Slashdot Mirror
New HDTV Encryption Obsoletes Sets
Brian Weatherhead writes "I wrote an article, detailing the MPAA's control over your HDTV. Their new standards will make any HDTV bought before 2002 obsolete!
Consumers will be upset to say the least." Talks
about the different formats for video signals, and
copy protection methods for those signals. And yes,
if this goes down, anyone with an HDTV without DVI input
could very well be watching 480p signals when HDTV
standardizes. Fortunately at the rate this stuff has
been happening, those TVs will long since have died.
But one thing is for sure- with the DMCA, and these
new video formats, PVRs could become a thing of the
past.
Uh oh, you're opposing the use of corporate weight throwing! Only Nazis/Terrorists/Child Molestors oppose evil strongarming tactics. You're not a Nazi/Terrorists/Child Molestors, are you? Good, that's what I thought. Now be a good peon^H^H^H^Hconsumer and buy a new TV.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. There has never been an HDTV standard. Anyone who bought an HDTV-ready television with the HDTV tuner built in or without connectivity options for at least both of the major HDTV standard contenders is a sucker who didn't do their research.
I'm sorry to have to correct you here it is Terrorists/Child Molestors/Ponographers/Drug Dealers. We are off the Nazis since the war was over. Now people look back on the Nazis and say "At least they made the trains run on time".
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
You know, anything worth having is worth fighting for, perhaps even killing for. I mean, that's why we kill enemies, isn't it?
I look at the black civil rights movement in the United States, and while the efforts of heros like Martin Luther King can't go ignored, I have a hard time believing that Malcom X and the Black Panthers weren't a positive force in bringing about social change (not that enough has been done yet...)
Americans, as a society, accept the death penalty for heinous crime (rightly or wrongly) and the use of deadly force to "uphold the law".
Perhaps the law, in this case, has been bought and paid for, and the legislators morally bankrupt. Should we tolerate violence as a response? I'm not so sure the answer is necessarily no.
In any dispute there are conflicting ethics, and absent the rule of law, we have only those to guide us in deciding if killing is right or wrong. When we kill a killer we are merely applying their own ethical principles to them. Surely, there is no ethical argument against this? (Of course, the matter of actual guilt is another sticky issue, but that does not change the principle if guilt is assured).
There is great reluctance to "take the law" into one's own hands, and engage in vigilante justice, for it shows an abandonment of established law, and can lead to anarchy. But, do not presume, that this drastic course is necessarily wrong: should we have stood by while the Nazis "legally" masacred Jews? Should a black woman stand or sit at the back of the bus? Should the profiteers of the present hold a monopoly on the distribution of wealth in the future? No! I say. No!, with all my strength and conviction. And, I don't have to be Jewish, or Black, or poor to believe this.
You know, the U.S. Declaration of Independence has the phrase, "...all men are created equal..." (and, obviously, this should be read as "men and women") and that's a damn fine principle to believe in. I should not subject my fellow to something I myself would not wish to endure. For all the blood shed over religeous differences, many faiths embrace the "Golden Rule" implied by this. My neigbour can be richer than I, buy finer things than I, and generally live an easier life than I. But, under no circumstance, can he be more priveleged than I under the law, or "buy" same. This principle I hold "self-evident" and think worth fighting to defend. (No, I am not an American, but that doesn't mean that Americans don't occasionally "get it" and are worth paying attention to when they do).
Of course, all disputes settled by violent means are "just" if you win, and "injust" if you lose. The winner gets to write the history books. So, if you're going to advocate violence, bring a decent army (hint: the U.S. does badly in guerilla wars). In this case, the choice of violent revolt should be gated by the number of supporters, as much as the inflexibility and impartiality of the opponent.
My advice?
Wait for the judge's and lawmaker's total income to be public, and the industry's white hooded henchmen to become visible. As the internet has become mainstream, so will the emperor's clothes be shown to be non-existent. In the mean time, while I do not want one J. Valenti or one H. Rosen dead for their actions, I take comfort in the belief that others do.
You could've hired me.