Slashdot Mirror
Reason Magazine on DRM
swankypimp writes "The new issue of Reason magazine has an article entitled "Hollywood vs. the Internet: Why Entertainment Companies Want To Hack Your Computer." The author discusses the watermarking of digital television as a springboard to Digital Rights Management on all consumer electronics and computers (as in the recently proposed Hollings bill). While light on the tech speak, it is a good summary of the political agendas behind copyright protection intended for those of us who don't constantly check the "YRO" section."
Why am I up? I wonder if the fridge has cheddar.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
that's a bigass banner ad. what gives?
First hazaa!
okay thanks please mod me up i'm tired thanks mod me up digital rights management is bad thanks maybe i'll post something insightful tomorrow but may i have the karma in advance? kthx bye. =) (+1 funny!)
Linux Post
(a) a copyright infringement project
OR(b) Sex with a mare
Thank you.
old enough to set the table, old enough to pass the meat
VERY nice article; they manage to go in lot greater depth than most DRM articles that make it to slashdot. Didn't expect that kind of insight from Reason, which usually just prints libertarian propaganda.
AOL Warner Brother.. The world of AOL.. here it comes..
moo
Join the league against narrow information on the internet !
Just sign this.
VERY nice article. Goes into greater depth than most CRM articles that make it to slashdot, or at least it seemed that way to me.
Usually I avoid believing much of anything I read in Reason, as it usually just prints libertarian propaganda, but this time I'm glad I checked it out.
Wow, I'm impressed.
old enough to set the table, old enough to pass the meat
Look at all the Powerful Mutimedia PCs we have nowdays..Mutimedia PCs are built for high quality movies and games..and it would be sad if that really happens..and..there is a group in hollywood trying to hack our computers? you're kidding me..
http://www.palmzone.net
Why doesn't Microsoft buy AOL Time Warner. They have the cash. This way Microsoft, now a true entertainment company, would already be able to hack 99% of all computers out there. They are a monopoly you know.
It would make things all easier, don't you think?
So far there has been no comment from Linus or Alan Cox.
The owls are not what they seem
Isn't this the whole problem with the stance that "hollywood" is taking? Most people will happily pay for content and the few that won't won't destroy the industry. IIRC Home taping Didn't Kill music no matter how often we were told it would.
Get the EULA T-shirt
An interesting point is made by a News Corporation technologist - "music lovers already have gotten out of the habit of paying for records, which means an end to big profits and thus an end to big record companies", and he goes on to say that within five years the music industry will be a cottage industry. Is this really such a bad thing? Part of the reason why MP3 distribution has become so widespread is the general feeling of poor value-for-money associated with buying CDs. It's difficult to feel particularly guilty about copyright infringement when details of how the money you pay gets distributed are publicly available.
Personally, I'd prefer to pay money directly to a band that I like for their material, rather than line the pockets of record companies and distributors. While historically they might have served a useful purpose in increasing consumer awareness of the bands on their label, and in introducing them to wider markets, that function has been obsoleted by file sharing.
Media companies should just resign themselves to the fact that the days of large profits are waning, and instead concentrate on ways of inducing people to buy, rather than copy material - lower prices would help, for a start, but also bonus materials. By including, for example, printed material, with DVDs or CDs, it becomes more difficult for someone to obtain more than a partial copy of the work in question, so people would be more likely to buy (assuming the lower price was in effect also).
One thing I found very interesting reading the article, which I had not considered beforehand, was as the author pointed out.
The digital videos they shot in 1999 may be unpayable on their desktop and laptop computers.
This is better further elaborated in the following passage...
There are some problems with this scheme. If Prince-ton computer scientist Edward Felten is right, a watermark that's invisible to the audience yet easily detected by machines will be relatively easy to remove. To put it simply, if you can't see it, you won't miss it when it's gone. Which is why the components of new home entertainment systems probably would have to be designed not to play unwatermarked content. Otherwise, all you've done is develop an incentive for both inquisitive hackers and copyright "pirates" to find a way to strip out the watermarks. But if the new entertainment systems won't play content without watermarks, they won't work with old digital videos or MP3s.
Now assuming the above is true and consider the worst case scenario of this bill coming to pass. Would this mean all those legitimate MP3s I downloaded from Epitonic and the Star Wars fan films would no longer be playable on new hardware since they lacked a watermark?
If this the case how would free content continue to exist and operate in this system, as they would obviously have to use watermarks just like copyrighted works if they want to be playable on the new hardware DRM systems. Ofcourse this sort of thing would piss of consumers and even some content providers.
aus.music.scrapbook
Profit, or the lack thereof.
Now to add 1799 more words and call it a day.
Let's face it, file sharing only grows the market. file sharing doesn't cost entertainment companies money because people might not buy things they don't hear on the radio or see on TV.
For example, I have an ebook [13 MB PDF] of The Hobbit & Lord of The Rings. I decided to buy Lord of The Rings because I wanted to read it in the middle of a forest my friend lives in.
I then decided to see the Lord of The Rings (1) movie a few times, because I like the story and I love to see New Zealand.
I have actually spent more than I would have if I only bothered to see the movie, so this piracy issue is rubbish spread by paranoid accountants.
[please note: I live in New Zealand & have been to places where LoTR was filmed]
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Television is a mass-manipulation-media, it can't therefore be reverse-manipulated by the masses or it will lack its expected idiocy.
Did you know there's a world outside your tv ?
There are actually real women cooking real food and giving real love to you, if you keep being stuck to the television and gather in a forum to protest whenever some change occur, then, you're already embeded much deeper in the [BigBro world|Matrix] than Quaid was in his Total Recall Dream...
I guess most of the slashdot crowd are actually too keen on their lack of freedom to just sell their tv and switch the telly off after a hard work day.
Want me to prove it ?
Just count the increasing number of tv related subjects during the last 6 months and their increasing number of comments.
The Paranoia golden globe however belong to the moerators who even think they may censor anything that has a karma below theirs.
(and fsck you if you attempt to raise mine)
Smile, don't click...
"But maintaining that model, in which big music companies play an important filtering role for audiences, depends both on large streams of revenue and on control of copyrighted works."
They don't seem to understand this point. Most digital consumers notice the irrelvancy of the "big record companies". What we want is direct support of the artist, and paying the artist for their work instead of the majority of a "CD" being used up in overhead. I think most will play fair, if the prices come down and the artist is more fiscally supported, not the farce that is going on now.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
http://www.eveeieyhfgfcdoosammgwsnboivvbsczxlzg
Copyright rights means that the public atributes to a partie the "monopoly" for publish of a content during a certain time as a trade-off for the publishing of the said content.
Diferent kinds of content have diferent timetables, but all end with the content become "public domain" when that time ends.
Nowadays, the publishers are forfeiting they copyright obligations to the public in three ways:
a) Not re-publishing when the content becomes out of print (thrus, the copyright should fall back to either the author or the public domain if they fail to make a reprint - like 6 months to make it available again)
b) Not providing the non-crypted version for public domain (one can't be sure that the copyright owners will be around when the content becomes public domain and/or that the crypto used to certify the DRM is publicly available to allow a clear access to the content - and thrus not require reverse engenearing)
c) By limiting the usage in absurd ways, they are forbiding fair use of the content in ways that overstep consumer rights (like time-shift, format-shift, educational use, accessibilities use, usability oriented interfaces and much more).
Just my two cents...
One way to understand the conflict between the Content Faction and the Tech Faction is to look at how they describe their customers. For the content industries, they're "consumers." By contrast, the information technology companies talk about "users."
If you see people as consumers, you control access to what you offer, and you do everything you can to prevent theft, for the same reason supermarkets have cameras by the door and bookstores have electronic theft detectors. Allowing people to take stuff for free is inconsistent with your business model.
But if you see people as users, you want to give them more features and power at cheaper prices. The impulse to empower users was at the heart of the microcomputer revolution: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak wanted to put computing power into ordinary people's hands, and that's why they founded Apple Computer. If this is your approach -- enabling people to do new things -- it's hard to adjust to the idea of building in limitations.
Very articulate framing of the issue: control versus empowerment. At first blush, this strikes as the best way to cast the issue to the general population. Nobody likes being controlled, and everyone likes being empowered.
The other issue, not mentioned in the article, is to manage the issue of the perception of theft. File sharing does not equate to theft. It does violate a license agreement in many cases, but it's not theft. File sharing creates more copies of the same thing, it does not move the thing from possession of person A to to possession of person B.
I think the tech world is at a distinct PR disadvantage here. RIAA, et al, have done a good job of equating the two. How can the debate be turned around, putting them on the defensive side of things: "This is not about theft, it's about your outdated, draconian licensing scheme designed to limit user empowerment?"
Software Wars
I do have a problem with the idea that these copyright measures are able to slow things down (which I sorta read in the article), what you are dealing with is a social problem and not a technical problem, Hollywood can put all the protections they what on DVD's TV etc and some bloke will just crack it as soon as it comes out (the same situation that exists with software) and to date most of their efforts, like SDMI, have been pretty lame. As for legislation, laws are only as strong as a persons ablity to enforce them and who the hell is going to pay attention to one passed, which only benifits large companies, Where there is no policemen there is no speed limit, after all.
At the end of the day thing like this are only going to annoy honest people.
Technology has just moved along (like it does) and instead of trying to stop the march of progress media companies have to change there business models to the new market, and not try to maintain the statis quo. CD sales are lower today because time which should have been spent creating a new format to replace CD's was spent lowing production processes and now that industry is screwed. Thanks to DVD's the movie industry may survive (who the hell is going to bother dl a 8 gig movie over the internet when they can just buy it), plus there is the experience of seeing the thing at the local multi-plex.
At most, all that is going to happen is someone works out a way to link all the Tivo's together, but isn't that what cable TV is today? just repeats after repreats and WWF. If you can't work out a way to make money in a medium where consumers are doing all the work, and even go to the extent of limiting this type of market from developing, then what hope is there for you. Instead of putting your heads in the secure media sand you should jump on the P2P bandwagon.
Pianist : Some jerk whos taught themselves how to type in rhythm
Deanna's ass rammed against the tree and she gave a little squeal of
pleasure. The big thick cock pushed between her pussy lips, her legs spread
wide as her firm, tanned ass rubbed against the moist bark of the tree.
"YES!" she groaned as one large, rough hand grabbed the back of her
neck, pulled her forward and pressed his lips against hers, his tongue pushed
deep down her throat. Another hand grabbed one large breast in hand and
squeezed roughly.
Worf was fucking her hard and fast, the true Klingon style, it was
almost like animal coupling. His cock was pushing in and out of her dripping
cunt faster and faster, their body's slamming together harder and harder,
faster and faster. His cock slid up and down against the upper wall of her
cunt, as he pushed hard against her the base of his cock grinded against her
pussy and clitoris, driving her crazy with desire.
"FUCK ME!" she screamed and he continued pummeling into her, he
growled like an animal and grinned ferociously, he lowered his face towards
hers and she snapped up at him with her teeth, a large grin on her face, he
pulled back in surprise, then he began to laugh.
"Are you sure you're not part Klingon?" he laughed in his deep voice
and stepped away, his cock pulled out and she mewled in disappointment. He
grabbed her by the arm and pushed her to the ground, she felt his large hands
grab her asscheeks and pull them apart, she spread her legs in anticipation
and raised up her ass, squealing in excitement as she once more felt his
thick cock pushing into her dripping pussy, spreading her pussy lips and
filling her to the hilt.
Hands grabbed her waist and suddenly he was pushing in and out of her
again. She rammed her own ass back against his heavy hips, they moved in
perfect counterpoint to each other, as he pushed forward she moved back, so
he was always ramming hard against her.
"FUCK ME! FUCK ME YOU BASTARD!" she screamed and Worf grunted in
approval, this was the way he wanted women to act, not some meek, tiny little
thing who let out little gasps or whines, but a woman who fucked him back as
hard as he fucked her.
"YES!" he cried, banging her faster and faster, ramming against her
perfectly formed ass, pushing her forward and back with each stroke, her tits
rubbing against the grass, she cried out in pleasure and suddenly she was
cumming, hers hips bucked back and forth, her juices seemed to explode out of
her, sweat dripped from her body and she let out a moan of excitement. As
she collapsed down against the grass, finally fucked out and Worf knew it was
time to cum. He stopped holding back and began sliding in and out of her
faster and faster, driving her now incredibly sensitive cunt wild with
excitement, and then he was pumping cum into her as he came, squirting semen
deep into her.
He had proved his dominance over her by making her orgasm before he
did, this was extremely important for Klingon men to do, a Klingon male was
judged on how well he could fight, how well he could command others and also
how well he could fuck.
one of the best articles on the subject that I have seen at slashdot lately.
The PC I have now plays DivX files, mp3's and everything else just fine. I download my share of media from the net, and I am sure if they start putting watermarks in TC shows, the warez community will find some way to strip it out and make it availalbe, but the downside is that the new pc's that come out after this watermarking technology will not allow you to play unwatermarked content. I will therefor keep my current working PC as an entertainment box. By the time this happens, my PC will probably not be the one I want to use on my desk anymore, but it is more than capable of playing Hi-Res divx, mp3's and such. Tis would be the time i set up my roll-your-own PVR
One final problem though. Tecnology overlap. they launch all of this new watermarked content. No one is going to have PCs capable of playing the content. Why would anybody buy a PC that can only play watermarked content before the content becomes availalbe. They would be unable to play any content since none of the exiting content would have watermarks. Also, after the content is available even if some people upgrade to the newer stuff, not everyone will unless there is a VERY compelling reason to ditch all thier old working content in favor of getting ONLY the new watermarked content.
As the article points out "Just as computers make it possible to create remarkably pristine images, they also make it possible to make remarkably pristine copies" .
By the same definition "Just as home pro audio equipment is capable of creating music, they also make it possible to duplicate music".
I remember the introduction of SCMS crippled DAT recorders, which effectively killed off a nice media for semi-pro musicians (D2D was too expensive then).
I can see the reluctance of studio hardware and software manufacturers to introduce this technology as it will clearly impact on sales, but will it mean the end of OpenSource applications because *you* can remove the DRM components?
Scary
Beverly stepped through the black door and stared in wonder at the
massive orgy going on. All around her men and women, women and women, women
and toys, men and women and women were going at it, fucking each other with
desperate abandon. She heard a groan of pleasure in a familiar voice and
looked to her left, Deanna was lying on a table, her legs dangling over the
side, while Worf gripped her waist and was pounding into her with his huge
cock.
"Oooh shit yeah!" growled Beverly in wanton lust, her eyes crawling
over Worf's muscular body, then moving down to Deanna's large breasts, which
were bouncing up and down as Worf fucked her hard. Her eyes continued up to
Deanna's beautiful face, glistening with sweat, her mouth wide open as she
let out gasps of pleasure.
"I got to get it!" moaned Beverly, her hand by now shoved between her
thighs, working three fingers in an out of her pussy while her other hand had
reached behind and was sliding one finger in and out of her asshole. She
pulled her hands free and rushed to the table, swinging her legs over, she
plastered her pussy against Deanna's face, the Betazed squealing with delight
and instantly slipping her tongue in between the Doctor's tight cuntlips.
Worf nearly blew his load right there and then when he saw Beverly
lower her pussy over Deanna's face, watching one woman suck another was
incredible, and Deanna was obviously enjoying it, as soon as Beverly had
dropped her pussy onto the Betazed's face he had felt Deanna's cunt tighten
around his cock, which was throbbing angrily as he continued pumping in and
out of Deanna, almost as if it was going to explode. He let out a roar of
sexual pleasure, then continued watching Beverly's wriggling ass, and just
below it, Deanna's bouncing tits.
Beverly let out a gasp of shock as she felt a hugely muscled arm wrap
around her waist and pull her up onto her hands and knees. Behind her she
heard Worf's deep voice saying.
"Your turn now!"
She felt a hot wave of pleasure rush through her body as he continued
holding her around the waist, his free hand gripped his huge cock in hand and
glided it into her hot, tight little pussy.
"Like Worf said," laughed Deanna, bereft of a cock for now,"It's your
turn now!" and so saying she slid forward until her pussy was underneath
Beverly's face. The hot Doctor hesitated only a second, and then she was
plunging in, muff-diving as the expression goes.
As Beverly's tongue slid in and out of Deanna's tight cunt, she could
feel Worf's balls slapping against her erect clit, he was filling her
completely with his big dick and also tickling her clit, she couldn't believe
how incredible it felt.
Beverly had sucked another woman's pussy before, but it had never
been like this before, it was as if all she was fuckmeat.
"..un-noble, evil sides of the personality," she remembered No'Kase
saying, was it possible? Was she simply all the pent up lust and desire
inside the real Beverly's mind? - if so - she thought with a giggle - I'm
gonna be at this a long time! -
Beverly cried out as she felt yet another wave of intense pleasure
rock through her body, she threw her head back and let out a cry of ecstasy,
then she buried her face back in Deanna's sex and continued to lick up and
down the Counsellor's dripping pussy.
Worf was moaning constantly as he plunged his thick member in nd out
of Doctor Crusher's soaking cunt, his huge cock filled her completely and
made her absolutely airtight around his dick. He gripped her waist and began
pumping in and out of her faster and faster, getting even more turned on by
the second by the image of Beverly's face buried in Deanna's pussy while the
Betazed beauty felt up her own large breasts.
Deanna cried out in pleasure as Doctor Crusher's tongue squirmed in
and out of her clasping cuntlips. Her thumb and forefingers rubbed her
nipples between themselves, as Beverly ate her out she arched her back and
cried in pleasure as she felt an orgasm race through her body, her upper body
jackknifed and flopped like a fish out of water as her orgasm drove her crazy
with even more desire.
"Oh, yesss! Lick it Beverly," Deanna cried out, her hands releasing
her breasts and clutching Beverly's head,"Suck me off! Suck me out! Suck me
dry!!!! YEEESSSSSS!!!!!!"
She spread her legs even wider, her large tits bouncing up and down
uncontrollably now that they were freed from the confines of her own hands,
she humped her ass up and down as she tried to drive Beverly's tongue even
deeper into her snatch.
"FUCK HER WORF!" she screamed,"Make the bitch cum so she'll eat me
out even more!"
As Deanna spoke a shadow came over her face, looking up she saw a man
- a stranger she hadn't meet - straddling her face, a large cock resting
inches from her face.
"Suck this," the man said with a grin, Deanna couldn't see his face
very well, but his features looked aquiline, and he seemed to exude a totally
unshakeable confidence.
Deanna hesitated a second, then her new lustful nature took over and
she stretched her mouth open as wide as she could, then wrapped her lips
around the strangers prick and began sucking him in.
"Uhhhhaaa!" laughed the stranger, and Deanna noted a strange accent,
possibly Russian, maybe even German,"Suck my big fat prick, you bitch," he
groaned,"What a fucking mouth!"
Worf looked up and nearly came from the sight, before him he could
see Beverly's ass as he fucked her doggystyle, Beverly's head buried in
Deanna's lap while Deanna sucked off a complete stranger. He growled low and
deep in his throat and gripped Beverly's asscheeks in his hands, squeezing
them together as hard as he could without hurting her he increased the
pressure on his cock and banging her harder than before.
Deanna sucked on the big cock in her mouth as well as she could,
trying not to choke as it pushed against the back of her throat, she could no
longer see it, but it seemed that Worf had picked up the pace, Beverly's
mouth was pushing against her cunt harder and faster now and Worf was making
that low growling noise he always made before cumming. As the four of them
fucked and sucked as fast as they could, they all felt the pressure building
within them, knowing they couldn't last much longer.
Beverly went first, her entire body seemed to go rigid for a second,
then she was screaming with pleasure into Deanna's pussy, her tongue making
little flicking motions against Deanna's clit, which in turn drove the
Betazed crazy - especially since she was picking up on the other three's
lustful emotions as well as her own! - and she came again, her lips
tightening around the strangers cock in her mouth as her juices flowed into
Beverly's mouth and onto the table, forming a small puddle around her perfect
asscheeks.
Beverly's tightening cunt had forced Worf over the edge, he made a
couple of more humping motions into her tight little pussy and then he was
shooting cum deep into her, finding an incredible ecstasy in the release.
As Deanna finally settled down from her orgasm she felt the cock in
her mouth jerk slightly and then suddenly cum was pumping down her throat,
she fought to gag it back but the stranger was gripping the back of her head
and making small, humping motions, face fucking her as he came. He groaned
in pleasure finally and pulled his now softening cock out of her lovely mouth
and rolling off of the table.
The three Starfleet Officers followed his example, resting on the
ground and panting heavily, trying to catch their breath after that hard
fuck.
"That was fun," gasped the stranger,"Pity our time is nearly up," he
slid a finger between Deanna's legs, causing the Betazed to groan in pleasure
as one long finger slid into her pussy,"Or at least yours is."
"I thought we got an hour," grunted Worf, as he said it he noticed
that Beverly and Deanna were fading, he looked down at his hands and saw that
he too was fading away, he looked up at the stranger. He had aquiline
features and graying hair shot through with black pulled back into her small
ponytail, Worf was a little shaken by total confidence that the man seemed to
exude. He sensed that this man was not simply a personification of un-noble
and lustful desires, he was something more.
"Who are you?"
"What is it with you humanoids and names...." laughed the stranger as
Worf faded from view.
is the problem here. When the whole napster debate first came up, I assumed that the content companys would eventuly figure out how to make money with the new technology, as they had with radio, audio and video tapes. After all, no matter the morals of the situation, if no one is paying them they'll go out of buisness, and so they would be forced to try to appal to the conumer again. it has become clear to me now that they belive that they can litagate themselves out of the situation they're in.Litagation will not work. If they don't want to use the new technology to their advantage someone else will. DRM is not a lifeboat.
They should have copy-protected the article so that you had to sign an "I am a tree" license agreement before you could read it.
Show it as it is.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that people are so eager to pirate music online because of the ludicrously high prices of CDs. It's something of a consumer revolt. When CDs were first introduced, I remember hearing how cheap they were to produce and how someday they would be half the price of cassettes and LPs!
Yeah... garsh, and I believed it too.
No, instead what's happened is that the same product has been steadily creeping up in price to the point where it no longer makes sense to buy it. I stopped buying large quantities of CDs around 1995 or so, around the time they hit the $16-18 range.
So, nowadays, on the rare occasion that I walk into my local music store and see $20+ CDs, I laugh to myself. Very few artists can pull that kind of cash out of my wallet anymore (Pink Floyd, Rush, Bill Hicks... to name a few.) I have better things to spend my money on.
It makes me wonder. Why... why do content companies refuse to compete? Technology (specifically home computing) has become a formidable new source of competition for them and instead of leaping at the opportunity to compete, to take on this new challenge, they turn to bullying tactics (destroying Napter) and draconian, self-serving laws (DMCA, SSSCA, etc.)
I wouldn't pay $20 for a CD. However, I might pay $20 for a CD if it came with not just one CD of music, but maybe another CD of studio outtakes and/or alternate mixes. How about a multimedia CD that plays movies on your computer, maybe short documentaries filmed during the making of the album (nothing fancy, just an insider's view like what Pink Floyd did on Live At Pompeii), interviews with the band about the album, maybe even a live performance played in the studio for the benefit of CD buyers? How about beefing up the standard CD into something worth my $20?
After all, they are so cheap to produce... right? If the media is so cheap, give me content worth buying, you content providers!
For that very reason, I am more willing to buy a DVD than a CD. In fact, I've bought more of the former than the latter in the last year. I find all the outtakes and artist commentary and extras make the high price tag a little more reasonable. Plus, I see multiple DVD sets being sold for more-or-less the same price.
Hell, why not release an album on DVD, including all this music along with tons of extra goodies and content? Maybe a nice booklet with the CD (no cheap crap either... more like the high quality booklet that came with Pink Floyd's Pulse.) I would consider going back to spending money on CDs again. Not only would it make it worth my money, but the sheer quantity and variety of content would make it considerably more difficult to pirate this stuff over any medium.
If these so-called content providers (who, as far as I can tell, want to provide nothing of the sort) would try to compete, they might find that we can all get along. If they want to hide behind stupid laws that serve only to validate their own ignorance, then I say fuck them and their overpriced CDs.
My only regret is that the artists, who deserve the money, will get screwed in all this. Then again, given the sort of sleazy business ethics under which most content providers work, I'm sure artists are familiar with that feeling already.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I fucked your mother last night. Her five cents are under the pillow.
Surprised by Unicide! (fuck this shit)
Shocking news reached us today - *BSD found DEAD with a BULLET in it's BRAINS!! City pathologist James Mulder will do the autopsy later today.
"the perilous irony of the digital age."
There is no irony here, Michael. The fact of the matter is that this country was founded as, and will always be, a pirate nation. As much as our government enjoys defaming China and like nations for the rampant piracy within their boundaries, from the beginning of copyright law in the United States the laws were purposefully worded in order to stimulate the society and promote the progress of the arts. Thomas Jefferson best explains the copyright clause of the Constitution in an 1813 letter.
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
The framers understood that it is absolutely necessary to protect the ideas of an individual, for the purpose of encouraging the creators in society to create, but such protection should not, and must not be extended beyond the point where they are beneficial to society. This is why the Constitution portions out 'limited times' of protection as the sole enumerated power granted to the congress in order 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts.'
The tactics of Disney, and like distributors, are an affront to the tenets which this country was founded on. Their most recent success, the CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act) was the last straw for some Americans, and the arguments will finally be heard by the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act) The extension of copyrights for ideas created decades ago is not an attempt to promote progress, and it is stretching the definition of 'limited terms'. In fact, as Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted, "creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less output." It is easy to forget how much of the creative process depends on the works of others, for inspiration and motivation. Judge Posner eloquently posits the belief that at a certain point, protection of source material will begin to hinder more than help the arts which it attempts to nurture. This has obvious occurred in the case of the CTEA. There is no societal benefit to extending the copyright of Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney will certainly not be inclined to create more work. And at the same time, those in our society who would have used the new material that entered the public domain as a source for their creativity have been stifled. Consider what the greatness of Shakespeare would be if Hollingshed had been lost or hidden from him.
View the whole essay here.
I hope that P2P networks for movies in the future take off (already have today), and that hollywoods efforts too control the medium become void. Albert they seem posied to implement some rather stupid laws.
If cinimas lose some of the ablity to provide exclusives, since everyone has already seen the rough cuts months before it is released in the cinima then there should be a lot fewer of these hollywood flops, Movies overhyped inorder to drag as many people to the local multi-plex for the first two weeks before word of month spreads that they sux. Loads of movies fall into this catagorie, pearl harbour, Star Wars EP1 (a movie which broke all box office records before anyone had even seen it) etc. Sadly hollywood seems to have become about promotion rather then about creating movies.
If people have the opition of seeing a movies at a crappy quality, then in the cinima, then buying the DVD months later with all the extras on it, creating movies becomes less about hype and more about making somthing which grows more the more times you see it ie Pulp Fiction etc. In sort there is more incentive for the creation of a quality product and not the same pop corn fodder that has been screening lately.
Piracy could have the effect of nullifying hype which I think benifits everyone, even those which don't partake in the practise (most people are pretty honest, given half a chance).
Pianist : Some jerk whos taught themselves how to type in rhythm
I think you've stumbled upon an interesting point here.
If I can't record music or videa without clearing it through a media company and getting that "watermark" then my First Amendment rights have been trampled.
Forget consumers, copy protected CD's and even Fair Use [it is copyright ] - forget all of those Simpsons episodes you recorded from TV.
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit. If it's a grass roots campaign or a song your band is working on - you can't do it!
Just reminds me of this Simpsons song that is on mp3 here.
It will take an Amendment! And like Heston, they will get my DVD/VCD/MP3 player from my cold dead hands.
Get your Unix fortune now!
How would this affect the new US TV standard that is going to be enforced in the next 3-5 years? If I rush out and purchase one of theses new sets will I then need to purchase another one a few months after that so I can watch the new shows and movies that are encrypted?
But for now, nobody's asking ordinary people what they want.
So i'll ask, what do you people want? the ability to send digital videos of your home movies to friends.. or to have your computer totally restricted in what it can and can not do..
On a side note here.. It seems that Microsoft is all pretty gung ho while stay quiet about DRM technology.. Mostly i think because they can profit off of it by blending it into the OS, which makes me wonder why other DRM software companies don't seem to worried that Microsoft will dominate this software field as well... any thoughts?
"only benefits large companies", is quite an interesting comment.
given that large companies only exist in either land e.g. there not real, Such laws seem to be selling Human rights away to a non-physical entity.
That's a very weird stance for a group, that is supposed to represent the people, to take.
Instead of addressing mass anarchic law breaking by 90%+ of the population shouldn't they be addressing the reason for such a large revolt i.e. The dismissal of human rights over the rights of non-existent entities.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
With radio broadcasting, a station spends a fortune on:
- Spectrum rights (FCC)
- Broadcast equipment
- Content Broadcasting rights
So there's a high barrier to entry, but once you've achieved all this, you saturate the "air" for miles around with your content. It doesn't matter whether one person tunes into your content or a million people tune in. You still spend the same amount of money (you may get more in advertising if a lot of people are listening, but that's another story).With Internet "broadcasting" a site needs to buy:
- A domain (equiv to spectrum rights)
- A fast server/server farm (broadcast equip)
- A fat pipe (because streaming music, video or trading files takes a lot of bandwidth)
- Content Broadcasting rights (hopefully)
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in. Each listener requires an ongoing dialog with the server and a big chunk of bandwidth, plus the content owners/format owners want to bill you per user (QuickTime 6 has been delayed because of this nonsense) because they know you have the numbers.The costs of truly "broadcasting" over the Internet are prohibitive even for large companies and will never be economical for the average Joe sitting in his den, no matter how fat consumer bandwidth gets. File swapping is not broadcasting -- anyone who thinks it is has obviously never waited two hours in the server que for a download slot or tried to download a 20MB file at 0.8kbps.
Philosophically this is nothing new at all. Control the media and you control the people. This is the new media, and they are grasping at ways to control it, it's content, and it's users.
I just read this article in Info Sec magazine on DRM technololgy: alas the web version doesn't have the article, just list of products and vendors - the whole thing was without any discussion of the moral or ethical dimension to the issue. Yet CISSP and SANS info-sec certifications all include an "ethical dimension" to their course materials. Go figure.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
will it mean the end of OpenSource applications because *you* can remove the DRM components?
... and you'd have to follow this chain of logic all the way down to the lowest level of computation, down to the electronic circuits etched on the chips.
This is actually an interesting paradox. The whole philosophy of DRM, digital watermarks, etc. is to make it not just illegal to circumvent copyright, but impossible.
By this logic, the source code itself would need a watermark to prevent the removal of the DRM components -- but this would be no good if you could just strip it out before compiling, so the compilers would have to be rigged only to allow watermarked source code. Of course, then you'd have to make sure that people weren't running binaries made with the old compiler
Like a virus, mandatory DRM legislation would infect everything it touches. It might start with something seemingly innocuous, like music and movies -- but it would eventually consume software, hardware, and the very act of computation itself. I agree with the author that the DRM legislation being pushed by the "content" industry (and certain of our esteemed elected officials) would effectively destroy the digital computer as we know it.
Cheers,
IT
-1: Jon Katz-like title
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
before someone writes an utility that removes the original watermark and adds a bogus watermark that allows it to be played on drm devices?
1 12 hours
broadcast Pronunciation Key (brôdkst)
v. broadcast, or broadcasted broadcasting, broadcasts
v. tr.
1. To transmit (a radio or television program) for public or general use.
2. To send out or communicate, especially by radio or television: The agency broadcast an urgent appeal for medical supplies.
3. To make known over a wide area: broadcast rumors. See Synonyms at announce.
To sow (seed) over a wide area, especially by hand.
Note #2 especially radio or television, but not excluseively.. My point here being.. doesn't Cable TV networks broadcast music channels for all differnt kinds.. like 40+ stations right through your tv or in most people's case... their home entertainment network.. i could easily re-route(flip a dial) the sound from my cable box to my computer and record all those if i wanted to in pure digital too..
So how much are digital cable companies paying for broadcast royalties? And if its different than net broadcasts.. why?
hasn't it dawned on anyone that the voice of the american people is being silenced. when napster had over fifty million users, was that not us simply choosing not to buy cds? Considering that congress is making it impossible for the american people to not buy a product, business ventures can't fail. What if we don't want to pay for it anymore? Can't we decide not to pay for a product. Can't we decide we don't want a product? Are our representatives representing their constituents interests? I guess Michael Eisner's needs are more important than mine.
They're using their grammar skills there.
This tells why Digital Broadcast and HDTV is dead in the water:
"... Unlike DVD movies, which are encrypted on the disk and decrypted every time they?re played, digital broadcast television has to be unencrypted. For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission requires that broadcast television be sent "in the clear." (The rationale is that broadcasters are custodians of a public resource -- the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used for television -- and therefore have to make whatever they pump into that spectrum available to everyone.) Then, too, digital TV has to reach existing digital television sets, which cannot decode encrypted broadcasts"
HDTV and digital "over the air broadcast" will never be accepted by the industry. They are trying to get a direct "named" pipe into your house (and wallet.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Most of the DMCA like laws prevent you from performing interlectual activities on media, even in your own home. Circumventing a copy protection system is a weird concept, since most if not all digital media can be coppied using 10+ year old technology (given enough time) it can hardly be called 'Copy' protection.
Bypassing DRM is also interesting, it effectivly says that you may not produce a tool that allows you to copy material 'unpacked' from a DRM system. now in the UK that can either be civil or criminal, in the case of criminal a media player that stores or sends 'unpacked' data in a digital form violates the law.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/standards/mpeg-2
The seven key elements defined in MPEG-21 are:
1.Digital Item Declaration (a uniform and flexible abstraction and interoperable schema for declaring Digital Items);
2. Digital Item Identification and Description (a framework for identification and description of any entity regardless of its nature, type or granularity);
3. Content Handling and Usage (provide interfaces and protocols that enable creation, manipulation, search, access, storage, delivery, and (re)use of content across the content distribution and consumption value chain);
4. Intellectual Property Management and Protection ( the means to enable content to be persistently and reliably managed and protected across a wide range of networks and devices );
5. Terminals and Networks (the ability to provide interoperable and transparent access to content across networks and terminals);
6. Content Representation (how the media resources are represented);
7.Event Reporting (the metrics and interfaces that enable Users to understand precisely the performance of all reportable events within the framework);
Combine this with the proposed DRM legistaltion in US/EU contries and then think about the business relationship you have with media companies.
It will change.
What's interesting is the genius of this approach - instead of hackers ripping off the movie industry, they would then be ripping off consumers - with every key cracked, more and more DVD players would become obsolete. Hence, both the tech factions and content factions stood to benefit from this arrangement.
The really interesting thing about this arrangement is that it is practical, though of limited effectiveness, and it requires no special legislation. If all copyrighted works were protected with such an encryption scheme, piracy would truly dwindle because the content providers could simply switch keys and render all of a hacker's previous efforts worthless. What really surprises me is that the content faction hasn't caught on. Here is a scheme which would allow them to literally make movies or songs unplayable after a certain length of time (say video rental...) and profit multiple times, and they are sleeping on it!
Instead, the content faction is fighting a losing battle against the tech faction. Computers, by their very nature need to make perfect copies to function, and any specialized hardware required for copy protection could simply be co-opted by a virtual machine. What is needed is a movie/music/book format which requires a licensed piece of hardware (say, a media board) to decrypt. Thus, those users who want to enjoy MPAA or RIAA licensed content would have to purchase a media board for their PC's, where as those who don't won't have their rights to create content taken away from them. Basically, there would be two types of content: unlicensed and licensed. Licensed content would require hardware decryption, whereas unlicenced content wouldn't. This solution works for both the content faction and the tech faction, without taking rights away from the individual to use their computers as they see fit.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Not surprisiingly, Jack Valenti has apparently started a road tour to promote this legislation. Today, there's a column by him in the Wall Street Journal, where he pleads:
"Families deserve to have options to watch movies on the Net, legally, at their command."
Touching, isn't it?
is to somehow get the digital consumer rights tacked on to the U.S. Constitution. If you think that's not the appropriate place for it, consider if the entire document were written today instead of over 200 years ago...don't you think that would have been one of the original ammendments?
I'm dreaming I know, but I wish I wasn't. If they outlaw useful computers, a black market for useful computers will erupt. Come to think of it, sounds a bit like prohibition.
At stake in this campaign, according to Eisner, is "the status quo of the American entertainment industry, the status quo of American consumers, the status quo of America's balance of international trade." Eisner was surrounded by the surviving members of the American Whip-makers Association and the Wainwright Guild of America.
I just got a response back from Senator Bill Nelson, in which he endorses the bills being put forth by Senator Hollings, such as the CBDTPA! And he's a Democrat! WTF?
So keep that in mind when voting next time...
"And like that
Surely it's illegal?
I've spent too much time being outraged about Fritz, Hillary, Eisner, and the whole gang. They are proclaiming the end of the world if they can't increase their revenues in light of technologocial advances that makes delievery of their products cheaper. And they seem to think it is their constitutional right to make a profit in an industry just because they could make a profit in the past.
Take the whole digital television aspect of things. The industry doesn't want us to be able to record those broadcasts for later viewing or distribution. Why? So they can trade syndications with each other (ala Full House, Saved By The Bell, Friends) and rebroadcast them to us when they feel we want to watch them. If the typical TV-loving American already has the past two years of his favorite sitcom PVR'd in its original broadcast quality (or a slightly lower quality), he won't be sure to tune in at 5:35 Monday through Friday to watch it on the Superstation, will he? So the Superstation won't be able to haul in as much advertising for that show.
There's nothing wrong with the above scenario. The TV station will either have to do something with that syndicate to make it really compelling (like not showing the same ~40 episodes over and over), or they'll get some new show to put in its place (Like "The Whoopi Goldberg Not-Quite-Famous Hollywood Crap-a-Thon").
Of course, the syndicates won't just go away, because home recording (or file swapping) still requires effort on behalf of the consumer, while tuning in for an episode hand-picked by the station is much easier. But the stations won't be able to get by as easily on cheap syndications. This new development might result in higher quality programming.
Another alternative (which is already starting) is for the stations to provide a nicely packaged alternative to the do-it-yourself approach: Sell the series on DVD. Throw in a nice menu, some scripts, outtakes, interviews, etc. and charge $60/season. The industry is doing the stuff that would be a hassle for consumers to do (be sure to record each episode, edit out / fast forward through commercials, transfer it to the desired medium) and throwing in some other stuff that the consumer didn't have before (i.e., new content).
The industries will fare much better if they find ways to compete with or benefit from the new technologies, rather than whine to the government until enough laws are passed. At this rate, they won't be satisfied until there is a royalty tax on computers just because we have the ability to copy their content with it (such as the royalty tax on blank CD-R's).
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in. Each listener requires an ongoing dialog with the server and a big chunk of bandwidth
Not with IP Multicast. You can broadcast UDP packets to entire networks across the globe from you. Of course, this assumes that all routers between you and them support multicast, and that's why MBONE is so important.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The problem is that most of these content companies have been living off of incredibly fat margins for way to long. As a result the company becomes incapable of modifing its business model in response to market conditions.
Take for example digital tv and a show such as "24" which is regularly on the peer networks hours after the show is aired without commercials.
Now the status quo is for the content creators to go ape shit and fight tooth and nail to keep these epsiodes off the internet to preserve the commercial value of thier property.
If these idiots had any brains they would look at the problem from another point of view. The consumers WANT this delivered via the internet medium. The trick is to deliver it WITHOUT destroying the commercial value.
When they start looking at the problem they will answer a number of questions
1) why do people download a show on the internet
- Well Probably 1 of 3 reasons. First they may not have a tv (college students), second they may have missed the episode and wish to view it at a later date. or finally they may wish to collect the epesodes for later viewing (in a series).
2) Is it easy to download shows.
- actually not. an hour show on a fast connection on a Peer network will take in excess of an 2 hours and the quality is questionable.
3) As soon as the show hits the internet will the commercials be ripped from it?
- well after reviewing the issue I think you will find that the answer is it depends. To record and compress a show is not an easy process for the technically inept and even less if they want to burn it to VCD. The reason people pull the commercials is First to save download time and second, it is a trivial process if you are already converting the file.
Now lets say I have some basic business sense. How much do you think people will pay for a commercial that is not only shown onece at one time slot but shown 100's of times in each household?
So now the question is how do I keep them downloading the program from me and keeping the commercials intact.
well lets see what we can do to make downloading the program from us attractive to the consumer.
Download time: Well I can provide a stable fast connection for consumers to download "24". rather then go through the peer networks. The trade off is that the commercials are intact
2) Quality. you can always count on our quality. there is nothing worse then waiting 2 hours for a download and it being in crap condition.
3) Format: Strangely enough We are gonna do this in open format. In addition we are going to make it VCD format so NO conversion is needed and it will neatly fit onto 1 CD (commercials and all). hell we will even give you the art work!!!
NOW do you really really think people are going to take the time to rip the commercials? Even if they did? Do you think anyone would bother going to the peer networks? In addition you can ask for peoples address (I dont have a problem with this) make money off the lists that you create. Plus commercials in the first run AND commercails
in download.
I think its time for the MPAA people to go back to business 101
How the hell do you crack a key?
I read "crack a key" as "deduce a key".
Easy. Simply try every possible key against the content, and take what looks like valid content (all high bits turned off for ASCII text; valid MPEG-2 headers for DVDs) . This works best with the shorter key lengths used in some popular ciphers. For example, CSS, a 40-bit cipher, should take about 13 days to crack at 1 million keys per second. However, many ciphers and systems have holes, and CSS's Achilles heel lies in the disk key system. Given only the hash of the disk key, the complexity of a brute-force attack reduces to 25-bit, which should take well under a minute on even a slow PIII.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In fact, as Federal
Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted
This is only a minor quibble, but Judge Posner is on the 7th circuit.
So they get it but don't get it. They concede that we'll probably do the right thing and pay the service, but they're still trying to paint users as being criminals. They acknowledge that they haven't provided the sort of service that users want and would pay for, but continue to state (elsewhere, not in this article) that we're only using the post-Napster services because we want to take without paying. They know that music lovers want to hear "new voices," implicitly agreeing that we're not getting that from traditional distribution models, but they still push lowest common denominator music as their highest priority.
I guess I should just be glad that they are making this much of a public acknowledgment and hope that these small steps continue.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
You can have my computer when you pry it out of my cold dead hands. The quote that entertainment industry efforts are, "little less than an attempt to outlaw general-purpose computers." by Selene Makarios sound right on target.
We hear of the GeekPAC and the EFF, and they are doing important work, but average people don't understand it. How can we digest the issue so that average people understand it, and see that when the entertainment industry wins, the people lose?
Court cases and congressional lobbying are very important, but they cannot be the end of our efforts. We here at slashdot are a widely dispersed, well educated, and well informed group. If we all make a local effort, we could make a huge impact. Imagine slashdotting the local dead tree bulletin boards.
We need to start a unified effort to educate the people around us. I'm not the person to do it, I don't know how. I can't even convince my wife that she should care. (She thinks it is an issue for programmers only, but she listened a little when I explained the library angle.)
What have you tried? How have you convinced people? Which arguments were most successful? Can we come up with a flyer design for other geeks to print and use? Is there a graphic designer out there with some spare time?
At the end of the day, all media must be decrypted to plaintext to allow human beings to experience the media.
This plaintext can ALWAYS be intercepted and copied.
Digital technology does not assure that exact duplicate copies can be made of encrypted media...it does mean that reasonble quality copies of the decoded plaintext (decoded in a crypto and compression sense) can be distributed and reproduced in an unlimited fashion without any FURTHER quality degradation.
No way around this, period. If a person can see or hear it, a computer can as well. It will be on gnutella, etc.
Nor do I think there is any watermark that cannot be removed, but this is a theoretical issue currently.
I mean, he's right. Come on! Reason is an outlet for Ayn Randites and the Libertarian Party to push their views. It's just the truth.
Democracy is downright amazing. You can even exercise your right to vote by using dollar bills!
You don't like that newfangled encrypted stuff, you don't buy the players or the media it plays. If you find a decent majority for that behaviour, it doesn't come to pass.
They will never take my computer. Good article. Is it a computer if you can't write any program on it??
Good points.
One technicality I'd like to point out. You said:
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit...
It will take an Amendment! And like Heston, they will get my DVD/VCD/MP3 player from my cold dead hands.
Actually, since the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...", they can't override that even with a Constitutional amendment. It would require the repeal of the First Amendment. Fat chance!
Them old crotchety white guys that started this place were pretty damn smart. (Too bad our ancestors ignored all their warnings and we became exactly what the Founding Fathers feared we would.)
Vinyl LPs used to come with a plethora of band related material (note Who album with assorted concert paraphenalia, etc.)
A true fan would love to have the original of this stuff. If you can't make money on cheaply duplicated bits, then maybe you can make it on "real stuff"
I agree with every word of that (except maybe the part about Pink Floyd -- not really my taste :-)
I haven't bought a CD in so long that I can't remember the last one. It's probably been 3+ years. I stopped buying CDs before I ever even discovered P2P MP3 sharing, primarily because there simply wasn't anything being released on CD that I wanted to hear bad enough to pay for the CD.
When you combine the almost complete lack of any quality, original music from the (large) record companies these days with the way radio plays only the top 40 (of any given format) into the ground, I have no use for CDs. Anything released by the record companies that I might care to hear, I can hear enough to be sick of it in a matter of weeks just by turning on my radio.
I mostly listen to local and/or indie bands these days. I would have no problem buying their self produced CDs as it helps them recover their production expense and there is no pimp taking a 95%+ cut off the top. For convenience sake, though, I normally grab the MP3s off gnutella and then pay the artist through www.fairtunes.com. (I also do this for the handful of major label artists I like. It's quite satisfying to know that I can donate $5 to them for the couple of good songs I like and they will get the equivalent of 10 CDs worth of record company royalties.)
I'll be damned if I'll ever pay $15 for two good songs again, especially when $14.50 of it is going to a pimp that is simply exploiting me and the artist.
Great! Then maybe really good singer/songwriters like Susan Z will be able to actually sell their CDs, and I'll finally be able to listen to decent music!!! Yes... Yes... YES!!!
Uh, US != the world. Given a choice between buying a US designed system which severly restricts your use, versus a system from overseas (ordered over the internet) which has no such restrictions, and is significantly cheaper precisely because it does not need to enforce those restrictions, which would you choose? Most of our computer components already come from overseas; this bill would simple force the entire computer industry to pack up and move offshore. Smart move, Hollings! The only way it could possibly work is if it banned the importation of any computer systems that are not crippled to meet US regulations... then we'd have a US "War on foreign computers" that would be almost as effective as our "War on drugs". Plus, any restrictions enforced by Software could be easily circumvented by downloading software from the Internet via secure connections to overseas servers...
Personally, I think driving the entire PC industry underground and overseas would counterproductive, and inevitably give the average consumer more access to methods to defeat copy-protection rather than less. Don't beleive me? Shop around the the internet for DVD players that defeat regional encoding and/or macrovision. They are plentiful and cost little more than non-modified players.
CD (at Costco): $11.99
DVD of live concert performance (at Costco): $12.99
For a dollar more, I get a live performance which is much better, or at the very least, DIFFERENT from the crap played on the radio, plus eye candy to entertain people whilst listening. Plus the DVD audio is higher fidelity, and gives me the options of 5.1 dolby surround sound! Now if I could just figure out how to rip the DVD audio into MP3s...
Perhaps if the content faction saw enough of these, they wouldn't be trying so hard to outlaw computers as anything more than glorified TVs.
I, (insert name here), promise not to knowingly copy, transmit, view, or listen to any content produced or distributed by RIAA or MPAA companies on any computers I own or use.
Now I can use my computer exactly as I did before without some corporate lawyer breathing down my neck.
Notice I didn't use the verb enjoy, since that wouldn't apply to most of this content anyways.
---
For your protection, a copy of this message is being sent via RFC 1149.
Its not Digital Rights Management.. Its digital control.. Its digital control embedded into every entertainment device, storage medium, and computer in the world.