Slashdot Mirror
Gilmore On Hardware-Restricted Content
An unnamed reader links to John Gilmore's explanation of just why it's a bad idea to let companies (Intel in particular) cave to industry demands for so-called content protection in hardware. The upshot is that if such measures really are built in, the general-purpose computer may not have long to live.
The sad fact of the matter is that as long as a product does at least the minimum requirements, people don't care. That's why eBay can get away with pop-up ads. That's why people buy software with EULAs which take away their right to fair use. That's why we cave in and sign up just to read NYTimes articles. That's why we put up with BFAs and inane copyright restrictions on slashdot. It's why Microsoft gets away with charging people over and over for the same operating system, just because they buy a new computer.
Computers, the internet, the world could be so much better. But people constantly settle for mediocrity.
This one IS appropriate for the YRO section. You should have the right to buy any computer, with or without copy protection in hardware. Of course, this is not a right that's very well protected by the Constitution.
.NET runtime included, or if AOL wanted to madate inclusion of AOL software(Ironically, MS, Sun, and AOL have been pretty successful at distribution of their clients, even without legislation).
Efforts to force inclusion of hardware copy protection are simply the work of a special-interest group. It's as if Microsoft or Sun wanted a law that mandated that every computer have the Java or
That's what Hollywood is trying to accomplish, to use legislation to build their distribution channel. Get off your asses and figure it out yourselves.
I'm not sure how likely the hardwired "content protection" scenario is... but, a pessimist by nature, I think we should start preparing as though it is going to happen. :)
The simplest version is if Intel unilaterally decided to cave in to Disney, AOL/TW, RIAA etc. and build its own hardware with little censor chips in them. In this case, the response is straight-up economic. Turn to alternative hardware vendors. I don't just mean in your personal purchases. Slashdot readers who are sysadmins or IT specialists at corporations should start preparing their explanations of why the company really should move away from the risks inherent in having unintelligent censorware control the use of potentially mission-critical data. If large corporate clients start abandoning Intel as a result of content-control, you can guess which product-line will get scrapped pretty quick.
The two other scenarios are legislation and regulation that will prevent anyone from seeking out alternatives, by making those alternatives illegal. This is more problematic, because slashdotters punch well below their weight politically. However, in both cases there will be a political "hook" - in the case of legislation, one can write one's congresscritter (for whatever good that will do), and in the case of FCC regulation, there will be a notice-and-comment period. So take notice, and make comments
As a penultimate line of defense, there is always the courts. In addition to the obvious first amendment claims, there could be an interesting "restraint of trade" (antitrust) claim based on denial of "essential facilities" (computing services).
In the long run, however, I think the answer to content protection is, "fine, go take away your ball and go play with it by yourself. I have a better game now." When all manner of content (not just free software) is made without any desire to restrict it, and when that content is both quantitively and qualitatively superior to restricted content, there will be no point to having hardwired censors. Even if people all use "approved" monitors and computers, they will be using them to view "free content" (free as in free speech, not free beer). So the "oligarchy" will wither, and there will no longer be any significant force pushing Intel to continue making hardwired censors...
How likely is that end-scenario? *shrug* Ask yourselves.
I've said this before, but it's important and needs saying. The most important part of what Gilmore is saying is the bit about 'A mandate from all concerned parties' without consultation of consumers. You just know that the 'content industry' would argue that consumers are /never/ going to ask for their rights to be curtailled, but that's exactly the point.
The *essence* of copyright is that all the people got together and said 'Let's curtail our rights, let's say that if any of us wants to copy something that someone else wrote, they have to pay for it, for a limited period of time'. They did this to promote the public domain - to get more stuff written by allowing authors a temporary monopoly on their works.
But the point is, the moment the public mandate for copyright is gone, there can be **no** justification for copyright. It's not a moral right. It's not a natural right. This isn't like saying that we shouldn't kill people. The point is that it's a mutual agreement on the part of a population, for their own gain. And the moment society decides it doesn't get anything from copyright any more copyright is defunct. You can't argue 'But copying is *wrong*'. It's not. All that is wrong, and all that would make copying wrong, is if everyone in society has decided to take on this copyright burden, and a few people decided they would be freeloaders.
As it is, I think that time has come. Clearly people no longer thing there's anything to be gained from copyright. I'm inclined to agree. Once, it took a long time to copy a book, and if you 'published' something, copyright was your only protection from other people selling it. But as it is now, the moment you start selling a book, a CD or whatever, you can publish so many copies that there would be no point in others trying to sell the same thing. Once a book is on the store shelves, nobody is going to type up the whole book, lay it out, and print it - there just wouldn't be any point. The person that got their first would be such an advantage due to having a head-start that they'd make tons of money anyway...
I won't buy a harddisk where I am not in 100% control of what is on there, no way no how. I will never allow a company to buy it, as it more than likely will affect the business negativily (not being able to make proper backups, harddisks refusing to copy files, compiles going down the drain, servers fucking up).
The day I notice that I have bought a CD that I can't play in my computer or portable CD player I will go back and raise hell, I will refuse to ever buy that crap.
Why oh why do they have to punish people who want to buy quality versions of CDs/DVDs etc. Give me great quality and great price and I will buy, make me WANT to buy your products, give me a reason. Bullying me will piss me off. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you get pissed too.
Gilmore's main points:
1) The costs of copy protected systems aren't paid by the "content" holders -- they are paid for by consumers. Essentially, you will end up paying more for a less capable computer, while Disney laughs its way to the bank.
2) For a copy protected computer to work, every peripheral -- from monitors to speakers -- must have copy protection built in. Think you're having trouble getting your Wintel box to behave now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
3) This is all being decided by government, so that no rogue manufacturers can ship non-protected computers. If that weren't the case, Apple might skip imposing copy protection, and we'd see 75% of Wintel users buying Macs so that they could avoid copy protection.
Gilmore seems puzzled by the fact that Intel isn't telling the content companies to cram it. Obviously, Intel must think it's financially in their best interest to side with the content guys. Why they feel this way hasn't been answered.
It seems the pivotal question here is: will the Hollings bills require all manufacturers to build end-to-end protection throughout their computers and peripherals? If not, what degree of protection does the bill require?
A wrinkle in this that nobody has thought of. Suppose end-to-end encryption is required. Each company's protection would be a little different, as we're talking about hundreds of components from various vendors. It might turn out that Apple or AMD sort of messes up their encryption (oops!) -- and by that "mistake" captures 75% of the computer market. After all, would you rather own a machine with rock-solid protection, or one that has a huge chink in the armor?
I know I'd want to buy my computer from the supplier who was most competent at designing machines and least competent at providing 100% protection of content.
Want to start a successful computer company? Just hire designers who don't know or care about ensuring robust protection.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
I'm reminded of the Apex DVD player in which the engineers "forgot" to remove the "loopholes" menu which enabled switching NTSC/PAL, setting region, and disabling Macrovision. I immediately bought one.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Spare me the crap. Since when are the media businesses failing? I have yet to see a major media outlet come remotely close to bankruptcy _ever_.
Piracy as a term is a joke anyway. There are numerous reasons why it's good.
1. Try before you buy.
2. Equalization of overpricing.
3. And most importantly, free movement of expressions and ideas, the way things should be.
The society in which we live that is, in effect, fairly unchangable by any one person, needs to change. We can not possibly hope to better ourselves as a species while we're squabling over our paychecks.
A money-less society is of course utopian but if we can't go all the way lets at least try to make it some of the way. I'm not saying the people that create music and movies and other forms of entertainment shouldn't be compensated. I'm saying they shouldn't be grossly compensated, as a majority of them are.
And it's only common sense that the industry middlemen are jokes in suits. To those people: stop leeching off of other people's talent and whining when you don't have enough cash to buy that island you want.
To those people that their rebuttal will be: "Stop pirating! You're the leech". I find that comment silly, I profit in no way from any piracy. I may not have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to have the artists' (and in some instances, others' like the government) make an impression on me and keeping me from being bored for an hour or two. But face it, if you do pay the outrageous prices they ask, you're part of the problem.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Another distortion of the basic idea came when they started granting copyrights to people who performed the works. Actors are not authors, singers are not authors. They are just doing a job, and should be paid - just once - for doing it, like all other workers. Why should Britney Spears or any other singer be paid millions for singing a song that someone else, probably a 9-to-5 office worker, wrote?
Because there's quite a lot of effort that goes into crafting a style--easily as much effort goes into RECORDING a song as does WRITING it. Plus, a performer's copyright only applies to their performance. Remember: the constitution was written before timeshifting music was possible at all.
If the intent of the Constitution were to be applied, only people who wrote something, be it books, plays, screen scripts, music, watever, would be entitled to own copyrights.
No, that'd be the letter. The Constitution's copyright / patent powers are there so Congress can protect the right of "creative people" to their work for a "limited time." The fact that both of these definitions has been extended to a much longer period of time is neither unexpected (we live longer, and people are creating new ways to create things) nor, in itself, a problem.
(The problem, btw, lies in distorting the IP rules to apply to something else [copyrighting what should be patented, patenting what should be trademarked] and continually pressing the "limited time" part of copyright.)
I don't agree with piracy (and I think the whole Napster thing was a bigger SETBACK than anyone realizes). BUT, no system is perfect. There are losses and inefficiencies involved in any kind of market conduit, and the digital realm is no exception. That having been said, I think there's a difference between taking measures to minimize piracy, and extracting every possible nickel and dime from your revenue nodes (formerly known as customers). The proposed methods are particularly insidious, because they shackle the vast majority of those who are honest. This has already become more trouble than it's worth for me (which is why I don't buy, rent, or steal CDs, videos, or DVDs), and with any luck, mor people will begin to see the light. There IS life on the other side.
This one IS appropriate for the YRO section. You should have the right to buy any computer, with or without copy protection in hardware. Of course, this is not a right that's very well protected by the Constitution.
... one with virtually no rights and few liberties, and one we are now going to be very hard pressed to change.
It is a right very well protected by the constitution. Any powers not explicitly granted the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states, for municipalities, or for the people (10th amendment).
The Federal government has been granted no explicit authority by the constitution to regulate the sale or construction of computers.
The problem is that the government hasn't been abiding by the constitution for at least 70 years now, so we really can't expect it to start now.
Instead, for the sake of expediency over constitutional law, the courts routinely misuse the so-called commerce clause to extend the federal government's powers into all kinds of areas it is constitutionally barred from, but are nevertheless popular with the people to regulate anyway (War on Drugs, Child Pornography, etc.). By diluting the power of the constitution with these causes, irrespective of their legitemacy, we are now in a situation where real social and political pressures are coming to bear on our way of government (the Copyright Cartels' attacks on our most basic freedoms, the War on Terrorism and many of the unconstitutional methods being used to wage it domestically, not to mention the recent election debacle), and we no longer have a strong constitutional foundation to fall back on.
We sold it cheap in the name of "the children" to wage our War on Drugs, our War On Pedophiles, now our War on Terrorism and, comming soon to a computer near you, Our War On Copyright Violators.
The future is no longer terribly bright. Indeed, by selling out our most fundamental values for a perceived short term societal gain (who wouldn't want child pornographers jailed?) we've now insured that the future is a dark, bleak, ugly place
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This raises only one question in my mind:
What would it take to deny Hollings the democratic nomination in his next election bid? This is really the only way to stop him (others of his ilk will respond when they see him die a thousand deaths).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The 'content' companies like Disney etc. are trying to use legislation and technology to stop progress and allow them to keep making profits. This is such a short sighted view.
As a (hypothetical) example, take music CDs. A new CD costs £15 over here, and before I buy it I can hear maybe one song off it on the radio if I'm lucky. That's a big investment for something I might only listen to once. So I don't buy many CDs, and I rip oggs of other peoples' music.
But what if the music companies offered different versions of CDs? A cheap one, with just a paper sleeve and the name on the front for a three or four pounds, and a 'premium' edition with extras, proper case, lyric sheet etc at full price?
The fans will buy the full price disc anyway, and everyone else will buy the cheap one. Thus, more sales, less copying(why bother copying when you it doesn't cost you much to get a proper copy?). Greater listening audience means more fans in the future, leads to more sales of the premium version.
I get the music I want without breaking the law, the music industry gets to make its profits still. Everyone is happy. Or is this a dangerous communist anti-american view that will have FBI agents trying to get me extradited?
if I can see it or hear it then I will have it in a form that is not controlled by them. They cant stop it and they never will short of creating laws that have the death penalty attached to it. Even then I dont see it stopping. Documents,movies,video,music,audio,art. it will exist in open and unrestricted forms in greater numbers and shared rampantly no matter what they do or what they try.
Why? because the general populace will never be stupid enough to believe that when they buy a CD or DVD they didn't buy anything but are only holding a delicate license to view it a limited number of times until the morther company wants to revoke it for any reason. The general public wont put up with it... and we dont.. looking at how "protected cd's" get ripped and on Gnutella,kazza,opennap,etc... minutes after release is proof enough.
Hey Movie companies, recording companies, writers, actors, musicians.. Thanks for the entertainment, but try and tell me how to enjoy it? then you can go straight to hell and
It's time we all stand up and collectivally flip off anyone that is for content control.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Okay, let's assume this becomes U.S. law. Now, is the rest of world going
/billion/
to say: Hey, look at this new technology invented by the U.S. government
that will let U.S. industry control our computers and stereos and CD
players to protect the interests of giant U.S. media corporations. Wow!
What a fantastic idea! Let's adopt it!
I think not.
I don't see the Germans buying computers with U.S. mandated content control
chips for their parliament, or Sony putting in U.S. designed chips into the
CD players they sell in Tokyo, or the Russians forcing all tape decks off
their market that haven't been approved by some U.S. media consortium. The
idea that the U.S. can force the rest of the world to implement what will
be immediately seen as a U.S. designed and controlled crypto system into
every machine that blinks, beeps, or boots is so brain dead that you just
know it can only come from a member of the U.S. Congress.
This is the Clipper Chip all over again.
When it comes down to it, the rest of the planet doesn't give a rat's ass
if their citizens aren't cooperating when 20th Century Fox, Microsoft, or
AOL-Time-Warner try to make the next billion Dollars so that these
<I>American</I> companies can get richer, give that money to their <I>American</I>
stockholders and top <I>American</I> executives and maybe even pay <I>American</I>
taxes that help finance <I>American</I> infrastructure, or, to put it bluntly,
the <I>American</I> military machine. They'd rather see their citizens spend
their money on local bratwursts, sushi, or vodka: That way it gets fed back
into the local economy.
their citizens rip, copy, and burn anything out of America they possibly
can. If you are a Chinese CS student, you can either spend money on a
Windows license, which means that your Yuan would join those 40
Dollars that Microsoft is stockpiling to buy Iceland and turn the whole
place into a ski resort for their top executives. Or, you can pirate the
Windows CD, and spend that money on, say, a Chinese book on C programming
at your local Beijing book store and kick those running imperialist
pig-dogs with Red Flag Linux. China is interested in getting their economy
on an information age footage, and they need operating systems for that,
the less expensive, the better. Why should they want machines that prevent
that?
No, what will happen if that law is passed - and remember, we're talking
about the country blissfully that is ignoring the fact that the rest of the
world has basically adopted one common mobile phone standard (not to
mention the metric system), still transfers money by sending slips of paper
in the mail, and who live with a television standard that is aptly named NTSC
- Never The Same Color - is that those people in Taiwan and Korea will
happily produce hobbled computer, CD, radio, TV, DVD and other parts for
the U.S. market, while continuing to ship the free technology to the rest
of the world. Hey, it's a global economy with billions of people hungry
for computers, and only about 270 million Americans who's computer market
is saturated anyway. What would you do?
Now because Content Controlled America is getting specially made parts,
they immediately miss out on the price cutting effects of mass production.
In other words: Hardware and electronics prices in the U.S. skyrocket,
because the other 5.75 billion people on the planet are using the old,
free, trusted, mass produced hardware, while Americans effectively have to
have every chip custom built. What we have after a few years of this is a
/hardware fork/ - the U.S. goes off into one direction, the other countries
in the other.
In the mean time, U.S. customs has started rectal searches of all
long-haired males coming back from Paris, France to make sure they aren't
smuggling free RAM into the country. You can't buy a CD in Britain because
they won't run on your content controlled player - just like the DVD
regional codes, but for real. And your TV station doubles the number of ads
during the next Olympics because they had to pay for those signals to be
transfered into U.S. content controlled format...
Great idea, guys.
What is your problem with allowing people to use CD's/movies they legally own in the way they want to. It's far more convient to me to have all my CD's in Ogg format on my hard drive than have to switch cd's all day.