Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA: We Won't Pursue Mandated DRM Technologies

Posted by timothy on from the suspension-of-disbelief dept.

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."

11 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Translation ... by slagdogg · · Score: 5, Funny

    "So stop hacking us, damnit!"

    --
    (Score:-1, Wrong)
  2. Hah! - I'll build all my own processors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...entirely from 12AX7 tubes and individual capacitors, resistors, etc.

    1. Re:Hah! - I'll build all my own processors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Debugging a digital circuit on a breadboard is painful enough...

      I imagine so, with all the crumbs and stuff.. time to buy a proper lab desk, no?

  3. Good by sheepab · · Score: 5, Funny

    I recieved an iPod for Christmas and I'd kinda like to keep it....

    --


    In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
  4. quatrain by bobtheprophet · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  5. Re:The Article by adamruck · · Score: 2, Funny

    jesus, im not even going to read that, put some fucking formating in there

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
  6. Re:DRM by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny
    I understand why people are upset about the proposed legal mandate for speed governors on automobiles, you should be able to drive as fast as you want on your private driveway, yadda yadda yadda.

    But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* scofflaws have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People speed because the believe

    a) they are entitled to
    b) they believe the speed limits are too low.

    Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled ot break the law. Argument (b) is also stupid. There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits. If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads. The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal, and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.

    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?

  7. lesser of two evils by girth · · Score: 5, Funny

    I forget, which side represented the consumer? Was it the RIAA or Microsoft?

  8. That's odd... by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm pretty sure the words "this week" got left off of that title.

  9. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    DRM Technologies pursue YOU !!!

  10. Re:Fair Use by LittleBigLui · · Score: 2, Funny

    why do i think more work went into the careful crafting of the title and its acronym than into the law itself?

    --
    Free as in mason.