Slashdot Mirror
Sony, Intel To Push Content Protection
prostoalex writes "Intel and Sony are trying to please the copyright-alerted content publishers and privacy-aware consumers by supporting and pushing Digital Transmission Content Protection standard. New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home. A PDF presentation from an Intel engineer is available on dtcp.com."
God this sort of stuff pisses me off -
The analogy that springs to mind is that if you go to the public library, they let you borrow a book, only if you let them chain it to your wrist first.
Information was, is and should be free.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
It is interesting, because when it all comes down to it, the "good guys" are hurt due to restrictions, and the "bad guys" always end up pirating, etc. I am not sure there really is an answer as to how to protect information 100% without it both hurting the consumer and being crackable by a cracker. Of course, the governments can keep passing laws that make reverse engineering illegal, etc, but again, that's just going to scare the average Joe much more than it would scare someone who really wants to crack a DRM transmission. Only time will tell where the DRM issue ends up.
the new 40gig ipod
"Allow" the customer to use digital content at home. You mean the content you payed for? As opposed to not allowing you to listen/watch/use content you've payed for?
They always word these things like they're *granting* new rights instead of taking them away. I don't know whether to be amused at the balls of the PR makers or dismayed at the fact that there are twits who will read a press release like that and think "Oh goody, I've been wanting to do that."
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Obviously the phrase "generation loss" is lossed on you :-)
This has got to be fritz chip revisited... I mean come on... Plus, not to mention all the people who will refuse to buy the new cpu, and refuse to update an "eXPerience OS", and just do what a real man does. Go to Linux! Besides.. I fail to see how possible it is to make a CPU Block digital media... not to mention on how possible it really is to accomplish this without touching a very touchy subject of freedom of speech.
Just me
If you can put it through speakers, you can copy it. Simple. It's only a matter of time before someone with high quality gear decides to make a copy for everyone. Sure it might slow down the spread of stolen music, but it can't be stopped.
When will the vendors finally learn it? CDs would still be a stable market if it weren't for CDRWs costing less than a set of coasters nowadays. You won't turn the weel back with copmetition just around the corner.
If Intel should start getting truly pesky to customers with TCPA, this new gadget and anything else, AMD, VIA, Motorola and any other Vendor will rejoyce and push out CPUs and Architecture variants that don't have this crap.
Why don't Corporations just go back to good ol' quality products for a fair price to make money? That used to be a reliable way to do it after all.
Sanely priced CDs with mp3s and oggs and mpeg videos included, along with interessting booklets should do magic to a declining market. But I guess they just want to sell crap for to much money and will use law enforcement to emphasis that and in the end really piss their customers of.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I can't see any way to enforce that. Of course assuming you are using linux or other open source OS.
And what makes you think that Linux or any other open source OS is going to be able to view any media in the future? (At least legally?) Heck, it's already illegal, technically, in the USA to watch DVDs with open source software, even DVDs that you have legally purchased.
-Rob
The PDF was hosed and the CNet article was spartan, so I'm still left wondering about this great big definition issue in the term "home."
This reminds me of the crisis over defining "copy" that underlies all the legal arguments over file sharing. The fact is, these terms have long been de-stabilized. The advent of electronic media that began at the turn of the century created a whole new level of complexity in language that text based laws simply cannot encompass.
Just imagine the use of the term "home" in a filesystem. Where is home? Does that mean in relation to root? Which root? Or is it the user home? Does that include the virtual network or locally? Local meaning active or including backups?
Glazing over these things as if they didn't exist simply because a lot of people don't want to face it is not looking at the reality we live in today.
More competing standards will cause confusion and anxiety in the marketplace, as skittish "rights" holders wait on the sidelines to see which one will emerge victorious. This could only be helpful in the battle against DRM. I encourage more digital restrictions standards :).
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Well, I actually did RTFA (forgive me!) and note with some concern that the standard provides for "device revocation" under some clearly-defined terms, though those terms are unspecified. Can anyone shed some light on what those might be?
The obvious concern here is that the devices will be sold under some sort of license agreement that will permit unspecified others to figuratively fry your hardware if they suspect it's compromised (or are otherwise displeased with you). I imagine that one's recourse as a consumer (remember: we're "consumers" and not "citizens" here!) will be quite limited. Sigh.
New technology allows the consumer to use the downloaded content, but not distribute it outside of their home.
Because you should have to pay twice if you want to play the music on a portable mp3 player.
And of course, no open source mp3 software, because I could compile it with -DNO_DRM.
Well, Sony, guess what? Having my music conveniently on my PC and on my mp3 portableplayer is what motivates me to buy the music in the first place.
And guess what? I do respect copyright; I won't even burn a CD for close friends, or rip their CDs -- despite the 32 GB of free space on my portable.
And I'll continue to respect your copyright: I just won't buy your cripple-ware.
I can find plenty of great music on old LPs, on real (Phillips-Sony Red Book Standard), from emusic.com, and from independent labels.
Let me repeat: I don't want your cripple-ware. It does me no good since it won't play on the hardware I control (it only plays on hardware I buy and you control). So it will do you no good -- I won't exchange my money for it.
The more new releases you distribute exclusively as cripple-ware, the more alternatives will be produced. And that's what I'll be buying.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
As I read the article and then read the comments, it dawned on me after a few lines; there was advocation for breaking the law everywhere I looked. Comments such as 'this will be cracked' and 'we will find other ways to steal music.' What kind of immature attitude is being thrust into the open here? Honestly, if the community doesn't want to be portrayed as a bunch of thieves and black hats, then this kind of idiocy has to stop.
You don't want to be called a thief for running Linux? You don't want to be known as some script-kiddie hacker for using OSS? Well here is a good hint...stop advocating cracking and stealing music and software. You paid for it and it is yours to use, but, don't share it with the rest of the world.
Hypocrisy is found here in the more pure form I have ever seen outside of Hollywood.
Because the wishes of the copyright holder are not the same as the rights of the copyright holder.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
But don't forget to send a short (paper) letter to Michael Dell telling him _why_ you chose another vendor to service your corporate account. Preferrably, you can tell him why you have chosen bnot to putchase your next computer from his company, but rather from his competitor. Most businesses & end users don't buy processors, they buy computers. Computer makers must know that we expect computers wihtout DRM shackles, otherwise Intel will continue to underwrite their advertising campaigns and get their hobbled chips into more systems.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?