Slashdot Mirror
EFF Begins Digital Television Liberation Project
Dozix007 writes "One year from today, on July 1, 2005, an FCC
regulation known as the
Broadcast Flag will lock up your digital television signals. But EFF's
"DTV Liberation Project"
aims to help the public keep over-the-air
programming free. The Broadcast Flag, which places copy controls on DTV
signals, attempts to stop people from making digitally-perfect copies
of television shows and redistributing them. It also stops people from
making perfectly legitimate personal copies of broadcasts. More
disturbing, the Broadcast Flag will outlaw the import and manufacture
of a whole host of personal video recorders (PVRs), TiVo-like devices
that send DTV signals into a computer for backup, editing and playback.
After the Broadcast Flag regulations go into effect, all PVR
technologies must be Flag-compliant and 'robust' against user
modification -- and that means, once again, that the entertainment
industry is trying to tell you what you can do with your own machines."
If content producers want to control how their content is distributed, isn't that the content producer's perogative?
It's not so much telling you what you can do with your machine as telling you what you can do with their content.
paintball
Our right to fair use has ended. The conglomorates have convinced the dumbasses in the world that they have no right to fair use and the dumbasses are starting to believe them.
It would seem that the lawmakers are dumbasses too but unfortunately for us they are getting paid to make desicions that benefit the conglomorates.
Do NOT support law makers that support these corporations and do NOT support companies that sell devices with the broadcast flag. While we will likely NOT win please do you best to educate the rest of the dumbasses to their rights that they are slowly losing.
Seems to me that they are spending more money developing all these technologies than they stand to gain by knocking out piracy. I mean, you average Joe probably isn't going to go to the internet to look for his favorite show that just came out on DVD. Most times I won't either, if it's worth watching, it's worth supporting, esp. if they throw in lots of extras like commentaries and whatnot. Are they worried that people will pirate sportscasts? What is the fun of watching a game that has already been played? Chances are the people trading these would not be buying a copy anyway, so I think they are managing to piss off consumers and lose money simulatneously.
It's not so much telling you what you can do with your machine as telling you what you can do with their content.
Yes but once you buy that content it becomes YOUR content (not in the IP sense) and you should be free to do with it as you wish (for personal use of course). We actually have laws in place to ensure that we have the right to make personal copies and this would eliminate that right.
but we *used to* have the right to take their content and record it for our own use (such as watching it at a later time when it was conveinient for us).
While they own the content and we are unable to redistribute it as our own or for profit we are able to use it the way we want to.
It's about time for everybody to stand up to those fuckheads at the FCC. They will push and push and push until they get pushed back. They know that people are generally lazy, apathetic, and stupid, and they are going to take advantage of it as much as they can. It is our responsibility to do something about it. Whether it be in spreading information about the FCC's ridiculous plans or volunteering with EFF. The time for action is now.
All in all the only people this will harm are the legitimate paying customers. How long can a business model last that pisses of the people who pay the wages?
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
By the way, it is not intended or permitted for this post to be replied to. Anyone illegally replying to this post will be arrested.
I wouldn't worry too much. There are about 100,000 of us in the world that even know about this. When non-techie folks find out what it means, the industry will suddenly tank and content producers will demand that the broadcast flag go away.
I hope.
If content producers want to control how their content is distributed, isn't that the content producer's perogative?
Distributed yes.
It's not so much telling you what you can do with your machine as telling you what you can do with their content.
Two things: it is telling you what you can do with your machine leading to all sorts of annoyances (and disasters) with stupid hardware and programs that prevent entirely legitimate use.
Secondly, I don't like a world in which content users have so much power over the potential uses of their content. It stifles innovation and creativity and leaves culture locked up in the hands of those who want us to pay every time.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Unless you bought it with the implicit agreement that you wouldn't do X, Y, or Z with it. And you did agree to that, by buying content that has the flag bit.
Peter wants a new vcr for Christmas because of what happened to his old one.
They flashback to Peter standing by his tv with a football game on and pushes a button on his vcr, then cops come busting through the door and ask if he has permission from both CBS and the NFL. Peter sheepishly admits that he only has permission from the NFL, and the police then proceed to destroy his VCR.
Truth is stranger than fiction it seems
I give it two to three years, max. it's inevitable. nothing anyone, including slashdot and the eff, can do about it. get ready for a new class of TV criminals.
"what are you in prison for?"
"I recorded a TV show illegally."
just a matter of time.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Unless you bought it with the implicit agreement that you wouldn't do X, Y, or Z with it. And you did agree to that, by buying content that has the flag bit.
You're right. Unfortunately this is the direction that we're headed in. Pretty soon all content will be licensed to you. You won't own anything and what you can and can't do with that content will be strictly controlled. Ugh... What a great future we have to look forward to.
My answer to this is, and has always been, "Screw 'em."
I will not pay money to companies that behave in this manner. Many Slashdot readers are vociferous opponents of Microsoft, but they continue to pay money to the media establishment for such things as Spiderman II and cable television.
Perhaps it's time to find ways of entertaining ourselves other than media worship which enriches these gigantic conglomerates.
Is television all that good anyway? I personally have not watched broadcast or cable television with any regularity for 15 years. From 93-01 I did not even own a TV set-- I grudgingly got one to pacify friends who called me deprived because I did not have one, and for a while I actually tried to force myself to sit down and watch the thing, but I couldn't stomach it-- nothing on cable that appealed to me even remotely.
So, if they're going to behave this way, let them behave this way, and leverage all the technology we have at our disposal to support independent media groups. If you have to have Star Trek Voyager, there's always BT.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
But that(selling your own, without broadcast flag compliance) would be illegal. And you would face fines and jail time, for what? For distributing something that you made that's capable of recording content that you paid to watch.
If all news stations used this flag (After all, it is THEIR intellectual property), it would be soo much easier for - oh, for example - state leaders to smooth over earlier statements that might have been slightly wrong.
Not that it is shown that often anyway, but images like those of Mr. Powell in front of the U.N. pointing at satellite photos would be available for replay by a lot less people (The news stations, national archives, etc.). Right now you see some debate about who said what at what point. Using Patriot($nr) to stop stations from sending (and stopping from telling they are not sending) a certain case is not that unthinkable. Those amateur documentary makers on both the right and left side of the fence (Check e.g. suprnova for 9-11 related amateur documentaries) will not have much content to use.
If stopping certain content from surfacing again is just a matter of limiting a few companies and organizations, we might even start doubting things we knew happened.
Funny. Reminds me of a book I once read.
And yes, yes, turban of tinfoil and all that, don't give me that bullshit. If I said three years ago that law agencies some time in the future will be able to get lists of who-reads-what from libraries in secrecy, you would laugh and ask me to stay off those late night X-Files reruns.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
seems like a good time to stock up on old hardware. make a killing selling them back to folks who wanna tape the latest version of {reality show x}
Well, the problem is that the copyright owners do not have 100% legal control over the material. There are laws regarding "fair use" of copyrighted material. The entertainment companies are preventing the exercise of users' fair use rights. The copyright laws give both the copyright owners certain provileges and protections (for a period of time) and it also gives users of the material certain provileges and protections. The lawmakers are not changing the laws to remove fair use rights, they are passing laws that prevent the exercise of these rights.
Sounds a lot like the Windows world that took over. But I've heard there's some weird thing that some people use instread. A penguin with open sores or something. Maybe the same thing will happen for television.
Or maybe not. :-(
People won't want it, once they find out what has been foisted on them, once they run into ever more problems taping shows and using their Tivos, and they will find alternate entertainment. People may be sheep, but if sheep find the gate to the stream locked, they will eventually find another gate or another stream. Then the MPAA and RIAA and Disney and even the various Senators from Disney will find themselves leading where no one is following. They can lock their lowest common denominator crap up all they want because no one will want it.
Infuriate left and right
Piracy is not an issue any more than it has been in the past. The dirty secret is that most people really don't care. They know it's wrong, or just want to avoid the dirty feel of it.
a me =News&file=article&sid=946&mode=thread&order=0&tho ld=0
Why do all of this then?
Control. This is the primary issue. It is not about dollars, though they stand to make a bunch of them if we cannot easily archive things.
If we cannot easily produce and distribute our own content, they will continue to profit from being the only ones to do so. Today it is possible to make music on your own, distribute it and perform it, with results on par with the big productions. This is quickly becoming true for movies as well.
What happens when we start enjoying our own stories and music again? The megamedia corps lose plain 'n simple. Prior to the electronic age, this is how things were. I believe we are headed back that direction, if they don't suppress the movement first via legal and technological means.
Think about governments too. Don't you just love what Michael Moore has recently done with F911. How about when people call their leaders in their lies and manupulations and bad calls with actual published proof. Controlling what gets recorded and what does not puts the megamedia companies in control of our culture, expression and access to recent history.
All of these things limit the voice of dissent. All of these things make it easier for those in a position to govern to do so without the proper checks and balances.
There is a growing movement toward both openness and closedness in our society today. It it beginning to trancend the technology issues. Make no mistake, dollars are behind it, but control is at the root.
I own a ton of DVD media. As far as I am concerned, DVD is pretty damn open, just like CD is. In a short time, DVD authoring tools based on open software will be perfectly useable. The megamediacorps are looking *hard* to prevent this mistake from happening again.
They will continue their attempts at legal means to close the door for us until they succeed in getting a platform to profit from. They will never stop because they know their longer term days are numbered due to increasingly powerful technology solutions being delivered to the masses.
If this flag is not neutered, they will lock open technologies out of the next round of hardware developments. If that happens, we all begin to lose our freedom of expression and basic rights to control our own computing environments. Look at DVD. CSS was not a big deal. I play media on Linux every day because its easy and it works. Why don't the distros put in DVD support? Because of legal entanglements. Look at cell phones and how content is handled there. I wrote this:
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&n
[google search for "Closed Computing a Future Look Today" if the link is too mangled.]
Coming to hardware near you simply because they think they can.
This flag will prevent us from easily building our own solutions. Now the geeks will continue to do what they do and will likely be affected little, if at all, but they will never be able to compete with the established interests.
Why not? Every last one of these established interests was started by some geeks in a garage. All of them know their demise is cooking in a garage near you. Rather than compete, they would kill the innovation we all deserve.
Sucks doesn't it?
Get pissed, donate to the EFF, write your leaders, tell your friends and buy open technology. Work hard to understand the differences between open and closed. --You will be glad you did.
Blogging because I can...
They bought out politicians.
Another reason why we need to stop campaign contributions from big business.
You can almost be certain that some little Chinese manufacturer(s) will produce some little PVR device or even a PCI card that has some secret backdoor (up, down, left, right, hold down B and press start) that will make the device ignore the flag. All it takes is a couple of these devices to make it into the US or Canada or where ever and CSI.NewYork.2x06-1080i.avi.torrent will be available to everyone and their grandma.
Or the other situation that is just as likely is Hauppauge releases their PVR-550 or whatever and some dude(tte) with a hex editor "fixes" the firmware that is loaded when the driver loads.
It's pointless.
"the entertainment industry is trying to tell you what you can do with your own machines."
... ... ...
... ...
...
... ...
...
Hey There,
I'm the first to admit I'm "legally" challenged.
But I don't think that this is an attempt to tell us what we can do with our machines.
But rather, it is an attempt
to tell people who want to sell goods and services in the public venue
what we as a community will and will not tolerate
if you want to operate in the community.
I think the community has not only the right
but the responsibility
to make these sort of decisions.
Do I "personally" agree with this decision?
No.
But it doesn't limit me as an individual.
Or what I can do with a personal device.
I can create my own personal device that does what ever I wish.
I may not be able to share it with anyone else
but I can create a machine to do what ever I wish.
And given the day and age that we live in,
Give me a computer
A piece of hardware
And I'll write a device driver that does whatever I want it to.
I assume my personal rights would end just before
The distribution of that software.
But I still have rights!
Don't I?
Cheers,
-- The Dude
Ask the folks at Coors or Smith & Wesson. In those boycotts, people just bought other brands of beer and guns. In the case of DRM, an entire industry has to be targeted. While it is hard to boycott a necessity like gasoline or electricity, digital entertainment is a sitting duck for this type of strategy. It's time to speak to the MPAA & RIAA using a language they understand.
We long ago moved from the model of buying media with a recording on it under the assumption we owned both the object and the right to do anything we wanted with the recording that the law allowed. Now we only buy an option to listen to a song, watch a movie, play a game, or even use an application at the copyright owner's discression. Consumers of entertainment own less with every new format.
Read books. TV is constantly going down the drain. The quality gets more and more simplified and generalized so anyone can be mildly entertained by it. TV shows and movies cost so much to make that they have to entertain a wide variety of people in order to pay them off. Books on the other hand are usually written by one person. A tiny fraction of a cost compared to a movie, so books only need to be targeted towards a tiny amount of people to pay them off. I'm sure many people here have a show that didn't stay on the air long because of poor ratings. Extremely entertaining to you, but not generally entertaining to the average person. Farscape anyone?
Movies are mildly entertaining to a large group of people while books are extremely entertaining to the niche market they cater to. Plus no one says when I can read, how many times I'm allowed to read it and if anyone is allowed to borrow it.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
They are broadcasting it over publicly owned airwaves. If they want to use OUR spectrum to broadcast their material, they must allow the material to be copied. If they don't want to do that, they should return their broadcast licenses. This is the rent that they should be forced to pay for using a public resource.
FreeSpeech.org
The term copy-right means that they have a right to control who can get a copy of whatever has a copy-right attached to it.
No, it doesn't!
Copyright means that they have the right to control who makes copies, not whoever can get a copy! Otherwise I couldn't sell the copy that I have, nor could I even throw it away!
Title 17, thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976, means that the only thing they can control about the copy that they sell is the sale, and that's it. After first sale, they can't control anything about that copy. (They can of course prevent the sale of any copies of that copy, but you are absolutely allowed to make at least one archival copy of the copy that you purchase.)
e.g. it would be way cool if they distributed their entertainment products in digital files over the Internet that automagically provoked the recipient to pay a few cents to their coffers. That would exploit easy copyability, while hewing to copy-rights.
I am always allowed to make one archival copy of any copyrighted object that I purchase, regardless of what Nintendo tries to tell me, and they cannot charge me for making a copy. They have no standing to. Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if I can make an archival copy of that copy if the first is destroyed, but I'd imagine so.
When said content producers alter the law in order to make it impossible for open source software to be used in PVRs and make decent homebrew PVRs all but impossible to make, then they are telling me what I can do with my own hardware.
I disagree. If they hadn't suborned congress, then I would agree with you, but starting with the "Mickey Mouse protection act" the media companies have induced the congress to pass laws in violation of the general welfare and not otherwise authorized by the constitution. And I don't care what blather the supreme court uses to justify their bending the knee to to media companies.
At this point I feel that nearly anything which is done to damage, or even inconvenience them is laudible. What I'd really like is to get all their managers and lawyers thrown in jail...and not a country club either. Well, this won't happen. The law is too corrupt. And since the "law" won't act, I won't condemn anyone else who does. I may think them foolhardy, but I won't condemn them.
The corruption of the congress, the presidency, and of the courts should be considered a crime on the level of treason. As such, anyone who comits such a crime should pay an extravagant penalty. And when a company does so, not only should the company be attained, but also the decision making officers and those who implemented the decision. And those managers or directors who approved it. In many ways it's a far worse crime of treason than a soldier deserting in the face of the enemy. And it deserves a harsher penalty.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He doesn't mean just the broadcast-flag.
Think for a while of what the only perfect copy protection ever is. It's to prevent anyone from recording music, be it their own, or someone else's.
You can always copy by recording, even without the analog hole or whatever you want to call it.
By preventing anyone from recording music/whatever without a certain entity's permission, you're not only preventing piracy, you're also preventing anyone else from creating and publishing music except for the few who have the legal right to record.
This would mean that, besides playing gigs, getting signed would be the only way for a band to spread their music around, because obviously the record companies would be the only "trustworthy" enough entity (for the government) to hold the rights to recording.
No i don't like that idea for a future either.
I'm tired of hearing the "It's THEIR property, if you don't LIKE it, don't BUY it, it's not your ENTITLEMENT to free entertainment," et.al. argument.
What these Joe Public (and even Joe Slashdot) morons don't grasp is that yes, it IS our property! When someone writes/sings/films/programs something, it IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC.
However, they are given, as an incentive to KEEP creating these useful things, a limited monopoly. This was formed by the Congress, by the will of the people. However, thanks to the media cartels becoming bigger and more influential than the actual voting block, the "limited" part is sent right out the door. So even though the people gave these rights to the content creators, they now find themselves unable to take them away...even though the numbers clearly don't lie (Isn't it like 60 million fileheads in the US?)
The public has lived up to their part, by saying "yes, we'll pay you for these things."
However, those in "the business" haven't lived up to their end of the bargain - eg; releasing control of their works to the public domain in a limited, reasonable period (95+ years ain't it, folks. I don't care how big-media friendly you are, 95 years isn't within "the spirit of the law" by any stretch of the word...)
And human beings DO have an ENTITLEMENT to be entertained and have fun! Music, words, and images belong to ALL of us. They do not belong to any one person. It is certainly right to give incentive and rewards to those who can MANIPULATE these forces, but to say they can do no wrong, simply because it is "theirs" is bullshit, plain and simple.
I agree totally, I mean it's the broadcaster's Intellectual Property and they have the right to decide what you can do with it. You don't have any right to use it in a different way than was intended by the distributor. ;)
yap
The roll over to digital will be full of problems, but I doubt the public will view this as a major problem. This isn't going to out law PVRs. It may make it very difficult to dump content from the PVR to a DVD burner. Shows will be time stamped, so they could be locked on a PVR after a period of time. For years to come, many households will be using a DAC device to watch TV on a NTSC set, or getting conversion from a cable box. The cable companies are the ones to watch. They would love to put TIVO out of business so they can push their own devices and Video on Demand.
...this "everyone is a pirate" mentality. I think most people's thinking is "Well, if you're already treating me like one, why not fucking be one?" P2P networks are developing at an enormous pace. Easier, faster, better all around. Anonymity in numbers. Anonymity by design. Trust-based networks. Decentralized networks. Scalable networks.
If there's something similar to "TCO" that is "Total Value of Acquisition", including rights, limitations, legality etc. I'd say bought content is getting lower, while pirated content is getting higher. That can't be good for the RIAA/MPAA...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Forgive me, but I have never heard of a single consumer that has been looking for DRM to be integrated into their tv sets.
Its kinda funny that they're fighting for the adoption of the new HDTV technology and at the same time invent new ways to prevent people from using it. People don't give a shit about the quality of the recording, why do you think people go into theaters with camcorders. All this fear of people making digital perfect copies of TV shows... Who cares!
If Beastie Boys release and get flamed for it, and therefore sales drop - all these genius executives that think that they'll still have a market once they effectively lock everything down.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
What!! I'm still not done being pissed about how every time I hook up my DVD player through my VCR the macrovision kicks in and screws it up so I cant watch the DVD on the TV or make a "low quality" VHS recording for the Van (so the kids can watch the DVD I just bought on the road). I had to go out and spend 100 bucks on a sima color corrector (and macro vision defeater).
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/hdtv-samples. html
"How else can I help the EFF," you ask? 30% of the profits from book purchases at No Starch Press (when follow the link from the EFF's website) are donated back to the EFF.
Just because you were allowed to do it doesn't make it a right - that's a common problem with a lot of people who post on Slashdot - they can't tell the difference between a right and a privilege.
We look to the glorious future, the removal of uncertainty, the time when everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. For after all, the "rights" you have are made explicit in law. Anything else is merely "privilege".
Unfortunately, Fair Use permits certain activities as a right, not merely a privilege. So Fair Use must go, we must abolish it. It is rediculous to think that a citizen has the "right" to view a TV show at a time other than the time the producer wishes it to be seen at. The citizen's only "right" in this matter is the right to purchase the products advertised in the show.
IANAL, but from reading both the EFF webpage and the PDF of the FCC report and order - it would seem that one loophole is for devices sold only intrastate. I would presume that CA would probably ban the manufacture of such devices, but some states may not give a rat's behind about the MPAA.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
If content producers want to control how their content is distributed, isn't that the content producer's perogative?
Good point, I agree. In that case, they are welcome to not use public television frequencies.
There are NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANALOG OUTPUT in the broadcast flag ruling. There are restrictions on digital outputs only.
I don't think they're lying. I think you are just parsing it wrong. If they left out the word "output" after "analog", there would be implied parentheses around "analog or digital", and you'd be correct. Rather, they are saying that there are two kinds of "degraded form": (1) analog outputs (which is inherently degraded), and (2) digital outputs with reduced resolution.
Yeah d00d, the overclockers.com people are legal experts.
Oh wait no. They don't even know anything about computers.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers."
My other car is first.
Bzzt! The spectrum used by cellular was sold to the companies via public auction and is considered private. The spectrum used by TV was loaned to the stations and so is still public. Thanks for playing!
FreeSpeech.org
The EFF is not lying, but the sentence is ambiguous.
Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability.
The two bolded portions are mutually exclusive.
How many people actualy watch over the air programming? Most over the air programming has deterioated to the least common denominator and saturated with advertising to the point little value is left. I don't even bother with TV any more unless there is someting big on the news that gives it 24 hour coverage such as 9/11 in New York. What good is restriction free if it's mostly infomercials? The Internet has made an end run past the broadcasters. It's truly delivered on the promise of video on demand that network operators have hinted at. Those media PHB's that wanted to protect their content have simply not put it on over the air network TV. That is why Satelite TV and Cable has such a large market penetration. Stuff that used to be on the networks is on pay TV. Free TV is mostly dead. That is why nobody is making true Digital Televisions. Nobody is spending the bucks on a TV to replace their 20 - 25 inch TV. DTV (the true television that includes a digital tuner) is simply not being sold because nobody is willing to pay that much for a set to watch over the air TV. When analog goes away, the rest of us will get the news off the Internet and feed DTV ready monitors from the digital outputs from the cable or satelite box. We are definately not buying digital TV's that can pick up the network 6:00 new off the air.
If you think I'm off base, as I have in the past, and am doing again now, please list a chain store that has a small digital television set in stock. Requirements are it must replace a 20 to 25 inch set (motorhome, mobile home, mom's basement, apartment, & dorm room, dwellers) which includes built in (not DTV ready) DTV tuner. I'm looking for a plug in a UHF yagi antenna and a power cord and get DTV broadcasts. As an added bonus, it shouldn't cost more than double the analog set it replaces. Nobody's spending tons of money to watch over the air broadcasting. There is no value.
Please reply to this post with price, make and model of set, and name of chain carying the DTV in stock. NTSC tuners and home theatre don't count.
The truth shall set you free!
While I doubt anyone will read this due to the lateness of this post, I still must do so.
Lemme just say first... I am something of an expert on digital television... it is my job.
Digital TV is for the most part based on the ATSC standard, which in turn is based on the ISO/IEC 13818-1 standard (AKA "Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems".
Our enemy though, is the "Redistribution Control" As defined in ATSC Standard A/65B, now for a quick overview...
Within 13818, a stream of data (the transport stream is made up of packets who's length is always 188 bytes, within the first 4 bytes of the transport packet there is a field known as the PID which helps a decoder to know what is in a stream.
100 dollars worth of hardware could easily build a part which would demodulate an 8vsb signal on one end and pass the contained transport stream into a FPGA for instance who's sole job would be to do basic processing of the transport stream's EIT's to see what PID carry's the Redistribution Control (RC). Once the PID is detected, locating packets which carry it would be a simple task. Finally, once a packet is found to be carrying an RC, the FPGA would restamp the PID of the packet to 1FFF (the PID of a null packet who's payload is ignored by the decoder) then finally pass the stream to a modulator which would create the signal your decoder would receive and bada bing bada boom! No more Redistribution Control!
Sad thing is... I work with hardware everyday which would be capable of doing this... but even with my employee discount it's still far out of my price range. Of course such a device (as described above) would be illegal as it's only real use would be to bypass a copy control mechanism.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
GNU Radio
You can say whatever you want about piracy. Many people say, "Oh, but it is theft to copy blah blah blah," like when they're talking about videotaping something in movie theaters. Yes, it's theft... but what's the bigger theft over here? I say it's the copyright holders being allowed to become my Big Brother, watching my every move like I'm a criminal, deemed guilty until proven innocent, even without a chance to prove myself innocent.
The people who think videotaping a movie in the theater is theft just don't understand that the legislation doesn't stop there. It starts there.
Yesterday, we were at point A. At point A, you could videotape a movie off television to watch it later. I have a few movies that were recorded in this way. And you could also make copies of videotapes if you wanted to, though the copies didn't come out perfectly, but it was ok anyway. Then, the movie industry came up with DVD, and all its stupid region coding and CSS and other bullshit, so while it is possible to make a perfect copy of a movie, they have made it difficult to do. They have put together a system that is deliberately crippled. So now, we're at point B. Next, they're gonna make it so you can't record television, when YOU pay taxes and/or the cable/satellite companies for the priveledge of viewing that shit. So, we'll be at point C. Then, they'll make it impossible to view anything on TV, when you pay your taxes and cable fees, without paying an ADDITIONAL pay-per-view fee, and you won't be able to record it for later use. Then, we'll be at point D. Then, they'll increase the price. And increase it more. And increase it more. Then, we'll be at point E. Then, they'll do like Microsoft and update the television signals every two years, so you have to replace your perfectly good television with a new one, or else you won't be able to watch most broadcasts. Then, we'll be at point F.
Look at the damage that copyright law is doing to our society. Back in the day, when copyright actually EXPIRED after a few years, a lot of good books were published, everything from literature to technical books. For example, you can get a copy of Moby Dick printed by any number of publishers, or you can find it on on project Gutenberg. The author is long gone, who gives a damn if you copy his book. Who would give a damn if you did 20 years after he wrote it... you can't write one book and expect to live off it until the end of your days. What the hell kind of contribution to society is that in exchange for a monopoly on a work? There were also a lot of really good technical books published. They're long out of print, but you can buy brand new copies, actually facsimile copies of the original books, professionally printed and newly bound. These books are PRICELESS. They contain information that you simply cannot find anymore, since automation and computers have taken over a lot of the tasks that were once done by people, very, very smart people who were experts and craftsmen at what they did. Books that explain things like gears. Look in any modern book on gears and you won't find Jack Schitt on how they work or why things are done a certain way. But luckily, their copyright expired ages ago, and the books can be reproduced. What if their copyright had not expired? What if the great great grand children still had rights on that information? I can almost promise you that 99% of those works would have disappeared into oblivion, the copies being damaged, destroyed, or just plain thrown away one by one, until none, or nearly none, were left. And if God forbid anything should happen to the world that will leave us without the technology that does so much for us today, that information, which would
So, if I am interpreting this correctly, in just under a year from now, we can revise that old bumper sticker to read "Ignore your broadcaster."
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (hey, I know it's
If that is true, then one year from now, I will be watching a whole lot less TV. Not that I watch all that much now due to low quality programming.
Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
(or, "Toward A DRM Consumer Manifesto")
.
.
1. The Stick . .
No matter what DRM technology they develop and insert into the media play-back chain,
every such chain must eventually terminate in a human-sensible output device (speakers, monitor, etc.). And every such device is vulnerable to having its inputs tapped for recording by an unprotected device.
For the forseeable future, it's impossible for the Watch-Dogs to move the DRM technology so close to the terminating device, as to make it impossible to tap the signal. At worst, they can make it annoying.
In the case of video, they might eventually make it useless for the Little Guy to tap the video cables, and she/he might have to open the monitor's case. But if you're willing to do that, what can the Watch-Dogs do? Move the DRM into the CRT's electron gun? (or the LCD's individual TFTs, or the plasma screen's individual sub-pixel electrodes?)
And audio signals are even harder to protect: will they outlaw the conventional magnet-coil speaker, or maybe outlaw the possession of Crown or Marantz hi-fi equipment which is packaged as separate media-reader + pre-amp + amp?
IMO, the key strategic move for militant consumers (people similar to us) is to get the jump on future legislation and technology, by working NOW to develop tapping devices which are:
(a) so cheap as to be too ubiquitous (and too small) to make it practical to attempt to remove them from public possession;
(b) so generic as to be field-upgradeable from a binary download, as easily as current BIOS chips (so that, when DRM tech advances, there doesn't need to be another effort to distribute the tapping devices);
(c) *plausibly* marketable as being diagnosis / repair eqipment;
(d) capable of capturing (and storing, and replaying) a signal with fidelity and resolution equal to the signal which the terminal device would receive anyway, so that issues of multi-generation signal-degradation are irrelevant.
This sure sounds to me like the archetypal open-source project, surely within the capability of a community with such strong historical ties to phone-phreaks. There could even be "quilting bees", where people gathered to assemble these devices in mass quantities, to be subsequently distributed at nominal cost to all of their friends and family.
(True story: during the Viet-Nam War, the VC taught peasants to de-fuse, disassemble, and convert unexploded USA ordnance into very effective anti-personnel devices, using only simple hand-tools.)
Remember, this community succeeded in making first-class encryption unstoppable and available world-wide.
2. The Carrot . .
is to borrow from the traditions of RIAA broadcast royalties and UK consumer television-set licenses:
institute a system whereby revenue for Content-Creators is collected from taxes on each initial sale of play-back / recording devices and on storage-media. One way of assessing and apportioning the taxes could be from measuring popularity by the Watch-Dogs' sampling of legitimate broadcasts, ticket-sales, etc.
(Of course, in return for this, the RIAA etc. must see to the reversal of all anti-copying technology and legislation.)
Now, I can think of a lot of technological obstacles to The Stick which will be posted by readers of this post, but none which aren't practically and economically surmountable.
The sooner and closer that The Stick approaches reality, the sooner that the Watch-Dogs will view The Carrot as an attractive proposition. And the sooner that all this nonsense will end.
"When multi-meters (oscilloscopes, etc.) are outlawed, only outlaws will have multi-meters."
Unfortunately, this appears like the one of the only sensible solutions to piracy. Current technology allows the user to make perfect, redistributable copies. This is quite a major problem considering that media costs money to create.
This is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, without restricting the user's use of their computer/tivo/etc. Basically, someone needs to come up with a fair solution to the rampant piracy that is so common today.
Nope, piracy will solve itself once somebody comes up with a solution to the problem in the signature below. Most people feel no moral obligation to take piracy seriously when IP law gives away such ridiculous, unfair advantage to oligopoly players.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
The FCC was asked to carve out an exception to the broadcast flag system for public domain programming. But the broadcasters complained and the FCC served its true purpose, to keep corporate america happy.
Thus, broadcasters in the US will have MORE rights over content than even the original copyright holder did!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
An interesting point. Why is it that so-called "intellectual" work should be rewarded forever, while other types of work are rewarded only once? Does someone who builds a house get paid every time someone enters that house? If people who create "IP" want to retire on the earnings of their work, they should invest in retirement funds, like everyone else.
Now, without repealing the First Amendment, I am no longer permitted ownership of the work I have purchased, not even the copying of that work, not even the ability to copy for my own archives, for fear that I might distribute my archive without permission.
This, I think, means I am no longer permitted to own certain sorts of Presses. Henceforth, I will do as I'm told, and only as I'm told, by officially approved authority, as defined in the officially approved Press. So much for the First Amendment.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001