Slashdot Mirror
RIAA: We Won't Pursue Mandated DRM Technologies
tekman writes "A New York Times article details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation that would mandate technologies in computers and other home electronics to restrict 'unauthorized' copying. The most interesting thing about this is the absence of the MPAA."
Well thank god for that, now we just need to hope we will still be able to buy non-palladium computers in a few years time.
"So stop hacking us, damnit!"
(Score:-1, Wrong)
i noticed an absence of porn.
on a serious note, i thought legislation was already passed that they had to incorporate DRM in all electronics by some fixed date? or was that just proposed and it didn't go anywhere.
anyways, i still miss the porn.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
this is the best thing since the 3 Ghz chip!!!!
/sarcasm
What in the world is this supposed to mean??
Fuck Saddam! I want Osama, dead or alive!
...entirely from 12AX7 tubes and individual capacitors, resistors, etc.
"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..."
I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.
GL
Wow... funny in the same day.
this
And now this!
If indeed they do have access to a lot of P2P networks, this would go along with MANY peoples comments about them not needing DRM anymore.
Fishy?
I hope not.
Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind.
I recieved an iPod for Christmas and I'd kinda like to keep it....
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
Does anyone else find the statment "details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation a little uncomfortable?
the idea, that, two multi-national business organizations (comp. ind. / riaa) have basically made an agreement to A) not "buy" some legislation from their corrupt governmnet and B) further collude in some way to determine the future of the industry.. i thought these people were supposed to be COMPETING???
how f'ing obvious can this be...
As more people steal music (or in their opinions stop paying outrageous prices for music without any money going to the artists), their power will diminish.
Let's see how much people listen to them when they have no money and no influence.
Music and Computer Companies Agree on Antipiracy Plan
By AMY HARMON
he big record companies said today that they would not seek government intervention to prevent digital piracy, in a compromise with technology companies that may hurt the efforts of the motion picture industry to win support for its own antipiracy plans.
The recording industry and two trade groups representing computer makers and software companies said they had arrived at several basic principles of an agreement that would help ease the tensions between their industries. They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material.
"This agreement says that those who seek to put the burden of piracy on the technology are simply missing the point," said Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance, whose members include Microsoft, Apple Computer and Adobe Systems "Technology can be part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution."
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
"As a matter of first order, we believe the marketplace should address these issues," said Ken Kay, executive director of the Computer Systems Policy Project, whose group represents Intel, as well as Dell Computer Hewlett-Packard and others.
Many consumer electronics companies did not join the agreement. They contend legislation like Rep. Boucher's is necessary to ensure that consumers can make fair use of digital copyrighted material even when it is locked up to prevent illegal copying.
The recording industry's agreement with the computer trade groups marks a departure from its longtime alliance with the motion picture industry on the antipiracy front and underscores their divergent concerns. The music industry may already have taken the hardest hit from digital piracy that it will have to face, as it begins to experiment with technological copy-protection on compact discs.
But the motion picture industry is worried that digital television broadcasts and movies copied off of DVD's will soon be traded over the Internet in the same high volumes as music is currently. Hollywood movie and television studios view federal intervention as a key element in avoiding the same fate as the recording industry.
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said his organization still believed that "no reasonable alternative course of action should be eliminated from consideration."
"We are not prepared to abandon the option of seeking technical protection measures via the Congress or appropriate regulatory agency, when necessary," Mr. Valenti, said in a statement. "Designing ways to protect valuable creative works is very much in the long-term best interests of consumers and indispensable to the nourishment of our nation's economy."
Since the recording industry had never been a strong supporter of legislation that would mandate technical solutions to digital piracy, industry analysts said Ms. Rosen appeared to have conceded little that would have a far-reaching effect on the companies she represents.
But the move may make it harder for Mr. Valenti's group to achieve its aims.
"It has a great deal of symbolic value," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that has opposed legislative mandates on technology. "Public policy makers are going to ask why isn't the recording industry pushing for mandates when they're the ones getting killed?"
There is no way they'd be able to pass legislation requiring computers to have DRM. They'd have to prove computers have no other use besides playing media. Not even the RIAA can bribe enough politicians for that.
They're just trying to spin the fact that they can't force that kind of legislation to make it sound like they're being the good guys.
What difference does it make to them if there's that kind of legislation anyway? They're doing everything they can to restrict their CDs to DRM players as it is.
Jason
ProfQuotes
No mandated restrictions in computers
or other electronics, moreover;
does it seem to anyone else
that hell is freezing over?
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
In an equally unprecedented response, Slashdotters agreed to avoid seeking abuses of "fair use" to complain about.
... what sparked this change of heart. Is the RIAA afraid of Intel and other big companies entering the legal battle? Do they finally realize that they could make money by making internet specific products with these people as allies? Have they figured out that by getting the laws passed, the consumers out there would be made aware of the RIAA's attempts to mess with their rights?
I can't help but think there's a juicy story behind this decision.
WTF is this, Bizarro Day?
No, of course it isnt.
I love Microsoft.
Seems like the RIAA and MPAA are thinking clearly and the tech industry isn't. Since the MPAA isn't party to this agreement, they can still campaign for enforced DRM. The tech industry promised the RIAA they wouldn't try to expand rights for consumers (translation: enforce current rights), so they probably won't campaign against the MPAA. The RIAA loses nothing since the MPAA will still do their lobbying, which the tech industry won't oppose them.
It's not like they're suddenly lobbying to have the legisation currently being pushed pulled off the table. They took a lot of flack over this and now they're covering their rears.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That part is great, so is the part about the technology companies (See Dell, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc) lobbying congress to NOT mandate DRM technology.
t m
The downside is that the tech companies have also agreed to a self-imposed DRM mandate, and will ALSO drop lobbying for greater consumer rights. From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/4946117.h
"In exchange, the tech companies agreed that government shouldn't alter laws to allow consumers to bypass copyright protection measures to make personal copies of DVDs and other digital works."
Two steps forward, two steps back IMHO.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
keyword: legislation. They would rather force us to use DRM invented by them or microsoft, instead of something that might be out of their hands.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
instead of pushing for drm technology, they'll be asking congress to limit the rights of consumers.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Their idiotic hurrahs, I'd like to point out how sinister this actually is.
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
This isn't a good thing, by far.
"Fair use" is not a legal loophole in various copyright laws, so I ** could ** get jailed for life for even "thinking" about copyright infringement, Its only the fact that Im not a "big pirate" that my ass is covered.
Here in Belgium there is discussion about adding a 0.12Euro tax to CDR's for author rights. I'm not against it (0.12 euro's won't make me starve), but if they prohibit me from copying, I wonder what I'm paying for. My advice to the RIAA is: go ahead and take a piece of the pie, and GIVE IT TO THE ARTISTS!!
Anyway, making bits 'uncopyable' is like making water 'not wet' (not my quote, I copied it;) ).
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I don't believe a word of this. The legislation being considered for forcing DRM is a result of the RIAA lobbying. So it's 'their' legislation, they're just trying to quash any rumors that may have gotten out of the techy community, so that the average person who's heard the negative hears them say the opposite, shrugs, and stops caring.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Yeah, that's what it seems like...but where's the MPAA? I'm thinking they've gone around for a flanking maneuver. Sneaky bastards...
Although, it'd be nice if they just had a simple difference in opinion. If we could get the RIAA and MPAA to fight each other, that'd solve our problems. Doubt it would ever happen though.
---
Open Source Shirts
"aggressively pursue digital pirates". This of course was a PR disaster so this story changed 30 minutes ago! The NY Times article I sent Slashdot has been deleted. That's it, I'm fsking prinitng everything that shows up the NYTimes with some new outrage. This is /not/ good news, all it means is that Hollywood and Silicon Valley have reached a dirty deal to turn your computer into a fink.
Glin
If they had, it would have read like this... from the glass-is-half-empty dept.: Your Rights Online: Electronics makers to lobby against user rights That's the other half of the quid-pro-quo here. The RIAA is willing let go the idea of government mandated DRM, so long as the electronics companies promise to lobby against any pro-user expansions of the definiton of "fair use" or a guarenteed right to backups. Basically, the RIAA would rather have things stay the way they are, then to play the game in Congress. If the RIAA tried to argue for more than they have now, there's a risk that the debate might turn around and result in pro-consumer copyright law changes, and they'd rather talk people out of trying than taking that risk.
Seems to me the industries said "If the Tech Industry stops supporting laws that will ensure fair use rights are protected the RIAA will stop supporting laws that require anti-copying controls in all electronic equipment"
We got hosed tommy, we got hosed.
The idea of Senator Hollings bill was absolutely ludicrous and it wouldn't have been difficult to defeat. Boucher's bill, on the other hand seems to make sense and had a good chance of winning.
I ask, is this a fair trade?
Here's some of the article for those of you too cool to read it yourselves.
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
They may not purse legally mandated DRM, but you can bet that they will pursue de-facto DRM through hardware, BIOS and operating system vendors.
What the RIAA is trying to do by keeping DRM mandates out of the hands of legislators is avoid a situation where they are forced to give consumers MORE rights. Fritz Hollings doesn't have as much influence as he used to now that Republicans have control of the Senate again. Someone who 'gets it', like Rick Boucher, could make them very unhappy. They'd rather not fight a battle in Congress if there's a good chance that they wouldn't win.
Does anyone else feel that this is just a non aggression treaty, like the one between Germany and Russia, and both sides are holding off the government until they come up with the killer technology to screw the other side, and us as well?
Maybe it's just me.
"These technology companies, including Microsoft Corp., IBM, Intel Corp. and Dell Computer Corp., also pledged support Tuesday for aggressive enforcement against digital pirates." http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Down loading-Music.html
"Digital Pirates" - aka America
jesus, im not even going to read that, put some fucking formating in there
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
When the Home Recordings Act was passed, it specifically made sure fair use rights were protected. The RIAA certainly didn't go to the same extremes as the MPAA did when the latter got the DMCA passed into law primarily to support its DVD system.
The RIAA has also always been on the right side of the free speech debate. Hilary Rosen has made numerous representations which, so far, have staved off any credible censorship of music. Beyond a token, meaningless, sop to critics of the "Parental Advisory" label, which has no meaning in law or practice - record shops can and do freely sell such content without checking ages - there's not even a rating system. That there isn't is a testiment to Rosen's abilities to keep music free and open.
Ironically, the worst law the RIAA has proposed to protect its members copyrights is also the most libertarian - a proposal that the RIAA be able to hack into computers it believes are being used by those who violate copyright laws. Clearly, it's a dumb law, but it's symptomatic of an industry that really doesn't want people imprisoned for illegally redistributing its stuff. It's a world away from certain software companies and the movie industry who feel that imprisoning someone who merely makes it easier to copy something is just and proper.
Give the group a break, people. It's made some mistakes. It's made presumptions about Napster, etc, users that it shouldn't have and proposed some pretty whacko solutions, but it isn't evil. The RIAA, on this subject, is seriously misguided. It deserves better than the treatment it gets.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Tres, I am still waiting for your idiotic post on this matter. Don't let me down.
For the technology industry's end of this bargain with the devil, the participants agreed to stop lobbying for a bill protecting consumers' fair use rights to digital media.
The technology companies were the major lobbying force behind the bills to protect consumers' fair use rights. If these corporations aren't going to stand up for our rights, then we'd better do so for ourselves. And the time to do so is right now, before coming DRM technologies erode the rights we have left.
Can you think of a better excuse to write your Congresscritter and tell him or her to support the Boucher bill? If our fair use rights aren't explicitly protected, then they'll slowly disappear as future generations of technology will have more and more restrictions on how you can use the content you paid for. Write to your Congressperson now and let them know you are concerned about this issue!
Actually, they're doing what Congress told them to do. As you may remember, a couple of years ago during the height of the Napster craze, Congress looked at forcing the music industry to provide music over the Internet. Some of the guidance from Congress, was "industry fix this problem or we'll fix it for you." Anyone who has experienced Congress' help, would rather avoid it in the future. So it is not surprising that these two groups got together. In fact, it is a good thing. Do YOU really want Congress deciding this issue.
Will the first run of the new AMD 64bit processors have TCPA/DRM/whatever functions? How about the first run of motherboards? Does anyone know yet?
Here is a story that explains a little more behind the MPAA's decision:
MPAA Info
RIAA doesn't need goverment mandated DRM because they can mandate it themselves together with computer manufacturers.
You can be sure that next audiodisc format will have VERY strong enpcryption and there won't be any players/soundcards which will provide standard SPDIF out while playing a new format.
Instead of writing a post complaining that two groups are colluding to not pay off politicians and subverting your fair use rights, go join the EFF and ask them to push this bill!
We do not need corporate help to get our rights set down in law! The EFF is working to be our voice! Take the time to donate some money and get this done!
We are still going to be screwed.
/. at all?
Is there going to be any good news announced today on
I understand why people are upset about DRM, you should be able to mp3 your own songs, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe
a) they are entitled to it
b) they believe industy X is overcharging
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?
evil adrian
The NYT articles leaves out some important facts.
From this story: "Under the agreement, technology lobbyists will argue that record companies should be permitted to use hacker-style tactics to disrupt Internet downloads of pirated music and movies."
Great.
to send a message to them. If you know someone that wants a new PC, offer to custom build one for them instead. If they turn you down, point to this and say "I can't believe you're buying from companies that support stuff like this! I thought you were better than that." Shrug and walk off. Getting people to buy macs is another solution as Apple is not in favor of DRM
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Will you idiots wake the fuck up! This is what the BSA has agreed to do for the RIAA:
1) Endorse hacking of computers! Yes the BSA (Microsoft, Apple, DELL, HP and Intel) will lobby congress to allow the RIAA to hack P2P networks, so long as the RIAA is "careful" about it!
2) BSA will "aggressively pursue digital pirates" on behalf of the RIAA. Now you've got Hollywood AND Silicon Valley working together to rifle through your shit!
3) The BSA will help the RIAA defeat any attempt to elucidate the fair use rights of consumers. That's right Hollywood and Silicon Valley will work together to make sure your rights are never spelled out by congress.
All of this in exchange for letting a law drop that was going to be voted down anyway! The RIAA just fucked Silicon Valley, your fair use rights and computer users everywhere in one swoop! This is GREAT news! Idiots.
This deal is a catastrophe and represents a complete cluster-fucking of America by corporate shills; you will pay dearly for it in lost freedom.
This is the worst job I've ever seen Slashdot's editors do. God damn you for spinning this as a win.
Glin
It seems the RIAA and/or BSA have learned to troll Slashdot, since the headline is grievously misleading.
This, "landmark agreement," simply states that BSA and RIAA will lobby against all new legislation on digital policy. Under this "balanced" approach, not only would Senator "Fritz" Hollings' (D-S.C.) bill for mandatory Digital Restrictions Mechanisms get the kibosh, so also would Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) initiative to make exercising Fair Use rights an affirmative defense against DMCA prosecution.
The most telling quote was from BSA head Robert Holleyman, who described the DMCA as, "generally working as it was intended."
This "compromise" measure is nothing of the sort, as it merely seeks to affirm the status quo, doing nothing to redress the harm done and still being done by the DMCA and the lesser-known NET Act.
I also note -- with piqued curiosity -- how the Associated Press report on this story has had significant changes made in the last few hours. The first version I read contained Holleyman's telling DMCA quote and mentioned the effects on Lofgren's and Boucher's bills. The latest version has a considerably different slant, soft-pedaling the announcement and eliding Holleyman's quote.
So the newswires aren't our friends, either.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I forget, which side represented the consumer? Was it the RIAA or Microsoft?
I don't see any spin at all. I see a short blurb summarizing the article, title included. Moreover, the summary is usually the work of the submitter, and not the editor. Get over yourself.
It's a PR ploy. Legislation is only one route to their goal. It picked up too much flack, so I suppose they just readjusted their deals with tech vendors.
The article says:
"They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material."
i.e. they took the process underground.
This is the way decisions get made. If you want music to be free, don't give your money to organizations that make decisions like this.
It doesn't matter if this stuff is encrypted, locked, armed will a tamper-proof explosive device, and guarded by a rabid pitbull with aids, someone, somewhere, will hack it.
And then the files will get out on the net, and the geeks of the world will rejoice. And honestly, I think thats the one thing the RIAA and MPAA are most afraid of. They know they can't stop the geeks of the world. They can try and make it harder, they can actually make it harder, but they can't win this fight.
So the real question is, if its logical to assume that they know they can't achieve 100% victory, why aren't they trying to adapt?
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
From the RIAA's perspective, there's no point in having the govt. force DRM down the computer industries throat. They make their money selling cds. If DRM is around, they may offer music for sale on the internet, which may or may not increase their bottom line. If DRM doesn't catch on, they'll still keep selling cds, and stick to the "old business model", ignoring the internet. It's not worth their lobbying money to fight this battle, especially when the MPAA has a much bigger interest in the issue anyway.
Vote for Pedro
I'm pretty sure the words "this week" got left off of that title.
No, they're probably fearful of Congress maybe passing a law that would make their concerns a moot point. Or maybe its just plain stupid to piss off your customers.
.
I got an iPod for Christmas. It was a Mac 5gb and at school I use it on my PC running windows 2000. I reformatted it using Xplay and now use MusicMatch jukebox to put stuff on it and EphPhod or whatever the heck it's called to get stuff off it. On the mac I have a gazillion tools to get songs off it it. The music sits in an invisible folder called iPod_Control in some goofy format with folders named F0-F20.
My friend has a creative archos and all the songs on there are just in plain sight at the root level of the disc.
DRM will not work. The tech savvy people wont buy it and we influence the purchases of other people. I have been asked a lot about my iPod here in downtown Chicago and Ive seen 6-7 other people around that have one. I see the white headphones and just nod.
The movie studios are asking for the technically impossible to be done. 321 studios has the DVD ripping tools that finally make the process easy. These are DVD's THAT I OWN YOU AND AS MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CAN DO ANYTHING WITH, EVEN USE A SHITTY DVD AS A BEER COASTER. I ONLY DO THIS WITH DVD'S I OWN. YOU HAVE TO TRUST ME HOLLYWOOD
Ripping a DVD to a VCD is a long process. I need a faster computer to make it not take all night. I see no harm in duping a dvd that I own. $20 is a good investment, and i might get clumsy and break it.
Hollywood is just paranoid about losing money while at the SAME TIME they are making hands over fist on movies, especially geek movies like Star Wars, LoTR, Trek, Matrix, you name it.
I will not buy an HDTV that wont allow digital recording unfettered. Just relax Valenti. Your'e 80 years old and the TV, VHS tape (BOSTON STRANGLER!! RUN!!) and Cable must have caused runs in your shorts a lot worse than this.
Your buddy Hilary was in collusion with Big Radio in selling us crappy music. $20 for one Movie is a great deal. $20 for a song? Thats money for a night out at the bars. I can record a sound wave any way I want. I might not want to buy a piece of pressed plastic any more.
Also Jack, region coding and css encryption is just unnessary. Just stop. I am willing to pay for digital content in the way that I want and I'm willing to venture that there are a lot more computer enthusiasts that are as well. Just stop shoving "sky is falling" rhetoric down the throats of congressman.
We wont stop protesting unless you give us what we want how we want it. I want to pay for digital content. I have been paying for movies, dvds, dvd rentals, and vhs tapes for a long time. I like movies, Im willing to support you a lot.
Dont give us that "No broadband is wanted because no good content is there". Broadband costs $50 a month and thats too much for most people. Not me. As soon as the price goes broadband usage will go up big time.
Maybe customers dont want to download a 700 meg file that's DRM encoded? Maybe VOD by cable systems is a different story.
Piss us off and we dont pay you. How blunt is that?
RIAA will not push for DRM laws because then they would be re-examine concerning anit-trust laws concenring their operation..
ever ask why cds are the same price from competing music companies? You cannot price fix with a competior under anti-trust laws..
If we settle for RIAA PR we lose.. its time to use the law and public opinion to put RIAA out of buinsess for real, right now!
Lets see they shake down companeis to bann cusotmers from using what they paid for.. that applies under RICO and several other nasty fed laws..
Then there is anti-trust..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
the MPAA has not a leg to stand on to get legislation through since they have no data about pirated movies hurting the industry.....the MPAA had the best profits ever last year....they go to the senate with a bill protecting them, they will get laughed at.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
We don't need to fight for mandated DRM. It's already on order.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Despite all their loses such as their failure at bringing down p2p networks, lawsuits aginst just about everyone, DMCA threats to scolars, bribing congress whores to pass their laws, etc, they are finaly getting what they wanted. They now have just about total control over our computers and there is not much we can do about it.
I really hate this, the one thing I loved about computers was that you where incontrol. Now we are no longer root, we will no longer have control over our files, we will not be able to create our own programs, you will not be able to create and distribute your own media (music, movies, art, etc), it was so fun while it lasted.
Guess the next thing is that computers will be the new pay for play device, pay MS for the os so you don't get cut off, same for the media content and maybe they won't turn it off (but I bet they in additon to MS will have some EULA that allows them to fuck you how ever and when ever they want), pay to have a MS approved licence in order to have the privlage to program, and so on.
I also doubt we will be able to crack these things in the future. Sure we might get the equivlent of a mod chip and some hackers manage to brake it, but I see it getting to the point where you need a CS and a EE dagree inoder to even have the chance to do so. I also doubt the Paldinet will allow those in the know to share this stuff so that the average Joe Sixpack can fix their defective computers.
There is also the DMCA, and the fact that if it has to allways be connected those in the know will probably keep quite about it.
Better get use to bending over and wide like the goatse "consumers" they want us to be. I will do what ever I can to inform people about this and help them keep the open pc that we all enjoy, but I doubt there is much we can do about this. I doubt Joe Sixpack will really care enough to fight this, and we can count on them as well as the "I got to have this, I can get 3 more fps with a pallidum chip!" gamers and the "WOW, I can prevent email leaks, secure my computer, put in more pain in the ass restrictions, and make my workers jobs even worse." PHBs to give the the support they need.
This should have +5 insigtful AND +5 funny :)
DRM Technologies pursue YOU !!!
Because the Internet is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. Right Jack?
I don't know why anyone bothers to listen to this dipshit when he says something about the implications of some technology. Few prognostications have ever been as utterly wrong as his was. And that he insists that he's been proven correct is just stupid.
Dyolf Knip
What they are doing is quite simple. Why be the bad guy, and potentially face boycotts (at least from geeks who will just pirate your wares anyway) when you could let the MPAA do it for you?
Dell is going to have a real hard time selling me a new laptop in a couple of years if my old one can do more.
What if your laptop's hard drive dies, and none of the hard drives available at your local computer store are compatible with your laptop?
Will I retire or break 10K?
So explain to me how your old laptop can do more than a DRM enabled laptop
Some of the proposed DRM schemes effectively turn a computer into something that can do nothing but play DRM files. In essence, it becomes a glorified Xbox.
when the old one can't play DRM files at all.
Who even needs to play DRM files?
Will I retire or break 10K?
We got royally screwed in this one boys and girls.
Yes. So, where is the list of companies that support this idioticy so we, the consumer don't buy from them.
haiku
/haiku
Collude agreement,
Share the pie, remainder one,
Steal rights, pad profits.
This space for rent.
If the RIAA wants to bitch because "internet piracy" is hurting their revenue, why don't they just open a broadband ISP? Then they get money from people downloading music.
NPR reported this on my way to work this morning. The gist of the conversation is "Hey we won't demand hardware copy protection if you hardware makers help us strip or block every bit of consumer rights legislation that comes through". The goal is that RIAA stops lobbying for mandatory hardware controls and the hardware groups join to lobby against any possible consumer bill of rights. Great "trade".
I hope we can buy a few senators back some day and have groups like the RIAA permanently banned from doing that special kind of business they do. They should have just stuck to certifying gold records.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
They bought the chip makers. Who needs the US congress, when you got the whole world?
Now that the big processor producers already have announced plans to add in DRM, they don't NEED to push it as mandatory. It'll fill in all by itself.
Banaaaana!
Look at the sides here and read between the lines: In the left corner, the BSA: the evil organisation which uses tactics that remind me of mafia racketeering to extract mounds of cash from honest people by forcing them to either pay lots for an audit which could, if errors are found, force them to pay even more, or pay even more upfront to save themselves? The organisation who act like they were the police and believe everyone out there is out to steal from their members? In the right side, the RIAA: the evil organisation who'd like nothing less than to see the advent of big brother, with all of us forced to listen to whatever they want us to listen, and to pay for every second we're listening to it. I can imagine all of us chained to a "music meter" that calculates exactly what we owe them, and then a zoom to the RIAA headquarters, with artists chained to their desk to produce "music", virtually slaves to the most powerful organisation in the world, and I know that's Rosen's dream and everyone else's nightmare. In the middle, as referees: the Lawyers, who stand to profit anyway this goes. The result: Evil wins, whatever happens. Whichever side gets the best of the argument won't much matter in the end. But I suspect it will go like that: The computer industry will spontaneously implement DRM methods across the board, just like the RIAA said, but by themselves without any rules or restrictions set by the government, and fair use will die. This profits the BSA, because it is also related to the patenting of code, and the destruction of open source. We'll be doubly screwed. I'd be curious to know exactly which companies refused to get in this. I suspect Apple was one of them. Steve Jobs, you're our only hope!
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
"I'm not going to murder your wife." Thug holds gun to husband's head. "You are."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Your spelling is discusting!
Do you know how incredibly slow a processor would have to be if it was built out of discrete parts? Also, I'd like to see you wade through the ocean of wires to try and debug it. Debugging a digital circuit on a breadboard is painful enough...
I'd just want all those tubes after the project fails.... Man, that'd be a lifetime supply of spares for all the guitar amps in Texas!!!!
The term "Trusted Computer" is really misused in the context of DRM. The "Trust" is that the "Owner" of the computer will not be able to use his computer as a "Personal Computer" but an agent of the MPAA.
The "MPAA" trusts the "Trusted Computer" that's all it means. You as an owner of the computer do not get any "Trust" benefits from at trusted computer. On the contrary. You can trust that computer will no longer do "Your Bidding" but only the bidding of the MPAA or Microsoft.
This means that you no longer get to use your own "C" compiler to make your handy utility programs to implement tedious or redundant tasks. Only "Trusted Software Development Firms" will be allowed to compile programs for your "Personal Computer"
This notion flies in the face of the purpose of a Personal Computer. I thought the "Personal Computer" was "Personal". It is called a PC not
a "Motion Picture Association of America Computing Device". Maybe we need to update our
acronyms lets all change the term PC to MPAACD.
Or perhaps the name should be "Microsoft Monopoly Enforcement Device" (MMED).
Microsoft would have you believe that if you insist on having the right to "program you own computer" that you must have evil intentions. According to Microsoft only a selected few large "trusted" software companies (like Microsoft) should have the ability to write "Programs".
They believe that otentially "evil" end users cannot be trusted with the power of compiling programs.
I say that this type of attack on programming freedom is only possible if the silent majority of people are not technical enough to realize that their most important freedoms regarding computers are about to be institutionalized out of existance.
Not even the power that Microsoft exerts on congress would be enough to steal these rights from users in open debate.
Microsoft is trying to "Sneak" this one through
in the guise of protecting "DRM" interests.
Don't be fooled! Stop Microsoft Now!
Programmers can be, and should be, "Trusted"!!!
Lets make sure that Programmers always have the right to write programs on their own "personal computers".
This is bad news. They are saying "we are afraid that Government will not mandate DRM so we and our technology partners are mandating it"
Shame on MS and Intel.
This is TERRBILE news.
The pro-consumer SPIN is transparent.
I actually agree with you mostly. I use the word "steal" because legally, that's probably the right term for it... even if it isn't ethically.
IMO, the reason people "steal" music is because CDs cost ~$17 (because the RIAA is too greedy). It is difficult to steal music. Each step of the process is pretty annoying and complicated. But it's worth it compared to the high price of CDs.
If CDs cost $5, people wouldn't steal music. It wouldn't be worth the trouble.
The expensive price of CDs is effectively lowered by all the stealing. They can keep the price high and see stealing grow and grow, or they can charge a fair price.
notice that the RIAA wants to stop legislation that will guarantee your fair use rights despite the DMCA. Basically, RIAA will settle for the DMCA as it is, unabridged. That's not progress. That's no deal. That's a step backwards, no matter what the headline to this story reads.
Even if the RIAA doesn't pursue legislated DRM, we've noticed how Microsoft has pressured Intel, Amd and Transmeta into "do it or we'll withdraw Windows".
are there any renegade groups out there that are capitalized up, and could start to make pirite systems? Any out of work electronics engineers there willing to form alliances?
make your systems totally open, specs realeased on everything, absolutely no DRM. port all the NiX'z. No worries.
maybe this would be illegal, and the factories would have to be underground.
the plan being that people will buy these computers and the big guy who only care about money will drop dead.
Let them lobby, let the mindless congressional puppets pass any legislation they want. In response, I would love to see consumers chew up the RIAA/MPAA and spit them out like a piece of five-day-old gum. Then no law in the world will do them any good as they try to stave off bankruptcy.
Um, it sounds to me like Hollywood and Silicon Valley have not only done that but also control the news media. Please do keep close track of brief media slipups like that. After all we have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia- it says so on the news, right? O_O
You think I'm a loon? Congress is elected and it's members will do what it takes to stay that way. It's a simple matter to convince people their rights are being infringed, given the current state of outrageous copyright laws. If the public turns its attention to this issue for long, they might just understand it - and poof, many Mikey Mouse schemes will vaporize. Publishers make their living by wooing the public. Time lays waste the plans of mice and men.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Oh yeah, that's it, Poland 1939, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed on August 23rd of 1939.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Him sounds like history is repeating itself mysteriously here. I am curious here to see what they secretly agreed to.
It is obvious here someone is trying to buy some time for a later action. The question is who is the alligator going to eat next?
Funny how history is repeating itself only in this case it is with the RIAA and BSA.
And further, I believe that if any of our elected representatives keep pushing for mandatory DRM anyway, it's because it's The Right Thing To Do. And that if the RIAA keeps bankrolling these politicians, then that is also because it's The Right Thing To Do.
In other news, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. We know this, because President Bush said so.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I should me modding, but I have to comment because I don't see a certain point here. We still need to write and bitch because we still have the DMCA on our backs. That these two sides are teaming up leaves me with a sneaky feeling. I want to think it is for the best, but it is about 4 years too late. We have asked for an agreement between parties for years. Now we have the DMCA. We need further legislation to either eliminate it or reduce its power. For the RIAA and tech side to say they will back of legislation, leave the burden squarely on the backs of the public. Support Bouchers bill!
Because then someone else might be able to purchase the entire trademark (or at least rights) to use the Windows name, and build off of its code.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
You must huddle in a cave always wondering why the government doesn't "do something" about some spooky evil.
It must suck to be you.
Has anyone here used/played with one of these? What level of DRM technology do they employ? CSS like on a DVD? or something else entirely? (or none at all like a CD -- unlikely but possible.)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Ah, Adrian. There there. You're so worked up.
Its so cute how you're stomping your feet over something you feel and care so deeply about. But are absolutely clueless.
You remind me of the dumb Miss America contestant who very seriously tells the judges that "War is bad and I'm against it". Its so...so...funny.
Poor poor Adrian.
Does anyone over the age of say, 12, play Quake?
As noted here Jackie still want it regulated by some regulatory agency or congress.
Anyone else not surprised by this?
Is someone dosing the riaa's site?
Microsoft, the one who will bring them all together.
If the majority of a society breaks a law with regularity, then how good of a law is it? Has society not voted with their actions, saying they don't want that law? Perhaps rather than jackboot-enforcing such a law, it would be more productive to ask what problems that law is trying to solve, how effective it is in solving those problems, what harmful side-effects it has, and how the underlying goals of the law might be better served in a different manner with fewer harmful side-effects.
nobody is entitled ot break the law.
Bull. Everybody is entitled to break the law. You just have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. In fact, there are few things more American than breaking an unjust law in an effort to get it changed. Am I saying that all speeders speed purely in an effort to raise speed limits? No. But you made a broad blanket statement that needed to be rebutted in such a form.
There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits.
In your opinion. Don't presume to claim that as fact, because it isn't. Others have opinions that differ from yours in this matter. Ask just about anyone from Montana, for example. In deciding public policy, the opinions of ALL citizens must be weighed.
If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads.
And where, exactly, are these private roads that lead from the town where I live to the town where I'm visiting someone?
The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant)
Ah, now I'm immoral! I hate to rain on your religious parade, but morals are a matter of opinion as well. You may get near 100% agreement that killing an innocent person is immoral, but I doubt you'll get anywhere near that consensus that speeding (in general) is. I'll give due consideration to your opinion if you'll give due consideration to mine.
it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal
Boy, we sure do have a lot of criminals in this country. Are people really so evil, or are we just outlawing too much?
and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Sounds like a facist dictatorship, not a democracy. See my first paragraph, above.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
Maybe because "some of us scofflaws" do not consider speeding to be in the same category as running red lights and hitting pedestrians. Just because most current laws have similar penalties for the average red light infraction and the average speed infraction does not mean the offenses themselves come from the same mindset, have the same impact on society, or should be treated in the same way.
I've listened to your opinion, now perhaps you'll be so good as to listen to mine...
Speed is a scapegoat. The law enforcement and insurance establishments try to pin everything on speed that they can because speed is "easy" to enforce. Officers writing up accident reports routinely get pressured from above to list speed as a cause of the accident even if they don't really think it applies. Because the more accidents speed "causes", the weightier the statistics the establishment has to justify regulating speed instead of trying to regulate what really matters.
What really matters? Attention, skill, and equipment condition.
Surveys that don't come from the law enforcement and insurance establishments regularly conclude that inattention is much more dangerous on the road than speed. Safe driving requires attention and focus. Talking on a cellphone, eating, doing makeup, shaving, reading, and just about any other significant activity compete for a driver's attention and detract from focus. These are much more dangerous than speeding. So why aren't we outlawing all these activities wnd the American will wreck miserably. Why? Cost, training, and culture. It's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to get a driver's license in America than it is in most of Western Europe, so European drivers take their license much more seriously than do Americans. We expect a license practically as birthright; to them, it's an enormous priviledge. European drivers get much more training than do American drivers in the licensing process, and are forced to pass a much more difficult driving test. Go to a racing school in America and they'll spend the entire first day teaching you things that a European driver had to learn IN ORDER TO GET their license. Finally, Europeans just take driving much more seriously than Americans do as a pervasive cultural bias. Cars sold in Germany don't have cup holders. Think about that for a moment. Germans don't WANT the ability to sip on a soda while driving. They want to focus on the road. If Americans had the same mindset, our roads would be a lot safer.
Ever try to bring an older car into California and get slammed by the smog laws, having to do all kinds of work to get it to meet emissions regulations? Try bringing an older American car into Europe. You'll get the same thing, only with suspension, brakes, and tires. The cheap bottom-barrel tires and shocks you get in an American auto parts store aren't even LEGAL to drive on German roads. The Germans don't consider them safe enough. AAA ran a free clinic teaching people about car maintenance, and found that over HALF of the people that showed up had dangerously underinflated tires. That statistic is much lower in Europe. Europeans maintain their cars better than Americans (and I'm not talking about washes and oil changes; I'm talking about worn out brake pads, shocks, and tires, underinflated tires, cut springs, and the like), and as a result, their cars are safer and more able to avoid crashes.
Now this is just personal observation, and admittedly is an unfair generalization, but I'm going to make it anyway. I find that many of the Americans shouting the loudest about enforcing speed limits rigidly are the same ones who don't take driving seriously, don't focus their attention on the road, try to do other distracting tasks while driving, haven't taken any kind of "advanced" driving instruction since being licensed (and don't want to), and drive around in an unsafe car (worn out components, etc.). If you're going to yell at me to slow down, what's to say I shouldn't yell at you to hang up the phone, pay attention to the road, put some air in those sorry excuses for tires, replace those worn shocks that have you bouncing down the road, use your turn signals, and for God's sake look in your mirrors before changing lanes?
Indignant that I should have the gall to say all that to you? Now you know how I feel when you tell me I'm an immoral criminal for speeding. Who's right? Well, that's a matter of opinion, and having the current law on your side doesn't automatically make you right. It just means that I have to accept consequences for my behavior on the road while you don't. But laws can be changed...
-----Chaz
But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant.
If the majority of a society breaks a law with regularity, then how good of a law is it? Has society not voted with their actions, saying they don't want that law? Perhaps rather than jackboot-enforcing such a law, it would be more productive to ask what problems that law is trying to solve, how effective it is in solving those problems, what harmful side-effects it has, and how the underlying goals of the law might be better served in a different manner with fewer harmful side-effects.
nobody is entitled ot break the law.
Bull. Everybody is entitled to break the law. You just have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. In fact, there are few things more American than breaking an unjust law in an effort to get it changed. Am I saying that all speeders speed purely in an effort to raise speed limits? No. But you made a broad blanket statement that needed to be rebutted in such a form.
There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits.
In your opinion. Don't presume to claim that as fact, because it isn't. Others have opinions that differ from yours in this matter. Ask just about anyone from Montana, for example. In deciding public policy, the opinions of ALL citizens must be weighed.
If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads.
And where, exactly, are these private roads that lead from the town where I live to the town where I'm visiting someone?
The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant)
Ah, now I'm immoral! I hate to rain on your religious parade, but morals are a matter of opinion as well. You may get near 100% agreement that killing an innocent person is immoral, but I doubt you'll get anywhere near that consensus that speeding (in general) is. I'll give due consideration to your opinion if you'll give due consideration to mine.
it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal
Boy, we sure do have a lot of criminals in this country. Are people really so evil, or are we just outlawing too much?
and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Sounds like a facist dictatorship, not a democracy. See my first paragraph, above.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
Maybe because "some of us scofflaws" do not consider speeding to be in the same category as running red lights and hitting pedestrians. Just because most current laws have similar penalties for the average red light infraction and the average speed infraction does not mean the offenses themselves come from the same mindset, have the same impact on society, or should be treated in the same way.
I've listened to your opinion, now perhaps you'll be so good as to listen to mine...
Speed is a scapegoat. The law enforcement and insurance establishments try to pin everything on speed that they can because speed is "easy" to enforce. Officers writing up accident reports routinely get pressured from above to list speed as a cause of the accident even if they don't really think it applies. Because the more accidents speed "causes", the weightier the statistics the establishment has to justify regulating speed instead of trying to regulate what really matters.
What really matters? Attention, skill, and equipment condition.
Surveys that don't come from the law enforcement and insurance establishments regularly conclude that inattention is much more dangerous on the road than speed. Safe driving requires attention and focus. Talking on a cellphone, eating, doing makeup, shaving, reading, and just about any other significant activity compete for a driver's attention and detract from focus. These are much more dangerous than speeding. So why aren't we outlawing all these activities while driving? Simple. It's an enforcement nightmare. Enforcing speed is easier. A radar gun can prove how fast you were going, but it can't prove how attentive to the road and traffic you were. Analysis of wreckage can give a pretty good idea of the speed at which a crash occurred, but it can't give a pretty good idea of how easily the crash could have been avoided if the drivers had been paying attention. Speed is enforced because it's easy to enforce, and the things we actually should be enforcing are to difficult to do so. As I said, speed is a scapegoat.
Pop quiz Americans: who has the least driving skill, the average American, the average Englishman, or the average German? It's the average American, BY FAR. Put the three of them in a situation requiring a difficult emergency maneuver to avoid a crash, and odds are the German and the Englishman will pull it off, and the American will wreck miserably. Why? Cost, training, and culture. It's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to get a driver's license in America than it is in most of Western Europe, so European drivers take their license much more seriously than do Americans. We expect a license practically as birthright; to them, it's an enormous priviledge. European drivers get much more training than do American drivers in the licensing process, and are forced to pass a much more difficult driving test. Go to a racing school in America and they'll spend the entire first day teaching you things that a European driver had to learn IN ORDER TO GET their license. Finally, Europeans just take driving much more seriously than Americans do as a pervasive cultural bias. Cars sold in Germany don't have cup holders. Think about that for a moment. Germans don't WANT the ability to sip on a soda while driving. They want to focus on the road. If Americans had the same mindset, our roads would be a lot safer.
Ever try to bring an older car into California and get slammed by the smog laws, having to do all kinds of work to get it to meet emissions regulations? Try bringing an older American car into Europe. You'll get the same thing, only with suspension, brakes, and tires. The cheap bottom-barrel tires and shocks you get in an American auto parts store aren't even LEGAL to drive on German roads. The Germans don't consider them safe enough. AAA ran a free clinic teaching people about car maintenance, and found that over HALF of the people that showed up had dangerously underinflated tires. That statistic is much lower in Europe. Europeans maintain their cars better than Americans (and I'm not talking about washes and oil changes; I'm talking about worn out brake pads, shocks, and tires, underinflated tires, cut springs, and the like), and as a result, their cars are safer and more able to avoid crashes.
Now this is just personal observation, and admittedly is an unfair generalization, but I'm going to make it anyway. I find that many of the Americans shouting the loudest about enforcing speed limits rigidly are the same ones who don't take driving seriously, don't focus their attention on the road, try to do other distracting tasks while driving, haven't taken any kind of "advanced" driving instruction since being licensed (and don't want to), and drive around in an unsafe car (worn out components, etc.). If you're going to yell at me to slow down, what's to say I shouldn't yell at you to hang up the phone, pay attention to the road, put some air in those sorry excuses for tires, replace those worn shocks that have you bouncing down the road, use your turn signals, and for God's sake look in your mirrors before changing lanes?
Indignant that I should have the gall to say all that to you? Now you know how I feel when you tell me I'm an immoral criminal for speeding. Who's right? Well, that's a matter of opinion, and having the current law on your side doesn't automatically make you right. It just means that I have to accept consequences for my behavior on the road while you don't. But laws can be changed...
-----Chaz