MS Backs Down On Encrypted Digital TV Recording

karrde writes "CNet (and others) is reporting that: 'Microsoft has bowed to consumer pressure and pulled back from a controversial plan that would have encrypted TV shows recorded on forthcoming digital media PCs.' One could hope that this will be the first many decisions in this direction."

Comments

MS bow to consumer pressure?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just take a different route towards keeping people away from the data. And be sneaky about it.

Re:MS bow to consumer pressure?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you read the article, it talks about their solution to this....the burned disc's can only be played back through Windows Media Player 9 and the latest version of XP...thus keeping in the Microsoft realm....I suppose you will need to constantly upgrade your media player and OS into perpetuity to continue to use this 'feature'.

Re:MS bow to consumer pressure?

[SamTheButcher]

Glad someone said this in the first post so I didn't have to write it or read further.

Re:MS bow to consumer pressure?

[mackstann]

the thing i wonder about is whether MS will ever settle down and become reasonable. what will happen?

will they continue to be the absolute lunatics they are right now and just get either 1. shut down or 2. go out of business out of lack of popularity?

or perhaps will they continue to be absolute lunatics and end up doing what we all have nightmares about (ok i do ;)) - enslave the masses to a closed, restricting, invasive computing environment, and possibly shut out the rest of us and force the entire internet to either go MS or get shut out?

but that seems extremely doubtful....too many goverments and companies are going OSS and OSS just seems to be making advances. so will we end up striking a balance some day? or will OSS take over the world and become the new goliath?

i wonder.....
</rambling mindless drivel>

Re:MS bow to consumer pressure?

[Anonymous Coward]

This and the Linux X-Box are both typical misdirections.
Microsoft is the king of "embrace and undercut", as
Microsoft itself has done with InfoZIP.

see MS02-054 for the transparent push for
"NTFS compression" over ZIP, because their OWN
"embraced" implimentation of zip has admitted vulnerabilities.

Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. When will MS ever learn that people *will* actually vote with their spending power.

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. When will MS ever learn that people *will* actually vote with their spending power.

They will learn when people vote with their spending power.

Re:Interesting.

[jukal]

> Interesting. When will MS ever learn that people *will* actually vote with their spending power

Ummm. 1975?

Re:Interesting.

[MaxVlast]

One suspects that if they're *bowing to consumer pressure* they're doing so as a result to people voting with their spending power. It's not because of goodwill.

Follow through...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they will bow to even more consumer pressure and allow filtering of commercials.

But I suppose it would be too much to hope for...

Re:Follow through...

[mrobinso]

> Maybe they will bow to even more consumer
> pressure and allow filtering of commercials.

Yeah, and maybe while they're at it they'll bow even further and fix Windows.

This can't be good.

[beleg777]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of the consumer. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

(relax, it's a joke)

Re:This can't be good.

[mbogosian]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of the consumer. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

No, it's a sign that:

a.) the consumer was wrong
b.) MS has found another way to do the same thing without the consumer finding out
c.) all of the above

Seriously, though, this has happened before. Just keep an eye out in the future.

Re:This can't be good.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Microsoft did something in the best interests of the consumer. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?"

Don't worry, the conspirists will come up with a way to spin-doctor this article to sound like MS has found a new way to screw people. It's already happening on Slashdot.

It does make me curious: which distros of Linux provide similar PVR support. Mmmm?

Re:This can't be good.

[Soko]

Don't worry, the conspirists will come up with a way to spin-doctor this article to sound like MS has found a new way to screw people. It's already happening on Slashdot.

The realists will know that Microsoft did this to make thier product sell better and actually make money. Like any good business, they'll only screw people if it increases shareholder value, right? Well, this time Microsoft customers didn't have to drink the Kool-aid, so forced copy protection has been shelved. Not scraped, but shelved...

It does make me curious: which distros of Linux provide similar PVR support. Mmmm?

Heard of Tivo? Ok, that's not a distro. Must be in here somewhere though...

Soko

Re:This can't be good.

[Kazymyr]

It does make me curious: which distros of Linux provide similar PVR support. Mmmm?

TiVo.

Re:This can't be good.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG the apocalypse is/may be comming!!! let's go out to pillage and riot!

Re:This can't be good.

[Jason Earl]

MS has just realized that they aren't a media company, and that people buying new computers to copy music, movies, and television to share with their friends is good for their business.

Microsoft will revive their encryption work when Hollywood gives Microsoft and Windows exclusive access their content. In other words Microsoft won't lift a finger to encrypt Hollywood's content until Hollywood promises to lock out all of Microsoft's competitors. Hollywood is opposing Microsoft in their bid to become the "one ring to rule them all," because they know that if they let Microsoft become the gatekeeper then Microsoft will rig the rig the deck so that Microsoft is the future keystone of broadcasting and distribution. And we all know that the toll-gate keeper makes all the money on a new road.

It's basically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Right now the folks pirating content seem like the lesser evil. Microsoft has enough clout so that they could force the market into using their DRM solution, but Hollywood doesn't trust Microsoft with that kind of power. Hollywood is hoping that they can get Congress to legislate DRM. That would allow them to get an industry standard instead of a proprietary Microsoft solution. Personally I don't see that happening, but Hollywood lives in a land of make believe.

Re:This can't be good.

[Per Wigren]

We're working on it! And it will be good! Just wait a few months until our upcoming features is in place! Development is going very fast right now!

Re:This can't be good.

[taniwha]

ummm ... this is only the media apocalypse .... and napster and kazaa are waay ahead of you ....

Re:This can't be good.

[trueaveragejoe]

Well, I don't think anyone would buy a product to record video that would only be playable with it. This is the reason why VHS succeeded because VHS is playable anywhere and consumers can create their own. It is in the best interest of both Microsoft and the consumer.

Re:This can't be good.

[Anonymous Coward]

which distros of Linux provide similar PVR support.

1) Install Linux
2) Install avifile, which includes codecs and a "VCR" appplication that provides PVR functionality.

Microsoft Security Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they pulled back on encryption because they wanted to make money for it by selling it later. What is next, ms offering security packages for microsoft keyboard and mouse?

Make up the damn minds

[ThundaGaiden]

MS has quiet a big dillema on their hands now :P 1. Make a product that the RIAA (Retarded Institute of Anti Anything) will be proud of or 2. Make a product that no one will want to buy... btw. What happens when it blue screens and you have to re-install (MS-Product , it's gauranteed) will you still be able to watch the movies you've already recorded ?

Re:Make up the damn minds

[ThundaGaiden]

Appologies 1st post will get formatting right next time

MS has quiet a big dillema on their hands now

1. Make a product that the RIAA (Retarded Institute of Anti Anything) will be proud of or

2. Make a product that no one will want to buy... btw. What happens when it blue screens and you have to re-install (MS-Product , it's gauranteed) will you still be able to watch the movies you've already recorded ?

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Twice now you've said that the RIAA-approved product is not the one that no one will want to buy.

Judging from your clever acronym, I'd say you're anti-RIAA. There's a big fat flaw in what you typed, which made what you posted the exact opposite of what you probably intended. Take a peek at it again.

Third time's a charm, no?

Re:Make up the damn minds

[ncc74656]

MS has quiet a big dillema on their hands now

1. Make a product that the RIAA (Retarded Institute of Anti Anything) will be proud of or
2. Make a product that no one will want to buy

Aren't these the same thing? I'd think nobody would want to buy the crippled appliance that the **AAs would force on us (BTW, in the context of the article, I think you meant to say "MPAA" and not "RIAA"), while the **AAs don't want an easy-to-use, open device ever get shelf space in stores.

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

heh probably dont need to be so sarcastic but yes win2k is solid as a rock

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Zelet]

God, stop posting on slashdot!

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Zelet]

Guys, you misinterpreted that comment. I meant that you would have to have God like powers in order to keep Windows from blue screening. It was a JOKE. :)

Re:Make up the damn minds

[swschrad]

it's the original DIVX loser philosophy popping up in another hole. circuit city almost had to be run into the ground economically before they got the hint. does that mean we have to take M$ to chapter 7 before somebody picks up the clue that we don't eat this shit up? that could take a while.

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

"yes win2k is solid as a rock"

I disagree. It is more solid than some previous Windows versions, but I experience numerous problems with Win2k SP2 (I refuse to install sp3 because of the EULA) on 2 systems - including one gem where Windows explorer just gets moody at random times, hangs, cannot be terminated, and forces me to do a hard reset. Running NT SP6A on the same system, I have no such problems.

Based on my experience, rocks would be offended by your comparison. BTW, does anyone know how many of the 20,000 bugs that were in the first release of 2000 have been fixed? Must be 12-14 by now.

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Dwonis]

My experience with Win2000 on the servers at work (I work at a web hosting company) is that it rarely bluescreens. However, they still need to be booted every day or two, because random things just subtly stop working properly.

Also, I think Win2000 reboots (rather than bluescreening) by default, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Win2000 reboots (rather than bluescreening) by default, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

I have had one blue screen (it's a different shade of blue IIRC) on Win2k. Possibly the server configuration reboots (which sort of makes sense for unattended operation). I use the workstation version. As I said in the grandparent, explorer just hangs (anywhere form one minute to several hours after booting), task manager cannot kill the task and it won't shut down. So I have to hit the reset button. I have searched and searched MS's site, the 'net and newsgroups, found lots of reasons for the Win2K explorer to hang, tried many suggestions, and a year later, it still hangs on me. Luckily, I can do most of what I need with NT on the same machine. If you want my opinion, MS changed it so that most things will cause a hang rather than BSOD and then said "Look! Less BSOD's!" Some improvement:-{

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

W2000 bluescreens.... trust me.

The only difference is they do not offer you the chance to continue, it just goes blue for a second then reboots (I spose they were hoping we wouldnt notice)

Re:Make up the damn minds

[FleshWound]

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

Just because you say it, that doesn't make it so.

You said your copies of 98, NT, 2000, and XP never bluescreen. I guess you're a newbie. It's not the install disks that bluescreen. It's the computer running the OS.

Sorry. Old habits die hard. You see, I've been using computers since before you were a twitch in your daddy's pants, and back then, programs were "installed" simply by copying the files from the floppy disk (yes, we actually used floppy disks...and not the ones you're used to, either; these were 5¼" floppies) to the hard drive. Thus, an "installation" was also known as a "copy."

Technically, that's almost the same procedure as today. Files are still copied to the hard drive (occasionally from floppies, but more often than not from some sort of CD-like medium, or simply from an install file downloaded from the Internet). The main difference is now (with Windows machines, that is) that in addition to the file copying that occurs, there are also system modifications that are made (such as to the registry). However, one could argue that even those procedures are still "copying," since the installation routine simply copies predefined data into the registry.

So, in short, if you had an IQ of at least half of what God gave a doorknob, you would realize that when I said my "copies" of Windows, I was feferring to my "installations" of Windows.

Oh yes, it really sounds like you do.

I do. I don't know how you could have inferred otherwise from my brief posting.

I'd like to know how you can not "let" a computer bluescreen. They usually do it without first getting permission from the user.

The first rule of computers: a computer doesn't do anything you don't tell it to do. I simply avoid telling my computer to bluescreen.

It's a rather siumple concept, but luckily for me (as fixing other people's computers is my livelyhood), the ignorant masses (which, it seems, includes yourself) haven't caught on yet.

You never turn the power on. Or you run Linux.

Nope. Neither. I run some flavor of Windows (again: 98, NT, 2000, and XP) on ALL of my boxes, and they are ALL on (and booted into their respective version of Windows) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Now, if you'd like to reply (though I doubt you will, as you'll be too busy trying to repair your bruised ego), at least have the cojones to post under your login. Anonymous Coward, indeed.

Re:Make up the damn minds

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a choice of whether it blue screens or not. The system blue screens for many different reasons, and maybe you haven't run into any of them. But I give you a big *cough* Bullshit! *cough* if you claim you have anything to do with that.

Here's a list of possibilities, turd.
http://www.ntbrad.com/bsod.htm

Re:Make up the damn minds

[FleshWound]

You don't have a choice of whether it blue screens or not.

You do if you know what you're doing.

But I give you a big *cough* Bullshit! *cough* if you claim you have anything to do with that.

Good for you. Just because you said it, that doesn't make it so.

We can't put too much stock in this

[bsharitt]

As much as we would like to see this as a step in the right direction, it's probably not time to bet the farm on it.

In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards consumer rights, only to to take a couple step back in their next move.

Hallelujia

[E-Rock-23]

Now all we need is for MS to back off and rewrite their EULAs so they don't have the power to just mosey in, make changes to your system, and never tell you a thing.

For DRM reasons, I wasn't planning on getting a digital TV. The more steps backward that MS takes, the more inclined I'll be to improve my TV viewing experience. Now all that we as consumers have to do is keep up the pressure and let Gates and Company know that we're not about to just give in to their ideals. See? If consumers just speak up, we can get companies to listen. It's not fiction, and this is just a small snippet of proof. I'm looking forward to more stories like this one...

Re:Hallelujia

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Now all we need is for MS to back off and rewrite their EULAs so they don't have the power to just mosey in, make changes to your system, and never tell you a thing.

They rewrote the WMP 6.4 and 7.1 security update EULA to remove the onerous "root access" provision.

Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in the applicable OS Product ("DRM") to protect the integrity of their content ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of the applicable OS Product and third party applications such as media players use DRM to play Secure Content ("DRM Software"). If the DRM Software's security has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke the DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content. A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. YOU THEREFORE AGREE THAT MICROSOFT MAY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH LICENSE, ALSO DOWNLOAD REVOCATION LISTS ONTO YOUR COMPUTER ON BEHALF OF SECURE CONTENT OWNERS. Microsoft will not retrieve any personally identifiable information, or any other information, from your computer by downloading such revocation lists. Secure Content Owners may also require you to upgrade some of the DRM components in the applicable OS Product ("DRM Upgrades") before accessing their content. When you attempt to play such content, Microsoft DRM Software will notify you that a DRM Upgrade is required and then ask for your consent before the DRM Upgrade is downloaded. Third party DRM Software may do the same. If you decline the upgrade, you will not be able to access content that requires the DRM Upgrade; however, you will still be able to access unprotected content and Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.

Re:Hallelujia

[Anonymous Coward]

The more steps backward that MS takes, the more inclined I'll be to improve my TV viewing experience.

The best way to improve your TV viewing experience is...to stop watching.

Re:Hallelujia

[poot_rootbeer]

"I don't watch television. Notice that I didn't say 'TV', because 'TV' is a nickname and nicknames are for friends and believe me, television is no friend of mine."

Go listen to your Dickie Crickets wax cylinders, you smug elitist prick.

MS bows to *HP* pressure

[kawika]

Read the article. Sony already has a competing product that doesn't strip our fair use rights. HP probably pressured Microsoft on this point pretty heavily. If it comes down to a contest over what the well-funded geek buys for the holidays, HP knew that Sony would win. I'm sure that MS still wants to kiss up to Hollywood, but they can't ignore their customer and they didn't want to take the blame for poor sales if they held firm.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[Hallucinosis]

It's hard to believe Sony, of all companies, would make a product that didn't strip your fair use rights, or at least make the format proprietary.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[arkane1234]

I donno.. Sony may have a bad rap from some of their moves, but all in all I have to say that they are a good company. They've been seeing how far they can flex their arms recently, but other than that they're pretty decent.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[Jason Earl]

The problem is that Sony is also a content company. You can bet that they aren't going out of their way to make it easy to copy and share music, but apparently they don't mind if you copy television, since they don't produce any of it.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[Eccles]

It's hard to believe Sony, of all companies, would make a product that didn't strip your fair use rights, or at least make the format proprietary.

Remember it was Sony that fought for VCR time-shifting rights in the 80's. As both an electronics and a content company -- and I think they're more the former than the latter -- they can be rather two-faced depending on which part of the company you're hearing from.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[The_Rook]

it has less to do with being a good company and more to do with being rather poorly managed.

sony is one of those balkanized conglomerates where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. remember, if they were better organized, we'd have minidisc data by now for desktop computers.

in this case, the peecee side of the business plows on ahead without consulting the movie production side of the business. and neither are coordinated with the professional video end of the business. i've interviewed sony executives when writing magazine articles and different parts of the company really don't talk to each other. the company is a dozen different divisions united by a common web site.

Re:MS bows to *HP* pressure

[David Gerard]

Remember that at the time of the Betamax case, they were not in fact a content company. That came when they bought CBS in 1989?90?. The two sections are still not integrated, over a decade later.

You know how this is going to work...

[mhesseltine]

1. MS bows to public pressure against encrypted recording
2. MS releases recording software
3. Public finds huge gaping security hole / bug in software
4. MS releases SP1 containing, you guessed it, encryption software for recording
5. Public is left with three options
   • Patch up to the encrypted version
   • Leave their system open
   • Find some new software

Knowing what we know about the general public, which do you think is going to happen?

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[PunchMonkey]

1. MS bows to public pressure against encrypted recording
2. MS releases recording software
3. Public finds huge gaping security hole / bug in software
4. MS releases SP1 containing, you guessed it, encryption software for recording
5. Public is left with three options
* Patch up to the encrypted version
* Leave their system open
* Find some new software

Knowing what we know about the general public, which do you think is going to happen?

Which do I think is going to happen? I'd put my bets on #3. #1 sounds highly unlikely ;-)

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Safety Cap]

The real answer is

* Leave their system open

Heck, BugBear is such a big deal only because nobody bothered to apply a security patch that was issued 18 months ago!

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Wes Janson]

LOL. You're assuming the general public is intelligent enough to A: keep informed about the security of it's systems, B: motivated enough to actually seek out patches for something, and C: intelligent enough to get the fixes to work. My bet is that if MS tried to do that, the public's own stupidity would protect them.

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[wraithgar]

>Heck, BugBear is such a big deal only because nobody bothered to apply a security patch that was issued 18 months ago [microsoft.com]!

...Which only fuels microsoft's argument towards automagic, behind-your-back updates to your computer. "We need to do it for the general stability of the internet (and will make it DRM compliant while we're in there)"

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[arkane1234]

1. MS bows to public pressure against encrypted recording
2. MS releases recording software
3. Public finds huge gaping security hole / bug in software
4. MS releases SP1 containing, you guessed it, encryption software for recording
5. Public is left with three options
* Patch up to the encrypted version
* Leave their system open
* Find some new software


6. ...
7. PROFIT!

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 5. Public is left with three options
* Patch up to the encrypted version
* Leave their system open
* Find some new software

Or just stop buying digital devices. I'd buy a TiVO, but the FUD over it's future use makes almost any price too high. Less TV, more golf... actually, FUD's not such a bad thing...

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Anonymous Coward]

And why should they? When was the last time you called up the manufacturer of anything else and asked if there were any critical defects you should know about? It's Microsoft's defect, the burden should be on them to notify everyone, not the other way around. Let them take out full-page newspaper ads announcing a massive recall of all versions of Windows, and let them keep doing it until they fix their crappy products.

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up.

But DVI will do this

[Doppler00]

I recently read an article explaining how the DVI interface works and how they plan on implementing an encryption system in future versions. Essentially, the HDTV will have an encryption key key and the output device will have a key. This should (in theory) completly prevent someone from copying the digital signal with another device. What does this mean for people who currently own HDTV's? They may not be compatible with new signals and thus you will be required to buy a new one or have to use a lower quality analog signal. They media and electronics industries don't need Microsoft to restrict fair use rights.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's just where the industry is headed.

Re:But DVI will do this

[kableh]

Except someone CLAIMED to have cracked HDCP (the encryption you are speaking of) ages ago.

My only hope, is that this trend continues, and consumers realize they shouldn't have to compromise their convenience for Hollywood's sake.

The real reason...

[davidstrauss]

Microsoft decided that the system was so crash-prone that no encryption was necessary to keep people from copying the content.

Re:The real reason...

[TurdFurgeson]

aaaahahahah

waaayahhahahahah!!!

loser

Cracks are forming in DRM finally

[Arcturax]

It is good to see "digital rights massacre" plans starting to fall apart. First several high profile bills aimed to restore fair use and reign in the DMCA and now this.

I think that those with power in the industry are finally starting to see that the natives are indeed getting restless over this and realizing that they are headed for some extremely major consumer backlash if they press ahead with current DRM proposals.

Of course, it is not time to party just yet as the MPAA and RIAA have yet to acknowledge the clue stick which everyone and their brother has been whacking them with for the past 4 years, but if Microsoft and some members of Congress are starting to see the light, then anything is possible.

Once campaign finance reform kicks in and if voters give the Senetors and Reps from Disney/MPAA/RIAA the smackdown at the polls they so richly deserve, we might see the pendulum swing back our way again in the next 3-5 years.

Re:Cracks are forming in DRM finally

[Sauron23]

I think that those with power in the industry are finally starting to see that the natives are indeed getting restless over this and realizing that they are headed for some extremely major consumer backlash if they press ahead with current DRM proposals.

Just the thin edge of the wedge. Wait until Joe and Jane put down a few thousand on the "media convergence device" of the future. Just watch what happens the first time they can't fast foreword through the commercial or save it onto another device, like their computer. or send it to aunt Rose. It'll be like the manufacturer stole their firstborn and sold it to the devil.

Joe will sit their thinking how his Tivo never had this problem. Wondering why this new "device" even has a fast foreword button on the remote. Then he's going to put it back in the box and demand his money back. I'll be the guy outside walmart selling front row tickets to the refund line seating. It's gonna be great fun to watch.

People went balistic when Intel tried to fingerprint their CPU. Imagine when they find out some corporate slime is profiling their viewing habits via some robust deal between the hardware manufacturer and the "media" provider. "now why do I need to have my TV hooked up to the phone?", says Joe.
"Oh, thats so you can download the show listings" says the salesman. Coughing into his hand..."You'll probably want to order the deluxe package from your cable provider. Tell them you want the interactive service." chirps the friendly salesman. "Just remember you have to give them the model number of the unit and this activation number when you order."

Or something similar. We're hearing how digital TV is so great for the content creators. How secure and easy to use. They'll talk about how great the picture is. Nobody listening will care. Nobody will care how secure that is until aunt Rose can't get the news clip of Joe Jr. playing baseball Joe Sr. recorded for her. Recorded and then couldn't send to poor aunt Rose. Who will now never be able to see Joe Jr. play baseball from her wheelchair at the retirement home.

Just one possible scenario. One I like to use when describing DRM. Poor aunt rose all alone, and all the promises made of how great the future would be with these enabling technologies at our finger tips. lies, damned lies if it's allowed to happen.

do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

DON'T BE FOOLED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the caps. but don't be fooled. it still need media player 9. they're going to seed the world with media player 9, then all they have to do is turn on the DRM.

Also, just as it is, all the broadcasters have to do is turn on recording restricitons on their side.

So don't be fooled. the dangers to our fair use rights (or priveledges as some would call it) are very real.

Re:DON'T BE FOOLED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Danger Danger... pretty soon people will have to BUY stuff or comply with LAWS.

Just remember, widespread MASSIVE piracy caused these technologies to be born. Yes.. you, with your *nix Gnutella client -who only uses the service to sample songs (err whole albums,) are nothing more than a common theif.

I believe there was a time when people didn't have to lock their doors.

You're mistaken

[burgburgburg]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of Microsoft. Helping consumers was an unfortunate, inadvertent side effect that they'll be sure to rectify as soon as they've sold enough of them. Probably with a "security" patch.Read those EULAs

Re:You're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think MS does something for the purpose of screwing consumers as your "unfortunate" comment would suggest, but it does things that will make money for itself which has as an inadvertent side effect the screwing of the consumers.

Re: You're mistaken

[s20451]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of Microsoft. elping consumers was an unfortunate, inadvertent side effect

But wait. The customers refused to buy something that they didn't want. Microsoft realized that such a strategy wouldn't earn them any money. Since Microsoft wants money, they avoided doing what the customers didn't want. Is it possible that the system works? *shudder*

It is you who are mistaken ... about a great many things ...

Re:You're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

And I specialize in giving a start to young unwed mothers.

Re: You're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

It only works until they've gained a stranglehold on an area. Nobody would think twice about using any word processor if it wasn't Word compatible these days. Nobody would think twice about using a spreadsheet app that wasn't Excel compatible.

Re: You're mistaken

[gpinzone]

That's what they said about Word Perfect 5.1 and Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft gave users a reason to switch: Word and Excel were cheaper, better, and offered a pretty darn good import filter.

Come up with a cheaper, better, yet backward compatible word processor and spreadsheet and maybe you can beat Microsoft, too.

Re: You're mistaken

[Darby]

Is it possible that the system works?

It might be possible that the system can work, but this isn't an example of it.

The fact that they even considered the possibility that this was an acceptable thing to attempt shows that something is very wrong with the way the system works.
This isn't solely an MS problem, it's endemic and frightening.

Yeah, right

[Wes Janson]

The public doesn't care about it's rights (the ones they don't know they have in particular). Unless someone educates them, they will be perfectly fine with DRM and anything Microsoft pulls. Being as how they represent the majority of the market, Microsoft has no reason to care about the opinions of the few.

Re:Yeah, right

[geekee]

ok. Same old rant. Lets forget the fact the the article implies the exact opposite. According to the article, when someone actually wants to buy a DVR, the fact that the recorded material cannot be copied makes the buyer look elsewhere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he'd prefer a dvr system where he can record favorites onto VCDs etc. MS, whose main goal is to make money, sees this problem, and switches sides, at least for now, to sell more products and expand its comsumer base (at the expense of Tivo, etc.). I think this is encouraging.

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. Time to stop this geek-elitish shite. The individuals that comprise the general public -are-, in actuality, sentient.

When ANYONE buys a VCR/TV/STERO replacement, and it cannot do what their old one did, they will get upset. Very upset. Word of mouth will spread (an anti-trend, if you will), and the product will be dead.

Just reading slashdot doesn't raise your IQ above the median, ya know.

Re:Yeah, right

[Citizen of Earth]

The public doesn't care about it's rights (the ones they don't know they have in particular).

The public will get a crash course in caring about their rights when they press the record button on their brand new toy and it says "Permission denied". The citizens may not care much when the government steps on various rights and starts wars, but there will be bloody revolution in the air if anything happens to television.

Re:Yeah, right

[Eccles]

The public doesn't care about it's rights (the ones they don't know they have in particular).

So who are these mysterious consumers who pushed Microsoft to change its policy then? Rest assured it's not a bunch of Linux geeks, the people Microsoft is least likely to listen to...

Re:Yeah, right

[Zeal17]

...like when you went shopping for that new sterio system and found that being able to play CD-Rs was a FEATURE that you had to pay extra for?

-Zeal17

Re:Yeah, right

[Zeal17]

Ummm, maybe it was HP when they noticed that Sony's box was cheaper and more useful?

Re:Yeah, right

[Cro Magnon]

I agree! I've said for years that the next American Revolution will be over TV.

more to follow...

[Anonymous Coward]

One could hope that this will be the first many decisions in this direction.

Yeah, I'm sure MS will continue in this direction! The next MS PCs will be running Linux with open source DeCSS programs! I heard it from a recent memo Steve Ballmer sent me.

Smart move

[Znonymous Coward]

Microsoft has bowed to consumer pressure and pulled back from a controversial plan that would have encrypted TV shows recorded on forthcoming digital media PCs.

This was a smart move. I mean come on, no one would want to but one if they couldn't fill it with illegal goods and send it across the border.

They'll wait for SP2

[burgburgburg]

That way, more of them will have been sold.

Not 100% correct

[BagOBones]

According to http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10 738,2884933,00.html MS will still lock the content if the recorder picksup the special copyprotection marker in the broadcast... So as soon as the content providers turn this on have fun sitting infrunt of your multimeda PC watching your shows.

Nice timing...

[netsharc]

What do we get when put this and that earlier Tivo article together?

I think they know if people can't send movies they've recorded to their friends, MS's DVR would be less attractive..

The whole "digital PC"...

[mao che minh]

...deal is actually a good idea: A prepackeged solution that affords end users (I.E. non-technical users that lack the knowledge to use a collection of existing hardware and software to acccomplish this themselves) a simple "take out of the box, plug in, and go" solution for recording and viewing digital media, yet still remaining a fully-fledged PC. To top it all off, a legitimate OEM manufacturer will provide support for the package.

However, such a thing screams of after-the-inital-retail-sale revenue, and vultures like Microsoft and Sony will be the first to swoop in. (In fact, I bet Sony already has some comparable solution, or is planning on releasing one very shortly) If Microsoft bowed to user disgust on the point of encryption, then they must be planning on implementing a much more intrusive and restrictive feature that they can get away with mentioning in some "open the package and you activate me" license agreement. We cannot logically conclude that Microsoft will not implement something that will prevent people from sharing the content created with Microsoft applications, not without a fee or something anyways.

Sorry to sound like an anti-Microsoft troll, but it is so very hard to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

Re:The whole "digital PC"...

[Rude Turnip]

"...deal is actually a good idea: A prepackeged solution that affords end users (I.E. non-technical users that lack the knowledge to use a collection of existing hardware and software to acccomplish this themselves) a simple "take out of the box, plug in, and go" solution for recording and viewing digital media, yet still remaining a fully-fledged PC. To top it all off, a legitimate OEM manufacturer will provide support for the package."

And they should give it a really cool name, like iMac or something!

The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Jugalator]

Will the market really tolerate Palladium?

An interesting newsgroup thread over at Google News.

It's a question I've been asking myself. I mean, how will Microsoft succeed with their plans? Which manufacturer wish to be the first to have a huge disadvantage by supplying the initial Palladium-supporting hardware? How can we be sure that the manufacturers are simply going to release hardware supporting Palladium? Won't it just work like in the past instead, where mp3 players made it easier for piracy and DVD players often can be made region free, by a simple flip of a jumper? Where CD-burners often support low-level duplication and overburning they don't *need* to support, but manufacturers *know* that they're more likely to sell if their drive support CloneCD and similar programs that's used in 9 cases out of 10 for piracy. They never admit it, but everyone knows it.

How will Palladium suddenly change this philosophy of the manufacters? Won't they be tempted to go the "dirty" path (of course not officially; they'll just "not include Palladium support") by looking into the enormous public interest that will arise in hardware not supporting hardware copy protections?

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Verteiron]

How will they sell Palladium hardware? Easy.

Market it to consumers as virus prevention.

Think about it, if Joe Consumer walks into Best Buy, sees two systems set up, and one has a big yellow sticker that says "PALLADIUM ENABLED to protect your system against viruses!", what do you think he's going to do?

If that's not enough, then talk about how Palladium will help reduce software piracy and thus lower the cost of software to the consumer. It doesn't matter whether or not any of this is true. If it turns out that Palladium doesn't accomplish any of these things, then Hey! Microsoft released a new service pack that fixes Palladium! And they're only charging $20 for it...

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[zoftie]

there are already, Dell laptops and Desktops that are being shipped , being touted as palladium ready.
2c
p.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Jugalator]

How will they sell Palladium hardware? Easy.
Market it to consumers as virus prevention.

I personally think word would spread very quickly whether Palladium actually does provide virus protection or not. It's as with Napster or anything else that touches on the subject of piracy. Suddenly, millions of people know about it. ... and I haven't even figured out what the manufacturers earn by supporting Palladium? Must be some kind of Microsoft deal. :-)

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[dvdeug]

talk about how Palladium will help reduce software piracy and thus lower the cost of software to the consumer.

On one hand, you've got the large chunk of consumers who do pirate, and aren't going to like the concept; on the other, you've got the IT people who have dealt with copy-protection and how it screws over the good and the bad alike. I think pretty most people are very cynical about the concept of the company passing the savings on to you, so I'm not sure that will be a help either.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[kcbrown]

How will Palladium suddenly change this philosophy of the manufacters? Won't they be tempted to go the "dirty" path (of course not officially; they'll just "not include Palladium support") by looking into the enormous public interest that will arise in hardware not supporting hardware copy protections?

They will, initially, but the reason is that people need to be able to run the currently available operating systems on new hardware. So hardware manufacturers will implement Palladium in their hardware but will make it possible to disable it.

For now.

Once most people are running Palladium-capable operating systems (Microsoft will see to that), hardware manufacturers can get away with removing the ability to turn Palladium off. Only the fringe will care, and those people don't represent a large enough population to make the difference.

Understand this: the hardware manufacturers only care about their bottom line. If they can force people to upgrade their hardware, thereby generating more business than they would have had otherwise, they'll do it, and it doesn't matter how bad for the customer the method they use is. If other interests (the MPAA, the RIAA) pay them more than enough to offset the loss in business, they'll do it.

But my bet is that Palladium-required hardware will come at exactly the same time that legislation requiring its use is passed. Since the large corporations control our government, this will happen.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[geekee]

Palladium hardware won't do anything if no one writes software to use it in ways we don't like. It would be nice to get the advantages of Palladium without the disadvantages. Apparently, MS listens to customers, if the article is correct, so maybe we can get our virus protection and email encryption, without restrictions on fair use, if we vote with our dollars (which is what MS is really interested in).

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Bartab]

Yes, because end users won't see it as a reduction of their rights. They will see it as "This computer lets me buy content." See, new content will be shipped encrypted. Palladium-free systems will not be able to use this content. Only systems with Palladium turned on will.

To the end user, this doesn't look like the reduction of rights we all know it is, but rather as a newer more enhanced works worth the new stuff system. Microsoft won't even need to market it as virus protection.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[sean23007]

It is often very difficult to spread word like this to non-technical people. They will be much more inclined to take the word of Microsoft over yours or mine. Even if they're looking at an ad and ignoring an article, they will try everything they can to disbelieve you. That is what Microsoft is counting on.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Alsee]

Which manufacturer wish to be the first to have a huge disadvantage by supplying the initial Palladium-supporting hardware?

You underestimate the threat.

Palladium has NO inherent disadvantage. There is no reason to buy (or sell) a non-Palladium machine. The "Palladium enhanced" computer can do everything a normal computer can do, and in addition it can run Palladium programs. This will give access to Palladium content, movies, music, whatever. If you don't buy Palladium content then you lose nothing by having the Palladium chip in your computer.

The only disadvantage to Palladium is if we can make it a public relations nightmare. Microsoft and friends have a very workable plan to get it out there. Do not underestimate them.

-

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooo, good post.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Pengo]

You could argue the same thing about the DVD players with region encoding. Funny that my Aiwa (Sony) player can be de-region coded with a single code (first four digits of PI). Why do they do that? The bottom line. The know that there is enough people that will be buying those in europe, and won't buy them if they are not un-decodable.

Your not telling me that a little shit company in tiawan won't allow you to bios-disable the damn thing just to get a leg-up over the next guy.. (think MSI/Asus/etc.) There will ALWAYS be a way around it...

The day that it becomes so draconian as you have to go to the extremes of replacing bits inside the computer (think mod chips) is the day that a new platform comes out to fulfil a) consumer and b) hobbiests needs.

I personally could give a rats ass about paladium , I use Apple quipment. I know that Apple will always be against DRM as it gives them a competitive edge against MS. Think Rip Mix Burn.

The only thing that is really going to stop the show will be government legistlation, which will be an interesting show. I doubt that the EU, China, Japan, etc.(s) consumers are going to sit around and take it in the ass. I am -VERY- sure that american consumers are not going to sit around and take it in the ass while the rest of the world enjoys freedom of Non-DRM computing platforms.

Good points though.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I know that Apple will always be against DRM as it gives them a competitive edge against MS. Think Rip Mix Burn.

Yes, that's right. That's why all their DVD burners ship as DVD-for-Authors (so that you can make actual DVD backups of commercial titles you own)...

Except, oops, they don't. They sell their SuperDrives as "DVD-for-General", geared to prevent bit-by-bit copying. Oh, well. The myth of Apple as rebel against the Content Cartel certainly sounds nice.

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[debest]

I'll agree with most of your points, but one in incorrect: there is no incentive on the part of hardware manufacturers to remove the ability to turn Palladium off. Sure, they'll build in the ability to have it on (so you can run Windows XXXp), but why would they voluntarily isolate their market for non-DRM enabled products? That seems to be rather foolish.

Your last paragraph is the accurate one: the ability to turn it off will be removed only with legislation.

Still, with the intent to turn all computers into sealed boxes, you've got to know that lots of hardware makers will follow the lead of Apex and start including "secret" menus that "weren't supposed to be there." Also, the volume of identical but "DRM disabled" hardware shipped to Canada will grow tremendously.

It will take a long time for the CBDTPA to pass into law. It will take longer still for a "standard" to be agreed upon and implemented. The optimist in me says that by the time all this happens, the current crop of "legal" uses for computers will be commonplace, and any attempt to remove them will be resisted by *everyone*, not just geeks. Then the law will be quietly shuffled to the side, unenforced until it is finally struck down as unconsitutional.

MS didn't back down all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

From ZDNet: Why Microsoft caved in on copy protection:

The Media Center software has been changed so that now the copyright owner, not Microsoft, gets to decide whether a particular TV program will be "encrypted to the hard drive"--meaning, "unable to be viewed on a different PC or DVD player."

THIS IS DONE by making the Media Center software cognizant of a television standard called Copy Generation Management System for Analog (CGMS-A). If a couple of bits in a program's CGMS-A settings are switched on, Media Center PCs will encrypt the program, making it unplayable on anything but the recording PC. Leave them unflipped, and the program remains copyable. Microsoft says its testing found no television programming with the encryption bits turned on.

Re:MS didn't back down all the way

[zentigger]

THIS IS DONE by making the Media Center software cognizant of a television standard called Copy Generation Management System for Analog (CGMS-A). If a couple of bits in a program's CGMS-A settings are switched on, Media Center PCs will encrypt the program, making it unplayable on anything but the recording PC

How long before someone figures out how to "flip off" these couple of bits either by intercepting the data stream in software and stripping them out, or hacking the CPU. I can envision a whole lot of web-sites devoted to this, much like the little kits of conductive eopxy that you can use to overclock you AMD...

Re:MS didn't back down all the way

[captaineo]

I don't think these "copy flag bits" are going to work. All broadcasters will simply hard-code the flags to "no copy" all the time. And then we are back to square one...

In order for this to work, Congress must pass a law that enshrines "fair use" as a guaranteed right that must be allowed by any copy-prevention system.

Also, any stream that contains "copy flag bits" must be required to include the expiration date of the copyright. Copy-prevention systems must be required to freely decrypt material that has entered the public domain.

A "copy flag bit" that doesn't also include an expiration date clearly violates the "limited Times" clause of the US Constitution.

Does anyone know if CSS-scrambled DVDs or WMA-scrambled audio streams include a copyright expiration date? I don't think so...

Re:MS didn't back down all the way

[Skjellifetti]

Also, any stream that contains "copy flag bits" must be required to include the expiration date of the copyright. Copy-prevention systems must be required to freely decrypt material that has entered the public domain.

There is no current requirement that once something enters the public domain, the old copyright holder is required to make it easy for you to obtain. Nor should there be. But the converse should also be true. If you do crack the encryption on public domain material, no one can prosecute you.

Re:MS didn't back down all the way

[captaineo]

It's a terrible shame the laws are like that... Given the low price of storage these days, it wouldn't be too hard for the Library of Congress to escrow digital versions of all registered copyrighted works. When each copyright expires the work could be made available to anyone via the internet.

I really hope Lessig succeeds in the Supreme Court and Boucher succeeds in Congress. If not, most of our cultural works from the 20th century onward will be unrecoverable by future historians. The last copies of out-of-print books will have crumbled to dust, along with the last celluloid prints of our films, leaving only scrambled encrypted disks and DVDs, the hardware for reading which will be long gone.

Re:im pretty sure bill was tricked into this...

[frenetic3]

"Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack."

I wish

[Ssbe]

I almost wish Microsoft had gone ahead with this plan. It would further prove how stupid their business model is and it might even convince a couple people to switch operating systems. (RedHat, OS X or something) :)

Re:I wish

[Ssbe]

Crap ... I hate how what you write isn't exactly what you mean.

Delete - It would further prove how stupid their business model is Insert - It would put another object in their stupid project/program/function bin

Consumers were just too stupid to "understand" it.

[Black Copter Control]

"Let me get this straight: You want me to pay more money for software that gives me less functionality? why?

When Microsoft realized that consumers couldn't "understand" their logic behind crippling the capabilities of our home computers, they gave up trying to sell people on the lack of functionality.

They didn't do this because it was good for consumers, they did it because their crippleware was effectively unsellable. Anybody who got a box with this software would simply install something that worked and thus lessen Microsoft's market share in this area. Something that comsumers don't buy is bad for Microsoft. That's all that really matters to Microsoft.

MUstickD: From the same company...

[rusty0101]

...which is loudly proclaming the death of TiVo, claiming setup is too hard.... Go to the bottom of the Slate page, and you will find:

©2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetWise

For some reason I have the feeling that there is a bit of garbage floating around somewhere in one or both of these articles.

-Rusty

Re:MUstickD: From the same company...

[GigsVT]

Slate is part of MSN... what was your point again?

Re:MUstickD: From the same company...

[vegetablespork]

I think his point is that there's a pretty obvious conflict of interest. It'd be like Slate running a "BSD is dying" story: they're a subsidiary of MSN which is a subsidiary of Microsoft, which wants to kill its open source competition (after copying its code).

Re:MUstickD: From the same company...

[GigsVT]

Or like Slashdot running anti-MS stories when their parent company is(was) a Linux reseller?

Bias is to be expected, and I'd say MSN is a lot less biased than Slashdot.

Keep It Simple, Stupid?

[sssmashy]

Microsoft sees Media Center PCs as ideal for college students or young urbanites living in cramped spaces where a combination computing and entertainment system might be more appealing than separate devices.

The fact that MSFT backed down on this issue is just another sign of desperation. They must be wondering whether there's any demand at all for Media Center PCs... because there sure as hell isn't demand for recording shows that can only be played back on your crappy monitor.

Microsoft's obsession with "convergence" is ridiculous. Apparently their target market consists of "young urbanites" and starving students who live in living spaces so cramped that they couldn't possibly squeeze in a separate VHR or DVR... so they're willing to put up with the hassle of recording shows on their hard drive, bogging down their PCs as they pound out a late night term paper. Don't forget the logistical nightmare of bringing their recorded shows over to Bob's house so they can watch it with buddies and beer (remember, their living quarters are too crowded to allow visitors). Someone's going to be burning a lot of DVDs.

What a strange reality those Microsoft folks are living in. The true market segment for Media Center PCs are lonely techno-hermits, 15 y.o. media pirates and some geeks who like toys. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Keep It Simple, Stupid?

[orthogonal]

The true market segment for Media Center PCs are lonely techno-hermits, 15 y.o. media pirates and some geeks who like toys.

So you mean Microsoft will be advertising Media Center PCs solely on Slashdot?

(P.S. I know what a TV show is, but this show on Thurdays, what do they mean by that word, Friends? And how do you say it in Klingon?)

Re:Keep It Simple, Stupid?

[Reziac]

I'd say the target market is PURELY "young urbanites" (what my generation called "yuppies" :) who really don't know anything about PCs, but can be readily influenced to shell out, given a sufficient application of glitz.

After all, if a starving student can afford to plunk down $2000 for an $800 PC, said student can afford a bigger apartment and won't NEED the "space-saving" features in the first place.

And you'd think a techno-hermit would know better than to buy an overpriced OEM machine.

The week in review, so far

[jhines]

Beginning of the week, MS says "security costs $"

Mid week, MS says "No need for encryption" in our video recorder.

Why do I have this feeling that Friday's story will be how the movie companies are throwing money Microsoft's way, and that MS now thinks that encrypting the video isn't so bad after all.

Call me cynical, but this sounds like MS trying to get leverage on the movie industry, rather than helping the consumer.

Re:The week in review, so far

[geekee]

MS's main goal is to protect their monopoly. If they feel that there is any chance they will be supplanted if they provide copy protection that makes users go to Linux or Apple, they won't do it. Whatever the MPAA/RIAA is throwing their way is pocket change compared to what they're making selling Windows. In the end, they'll pick the route that sells the most copies of Windows. Before their attitude may have been that they need copy protection to avoid losing market share to other systems endorsed by the RIAA/MPAA. Hopefully the consumer voice will continue to be heard.

Re:The week in review, so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as if copy prevention has anything to do with whether or not a hacker can break into your computer over the internet. DRM != Network security.

Re:The week in review, so far

[JanusFury]

Leverage on the movie industry DOES help the consumer. RIAA/MPAA and pals deserve all the blackmailing they can get. I won't be happy till they're out of business. At least if MS takes over the media industry, it's only one big evil corporation to deal with - right now we've got dozens, if not hundreds.

Re:The week in review, so far

[Reziac]

I agree, but that means for M$ the IDEAL situation is that to play your lawfully-recorded content, you'll need to upgrade to the DRM-enabled next-version of Windows. Your old Windows will no longer cut it.

IOW, it looks to me like M$'s view is: getting in bed with the **AA looks like a great way to sell *everyone* the next version of Windows.

And as someone else noted, seeding it thru DRM in WMPn is likely to be how it achieves market penetration. At some point WMPn will be updated to stop working with old Windows, and then.. see my first paragraph.

Ugly scenario even if only part of it works :(

Re:The week in review, so far

[geekee]

There's nothing wrong with MS providing a player to play DRM media if that's what the RIAA/MPAA is offering. That doesn't make them the bad guy in this case. Now, if they're playing both sides, they'll allow consumers to copy non DRM material because it sells more copies of Windows AND they'll allow playback of DRM material provided by the RIAA/MPAA because it also sells more copies of Windows. I'd love to download movies from blockbuster some day when the bandwidth is there, but that'll never happen without DRM. But if MS also lets me record and copy non-DRM stuff such as analog TV feeds, cds, my own creations, etc., that's about the best we can ask for from MS or Apple or Linux, etc. The fact that MS is starting to listen to consumers in this area is good news.

Re:Consumers were just too stupid to "understand"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your name inspired by Fort Apocalypse?
Offtopic -1

How is this a troll?

[burgburgburg]

I'd say it's an accurate reflection of MS business practices.

Me be newB

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey ya'll, how do ya get them nifty links to work? My a href has gone awol!

Microsoft will die

[SabberFlapper]

We will clone you! www.xpde.com

you DO know that WinXP

[cybercomm]

Has an auto-update feature that is by DEFAULT always on and it continiously patches through to M$ servers sending them all the dirt on you and then for legal reasons, requesting and downloading any new patches. Now, i dont think that the average Joe Blow will know how to turn that feature off, and judging by how M$ worded it, i dont think that he will want to turn it off. So as long as your computer has a connection to the net as do 88 milion US households and a countless number of US and worldwide corporations it will update itself. So lets face it, blow joe will get ticked off when his "glorified digital VCR" wouldn't allow him to transfer files, but when his computer tells him that it is updating itself "for it's own good"...you get the picture... Our only hope is to convert everyone to Mac or Unix users =P

Relax...

[Eric Damron]

"Microsoft has bowed to consumer pressure and pulled back from a controversial plan that would have encrypted TV shows recorded on forthcoming digital media PCs."

Relax RIAA. They can always add it back in with the inevitable security patch.

wha?

[1000101]

"It would further prove how stupid their business model is..."

Um, doesn't Microsoft have around $40 billion in cash sitting around? Doesn't sound like a stupid business model to me.

Re:wha?

[unicron]

Exactly. You can say you don't like them, you can say they're evil. Don't ever say they're bad at what they do. They are the single most talented company in the last century, bar none. They release screwed up product after screwed up product and they still need leafblowers to collect their money.

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Screwed up" eh?

Would that make Linux "A Giant pile of dog doo"?

If you label the very best desktop computing environment available as a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, that just makes everything else a 1 or a 2.

There is nothing more screwed up that either KDE or Gnome and everything else avialable on Linux is even worse. Get a grip on reality.

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was pretty talented at what he did, too. Yeah, man, that Hitler...

Re:wha?

[unicron]

Yeah, nice comparison. Over the top, generalized thinking like that really spares the last few remaining brain cells you have left, doesn't it? Keep them safe man, and remember, it's for painting, not huffing.

Re:wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

:p Wanker. :p :p :p
You fucking suck.

I bet you fuck your mommy too, don't you? Gay fuck.
Looooooooooooooooooool!

it has to be done

[Anonymous Coward]

6. ???

7. PROFIT!!!

Market Penetration and Consumer Fashion

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Before everyone goes and finds an optimistic thought about MS, let's consider the motivation of this newfound benign giant. As we've seen before [slashdot.org], the set-top box has everything going against it:

1) Price (around $2k)
2) No real benefits over conventional PCs
3) Loss of conventional computer features.
4) Wacko copy protection


Obviously, a product like this is not going to sell well.

This news TEMPORARILY (they can always re-add it after market is successful) removes #4 from the list of problems. Therefore, one would assume that less problems for sales = higher sales.

Like most actions that seem altruistic, this can be passed away in the Evil Empire paradigm yet again.

Heil Gates.

Cheers,

What difference would it have made?

[dormat]

Microsoft never releases anything that is 100% effective. I would almost guarantee that there would be some relatively easy way around the encryption. They ask for my password. I hit ESC and watch local tv, which is what i wanted anyways :).

Public pressure... bah humbug!

[Cervantes]

Lets face it, how much do non-geeks understand "digital encryption"? To answer that question, look at how many people have DRM still turned on in Media Player... heck, how many people know it turns itself back on with patches? How many people care? As much as we geeks would like to believe that the majority of the consumer base is techno-savy, the truth is they're still a bunch of AOL using, Compaq buying, Windows-only cow-sumers.

I wish it weren't so, but it is... so the question becomes, why did MS decide to do this? Answers:

- Creates more media coverage for the launch of a new XP version and HP machine. How much of the cNet article covered the issue, and how much talked about the new machine?

- Converts a few wanna-be geeks to the MS side (almost typed "dark side"... oopsie). They browse around, see the link, think MS is on their side, and decide that the MicroSerfs can't be all *that* bad.

- Offsets flashback from Palladium and Media Player DRM. "Hey, look, we aren't kowtowing, we fought back for YOU!". It also provides ammo for people who are going to go pro-MS when the next argument about DRM comes to town.

- Gives the geeks at 1 Microsoft Way (yes, there still are a few) some small sense of victory over the Corporate Drones (tm)

- Lets MS test the leash on the **AA. They do this, then wait and see. If the AA's come after them, then MS gets to "fight for the little guy" in a court battle they'd likely win, gets lots of publicity, and gets a boost to their image. If the AA's don't do anything, MS gets to claim a small victory, and maybe in 6 months they take another small step forward towards opt-in instead of opt-out on DRM in Windows.

Lets face it, the decision is mostly win-win for MS, and the great news is that Joe Average, who didn't give a rats ass about DRM for this new PC, has only heard "Microsoft bows to consumers, does what they want", not "Microsoft plans to restrict digital recordings more than analog". He reads the ad...err...article, thinks how nice this lil toy would be... *and*, MS tests out the strength of it's bond with HPaq. This little "change of heart" should show PDQ whether MS can count on HPaq to be a friend or foe... and given the new "WalMart PC" and it's butt-ugly linuxesque interface, MS needs to know who it's friends are.

Game, set, match, MS. Bill may have a bad haircut, but he doesn't hire idiots.

On a related note, have you seen the new WalMart PC's? If Linus had a grave, he'd be rolling in it!

Re:Public pressure... bah humbug!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course nobody knows that DRM is turned back on if you apply security patches.

How would they learn that when they never bother to apply security patches?

WTF is with .com.com

[ByTor-2112]

This is way way off topic, but it has been eating at my brain... WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE .com.com!!!!!!!!!

thank you drive through.

Re:WTF is with .com.com

[questionlp]

CNet has the domain registration for .com.com and I think they are just trying to flaunt it as much as they can... or they have a sick sense of humo{r,ur}.

Going to http://com.com brings you to http://www.cnet.com/aboutcnet/0-13611.html.

Re:WTF is with .com.com

[DigitalGlass]

news.com and news.com.com both resolve to seperate ip addresses. it is a possibility that they are a different servers set up to basicaly balance out the load. it is possible they are on 2 seperate net connections so a slashdotting doesn't kill their bandwith...

just my 2 cents.

Who would buy one of these "Digital Media PCs" ?

[ellisDtrails]

Probably the same people who bought those Gateway TV / PC combo things that were good at neither computing nor home entertainment. Besides, most people who are inclined to use a PC to record television and use a PC as a DVR probably build their own anyway.

From 1996: Gateway Dimension, or "more crap they try to sell you"

Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards consumer rights, only to to take a couple step back in their next move.

Name one time.

(yes, once again I have to challenge anti-Microsoft ignorant bullshit)

Re:New imporved FP version 14.0

[arkane1234]

/. is not a real "news" site as much as it a collaboration point, a portal. Any "relevant" news is posted from multiple sites.

That's the difference.

They're holding out

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft simply knows which side their bread is buttered on. As the article states Sony already has a non-DRM version of the same gizmo, and Microsoft isn't a content company. People buying new computers to copy and share television shows is good for them.

Microsoft is waiting for Hollywood to become desperate, and then they will promise to secure digital media from one end to the other. Microsoft will promise to deliver Hollywood content directly from their ultra-secure servers in Redmond to the XBox2 on the customer's television. The agreements, of course, will be very exclusionary. Alternative formats, operating systems, or software will not be tolerated. If you want to see "Leave it to Beaver" then you will have to own an XBox2, and you will have to subscribe to MSN.

Microsoft figures that if they wait until Hollywood is desperate that there is some chance that they will turn their entire distribution and broadcast businesses over to Microsoft and MSN. Microsoft will become the new keystone of Entertainment, and we all know that the gate-keeper at the toll booth is the one that makes all the money on a new road.

Right now the media companies see Microsoft as a greater threat than the folks copying content. They know that if they give Microsoft control that they will all become subsidiaries of MSFT.

Re:They're holding out

[Jason Earl]

Does that mean they'll take away your tin-foil hat as well?

Tin foil is for amateurs, I use MindGuard!

In all seriousness, however, the problem is that the current systems, whether you are talking about cable, satellite, or worst of all broadcast television, can all be tapped quite easily. And once they can be tapped skipping commercials and sharing become ridiculously easy. Microsoft's solution to this problem is replacing these open standards and networks with their own proprietary closed system. It's attractive to Hollywood because it is the only system that is likely to actually have any chance of being accepted by consumers, and it would almost certainly be well beyond the average person's ability to "hack." Even better the DMCA should make people attempting to break the system into criminals.

Of course, this isn't going to happen. If Hollywood is stupid enough to put Microsoft in that sort of a position of power then they enjoying the raping that they would get once this system became widespread. Making Microsoft the cornerstone of your business is like putting a cannibal in charge of babysitting your children.

In other words, I don't think that this is going to work, but you can bet that Microsoft thinks it is going to work.

Re:They're holding out

[swb]

The RIAA has been rebuffing Microsoft's "secure digital media" initiatives for *years*. They know what Microsoft does to its business "partners" and it scares them, along with the wholly known stupidity of becoming reliant on one company that will supply the DRM system and then "manage it" to maximize their own business needs (more features to Windows, less to other players).

Microsoft is simply strong-arming them with this; the idea is to put Hollywood on notice that its Microsoft DRM or none at all. There is no *way* that BillG and STEVE! Ballmer would EVER allow Microsoft to become reliant on either an open standard they have to compete on and ESPECIALLY a proprietary system owned by someone else to do DRM for what many consider to be "the next killer app" for PCs.

They figure that if they make enough noise about unencrypted (copyable, sharable) video being available to consumers, Hollywood will run scared to MS begging to "partner" with MS on DRM, thus ensuring MS a place in their profit stream.

Any fantasies that this is about anything other than Microsoft locking itself into every consumer audio and video device made from now until 2030 they are fooling themselves.

Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX

[Gendou]

bsharitt wrote:
>> In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards
>> consumer rights, only to to take a couple step
>> back in their next move.

Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Name one time.

Sir, you are completely right. Microsoft has never even appeared to move towards consumer rights.

Why would anyone but

[Archfeld]

that POS anyways is beyond me...Youi can get a video card or a tivo that does the same thing for WAY WAY LESS, and you don't have to feed M$ to do it...

Re:Why would anyone but

[topham]

I've owned multiple video cards which do video input.

You know what? A standalone system would do it better.

Re:Why would anyone but

[Archfeld]

the ATI card I've got now does an excellent job. I was less than happy with the nvidia card I had before, for video capture that is. Maybe I was less than clear but my point is the same, a dedicated device is a better approach than a catch all cripple-ware multi function device.

Re:New imporved FP version 14.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point and I have to agree.

It used to be a news site and I sorta miss that.

Still not going to 'protect' anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still the next step - where the digital signal is output of the display. Even there it is an amazingly clear signal -> next?

In other words, if it can be viewed, it can be 'perfectly' copied. I say 'perfectly', but depending on your sophistication that can either be 'bit-for-bit identical' or 'close a darn 'nough'. Regardless, not rocket science. If you start putting filters into my lab's CCDs, I will be very very pissed.

general public not totally insane

[GunFodder]

Microsoft will probably offer the same convenience as the rest of the market because otherwise no one will use their software. Even a member of the "general public" is going to figure out that video files that cannot be moved are useless, and there are more and more ways to encode video files from video streams every day.

In fact Microsoft may run into trouble sooner rather than later in the living room PC market. A living room PC must use a custom form factor and run an extremely simple interface. These are things that Microsoft has no track record for, which opens the door for other players. Especially if those players can provide a lower-cost solution.

(NT) Thank you for your hard work (NT)

[Anonymous Coward]

(NT) Thank you for your hard work (NT)

Re:(NT) Thank you for your hard work (NT)

[Per Wigren]

Hey, I'm just one of their newest developers.. I don't even have CVS write access yet! ;)
Most credits should go to Krister and the others for making the program in the first place..
I'm developing a videofilter for MPlayer so we can show nice transparent menus on top of the videoscreen, and support for teletext, based on Zapping's libzvbi... That also involves patches to Pygame..

Anyway, Freevo will be all you ever needed! ;)

Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

I will.

Microsoft spoke out late last fall against the proposed SSSCA. Only to patent a DRM-enabled OS and then get into bed with the entertainment companies on content delivery.

One step forward. Two steps back.

Given this annoucement, look to see Microsoft either reintroduce this consumer-hostile measure in another guise, or backtrack on their position that DRM is best done through the market and not Congress.

Some bit of this is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work as a Software Developer at Microsoft, so I can confirm that we are interested in making the products we sell the best they can be for the consumer. However, Microsoft does cater to different groups and different markets, and not all people inside Microsoft make decisions for the reasons that people on /. seem to think.

Many of the reasons that Microsoft designs systems the way it does have more to do with the avoidance of the cost of late design changes, or with what the perceived market or users from studies shows when the projects were in the design stage. Unfortunately, Microsoft does get plagued from time to time with the "forward-looking" strategy whereby someone looks too hard at what could be the future, and designs something which shows that they weren't looking hard enough or in the right places. Remember that all software you use today took teams of people years to design, implement, and test.

There are great benefits to DRM. If I give you a video I make, but don't want you distributing, then I have the ability to make it really difficult for you to distribute it. Let me give you an example you're not used to hearing. Lets say I make a video of my children. I'm not selling you this media. I'm giving you it, but the ownership is really mine. I don't want you to accidentally or otherwise post this video on the internet where some pervert can watch the video and plan to abduct my children. DRM lets me excersize my ownership rights. If I encode the video so it only plays back on selected computers and is unencryptable otherwise, then that lets me protect my rights.

DRM can also go to far. Requiring DRM on all recording from television can prevent people from excersizing their legal rights. Requiring it on the digital recording of *Copyrighted* materials isn't going too far, provided that fair use rights are still preserved. People and companies who pour out the millions of dollars to produce something which you consume should have a right to make efforts to prevent the illegal distribution of their work.

But the real bottom line is that nothing Microsoft _can_ do will prevent you 100% from being able to reverse engineer the code, capture the digital data, and remove the protection mechanism. And also, on that note, security is never finished. Once someone who can write code to exploit _any_ flaw in _any_ product on your system does, then it can basically do what you can do.

Don't get me wrong, we make lots of valiant efforts to close all things we know and can automate testing to find, but even if we close _billions_ of possible holes, it only takes _one_ hole before a new headline shows up on /. poking more fun at Microsoft's security or trustworthy computing initiative.

If you think that is bad, well, take into perspective that Microsoft Windows XP alone has something on the order of 65 Million lines of code. Since the security push started, this code has been checked by the hands of Microsoft developers and testers who know the code, Microsoft developers and testers who don't know the code, _and_ by automated tools written by Microsoft security experts to analyze this code for flaws. Every file has to get signed off on. Every line is code reviewed by 2 or more very capable people. Every change that results has the potential to destabilize or break functionality in Microsoft software and software that depends on it.

The world is a lot more complicated than seen through the perspective of a /. post. And Microsoft is not an evil company, nor are Microsoft employees out to get you. We want the same things you want, and we do the same things you do, and we even agree with some of the things you say!

I've posted several times to /., even in the early days when I was in college... and I'm an AC because I just can't take the spam.

Re:Some bit of this is right.

[vegetablespork]

Lets say I make a video of my children. I'm not selling you this media. I'm giving you it, but the ownership is really mine. I don't want you to accidentally or otherwise post this video on the internet where some pervert can watch the video and plan to abduct my children.

Yeah, right. And the URL for the free (to protect the children) user-friendly tool I can use to distribute that video only to the grandparents is where? Artful troll, though! Keep up the good work.

Re:Some bit of this is right.

[back_pages]

Sounds like a porn distributor's wet dream. Sounds like the media companies' wet dreams. Sounds like the end user can send a video of his kids to grandma without worrying about grandma redistributing it on the internet. WTF? No really, WTF? Sounds to me like your grandma is a pervert, which is not a software issue.

I don't buy a computer so that everyone else can make money off of me. I buy a computer for my own use, just like when I buy a shirt or a coffee pot. It is not an advertising appliance in my home, it is not a subscription kiosk to a dozen different "services".

Listen closely, and listen well. Microsoft does no one any favors. This isn't a rabid linux fanbody rant. Hell, General Electric does no one any favors, nor does Sony, Chrysler, or any other successful corporation. The difference is that nobody from Black & Decker is trying to sell me a less functional product for more money while spewing the brazen lie that they're doing me a favor.

Everyone at Microsoft who thinks that they're working hard to provide the end user with a superior product had better pull his head out and look around. Microsoft produces no consumer grade software for which there is not a superior open source product. Outlook, IE, Office, Explorer, Media Player, fricking Solitaire, so on and so on all have open source alternatives that are more secure, more feature rich, more stable, designed with more intelligence (VBScript, anyone?) and do not subject me to future restrictions. Microsoft does not sell quality. They do not sell security. They do not sell variety, choice, or options. There is nothing wrong with this. They are, afterall, a company trying to make a buck. The catch is that it pleases me none at all when this very same company spews forth PR spin and slogans that are completely contradict everything they have done, are doing, and have planned for the future.

"Microsoft: Let us show you the world." Who's to say that wouldn't sell just as much software as "Where do you want to go today?" It has the added benefit of not being an implicit lie, or practically grovelling on its knees begging the answer, "A long, long way away from Microsoft." Face it, MS is not in the business of selling products that meet the consumers' desires anymore. It is selling products that meet MS's desires for future revenue. That's a very profitable business plan, and high marks to MS if they can pull it off. The problem is that it is simply retarded for them to puke forth all this PR about "doing me a favor", because we're all a little too smart to think that MS gives two shits about doing me a favor.

We are too smart to believe the BS that comes from Microsoft, and if Microsoft ever wants to regain the techie/geek market in any form, then Microsoft is going to have to stop the bullshit PR, stop the anti-American monopolistic attack on our economic system, make some software that isn't junk, and make amends. Until then, Microsoft and all its trolls can go fuck off, because you aren't smart enough to know from where the money in your paycheck comes.

Pulled or just disabled?

[SgtChaireBourne]

Did they actually pull the code or is this just one of the check boxes you will find checked for you after installing the next service pack?

Microsoft and the others know that the public won't go for DRM, so it has to be brought in gradually -- spread DRM software and hardware with DRM turned off, then when it's reached critical marketshare, flip the switch either on the servers or both the servers and workstations.

Holy Moderation Points

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are there so many mod points on the comments in this story? Way more 3's and 5's than in most stories.

You're missing a big point

[burgburgburg]

They were cheaper because Microsoft gave "incentives" to computer manufacturers to include Word and Excel (and Powerpoint) with the OS as a bonus. They were never better products (especially not Powerpoint) but they were "free" with the computer.

And as to the success of the import filters in comparison to their competitors, that is because Word Perfect and Lotus didn't constantly change their format to screw up other people's import filters. You could cut 60% of the size of any Word or Excel doc just by removing the obfuscation elements meant to make it difficult to import.

Re:You're missing a big point

[gpinzone]

I'll take Word 2.0 over WP 5.1 any day. Word was WYSIWYG, WP wasn't. Same goes with Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 (providing you didn't install the WYSIWYG add-on which was extra).

You mean there was NO difference between WP 4.2, 5.0, 5.1 documents? Guess again. Same goes for Lotus 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.0, etc.

You have a source for these "obfuscation elements" you mention? I'd like to see what they are.

It's only a short term ploy.

[nurb432]

Beacuse of the bad press lately, they have to cave to the public's wishes today, but soon they will again have the power and backing of upcoming DRM bills to do as they please with our data.

Its all a matter of time. But today we get to see 'improved' marketing and blunder control..

Please: yes Yes Yes

[Felinoid]

While the whole DIVX thing was going on I was saying "If I never buy it I never need to care"
Thats how I feal about this new device.

Anyone who has had content theft (Microsoft and many music artists) will see content control as a nessisity or even a right.

Victoms or survivers of victioms often see it as a good thing to throw away other peoples rights to prevent a crime. Some times they actually do (prevent the crime).

But while it's carrer destorying content theft is as petty as shoplifting. Ban pockets or put antitheft devices in cloathing.

Microsoft like the RIAA has been a victiom of content theft. The big diffrence here is Microsoft's staff uses computers extensively the RIAA staff do not use fileshareing or if they do use MP3 players they use them for soungs they have full rights of. Oh like we all can afford to buy the whole rights to any artist we like yes?

Yes Microsoft is philosophicly bound to try far more than Circuit City.

I don't see Microsoft doing a Circuit City (We won't offer DVD players just DIVX) and then spend the next few years making it's money in car stereos and refridgerators.

I see Microsoft stuffing it's policy in EVERYTHING they make and going like Commodore did with the CD TV. Invest EVERYTHING so much that if it isn't a smash hit... not even Microsofts 210% marketshare will keep it alive.

(Yes I know you can't have more than 100% or can you? Just sell the same software to everyone twice and some people three times and make sure everyone has to buy the product even if they don't want it/need it or can ever use it. Who dose this? Microsoft... It's to prevent software theft. Becouse if everyone pays for the software nobody can steal it.)

However that was Commodore they were already really bad off and this is Microsoft they are pritty well off.
So I guess even at best we'll see Microsoft for the next five years at least.

Re:Please: yes Yes Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Buy a dictionary. Invest in a spell-checker. You really do need it.

If True the Cartels Could Save Themselves

[FreeUser]

The RIAA has been rebuffing Microsoft's "secure digital media" initiatives for *years*. They know what Microsoft does to its business "partners" and it scares them, along with the wholly known stupidity of becoming reliant on one company that will supply the DRM system and then "manage it" to maximize their own business needs (more features to Windows, less to other players).

Microsoft is simply strong-arming them with this; the idea is to put Hollywood on notice that its Microsoft DRM or none at all. There is no *way* that BillG and STEVE! Ballmer would EVER allow Microsoft to become reliant on either an open standard they have to compete on and ESPECIALLY a proprietary system owned by someone else to do DRM for what many consider to be "the next killer app" for PCs.

Very interesting point, and quite probably very correct. If what you say is true, the Copyright and Media Cartels could save themselves from both fates (out of control napsterization vs. Microsoft's strongarming them into subservience via DRM), but in order to do so they will have to give up their dreams of DRM control and change their business model.

Software has successfully used serial numbers and registration to discourage copyright violations, and while copyright violations do exist (and the software industry loves to exaggerate the economic impact of such violations), game manufacturers do make a profit (else they would no longer be selling gtames), Microsoft does make money, as do most software vendors not on Microsoft's hit-list. This is because serialization and/or registration is enough to discourage most illegal copying, and nothing, not even the most draconian DRM technologies, will ever stop all of it.

If Hollywood adopts a similar approach to content distribution on the internet they will likely have people lining up to pay $8.00 for the privelege of downloading unencumbered DivX encodings of their latest movies (with all $8.00 going to the studio, much to the dismay of theaters no doubt), and they will thrive without having their content ruthlessly napsterized (are you really going to share a copy of a movie that has a serial number they might have associated with your credit card and, thus, your real-world identity? Only if you are a fool) and without having to rely on Microsoft's DRM snakeoil (or someone else, though Microsoft is the only one likely to turn the MPAA and RIAA into wholley owned subsidiaries as part of the bargain). Having said that, if they try this stunt with some propreitary, encumbered, crippled format, they will fail as miserably as the RIAA currently is in their efforts to sell music online.

Television will have to make an even bigger adjustment, selling content to their viewers instead of selling their viewers like so much chattel to their advertisers. This isn't a bad thing ... most of us would pay a couple of buck a week to subscribe to our favorite programs, and the choice of programming driven by the desires of the viewership rather than advertisers can only improve.

However, if these cartels are unable or unwilling to adjust their world view and business strategies, the stark choice you outline between rampant illegal sharing or life beneath the heal of Redmond is likely to be the one they face, but if so, it will be entirely self inflicted and deserved.

Re:If True the Cartels Could Save Themselves

[swb]

If Hollywood adopts a similar approach to content distribution on the internet they will likely have people lining up to pay $8.00 for the privelege of downloading unencumbered DivX encodings of their latest movies

I keep waiting for someone to realize that yes, selling unencumbered movies for $8 WILL increase the number of pirates. However, it would be dwarfed by the number of people willing to pay for it.

Look at the movie rental industry as history; Hollywood was terrified that any idiot could rent a movie for $2 that sold for $75; piracy was feared. When they calmed down and realized that people found it less burdensome to pay $2 vs. screwing around with black market copies, they had a new outlet that dwarfed the old one.

I can only think that the Hollywood heavies, spurred on by Valenti, can't seem to give up the fantasy of pay per use and the logarithmic increase in revenues it would bring. Anything that doesn't further that goal is seen as enhancing piracy somehow.

Re:If True the Cartels Could Save Themselves

[GregWebb]

Registration discourages most? No way. Morality discourages most.

Let's be honest, with most software if you want to install without registering it's not tricky. MS software took a string of 1s for years, most have keygens or large piles of serials available.

What discourages people is morality. I buy software because it's right. I buy films because it's right - I tape stuff when I can't buy it at a reasonable price, and normally buy in a sale. I could download hours of music and have a CD burner, yet I've got well over 100 albums and am adding to that at 2-3 a month. I'm one of the guys they like, and they make quite a bit from me.

While the industry keeps assuming I'm a thief and getting in my way as a legitimate consumer on that basis, it increases the chance that I will agree with them and steal, out of spite and / or frustration. While they continue to trust me and put out decent product, I continue to buy it. Yes, I lend CDs to friends, some of whom have no doubt ripped or burnt. That's free advertising to them, and many new CDs will have been sold because of that. I've certainly bought for this reason.

There is a simple fact here: while they continue to treat me like a thief, they increase the chance I'll become one. Back off, save on PR and money with these ridiculous schemes and I'll be happier. I'll probably also walk straight into an electrical shop and buy a DVD player rather than researching some multiregion macrovision free machine, and waiting far longer to actually buy.

Re:If True the Cartels Could Save Themselves

[FreeUser]

What discourages people is morality. I buy software because it's right. I buy films because it's right - I tape stuff when I can't buy it at a reasonable price, and normally buy in a sale. I could download hours of music and have a CD burner, yet I've got well over 100 albums and am adding to that at 2-3 a month. I'm one of the guys they like, and they make quite a bit from me.

That may be true for you, but it is not true for anyone I know, and I know a number of people who consider themselves to be 'moral' people, of many walks of life. People (yourself excepted, apparently) seem to have a natural instinct that tells them copying and sharing something among friends and family is a good thing, and enriches their lives, and that includes copying and sharing software. And indeed, almost everyone I know (and, back in the day, myself included) did exactly that, despite the silly copy protection schemes software manufacturers came up with to try and stop it.

What did stop it was when our names became, merely by implication, associated with the copy in question. Suddenly no one I know was all that willing to share software with one another, and if they did it was with the 'make sure this doesn't go any farther' admonition that never existed before. Ultimately even that little bit of sharing went away (though most of us now use free software, so it isn't even an issue any more).

The point being: morality you cannot rely on. Indeed, there are powerful moral arguments against entitlement monopolies such as copyrights and patents, and for sharing and disseminating wealth as far and as wide as you possibly can, and that moral argument can and often does include sharing information (data or software) that others are immorally trying to hoard.

On the other hand, no one can argue with the fact that if you do get caught sharing illegal copies, you will be in trouble. As a result, regardless of your ethical or moral stance on the right or wrong of government entitlements such as copyright, or on the right or wrong of sharing illegal copies of software or data, you are a damn site less likely to be inclined to do so if your name is attached in some way to the copy and the act can be traced back to you.

Some people may believe sharing copying is ethically wrong, but everyone wants to avoid standing trial or facing a civil suit for copyright violation regardless of their stance on the ethics of copyright. Which is why serializing software worked so well, and why it would work so well for music and movies, irrespective of where one comes down on the whole copyright-copywrong debate.

[OT] Mod - Redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell mods a 2 day old post?! And redundant. Read the article flat, oldest first, ignore threads, and tell me the comment was redundant.

I know that they say grousing about mods and rejections is bad for Karma, but seriously! If you have mod points to waste, go mod down some goatse.cx trolls.

Posted AC to prevent further Karma destruction