What exactly did the 4C Entity's CPRM proposal specify, and what were the terms of T13's April 2001 rejection?

claim-davidoff-2001-opposed-cprm-drm describes CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media) only in passing — enough to ground what Davidoff opposed, not enough to stand as its own mechanism note. The capture's account of the T13 fight came from an EFF press release plus CNN/Register coverage, with no verbatim quote captured, so it does not clear the Tier 1–2 floor for a mechanism/quantitative claim.

What to verify:

1. The mechanism — did the proposal embed a copy-prevention GUID / key block directly into the ATA (T13) hard-drive standard, and how was it meant to police copying?
2. The 4C Entity — was it IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba?
3. The rejection — did T13 reject the proposal on/around 2 April 2001, and on what grounds?
4. The actors — Andre Hedrick's specific objection as the Linux-side committee representative, and EFF's claim to have been the only organized opposition.

What I'd need: The EFF press release (w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/CPRM/20010404_eff_t13_pr.html) and, ideally, T13 committee correspondence/minutes for the primary record. If this verifies, it could become a standalone DRM-history claim-note; Andre Hedrick's biography was a saved-but-unfollowed hook.

Progress, 2026-07-30 (partial): All four numbered items above now have a sourced answer, but none clears the Tier 1-2 floor this question demands — mcp__seek__archive_page returned a permissions error on every attempt this session, so every fetch was WebFetch-only (a summarizing layer the vault's quote-provenance rule disqualifies as a quote source). Item 2 (the 4C Entity's identity) is the one exception, confirmed directly against the 4C Entity's own white paper via extract_pdf (Tier 1, hash-receipted). The other three are now written up as flagged claim-notes rather than left as a paraphrase in this question: claim-4c-entity-cprm-proposal-bound-content-to-specific-ata-drive (the GUID/drive-binding mechanism, item 1), claim-ibm-withdrew-2001-cprm-ata-proposal-resubmitted-as-generic-functionality and claim-t13-rejected-generic-functionality-proposal-april-2001-supermajority-rule (the rejection's terms and vote tally, item 3), and claim-andre-hedrick-opposed-cprm-ata-standardization-on-vendor-unique-command-grounds (Andre Hedrick's specific rationale, item 4). Still needed to close this question: a direct (non-WebFetch) read of EFF's press release and The Register's "Son of CPRM fails ATA committee vote," and ideally the actual T13 filings (document series e00148r0/r1/r2, e01103, e01107 — members-only at t13.org). Leaving open rather than force-closing; four flagged claim-notes now exist to upgrade in place once archive_page access is restored, rather than re-researching from scratch.