Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft-Sony Plan: A Media-Rights Ploy?
sk8rboi writes "Missing in Wed.'s (CNet) reports about the Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) effort from âoeMicrosoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless networkâ is the real reason for the work--it's a DRM (digital rights management) play in disguise.
Look at it logically. Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC? According to EmbeddedWatch, the answer is, it wouldnâ(TM)t. The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi. And both can read the file, since both support MP3. Consumer-electronics systems and computers can already interchange all sorts of files. But what they canâ(TM)t do--and what companies like Microsoft and Sony wish they could--is regulate the transfer of such files (aka block them if theyâ(TM)ve been downloaded for free from KaZaa). (DHWG, by the way, is actually led by Intel.)"
Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.
I disagree. It's not just for smartphones, but a way for you dvd player to talk to you pc, which, currently, it can't. Granted, it's more than likely that whatever scheme they come up with will have DRM (sony is an riaa member after all), but I don't necessarily think that the driving point is to add drm to already existing standards.
The more I'll switch to alternative media. Modern music is overproduced and boring anyway.
Home hacking is going to be real fun. Now it's me who has the remote :D
You know, even bring up Kazaa and the like only hurts the cause because (and I don't think anyone will dispute this) the vast majority of the files available on Kazaa and the like are copyrighted.
The better tact would be to say "even if they've been downloaded from any of the hundreds of free (or pay) and legal sources of .mp3's all over net" or "if they've been ripped from CDs that you bought."
This isn't about being able to share content downloaded from Kazaa. Oh boo-hoo, you can't play the copyrighted song that you didn't buy. The much bigger problem is the content that I paid for, was actually free, or that I have fair use rights to play. If DRM gets in the way of that, then's when I get angry.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
[I don't see why] Microsoft would do anything with mp3 more than is necessary. They'd much rather have people using their WMA format.
exactly.
anything that makes MP3 less convenient for people in M$'s mind is a good thing. time to start pushing ogg to your friends and neighbors.
my pet machine
At the risk of sounding like I've missed the clue-train. Can someone please remind me of why I want to use a smart-phone (whatever that is) to move my mp3s around? I pretty much use my cell phone for, you know, calling people.
---
Jedimom.com, that not-so-fresh feeling.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
...the EmbeddedWatch article is just a little paranoid. While I have no doubt that the companies with interest in this group wish to push DRM technologies, there is a second very legitimate reason to have such a group. And it's spelled out very clearly in the CNet article - working together to create communication standards. EmbeddedWatch shouts, "Just use Wi-Fi!". But how did WiFi come to be popular? Only after millions of dollars in wasted R&D for other technologies that didn't pan out (HomeRF is mentioned). This group will allow companies to communicate during the R&D phase, and ideally agree on a standard before investing millions of dollars in incompatible (and competing) ones. Be skeptical if you want, but don't cry wolf and immediately delcare the entire purpose of the group to subversively destroy our media rights.
-j
Tin foil hats are in, gentoo tshirts are in, microsoft tshirts are out.
;o)
At least Microsoft won't have to worry about running out at Comdex
Beep beep.
I think Slashdot should make it a little more obvious when the person posting an article doesn't have a Slashdot account (thus allowing readers to check the posting history of the the article submitters). I mean, having the words media rights and digital rights management in the the article is a tipoff there. DRM = digital restrictions management
While Microsoft, which makes etheral software...
Umm... what is "etheral" software? Did the article mean to say "ethereal"? If so, I still don't understand. Whether you like it/them or not, Microsoft's software products do, um, tangible things.
Perhaps the author meant to use the word ethereal as applied to software in general not being a physical product such as phones and access points and DVD players?
On a side note, I just realized that windows media 9 kicks ass. If you go to amazon to listen to a song off a cd, listen to it in windows media, then real player. There's no comparison.
If you listen to the two side by side then that would be a comparison. If there isn't a comparison then I don't understand what you're trying to do.
Ploy shmoy. These guys are our friends arent they?? They are just trying to help us by giving us new and innovative technology!! This is so wonderful!
*ARGH!* Stop throwing things at me! *OUCH!* I was just joking, *ACK!* I swear!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
I would suspect that Sony and Microsoft both think they have interconnectivity options available. The question really should be what advantage will either, or both see as a result of this.
Sony is a very divers company, with quite a bit of infighting. The Music side of the business (which may be hemoraging money shortly) hates the idea of any of the other product lines (mostly hardware) having the capability of handling MP3 files in any form.
Something tells me that most of the MD players out there have a firmware update waiting in the wings that will turn on their ability to play MP3 files, significantly boosting the marketability of the player. (Do you know of a lot of MP3 players of any capacity that will run continuously for 50+ hours on a single AA battery?)
Since I have not been actively looking for a DVD player lately, I do not know if they are meeting the market demands of playing CD's with MP3 files on them. With the exception of the $300 devices, I am not sure that there are many competitors making players without this feature.
One of the options that Sony could be doing with their DVD players is something HP and others have been doing with stand-alone media centers. It is trivial to implement on a PS2 with the Linux kit, but would be cheaper to implement in an otherwise stand alone dvd player. All the hardware is there to play MP3, almost all Sony media devices have i-link capability so there should be nothing preventing the dvd player from streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video. (Though to play Divx/mpeg4 might be beyond the standard hardware in a dvd player.
From what I have seen as the capabilities of Sony H/W engineers, I strongly suspect that the submitter is correct, this is a ploy to get DRM distributed within the house.
Might be a pain to go to the store, pick up a copy of MIIB only to find out that fan site for ST-V that you are hosting on your home system disallows you from watching the movie. (as an example)
Then again, this is my observations and thoughts.
-Rusty
You never know...
"Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC?"
Well how about for automatic media file discovery and interoperability between appliances? Or should all interop development be left for Apple while the rest of us go for closed source file transfer utilities and closed protocols that probably aren't supported on ones favourite OS?
(This sig intentionally left blank)
Just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean it's illegal to download. I can release a song or a program, and set the terms of the copyright to anything I want.
If I am not mistaken, barring the device discovery and control part, everything is already known, has a widely known standard, and is already interoperable. With the exception of DRM which is marked as "Proprietary/Vertical". Will that mean that Sony DRM stuff (which will work on a Montavista Linux Based platform will not be displayed on my Longhorn PC? That's crazy.
And what if this become a "standard" like Motif or CDE? (Yeah, a bloated, cumbersome standard, that Micrsoft will replace with something suited for her whims instead)
And free content will be able to circulate between one system and the other? Oh, yeah...
I can envision the chaos that will occur when I will be able to rip the movies from one of the n competing DRM technologies.
Everyone will be posting torrents on /, (slashcomma) with downloads to the "easy-do-it-all-crack-o-rama" program, and then will be out renting DRM "X" standard technology in order to spread the content between pcs, cellphones, and their taiwanese blueray players.
+ + + +
HTTP enabled phone. Why I suddenly foresee http://4g.goatse.cx (don't follow that link even if it doesn't work) for the future cellphones?
"I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
I'd love it if my DVD player had on it WiFi or ethernet. I already have cat5 runs and would enjoy output of my computer in the form of media files on my TV, which I already enjoy over analog cable. This in a way makes sence, the fact that a DVD player is just a glorified mpeg decoder, it would be the next logical step having it act as essentally a networked video card. WiFi ability would just be icing on the cake in this sorta setup.
.mp3 file.
And it's also not like people like my self wouldn't enjoy this ability, which makes a fair amount of sence, to extend to mobile phones and PDAs. It seems the next logical step in home entertainment, being able for your friend to come over to your pad and share his snapshots directly from their handheld device directly to your TV. Or even a
These things make sence and are very marketable ideas. Hell, i'd buy a networkable DVD player.
But I think perhaps with the shadow of DRM that we should reserve implementations of these technologies to OSS. It's already been demonstrated by microsoft they are experimenting with "phone home for authorization" technologies and this just has far too much bad mojo. The last thing we need are remote enforcable EULAs.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
On a side note, I just realized that windows media 9 kicks ass. If you go to amazon to listen to a song off a cd, listen to it in windows media, then real player. There's no comparison. If you listen to the two side by side then that would be a comparison. If there isn't a comparison then I don't understand what you're trying to do.
Actually, WMA doesn't kick ass.
We already have proven that OGG kicks WMA and MP3's ass.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
um yeah thats exactly what it is. Amazon has two options to listen to songs, windows media or realplayer. Try it for your self. There's a huge difference.
One addition to my first post. I'm still using mostly GPL software. Mozilla, gaim, gimp, cdex. I just don't have any desire to mess with linux anymore when I can use the same apps in windows xp, "which just works."
Alexander Wolfe's EmbeddedWatch.com has just dropped somewhere below the Inquirer on the credibility scale. First, Wolfe claims that a few piddly Microsoft patents cover the entirety of digital video-on-demand. Now, he sees Microsoft and Sony in the same working group, and concludes that it must be a DRM scheme that will retroactively lock down every file on your system.
Note to Timothy: You are being TROLLED! For free publicity, apparently. How else could you explain this block at the top of EmbeddedWatch's front page?
This sig intentionally left blank.
First off I'd like to make a point to say that I support DRM. I support it if it keeps people from doing something illegal, ie. downloading movies, music and software for that matter that is copyrighted without paying for it. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem I do have with DRM is if it prevents me from using the media that I have acquired legally, that pisses me off.
Next, we do need a standard so that mulitple devices can talk to one another over a wired or wireless network to share media files. You call e-mail a way to do this. Sure it works, but it's cumbersome and barbaric. What I want is the abillity to turn on my set top box connect to my pc, and stream some music to the whole house. Anyways, the point is that we do need proper protocols for this kind of thing, sometimes I think people scream wolf way to much.
Later,
Phil
If you know that something is true (let's say, "Bill Gates wants to rule the world"), then everything is a proof.
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
What's the big deal even if it *is* a ploy to lock down copyrighted material? You should all know that it's comming. The RIAA will get control of their property eventually. That's why they exist. And why shouldn't they? It would be like complaining about people inventing new locks to prevent break-ins and people saying..."This is the *man* trying to keep me out of my neighbors house." well yeah....
Get used to the fact that peoples property is peoples property and they will fight to keep it that way. So, download while you can kids.
You'll have that sometimes...
speaking of which.... no one was crying and whining about "rights managements" when music was sold on vinyl.
back in the day when vinyl LPs could only be played on "record players" - and file sharing was loaning your copy of dark side of the moon to your friend who just bought a new tape deck - music was cheap and good.
no one was pissing in their beer complaining that they couldn't press their own LPs.
no one was whining that making imperfect copies on tape was an evil plot by the RIAA.
but now that the format is digital - and the possibility exists to make perfect copies and share them with thousands of people you don't even know - somehow people got the strange notion that copyright holders trying to protect themselves from copying is tramping on consumer rights.
bring back vinyl!
cleaning reefer on CD covers never worked very well anyway.....
Way to go. Lets look at CNet's article. It states
set to unveil a joint effort to make sure that their products--from computers to DVD players to cell phone
Note this doesn't limit the communication to swapping between phones and DVDs as the article author seems to think. Note the slashdot article seems to leave out the computers part of the CNet article. Add that back in, and what do you have? A standard protocol for your home devices, computers, Pocket PCs, Palms, mobile phones, printers to swap files.
Lets now look at the example use given in the Cnet article
people would be able to play digital audio on their living-room stereo even though the music files themselves are stored on a computer in the den.
Sounds useful doesn't it? Does it sound like extending DRM? Probably note, especially as Microsoft and Sony each have their own DRM technologies.
The slashdot "article" justifies itself by pretending
The file can already be shared via wireless email or WiFi
Really? I don't know of a common mobile phone with WiFi, or a home stereo system, or a DVD. Strange, I don't have an email option on my stero.
I wish you could moderate slashdot parent articles, this one is either a Troll or Flamebait. Nice lack of checking even the CNet article Timothy.
Or why I will allways run AMD.
The article says nothing about using your smartphone to move your mp3's around (CNet doesn't mention mp3's at all). It says something about letting your smartphone communicate with your computer (or DVD-player, toaster, whatever). Maybe you can record your phonecalls and easily transfer them to the computer this way?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Yeah, we'll just go on Microsoft's long standing reputation of fair business practices, looking out for consumers, and sense of right and wrong. Oh... wait...
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
If I feel that some media or player has the potential to "rip me off" by restricting my fair use rights, I will avoid it. I don't want to pay for a song or movie, and then be restricted from using it in a reasonable fashion.
Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this crap.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
wouldnt it be great if Microsoft actually focused on just one thing, their OS and maybe trustworthy computing? Instead of making life miserable for the rest of us?
This is some sort of revelation?
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
I think it's really strange that anything that promotes DRM is an evil PLOY to steal our rights. I mean, I'm just as paranoid, anti-Microsoft, zealot etc. as the next guy on Slashdot, but I mean come on, it's not like DRM is an inherently evil idea, there IS an arguement for it. I disagree with the arguement but DRM isn't nearly the proven evil of other things.
*cue "you must me new to Slashdot" comments and moderators ignoring or modding down my comment*
sk8rboi writes "Missing in Wed.'s (CNet) reports about the Digital Home Working Group (DHWG) effort from âoeMicrosoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless network
(DHWG, by the way, is actually led by Intel
Also, could this also be a ploy between Micro$oft and Inhell to control everything that has to do with computers and home electronics, you know as in the old saying "We'll scratch your back if you'll scratch ours"?
in other words Micro$oft blocks out non-inhell processors if Inhell Modifies their processor to only allow Micro$oft code? I woudn't put it past those two Monopolists. "and don't say anything about them getting in trouble with Anti-Trust Laws, because Dubya's almost Neutralized the Anti-Trust division of the Department of Justice"
No DRM scheme specifies any "fair use" guarantees to the consumer.
There is no law that guarantees the consumer's fair use rights.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
The whole article is stupid. What the hell would my cell phone have to do with my DVD player or MP3's in my living room??
You know, here's two things.
1. The music that I listen to is NOT under the control of ANY of the RIAA crowd, in any shape, form or fashion. They have ZERO claim on the music I listen to, they will NEVER have claim to it or be allowed to lay claim to or control it. The artists that I listen to have sworn to that.
2. I just ran cat5 everywhere in the house. I have a box full of my music in the computer room and it runs GnuMP3d (get it at freshmeat).
I have an *OLD* PC in the garage running Damn Small Linux (a Knoppix knock off, get it at ibiblio) with a sound card and speakers. I can go work on stuff in the garage and browse to the page created by GnuMP3d, with a few clicks I'm listening to my favorite music as I work. A full entertainment center in my garage. I rescued the PC from a trash pile, cleaned it up and made use of it. It was free. It cost me ZIP...
I've got some old Packard Bell desktop boxes too that lay flat. They cost me ZIP also.. I'm going to paint one black and slide it in with my AV equipment as an MP3 receiver, just like in my garage.
And for video, I plan to pick up a used Xbox soon for about $150 and turn it into a PVR. I've already got housewide satellite and AV wires run. I can control the AV center in my living room from any room in the house.
I want to know why I should throw all this out and replace it with M$, RIAA and MPAA approved equipment???
Regardless, we can be assured that DRM will be added to this.
Photos.
Don't forget sony, sony is as evil as microsoft and then some, they just aren't as successful.
On a side note, I just realized that windows media 9 kicks ass. If you go to amazon to listen to a song off a cd, listen to it in windows media, then real player. There's no comparison.
Anything kicks ass when compared to "real" player. It's like comparing a Rolls-Royce to a shopping cart with two broken wheels.
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
You may know me from such educational films as "if you dont like a companies business practices, don't buy their product" and my feature film debut "Money Talks".
;)
Seriously though people. There are alternatives to Sony and MS, hell I can't remember the last time either company got my money....not for my OS, my TV, DVD player, head unit in my car, I don't think I own a single Sony or MS product. So I know I'M not contributing to the problem....are you?
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
"I-can't-breathe-because-of-all-the-tinfoil-i'm-we aring-dept."?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I posted an article here about the real reason Microsoft settled with AOL/Netscape. Microsoft wants AOL to use its server software for serving TIME-Warner media content. Microsoft is getting into the media business in a big way. This could explain why they are still pouring money down the hole that is MSNBC.
The cold fact (warm and fuzzy for us :) that companies have to accept, is that no scheme like this can't work. Look at every other attempt at keeping a widely distributed system closed. DVDs.. CDs.. they've been trying this for ages, and will continue to fail because for it to work, a part of it will need to be in the phones. You can just open up a phone, reverse engineer the code inside, and find out how the protocol works. Remember the debacle with Sony CD protection and markers?
I've never been particularly worried about all these attempts, I'm much more worried of squads of lawyers and misguided (mallicious) governments.
isn't gate's house totally automated?
i bet it would be fun to make his multimillion dollar whatever turn into poltergeist meets pee wee's playhouse
"Since all current Digital Restrictions Management schemes do not guarantee my fair use rights, I will not subscribe to any of them. I would rather "go without" the media than put up with this ...."
...
Amen!! This is a good T-shirt slogan
tnx.
..... but you're not meant to get it.
.....
There already exist open data formats which could be used for ensuring interoperability. All this guff is just to promote the idea of DRM for the wrong reasons.
Whilst I like the idea of signed source code that can only possibly have come from who it says it came from, so that I can choose if or not I want to compile it, I am less keen on the idea of other people being able to tell me what I can do with my equipment.
Imagine that the postal service had a true monopoly on the delivery of letters and parcels. You wouldn't be allowed to slip a note through your neighbour's door: you would have to go to the post office, buy a stamp and deposit it in the box there. You wouldn't be allowed to carry a basket of food to Grandma's house: you would have to parcel it up, and if Granny missed the delivery, she would have to trek all the way to the sorting office to pick up your baking.
If you want to buy goods from a supplier, they have to send them through the postal service, who will take your payment and ensure that the cost of the goods is passed on to the supplier. You are not allowed to get in your car or walk round to the depot and pick the goods up yourself, even if you pay cash on collection.
Now imagine that somebody just invented a way you could send a message from almost any computer to almost any other computer. How do you imagine that the postal service would react to that?
Well, the record companies are basically providing a delivery service for goods {in this case music} from the performer to the listener. If the listener chooses to pay neither the record companies' delivery charge, nor the cost of the goods from the supplier {performer}, the record labels regard this as stealing.
However, it is my contention that the record companies are more concerned about their being deprived of the delivery charge than about the artist being depived of their payment {which on a CD is mere pennies}. Now we come to the crux of the matter. The artist is only missing out on pennies. I would not miss this little amount of money, so what chance is there that they will miss it?
It's unfortunate that things have got the way they have. I could not honestly object to a scheme whereby someone downloading a music file directly paid the artist the money they were asking for -- it would almost certainly be less than the cost of a CD. But you can bet this won't be about paying the performers. The record companies will shamelessly use the image of the starving artist to justify lining their own pockets.
If they're even still around in a few years' time, that is
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
... when will someone take the movie/media industry to court and crush and destroy it?
The only way to move forward is to crush and destroy the current industry and replace it with something nimble and lower cost and more entertaining.
crybaby.
I hate you pro-super zombie head eater fanatics.
This space available.
Ahhh, the joys and bliss of being *ahem* older!
Yes, I could have all sorts of DVD's, connectivity, etc. But I don't. Here's why:
[1] I don't own a cell phone, pager, or any other wireless devices (except for the radio in my car). There is nothing in my employment or personal life that says you can contact me during off hours. This is intentional on my part EG, "Don't call me, I'll call you."
[2] Excuse me, but the reason I am paying for the damn technology in the first place is for *my* convenience, not yours, ya sales scum. When I want to know something, I'll find it out myself, thanks.
WTF do you need your cellphone talking to your DVD??? Are ya gonna listen to a movie during your commute?
C|N>K
I just listen to oldskool tunes on 12" vinyl or dubplate.
I just dread the day when the RIAA pops out of its mouth (after its long excursion up its ass) and introduces ARM (Analogue Rights Management) That will probably be the day I go Postal.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Nobody seems to like the idea of Big Brother. The idea of the Government watching all its citizens wasn't palitable to the voters. But if Big Business keeps building little parts of the "Big Brother" functionality into all the items you want to buy, pretty soon you have willing purchased your way into all that control the Government wanted in the first place. The irony is that because of all the campaign contributions and lobbying, Big Business is really the Government. It's the ultimate marketing job. Creating a demand for something you didn't want in the first place.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Apple's open rendezvous seems idea for communication between diverse devices capable of many tasks. I believe iTunes can share over the service, which makes it empirically possible to implement it for MP3 sharing across a home network.
"Why would an industry alliance need to define a standard to share an MP3 file between a smart phone and a PC?"
If you really have ever used any kind of smartphones, you should already know that any kind of standards are desperately needed. Just try to sync your calendar via BlueTooth between different vendor's phones, let alone do anything more sophisticated like automatically discover media files from foreign devices.
As a sidenote, I see no reason to limit this functionality to smartphones. It would be rather nice to have all the digital appliances discover playable media from the home network like play DivX on your set-top box using Ethernet of Wi-Fi link to your file server, or stream music from your MP3 player to your home stereo. I'd really like to see this digital media hub thing get started instead of all the nice marketing speech. But in order to do this, DRM is required in order to gain industry support.
For DRM to work, the DRM system has to prevent the presentation of unauthorized content.
RIAA and their pals could downloaded every MP3 and MPG on every p2p network and every ftp site in existence (a herculean task). They could build a list therefrom of forbidden file signatures. They could require the DRM equipment to check their live database for a forbidden signature before presenting the content.
And the next day some wiseacre with nothing better to do would create a filter that permutes the files with unnoticable differences as they're downloading, hence evading the signature police by making every file different.
In China, if performers want to make money they have to perform their material in public and get a share of the gate. That is what the American system should arrive at in a few years, and to quote a suspected felon, "It's a good thing."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Of course OGG kicks WMA's ass. (Myself, I have doubts as to whether or not it kicks MP3's ass. Sure, it might be better, but MP3 provides good enough sound that I can't tell the difference between CD and MP3. Now, if OGG somehow made it sound like bands were performing live for me, then yes, I'd say it kicks MP3s ass.)
:P
Right, back on topic, the original poster was right. WMA *does* kick RA's ass.
*I* can kick RA's ass simply by eating at Taco Bell and then farting out Top 40 radio.
*I* can kick RA's ass simply by eating at Taco Bell and then farting out Top 40 radio
I got mad techniques... dripping out my butt cheeks!
Microsoft and Sony to make sure DVD players and cell phones can communicate with each other over a home wireless network
The technology is already there: Rendezvous
It's already an open standard and is proven. Why wouldn't they use it? Simple. They each want to own your consumer experience. I for one would love a plethora of Rendezvous-enabled devices.
...they are using this to get a major corporate backer for windows media 9. i'm imagining they are going to try slowing pressuring the studios into using the wmp9 format in consumer electronics with the guarantee to them that their format is harder to break than the dvd encryption...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Bleah. UPnP is a bear compared to ZeroConf (aka Rendezvous).
Why not have the DRM in the file, as people and industries care about *content* and focus on easy communications that are easy to implement?
IIRC, including ZeroConf capabilities for a particular service is like, 5 lines in ObjC or something, but UPnP is templates and device descriptions and yadda yadda.
You want to clamp down on what's allowed where? Put it in the content, not the media or device. You will lose on the device side (right, Mr. V-Chip? Who has programmed their TV to block channels? Easier to say "BEDTIME!" than push 37 buttons and remember passwords for YOUR OWN TV!)
Make the data format reasonable to work with and people will adopt or use it if it doesn't present any perceptible obstacles (no bone thrown to "information wants to be free" people). I don't think many are willing to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars (sorry all you HDTV early adopters! Maybe next year!) for a device that actually *reduces* functionality.
I just can't wait for Intel to soak up ye'ol Fritz chip and lop it on-die. Hey, I mean why go to jail for sharing MP3's and get myself violated there when I can have a bunch of hardware engineers violate me right here where I sit? Go DMCA! Onward Stalin!
-
What is even the point in using computers when we cant do what WE want with them? ixxo
Sure, if you like media players the just crank up the volume on the bass automagically.