Slashdot Mirror
Give Your DVD Player The Finger
sebFlyte writes "Wired is reporting on some scary new DRM tech being developed. From the article: 'At the store, someone buying a new DVD would have to provide a password or some kind of biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag. Then, when the DVD was popped into a specially equipped DVD player, the viewer would be required to re-enter the data.'"
I like my idea for a bimodal hand geometry/voice recognition system better, me giving the MPAA the finger while telling them to "bite my shiny metal ass."
"biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag."
Can I just use the finger that I found at Wendy's?
Seriously though, what if you wanted to buy a gift for somebody? This isn't going to work all that well.
How about on-line purchases? Would they take a 'sample' and keep it on file to encode something at a later time. Who is going to trust the security of that?
I don't see it happening.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I, for one, welcome our new finger-reading DVD-playing overlords.
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
that seems like a very user friendly system; way to go!
Couple quotes from TFA:
Unfavorable bovine comparisons notwithstanding, these two statements sum up nicely why this will never happen:
Add to all this the increased costs of manufacturing the 'specially equipped DVD players' mentioned in the article, and it's easy to see why this idea is a non-starter.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
such as this will never work. Because people will not buy products with this stuff on it.
I hope.
Meh.
And this is going to "save" how much money at the sake of convenience?
Looks like my collection of severed fingers FINALLY has a use!
I for one would go back to a VCR before submitting to this. Simply insane to think that I need to be treated like a thief when BUYING something they think I may STEAL later. (making available)
This is nuts.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
I sometimes think most people are sheep, but still I doubt they will put up with this.
...what you are saying is you want to force another procedure on a wage slave who will, in all likelyhood mess it up royally ( because of being the affore mentioned wage slave ).
Right. You know, I'm all for worrying about my rights, but I think, at least in this, we are being far to paraniod for our own good. And in the process, giving your average walmart worker far too much credit.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
You'd have to keep running back to the DVD player every time they wanted to watch one of the 10,000 Disney and other assorted DVDs that they like to watch endlessly.
This is crazy talk, really, and really prevents the fair use rights we have now (loaning to friends, etc.)
Why don't they just sell tickets every time we want to watch a DVD? "They're $2 cheaper per viewing than going to the theater!"
Then, when the DVD was popped into a specially equipped DVD player, the viewer would be required to re-enter his or her password or fingerprint. The system would require consumers to buy new DVD players with RFID readers.
The market has already proven this won't work.
Gadh said he could not reveal specifically how the system would work, as it is still in the research stage. A prototype will be available by the end of the summer, he said, and at that point, it will be shopped around to movie studios and technology companies.
Thanks for giving this company free advertising to the media conglomorates Wired/Slashdot, the market appreciates it!
When something strinkingly familiar was posted a couple of days ago here, I said almost exactly what I am going to say here: How does this product enable me to enact fair-use?
It doesn't.
I, for one, would never purchase a product that required this level of security for my home entertainment. The only time I would consider giving my fingerprint or some other biometric data would be for a HIGH security job.
I don't trust any person at electronics stores with my SS#, why would I trust them with more personal information?"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
Or optionally, if you happen to come across a finger in your Wendy's Chili, can you use that to watch their DVD collection?
This will be about as desired in the market as the DVDs designed to cloud over in 24 hours after being unsealed, or DIVX.
There's no compelling reason for consumers to agree to even more useless encumberance than we already face with CSS, Macrovision and region coding.
My kids have put about a million fingerprints on all my dvds.
I'm used to being able to do whatever I want with my current DVDs. I can take them to any region of the world and play them with no problem. If I want to fast-forward through the several minutes of commercials at the beginning of a DVD, no problem. If I want to make a backup copy in case the original gets destroyed, the movie companies have bent over backwards to make this easy.
DVDs have never been horribly crippled in any way in the past, so they shouldn't be in the future.
I'm a big tall mofo.
FYI, current generation DVD players are not DRM-less, the DRM is just transparent to most users so they can ignore it. With a system like this, the DRM just becomes obvious to the average Joe. Of course, maybe this is what we finally need to happen to give the average Joe a kick in the ass to be opposed to DRM.
So, after dad dies, I'm gonna hafta keep his finger around to view his pr0n collection? That's doubly creepy...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
This would screw over libraries. How sick.
Sounds good. Should be at least as popular as DIVX.
How ironic that www.boingboint.net linked to an article How to fake a fingerprint just yesterday ;)
It's not a practical technology. If the father purchases a dvd player for the family you can't reasonably expect that he'll be in the house every time somebody want's to play the dvd. I'm sure it's fun to work on such devices but it won't replace the existing systems in any major way.
-Tim Louden
So, if this comes to pass, huge numbers of people will buy the DVD, take it home, enter their fingerprint ONCE, and rip it to a non-protected copy. Then, they'll just use the much-more convenient copy.
In other words, everyone will have and regularly use a DVD copier. And, once you're copying it for yourself, what's the difference if you make a few extra copies? Hey, while I'm sitting here, Aunt Martha might enjoy this movie too.....
"Hello?"
"Mommy, movie broke again."
"Honey, I told you that when I'm at work I cannot authorize, er unlock the movie for you."
"Mommy, I wanna watch my movie!"
"I know, sweetheart, but I can't come home until later. Please play with your toys until then, or let your older brother play one of his movies for you instead."
"Yuck! Hate "Kill, Kick, & Maim!" I wanna watch "Honeydumpling Sweethearts" again."
"I understand, but you'll have to wait."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
(Silently cursing DRM)
Ordinarily, I'm all for free scientific inquiry, but people like this really make me wonder sometimes. Does this kind of guy even think of the consequences to society before he starts assembling a new freedom-defeating device? I worry sometimes that RFID, biometrics, etc. researchers are going to usher in the true Big Brother era mostly through their own shortsightedness in only looking ahead to the next grant or journal article.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
I'm sure the MPIA/RIAA are going to be all over this.
Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but it's worth pointing outh that "Fair Use" (and parody for that matter) are not "rights," per se. Only authors/creators of the work (not the public) are granted rights under the Copyright Act.
As a dotrine, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. This means the person claiming Fair Use has the burden of proving that their actions did not constitute infringement.
The obvious problem, if you are defending an infringement claim is that it is extremely expensive to succssfully raise a Fair Use or Parody defense, which, if it fails, causes the heavy hammer of infringement and all its penalties falls down upon you. Because of this, it's common to hear, "Yes, it's probably fair use. You will spend a billion dollars to get a chance to prove that." Just ask these guys .
Bush Lies On the Record.
I doubt it will be used for retail DVDs as it wouldn't be cost-effective.
However, it may yet be useful in securing workprints and pre-release copies. That would decrease bootlegging. A workprint of Star Wars III hit the BitTorrent networks yesterday. You can be sure George is looking to employ this technology when he makes his next Indiana Jones.
On second thought, I hope the MPAA does this, so a huge class-action lawsuit against the MPAA is filed on behalf of all the people who can't use it. And another class-action suit for all the sellers who loose business because of it. And another by the EFF or whoever on behalf of consumers in general. We could be looking at several billion dollars here, all told.
Free MacMini
How can this possibly work with Blockbuster or Netflix? The cost of shipping their clerk to your house with the DVD will be too high for them to make a profit. Have you seen how fat those movie store guys can get? On the other hand, I already have a huge idea to market. Synthetic fingers. You can pirate DVDs for free, but charge the users $100 to purchase the rubber finger that unlocks the movies.
/. ++
There are so many situations where this wouldn't work.
1) What if you have a family?
2) What if you die? (or no more iris)
3) What if you want to sell your DVD?
4) What if you forget your password?
5) What if...
There are millions of "what if" type situations. Also, while my grandmother is trying to figure out how to get the DVD player to work... a million kids will be downloading the movie via the internet.
I wouldn't buy it.
It's time to return to my little library of books, which are light, were cheap, are deeper than DVDs or CDs, and don't accuse me every time I interact with them.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
At the moment all people are hearing is that a few nerds are getting arrested for pirating dvds and music and that pirating dvds and music is BAD. 6 months ago I was talking to my girlfriends dad. He was harping on about how evil pirating music and dvds is, and that they should throw the book at them. 2 months ago I got him a mac and taught him how to use iTunes. Last night he asked me how he could share his iTunes with me so that we didn't have to buy the same disc/aacs twice, like he used to do with tapes. He didn't see the connection between doing that and piracy. Now he cares. He feels that his right to share music within 'the family' are being restricted. I also bought them a DVB-T box. He's annoyed that he can't watch one channel and record another, like he's always been able to... I wonder how long it will be until he starts to want to know how I do it.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
- my wife bought a DVD I want to watch, but she's already asleep. Now I'll have to wake her up, won't I? ... oh wait a minute ... ... and my DVD collection too ... ... and throw in the garbage bin cursing the RIAA
- I had an accident and my thumb is in plaster. I don't have to go to work now. I wouldn't be able to, would I? Huray! Now I have plenty of time to watch the 135 DVDs I bought last year but never had time to watch because I'm too busy at work
- I had an accident and lost my arm
- My uncle has deceased. He had a collection of 1000 DVDs (15,000 dollar) which I'm happy to inheret
Yeah, I'm positive this will work!
Tristan.
Those are already watermarked. No reason to add an additional (and expensive) level of encumberance. Also, how exactly would they prevent someone simply playing the disk in a player that has no hardware to "honor" the RF tag restriction? We're not talking a new DVD format here, just a boondoggle tacked to the disk.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
All of this would change the ability of a consumer to resell an object they've legally purchased.
DVDs instead of being an object you'd 'bought' and own and can do anything will become something you've licensed like software and don't get to do anything with it when you're done.
I'll stop using technology and move to a monastery long before I'll give my )#$*% thumb-print to turn on a DVD or somesuch. This is patently absurd, and I really hope that the consumer market rejects any such plan.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They need to make things EASIER and more attractive to the consumer, not less!
If a restrictive, half-baked scheme like this went through, it'd be easier to buy the damn media, and then download a cracked copy off your favorite p2p so you can easily view the movie you paid for on your laptop.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Listen, stories like this are more about selling technology to a frightened industry than it is about a valid technique to save that industry. These people are scared to death about losing money in the way the music industry has and, much like the music industry, will entertain just about every hair-brained customer frustrating technology they encounter. Needless to say the music industry is still around and is still being forced to reinvent itself in a way that benefits the consumer and artist more.
-_-
The finger-in-the-food story about Wendy's was a scam. That lady has a history of suing fast food companies for putting body parts in her food. Please don't continue to spread this FUD that Wendy's doesn't deserve.
In order to fake a fingerprint, one needs an original first. Latent fingerprints are nothing but fat and sweat on touched items. Thus to retrieve someone elses fingerprint (in this case the fingerprint you want to forge) one should rely on well tested forensic research methods. Which is what's to be explained here. (Figure 1).
A good source of originals for our counterfeits are glasses, doorknobs and glossy paper. The standard method of forensic research makes them visible: Sprinkling it with colored powder, which sticks to the fat (Figure 2).
Another solution involves Cyanoacrylat, the main ingredient of superglue. A small amount thereof is poured into a bottlecap, which is then turned upside down and put over the fingerprint. (Figure 3).
The Cyanoacrylat gasses out and reacts with the fat residue to a solid, white substance (Figure 4).
The further treatment involves scanning/photographing (Figure 5) and a bit of graphical refurbishment (Figure 6).
The goal is to get an exact image of the fingerprint, for further use as mold, out of which the dummy is made. The easiest way is to print the image on a transparency slide (the ones normally used for an overhead projector) with a laser printer. The toner forms a relief, which is later used similar to letter press printing. Wood glue is suitable for producing the dummy (Figure 7)
A small dash of glycerene may be used to optimize humidity and workability. After thorough mixing, the dummy gets coated with a thin layer of the compound (Figure 8,9).
After the glue has dried (Figure 10), it is pulled off the foil (Figure 11) and is cut to finger size.
Theatrical glue is used to glue the dummy onto the own finger (Figure 12).
The new identity is ready!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I can't see the public buying it. Do you remember DIVX? DVDs that automatically degrade after 48 hours? Me neither; they all crashed in flames, because the DRM was too intrusive. The public will put up with a certain amount of unintrusive DRM, like that in current DVDs, but when it gets in-your-face they reject it. And this is about as in-your-face as it gets: what happens when the kids are being baby-sat but Dad buys the DVDs? Every family would have to make a list of who bought which DVDs so as to know which finger to give the machine.
There is no way the public would touch this with a barge pole - I can see it being useful for oscar pre-releases etc. but if the firm that came up with the idea thought it had any mass-market potential they need their heads examining.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
...who are saying consumers won't accept this, I say bullshit. You or I don't want to accept it, granted. But most consumers take whatever they're given, and follow along like giant herds of little sheep.
It's an unfortunate fact, Jack.
Those are good examples. Like I've said before, DRM and other copy-protection schemes are good choices for those who can choose them. We should be not at all concerned when, say, a pre-released piece of consumer media is subject to DRM.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
I completely agree. Despite the tinfoil hat commentary of the poster, I think this would be remarkably good at securing data, and its use in military and industrial applications is actually not a bad idea. Like most security technologies, though, the downside is the human factor. No doubt the technology to strip this sort of scan will be developed, once it is reverse-engineered.
However, to think that the next DVD you buy or that next CD you purchase will require you to input a fingerprint scan is very far fetched. There would be an uproar from consumers.
I think the 48-hour DVDs failed more because people didn't like the idea of throwing away that much. Most people that I talked to said this almost immediately: "Think of how much additional trash there would be." The next thought was usually wondering about what happens if the seal breaks before you intend to open it, and then eventually they might get around to wondering about something related to security. A clever few figured it would be a cheap way to get the copies -- buy one of these legit, and then rip it/copy it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
While I concur that this is a stupid plan, could you elaborate on the "treated like a thief" theme that I see so often on slashdot?
You treat most people like theives. More accurately, you treat them like they could be thieves. You lock your car and your house, because you don't trust people you haven't met. When you rent a car or a movie they go to great lengths to assure you'll give it back. You assume people are thieves because it's easier than getting your stuff back later.
When you say "treat them like thieves", the image is of throwing somebody in jail. That's not the case here.
I gotta admit, in this case the cliche looks perilously close to accurate. Taking fingerprints IS treating somebody more like a thief than a potential thief. That's a bit of a coincidence (just because it's one way to take an ID used in both processes, but they're not fingerprinting you like a thief gets fingerprinted.) But it's still incredibly, and overly, invasive.
My gist is that I don't think of DRM as "treating somebody like a thief" any more than I think of locking your house as treating people like thieves. This plan is stupid, and I'm sure not buying it, and it would never happen because the technology would be wildly inconvenient and insufficiently accurate.
But I've happily bought DRMed songs from Apple and I'd buy DRMed movies. When you buy a DRMed song you're giving them a "fingerprint", just one that's tied to your computer rather than a permanent part of you (which is the real stupid part of this plan.) I'd prefer non-DRMed ones, just in case I wanted to make a backup or use it in a different medium, but I sure understand why they don't want to see their material given away for free over the Internet, and go to some lengths to ensure it. Fingerprints are stupid, but I'm not opposed to a less invasive plan.
Tying biometrics with Copyright Material, with network verifications....
This assumes that ANYBODY who wants to buy material (movies) also has an "always on" internet connection.
Not true.
This assumes that the purchaser is the end user.
Not true.
This assumes the replacement of millions of DVD players.
Not true (unless extra features are supplied - eg HD DVD).
The assumes that First Sale rights will be eliminated, and people won't notice.
Not true (even Blockbuster "buys back" DVDs).
Schools, institutions and libraries won't be able to purchase the material -- it will be useless to them. Not even families (hey, *I* buy Lion King, but the *kids* load it and watch it -- and I am not even necessarily in town).
Individuals only.
The product sold (well, not sold in this case) has less value. It should cost a lot less. In which case it MIGHT play. Effective pricing? If I can currently purchase a movie for $20, and I can sell the movie to Blockbuster for $5, the new format can cost no more than $15.
Further, the inability to use as a gift item means it is purely a personal purchase (even the kids can't use it). My wife sets my "discretionary foolish purchase" limit at $10. So, it can't be more than $10.
Now, I expect them to subsidize part of my Internet bill. Knock off a couple of bucks for that, as well as an incentive to purchase a new player.
There you go; I am willing to spend $5 for a new movie in that format -- TOPS.
Will that play?
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
.. for a rival system which requires you to drop your trousers and bend over in front of the DVD player at which point the player inserts a rusty three-inch diameter metal probe up your anus. The purpose of this is not to take DNA smaples in order to enable you to watch the DVD but just so the MPAA can se how far they can abuse the public before they object...
They already have plans for a 5-inch model...
I mean, do they put out press releases like this one so that people like us can provide them with free insightful feedback? Way to get a free think-tank. "Hmm, wonder how the geek crowd will react to this? Should we pay a think-tank? Naw, let's just make sure we get on slashdot."
Seriously... if only some of your dvds are RFID-DRM'd, meaning your play will play non-RFID-DRM DVDs, then just disable the RFID tag in a DVD and viola, no thumb print needed.
How is being forced to sit through 15 minutes of previews, many for DVDs that I already own, every time I insert a disc unintrusive?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Not everything can be reverse-engineered effectively. As far as I know the latest DirecTV encryption technology hasn't been broken yet, and it's been out for a while. Then again, maybe it can be broken (or has been broken) but it's just easier for people to hack another provider's encoding/encryption scheme.
That sounds like a pretty big chunk-o-change to throw out the window. Not even the MPAA is that stupid.
maybe.
-S
They tried to hire me, I worked out the scheme they were proposing during the telephone call with the recruiter and started laughing.
The scheme was idiotic for four reasons. First there was simply no way that the rest of the industry was going to allow Circuit City a retail monopoly over the players or the content. Secondly the entire industry had tooled up to launch DVD which was set to become their biggest bonanza since the launch of CD, the Circuit City scheme meant launching a totally new standards war after the standard had launched. Third it was not even profitable for the studios, the DVDs had to sell at a discount to unrestricted DVDs but most people are unlikely to pay to watch the content a second time. Fourth, people want to collect DVDs and the copyright restriction meant that their collection would be worthless.
I don't see how this new scheme would be any more acceptable, it is idiotic to think that consumers would accept biometric identification to watch a DVD, they don't need to do that today there is no way that they would buy a player or content with that feature as long as unrestricted content was available. The legacy base of DVD players means that there is no chance that the studios could take unrestricted content off sale.
The industry is starting to get concerned about what happens in a few years time when the DVD patents expire and manufacturers start producing official players that are not zone locked and do not have navigation restrictions. Their current hope is that everyone will have upgraded to blue ray or whatever by then, I don't think so. Very few people have HDTV today and very few people care as much about high definition as techy types think.
Sure I would like a better picture on my TV, but not if I have to give a DNA blood sample and pay five times as much for the content.
I seem to recall that Neal Stephenson parodied this type of attitude in Snow Crash, the federal govt. workers who have to give blood samples to log into their computers etc.
Technologists can try treat people like machines but people don't have to let them.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
my dad's *incenced* he can't fast forward through commercials. when he puts a dvd of cartoons on for his new granddaughter, they both have to sit through around 10 minutes of adverts and trailers before it starts - this is a *long* time to an 18 month old's attention span.
solution? burn an unencrypted copy using dvdshrink, and then they can fast forward to their heart's content - and also it doesn't matter if little'un scratches the disk.
Unintrusive? No. Effective? Apparently.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Plus, it's a dupe of a troll story.
Nobody is going to accept jumping through these kinds of hoops just to watch a movie at home, and the industry knows it.
This is just another "story" Slashdot is running so they can get 500+ comments railing against yet another feared invasion of privacy, jacking up ad hit counts.
Watch, now I'll get six replies of tin-foil hat types saying "I don't know... with that asshole Bush in office, I wouldn't put it past the Military-Industrial Complex to do something like this. People are sheep and will probably accept it. Blah blah blah..." Heaven spare me from college undergrads.
While this is an obviuous non-starter, it points up a collision of two trends. First, a limit, the public won't hand over their hard-earned money for an overly intrusive DRM scheme (the original DIVX proved that). Second, the now mature and highly effective P2P distribution infrastructure, which will quickly cut through all non-intrusive DRM.
I don't believe there is a level of DRM, strong enough to work, that the public will tolerate. I don't believe that the *AA will be able to strongarm the market into adopting blu-ray or whatever - they'll just lose so much money trying that they'll have to surrender and release on DVD. I know that politicians, bought or not, don't dare push the public too far.
Sooner or later the only option is going to be: let people copy, because you can't stop them.
What will the *AA do when they realize their bind?
do the studios ever take action to trace ripped copies?
Yes. They can and they have traced them back to the person the screeners were given to (see third paragraph from the bottom). Did the studios do anything?
Yes, they sued and got a default judgement for $300k. Sounds effective to me.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Hell YEAH! Soon those pathetic alternatives to our monopolistic cable plants will be bankrupt and we can get back to offerering minimal services for maximal prices.
Slashdot for one will welcome their new cable provider overlords!
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Protected CDs have quite a few problems on computer drives, MP3 cd players and they absolutely won't work on many car audio systems.
Oddly enough, some people are still buying them. And above all, so many people aren't aware of this fact, until they try to put that CD in their car audio player..
I have no comment on your opinion of DRM one way or the other, but I would just like to point out that your sig file ("You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.") is the smartest goddamn thing I've seen posted on Slashdot in months.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
no...not the codec, the other thing that limited your viewing.
Look, the thing is, people buy movies and such so they'd have the convenience to watch it any time, at any place of their own choosing, and as many times as they want. Certainly, MPAA et al can put in the restrictions, but they are just slapping us in the face at the same time they are robbing us. Why would we pay for something that will be less convenient? Let them put these things out and let them lose their money on it.
What the hell ever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway? Why have we gone from being customers to being cattle? Why is it that the people who are NOT pirating the movies, etc., getting more angry about these things? Why do we think $25-$50 for a DVD is a reasonable price?
And while I am at it, how could the MPAA claim it's losing money that it's never made?
It is when you can skip it and it is against the CSS license for a player to let you skip it - and if they don't license CSS but use it anyway, they are liable for DMCA and patent violations and if you make a crack which lets you skip them your are liable for a DMCA violation.
It is DRM enforced by technology with the LAW backing up the technology - so if the technology is overridden, you could find your behind being "overridden" by a big man named Bubba in the Federal pen for the next 5 years after which it will be illegal for you to have many jobs in the tech field (either directly or because your boss doesn't want a court to take and redistribute all its assets to satisfy a "negligent hiring/retention" suit if you do anything in the future). You could probably still work at a burger joint though.
DRM - it sure is.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
IMHO, this goes back to the "greed is good" binge of the 1980's, which was really an economic transformation of the US. (and beyond) Prior to the transformation, GM/Ford/etc was in the business of making cars, and sold those cars to make money so they could go on making and selling cars, and reward their employees and stockholders. The ??AA were in the business of making music and movies, and selling/showing them so they could go on...etc.
After the transformation, it seems that every business is first and foremost in the business of making money. The products they market are mere incidentals, necessary evils in order to further their primary mission. Witness that GM revenue is divided 1/3 - 2/3 between selling cars and selling financing. (forget which third is which) They're making a significant amount of their revenue dabbling in what used to be banks' business. Or consider that a sizable part of Microsoft's revenue comes from playing financial games, and that their multibillion dollar war chest gives them a lot of ability to do this.
There's a more subtle shift here, too. Prior to the transformation of the 80's, employees were valuable resources, especially those with experience. Now employees are annoying expenses, and a drain on profits. Customers used to be valued, hoping for return business. Now, at least in some industries, they're "thieves."
I had a discussion with my son about this last night on the way home. He received several downloaded songs from friends of a European group called, "Nightwish." He now has 5 of their 6 CDs, and my daughter has 2. (and as soon as my son can find the 6th, actually their first, he wants to buy it.) I asked how likely he would have been to plunk down $17 for a CD never having really heard their music, and of course he said, "not at all." A few downloaded songs have translated to 7, potentially 8 sales, in my immediate family.
Oh, some time ago, after he had begun his Nightwish collection I sternly cautioned him about any trading in downloaded songs.
The ??AA is also more than a little STUPID in counting every downloaded song or movie as a lost unit of revenue. Case in point, me. I think long and hard before plunking down $15 for a CD. If CDs (that I like) were $7.50, I'll bet I'd buy more than twice as many. If they were $5.00, I'll bet my purchases would more than triple. At some point, I'd reach my limit of storage and clutter.
But for the guy the RIAA is suing with 10,000 songs, or whatever, he NEVER HAD the kind of money to buy that much music. Even if he had a good income, when it costs real money, you balance your music against food, rent, clothing, gasoline, eating out, going to the movies, going to concerts, etc. The only reason he would have that collection of 10,000 songs is because they were (at the time) effectively free, costing only bandwidth and space.
Choke off ALL downloads, filesharing, etc, and I suspect the ??AA wouldn't see more than even a 10% increase in their sales. Lacking the "free" source, I'll bet those people would simply choose not to buy, most of the time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Think of the cost to the retail outlets to install and train thier staff to use the biometric scanner.
The retail stores would screem bloody murder if the distributers don't take on the cost burdon{sp} of the devices.
Beyond that there would have to be some way to insure that the staff at the retail outlet acctually encoded the data on the RFID.
Not to help out the researchers but a system of first play setup might be do able. But then you face the problem that half the people I know have never figured out how to set the time on their VCR.
This strikes me as a lot of the media will be returned or attempted to be returned as faulty. I can't see this getting any farther than the orginal DVIX (the DVD system where you had to pay every time you watched the DVD not the codex.)
JACEM
DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
The carrot to FUD's stick
Yes, it's good when a society doesn't go frantically passing laws whenever something bad happens. Laws shouldn't be passed unless they have a good chance of actually solving the problem.
It will be an interesting demonstration of technical abilities, but who is going to pay more for player that's harder to use?
Until the players are widely adopted, what movie company is going to release their product exclusively in such a limited format? So we have a chicken and egg problem.
Requiring the buyer to be present kills off all mail order and gift sales. Bye bye Amazon.
This encoding equipment would need to be at all retail locations. Hello higher prices! And don't forget lost sales when the equipment fails.
No more rental market. Bye bye Netflix and Blockbuster.
And the real secret agenda here: No more used DVD sales! Every viewer has to buy a new DVD!!
While the last part is an MPAA wet dream come true, they'd have to virtually end their highly profitable DVD sales until they could force consumers to buy the new players. Then it becomes a tug-o-war over will the consumers buy new, much more restrictive, players just to keep watching movies, or will the movie studios lose their immensely profitable home market DVD sales.
My guess, this is another DIVX fiasco in the making. A system that works, does what it is intended to do, and will never sell. There really is a limit to the stupidity of the consumers, and I think this exceeds it.
Even if the government mandates all new player have this feature (and survives the next election after doing so), they can't force you to buy them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...for many, many reasons that have all been listed above.
In addition, if this were implemented and someone broke into your home and stole your DVDs, they'd also want your finger too. Great. So now human fingers become a commodity on the black market; beautiful.
Boss (at cubicle): "Um, Susan - please come with me, there's a situation..."
Susan (getting up and walking): "Sure - what's going on, Bill...?"
Bill (walking down hallway to entrance with Susan): "The police are here, and they want to speak with you - is there a problem...?"
Susan (confused look on face): "Uh, no - Bill, what is going on...?"
Susan and her boss get to the front desk, where there are two uniformed officers and a unidentified man in a gray suit standing. One of the officers approaches Susan...
Officer (reaching for handcuffs): "Ma'am, please come with me - you are under arrest for child endangerment and abandonment."
Susan (frantic): "What! What do you mean?! Let me go! I haven't done anything wrong! My children are at home..."
Officer: "Ma'am, if you don't cooperate, you will also be charged with resisting arrest..."
By this time, some of Susan's co-workers have stopped and are watching the scene, but are otherwise oblivious to what is really going on - but they now think she is a bad mother...
Susan (to her boss): "Bill - what is happenning...?"
Bill shrugs his shoulders, obviously just as confused as Susan is...
Unidentified Man: "Ma'am, I am with Child Protective Services - I was notified by the DVD-CCA that your DVD player was registering repeated accesses to a locked DVD by a non-adult sized fingerprint, thus possibly indicating that no adults were present in the residence. We immediately dispatched one of our social workers to the residence to verify the presence of an adult..."
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Am I the only one reminded of The Right to Read, by Richard Stallman?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes, here on Bizarro Earth Americans are well known for their concern for the environment. That's why President Gore was re-elected, nobody drives SUVs, and Americans no longer produce more trash per capita than any other industrialized nation. And that's why DIVX failed--on Bizarro Earth.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
That would be cracked, here is how:
buy dvd
find out how encryption works (using your finger)
write software to decrypt dvd (using the key [value of your finger])
extend software to write to an MPEG from video
distrobute MPEG
Once the software has been written, it can be distrobuted from france and anybody who buys a dvd can use the software to create an mpeg out of it (although it would cost as much as a fingerprint scanner for the initial uploaders first upload)
1) As someone else pointed out, the end of mailorder DVD sales. Amazon, are you listening?
2) The end of DVDs as gifts. How are you going to provide the recipients finger print at purchase time?
3) The ultimate parental control. If daddy buys the DVD then the kids, and the wife, cannot watch it unless daddy provides his fingerprint.
4) The end of high end home theatre systems that distribute content throughout the house. Do you really want to pick a movie from the comfort of your bed and then run downstairs to the player and provide your finger to print?
5) Forget leaving your media library to anyone in your will, if you don't will them a finger then they will never be able to use them.
6) What about injuries? If you crush your hand you're going to get sent home from the hospital in a cast with a bottle of pain killers. What better way to recover than to lie in bed and watch old movies -- except your finger in now innaccessible!
The issues are already starting to enter the market but most people haven't figured it out yet. Your average iPod user won't really understand Apple's DRM until their device is outdated and they buy a different one and then learn they have to re-purchase all of their favorite music for the new device. The content should be required to clearly print the types of devices that it will work with AND the devices that it won't work with. Unfortunately non-tech savy people are never going to understand these things until they get bitten by them.
What really needs to happen to slow the content owners down is to make it ILLEGAL for them to charge for the same content twice. If someone purchases a movie on DVD and the studios want to release it in another format then the studios should be required to provide a copy of the content in the new format to anyone that has legally purchased the original version. If someone buys a portable music player that is not compatible with their iTunes music then the music studios should be required to offer an exchange of their iTunes music to the new format free of charge. This is not a perfect solution (it doesn't ensure that music purchased for the living room will play in the car) but it should at least give the content owners pause before introducing new technologies.
If a new DVD player has to be online to verify that the certificate in the player is still valid and the content can be played then if that certificate is ever revoked the company that manufactured that DVD player should be required to replace the player free of charge. If they choose to fix it instead then they should have a week at most to fix it. If anywhere along this chain the content won't play on the purchaser's preferred playback device the content owners should be required to provide the content in the format that the consumer wants. Period. If the content owners refuse then the retail outlets that sold the content should be required to provide a no questions asked refund. It should be made easy to win a lawsuit against the content owners and/or the retail outlet that sold/produced the movie/music for breach of contract if any of these things are violated. It needs to become more expensive for the content owners to screw their consumers than it is to the consumers who are getting screwed.
Sadly, this will never happen. The content owners have purchased too many politicians for any laws of this type to
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Nothing to see here. Just a trial baloon from a some dude trying to maybe sorta sell an idea. "Gadh said he could not reveal specifically how the system would work, as it is still in the research stage. A prototype will be available by the end of the summer, he said, and at that point, it will be shopped around to movie studios and technology companies." "I don't know quite what is going to work in the real world," Gadh said.
I don't know... with that asshole Bush in office, I wouldn't put it past the Military-Industrial Complex to do something like this. People are sheep and will probably accept it. Blah blah blah...
Wouldn't want to disappoint you.
You could still buy films from hong kong and other film producing nations.
Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
This is really easy, and I can make money on it. I hereby exclaim my intent to patent "The Electronic Thumb" which will be a rubber thumb printed with the exact same thumbprint on every product. The consumer then uses "The Electronic Thumb" whenever they want to purchase a DVD. They keep another thumb at home, taped to the "Prole Identity Authenticator" on their telescreen. This way you can lend someone your DVDs to watch and your "The Electronic Thumb" acts as a replacement for you.
That's why this is stupid. Eventually there'll be a bugmenot.com for DVDs, where the community selects one universal token for identification.
mbbac
At the store, someone buying a new DVD would have to provide a password or some kind of biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag.
People still buy DVD's at STORES?
It is being nitpicky. Just because something is implemented as an affirmative defense does not mean that it is not a right. Few would argue that you have a "right" to defend yourself for example and self-defense is an affirmative defense.
There is no way the public would touch this with a barge pole
That may be because most of the public doesn't have a barge pole, and the ones that do are probably somewhere where they aren't any dvds to touch with it.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
That's OK; I'm sure the pirated versions won't require this.
Seriously, when are the DRM-supporters going to realize that they're just making piracy more and more appealing? I don't buy (or pirate) movies, but if I ever wanted to, I certainly wouldn't consent to giving up biometric data. The scary thing is that most people probably would, no questions asked.
There are no natural rights. Rights are bestowed upon by a governmental authority.
You've got that backwards. Naturally, every person has the (legal, if not material) power to do whatever they please. Governments are composed of people, artificial entities created specifically to combine material powers in order to curb other people's powers for some supposed greater good. What powers are not curbed by the government are your "rights", i.e. those actions that are not held to be wrong by the government, and thus OK (or "right") to do. If it's not explicitly said to be wrong (illegal), then it is within your rights.
Governments did not create people and endow them with certain rights; people created governments and endowed them with the power to curb others peoples' powers for some collective good. The power of a government derives from people, not vice versa.
Sometimes it's a small number of powerful people, who together (as "the government") curb the power of large numbers of other people; other times, it's many people curbing the powers of a few. In both cases the result can be good or bad, but in both cases, the power wielded by "government" ultimately derives from some set of people.
As for "pursuit of happiness", I'm aware that that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and it would be an awfully imprecise way to say it, so that's a good thing). I meant that as illustration that this point of view (government derives power from the people, not vice versa) was held by the founders of our government. As for what is in the Constitution, I refer you to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One last bit...
The constitution grants the federal government the explicit power to regulate copyrights. That is what this is all about.
Here's how that works, start to finish:
1) In the beginning, the people can do what they want, including copy things.
2) The people allow their government to limit that right to copy.
3) Government limits that right to copy with copyright law.
4) The Fair Use doctrine limits what copyright law can limit.
5) What's acts of copying are not made explicitly illegal by law (those allowed under the Fair Use doctrine) remains as your legal RIGHTS.
The mindset you exhibit is why many of the founders did not want to enumerate any rights in the Constitution, and they were only later tacked on in the Bill of Rights. They felt that whatever was not explicitly disallowed was within your rights, and that if they said "these are your rights", people would think exclusively instead of inclusively and believe those rights were ALL of their rights, instead of just a representative sample of specially protected, very important rights.
I believe such exclusive thinking in the general public (including lawmakers and lawyers) is why, as other responses to me said, the term "right" now means in legalese a specifically enumerated thing that the govt says you can do, and not as is commonly (and correctly) meant, anything that you are not expressly forbidden from doing.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."