Slashdot Mirror

Personally, the most annoying sound from computers is the high pitched whine that monitors sometime make. If you can hear those frequencies, it is much more annoying than the hum of cooling fans, or eavn a noisy drive.

FWIW, my solution at work to noise (no monitors with bad flybacks, thank $deity) are the Sony MDR-V600s

-JB

Why isn't there more use of minidiscs or zip disks. In the case of minidiscs the technology has been long established is availabe and is pretty reliable.

Sony makes one of those too, it's actually a camcorder/digital camera that records to MD, I messed around with one at a local Fry's and it's pretty cool.

Tried one at the local Sony store, not bad quality...sorta grainy (standard three-color lcd grain) but definatly watchable. Wouldn't want to try and play something detailed like Command n Conquer on it...but anything else should be fine.

Just need a decent power source...

PlayStation dimensions: Listed as 17" x 4.25" x 11.25" based on this Sony product page.

To convert to millimeters, multiply each by 25.4: 431.8 mm x 107.95 mm x 285.75mm.

(Similarly, divide the mms by 25.4 to get inches, so the PlayStationOne is ~7.6" x ~1.5" x ~5.7")

Clip one of these to your belt, attach a glasstr on and a keyboard and you're ready to stride out into the world.

And get hit by a bus.

Yet another closed standard.

I get the feeling someone at sony heard the phrase: "standards are great, everyone should have one", and took it seriously!
___

Yep, certainly are..

Sony W900

24" widescreen, costs a fortune but it's lovely :)

-- qube

Sony sells NTSC printers and so does Olympus.

Regarding your sig, I take it you have a pre-released Vestax VRX-2000, eh?.

On topic, you're partially right, DAT is for most consumers, dead, myself I own a plethora of Dat decks (Tascam DA-302 (dual well, high speed dub), Tascam DA-P1 (HQ portable), Sony M-1 (TINY!), Sony D-8(POS backup portable)) but I know this is an exception. As for digital VCRs though, how often do you really need to take the tapes to someplace other than your house? Honestly, I almost always watch my recorded material in my own home. I already own a Sony DSR20 which I use for those purposes, and I fail to see how anybody could really do anything about it. The one thing I really want though is a direct digital stream from my DirecTV, through my TiVo, and optionally into my DVTR.

Regarding your sig, I take it you have a pre-released Vestax VRX-2000, eh?.

On topic, you're partially right, DAT is for most consumers, dead, myself I own a plethora of Dat decks (Tascam DA-302 (dual well, high speed dub), Tascam DA-P1 (HQ portable), Sony M-1 (TINY!), Sony D-8(POS backup portable)) but I know this is an exception. As for digital VCRs though, how often do you really need to take the tapes to someplace other than your house? Honestly, I almost always watch my recorded material in my own home. I already own a Sony DSR20 which I use for those purposes, and I fail to see how anybody could really do anything about it. The one thing I really want though is a direct digital stream from my DirecTV, through my TiVo, and optionally into my DVTR.

Regarding your sig, I take it you have a pre-released Vestax VRX-2000, eh?.

On topic, you're partially right, DAT is for most consumers, dead, myself I own a plethora of Dat decks (Tascam DA-302 (dual well, high speed dub), Tascam DA-P1 (HQ portable), Sony M-1 (TINY!), Sony D-8(POS backup portable)) but I know this is an exception. As for digital VCRs though, how often do you really need to take the tapes to someplace other than your house? Honestly, I almost always watch my recorded material in my own home. I already own a Sony DSR20 which I use for those purposes, and I fail to see how anybody could really do anything about it. The one thing I really want though is a direct digital stream from my DirecTV, through my TiVo, and optionally into my DVTR.

http://www.scea.sony.com/net/what.htm

Hell; who needs robotic Yerry Seinfeld? (Yes, I saw the episode) What I'd like to see would be a match between Aibo and your animatronic Rooster Rot. And, of course, my money's goin on Aibo. Aibo may look harmless, but under that oh-so-cute semi-opaque face plate lurks the mind of a vicious killer. Disregard the dull plastic paws and the lack of teeth; Aibo knows how to go for the kill. Switch that bad boy into performance mode and Rooster Bot wont know what hit him; Aibo's been trainin with the Motion Editor, and hes got some killer moves. Just you wait, Rooster Rot, yes, cower in fear, cuz Aibo's comin to get ya!


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

Hell; who needs robotic Yerry Seinfeld? (Yes, I saw the episode) What I'd like to see would be a match between Aibo and your animatronic Rooster Rot. And, of course, my money's goin on Aibo. Aibo may look harmless, but under that oh-so-cute semi-opaque face plate lurks the mind of a vicious killer. Disregard the dull plastic paws and the lack of teeth; Aibo knows how to go for the kill. Switch that bad boy into performance mode and Rooster Bot wont know what hit him; Aibo's been trainin with the Motion Editor, and hes got some killer moves. Just you wait, Rooster Rot, yes, cower in fear, cuz Aibo's comin to get ya!


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

I am using a very simliar setup. RH6.2 on a SONY Z505R (the modern one would be the HS or HE I think) with a Motorola L7089 tri-band phone. Works everywhere I've been (UK, Switzerland, Belgium, USA, Canada). No need for a modem either, just IR the phone to the laptop. Not the cheapest solution, but it does work well. Just make sure that you contact your local mobile provider and enable world-wide roaming. Some GSM providers have better roaming agreements than others. Shop around before you sign up if you are planning to roam in North America or Australia. I can't help much with that, since I am in Canada and use FIDO aka Microcell.

No cables, smart card adapters or funny file formats. All you need is a laptop with a box of floppies and a box of disks. They even capture short MPEG video clips with sound.

And the battery life isn't too bad either (2-4 hours).

http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer /dimaging/

The Sony Cybershot cameras are unquestionably the best I've ever encountered. The DSC-F505 CEE has a 2.1Mpixel CCD (1600x1200), a superb lens, great optical zoom, and good upload capabilities. It's pricey, but worth every penny. Some information is here.

Then again, if Hauppage would make PC HDTV decoders that displayed full 1080i (only 480p currently), my new Sony G500 21" monitor displays 1920x1440 @ 75Hz quite nicely...

does anyone know of other small stuff to go with this thing?

Palm bought a foldable keyboard design from a company called Think Outside which, if it could be hooked up, would be the perfect companion from something like this.

A portable display??? Anyone? Teeny LCD?

OK, then Sony makes these goggle things - but they seem really expensive...

And then, outside of lugging around a car battery, anyone know of any nice power supply solution that might work with this thing?
VST makes a firewire RAID that can run off powerbook batteries (or maybe just as a backup source???) So something might be hackable by a skilled and brave geek with a soldering iron...

Break the 1 box tyranny of laptops! Think modular. break it up into seperately usable parts. I wish that my powerbook screen was detachable and could be used with my linux box, for instance. Why have two screens on my desk?

this type of thing is definately the future. why make things big???


adrien cater
boring.ch

Chron X is a game of skill, not of money. Some of our highest-rated players have not spent more than $10 on the game. Ever. Over 3 years of gameplay for $10 is pretty darn good, IMHO.

We put out expansions, and we put most of the "must haves" at a rarity or common or uncommon. This means that players usually have extras to trade. While most people need to spend between $25 and $50 to compete, spending more than that will not really give you a better deck. It will give you more options on the type of deck you want to build, and that's OK.

I work with Genetic Anomalies, the creators of the game. Sony is the online publisher for it... while my word is not gospel and shouldn't be taken as an "official company stance," you can take it as the stance of the designer of the game...

- Anthony Shubert Game Design Guru:: Genetic Anomalies

I think CmdrTaco's side note actually brings up an interesting issue worth discussion. Is Sony's naming policy fair, or does it unjustly restrict one's freedom of expression?
Take a look at the naming policy as posted in the FAQ on Sony's site.
First off, I don't think most would really argue that having a profanity laced name would be considered inappropriate. However, their naming policy goes well beyond that.
Verant's goal is to keep names within the genre of the game. To quote their opening sentence:

Character names in EverQuest should reflect the genre of the game. Original, high-fantasy names are desired. These guidelines apply both to first names and to surnames, and also to the combination of first name and surname. (For example, Luke and Skywalker are acceptable names, but Luke Skywalker is not.)

Should Verant be mercilessly bashed for wanting to keep the game in as much of a roleplaying spirit as they can by establishing their ability to change people's names (to, as was so succintly put, crappy D&D names)?
And another issue is how well these rules are enforced. Clearly a number of GMs look the other way when it comes to names. Perhaps some of them do not agree with the naming policy and choose not to enforce it. But to the ones that do, does that automatically qualify them as "obnoxious"? After all, aren't they just doing their jobs, as stated by the rules?
And finally, where do you draw the line when it comes to deciding which names are appropriate, and which ones are not? Obviously there is a lot of room for interpretation here.

On the topic of the "related side note" the GM's are not only doing their job, but thy're being very rude about it. I have posted complaints on the everquest message boards at http://boards.stat ion.sony.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro to complain about the rude GMs and other game related problems. It's been pointed out many times "if you dont like it dont play" but please, the game is awesome, my complaints are about the overwhelmed su[pport staff that gets down right rude when they feel the least bit overstressed. The Everquest GM application is all about how well you can run around Norrath (the fictional world EverQuest is played in) and has absolutely no corelation to the GM's ability to deal wiht people outside the general role playing that is so scarce in the game anyways. Now it looks like Lucas is hiring this same..not incompetent..but already overwhelmed staff, to design and manage his starwars game of the same massively multiplayer style. To just finish this up and make my final point coherent... Please, everyone who is willing, read the everquest message boards, look at the number of negative complaints in contrast to the positive feedback, and please, I hope that if enough people flood lucas/sony/verent with comments,m and not just complaintys, to the effect that the public at large feels cheated, maybe things will get better? thanks -Doug

Disclaimer: This solution only works if you're satisfied with Windows...

That said, I bought a Sony VAIO Digital Studio desktop about 8 months ago. PIII/500, 256 MB RAM (128 comes standard), 16MB ATI Rage Pro 128, 20 GB 7200 RPM drive, DVD-ROM, CD-R/CD-RW burner, and nice USB and FireWire ports right on the front panel.

The newer ones have (I believe) a PIII/650 but are essentially the same machine. Cost around $1700 w/o monitor. For a monitor, I use a Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 100e 21" (around $1000).

The best part about this package is you unpack it, set it up, and it comes with all the video capture and editing software you need (at least for home movies, which is what I use it for). It's been a pretty decent machine overall, once I got the right FireWire software (the package it came with caused system lockups a lot, the new VAIO may have fixed this though).

For the price (about $2900 w/monitor & additional 128 MB RAM), and the ease of use, I'd recommend it. Don't know if it holds up to professional standards though :)

Why do we call GUI components like buttons and edit boxes "widgets?" Because they're supposed to be completely interchangeable and identical.

After your brain has seen a few dozen Win32 style buttons (grey, with a little beveled edge, Arial font with the hotkey underlined) you don't have to "see" the buttons anymore. Your brain recognizes them without even looking. Which is why it can be difficult to move to another GUI environment--your brain has to learn to recognize the new widgets.

Websites like Sony's are a good place to use skins, because Sony is trying to show off a high-tech look and feel. I don't do any WORK on Sony's website. I do work within Netscape, however, and so I need to be able to recognize exactly what the Back button will look like.

I've got some new info, so I figure I'd post it.

First, check out number 10 of the Rules of Conduct. It says "You will not attempt to interfere with, hack into, or decipher any transmissions to or from the servers running EverQuest.", right after reserving the right to ban you for failure to comply with these 13 rules.

Second, I found a copy of a bunch of posts by John Smedley (Pres & CEO of Verant Interactive, Inc) on Everlore.
here's an excerpt:

"...However, to get at the heart of your concern let me assure you that we could care less about anything that isn't going to interfere with EQ.

We aren't Big Brother and we're not sending back a list of sites you've been browsing, or anything else for that matter. Specifcally we have technology that can find the signatures of programs that are known to be hacking tools. If you have those tools, that's fine. Just don't run them when you're playing EQ. That's all we are saying."

There's a lot more there. If you're seriously interested in this issue, and not ranting for the hell of it, I suggest you check it out.

lw

First, here's a letter from Verant CEO John Smedley regarding the new policies and security checks announced. (From EQ Vault)

Ok. We put the poll in, and with roughly 15,000 people participating the poll came up with 83% of the people being fine with us running the check for cheating.

DESPITE THIS POLL we have decided that it's the wrong thing to do. Enough people have convinced us that it's chipping away a little too much at people's privacy EVEN if they do consent for us to implement this policy.

Therefore, the change to the EULA will read as follows:

Solely for the purpose of patching and updating the Game, you hereby grant us permission to (i) upload Game file information from the Everquest directory and (ii) download Game files to you.

Now, before anyone wonders exactly what this is, let me explain. Technically speaking we probably should have had this language in there from day one for you to consent us to even download new game files to you in the first place. We apologize for not realizing that we should have gotten this consent, but live and learn.

We can admit when we make mistakes, and I believe this is a case where we owe an apology to our Player base. In our haste to try and thwart people from damaging the game we went overboard.

There will be absolutely no scanning of anyone's computer for any reason other than the normal patching process (which won't do any sort of checking on what you have running).

Regards,

John Smedley
President and CEO
Verant Interactive, Inc.

So to summarize, Verant apologized for their planned policy even though 83% of their player base supported it because they realized it was wrong to scan their computers. They even apologized for not stating previously in their UELA that they scanned and downloaded information to their users for patching (which all online games do).

Here's a posting from the EverQuest Message Boards by Gordon Wrinn, the Verant Customer Service Rep, in reply to a comment by a player.

[In Reply To: Scanning my tasklist for hack programs is not that big of a deal and if it gets rid of the hackers anyway, I say go for it. IMO it is not an invasion of privacy to do this. I give out more information, personal information, everytime I use my credit card at the store ]

Unfortunately it is a case where paranoia ended up winning out. I think that we could definitely have done a better job explaining what it was we were doing, and that would have lead to a bit more buy-in. Instead, some people decided to make up reports that we were scanning directory trees (false), internet files (false), internet history (false), cookies (false), and email (false), and unfortunately many people believed them.

The general paranoia resulted from the assumption that we (meaning: our servers) were actively collecting information from your system. This simply wasn't the case. The client simply would examine a small subset of information on your system, none of it containing information personally identifiable to a third party, and only send it to our server in the event that you were "running" an illegal program at the same time you ran EQ. We had absolutely no interest in what was installed on your system, only what you were running when you connected to ours.

I think privacy is important as well, but I don't really care about what a piece of client software is doing on my system. I only care when that piece of client software is transmitting information from my system to an outside source. In this case, the only time any data transmission was to take place was when something bad was found by the client. There was to be no server-side analysis of raw data. I'm sure that most people would agree that we do have a right to insure that our software license is being complied with.

In any case, I guess it's water under the bridge now. I'll blame Hollywood for all of the misunderstandings.

-Gordon

While I don't agree with all his views, I do see where he's coming from. His viewpoint reflects the majority of EQ players.

Hope that cleared a few things up.

"A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke he resents."

Thanks for your very interesting reply.

Oh, thank you for the reasoned response. It's almost unheard of here on Slashdot, Land of Flames&#153.

Well, yes, that was kind of my point, altough expressed poorly (englizh is nut me natif language) : I am, like most slashdotters, very opposed to the way content companies are trying to take away customers rights. It is a reason for me not to buy a DVD-player (the most important to me however, is that I refuse whenever possible to use any storage technology which isn't "two way", i.e. read/writeable, for ideological reasons). I would boycott hollywood movies, if I actually watched them in the first place (well I do see some, but the vast majority are independent films).

I agree with all of those principles. Personally, though, if I were to boycott, I would go all out; no movies in theaters, no DVDs, et cetera. Even some of the independent companies (Artisan springs to mind) are in with the CCA, so I would have to opt for Total Abstinence&#153 if I were to boycott. Just my opinion, though.


What I was trying to express however, is that I don't even see that much of an advantage to DVDs in opposition to the good old movie theaters (the quality and usefulness of the technology being the usual argument in favor of DVD). Your post intrigued me tough.

I can see that. There is a local theater/bar here in Austin, TX that shows football on the big screen, and that is quite exhilarating (sp?).

Arrgh this sounds bad. Well you see I live in Switzerland, where people seem to still have some respect for the movie-going experience. I own a cell-phone, but I always turn it off for movies, since I'd rather not imagine what would happen to me if it rang during the movie (lynched at the very least)...

I was once drawn into a fight that broke out because of a woman who wouldn't turn off her phone, but left it in her purse so that it rang and rang and rang...

For every one person who turns their phone/pager/watch off, though, it seems like there are four who don't...

I've never seen anyone light up a cigarette in a movie (well yes, a joint once, in spain during Lost Highway, which I found very justified ;)

LOL! I couldn't agree more...

Chatting during the movie is not that much of a problem neither, since for action movies the volume is turned way up, and when it's a more intellectual one, most guys are sleeping anyway.

My problem is that I like horror and suspense movies, and the entire picture can be ruined by one jerk placing a call during a scene, or some thoughtless couple bringing an infant who is rightly upset by what I call "Sound System Scares."

We don't have that much of a "popcorn-coke" habit around here either.

Well, no, you have access to the best chocolate in the world. I visited Geneva ten years ago, and I still feel it in my stomach :)

I don't know about the quality of movie-theaters at your place, but I've been very satisfied by them so far.

Oh, it's not the theaters, per se, that I object to...it's the people ruining the theater's features. Like an enduser abusing a nice computer...

The single most convincing argument being the SIZE of the screen. I find it much more immersive. To match that I'd have to buy a giant TV, for which I (1) don't have the money (poor student) and (2) no place to store (everything filled up with computers).

Oh, well then, here is your solution. Costs about as much as a nice TV, but less space.

This actually sounds interesting. I had never seriously looked into purchasing such a system. In my situation tough, it's still more expensive, since I only see a few carefully selected movies, about once a month. I'd have to get a bigger TV anyway, mine's too small.

Fair enough. I'm something of a movie junkie, though, as you've probably guessed from my rental habits. DVD makes it possible for me to rent movies that don't look/sound like garbage.


In conclusion, I really think there's something great about going to the theater which DVDs won't top. After all, technically, theaters will go digital soon as well, and it's the best excuse to get off of my computer screen and meet friends.

I don't dispute the social aspect of the theater experience. Comedies, in particular, are more fun to watch with a crowd. However, I will offer the counterpoint: ever since I started my home theater habit, many of my friends request a "movie night" at my place rather than going to the theater. I have often wondered what would happen to theaters if a cheap disk (i.e., the destructable DVD or DIVX or something) were to ship day-and-date with theater prints. Not that the movie companies would endanger their own theaters that way...

I have used half a dozen models of cellphones. My favourites are the Nokia 6162 and the Sony D-Wave Zuma CM-Z100.

Nokia 6162
Excellent phone. Dual-mode TDMA and AMPS. (SunCom, perhaps the worst provider ever, tried to convince me that it was tri-mode: "PCS, TDMA, and cellular." No amount of arguing would convince them that there's no such thing as PCS.) It's small, durable, and easy-to-use. Good OS that's easy to hack. (Type in *3001#12345#). I abused it pretty badly, and it held up really nicely. It was a bit big for me, though most would consider it to be small. The battery life was really good, and I very seldom had trouble with low battery life. It holds 200 names and numbers, and the flip cover on the 6162 is really nice. (The junior versions, the 6160 and the 5160, are good, too. But the 6162 is worth it, just for the keypad cover.) It's got a million stupid rings and two vaguely reasonable ones. It's embarassing having other hear some of the lame little tunes that chirp out of this phone.

Sony D-Wave Zuma
I love this phone. It long held the title of Smallest CDMA Phone. (I think the Nokia 8860 or the Motorola StarTac gets that title now.) It's just right in size -- I can sit down with it in my jeans pocket, and not have to adjust my pants. The signal isn't as good as the Nokia, largely due to its smaller size. It's a single-mode phone, though having CDMA instead of TDMA is great. This holds 99 numbers, and spares you from the games and other weird shit in the Nokia. I'm won over by this phone's cuteness, unusual look, and solid OS. (The jog dial is great, too.) The only downside is that the mic arm tends to get wobby and need to be replaced every 6 months or so. Gotta love that warranty. It's got just a few rings that are perfect for reasonable human beings that aren't interested in hearing the 1812 Overture when somebody calls. For those of you that need AMPS and CDMA, give it a few weeks and the dual-mode Zuma will be released.

You'd do well with either of these phones.

-Waldo

I have used half a dozen models of cellphones. My favourites are the Nokia 6162 and the Sony D-Wave Zuma CM-Z100.

Nokia 6162
Excellent phone. Dual-mode TDMA and AMPS. (SunCom, perhaps the worst provider ever, tried to convince me that it was tri-mode: "PCS, TDMA, and cellular." No amount of arguing would convince them that there's no such thing as PCS.) It's small, durable, and easy-to-use. Good OS that's easy to hack. (Type in *3001#12345#). I abused it pretty badly, and it held up really nicely. It was a bit big for me, though most would consider it to be small. The battery life was really good, and I very seldom had trouble with low battery life. It holds 200 names and numbers, and the flip cover on the 6162 is really nice. (The junior versions, the 6160 and the 5160, are good, too. But the 6162 is worth it, just for the keypad cover.) It's got a million stupid rings and two vaguely reasonable ones. It's embarassing having other hear some of the lame little tunes that chirp out of this phone.

Sony D-Wave Zuma
I love this phone. It long held the title of Smallest CDMA Phone. (I think the Nokia 8860 or the Motorola StarTac gets that title now.) It's just right in size -- I can sit down with it in my jeans pocket, and not have to adjust my pants. The signal isn't as good as the Nokia, largely due to its smaller size. It's a single-mode phone, though having CDMA instead of TDMA is great. This holds 99 numbers, and spares you from the games and other weird shit in the Nokia. I'm won over by this phone's cuteness, unusual look, and solid OS. (The jog dial is great, too.) The only downside is that the mic arm tends to get wobby and need to be replaced every 6 months or so. Gotta love that warranty. It's got just a few rings that are perfect for reasonable human beings that aren't interested in hearing the 1812 Overture when somebody calls. For those of you that need AMPS and CDMA, give it a few weeks and the dual-mode Zuma will be released.

You'd do well with either of these phones.

-Waldo

I can forsee two different possibilities...

First: Each artists takes control of their own destiny, as far as the distribution of their music goes. They sell it in digital, CD, or whatever format directly from their web site, and perhaps a commercial site, and take almost 100% of the profit. They can give each song a price, discout it for buying a compilation of songs in a compressed or zipped format, and then collect it directly. Instead of getting a few dollars from the royalties of a CD sale in a store, they could get two to three times that from on-line sales minus the distribution costs (internet services and development). This way, they would only need to sell 1/2 to 1/3 of the albums or songs to make the same profit. Seeing that they take on more of the distribution and marketing costs, the break-even point would be greater, but they could cover that ground faster with 2-3 times more profit per unit. Perhaps it would all balance out in the end, but the point is that it would work.

Second: A standard CD can hold approximately 680 MB of data, which translates into about 150 songs give or take. A DVD can hold approximately 8.5 GB using dual layer (http://www.sel.sony.com/S EL/consumer/dvd/about_specs.html) which is 1,875 songs. 3,750 double sided. Can you name 3,000 songs?? It gets better. Regular CD's use infrared lasers to read, DVD's use red lasers, at a smaller wavelength and therefor better compression of the tracks and more data, a blue laser is even smaller, I can't find the link, but they claim 16 GB of data per side. That would be well over 7,000 songs. 14,000 songs double sided. Enter, molecular circutry and nanotechnology and you can see that it is feasable that in the not to distant future it will be possible to have every piece of music ever recorded on a single device that would fit onto your hip in about the size of a disc man or smaller. A company, which I'll call "MUSIC" will go around and gather all the new recordings that comes out and you would have a subscription that would allow you to download the updates (all the new songs since the last update) to your device, kind of like anti-virus updates. Just like everyone pays for cable, cell phones, and ISP's, people will have a subcription to MUSIC. Of course, they will still be able to hear the new stuff right when it comes out on the Radio and MTV (do they still play music videos???).

If the record companies are smart and insightful, they'll work toward the second model, but it will take some time. Meanwhile, the individual aritist can use the first.

(And don't forget about the DirecTV rebate!)

It also has built in ethernet. For a camera it's pretty cool. Although the video capture is only crummy at best.

More than that: It has a built in IP stack for that Ethernet (actually in the battery replacement power supply) and...wait for it...a Web Server!

I know, because I demoed this unit for an audio-video store in Kansas City. You can set the IP to anything you want, and serve an intranet with the sucker. Works passably well, though I wouldn't want to actually put it on the big, bad Internet (H3y d00D!!!! I 0wN y3r Cam3ra!!!!!!!)

Sony has released a special Digital Camera that uses the format. (In the US even). Check it out at http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ mddiscam

It's one of those "what the..." products that the Japanese seem to come out with as trial balloons. It's a poor choice for a video recorder, but a killer video-res still camera...2600 stills on one disc should keep even the snap-happiest happy. The idea purchaser is a person who needs to shoot loads of 640 x 480 images and share them quickly. A real estate agent is a logical buyer.

Probably the SONY Discam. Here some links to more info it:
SONY's spec sheet, a page from MiniDisc.org, and a ZDNet Review.

HDTV is 16:10
That's interesting as Sony's flagship HDTV is 16:9 as is every other HDTV. I wonder.

This movie was really very bad in hindsight, yet it wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. My favourite bad science part was the solar rock that burst through the ship and then went right through Jerry O'Connell's hand but then didn't break the glass touch screen panel of their ship, it only embedded itself in the glass. I think the best part of the movie was the preview for the movie hollowman

shameless plug:
If you are looking to build high volume dynamic site you need to look at ATG. The Dynamo app server is widely regarded as a great!. Sony's The Station is one of the a very high volume dynamic sites that use Dynamo.

I found the following article which provides a little bit of info on why the PSX2 seems to be considered *hot*.. Here is a link to a Sony press release talking a bit about that "Magic Gate", it's topical but has few technical details..

• 14.1 inch screen
• 400mhz ppc equivalent performance
• 6GB Drive
• 64MB RAM
• DVD-ROM
• 8MB Video RAM
• 100Base-T Ethernet
• 56K modem.
• Two Firewire ports.

• Same size screen
• 450Mhz processor (slower than PowerPC)
• Same size hard drive
• Same size RAM
• Same speed DVD-ROM
• ??? Video RAM (I doubt it's more than 8MB!)
• *NO* ETHERNET?!?
• Same speed modem
• ONLY ONE Firewire port

Please stop with the FUD, okay?

The wireless is, like HeghmoH says, fully 802.11 compliant. It runs at 11 Mbps instead of bluetooth's paltry 1 Mbps, and yet Apple's airport tech is still compatible with this & all IEEE standard wireless devices.

Firewire (IEEE 1394) devices which I can think of off-hand: external, internal, & network hard drives, CD-RW drives, scanners, video cameras, VCRs, hi-fi digital speakers, etc.:

http://www.firewireworld.com/

http://www.apple.com/firewire/

http://www.softacoustik.com/

http://www.sel.sony.com/clubvaio/new s0024.html

http://www.1394ta.org/

Just check out Sony's site for the U.S. Model. http://www.ita.sel.sony. com/products/pc/notebook/pcgxg9.html

I've been thinking about picking one of those up to replace my aging TI laptop. My TI can only get about 30 minutes out of a fully charged battery at this point, so at least I'll be doubling my battery life. (:

Link: PCG-N505VE VAIO 505 SuperSlim Notebook

High end DVD players are a rip-off.

Depends on the feature... I kinda like having 70+ DVDs (and growing) at my fingertips, catalogged by genre and random-shufflable.. ;)

I have to chuckle at the people buying the high-end DVDs to hook them up to NTSC TV's

Yeah, but then there's those of us hooking them up to large screen projectors that can handle 720p and SVGA (and even those "lowly" projs like the W400Q) that can appreciate features like component (Y/Pr/Pb) video out and progressive processing...

(and yeah, PC + Matrox G400 = kickass DVD deck, but you can't hook an autochanger to your SCSI bus yet..)


Your Working Boy,

OK gang, so we're talking boycots and we're talking about how MPAA et al are bastards. Great - even if all of us just boycot, I'm sure we're not going to impact that much (unless we buy lots of DVD's on a daily basis :)

So, why not take the time & effort to email/contact them? Tell them that you're boycotting, that you're telling your friends and that you're supporting the DeCSS/LiViD folks.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a statement that could be wrong: I'd say most of us on /. are fairly typical in one respect. We'll bitch, we'll moan, we'll talk it up - but when it comes to the crunch, we never quite get around to doing something about it.

Don't you just hate that? This is why governments/corporations take notice if 1% of a target demographic respond. For every person who does do something, there are at least 10 who want to but don't get around to it. Thus that 1% represents about 10% and that's enough to count as a vocal majority.

This is also why highly organised groups/cults/sects/religious organisations/etc get the ear of politics/corporates. They manage to influence/order a lot of their consituents to do something, thus inflating the numbers and throwing out the "Total Number x 10 = % population who are annoyed/concerned" :)

Anyhow, to help you folks tell these people what you think, here's some handy info:

MPAA
Their web site has no "contact us" that I could find. How convenient, no? :)

If you want to get physical, try their snail mail address:

15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
USA

Or phone on: (818) 995-6600

Otherwise, email to WareNet (the guys who made their site) and ask why no online "Contact Us" was supplied.

Disney
The investor relations feedback form at http://disney.go.com/mail/investorinfo/ would be a good place to hassle them.

Sony
Go to http://www.world.sony.com/Feedback/in dex.html, select the part of the world you're in and tell them you're so annoyed, you're not going to buy any more PlayStation stuff and you've kicked your AIBO out in the snow :)

MGM
Fill in the form at http://www.mgm.com/corporate/email/in dex.html and let them know.

Paramount
Send an email to info@pde.paramount.com and ask for information about their logic behind this as you're sure it's not what's being said in public :)

Fox
Send an email to askfox@foxinc.com and ask them why they're doing this. You might also want to mention the fact that their Simpson's splash page is seriously lame :)

Universal
Go to http://www.mca.com/fp/contact_form.html and fill in the form.

Warner
No "contact us" in an obvious location, so I gave up - there must be one somewhere here but it's very well hidden :)


Now, much in all as I'd love to say "Wild, uncontrolled bursts - we do more damage that way" - the reality is that a reasoned, controlled message stating that you disagree with their actions and have commenced boycotting their products will have much more impact than a flame or mail bombing.

Do it right and we get respect. Do it in classic "Script Kiddy, 31337 Wanker Fuckwit Mode" and we're doomed :)

I wrote this little blurb and have sent it to Sony Entertainment, MGM, and Universal (couldn't find an email for WB). I know it's not much, but if the slashdot masses can get off our asses for something, let's do it already. Do us all a favor, don't flame the big nasty companies, just write to them, all of you, please.

(the websites for feedback are below the letter, have fun.)

"To whom it may concern,

This is in regards to the suit brought by {bignastycompany}, among others, against Jon Johansen, the author of the DeCSS program. The fact that your proprietary material is threatened by this software is of understandable concern, but arresting Mr. Johansen for simply writing it is absolutely ludicrous. Using such software to break copyrights should be punished, but simply creating it is no crime. This young man's arrest is nothing but a shameless scam to protect the wealth of a few greedy executives. As a consumer who votes with his dollars, I would urge you to withdraw yourselves from this lawsuit before the {bignastycompany} name becomes as despised as Microsoft. Big Brother at his finest, indeed.

Sincerely,
{younamehere}"

MGM, Sony Entertainment, and Universal Pictures.

• MPAA.ORG
  MCA.Com
  Paramount
  MGM
  Sony
  Disney
  Fox

All of the above URLs are active as either email addresses or contact form pages. I would suggest that now would be a good time to exercise the /. effect and your brains (don't just copy my message) on behalf of the websites targeted by the MPAA.

P.S. If any of the URL's don't work, please fix them. I felt like it was more important to get this posted than to triplecheck all the links.

Gemstar has been doing this kind of crap for years. They get the bulk of their revenue from patent licenses. Diva and other video on demand companies (like Intertainer) have been trying to dance around Gemstar by using circular, pie-shaped menus instead of grids (Gemstar's patents cover pretty much anything with time on one axis and channels on another).

Consumer electronics companies (like the one that I work for, at least for the next few days) have been trying to design around Gemstar for years as well, and so far have not been successful. Believe me, with how much Gemstar charges and how thin the margins are on VCRs, this means big money. CE manufacturers have spent lots of time and resources on this - even Diva and Intertainer and such, I think, are just on the hairy edge of Gemstar's domain.

Of course, Gemstar's patents are ridiculously broad, and no sane patent system would consider their patents to be something that "a competent practitioner would not find obvious". So what you have here is the classic legal situation of "How much will it cost to make this problem go away?" Will it cost more to pay the lawyers or to pay off the settlement, license fees, what have you.

Bleah.

"He tells me some worlds 'as gots rats as large as folks!" - Nell

"Yeah, they're called lawyers!" - Harry Fairfax.

• Universial Studios
• Paramount Pictures Corporation
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc
• Sony Pictures Entertainment (owner of Tristar and Columbia)
• New Line Cinema (owned by Time-Warner)
• Disney Enterprises, Inc
• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

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. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) 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),
• 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.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

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. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) 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),
• 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.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

Try here.