Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Copy Protection Battles
substatica writes: "Law.com is running this article on the content industry working to convince congress that not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction", as put by Michael Eisner. We've been able to copy VHS for over a decade and they're still making movies. Does anyone really think that the movie industry will be eradicated due to copyright infringment?" Consideration of the SSSCA has been put off a few months, but it will be back. The Register covers one part of the split between content and hardware with this story about Philips getting more uppity about their Compact Disc logo, a follow-up to this story. The Reuters article that the Register refers to is here.
they're admitting there is no way they can beat the media pirates without a law requiring hardware copyright protection? Is it just me, or is that like admitting they already lost?
The future isn't what it used to be.
I often wonder whether Walt would have wanted it this way. I remember doing a bio in 6th grade on him and how he grew up pretty much out of nothing in KC. He was an incredible businessman and loved to make a dollar but he also wanted to make people happy. I wonder if he would have been as possesive over Mickey Mouse as Michael Eisner is.
Call it Copy prevention because that's what it does!! Perhaps Copy interference even.
does the industry deserve saving? Maybe it's destruction would not be all bad. I guess we can all be thankful that there was no big scribe's union when the printing press was invented.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
Taken to the extreme, the only way they will ever ensure rights management (whatever that means) is to encrypt the data stream from head to tail. This is a boon for everyone involved. Hardware manufacturers will build new hardware to support encrypted content, software manufacturers will write software to run on that hardware, chip makers will make chips fast enought o support the new software. It's a win from top to bottom in the industry. People will pay per view/listen and the rights stream will be assured. The government will love it because they get to collect taxes. This is a Orwellian Utopia. Of course Michael Eisner loves it. The only person who gets screwed is the consumer.
Screwed is the right word. This will kill independent/non-commerical artistic work (you won't be able to use that perfect U2 song for your student film). It will cause a huge social detriment (If I hadn't pirated everything I could get my hands on ten years ago, I would be a administrative assistant instead of a network architect. Side note: I would also not be recommending the purchases of volume license of the program to businesses).
This is our society marching towards a new caste system. We are already being turned into one big sheep, consuming what we are given.
There is a huge solution, though... Let's turn the TV off and stop listening to commercial radio. Expand your horizons and listen to indy media. Take a walk or read a book, or hell, write a book. Stop playing video games and watching TV. Stop wasting life with instant gratification.
Mass media is the new religion (how many people attend the church of the West Wing every Wednesday?) and religion is a tool to keep the masses in check. How does that make you feel? How does it make you feel that Michael Eisner is using the money you paid for your kids to see the lastest proprietary disney fable as a detriment to their creative futures?
Creating crippled hardware wont make any difference in my behavior, and I suspect that it won't change anyone else's either.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Philips had the great insight that it isn't copy protection, it's actually a "mechanism for stopping the playback of music", which it is.
"The Music Industry's" intention is to thwart PC playback until a later date, when CDDrives that enforce copy protection will be available.
My question - this obviously forces a spurious obsolence of existing CDDrives, for the sole purpose of forcing the above upgrade which has no actual benefit to consumers, and screws every existing CDDrive Mfg on the market. Doesn't this border on a predatory innovation under anti-trust laws?
I'd love to hear some insight on this.
-SBB
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Microsoft, bad as it is, is no where as restrictive and closed as Apple is.
"Think different", but only with our hardware, our OS, our approved dealers.....
to get such "cops" into hardware.
Case in point, the serial numbers in Pentium Chips. Everyone from the biggest geek down to your 90 year old grandma was screeming bloody murder about it. So much that (I believe) Intel has stopped the practice. Or if they havent, the bios can quickly disable this "feature"
The problem with hardware is "who is going first". Answer? No one. Its suicide. If Intel came out today and said our chips have the new "super-duper-clipper-dipper-chip" in it that stops all copying of copyright material (work with me on this one). AMD's stock would FLY through the roof, people would flock to AMD processors, and AMD would be king.
Until there is either an extremely fierce law or just one vender who makes hardware X, it is nothing but talk and wants by some very uneducated people who believe that a computer can do anything. Well there partially correct, computers can do anything, but others (programmer, hardware manufactors, etc) can do anything to stop there "anything". Nothing is "unbreakable".
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
The power of the internet is very different than VHS tapes. As bandwidth grows, and storage increases, no technology, with the possible exception of hardware protections (I for one think that widespread use of hardware protection would lead to an underground hardware market), copyright will not be able to survive. Copyright is a concept that only works when the medium and the media can't be separated. You can't separate a book from it's words, or a VHS tape from it's movie. Sure, you can copy it, but only to another medium. We now have a medium that is flexible enough to functionally separate the two.
I don't understand why anyone but the music industry cares if technology has made the business model of the industry unprofitable and unnecessary. I'm' sure the horse and buggy industry was pissed about cars, but I don't hear them still complaining (overused example, I know, sorry). Yet a lot of people actually seem to buy this whining about the death of the recording industry.
The internet is a big leap in human technology, and it's made a lot of our laws unaplicable. That's okay, lots of the laws that the founders of this country thought were a good idea, but we don't have around anymore. Why? Because things change, and the laws have to change with them. Copyright (and eventually the pattent system), are over. Deal with it, and move on hardware manufacturers/music industry/everyone else.
Cheers, Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
I got the exact same letter yesterday.
I actually talked to some John Edwards staffers in Raleigh back in September, and they didn't have any sort of problem saying with a straight face "So what's wrong with the current copyright laws? We don't have a problem with creators getting copyright protection for upward of 150 years."
They also didn't seem concerned about DMCA levels of protection given to copyright holders at the expense of the citizens. When I brought up the problem of DMCA-protected copy prevention mechanisms and a theoretical expiration of copyright, they shrugged it off with "I'm sure something will take care of that." Fits along well with the recent story about the last whatever kind of reel-to-reel tape drive that was being made. In 150-ish years when the copyright expires on stuff made today on digital media, do you really think the technology to salvage it will still be around?
So I'm not too thrilled with Sen. Edwards cluelevel, and would encourage my fellow North Carolinians to continue to try to either show him the light or vote for someone else.
sounds like a good time to buy Cisco since all routers, hubs, etc would also have to get destroyed.
I guess the old saying (joke) "The Internet is Down" would actually mean something.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Maybe the problem is the idea of the "content industry" in the first place.
Those words show just how much meaning art has to these executives -- zero. "Content" is a way of referring to art as commodity, and it devalues both the artist and audience into sellers and buyers in a market.
Maybe we don't NEED an industry to feed us "content" anymore. Maybe we can make it up and share it amongst ourselves. Maybe we'll pay those of us who we really like. Maybe we won't be bamboozled by the bright lights of big money spectacles anymore. Without their ludicrously large promotion budgets, the Nsyncs and the Pearl Harbors of the world will fade away, replaced by new choices that mean something.
I think it's this future that we're seeing emerge, and I find a lot of hope in it. I think it terrifies the "content industry". And it makes me glad. Because to be successful, their content will have to become art again.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Could it be possible that Phillip's really just wants the powers that be in the record inustry to pay them money to get this protection entered into some specification that will allow them to be called CDs? Make them squirm a bit and they'll pay?
Think about the book, that ancient storage miracle. There's nothing in a book to prevent someone from copying it, short of the "if this book has been stripped" moral appeal inside some. And widespred photocopying of books does go on, as does some (limited) net piracy.
In the early days of the printing press, illegal copying was much more widespread than it is now. Gradually, it dissipated in the First World, but not to due to any kind of technological enhancement of the book. It was due to old-fashioned laws, cops, courts, and decreased acceptance of pirated works. Also helpful was the library, which allowed the sharing of works so sholars didn't have to own every book they worked with.
Despite the technological vulnerabilities of the book, centuries of change and the web the book publishers are still here, and still raking in the dough. The book publishers reluctantly accept used bookstores and libaries, and you could make a good case they benefit greatly from them, because they encourage a literate population that will buy their works.
While I realize that the printing press is a far from perfect analogy to the Internet, (copying by press is much harder than point and click) both were quantum leaps in communication. The printing press certainly didn't destroy creativity and artists, and in fact greatly aided both. I believe that the same will be true of hte Internet, that making communication easier always stimulates creativity.
I also wonder if the "content companies" will just accept a certain level of piracy as the cost of doing business as background noise and accept like the book publishers have taht people are willing to pay a premium for clean, easy to use, legal content. And also realize that police and society will tend to kill the larger offenders.
I posted and all I got was this stupid sig
Mosts artists have been rooked royally by these content control freaks, just like consumers. Vote with your wallet, buy directly from independent artists. Also, with respect to hardware manufacturers.. again, vote with your wallet. Manufacturers or cartel associations (and their lapdog governments) that do not respect consumer fair use, or PRIVACY do not deserve consumer greenbacks. PERIOD!! You have to ask, who is actually the real pirate? It aint the consumers, it *is* the RIAAs, MPAAs and their crook international brethren. I'm VERY tired of my tax dollars being used to police senile industry distribution channels. The time has almost come when Adam Smith's invisible hand will break free again, and it's a clenched in a fist this time - thanks alot Greenspan, you freakin' genius. :-) Grab a second hand guitar.... :-) and plant yourself a garden
You can make it happen by voting with your wallets. Be forwarned though that the crookery of the IMF over the last several decades will mean that many people won't have anything in their wallets any damn way. So we'll be arguing about foodstuffs first
Don't believe me? Then why was John Johanson (sp?) arrested for doing something that's perfectly legal in his country?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Uh, no, copying copyrighted works and getting their pants sued off is what would put them out of business. You must enjoy harassing employees who are asked to make correct judgements based on copyright law upon penalty of termination. The fine line between fair use and copyright is something the legal system has a tough time deciding, and yet you expect an underpaid, overworked person to bend over backwards because you think of yourself as an intellectual property expert.
Why do people assume that someone getting paid barely over minimum wage is going to risk their job just because a customer wants a color photo for their school report? These aren't law school graduates and you shouldn't expect them to be, they are doing their jobs.
I can see why a politician would think that gross copyright infringment would be a BadThing(tm). After all "The entertainment business is the largest US export. It is its largest export by one third." After all entertainment is the only thing we still do make our selves. So if the entertainment industry suffered a melt down our already-up-shits-creek-with-a-turd-for-a-paddle economy could continue its spelunking extravaganza. Think about it, I don't have official numbers (and anyone claiming to is a liar), but I would not be one bit surprised if Napster caused more copyright violations in 2 years than all the copyright infingment since the law was enacted until Napster, put together. I'm not really for the proposed law but I can see why some one would be. If we really don't want the law passed we should try and convince our representatives that it is in the countries best economical intrest to not pass the law, ie no one ever won by stifling technology (except M$). We should convince them that even IF the entertainment industry kernel panics (there's no garuntee it will) then the US will still thrive (maybe foreigners dig the lo-fi shenanigans of shows like jack-ass). What it really sounds like to me is that Hollywood is claiming that the internet/software/computer industries created a "bad toy" and now the entertainment industry wants a recall. When in fact the i/s/c industries created a new revolutionary, all encompassing medium that Hollywood can't wrap its stodgy, old-fart, mind around so it's sluffing of it's own responsibilities on some one else. Just my $.02
Why is it that Hollywood is so imaginative when it comes to worst case scenarios, but nearly every movie ever made has a sequal? *eyeroll*
Okay, first, they *can't* make every bit of hardware protect their content. They C-A-N-N-O-T. It's, as Ralph Wiggam would say, unpossible. They talked about making routers not send copy-restricted (I refuse to use the term 'copy-protection' here) data through them. But the thing is, if I break apart the data blocks, randomize them, and then have the computer on the other end reassemble them, then the routers won't work. That philosophy likely applies to the rest of the hardware. You'd seriously need sentient hardware to look at the data to know what's up.
Secondly, they can't get every piece of hardware out there to stop it. Sorry. Too late. Btttz. Unable to comply.
Third, it is ridiculous to believe that every single piece of Hollywood content is going to be made accessible on-line. I can imagine more popular shows like Red Dwarf or the Simpsons or Family Guy or whatever to get pretty well captured and made available, but the people who make that available are true fans of their respected shows. I'm not going to be able to find an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond (*gag*) available. You know why? Because I seriously doubt anybody's going to take the time to capture it and make it available. And if they do, I'm not going to waste my time downloading it just to watch it. Stream? Maybe, but not download it.
There's too much content out there! Lets say I build a computer designed to capture a show as it's downloaded, I still would manually have to go in and edit out the commercials. (editing out the commercials is a condition of actually hurting the industry) There's NO WAY I'm going to be able to manually do that for every single show every day of the week! I have a life! Are some people going to do it? Maybe, but not ever on the scale that the industry is afraid of.
Anyway, I have drifted off topic a little bit. Back to my topic "They're fighting the wrong battle...", well Hollywood is taking a really backwards approach here. They think that by stopping piracy they're going to save their revenue. They also think that if they protect their content so it can't be copied that they're going to have a growing market for the rest of time. It won't work! The truth of the matter is that if anybody doesn't watch the show when it's first aired (which is the prime time to see it, if you miss that then you're likely to have some dumb ass friend or radio DJ spoil the ending for you), then the value diminishes. More and more people have less and less time to catch TV shows when they're first aired. That's exactly why VCR's are in every home! If somebody wants the show bad enough, they'll either set it up to get it themselves, or they'll find a way to go get it. If that means that a Napster clone is the way to get it, then the people will go there.
So there's demand here, right? That means there is a market! Instead of fighting the 'piracy', fill the demand! Ever hear of Video on Demand? I wouldn't need to go to Morpheus or Kazaa if I could just go to a website that has the show ready to stream and click play. If they want to insert commercials into it, THAT'S FINE. That works!! I love it! I'll embrace that! But PLEASE give me that opportunity before you claim that piracy will destroy your market! Fighting piracy won't save the market, but filling demand will.
*He who finds it amusing that Hollywood is willing to spend money to stop losses they don't have, but isn't willing to try to make money on demand to watch shows at our leisure.*
"Derp de derp."
Of course, this has been the content industry's siren song for almost a century. Virtually every major new form of automation has been labeled a harbinger of death to copyright, to with:
Piano Rolls
Radio
Audio Tape
Television
Video Tape
DAT
Other digital sound media
Every one of these technologies were identified as a damning threat to the "content industry," and to an extent, this is true, when the "content industry" is defined as an entity committed to entrenched business models and technology for exploiting works of authorship.
As it turns out, all these things ever turned out to be, were changes. For the most part, each new technology enriched our nation, and enriched those in the "content industry" smart enough to effectively exploit them.
The reason great technologies occur, is because innovators are free in our market to test the value of their inventions. Alas, these content "moguls" are not only seeking to protect the works of authors they have exploited, but also to control and limit innovation and develop new "threatening" technologies.
And this is why technology regulation is not intellectual property law -- it is precisely the opposite of the policies justifying IP. Instead of glorifying and supporting the market, record companies and movie companies are seeking the right to shut down those who are neither copying nor duplicating their works, but who are simply innovating their works into irrelevance.
Such pro-dinosaur economics can only lead to the ruin of the new economy, and at a moment it is at its most tenuous position. Sure, a few will stay rich, for awhile -- but at what cost?
Think about that for a moment... since it is now illegal for us to *reverse engineer* any aspect (hardware or software) of a system... or even REPORT about how something works... therefore we can't protect ourselves.
What that means is that a manufacturer can now imbed elements into a system that watch you, report on you, and compile statistics on you. Not only is it illegal for you to find out about it... it's now illegal for you to TALK about it to anyone if you DO discover it.
So... manufacturers THINK they have the right to our personal habits... our personal information... without charge. BUT... we don't have the right to make sure our privacy is protected!!!
This is akin to the *old* days where at the checkout line they ask you for your zipcode for their *database*. My standard response is... SURE... $5. Usually they look at me agast... EXCUSE ME???? Yes... you want my personal data? $5.
Same thing has to now apply to these fucked up manufactures who think that just because you bought something of theirs, they get a chunk of your private life. SAY NO to all these technologies...
Furthermore... REVERSE ENGINEER EVERYTHING -- it is our RIGHT as citizens to protect ourselves. Would you buy a CAR where the manufacturer told you "if you open the hood you can go to jail"?? Of course not.
These manufacturers have to learn a lesson -- the *no servicable parts inside* can NOT be applied in such a way that it prevents the buyer from insuring that the device is NOT doing more than advertised!!