Tech Firms Fight Copy Protection Laws

buulu writes "CNET is running an article about Alliance For Digital Progress going on the offensive against Hollywood over digital copy protection. The alliance consists of some of the big names: Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Information Technology Association of America, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, etc."

Comments

The irony is most painful...

[inode_buddha]

for me, as a day-to-day linux user for several years now. I don't dual-boot, nor do I have any other type of system around. I don't want any other type of system.

The irony is this: I've noticed that Hollywood seems to have no problems with using open systems (such as linux) for editing and special effects, and then locking down everything in sight after doing their production. This is regardless of the fact that some popular movies are drawn directly from the public domain of some very old children's stories.

I've noticed that certain tech companies have no problem making sales (even linux-based sales) to various Hollywood companies. I've noticed how tech companies spend a lot of PR on this novel concept of "Open-ness".

I've noticed how the /. crowd has reacted to DRM, the DMCA, etc.

And I've noticed that the core developers for any major sub-system and application don't really seem to give a damn about any of the above-mentioned flak; they just keep coding, de-bugging, and doing what they think is right.

My personal reaction to this percieved irony (hypocrisy?) is this:

Will they all please sit down and STFU ?!

I'm not gonna have the least bit of respect, nor will I open my wallet ($$$), until I start seeing people and companies practice what they preach and scream so loudly about. After all, the core developers have been practicing what they've preached for years now. This last fact is evident in the working, day-to-day code.

Re:Wait, did i see

[Oculus Habent]

Microsoft may sit up and talk about Palladium, but they aren't doing it for the benefit of limiting the rights of the users. If laws are passed requiring copy protection to be built into every new piece of hardware and software, Microsoft loses on two fronts.

First, sales of newer operating systems will drop as customers, afraid for their individual rights, hold off on upgrading their OS or buying a new PC. This won't be a mass swearing-off of the next-generation of computers, but it will be a noticable dent.

Second, if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory, Microsoft suddently has to go from saying that is the future to devoting huge numbers of programmers to make it the present. And then what happens when the MPAA sues them for having bugs in their software, and not making the updates automatically install on client machines?

I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though, so you can't share music with it using Apple's software. It comes with a "don't steal music" sticker on it, showing Apple's preference for personal responsibility - something the courts seem to have nearly forgotten.

What about the Linux and BSD companies?

[mrs clear plastic]

I note with interest that Caldera, Red Hat,
Slackware, Debian, BSDI, and other Linux and
BSD companies are not on this list. Why? Am
I missing something obvious?

MCP

Baloney

[Hobbex]

So sure, Microsoft is pushing Palladium. It can be everything to everyone. Don't forget that you can use DRM goes both ways. If you create something for free distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no one can use it for commercial purposes. DRM is a weapon of choice - you can oppress, or you can set free.

This is the worst kind of apologist propaganda imaginable. TCPA and Palladium serve one purpose and one purpose only: taking away the root control of our own machines from us. It is that simple, and it is indeed true that once our freedom of informational self determination has been taking from us, there are many applications, good and evil, for those to whoom we grant it: that is the nature of having power over people. You are absolutely right that this power can be used in fair ways, just like any power over us, but once we have given up control of our computers this is no longer for us to decide. If we accept hardware DRM, we are giving up all our freedoms on the promise that if we are nice they'll give most back. Such power is evil in and of itself, regardless of whether it is used for evil or not.

Defending user hostile computers on the grounds that they can be used for fair applications is like defending totalitarian regimes because they can stop crime and corruption. Both statements are true - a totalitarian regime can indeed protect us in a way an open society cannot, and many intellectually honest thinkers have argued that it is necessary and preferable (Plato, Hobbes, Marx etc.) But history has shown us again and again that open societies prosper, where as those that wish to concentrate power, no matter how convincing the utilitarian argument, lead us down a path of insanity and darkness.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends - for this is not a new battle, what we are seeing with those who would promise us gold riches for the small price of our freedom in cyberspace are the same devils, if with different faces, that have offered this deal since time immemorial. Choose your side, and remember that history will be our judge.