Slashdot Mirror

"I don't care about the logo, I'd just rather people call it the PSX2"

Too bad, because Sony (you remember, the makers of the PS2 - they can call it what the hell they like, it's their machine) call it the PS2. Seems they are ignoring you - maybe you should hassle them some more?

While you are here, have a look at www.sony.com and look at the pic on the top right - oh look! It refers to "PlayStation2" and "PS2" but not "PSX2".

Now do a search on the Sony site for "PSX2" - to save you the hassle, here is the link to the results of such a search - Sorry, there were no matches for your search.

Looks like you are outvoted by Sony themselves, I'm afraid.

"I don't care about the logo, I'd just rather people call it the PSX2"

Too bad, because Sony (you remember, the makers of the PS2 - they can call it what the hell they like, it's their machine) call it the PS2. Seems they are ignoring you - maybe you should hassle them some more?

While you are here, have a look at www.sony.com and look at the pic on the top right - oh look! It refers to "PlayStation2" and "PS2" but not "PSX2".

Now do a search on the Sony site for "PSX2" - to save you the hassle, here is the link to the results of such a search - Sorry, there were no matches for your search.

Looks like you are outvoted by Sony themselves, I'm afraid.

2) If they're still working on their standard, then how can there be "SDMI compliant" devices SHIPPING NOW!?!?! Devices such as... Sony VAIO Music Clip, and Sanyo SSP-PD7 and SSP-HP7

-S

You're right, evolution is a cult. ;-) More specifically, it was Darwin's hoax to see if he could extinguish a nearly 2000-year-old religion.

It takes a much greater leap of faith to accept evolution than Creationism. Evolution's tenets don't match up with reality. All the trans-evolution species (read: proof) have conveniently died out with no trace of fossils (and those hoaxes don't count!). Also, a natural representation of the fabricated geologic table (which classifies the ages of the Earth) is found nowhere in the Earth's crust, not even in the Grand Canyon. There are tons more refutations, but I won't infuriate you any further with my anti-propaganda. Current science is eating away at the Theory of Evolution more and more every day.

Evolution is more than a theory, though; it is a cultural movement. It is one man's fantasies embraced by bigoted, hate-mongering intellectuals who have no goal but to bring about the downfall of Christianity. I am not paranoid; this comes straight from Darwin's biography, written by Ronald Clark. Evolution was a political movement from the beginning, and it still is.

Why is the belief in Evolution so bad? Here's a test: Would you flinch at shooting me dead? No? Why not? After all, I'm just a worthless mass of cells. People who are pro-choice-to-slaughter claim to have the "right" to execute their babies (up to 12 weeks old! after birth! This is based on court testimony concerning live-birth abortions) because they are not conscious, and therefore not real people. (Note: People on Death Row are not innocent; they earned death. If you deny others' rights, then your rights are denied.)

A person without the conscience of God in his heart will do anything if he can get away with it. Just like Hollow Man. I fear that the evolution movement will lead to a world of people like Hollow Man -- people who would kill anybody for selfish reasons. (I hear echoes of "It's MY body! It's my choice!") Evolution is evil because it is an assault on life, love, and civility.

What is evolution? It is a hodgepodge of wild speculations by science fiction fanatics developed under the guise of "science".

In contrast, the truth of Creationism is simple, elegant, and inescapable. How did life begin? We are created by a timeless, supernatural being. (How can something be timeless? I believe that there is no time; time is an illusion that humans perceive and use to define the relationships between events.) Everything is of God.

I suppose all this technical talk is appropriate for where we are, but before the battle escalates further -- shouldn't some of you actually take a listen? This is not about numbers. Us humans hear in analogue. As a somewhat dramatic friend once said, "specifications... will never tell you how the violin actually sounds." And he was right.

I had the opportunity to listen to the first Sony SACD player to arrive in my province, when it passed through Vancouver on a Canadian tour. While wandering around at a high-end shop I heard this incredible Jazz music; following the sound through a fairly indiscrete door I entered a listening room that's generally off limits, and there it was, playing softly away. There were no salespeople about, so for a good half hour I just played with the thing.

And, how was the music? It was.... right there. Live, transparent. All the good words. I have heard many expensive CD players in the $50 to $100,000 CDN range, coupled with some fairly kick-ass speakers, and this stuff could not compare. I don't even *like* Jazz, and there I was, absolutely enthraled.

One thing -- the speakers I listened to weren't by Sony. For whatever reason, Sony speakers have always been incredibly bad. If you listen to an SACD player, don't even bother if it's paired with their speakers.

At any rate. From Sony's point of view, the SACD format was invented to make digital sound more like vinyl -- brand new virgin vinyl, with none of the nasty drawbacks. CDs cannot compete. Nor can DVD-A, but that's another flame war.

The SACD-1 player has already been given the highest quality rating by every audio magazine I've been able to find. These are ratings that generally go to CD players (or turntables!) worth about 20 times more than the unit is going for.

This format rocks. It will also be compatible with CD players (you can play a hybrid SACD disc on a regular CD player, and you can play CDs on a SACD player... and they sound damn good). As for the price -- a player cost $5000 US last year, so this year's $1200 bodes well. Remember how expensive CD players were when they *first* came out? Anyone?

If you can't go and hear a SACD player any time soon, grab a copy of Stereophile from your library or zine stand -- each issue has good SACD coverage and real reviews. Also, if no one's mentioned this link, here's the Sony SACD Info page.

And yes, you self-titled nerds: the technical whitepaper is there too.

-Joseph

I suppose all this technical talk is appropriate for where we are, but before the battle escalates further -- shouldn't some of you actually take a listen? This is not about numbers. Us humans hear in analogue. As a somewhat dramatic friend once said, "specifications... will never tell you how the violin actually sounds." And he was right.

I had the opportunity to listen to the first Sony SACD player to arrive in my province, when it passed through Vancouver on a Canadian tour. While wandering around at a high-end shop I heard this incredible Jazz music; following the sound through a fairly indiscrete door I entered a listening room that's generally off limits, and there it was, playing softly away. There were no salespeople about, so for a good half hour I just played with the thing.

And, how was the music? It was.... right there. Live, transparent. All the good words. I have heard many expensive CD players in the $50 to $100,000 CDN range, coupled with some fairly kick-ass speakers, and this stuff could not compare. I don't even *like* Jazz, and there I was, absolutely enthraled.

One thing -- the speakers I listened to weren't by Sony. For whatever reason, Sony speakers have always been incredibly bad. If you listen to an SACD player, don't even bother if it's paired with their speakers.

At any rate. From Sony's point of view, the SACD format was invented to make digital sound more like vinyl -- brand new virgin vinyl, with none of the nasty drawbacks. CDs cannot compete. Nor can DVD-A, but that's another flame war.

The SACD-1 player has already been given the highest quality rating by every audio magazine I've been able to find. These are ratings that generally go to CD players (or turntables!) worth about 20 times more than the unit is going for.

This format rocks. It will also be compatible with CD players (you can play a hybrid SACD disc on a regular CD player, and you can play CDs on a SACD player... and they sound damn good). As for the price -- a player cost $5000 US last year, so this year's $1200 bodes well. Remember how expensive CD players were when they *first* came out? Anyone?

If you can't go and hear a SACD player any time soon, grab a copy of Stereophile from your library or zine stand -- each issue has good SACD coverage and real reviews. Also, if no one's mentioned this link, here's the Sony SACD Info page.

And yes, you self-titled nerds: the technical whitepaper is there too.

-Joseph

The apparent Vaio 505 successor is already on the market. http://www.ita.sel.sony.com/products/pc/notebook/p cgsr5k.html

2.98 pounds, 1" thick, Pentium 3 500 MHz, 10.4" SVGA TFT screen, stereo speakers, V.90 modem (I hope it's a real hardware modem, it ships with Windows 2000 so maybe), NeoMagic 256AV video processor, Yamaha audio chip, USB, 1394, memory stick and jog dial, etc.

And the case is in metalic sliver and their new greenish black shade. There is also a faster Vaio SR-7K model available.

--

Not to mention that it's next to impossible to navigate. In order to find anything past their main page you need a map and a compass.

Having had the "pleasure" of manning a company's stand at some trade shows recently, I can truthfully say plasma screens are not good for your health.

Try standing in front of one of these puppies for a couple of hours, talking punters through all the features of your latest product, staring at this humongous plasma screen - I was more green than the Energis balloon (and it was green).

Has anyone actually sat down in front of one of these to say, watch a movie or something? Do they work??? Without making you vomit, like??

Roll on virtual stereographic glasses...

/prak
--
We may be human, but we're still animals.

I'll have it take my AIBO for a walk...

-------------

...another comment from Michael Tandy.

...another comment from Michael Tandy.

For less than the price of an eBay PS2, we have the Sony WEGA TV. One of the 27 inch models would be very nice. They're not big, but the picture quality is impeccable.

And slash appears to be eating those URL's. That's

• http://www.thinkgeek.com/brain/bazaar/mart/cart. cgi?action=view&ty pe=item&itemid=2 8d1
• http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/home/te levision/trinitronrtmfdtrinitron wegatm tv27inch/kv-27fv16.shtml

Not usable as a media server, but definately awesome as a jukebox. I've seen a 400 disk changer also being advertised in the market.

Sony already has a pair of these, called the PC Glasstron. It sells for a whopping $2599.00 and offers a virtual 30" display and built-in earbuds. However, the resolution is low (832x624) and it is not for all users: "Note: This product should not be used by children age 15 or younger. Individuals with eye or heart disease or injury or high blood pressure should consult a doctor prior to use." Uh oh, that looks like all computer users over 40 and under 15. Once again, Sony caters to the super-rich.

My VAIO (pcg-sr7k, sexy) has a 10.4" 1024x768 lcd, and it's perfectly readable. On the other hand, my desktop (at the moment, until Apple fixes my studio display) has a 14" 800x600 crt, and it's nearly unusable. My point? LCD displays are _so_ much sharper than CRTs that the resolution scale is a bit different. Besides, with a small LCD you hold it closer to your eyes, which is possible because it's sharp and doesn't strain your vision. It's all good.

I'd have to say these iBooks are actually worth the hype that was generated by the first round if iBooks (better late than never). I was always disappointed with the 32MB RAM/4 GB HD/no video out/no firewire configuration that the original iBooks came with. Now, these new ones look good:
o 466 MHz G3 (No G4, but these are the consumer portables, but who needs AltiVec for wordprocessing?)
o 64 MB RAM stock (up to 320!)
o 10 GB HD stock (up to 20 GB avail)
o composite video out (Well, not VGA, but good for the...)
o DVD-ROM drive stock with graphite/key lime
o 1 firewire port
o 1 USB port
o 56K modem & 10BaseT ethernet internal

All for ~$1800. If I wanted to get a comparable VAIO, I'd spend ~$2600. While the VAIO is ~2.25 lbs. lighter, the iBook is still kickin' its butt in about every other area.

So what if it comes in different colors. ICGAFF. But, the hardware looks VERY nice to run LinuxPPC or YellowDog on. Yes, the first thing I'd do with one of these is throw OS 9 off of there, since I hate Mac OS [7-9]. But, I'd consider getting OS X, if it's cool. And meanwhile, I'd have a nice Linux box!

I think I'm onna get me one of 'ese! (Unless Crusoe laptops are as cool (and cheap!) as hell)

Sorry 'bout the broken links shoulda checked them.

here's ones that work:

Walt Disney Company

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

Paramount Pictures Corporation

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Universal Studios, Inc.

Warner Bros.

Those at least work, not sure how helpful they are ;) (particularly since about 50% don't load uless you have Javascript enabled :()

In order to visit this site, you need to enable javascript.

<shrug> Could be worse. www.Sony.com comes up as a *black screen* with Javascript disabled (at least on Nescape). With a window title of "Welcome to Sony.com".

At least they spelled "Sony" right in the title. ;-)

Oh no! Now Sony will firewall *slashdot* in my computer!

Oh no! Now Sony will firewall *slashdot* in my computer!

I think they need to come out with a portable Minidisc recorder like this one but with the ability to interface to the palm or a PC for data storage. Ideally, as a "backpack" or some kind of extension like modems or other palm peripherals so that it felt like "one" thing.

One of the things that turns me off about memory stick is its cost relative to its size. MDs hold about 270M. When you and I get together and I have some data I want to give you, I'd have no problem slipping you a MD which cost me $4. If you think I'm slipping you a memory stick, you're out of your fsck'n mind.

One thing that drives me crazy is Sony's refusal to do anything with the MD format (like play MP3s with it) other than a marginally successful replacement for cassettes and their insistance on pushing the memory stick format where MD would be much cooler.

Truly lame, IMHO.

From the FAQ at the Sony site:

Q: What operating system does the Sony CLIE Handheld support?
A: The CLIE Handheld supports Windows® 98, 98 SE, and Windows 2000 Professional

Q: Does the CLIE Handheld support the Mac® OS?
A: Sorry, at this time the CLIE Handheld does not support the Mac OS.

Q: Does the CLIE Handheld support Windows 95, Windows NT®, Linux® or Unix®?
A: Sorry, at this time the CLIE Handheld does not support these operating systems.

Sony has a Semi-Conductor division that includes such things as SAP decoders (for TV), sound processors (for TV), amplifiers (for cellular phones), GPS processing ICs, and more. So you'd have to check to see if the non-Sony product you are purchasing (TV, video camera, cell phone, GPS receiver) is using Sony IC's.

Actually, Sony may know something about the Internet that most /. readers don't think about. Don't worry about what Sony does to your box. Look at the other threats:

"we will block it at your cable company". Sony controls much of the content cable companies need. Sony also makes lots of head end gear. They may already have some equipment at your cable head end that can at least block cable modem users. Take a look here for some of their DTV products. The cable companies hate what they consider piracy; they aren't going to go to bat for you.

"we will block it at your phone company" Your phone company is trying to get you to use DSL, and needs media content to make it work. Napster helps them in the short run, because users want more bandwidth. But if the phone company wants to get direct revenue from media (like VOD, for example), they're going to have to play ball with the content owners. And remember, there aren't that many phone companies to deal with, and they aren't likely to want to fight Sony on your behalf.

"we will block it at your [Internet-service provider]" How about if they are able to persuade AOL to block it? Probably not that hard.

So if AOL users go away in the short run, and broadband users go away in the short and the long run, they've at the very least bought a couple more years to crush this sort of thing.

. . . all sorts of things that they must know full well make it easier for people to use mp3s. Things like portable mp3 players (gasp! what do they think is going on there?). Sony cd burners let people use mp3s to make cd's instead of buying them. As a more historical precedent, Sony tape decks have been enabling people to copy music for years.

. . . all sorts of things that they must know full well make it easier for people to use mp3s. Things like portable mp3 players (gasp! what do they think is going on there?). Sony cd burners let people use mp3s to make cd's instead of buying them. As a more historical precedent, Sony tape decks have been enabling people to copy music for years.

. . . all sorts of things that they must know full well make it easier for people to use mp3s. Things like portable mp3 players (gasp! what do they think is going on there?). Sony cd burners let people use mp3s to make cd's instead of buying them. As a more historical precedent, Sony tape decks have been enabling people to copy music for years.

Yes. Sony DVP-CX850. 200 CD/DVD changer, nice on-screen catalogue, loads of different outputs on the back, very good quality audio and video playback, PC keyboard input (though it's not clear if you can CONTROL it like this, or just use it to enter names of tracks and discs)

As far as I know, it's the only DVD changer that manages anything like that number of discs.

Lovely-looking beastie - I have one on order through staff sales! :-)

http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/c onsumer/ss5/feedback.shtml

to tell Sony that you won't be buying any more of their products.

:-)

Got his email address?

Just guessing, maybe we should try steve.heckler@sony.com

Yeah, I thought that was pretty ironic too.

wrighty.

Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.

I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.

I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.

____________________

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.

The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.

I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.

I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.

____________________

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.

The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

Forgot the blasted www in the EverQuest link.

Click here to go to the EQ site. =P

BioWare is going to be creating a Single/net-Multi Player RPG, I assume (No time to read the links), and Verant Interactive, makers of EverQuest, are making a MMORPG version, which I can't wait for.

Sounds like Lucas has a good revenue stream lined up for the next couple of years... (as if the already released SW games and movies, and t-shirts, etc etc etc didn't already bring him enough cash)

cynicism_mode=on

Why would anyone want to pay 600 quid for a jacket which has wires to connect their phone and mp3 player when every man and their dog will have bluetooth devices all over them `real soon now'?

Besides, I already have a phone and a smaller mp3 player, so why would I want one of these? To look `geek chic'? Please...

Less cynically: Does anyone actually _want_ one of these jackets?

Sony has never made a color TV set that wasn't a Trinitron.

Remember, back in the late 1960s, the only kind of color TV picture tube there was was a "Delta". If you look at the front of a very old color TV set, you'll usually notice that the phosphor dots are arranged in little triangular patterns. That's in contrast to a more modern TV set where the picture tube has an inline gun, and the phosphors reflect that by being arranged in vertical stripes or segments.

Note that this doesn't apply to computer monitors. All VGA monitors I've ever opened have inline guns, and with the exception of the Trinitrons, they seem to have delta-type phosphors. (Like a four door car with three door handles, something doesn't add up. Weird.)

Anyhow, the prime advantage of the inline tube is that it simplifies convergence (making the red, blue and green guns all point at the same cluster of phosphors at the same time - look for color fringing at the corners of your TV sets and monitors to see misconvergence).

But Sony's inline tubes take it to the next level: instead of having three guns arranged in one row at the neck of the tube, a Sony Trinitron has *one* gun at the back, with three cathodes. In effect, it's a gun that shoots three different bullets at once. It's a lot easier to aim one gun than it is three; and so it's a great improvement on the three-gun inline systems.

Add to that the sharp corners and flatter screens that Sony was able to manufacture (with atrocious yield rates at first, BTW) and the early Trinitrons became very popular. Now, of course, Sony has improved on that with the ultraflat Wega (which still appears to be a kind of Trinitron) but I don't know anything about the CRT arrangements in their new line.

So, when Sony sold their first color TV sets in North America in 1969, they were all Trinitrons. (Wow. That was from memory, too, but I wanted to confirm it, and I did... Head to this link on Sony's website!

Sony's electronics were also way ahead at the time, too: in 1954 Sony sold their first transistor radios in North America, and were pioneers in transistorized TV sets. In 1969, the only other solid state (transistorized) color TV sets were Zeniths. Everybody else was still using all tubes or hybrids (tubes and transistors mixed), with the many reliability and efficiency problems that tubes have.

(Sidetracked...) When I was a kid, I had a 19" Motorola color TV set from 1972 that actually had a ?6BQ5? horizontal output tube. There was a damper tube, and a high voltage rectifier tube (1B3), and a high voltage regulator tube. And all of those tubes were driven off a little 16 pin DIP IC that sat in a tiny white socket right beside them. (This was back in the days when all ICs and transistors were socketed.)

As for Trinitrons dying sooner, nah, I don't think that's actually the case. When the color starts to fail (ie. white starts to go pink, and adjusting the bias and screen controls inside (do this *only* if you know what you're doing) won't bring it back), it's generally because the barium oxide coating is worn off the CRT cathodes. That takes a lot of use. All picture tubes have a finite lifespan, but usually the electronics surrounding the picture tube will die before it does.

In my experience, places where you see lots of Sony monitors (like the flight displays at Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport) are also the places where they rack up the most hours. Of course you can expect them to go pink faster.

BTW, the "pink" color is actually a purplish-pink, caused by the fact that the green phosphors require the most energy (and therefore cathode lifespan) to light up. The blue is somewhat behind. So, it appears that the green goes first, and the blue emission starts to get low, leaving a field of mostly red. Hence the trademark pinky-purple color of a worn out CRT.

<sigh> I guess I'm a video geek.

This is cool for many people, like my friend the flight attendant who needed something that fit in her carry-on.

I hate to suggest a change of tack, but digital photography is one of those areas that changes so fast that a better/faster/cheaper way to do something may well pop up right after you implement an expensive solution to a problem.

Case in point - the new Sony Mavica that writes directly to mini-CDs. There's a page here that will give you some basic info. ZD has a puff piece here that may also be of use.

Frankly, this looks like a much better, much simpler, much cheaper, and, optionally, higher resolution way to meet your needs. Even if the thing isn't available yet, it'd be cheaper and easier to fly to Japan and get one than to do the sort of thing you're contemplating. You could even afford to get two so you'll always have a backup.

why are we still buying cd's when better forms of music distribution already exist? this boggles my mind and my only explanation is that the RIAA and major labels have too much power and won't allow cd's to be replaced.

Big Music would love to get rid of CDs because they're unencrypted and are easily copied. We can't have that, can we?

But I digress. I haven't found a better form of distribution yet, so could you elaborate? MP3 doesn't cut it yet because 128kbps is the standard and because of the popularity of overhyped shit software like AudioCatalyst - if I'm buying an MP3, I expect at least 256kbps CBR using LAME and nothing less. Besides, MP3 is a lot more transient than CD. I like to have something I can hold.

recordable mini discs correct ALL of the flaws of a cd. why haven't those replaced cd's?

Betamax, memory stick, minidisc... they all fall in the same line of proprietary Sony tech. Last I heard, CDs were an open standard that anyone can implement.

The fact that superior technologies exist yet don't become mainstream only proves that someone has too much control

If you're thinking minidiscs again, you're right.

CDs aren't as fragile as you make them out to be. None of my CDs have ever started skipping out of the blue on me. They provide the uncompressed sound in a format with a noise floor lower than the sound of a typical air current in a room. What's wrong with that?

But reread my words "Anyone with a clue." You've eliminated 50%-75% of the American population with those words. That means that 50-75% of the "sheeple" will buy the latest Sony SodomyMan® SM-1000 the moment it shows up on Best Buy's and Target's shelves. Just because it showed up on Best Buy's and Target's shelves. Not to mention an ad push that will become as ubiquitous as Nike's swoosh.

These are the people that will gladly go to www.sony.com to check out Britney Spears' latest album. They'll happily download oops.SDMI "now with 3 free plays!!" and a coupon for Pepsi. And they'll "trade" oops.SDMI with their 10 friends as per Mr. Shamoon's argument. It won't bother them that they have $12.59/month billed direct to their Visa for "music services", because they already charge their lives on credit. These are the same people who blame Visa because their bills are so high.

Mr. Shamoon is trying to say that enhancements will help sell his product. Sony will find a way to get their SodomyMan® to use bluetooth (or something similar) to transmit their songs to their car's AutoSodomy® player, or to their SDMI-enabled pager, the Sony Bugger®. The convienence of the interchange will be the prime seller. That, and the ignorance of the people who will be sold on the "latest technology."

As a matter of fact, you, Slashdot Reader, can expect to be labelled a "luddite" for not jumping on the SDMI bandwagon as soon as it comes out. Your mom, your boss, your cousins, everyone who knows you as "the computer geek" will be flabbergasted that they're all sharing the benefits of SodoMusic® while you listen to your ancient CD collection.

I think Mr. Shamoon's biggest problem is to get Sony, Philips, Mitsubishi and all the rest to agree to a common format before MP3 makes it all the way through the consumer's home, car and pocket. A VHS/Betamax battle too early in the game will destroy his cause.

Education and knowledge, of course, would be the best weapons against SDMI. However, education and knowledge have reduced the incidence of smoking in this country from about 21% to about 19%. Betting against the ability of Americans to understand logic is almost always a sure thing.

John

I wonder how this would affect sites which offer the other kind of on-line gambling, such as Everquest?

This seems to meet my definition of an on-line gambling system (on line, skill or luck allows you to gain or lose tokens which can be exchanged for cash, etc.)

to dead formats. Heck, Sony's no stranger to breaking backwards compatibility with its own dead formats. Oh, and insert obligatory Betamax reference here. So this new format won't go anywhere... who cares? We can thank Sony for creating some standards with sticking power. Weighing their successes and failures, I'd say the scale's still tipped towards success.

to dead formats. Heck, Sony's no stranger to breaking backwards compatibility with its own dead formats. Oh, and insert obligatory Betamax reference here. So this new format won't go anywhere... who cares? We can thank Sony for creating some standards with sticking power. Weighing their successes and failures, I'd say the scale's still tipped towards success.

So that is where they get the Giant Rats for Everquest....

The big labels also keep most of the profits derived from the artists work, and only very sucsessful artists can make much money at all.

A few extra notes on Net Yaroze:

- while you were limited by the PSX RAM, you could get around that by writing your own routines and such to use the serial port that connected to the PC. Sony didn't include such routines, you had to make your own.

- all told, in the Yaroze system there is 1.5 MB of RAM for game code, 1 MB for graphics, 0.5 MB for sound.

- according to Sony, you didn't even own the Net Yaroze that you paid for -- you paid for licensing to use the unit while Sony still technically owned the hardware.

A Net Yaroze FAQ: http://www.scea.sony.com/net/faqmain.htm

J

If anyone would like to know more about the business and technical models for using HD for film production, visit my website, and mail me for a copy of my thesis. :)

For now I'll try out designing my child here