not
up to a record company that's shadily influencing those vendors in
back-room meetings."
I understand that software and intellectual property piracy is wrong, and I
condemn it as well. However, this is not the way to go.
We rely heavily on mass disk-imaging, and are very happy with our current
system. Without even getting into the issues of consumer rights mentioned
above, the expense necessary to purchase CPRM-compliant software upgrades
and the logistical nightmares created by accommodating CPRM-compliant
hardware will be extraordinary.
As the tech who helps determine the specs for the computers that our 2000+
freshmen are required to purchase when they enroll, let me tell you this:
Any company who supports the whims of the media over the rights of the
consumers will never see its products in our computers. And as a trusted
tech on-campus, let me assure you that I will do everything within my power
to get the message out to the rest of the people responsible for purchasing
hardware on-campus as well.
Jeremy Mlazovsky
Academic Network Specialist
UD IT
University of Dayton
Office: 937-229-4019
********************************************************
From: Erik Berglund [erik@adware.no]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 5:28 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Various.
Hi.
Im sure you are a nice guy, and I'm only mailing you because
you are at the top of the t13 webpage, maybe you don't even have anything to do
with this.
But if you do, then for the love of Pete; stop this crazy CPRM stuff.
I don't like it, and I won't buy, or recommend anyone else to buy hard drives
that implement it.
It's stupid, quit it.
Says:
Erik Berglund
********************************************************
From: mre [mearnest6@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:13 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Mr. McLean,
First off, please let me thank you for your time spent reading this, it is
(greatly) appreciated.
I wanted to write someone from t13 and express my
opposition to the proposed CPRM standard being integrated into the default ATA
hard disk specification. Your email address was displayed on the t13 web site,
so I decided to write you with this. If I am sending this to the wrong person,
please let me know.
Hardware vendors have no right to force copy protection upon their
consumers. This really seems to be a "guilty until proven innocent" approach,
aimed at a very few who actually pirate digital media in any way outside of the
fair use policy. I resent the hell out of this, the fact that hardware vendors
are even thinking of doing cartwheels for the recording industry and copy
protecting generic hardware that I BUY FROM THE SAME VENDORS against me.
Maligning everyone to crack down and prevent the actions of a few is, frankly,
loathsome.
I sincerely hope that the ATA standards body does not allow
Hollywood to dictate the course and tempo of technological growth.
Thank you
for your time.
Yours,
Matthew R. Earnest
mearnest6@earthlink.net
********************************************************
From: James Wigdahl [jwigdahl@brittonsd.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 5:18 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: don't implement this please!!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html
********************************************************
From: ZigmaDelta@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:11 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; info@lmicp.com
Subject: CPRM hardware
CPRM is suppression of my rights, please do NOT intergrate this with your
products! It violates my rights to utilize my Computer for what I deem is
it's use. If this it integrated into the hardware standard I will boycott
it!.
********************************************************
From: McKee Bill [bmckee@fjicl.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 1:16 PM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: CPRM
I hope that the info about the adoption
unfounded. If this becomes a reality I will
vendors that incorporate this technology are
a good answer to their stock-holders for the
of CPRM into the ATA standard is
do everything I can to see that the
boycotted and I hope that they have
falling valuations of their stock.
Regards,
Bill McKee
Bill McKee
Fujitsu Transaction Solutions Inc.
25902 Towne Centre Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
(tel
(949) 855-5577
(fax (949) 458-6257
+email to: bmckee@fjicl.com
********************************************************
From: Tom Lins [tlins@optonline.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:25 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Cc: patrick.cox@tomshardware.com; andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk
Subject: CPRM on the ATA inteface
Gentlemen
I read the article by Andrew Orlowski with some disbelief that the standards
committee is even considering implementing what I feel is a violation of my
rights to free speech. While I do not condone piracy of copyrighted works I feel
that this is censorship in its worst form, corporate greed. I for one will vote
on this matter with my wallet. I will not purchase any item that has this
technology incorporated into it and I will avoid the products of any corporation
that places this technology into any of its products. I believe that once
consumers realize the full implications that this will have on their ability to
do even simple tasks, they will reject this technology also.
Thomas Lins
********************************************************
From: Tom [propsync@phoenixdsl.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:28 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
don't even think about incorporating this copyright standard into hard drives or
you will be sorry.
********************************************************
From: Jon Jensen [jon@swelter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 10:35 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Hardware against users
Dear Mr. McLean,
It has come to my attention that various schemes have been proposed to
prevent owners of hardware, such as hard drives Maxtor manufactures, from
freely copying data. These misguided attempts to enforce already illadvised copyright protection schemes are a completely unacceptable
infringement on the rights of the person that *owns* the drive. I expect
that you would be as uncomfortable as I to find your home computer
incapable of freely copying any data you command it to copy, without any
sort of cryptographic or network-based copyright verification nonsense.
Will you please send me an official statement of Maxtor's stance on this
issue?
Please refuse to participate in or support any such schemes, and I will
gladly remain a happy Maxtor customer for years to come.
Jon Jensen
11480 Sunset Hills Rd. #400E
Reston, Virginia 20190
********************************************************
From: Josh Angott [jangott@mediaone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 5:53 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: I don't like CPRM do are you forcing me to buy SCSI?
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT
********************************************************
From: Georgios Vasileiou [gevasileiou@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:17 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: request not to implement CPRM or any other low level content
control on ATA hdds
I am writing to ask that your organisation does not implement the rumored
CPRM "copy protection" instructions on the evolving ATA standard.
I feel outraged by the scheme the entertainment industry is trying to pull
at the expense of Personal Computer users, and feel obliged to inform you
that I plan to stop purchasing from the companies that decide (or encourage)
the implementation of CPRM instructions on hard drives.
I would much rather purchase "non-standard" products from companies that
respect my consumer rights, than be the victim of "standardized" low-level
"copyright protection" methods which dictate what I can, or cannot do, on my
computer.
Personally, as a consumer, I am not willing to tolerate such unacceptable
methods of content control on my Pc.
I will appreciate it if you respect my choices as a Personal Computer user,
and decline implementing low-level CPRM instructions on the ATA standard.
In any case, I will be sorry to stop purchasing any and all products from
the companies which will show signs of indifference to their customers'
choices, wishes and opinions, by implementing (or supporting the
implementation of) any kind of hardware low-level content control on hard
drives and the ATA interface standard.
Thank you for reading this, and feel free to forward my mail to anyone you
feel is pertinent to the matter.
yours,
Eugenios Vasileiou,
Greece
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
********************************************************
From: Nate Williams [natewms@intelos.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 2:46 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Copy protection scheme for ATA
Dear Pete
NO copy protection in hardware.
Period.
Nate Williams
********************************************************
From: Marc Caron [MCaron@ncmic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 1:17 PM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'; 'kent.pryor@quantum.com'
Subject: CPRM Proposal
First I would like to point out that the associated PDF files describing the
proposed standard are apparently un-accessible from your website under the
2000 documents.
Second I would like to express my outrage that this is even a considerable
standard. The purpose of such a standard is entirely against my rights and
negates much of the purpose of having a computer. As a programmer I would
have to write my applications such that they could be copied. Doing so will
undoubtedly require me to purchase such licenses as necessary to program to
this new interface, which I will assume to be outrageous in an attempt to
keep all but established companies from acquiring. Why you ask? Because to
keep the price such that freelance programmers could acquire such licenses
would also allow them to circumvent it as well. This would also result in
the crippling of free software projects.
To implement such a restrictive mechanism within what has been a very open
standard for years would cause an extreme rash of hacks to exploit and skirt
the intended purpose. Also, as we have seen so often, I see extremely
abrasive business practices arising from such a standard.
In short to implement such a mechanism with no way to permanently disable
the "feature" on individual systems would be an insult to consumers. As I
can see it's purpose in specific areas I absolutely despise the idea of it
being implemented in the main stream consumer market and will continue to
express my outrage at the proposal.
Marc Caron - MCSE
********************************************************
From: SuperBoomer [largo@bubblegum.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 12:57 PM
To: lotspiech@almaden.ibm.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: senator_wellstone@exchange.senate.gov; mail_grams@grams.senate.gov;
martin.sabo@mail.house.gov; drow@visi.com
Subject: Re: Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM)
dear gentlemen,
this is a bad idea on so many levels, serves as a vehicle for destroying
long-utilized and legally upheld consumer rights, and i utterly oppose
it.
how can you even suppose that this is acceptable to those who would
actually be purchasing the computer hard drive industry's products?
Ref:
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00152r0.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15655.html
sincerely,
doug rau
315 w franklin ave #123
minneapolis, mn 55404
drow@visi.com
current consumer, rethinking the matter
********************************************************
From: Yoav Epstein [yoav@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 11:15 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: do not support CPRM
Please to not support adoption of CPRM into the ATA standard.
Thanks,
Yoav Epstein
yoav@earthling.net
********************************************************
From: Joao Geada [jgeada@mediaone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 10:39 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: joao@synopsys.com
Subject: Content protection of recordable media (documents e00148r0,
e00148r1, e001r8r2)
Pete,
I am writing to you with extreme concern over the "Content protection
of recordable media" proposal for the next generation ATA interface.
It is my belief that this proposal is an outrageous infringement on my
rights as a consumer and as a citizen. And further it is, technologically,
a flawed proposal, seriously handicapping the usefulness of hard drives
in large server farm type environments, where RAID and disk-mirroring are
not just common, they are necessities.
It stretches the limits of credibility to believe that this proposal will in
any way enhance the usability of a hard-drive mechanism for me, the consumer.
This proposal serves only a 3rd party (I presume some consortium of media
companies) that is not only not involved in the purchase but has nothing to
lose if this proposal torpedoes existing and/or future hard-drive and
computer capabilities.
Though not normally one as to be outraged or even join boycotts, this time
I must stand and be counted: I will NEVER purchase a disk drive with this
type of capability and I will recommend that my company do the same.
MY computer is a general purpose device for computing on and storing MY data;
and it will remain that way.
Yours
Joao Geada
==============================================================================
Joao Geada, Ph.D.
Sr. Staff R&D Engineer, CoverMeter, Verif Tech Group
Synopsys, Inc
TEL: (508) 486-5183
154 Crane Meadow Road, Suite 300,
FAX: (508) 486-5169
Marlboro, MA 01752, USA
==============================================================================
********************************************************
From: Bob Niederman [bob@bob-n.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 10:04 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: NO CPRM
It will be a very cold day in hell before I buy any product with this crap
in it.
Inlcuding fascist garbage like this in a computer standard would an error
of the worst kind. Don't do it.
Hardwar standards are not the place to enforce the alleged copyrights of
thieves like RIAA and MPAA. Let this be decided in the legislative and
judicial; forums where it belongs.
- Bob Niederman http://bob-n.com
Fight UCITA! http://www.4cite.org, http://bob-n.com/ucita
********************************************************
From: Omar [andromar@usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 9:57 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com;
pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com
Subject: The new ATA copy protection is just bad. I hope all of you guys
go bankrupt!!!!
I hope you guys are just kidding right? How dare you do this to us
comsumers? Worse, how dare you IMPOSE this on us consumers? We MUST be able
to do whatever we wish with our data on our own computers. This is crazy.
How dare you call yourself ansi.ORG? You should definitely be ansi.COM!!! I
hope that u never actualyy do this. I can assure you that I will NEVER buy
a hard drive with such a copy protection scheme, and I can also assure you
that I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone I know (and don't
know) from buying one of these drives. How come u guys haven't learned the
lesson yet? These schemes NEVER work, history should have taught you.
Consumers will simply NOT BUY such drives that won't let them do what they
want. THere are innumerous examples from the past: no matter what the
scheme is it will ALWAYS be broken or customers will simply not buy it!!!
Look at macrovision on videotapes, look at all the DVD scene. Look at the
new watermarking BS from the RIAA (which has already been broken, before it
is even OUT!!!). Check isonews.com. Everything gets pirated, PS2 games, DC,
psx, audio, DVDs, software, mp3... it's just a fact of life and u guys have
to swallow it!!! There is simply no way that a group of people (those u put
together to design such schemes) will ever be smarter that the rest of the
world trying to crack the scheme. Forget it! Anything that consumers don't
want is doomed to fail!!! Besides, there is ONLY one way to combat piracy,
which is to sell original copies at only a little more that what it costs
to make a copy; that's the only way consumers will buy. Sell music CDs not
for $20 but for $4 and I'll bet EVERYONE will buy. And all this bs about
piracy being the same as stealing... if you guys could just step out of
your tiny little world on look at it with some logic, you would see that
90% of the people who do piracy (if not more) would not have bought the
product anyway. We simply don't have enough money to buy everything...
Don't expect to sell any more audio CDs that you do now even if u can stop
the piracy. It's that simple. I heard this from the words of a smart
software developer himself ("My experience tells me that 99% of the people
who pirate wouldn't have bought the software anyway, so I don't care much
about piracy)!!!
Thanks,
Omar
********************************************************
From: richard booth [rcb725@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 9:41 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: poss cprm
If CPRM or any other copy protection is placed in a hardware
spec. you will lower sales of said hardware in the short run. Will other
companies build products to get around It, sure.
"copy 11 pc "sold a lot of software because of copy protection.will laws
get changed, sure when millions of users
start sending e-mail's. Put cprm in a spec and watch the problems start.
how lomg can your company stand a 25%sales
drop???
richard booth
********************************************************
From: hari seldon [spamfil@ibm.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 8:41 AM
To: info@lmicp.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: copy protection of generic hard drives - NO!!!!
It has come to my attention that your group is proposing the institution
and implementation of copy protection as an extension to generic hard
drives. I would like to voice my desire to firmly denounce that decision as
an engineer and architect. The addition of such a proposal to a generic
hardware component would severely limit the desirable aspects of any
computer systems composite parts.
It further decreases the available personal and corporate security and
privacy below the already abysmal levels that they currently enjoy.
I would strongly request that any such proposal for consideration on any
current or future generic computer components be discarded out of hand.
Thank You
h. seldon
ref:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15682.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15684.html
http://www.dvdcca.org/4centity/data/tech/cpsa/cpsa081.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/2000/number_2/solutions200.h
tml#two
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r2.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------hari seldon
"price check on prune juice Bob, price check on prune juice"
so what is the wow-wow-wibble-wobble-wazzy-woddle-woo?
********************************************************
From: sjmarsh@att.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 8:21 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: smarsh99@swbell.net
Subject: CPRM Boycott
Dear Mr. McLean,
It is with great concern that I am writing this EMail to
you today, mainly because I like the products that
Maxtor makes. I recently purchased my third Maxtor HDD.
As we are all aware, there have been several news
stories of the intent to "update" the ATA specification
to include "Copyright Protection for Recordable Media"
(CPRM). I cannot tell you what a monumental error it
will be for manufacturers of hardware of ANY TYPE to
pursue this reckless folly.
Hardware manufacturers such as Maxtor and Quantum are in
the "Capacity and Reliability Business" not
the "Copyright Protection Business."
I want to state clearly to you and ALL HARDWARE
MANUFACTURERS that I AM AGAINST the incorporation of ANY
COPYRIGHT PROTECTION mechanisms in computer or
entertainment hardware. These include, but are not
limited to, HARD DISK DRIVES, FLOPPY DRIVES, DVD/CDROM
DRIVES, MONITORS, COMPUTERS, etc, etc.
I and everyone I can convince will not support any
hardware manufacturer that incorporates any copyright
protection mechanisms into their hardware. I, and
millions of free-speech loving Americans, will also use
every legal means possible to eradicate these types of
mechanisms from the marketplace.
Everyone has, in their life, a chance to be a Hero or a
Coward. No amount of money or rationalization can change
our decisions or make them more palatable in our old
age. As one of the Administrators of the T13 committee I
urge you uphold the charter of the T13 committee, which
reads:
"The charter of Technical Committee T13 is to provide a
public forum for the development and enhancement of
storage interface standards for high volume personal
computers. The work of T13 is open to all materially
impacted individuals and organizations."
Nowhere, does this charter mention Copyright Protection
or catering to monetarily-interested parties and acting
on their behalf.
-Steven Marsh
Hardware Owner, Buyer, and End-User
********************************************************
From: Ryan McGee [rmcgee@sevenww.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 7:00 AM
To: pete_mclean
Subject: CPRM boycott
Put another vote in the pile that is labled "No way in HELL will I buy one of
these hard dirves!)
Ryan McGee
Seven WorldWide
214-688-7777
800-654-6292
rmcgee@sevenww.com
********************************************************
From: Alex Phare [alex@phare59.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 3:36 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Hi
Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that although my current
self-assembled PC has a Maxtor HDD I will not - under ANY circumstances buy another maxtor product if CPRM copy protection is included.
Sincerely
Dr Alex Phare
********************************************************
From: Guy Peters [nologic3@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 3:26 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Please do not let this spec become reality. I wish to be the owner of my
hardware and not some one else, and that's how I view the CPRM spec. I believe
I'm the one that bought my storage device & that I should be the one to control
what's on it & where it is on my device. I also believe that I should be able to
make backup's of my software & my hard drive. I help develop software & beta
test it on my single machine, as such should or if some thing should go
horrorably wrong, I need to be able to restore my drive as soon as possible.
From what I've read this will prevent me from making image's of my hard drive or
any other ATA drive. This is truly scary, for the idea of reinstalling all of my
software & tools could take days, rather than 30 minute's as it doe's now. This
in turn could cost me both time & money I can ill afford at any given time,
because some one else feels that they have more of a right to my ATA drive than
I the person that bought it. This I feel is genuinely wrong, so please do not
pass this spec.
Thank you for your time.
Guy Peters
********************************************************
From: Buergin [damntech@surfbest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 3:11 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Another negative feeling about CPRM.
I am quite sure you have received many emails from disgruntled consumers not
understanding why such a thing as CPRM would be allowed to enter the ATA
standard and I wanted to make it clear that I am among them as well...
********************************************************
From: Quesnell, Mark R. [VIS] [MQUENEL@VISUS.JNJ.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 12:06 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: CPRM in ATA hard drives
I just read an article that said your committee was planning on incorporating
the CPRM scheme into the ATA specification - effectively taking control of the
contents of my hard drive away from me and giving it to someone else.
I adamantly oppose this idea.
If an individual violates copyrights than that
individual can be held accountable, not an entire group. I own my hard drive
and as such I have the right to control the data on it. This data should only
be encrypted if I desire it to be, and then only for my personal purposes - not
to further someone elses control of my computer system.
Thank You
Mark Quesnell
********************************************************
From: Sean [daidasea@soest.hawaii.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 3:09 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Concern
Hello,
Because of the glut of mail you must be receiving, I'll keep this short.
If you succeed in putting copy protection in the ATA standard, there is
a significant chance that I will stop using computers for personal use
of any sort.
Sincerely,
Sean Daida
daidasea@soest.hawaii.edu
********************************************************
From: Ridgway, Michael A. [michael@1944.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:32 PM
To: 'NCITS@ITIC.ORG'; 'kent.pryor@quantum.com'; 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: CPRM
Sirs
No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in ATA standards!
NO reserve space in the spec for calls or functions!
It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their product for.
I need backups, raid, drive imaging to work!
Michael Ridgway
michael@1944.com
********************************************************
From: Crow Robot [mst_crow5429@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 10:11 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: CPRM
As a consumer and civil libertarian, I strongly protest the proposal to add CPRM
copy protection to future hard drive technology. I also am totally set against
any proposal to add copy protection to generic computer hardware as a whole. No
matter what explanations are given, the net effect is the end of freedom of use
and information when it comes to computer hardware and software. I will boycott
any and all manufacturers who begin to enact these police state measures upon
innocent computer users.
Sincerely,
Micah Haber
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
********************************************************
From: Roger Hughes [roger@gidgenet.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:58 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Last week 'The Register' broke a story of moves to build CPRM (Copyright
Protection for Recordable Media) cryptography into the industry standard ATA
hard disk specification.
I will desist from the obvious temptation to add further to the derisive
comments to which you are no doubt currently being subjected, and merely request
that you be advised that I for one will not be purchasing any such products.
Roger Hughes
********************************************************
From: Karsin_Eng@brown.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:07 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: New ATA Specifications
Sensitivity: Confidential
To whom it may concern:
The Register has reported that a new ATA specification may include features that
prevent users from copying data between different hard drives without 3rd party
permission.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html
If this allegation is true, know that I will NOT purchase any products using
this specification. I know that I am not the only one opposed to this, and that
millions of other consumers will not be stand to be treated in this manner.
Karsin Eng
********************************************************
From: Kevin Donnelly [kevin@dotmon.uklinux.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 2:28 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Cc: editor@theregister.co.uk
Subject: CPRM
Hi
I am writing to express my concern over the latest moves to install copy
control on ATA hard drives
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html). It seems to me that
this is wholly unacceptable - I have no illegal content on any of the PCs I
own or use, and I consider it an insult that a group of content producers
should imply that I am, and seek, through you, to seize control over data I
hold on my own machines. Moreover, as Richard Stallman has pointed out, the
scheme discriminates against open-source/"free" software and operating
systems, and their users. It is therefore doubly unwelcome. If this
proposal goes ahead, I
will seek to buy hardware that does not have this snooping device installed,
and I will be
advising my customers to do the same.
Kevin Donnelly
kevin@dotmon.com
********************************************************
From: Michael Miller [michaelmiller@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 2:10 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: ATA CPRM
I am a technology purchaser who buys many dollars
worth of hardware for my
company every year. Approximately 20% of these purchases are hard drives.
I will never purchase a hard drive with the new CPRM standard. It is a bad
business decision and a bad idea in general for the industry. I feel badly
enough that all of you are in the pocket of the entertainment industry, but the
havoc this will cause at my company is beyond what it can financially endure.
Please note this before you decide to keelhaul the innocent with the guilty.
--Mike Miller
Manager, Purchasing Dept., company unnamed for fear of repercussions
********************************************************
From: Edward Chowdhury [ed@letsplay.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:23 PM
To: kent.pryor@quantum.com; pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Are you guys nuts?
Dear Sirs,
After hearing about CPRM I am writing this email to voice my outrage about
the proposed changes to the ATA spec that will call for mandatory content
copyright protection in digital media. I will tell you that I will NEVER buy
any media or component that imposes these kinds of onerous restrictions on
my rights as a hardware buyer. Moreover I will advise all the companies I
consult for to do the same. These systems have been proven to be unreliable
and a total nightmare to backup.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Chowdhury
Developer,
Letsplay Inc.
********************************************************
From: Steven L Hess [kc6kge@lightspeed.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 12:42 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM Hardware.
Dear Sir
I am writing to express my opposition to anay modification of
the ATA standard which would allow any person beside myself to determine
what data I could transfer to or from any mass data storage device that
I or my customers own.
I have been a computer owner from the days of CPM on the desk
top. I am not some newbie. Data and software I own are my property. The
idea that some key stored somewhere could control the copying of that
data or transfer of the content of on of my machines to another or to a
upgraded system just seems wacky. If I by a Maxtor HD ( I own 5 of those
products ) I think I should be able to use them as I wish.
I am sure the stock holders of the Maxtor Corp. feel the same. Those
Shareholders wish to make money, If I don't purchase those drives then
they can't make money. Case in point, last year we installed over 900
hard drives. A look at our records showed around 362 were Maxtors, these
went onto new custom built systems, system upgrades and replacements of
defective drives. I every case the upgrades required the transfer of the
content of the old systems HD to the new upgraded system. Many of the
completely new systems did as well. If this CPRM standard is included in
the ATA spec that will hurt me and my valued customers, many of them
having DiamondMax HDs in there systems. It seems very lame to even
consider hurting your customers this way to satisfy some third party
who's interest are marginal when compared with your actual customers and
your shareholders. Every system we work on has a legal OS or the owner
gets to by it from us, otherwise we will not work upon it, the same goes
for any software we install. It is the way we do business. That makes it
hard to compete sometimes but most of the operations like ours whom
don't require that are soon out of business, we are still here but,
being ethical is not optional it is a requirement.
In closing attached is a post from " The Register" it is a daily
read for me. It covers CPRM and makes some of the arguments which I
would make, The "content providers" listed already are harming me
personally. I have changed to the Linux OS on my personal desktop, I can
not utilize my DVD hardware or software legally because of these greedy
twerps. content which I own and hardware I own can not be accessed
because of these persons and corporate bodies. They have gone to court
to preclude myself and others from using things we have purchased from
them. That is not how you make friends or customers. I feel almost
extorted when I have to boot my windows drive just to use that hardware.
I can do everything else I wish under Linux except view the content I
purchased from these greedy bastards. Don't be like them. Allow your
customer to use their mass storage the way they wish not how others
wish.
Respectfully
Steven L. Hess
Attachment below.
EFF's Gilmore calls for CPRM hardware boycott
By: Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 26/12/2000 at 09:35 GMT
John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic
Freedom Foundation, has urged users
to boycott hardware containing CPRM copy-control
mechanisms. Last week we
broke a story of moves to build CPRM (Copyright
Protection for Recordable
Media) cryptography into the industry standard
ATA hard disk specification. If
implemented, the initiative could rapidly end the
use of the PC and new emerging
devices for freely exchanging audio, video and
information.
Users, says Gilmore, should demand a policy
declaration from vendors that they
eschew "covertly controlled hardware", and only
buy products that are truly open,
he argues in a post to the C2 crypto mailing
list.
"No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in
generic computer hardware! It's
up to the BUYER to determine what to use their
product for," writes Gilmore. "It's
not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and
certainly not up to a record
company that's shadily influencing those vendors
in back-room meetings."
Gilmore says moves are also taking place to build
copy-control into monitors ...
BIOSes and the operating systems. Some of these
we've heard of but, not all but if you have then get in touch.
"I don't know whether the movie moguls are
holding compromising photos of Intel
and IBM executives over their heads, or whether
they have simply lost their
minds," he wonders.
Gilmore also argues that by giving their
customers the freedom to own digital
media - or at least, to decide when they want to
own it -hardware vendors stand
to increase their own bottom line.
ATA drives are not only used in PCs, but in the
emerging digital video recorder
business led by TiVo and Replay, and are also
appearing in MP3 players such as
Creative's Nomad portable jukebox. Under the CPRM
scheme, local file
ownership permissions are trumped by crypto keys
issued by the "publisher" of
the content, who strictly controls copying,
moving and deletion of the data on the
local device. The move will also cause immediate
problems for PC RAID, backup
and file optimisation software, IBM acknowledged
last week.
Here's the full text of Gilmore's call to arms:To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into
ordinary disk drives
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800
From: John Gilmore
The Register has broken a story of the latest
tragedy of copyright mania in
the computer industry. Intel and IBM have
invented and are pushing a
change to the standard spec for PC hard drives
that would
make each one enforce "copy protection" on the
data stored on the hard
drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from
your own hard drive to
another drive, or back it up, without permission
from some third party.
Every drive would have a unique ID and unique
keys, and would encrypt
the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the
drive's owner, but to protect
unnamed third parties AGAINST you.
The same guy who leads the DVD Copy Control
Association is heading the
organization that licenses this new technology -John Hoy. He's a
front-man for the movie and record companies, and
a leading figure in
the California DVD lawsuit. These people are
lunatics, who would destroy
the future of free expression and technological
development, so they
could sit in easy chairs at the top of the
smoking ruins and light their
cigars off 'em.
The folks at Intel and IBM who are letting
themselves be led by the nose
are even crazier. They've piled fortunes on
fortunes by building machines
that are better and better at copying and
communicating WHATEVER
collections of raw bits their customers desire to
copy. Now for some
completely unfathomable reason, they're actively
destroying that working
business model. Instead they're building in
circuitry
that gives third parties enforceable veto power
over which bits their
customers can send where. (This disk drive stuff
is just the tip of the
iceberg; they're doing the same thing with LCD
monitors, flash memory,
digital cable interfaces, BIOSes, and the OS.
Next week we'll probably
hear of some new industry-wide copy protection
spec, perhaps for
network interface cards or DRAMs.) I don't know
whether the movie
moguls are holding compromising photos of Intel
and IBM executives over
their heads, or whether they have simply lost
their minds. The only way
they can succeed in imposing this on the buyers
in the
computer market is if those buyers have no honest
vendors to turn to.
Or if those buyers honestly don't know what they
are being sold.
So spread the word. No copy protection should
exist ANYWHERE in
generic computer hardware! It's up to the BUYER
to determine what to use
their product for. It's not up to the vendors of
generic hardware, and
certainly not up to a record company that's
shadily influencing those
vendors in back-room meetings. Demand a policy
declaration from your
vendor that they will build only open hardware,
not covertly controlled
hardware. Use your purchasing dollars to enforce
that policy.
Our business should go to the honest vendors,
who'll sell you a drive and
an OS and a motherboard and a CPU and a monitor
that YOU, the buyer,
can determine what is a valid use of. Don't send
your money to Intel or
IBM or Sony. Give your money to the vendors
who'll sell you a product
that YOU control.
- John
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
Since retiring from Sun Microsystems (he was the
company's fifth employee)
Gilmore has spent a decade campaigning on privacy
and free speech issues,
advocating the wider availability of strong
cryptography, and supporting the GNU
free software project.
Footnote: We've been inundated with mail since we
broke the original story - for
which, many thanks - and roughly half of this
correspondence requests links and
contact information for people to shout at. The
T.13 committee which administers
the ATA standard, the 4C Entity (IBM, Intel,
Toshiba and Matsushita), which
owns and advocates CPRM, and John Hoy's LSI, LC
all have public websites. Let
us know what you hear.(r)
********************************************************
From: Neil Davey [grok@mwt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:54 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Copy protected hard drives etc.
The idea of putting copy protection into a hard-drive is just wrong! How can a
system that has for so long prided itself on its ability to easily and rapidly
transfer data even consider this! No longer will I be able to download the Mp3
of my family singing christmas carols from my dads website?!?! Please explain
to me your reasoning and tell me that you are re-considering this option!
********************************************************
From: richard.trompke@verizon.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 12:04 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
To whom it may concern,
I
do not support CPRM and will not buy products supporting CPRM.
Richard Trompke/Systems Engineer
National NT Support/NNS
Verizon Data Services
F2J
813-987-1147
********************************************************
From: Yannick Menager [ymenager@jguild.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:10 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Opinion
Dear sir,
I am sending you this email because I've been shocked at discovering the
plans to implement CPRM in ATA standard. I wish to express my greatest
anger that content providers are subverting the basics standard of
computing to increase their power, at the cost of everybody's basic
rights. I would remind you that ATA if not the only computing standard,
and that if such a foolish move is done, other standards such as SCSI
will gain a gigantic market share boost, and hopefully totally replace
ATA. I for sure do not plan on ever buying any product containing CPRM.
********************************************************
From: Andrew Meinert [minerat@drexel.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 10:20 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Dear Sir:
I am absolutely, 100%, unequivocally opposed to the idea of integrating a
Copyright Protection for Recordable Media scheme into ATA standards. To do
so would place restrictions upon almost every computer that would be
manufactured in the next 10 years, and by that point it would mean every
operating computer in the world. The privacy issues at stake are
unbelievable. The people have spoken again and again, they value their
privacy. Intel's unique id number scheme on their PIII line completely
backfired on them. People are worried about being traced, being observed,
being vulnerable to something they can't do anything about. Industry
standards are set up so that everyone has a guideline to go by, so that all
devices designed to interact with a computing system will do so properly.
It is not the job of generic hardware designers and standard setters to push
the agendas of others. Keep in mind what is important, performance and
stability.
********************************************************
From: tuinstra@clarkson.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 10:18 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: ATA & CPRM
Dear Sirs:
I have recently been made aware of attempts to embed the "CPRM"
scheme in the ATA spec.
I am apalled.
Apalled first that anyone should propose that unknown 3rd parties
could have veto power over my use of my hardware, and interfere
with my lawful use of said hardware to run, optimise, and backup
bits that I legally posess.
Apalled second at the brazen attempt to force such ill-conceived
and anti-democratic ideas into a recognized world-wide standard.
My plea to both of you, and to the organizations and firms
which you represent, is that you resist these moves with all
possible means and energy. Please, raise awareness in the
general public of the threat, and raise awareness of the
likely negative economic consequences within hardware vendors'
firms.
I for one will buy, recommend, and specify hardware that is
free of CPRM and similarly odious technologies, and encourage
all my friends, colleagues and students to do the same. Please
join me in this effort.
Respectfully,
--Dwight Tuinstra
tuinstra@clarkson.edu
********************************************************
From: Joo Chung [jchung@gemnets.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 10:08 AM
To: info@lmicp.com; NCITS@ITIC.ORG; pete_mclean@maxtor.com;
kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: CPRM / CPPM on Hard Disk
To whom it may concern:
I wish to let it be known to all the members of 4C Entity that should they
implement CPRM / CPPM on various Hard Disks / removeable media devices for
personal computers, I will boycott their products and purchase a competitive
product instead.
I am opposed to such copy protection technologies on general purpose
devices. Such copy protection should only reside on the software designed to
run or playback the files.
The industry, instead of embracing the new media and distribution methods,
is trying to impede its growth and infringe on the consumer's fair use
rights.
********************************************************
From: Mayhew, James [James.Mayhew@pgnmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 10:00 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'; 'kent.pryor@quantum.com'; 'info@lmicp.com'
Subject: I do not support CPRM and will not buy products supporting
CPRM.
James Mayhew
IT Help Desk
(Caronet) 230-5111
(Toll Free) 866-230-5111
james.mayhew@pgn.com
********************************************************
From: George Howard [flognish@xprt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:35 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; NCITS@ITIC.ORG; t13@t13.org;
info@lmicp.com
Subject: Copy Protection
I have enjoyed computers since I built my first in the 70's, a 680B. However, if
you and your committee continue on the course of getting copy protection in your
hard drives, I will never buy another hard drive from you. I know, have a big
laugh about loosing the sale of a couple of drives a year, but how much water
does it take to make a river?
I don't know why you think this is such a good idea. Have you forgotten that
you and your gang of thugs are not the only people in the world that can make
disk drives, if so, then you can put yourself in the same boat as M$. They
seem to think that they are the only ones who can produce an operating system.
This is the picture of the future.
After your scheme is in production, you
will be constantly hit by people hacking at your stupid scheme and breaking it!
But the real crime is that all the talented people in the computer industry will
go to the Open Source side of the industry and watch your wagon go down the road
to obscurity. Remember the Edsel? That started out as a good idea too. For
that matter, how many buggywhip manufacturers do you see around.
You poor
misguided fools
George Howard
********************************************************
From: Carl [cdkrall@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:08 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM is a 4 leafed clover?
Hi,
I was just about to replace my noisy old Maxtor with a Deskstar. Then I
read about copy-protection, 4C, IBM, etc.
If it were me, I'd see an opportunity here. If Maxtor makes a statement
that it will not support copy-protection on its hard drives, it may well
score a coup on IBM, sales-wise. This story might not grow quickly
because of cross-ownership of the media, but it's a big hit with the
slashdot set. And they buy a lot of stuff.
I imagine that it might be hard to leave all those media exec's in the
breach, hard working gentlemen that they are, but you have to know that
they'd do the same for you.
Carl Krall
Krall Technical Services
********************************************************
From: Anonymous [nobody@remailer.privacy.at]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 8:16 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
To:
pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Pete McLean
Vice Chairman of the T.13 Committee
kent.pryor@quantum.com
Kent Pryor
Secretary of the T.13 Committee
Hello,
I've been buying computers and components for most of my teenage and adult
life (I'm 24 now). I reccomend components and systems to friends, family, and
strangers.
I some of my time each morning in reading hardware websites and
software reviews, because i enjoy keeping up on these things.
Recently it has come to my attention that your committee, the T.13 committee,
is considering implimenting some strange copy protection circuitry into normal
ATA hard drives, CPRM.
This is a horrible idea.
Not only does this pose problems for numerous backup systems, RAID arrays,
and disk ghosting proceedures (which are used quite extensively in many large
businesses), but it violates a users right to choose what they want on their ATA
drives.
In allowing the circuitry to even be included on ATA drives you are assuming
that ever!
y purchaser of an ATA drive is a criminial or will become one.
I don't think
that this will go over well with the general public.
As for myself, I realize
that if this standard is pushed - all technical problems that I mentioned above
will probably be 'fixed'.
However, if this standard passes then I know that
I, and many like myself, will actively look for drives which DO NOT contain this
circuitry.
This may be a small niche at first, but be assured when people
realize that there are outlets for 'regular, non-CPRM ATA drives' out there they
will be beating down doors and creating new paths to these manufacturers and
vendors.
I realize that you could discard this email without reading it, but I do
sincerely hope that you read and digest its contents.
I have emailed this
letter anonymously, so if you wish to contact me please do so through The
Register at:
www.theregister.co.uk
If I email you again, I will identify myself by the name "WinslowBoy" and the
code qaz13!
25.
Thank you for your time,
WinslowBoy
********************************************************
From: Scott Haywood [gshayd@datarecall.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 8:15 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM copy-control mechanisms and the new ATA standards
I am in strong opposition as and end user and consumer to adding this to the
ATA standards. This would signal the end of the freedom for the Internet.
The Internet has become a place with no boundaries and where information can
be freely exchanged. To introduce such into hardware standards could lead to
its use by governments for censorship and to stop the free exchange of
ideas. I am all for the moguls in Hollywood getting their profits, but for
them to eschew profits above freedom and the free exchange of ideas reveals
that they love their pocketbooks more than anything else. Such men are to be
held in low esteem.
I would boycott any products that use this standard. I will also post this
information to various message boards I belong to. I own Maxtor products and
will continue to do so unless this standard is introduced into them.
Sincerely,
Scott Haywood
********************************************************
From: John H. McLean [akrab@ctaz.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 8:13 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM copy-control:
Dear Mr. McLean:
It was with great dismay that I read an article on the web site of the UK based
news organisation, The Register, about your groups intention of forcing on
computer users the copy control mechanisms described as CPRM.
This is an outrage!
As a user of the type of hardware you and yours would
subvert to controls I have not agreed to, or ever will agree to, being
implemented, supposedly on my behalf, I must protest. This imposition is a most
despicable use of what you must perceive as your ability to impose. I, for one,
will fight you and your organisations attempts at this type of control over my
use of products I buy, with my time and my dollars. Your impostion will not be
enacted, and if enacted will not stand, if sufficient numbers of users act as I
will, by not buying products with these control mechanisms inherent in their
manufacture. Be aware, Sir, there are millions of us standing ready to do what
we must to defeat this aggregious use of presumed authority, in our Senate and
our House of Representatives and most importantly with our money.
Sincerely,
John H. McLean
********************************************************
From: Keith Smethers [keithls@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:49 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com; info@lmicp.com
Subject: Fat chance your gonna slip this by..
No way, no how. Count me as one of the billions of
pins that is going to deflate your balloon.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html
To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary
disk drives
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800
From: John Gilmore
The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy
of copyright mania in the computer industry. Intel and
IBM have invented and are pushing a change to the
standard spec for PC hard drives that would make each
one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on
the hard drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from
your own hard drive to another drive, or back it up,
without permission from some third party. Every
drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and
would encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect
YOU, the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third
parties AGAINST you.
The same guy who leads the DVD Copy Control
Association is heading the organization that licenses
this new technology -- John Hoy. He's a front-man for
the movie and record companies, and a leading figure
in the California DVD lawsuit. These people are
lunatics, who would destroy the future of free
expression and technological development, so they
could sit in easy chairs at the top of the smoking
ruins and light their cigars off 'em. The folks at
Intel and IBM who are letting themselves be led by the
nose are even
crazier. They've piled fortunes on
fortunes by building machines that are better and
better at copying and communicating WHATEVER
collections of raw bits their
customers desire to
copy. Now for some completely unfathomable reason,
they're actively destroying that working business
model. Instead they're building in circuitry that
gives third parties enforceable veto power over which
bits their customers can send where. (This disk drive
stuff is just the tip of the iceberg; they're doing
the same thing with LCD monitors, flash memory,
digital cable interfaces, BIOSes, and the OS.
Next
week we'll probably hear of some new industry-wide
copy protection spec, perhaps for network interface
cards or DRAMs.) I don't know whether the movie
moguls are holding compromising photos of Intel and
IBM executives over their heads, or whether they have
simply lost their minds. The only way they can succeed
in imposing this on the buyers in the computer market
is if those buyers have no honest vendors to turn to.
Or if those buyers honestly don't know what they are
being sold. So spread the word. No copy protection
should exist ANYWHERE in generic computer hardware!
It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their
product for. It's not up to the vendors of generic
hardware, and certainly not up to a record company
that's shadily influencing those vendors in back-room
meetings. Demand a policy declaration from your vendor
that they will build only open hardware, not covertly
controlled hardware. Use your purchasing dollars to
enforce that policy.
Our business should go to the honest vendors, who'll
sell you a drive and an OS and a motherboard and a CPU
and a monitor that YOU, the buyer, can determine what
is a valid use of. Don't send your money to Intel or
IBM or Sony. Give your money to the vendors who'll
sell you a product that YOU control.
- John
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
********************************************************
From: lknachel@JJMA.Com
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:09 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Re:CPRM
I would just like to say that I hope CPRM (Copyright Protection for Recordable
Media) does not become a part of the ATA spec. Mostly I am concerned about the
privacy violations of each hard drive having it's own ID number. I can also say
that if this does become part of the ATA spec I will not buy any device that
includes CPRM or something similar, and I will do everything in my power to make
sure my company (with whom I have significant influence on purchase decisions)
does *not* purchase any such drives.
Lawrence
********************************************************
From: David Cafaro [dcafaro@inflow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 6:54 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'; 'kent.pryor@quantum.com'
Subject: CPRM in ATA spec
I would just like to express my displeasure with the proposed CPRM spec for
ATA Hardware. Apparently Intel didn't learn from their ID on chips that
people do not want the big brother effect in their computers. The Music and
Movie industry has already done enough to destroy US Citizens Fair Use right
(as established by the US courts) in getting the Digital Millennium
Copyright Farce passed (yes they have abused this). If they do not wish to
have illegal copies propagating they should take legal action against those
offenders, not take action against all users and their right to use their
hardware as they see fit and legally have a right too. I do not want to see
a technology that could hinder or halt the development of free software like
Linux (and yes this scheme could damage the development of this OS from
those not approved to develop compatible software). And to add to this, is
the fact that much software already developed could be severely broken and
raid devices crippled by this standard. Please do not let this harmful
addition to the standard pass. Thank you.
David A. Cafaro
Ops Tech - Inflow Inc.
Work : 919-287-1100
Fax
: 919-287-1199
dcafaro@inflow.com
www.inflow.com
PS. This does not represent my companies views at all, these are solely my
views as an individual who works in Computers and as a user of Computers..
********************************************************
From: Colin Holcroft [colhol@bigfoot.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:28 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM
Dear Mr McClean with regard to the CPRM technology.
When I buy a storage device, I expect to have complete control over it, not have
a third party with vested interests deciding whether I can store specific data
or not.
I'm sure that non-CPRM drives will be available anyway, albeit at a
premium. If theres a market someone will build it!
Leave the problems of copyright to others - just carry on providing us with your
superb devices, and we'll continue to buy them (non CPRM of course!).
Colin Holcroft
********************************************************
From: Ruben Mannstaedt [ruben@image.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:24 AM
To: 'pete_mclean@maxtor.com'
Subject: concerned letter
Hi,
My name is Ruben Mannstaedt and I work as an independent consultant and
Lotus Notes systems developer. I have recently heard about the work being
done on the new CPRM hardware copy protection scheme, and I want you to
know that I am seriously concerned about the impact this may have on both
my professional and my private use of computers.
As a private person I find it positively detestable that my computer
should keep me from defragmenting my disk drives, not to mention start
keeping me from reorganizing the data on my drives as I see fit! I would
personally never buy a hard drive that enforced this, as long as there was
any reasonable alternative at all.
And as a professional systems developer I am very much concerned about
the possibility that it may no longer be possible for me to take reliable
backups of the customer database systems and critical files before starting
in-situ development, debugging and testing. Something so important, that
its lack may force me to change to an altogether different development
niche.
Both of these points are extremely important for me. And, I believe, quite
valid.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ruben Mannstaedt,
VisualTech
********************************************************
From: Michael Miller [michaelmiller@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 3:29 PM
To: jgarner@itic.org; pete_mclean@maxtor.com; bbennett@itic.org; ncits@itic.org
Subject: ATA CPRM
Do these new hard drives with CPRM on them come with Swastikas painted clearly
on them as well?
Because they should, you know.
You people have no clue what you are doing. None.
--Mike Miller
********************************************************
From: Conerned Free Citizen [intollerant@usa.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:45 AM
To: kent.pryor@quantum.com
Cc: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
I am horrified to hear that the hard disk manufacturing community is lending
any ear to forced data encryption serialisation to their products! SAY NO!
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
********************************************************
From: DrewArmon@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 7:45 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Regarding This HDD Copy Protection
Don't you realize that you will be crippling the entire industry! That your
feeding into the hands of hollywood. Don't disgrace yourselves, don't sell
your souls and ours along with it. If you do decide to pass this HDD copy
protection your names are known and you will be blamed for this atrocity.
********************************************************
From: Charles Hixson [charleshixsn@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:12 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: e00148
I find it difficult to interpret the purpose of e00148 "Content
protection of recordable media (CPRM)". I realize that this is natural
for a pre-release standard, but I do feel great concern. Sufficient
concern that I doubt that I would either purchase or recommend any
hardware containing this standard until a great number of questions were
resolved. I do realize that the Register is not an exemplary source of
news, but then committees that meet in private to decide what the future
of hardware standards aren't exemplary in their judgements either.
In particular I would need to be assured that the proposed standard
would not prevent a low-level reformatting of the hard disk to an
alternate file-format standard. That it would be impossible for any one
OS company to determine what OS would be installed on the system if I
were to do such a low-level reformat. Etc. I do understand that at
this stage of the formulation of the standard such matters have not yet
been addressed, but I wish to state my desire that they be addressed.
Proprietary software has the right to assure itself that it is not
wantonly copied, but it should not have the right to prevent itself from
being erased (intentionally -- a safety check is quite reasonable). In
particular, I will not consider any hardware for use with a general
purpose computer that is dedicated to a specific OS.
Thank you for your consideration.
********************************************************
From: Christopher Smith [christopher@csmith.tca.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 12:37 AM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; christopher@christophersmith.net
Subject: NCITS T.13, ATA, and CPRM
I have recently been alerted to the low-key introduction of the CPRM
"copy protection standard" into the agenda to be adopted for the ATA
standard. I am vehemently opposed to this action and would like to
submit a letter of opposition to the committee. Since I would be unable
to attend the meeting even if I were to be allowed (I am completely
unacquainted with protocol for these meetings), please provide me with a
postal address where I can mail my letter.
Thank you.
Christopher Smith
Dt30.4
PS: The address listed on the Web site for the chairman/coordinator,
"Gene_Milligan@notes.seagate.com", bounces.
********************************************************
From: Sean Embry [embrys@txdirect.net]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:32 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: ATA copy protection proposed standard.
Dear Mr. McLean,
As a systems administrator of twenty years experience, I write to you to
express my horror with the proposed copy protection standard for disk drives.
As a programmer of twenty years experience, I have seen many of my programs
copied without payment. Yet I am utterly opposed to this plan.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
I already spend hours recovering desk top systems with crashed disks, and
some NT servers can take three small forevers to recover
when using IDE. NT is already impossible to fully restore from backup, this
would make even partial restores impossible.
Unix, with this plan, would be all but impossible to fully recover as I do
now. (Boot a tape, tell it to copy down to the disk. Done.)
This scheme seems to be ill considered and more restrictive than needed. I
plan to ask my employer to protest in the strongest
possible terms to Congress. While there is undoubtedly piracy going on,
this will do little to stop it and make legal
tasks almost impossible.
What about the ability to image a disk with a standard set of software? We
license many products
with the express permission of the owner to do this, yet this "one size
fits all" plan would make that process more involved
with no return.
I urge you to move away from it.
Sean Embry
Systems Administrator (WAN)
Northside Independent School District
San Antonio, Texas
"The views expressed here are my personal opinions and may not reflect the
views of my employer"
********************************************************
From: Mo DeJong [mdejong@cygnus.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:01 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: CPRM in ATA?
I just got done reading this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
I can't belive it. Are you guys nuts? Were you
asleep during that whole P3 thing?
This will never work. You can be sure that if this
junk makes it into the spec, I will be handing
out fliers outside local electronics stores
so that people know exactly which drives
to avoid.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
********************************************************
From: Michael Miller [michaelmiller@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 6:17 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Subject: Fw: Drop the ATA CPRM or I will drop buying those products, ever.
----- Original Message ----From: Michael Miller
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 4:56 PM
Subject: Drop the ATA CPRM or I will drop buying those products, ever.
The new ATA copy protection mechanism is a great way to ensure that I will
never, ever buy such a drive for my company, and I purchase over $500,000 worth
of computer components a year.
Congratulations on participating in depriving consumers and customers of their
rights to deal with their information as they please.
More info here on this travesty:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
I will also be organizing similar protests of the purchasing managers and other
consumers in the companies I have contact with.
You damn Communists.
--mike miller
Purchasing, company unnamed
********************************************************
From: --==[ russ ]==-- [russ@ihateapple.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:03 PM
To: pete_mclean@maxtor.com; kent.pryor@quantum.com
Subject: Questions concerning copy protection in new Hard Disks
I know there has been much hooplah lately over the possibly inclusion of copy
protection schemes in new hard disks. Rather than operate on rumor and
speculation, I'd like to know directly: Will the ATA specs begin including copy
protection systems in the future, and to what extent?
I find this very troubling indeed.... there is a very big difference between
"copy protection" and "copyright protection." The Supreme Court has already held
up the right to fair use, and time adjusted playback. Any attempt to force copy
protection on hard disk owners would seem to be in direct violation of those
rights granted to us by US laws and the Constitution.
I can tell you this: I'll buy a new hard drive with ANY form of copy protection
built in or supported, the day hell freezes over, and not a moment before.
Thanks for your time. I know your very busy, and probably get lots of mail on
the subject.
-------Russ