---
title: "What exactly did the 4C Entity's CPRM proposal specify, and what were the terms of T13's April 2001 rejection?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
date_raised: "2026-07-09T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["computer-history","drm","cprm","open-source","verification"]
---


[[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.