Posted by
timothy
on from the don't-miss-an-episode-of-%83hd1nzz dept.
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."
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...
MS bows to *HP* pressure
by
kawika
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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:This can't be good.
by
mbogosian
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
DON'T BE FOOLED!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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:You know how this is going to work...
by
Safety+Cap
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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!
-- Yeah, right.
Consumers were just too stupid to "understand" it.
by
Black+Copter+Control
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"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.
-- OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
The week in review, so far
by
jhines
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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:This can't be good.
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
Market Penetration and Consumer Fashion
by
Anonamused+Cow-herd
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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,
-- -----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
Public pressure... bah humbug!
by
Cervantes
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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!
-- If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?
by
kcbrown
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
-- Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
They're holding out
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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:MS didn't back down all the way
by
captaineo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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...
Slashdot Mirror
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...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
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.
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.
moto411.com
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.
Yeah, right.
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.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
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.
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.
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,
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
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!
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
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.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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.
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...