Slashdot Mirror
Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market
An Anonymous Reader wrote in to mention an Inquirer story suggesting that Intel is planning on cutting Linux out of the content market. From the article: "The vehicle to do this is called East Fork, the upcoming and regrettable Intel digital media 'platform'. The funny part is that the scheme is already a failure, but it will hurt you as it thrashes before it dies. Be afraid, be very afraid."
Yes DRM is evil. I choose not to buy this machine. I am saved. End of story... This guy sounds like a doomsday fanatic to me.
...the national enquirer
Don't buy it. Don't very buy it.
Or something. Look, if you want to use your media the way you want and not be locked into DRM, don't buy this. Also don't buy RIAA CDs or download from sources you think are too restrictive. If enough people do it, they'll have to change their DRM. If (as I suspect will happen) everybody else in the world is fine with the DRM, then they won't have to change and that will suck. But you don't have to use it, so it shouldn't matter to you.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Time to buy stock in AMD. I imagine they'll be happy to support the market share that Intel doesn't want to.
-TLAY
Wow, I haven't seen an article this biased in a long time. This is not journalism, this is flaming.
-- Cheers!
People are inherently averse to getting screwed, in the way that Intel is doing mind you, and if you try to screw people, they will avoid you.
I thought people on slashdot were inherently incapable of being screwed... Please see previous articles on roleplaying.
...was 'Sharp Stick Up Butt' but the ad folks thought 'East Fork' would go over better.
the server domain, i find it very hard to ever imagine Intel doing anything with purpose to hurt linux. Intel makes hardware, I doubt they really care what OS the hardware runs, as long as they sell chips. Intel may hate AMD and program there compilers to hate AMD, but I seriously doubt they would maim there own hardware to knock down a OS that doesnt support DRM. Besides, who's to say they cant code linux to adapt to it?
Sunday is a slow news day, but geez. This is news? So Intel (or Microsoft/Toshiba/Sony/Phillips/Haliburton) is making a media PC? Um, who cares?
My CDs play well on my $29 stereo, and in my car. FM radio, where it isn't ClearChannel, sounds just fine. Perhaps the drones who are EMPOWERING Intel to make this move are going to suffer. Why must your PC converge with your TV?
Why must you have 55" plasma, Dolby 11.1 surround, with Foomatic DSP and Orgasmatron effects? Christ, step outside and go for a walk, see a local band, read a book, play with your dog, have sex with your wife. This is your life, man, and its ending 1 minute at a time.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If (as I suspect will happen) everybody else in the world is fine with the DRM, then they won't have to change and that will suck. But you don't have to use it, so it shouldn't matter to you.
"Don't have to use it"? What happens once all cable/sat/OTA decoder boxes start to come with Windows Media Center features powered by the East Fork platform? Then how will you get your TV?
I'd love to use something like iTunes. Unfortunately, because of the DRM, the fact that the files aren't compatible with Linux, my Palm, and whatever else I want it to be with, I'd rather just pirate the damned thing. Then I get it in a format I know works.
Computer software. If the first damned thing that I'm going to do is scour the net for a "nocd" patch to get rid of the ridiculous SecureROM crap, then I'm more likely to grab the entire package. Add to that a point-of-sale variation on DRM, the no-return policies, and the fact that so much of the software out there sucks, doesn't perform as advertised, crashes, or is incompatible with hardware it should work with, and people are more likely to pirate the software.
The content companies can keep shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully, the U.S. government will eventually come in and slap all these companies down with anti-trust violations and the like, but I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft, the RIAA, et al. donate a lot of money, you know.
-- Hollywood Film Makers and Companies selling data which can be copied with 0 cost, to masses of millions of idiots.
"If you don't give me $10M, I refuse to write any more symphonies" -- Beethoven.
Maybe this will give AMD a good chance to kick Intel down a notch. If people dislike the DRM, there has to be money to be made selling components/systems without it...
...why not use AMD instead? This must be a huge selling point for them in the future?
I will not touch it, even I get it free of charge.
step outside and go for a walk
"I don't have any legs, you insensitive clod!"
see a local band
"Go away, you're not 21." A lot of towns don't have venues for independent music apart from places that serve a lot of alcoholic beverages. Besides, what happens when all the local bands get sued for infringement through subconscious copying?
have sex with your wife
Not everybody can afford to take care of yet another child.
I have been forced to circumvent content "protection" for years now as a linux user. I have to commit the Heinous crime of using decss to watch DVD's on my linux laptop as well as the frighteningly horribly act of circumventing the DRM on some CD's in order to perform the equally horrible crim of listening to the CD's that I own on my music gear.
Yes, I am worse than all the serial killers on death row, I am a linux user.
and to top it off, I am evil enough to share with friends and relatives on how to do the same thing. I distribute the weapons of mass destruction such as DVDDecryptor, DVDShrink, and yes, even a CD ripping tool that uses Lame and cdparanoia for windows (Oh why doesn't someone stop me!) sothey too can commit the terrorist acts of ripping CD's, DVD's and other horrible crimes that threaten freedom and our way of life.
Yes, I am a linux user, and no one can stop me.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Intel has beginning making a number of bad choices like this lately. They need to focus what got them where they are - providing quality processors. Too much attention is being put into small niche additions like this.
Voice your opinion!
I've often said that you can always tell where the most objectionable regimes are, their names start off with "The Democratic Republic of .....". We now hear "Freedom" and "Democracy" dripping from the lips of politicians like the sweetest sauce. May be no one owns these politicians, but like whores, they are paid. Freedom is a straight-jacket and Democracy is more of a Shamocracry. Perhaps we are moving into a world where the unauthorised writing of software will be a criminal offence.
The MPAA and RIAA announced a joint merger with Merrick Biotech to start production and mandatory implantation of the new DRM-enabled retinas and cochleae. In the following months there will be a nationwide campaign and everyone will be expected to report their local genetic compliance facility for the implants.
...or does fair use still exist? If they haven't, then ANY CD or DVD I buy I reserve the right to rip to another format for more easy use, keeping the original copy safe and secure. That simple. If they don't like it, petition the SCotUS to reverse itself. Otherwise, they can fark off.
No way, no how, will I use WMV or any other format w/DRM. Not now, not ever.
Am I surprised by any of this? Nope. They fought the VCR, the cassette tape, the eight-track, private ownership of film cameras, etc. Even after repeated court rulings setting down that the people had the right to make archival back-ups of media such as floppies, the software companies still tried to use copy protection that made it impossible to make such an archival or fair-use copy.
Here's fair-use compatible DRM: I get a file of information as usual such as name, address, phone, e-mail, secret questions I know the answer to, etc. I also pay them X$ for whatever. Public key encryption is used to ensure only the key holder can access it. I can copy the encrypted file to whatever device I like that can read and act on my key. Without my key, it won't work.
Want more security? A simple USB device with a unique hardware key adds an extra layer insuring that only the person with that dongle and password for both hardware and stored software keys can play it. If I lose it for good, I revoke my software key on the server and inform them and prove who I am and get a new copy issued when I get a new USB key. They don't give a new copy until I permanently revoke my software key and prove my identity and that I bought a copy previously attached to that key.
If I gave my USB dongle away with the previous copy, then when the system connects in and asks the server about my software key it finds it revoked, it won't play the file and suspends the old key on the USB fob.
An open community such as that operating the various PGP/GPG key servers would handle the software key side, the hardware keys would be made to adhere to an open standard using well documented public key encryption standards and algorithms, and the IP owners handing out encrypted copies would have no control over either. They'd not be able to unilaterally revoke your right to usage of the copy you paid for and you'd not get that encrypted copy until you paid.
Go ahead and P2P the encrypted files all you want. Unless you can break PGP encrypted files trivially, it won't help. They'd be useless without both the hardware and software keys that matched the file.
If they used this, and the content was what I wanted, I'd pay and get my personal copy.
Yeah, I know. I can dream though...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Over the internet, from people in countries with sane copyright law
Copyright laws can and do change over time. Australia just got a copy of the Bono Act and the DMCA, and even Canada is headed toward something approximating the DMCA.
This sounds a lot like the DRM built into the XBox/PS2, which both have copy control protection built into the hardware. What will end up happening is that the hardware will have the DRM built in and people will make mod chips to bypass it. Software DRM doesn't work because cracking software is a simple thing to do. Hardware DRM will stop more people from copying and using the content in manners which the provider doesn't want but the more technically proficient people will buy and install modchips and do as they please.
If they are just going to support Microsoft, yet Apple is using intel processors, any guess on how this will work out?
I've solved the drm problem for myself. When in less than a year, the denve stations all swtich to hdtv streams, I suspect that will be the last of broadcast TV in my house. My family doesn't pay for cable or satelite, we just get what we get. I don't even watch tv anymore, except in hotel rooms, So I don't care. I read papre newpapers and online journals, TV has eliminated my need for it. THere's never anything on, and I can do more interesting things without it. I congratulate the folks at RIAA who have removed my need to purchase anything at all, really. I can listen to broadcast radio if I'm REALLY bored, or I can continue to break the law by putting copies of the few remaning copyable cds on my music server. I hope they DRM even more, so I have even less motivation to pick up their crap. I go to theaters to watch movies and friends to watch DVD's but I won't be a consumer for much longer, there's just no point. If I break it it's gone. I'd still buy ut2k4, a great game becuase 6-months or so after release, I don't need a no-cd crack, it just doesn't require one, it runs on linux, and is just great. I say DRM it up make me buy it 3 or 4 times, You can keep it. I don't need it that bad.
Can I be a Luddite too?
You may not be able to buy a "general purpose computer" anymore. They will all have this specialized DRM crap and who knows what else. All built into the chips, so it will be difficult if not impossible to avoid it.
It's not as evil as it may seem. Surely the intent can be viewed as outrageous to those of us who know and love linux and all the free stuff that comes with it. But this will be good for linux and open source in the end.
There will spring all sorts of new inventions from this. Who knows, maybe we'll see a whole new industry spring up to fill the void that was once completely covered by the current industry giants.
I can imagine though this is going to create many problems. Major ISPs may not allow you on their networks if you're not "secure". You will undoubtedly have to use MicroTel hardware at work, therefore if you try to work at home, you'll have to have at least one "secure" computer just to be able to edit your Word document.
I can see Apple gaining a wider audience on the other hand. They're moving TOWARDS open source, not away from it. They seems to have their finger on the pulse of the people.
I'm a bit nervous.. change is always tough.. especially when you've grown up with this industry. But in the end the great spirit of the geeks will emerge. It's too strong.
You're nothing; like me.
For all of you thinking AMD may play the good guy in this DRM nightmare, let me remind you that they, along with Intel, are a promoter of the Trusted Computing Group - link [windowsfordevices.com]
I think Intel has more to lose from shutting off Linux than Linux has to lose from the same transaction. That 5% linux market may not be big from Intel's perspective. From AMD's perspective it's fucking huge...
Apple has been doing something similar with their QuickTime codecs. If you've tried to play one recently and gotten the error that it can't play the file or find an update. Drag feet supporting other platforms and subtly encourage people to switch. At least that's the way market droids think.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is it just me, or is this written very very strangely? Instead of explaining anything, the article sounds like the inane ramblings of a crazed lunatic. That said, it is difficult to take its contents at face value. Could we get a somewhat more reasonable explaination of this technology, and what it really means for Linux?
We still have AMD, don't we? MS can suck it. And there's mountains of great music without DRM, if you can live without the stuff on MTV. Go to www.garageband.com There are enough free MP3's from unknown but very good artists at that site alone to make you forget about the Top 40.
Some comments seem to imply AMD will take advantage of this...to sell more CPUs or other hardware.
TFA says MS is working woth Intel on this system to degrade video and audio if insufficient rights are detected, or the subsystem is somehow disabled.
But if such things are mandated by US law, how can anyone sell product without it? (AMD, others).
Personally, I think it will fail, because people will start getting pissed when something goes awry and the far end can't see something in hi-res even though they should be able to...there will be a backlash against it.
Am I alone here in thinking that this article is written by a 13-year old? While I respect the fact it's an "editorial", it is riddled with name calling, over-used cliches, and a dire lack of supporting facts. It seems the author is beginning from the "I HATE INTEL AND EVERYTHING NOT LINUX!" stance and going from there. Could someone point us toward a more objective evaluation, or at least a less childish editoral of this new platform?
for running Linux exclusivly.
in your face Wintel!
Oh well, linux got on an xbox :)
Linux can be installed on sutch thing too then
does it run Linux? ;-)
Linux is the veritable Rosetta Stone of computer systems. Someone is bound to port it.
Oh well, what the hell...
The mafia is always ready to feed the people when the law goes too far. Like prohibition, prostitution, gambling. The problem is that the mafia shoots people to protect their access to the market. And their product liability amounts to "tell it to the fishes". When our government and its corporate sponsors drive us into the arms of the mafia, we're screwed, not saved.
--
make install -not war
The records management forum at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html has a number of active contributors who write about it.
So wtf is the article talking about?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
when basic maths and science rules when were being hmmm... "innovated"...... else i would have had to use the DRM protected calculator...
more importantly ... adam and eve and not intel, microsoft or IBM discovered sex... else Intel would have made our d*ck drm protected..... (the kissing and fon*dling part would have been bundled free just like IE and WMplayer is),,,,, IBM would have sucessfuly implemented its "on-demand" pay-per use model every night and I would have to buy a new "UCS - user create license" from Microsoft everytime I had a kid, because kids would have been born as 90-day trial versions...
sheesh
Bless the day Stallman was born with his weird ideas
Threads of deliberation at the records management forum http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html have a number of contributors interested, concerned or affected by it.
I work at Intel in an unrelated group as a Validation Engineer although I have knowledge of this project. There is a plan for Linux support of this content distribution service, although the team responsible has found it much harder to develop for Linux than Microsoft. They have good relationship with Microsoft and Microsoft may make enhancements requested by the team. For Linux there are tons of different options out there which makes their job much more time consuming. Linux support will follow windows support by ruffly 6 months.
The new AMD CPUs, especially the Athlon 64 X2, are so good that they are already bit a large chunk out of Intel's market share. This trend will likely continue and Intel will be out of business sooner than we think. One thing is for sure: My next machine will be an AMD. You get so much more performance at a much better price with Athlons than with Pentiums.
If you have any questions, mail me, or post em here and I will try to get them all.
-Charlie
This is actually the very doomsday scenario that caused the British Government in the 1940s to ban the use of cable for broadcasting. Dissent will be impossible, you WILL see the content that is proscribed and no other, for no other content will exist.
In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either. If more people had access to multicast streams, it would be very easy to set up dissenting sources of media, but that isn't going to happen.
Sure, there are technologies like DeCSS around. They are banned in the US, under the DMCA, but they are around. Eventually, though, they are bound to fail. The penalties will become too severe, there won't be any safe havens left for developers to operate in. (DeCSS only exists because other countries haven't gone DRM-crazy yet.)
There is also the fact that Intel is a near-monopoly. In the same way Microsoft killed off Netscape, Intel CAN kill off all non-DRMed media by simply refusing to play it - or, worse, creating a log of un-DRMed content and sending the list to "interested parties". The technology for this exists and would certainly be in the spirit of the DMCA.
Does this mean Intel are evil? Not necessarily. "Can" is a long way from "will". There is no proof of intent to cause harm. Harm is inevitable, when you go down this kind of road, but there is no proof that that is why Intel is going there.
Personally, I believe Intel see this as a way to make money off the RIAA and MPAA - sponge off of their paranoia - and therefore solidify control over their corner of the market. I don't see this as Intel trying to censor or trying to "cut Linux out".
Nonetheless, once the technology is out and branded with the Intel logo, it will be used to censor (by the RIAA and MPAA) and will be used to cut Linux out (by Microsoft and possibly SCO). The long-term consequences are inevitable, even though I don't believe Intel are doing this for those reasons.
Intel is out to make money, and the most money comes from having the most power. The same is true of all the other companies. Power is not an end in itself, it is a means of becoming filthy rich and staying that way. It is necessary in order to attain and maintain that state. Without power, alternatives can thrive and that will reduce profit.
Intel are no more evil than Star Trek's Ferrengi and are driven by much the same belief system. Their "crime", if it can be called that, is to ignore the consequences of that belief system. It doesn't affect their profit margin, so is of no consequence to them, regardless of how it impacts others.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That's nothing, my buddies roomate is great friends with this guy on irc who has an uncle that works for AMD. They're releasing a chip that shoots a poisen dart into your neck everytime you even think about linux.
Cringley thinks that Intel is going to go exclusively with Apple and their rumoured "iTunes Movie Store."
Anyone remember http://www.againsttcpa.com/? So this is how it looks in reality... I wonder, when will AMD join the group?
Is there something left that we should not be afraid about?
All this fear mongering is getting tiresome, annoying and starting to lose it effect.
Yes, the world is a scary and deadly place. You will most certainly not survive it. Although it might take a 120 or even 150 orbits around that big yellow thing in the sky, you still end up dead.
However if you jump in the deep end at every occasion, you won't last that many orbits.
Seriously, this sort of thing does encourage a counter culture and an escalation in the evolution of measure/counter measure. Mod Lumpy 'insightful' ('funny' doesn't net any karma, unless they've fixed that).
Loose lips lose spit.
The argument 'don't buy it if you don't like it' won't stand up.
/.) group who won't go near it on principle, therefore 'Totally locked-down PC' will inevitably become the norm unless we can educate the masses somehow before its too late.
There will always be enough consumers out there who don't understand enough about the issues and will still buy PC's using this technology.
That group is always much larger than the 'informed' (e.g
Same article was posted last week, was it not?
c -usat_x.htm t rategy_in_tatters/
l eID/15996/15996.html
And anyways; big whooping deal!
1. It will *fail*. The cable companies, and alternate provides (like TiVO) will crush Intel, Microsoft, and anyone elses who attempts to develop a media pc. Why? Because the average consumer is much more willing to have an instant-on appliance managed by an outside operator which looks to cost very little (only $5 more on your monthly bill!) than an expensive looking ($500-$1000 at your local electronics store) box with a moderately arcane setup (all you have to do is use this IR transceiver to transmit codes to your cable box, and then program it for the right codes!, or something to do with this new 'cablecard' deal, which few people (especially the cable companies) seem to know much about)).
Also, I suspect the Windows-based media boxen will be notoriously unreliable and buggy. Also late. Look at Microsoft's IPTV initiative. It's running *way* late. Even for the providers that are already signed up! SBC's techs are sweating bullets right now:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-07-sb
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_s
While it *looks* like Microsoft is on-track with Comcast, Comcast excutives have repeatedly said they are evalutating both iGuide (their current supplier) as well as Microsoft for their boxes. And historically, Microsoft has a terrible record when dealing with cable companies:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Artic
Do you *really* expect to have any of these companies roll out a full MS solution on-time without siginificant bugs? I don't, and as soon as one supplies switches, or has a miserable failure (ready Comcast's Oregon MS set-top system freezes for a week) the whole market will break loose.
Which, incidentially, is how Microsoft lost the *rest* of the world regarding IPTV and set-top boxes, which is especially ironic given their size (4737489372 pound gorrilla), and that most content providers started out by saying that the MS solution was their future.
2. Intel's DRM will be cracked. Anyone play a DVD on linux? Did you do it using your licensed player, or your technically illegal libdvdcss? (Except, of course, in a few countries in the world. U.S. is *not* including). This is the primary way that people play DVDs on linux; this is not a niche solution.
3. Most likely, Intel will provide a closed-source kernel module that will provide an API to interact with a closed-source graphics driver. Nvidia and ATI will do the same thing, as well. So you'll be able to get gimped, DRM TV on your linux box, as well.
People have been crying that the sky has been falling for a long time. The problem is, Intel/Micosoft have never been able to deliever the 'killer' solution that ends all competition. They are always a day late and a dollar short. I really just don't consider them a serious threat.
A *far* more serious threat to home linux theatre PCs is the arcane setup required for most linux DVR projects. Fix that mess, and you'll see cheap linux home theatre pc's avaliable at walmart.
Not that I'm blaming the MythTV developers, or the Freevo developers. But it is hard to get those projects up and running correctly at home, and I imagine that from a developer perspective it looks easier to build an MS solution than a Linux solution, which is why the big media distribution companies are looking at MS first.
Once they get their hands wet (as the European firms did), they give up on the MS bugs. I expect an annoucement from Bellsouth to that effect shortly.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
There's some uber-paranoia going on in that article, but it was an interesting read.
Fortunately, due to human nature being so wonderfully inept at controlling anything successfully for lengthy periods of time, I don't think we need worry about "Intel Cutting Linux Out of Content Market" or your more wild theories about lack of choice in terms of your media.
Other markets always open up which counter DRM.
Case in point is DVD-R, worth billions for the companies that sell the units and the media.
Before that CD-R, before that VHS, Betamax, Cassette tape.
These companies can afford to own Congressmen and can also afford to make DRM meaningless.
If DRM means that people won't be able to copy their media, or record TV, then a MASSIVE segment of the entire home entertainment industry will go bust.
Obviously that isn't going to happen.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
This is just another plan to kill Linux (and I don't think it will be Linux-targeted) which will fail.
SWPAT failed in Europe, Microsoft FUD isn't trusted anymore, hardware vendors are supporting Linux more and more (take a look at nVidia or ATi for instance), even Thompson's MP3 patents or the ban of DECSS disn't kill Linux.
Even RIAA didn't kill filesharing, and I even think they've stopped filing lawsuits.
However the idea of 10 bucks a month for completely legal and unlimited music (first offered by Napster I think) sounds great to me. In fact even though I'm listening only to pirated music I consider it to be a good bargain. If it's supported in Linux then it means I can have CHEAP content along with a FREE OS.
The thing about Mac WMP is that it isn't that malicious. Because of the way the Mac does applications, it's just a single file you drop into your applications directory. If you decide you don't want it later, you delete that file. No real issue.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately depending on your point of view, Mac WMP doesn't support many of the licensing modes from Windows WMP, so it often isn't even theoretically possibel for you to install Mac WMP and access the content.
Does Fair Use mean you can make an exact copy in digital form? Or does it simply mean you can make a copy? If so, you will always be able to make an analog copy where you will lose some fidelity and quality, but it is a decision you need to make.
It is exactly as evil as it seems.
Ask yourself one simple question: is this a feature that helps you? If the answer is no, then it is not a good thing to buy. Sometimes it really is black and white.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Why did the author make a big deal about it cutting Linux out of the content market? What about, say, Apple Computer, which has it's own eye on that market? What this is really all about is Microsoft trying to sew up the home desktop market as completely as has already done with the corporate world. Want to watch a movie? You'll have to boot up Windows, and don't even think about using one of those "alternative OSes" because it is effectively illegal under U.S. Federal law to play any commercial content on those platforms. Geez, how do convicted monopolists keep getting away with this stuff?
... Congress. It was a rhetorical question anyways.
I know, I know
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Netscape, Real and others have all fallen victim to the Microsoft bundling machine Netscape I can sympathize with, but Real was going to hell long before MS got involved.
Normality is now: overrated.
And the fact that there is _always_ the analogue hole.
Until the major publishers of copyrighted motion pictures talk the Congress (and foreign counterparts) into outlawing possession of high-definition camcorders without a license. Do you remember the SSSCA or CBDTPA bills? Next time they might not get defeated as easily.
This is (I'll give you the why) a good move.
Why? - Here in the EU we have the commission (think inquisition in Armani suits). They have all sorts of powers to fine monopolies and cartels etc (ie their hits on MS). What better proof for them than Intel using its market dominance to lock out a competitor from free trade. And since the benefit is to MS it also helps any current ideas they have too.
This could be good!
Go rent the movie you want to see and watch it on your DVD player.
What if the movie that I want to see isn't available on DVD in my Region?
I think that all the interesting new stuff is being put out by small independent bands.
How can they tell whether what they're putting out is legal or not?
...much, much better than the likely to be DRM'ed stuff anyhow.
Let 'em keep their shite. DRMing this stuff is like locking excrement in a double-locked nuke-proof safe.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
DRM is only a problem if the content is being distributed with it attached. When the artists are in charge of their own distribution, they are free to not do this. As technology drives the cost of distribution towards zero, distribution will become commoditized. Artistic effort, by its very nature, can't be commoditized. The end result will be that the artists will be in control, as customers and clients. Some will choose to use DRM, some will not. The market will take this into account when deciding who is most convenient to pay attention to, and any DRM that inconveniences consumers substantially will not be economically viable.
The only problem is that this will take a while.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
and no references to Balrog / Gandalf / LOTR.
:)
You should be ashamed.
...as evil as the RIAA is for their greed and corruption, and as scummy as Intel is for 'selling out', this author simply sounds way too much like a blowhard, doomsday shill. His ravings are blown so far out of proportion that I really can't take his opinion seriously. Just don't buy the f---ing thing and don't worry about it. I'd rather see the money support the indie stuff anyways.
C'mon, through me a bone here! I didn't find any good links on the Intel site about this. Anyone know of any?
q
Please mod parent post down, as it's lacking in bias, zealotry and misleading information.
You mean I won't be able to watch a ton of crappy tv shows on my AMD machine running Linux? Damn.
I'll just buy a $400 windows machine with Intel for the occasions I want to watch tv or a movie or listen to a new CD. When I'm done, I'll throw it away, since that's what everyone else is doing anyway.
Maybe not
Isn't the new Xbox coming from Microsoft going to be PowerPC-based? I had always thought the Xbox was an important factor in the "invade-your-living-room" strategy of Microsoft. So is IBM putting similar technology in these custom PowerPC chips, too?
But ultimately, I think the PC will never topple the TV. While technically they could be blended into a single machine, people have been enculturated deeply to keep them separate entities.
Seriously, what value does a Media Center PC have over a convential media center? If anything, "convential" media centers are going to increasingly get PC-like functionality and displace the computer in people's homes, not visa-versa; they're the ones coming from a point of strength.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Bands that allow you to download their songs free of charge still exist, quite a few come to mind right off the bat.
There's always The Trews, who offer alot of their songs including alternative versions other than the ones on their main album . . . err, wait, the page is down right now.
Well, I remember Alice In Videoland offered actually all of their songs online in mp3 and . . . oh, the page doesn't seem to exist anymore at all.
Well, 8mm at least lets you stream all of their songs online . . . geez, I'm not really making my point here, am I? I swear bands still offer mp3s . . . well, at least Shocknina seems to do so, and they're a new band too. I guess the problem is, to be able to offer mp3s, you often have to be an independent artist, the record companies take exception to that kind of thing. Well, I mean, Trent Reznor released his last two singles in a form that one could even pull apart and remix easily, basically giving access to something akin to the source audio . . . but that's the kind of thing only a huge but eccentric artist like Nine Inch Nails can get away with.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Duh! What good is content if someone isn't making a profit off of its delivery? What, did you want to learn or be entertained? Don't be ridiculous. The only point of generating any content at all -- or delivering pre-made content -- is to get money out of you. Since someone, somewhere, stands to lose money off of delivering content to Linux, the best thing to do is to lock Linux out of being able to deliver that content. Hopefully, Linux -- and open source in general -- will be outlawed in the US soon, so that no information exchange can happen without someone profiting from it.
Welcome to 21st century America, where the Ownership Society Owns You!
(Me, I'm hoping to get the hell out of here while the getting's still possible.)
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
We had the firefox campaign before, which was quite successfull (but not nearly enough) but can the OS movement pull off a marketting campaign by ways of word of mouth, blogging, portal posting, RSS feeds etc, with the sole purpouse of pushing linux ahead as a general solution? I`m thinking in terms of 'all you base..' etc..
A central website with links to all the 'standard' apps that run on linux, mac and windows would be the best way to point people in the 'right' direction. Build a slogan around that, multiply, and profit!
I know we can do this.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
They let you preview all of the songs on every album for sale, and though they may not have RIAA-signed artists, they've got a pretty good selection, and I try to shamelessly plug them every chance I get. Best of all, all you need is an mp3 player of some sort to listen to the 128kbps song previews (which are the full songs, not 30 second snippets). The prices are very reasonable, and 50% of the sale price of the album goes straight to the artist; so you can buy more music than you would on amazon, and the people who made it will get fairly compensated for their work and talent. You should check it out, you might like it.
The problem is there is nothing that stops software providers from forcing you to have an upgrade which is a downgrade. Or worse ..
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
" You may not be able to buy a "general purpose computer" anymore. They will all have this specialized DRM crap and who knows what else. All built into the chips, so it will be difficult if not impossible to avoid it."
What you really meant is you can't do anything you want with data you received from soneone else, such as a record label. If you make your own content, or someone decides to provide you content in a different format, then it doesn't matter what DRM capabilities are built into the hardware.
Vote for Pedro
Until P2P came along I never bought an audio CD. I don't listen to the radio except for news, so never knew much about what was out there.
I bought my first CD after sampling a few downloaded tunes by a group I had read about. I bought more after continued sampling of other groups - probably one CD for every 100 downloads. (Downloads either resulted in a CD purchase or went into the bit bucket.)
I quit downloading after reading the scare stories about the RIAA lawsuits. As a result I had nothing to prompt me to buy any more CDs. To tell the truth my happiness level hasn't decreased, and I've saved quite a bit of cash.
I visited Blockbuster this weekend for the first time in about 5 months. Thousands of titles on the shelf, but most looked like trash and none caught my interest. So I walked over to Barnes and Nobel and bought a book.
...didn't I read this story here on /. two or three days ago ?
Exactly how will this device you speak of can stop me from buying cd's, listening them with my cd player, or ripping them to my hard drive and use Amarok insted. Or watch a DVD with my DVD-player.
One problem with this system is that for Windows and Mac you need to disable any firewall you're running so it can accurately detect what you're running. Its pretty silly.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
1) Most folks can't set the clock on their friggin VCR.
...beer works...
2) Tivo users are the power users of home entertainment.
Aside: When he said content delivery, I thought he meant servers and network. These boxes in the article are content pissers.
So, all the linux doodz have to do to trump intel is come up with a box that is easier to integrate than a Tivo has a wireless remote controlling an interface that is simpler than a microwave oven (most folks only know enough to pop popcorn and boil water) and makes use of NTP to set it's own clock.
Now pay the pundit, dammit,
My family and I will happily live without TV, Movies and Music fro the standard channels.
We look forward to waving goodbye to our media overlords. We already trust Aljazeera for our international news. I look forward to a truely independant film and music industry. In fact I would be happy to start working on free content. I could start a free animated childrens show. We could use advertising. The advertising is important as it would suck advertising dollars from DRM TV.
Who is with me? Lets start the media revolution!
Intel stuck it up peoples ass for years with their overpriced crap. AMD Rules.. as does Linux. " Self moderated as pure, unadulterated, flamebait" -25. Fugging dolts....
Which would explain the People's Republic of California.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
[Licensure for possession of HDTV camcorders] will be completely clear as a attempt to deprieve them of dual-use techonologies, with the big difference that the good use (family film, documenting illegal events in the community etc.) will outweigh the negative (bootleg) uses by far.
And how are standard-definition DV camcorders not sufficient for such uses?
The National Weather Service Website?
ummm... Will weather.gov still be open to the public if Congress gets around to redefining the National Weather Service's duties?
The Solaris version works pretty well on my SunRay desktop also!
RealPlayer 10 for Linux is several orders of magnitude better than any other version of RealPlayer I've used. There's no spyware/adware, it's fast and light, and they stick with a simple GTK UI instead of going off and writing some bizarre skinnable interface. If you're running Linux and you haven't tried RealPlayer lately, I'd highly recommend giving them a second chance.
I am not sure how Apple will approach this, with its own MacOSX just recently announced to be moving to Intel, when - in fact - running a BSD flavor under the hood?!? What would keep Linux from following that? ... probably much easier than reverse engineering (then improving) on the SMB stuff, anyway ...
== With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
Why is it all the "switch off your TV" rants end with a suggestion to go for a walk? I find going for a walk *really boring*. I live here, I've seen it before, seeing it again just isn't fun. Travelling somewhere else to go walking is also generally not very exciting.
So why not suggest something more like play StepMania, read Slashdot, write a novel, talk to a friend (OK, you can do this while walking if you really like), drink till you start spontaneously giggling, learn to skateboard, write to your representative in parliament, make a UT2004 mod, play basketball...?
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
In the same way pirate radio simply doesn't exist in the US, pirate TV will not do so either.
Pirate FM radio does exist in the USA but only a few channels in hyper-dense markets like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Individual channels come and go depending upon how necessary that the FCC feels that the station needs to be shut down.
I suspect that pirate TV will happen when NTSC broadcasting goes off the air, which is scheduled for Dec 31, 2006. Suddenly there will be millions of TVs that will be receiving nothing but static and millions of people ready to watch anything. If you want to get a message out but couldn't afford expensive television advertizing rates before, that time will be your chance. Just have your own transmitter (a small neighborhood one to start) ready to go as soon as the major commercial stations switches off.
Since this big shut-down is tentatively scheduled to occur in 17 months, now would be the time to get the equipment ready for broadcasting whatever you want when the majors go off the air.
Uncensored footage of the endless war, antiwar documentaries, conspiracy research, 'truth about UFOs', corporate coverups, home porn, whatever. When the television airwaves go off, there is going to be once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill the vacuum with your stuff. Pirate and Guerrilla television will be actually exciting for the first time.
Oh, how I wish that I had some mod points today.
It's amazing to me how many people will swallow the corporate PR that is fed to them without a peep... but as soon as a person says something that goes against the corporate PR machine, they're suddenly disparaged.
It's a sad, sad, comment on Human nature. Sort of like the "house slaves" back in the plantation era, who felt the need to argue for their master's rights.
If the person who posted the grandparent post had issues with the article's logic or reasoning, that'd be one thing. But the grandparent poster didn't even care to address the issues involved, but simply reflexively defended his masters.
Sad.
I don't really disagree is some ways but delivering content is NOT information. Europe, America, and China work because there is information. Countries without collapse and are poor. Content is the product of someone(s) and their hard work. They have the ownership right to it. The other thing is employment. A society must create jobs and compete, if something is too low cost all the inputs (labor, land etc) have to be found even cheaper. It is the race to the bottom. By the way my small consulting company runs Linux server so I don't have to pay license fees. This is the most capitalistic thing to do. It saves me money there for I could expand the business and buy a second home. Find the lowest cost solution to the problem IS capitalism (why do you think mega corps like low cost labor). I agree free is good for services like delivery vs. creator....Kind of like not tipping a waiter, why do it, they don't make the food just deliver it???? Linux to me means more profit and less control by others in services.
So, this means that people who own a mac can't watch movies, listen to music, etc? I can't believe this is going to happen, it's so stupid! I hate those damn corporations so much.
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
We used to have physical barriers to information flow. Clay tablets are awful heavy and camels only go so fast. You can only recopy the same drowsy bootleg tape so many times before it wears out. We all know where this is going, and it involves Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and bad metaphors.
So physical barriers have crumbled. At this point, when it could be so *very* easy for people to freely share information, there are some interests who are diligently rebuilding the old walls, brick by brick.
So what do we do? We go around them. As another poster wrote, commercial content is only produced by a few entities. These are the barricaded castellans of the information landscape, hiding atop their fortress hills. But all around them is the commons, the pastoral birthright of its tillers. What use of the bastioned strongholds when we can walk blissfully by the walls, thumbing our noses.
Support non-commercial artists. Don't buy shit. Feed on the fallow ground.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
This particular article is even marked as such (see the word "Comment" in big red letters about the author's name). If not, it should have been obvious to all but the most clueless by the end of the first paragraph--or the summary of the article on Slashdot.
And yes, they are often quite biased because the author is trying to convince you of something.
How the hell did this get modded "Insightful?"
This simply means that the market share of linux, and their need for chips, arent large enough for Intel to care about.
Not saying its true, but its how they must feel.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do you have a URL to back this up?
Typical description of Trusted Network Connect
"Well we have a fundamentally difference of opinion about DRM. I think DRM is good and you think it is bad. With DRM I have the choice to watch movies like the Matrix, Batman reborn, and revenge of the studs (that was humor). With DRM I don't have that choice. I don't see the evil in DRM that you do"
This is a false set of choice. That's because DRM != Watching A Movie.
If Congress passed a law tomorrow outlawing DRM, do you think the studios would say "oh, no more content for people, we'll sit on it and not let anybody see it!" Or is DRM simply a way to ensure 5% better margins and incidentally screw everybody out of fair use?
The answer is, without DRM, high-def (note, I didn't say high quality) video would be available, and you'd be better off as would the rest of the world. The content will be sold. I'd rather it be on my terms rather than the MPAA's terms. And I'd rather my PC not fall victim of Intel/MS's desire to increase margins just so I won't make a copy of that marvelous "Batman Begins" movie.
I'm okay with you giving up any and all your rights just for 1080i. Don't ask me to do the same all in the name of entertainment.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Windows has real problems, it needs to be checked, and even that is not enough to ensure it's safe.
I'm a proponent of Linux (and open source in general), so don't get me wrong. But why does this community (and really the open source community in general) use words like "evil" to describe competing, commercial brands?
Instead of denouncing new technologies coming from billion dollar companies, where is the positive, open-source response? Why do people become filled with anger instead of saying, hey, we can top that!
And why is it absurd to think that companies -- like Intel -- will do what's in their best interest? And in the best interest of their stockholders, partners, and EMPLOYEES.
I'm so tired of the cult. I think instead we ought to focus on the response and finding ways of proving why open source and community efforts can be BETTER (if they really can consistently).
Intel, media centers, DRMs.. they're not evil. They just serve what's in their best interest... and guess what? So does the Linux community. That's why it's typical to immediately denounce a company that isn't in love with the same things we all are.
Despite the great labor of a number of developers, I've seen a lot more crap come out of open source than quality products. I hate to say this, but I've yet to see anything come close to MS Office (yes, I said that). And gimp is awesome --- but boy I prefer Photoshop any day of the week. In fact, I prefer Photoshop Elements bundled free with my computer over the gimp, too.
There's plenty of shit in open source. Until the community wakes up to the importance of quality, stability, and user experience -- and not just focusing on being renegades who say, fuck those big guys! -- it will Never be mainstream. We NEED these big companies in partnership to make it mainstream and successful.
Just my two cents.. Not out to piss people off. I've just seen this story 10,000 times on slashdot in different variations (usually bitching about Microsoft).
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
There's no reason you can't license WMV, and write a software player under linux, unless linux developers refuse to support the hardware technology. The player couldn't be open source because of licensing issues and circumvention issues. It may be circumventable in linux anyway, unless the video stream to the monitor is encrypted, but there's nothing the content providers can do if someone is really determined to crack the security anyway, even with proprietary OSs.
People who refuse to run anything but OSS or free as in beer software are SOL, but not all Linux users need be left out.
Vote for Pedro
Linux is a software OS that runs on Intel H/W, among others.
I don't see how Intel can be the one to cut out Linux. The only people who can do that will be those that create a closed system for content delivery and refuse to license Linux to support it. That's not likely Intel.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
After reading the article, why would Intel create any DRM solution tied to MSFT when apple has pledged support for Intel? I think that more research with actual facts would provide a better view into the problem.
Also, maybe I don't fully understand DRM, but how would dropping the DRM into hardware help? Other than offloading a CPU during playback / record, I can't figure out the advantages. Having the DRM in hardware would require constant firmware updates to enhance the DRM / stay ahead of the pirates. If they are hoping to get a "lock" on the media PC, this is really a bad way to start.
I'm sure this will all work out once the **AA gets involved and protects our rights to listen to their products.
--WooooHoooo--
...I dont use my pc for movies (ok some porn), or music, etc. I surf the web play games... I must be in the minority. Then again i'm an old man (36) so i should probably be put out to pasture. As the RIAA, et. al. probably consider me a non-entity.
K
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
unfortunately, if the music is cheap/convenient enough for the masses it will become a standard.Just as VHS took over from Beta and MP3 is taking over from CD's and other better sounding formats.
( Have you ever Listened to your latest MP3 against the CD equivalent as an A/B comparison - Bleccchhhhhh ! )
and just as windows is the defacto standard because it came with their computer and required no brains to set up or operate as compared to other better systems so this will probably worm its way into the common public usage because the general public couldn't be bothered with anything that is too much like hard work and will quite happily bend over in return for convenience
I see a lot of familiar arguements against DRM / content providers here, but most of them fall short, for reasons I'll try to address here.
... which is another point that I have seen people raise ... these people are getting closer to the issue than most. While corruption isn't unique to capitalism, it is certainly most rampant under it - particularly with the 'anything goes' ( market ) nature of political fundraising. Critics of socialism will point to corruption in places such as the old USSR or China, but these places are very rarely considered socialist by the left - they are more often than not considered to be state-run capitalist systems ... particularly China in recent years.
The main problem is that people's arguements don't hold up to their prevailing assumption that we have to work inside a capitalist model.
For example, in the capitalist model, the content providers do own the content, and they are very much within their rights to dictate who has access to their property, and on what terms, with what software, etc. This right, under the capitalist system, is completely undeniable. People who argue for 'fair use' are missing this point. Content providers can offer you 'fair right' use if they want, but are certainly not obliged to. People can point to 'fair use' legislation in various countries, but firstly, it has no effect ( please provide example to contradict ), and secondly, the US is stamping it out where possible via their free trade agreements.
Another thing I see posted often is that people turn to piracy only because of a lack of value, either due to poor content, or excessive pricing. This is correct. However, under a capitalist system, the market decides both the content and the price. Some people argue that we should ( and in some cases do ) have legislation to control content ( eg fairness and accuracy in news, local content quotas, etc ) and also pricing, but this is completely unrealistic. The market still dictates these factors, via astronomical donations to political campaigns
So what is a socialist's take on the issues?
Content creators have the right to make a certain amount of profit for their work. Clearly without this profit, they would not work, would not employ people, and we wouldn't have content. However once a profit point is reached, they no longer have a right to continue extracting profit via force . This approach comes from the realisation that people, organisation, businesses, etc, don't only possess rights , but also have obligations to others and to society generally. One of the most important obligations they have is to not dominate the market and create a monopoly position for themselves. Another obligation is that they don't have an inflated 'influence' on our democratic system via political donations. Without these obligations, there is very little society can do to escape the sitation we have with a handful of huge multibillion-dollar media houses controlling all mainstream content, advertising, airplay, etc, as well as the democractic process itself. Re-read this paragraph a couple of times before replying please. It really is one extreme or the other. The nature of capitalism dictates the monopoly outcome. The biggest, most agressive, and most willing to corrupt our fine politicans will always end up on top.
What about DRM?
I've already asserted that content providers have a right to make a fair profit. It is yet to be seen if, under the above model, people would actually refrain from copying material to the point that the content providers could not make this fair profit point. And of course it is also open to debate what a fair amount of profit is. The point is that this should be decided by the people , and not by the market. O
This sounds a lot like a TV, but one that only works with one channel or provider. Imagine a world where you buy a TV but it only works if you have COMCAST. That's basically what their delivery service sounds like.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Very interesting.
Have you ever thought about posting this stuff ofver at kuro5hin.org ? It'd fit much better than here. Most wouldnt read it past the first 2 paragraphs.
I do have one point about content. "Content" is created either by copyright (works of music, books, movies...), patents (process, how-to), or trademarks (pictures/words linking to certain product). Im unsure what your opinion who the ownership should belong to (possibly the whole of the citizens, but temporially proxy-owned by creator), but why do we allow transferrance of these 3 protections?
If someone creates a neat new song, they've created it. Not Disney, not MGM, not anybody else. The creator created it. I understand that you can license it to others (as in a copy right) but why do we allow full transferrance of copyright, patents, or trademarks?
I guess the problem Im trying to solve in bringing this idea up is the gathering of huge corporations that "own" these properties.
I've poked around there a little, but Slashdot seems better for news. I have to admit that the discussions are better at kuro5hin.org though. I will have to spend some more time there. I am getting quite used to being flamed down at every post - hence the title of my post ...
Yes I think I accidentally blurred the lines between content creators and providers in my post. The problem is that content creators currently need content providors if they want to be able to make a successful living. This is an uncomfortable reality, and hopefully one that would be lessened greatly by breaking up the distributors and the barriers to entry into the market. From the creator's point of view, obviously the only reason they'd sign any of their rights over to others is to get entry into the market ... ie under duress.
... it simply means that the content creators would have direct control over the means of production and distrubution ... there's nothing stopping them from joining together and pooling their expertise etc.
From a socialist's point of view, it is the workers ( the content creators ) that should have control of production anyway, so that would be the obvious goal - taking back the means of production and also taking over distribution. That doesn't necessarily mean that you'd have completely disconnected individuals all trying to do everything themselves
This is a good question. It's logical to say that an individual or company that creates something novel or new ... something of value ... should be able to make a profit from it. But when you take their right to make a profit from their creation, and sell it on to others, there are a number of questions raised. For example, why is this being done, and what effect does it have on the creators and on society generally?
... and not only them, but other creators as well. It's a positive feedback loop ... ie the actions at one point of the cycle feed back into the cycle to create the conditions for the cycle to continue, but at a greater level of energy. ie it's very hard to get out of.
By far the most common reason people would transfer their rights to something they've created is that they're forced to. They're either forced by barriers to entry to the market, or by the offer of a large up-front cash offer ( often combined with the threat of barriers to entry ).
As for the effect on creators, it short-changes them considerably, and steals away control of their work. It puts them in the situation where they are perpetually dependant on the providers
For society, the effect is the usual list ( that I gave before ) that all come from a monopoly situation: reduction in a novelty, choice, etc, increase in prices, and corruption of our so-called democracy.
So I would say that transference of rights from creators to providers is a necessary evil under capitalism that would dissolve under socialism. As for all the area in-between, I suppose we just have to resis
As usual, Americans are willing to sell their freedom for convenience.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Trusted computing will happen. There are too many reasons corporate clients want it: protection for sensitive documents and trade secrets, virus control, and dozens of others. Once it's designed and developed, the incremental cost of putting in on everything else is zero, so it'll go on as a "feature."
Unfortunately, once it's in the platform, everyone else gets access to it, including entertainment companies that see it as a way to keep their dying business model afloat. Home users will get the short end of the stick: none of the "good" uses of DRM, but all of the crippling.
Cory Doctorow gave a great talk at Web 2.0 last year on this very topic. If I remember correctly, his tack was to kill DRM, but that's tilting at windmills. Corp clients are where the $s are, they want it, and they'll get it (for the reasons above, not movie/music protection).
One of the most interesting parts of Cory's talk was the history of the entertainment industry, and their resistance to new business models, even when the new model resulted in even more profits for them. That's what we need here: a new business model that the industry can see to give them hope. Otherwise, they'll just cling to their old model and DRM everything they have. Even with a new model, they're more likely to want to keep the status quo, but our legislators are who we really need to influence. We need to keep the governments out of this, and let the market decide.
So figure out a model. Without one, this is going to be a long, hard battle.
Could ever a more noble law-breaker be, than he or she who steals power from the despots and turns it into freedom to give to the people? I wish Linux were illegal right now, because I'd enjoy using it that much more!!!
.. because Linux is being used to create content, anyway...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Sorry, I don't have Windows.
I'm not going to flame about here, but I find that some other OS does what I need to do, gives me some fun games, allows me to play some older DOS/Windows games (which are *fun*, even if the graphics are not exactly top notch), and allows me to watch DVDs I borrow from friends.
DRM it? Loose me as a customer.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Besides, how are you to control this? A foreign TV-team going into the USA?
Probably in much the same way they control prescription drugs. You'll have to talk to a licensed specialist and explain the nature of your project in order to be able to rent a post-ban HDTV camcorder.
What about a us citizen that buys one while he's off to japan for a trip?
Of course customs will check your bags at the border.
...that is produced by major corporations. Independent non-DRM music is already catching on, and video's not far behind. The more the big corps lock down the "content," the more competitive the independent offerings will be. Lock things down perfectly, and watch centralized media go bellyup.
Real movies will be a while, but I'm willing to use a dedicated device for that (or go to the big screen).
If many little community television stations go on-air at the same time that the majors go off the air, the FCC is going to be mighty busy.
Visiting a campus dorm with federal officers and future-career-destroying injuctions will quickly shut down all the middle-class DIY techno-nerd microstations. Shutting down the militant black-power gang-protected stations broadcasting from the ghetto housing projects to all the people in 'da community' with no television anymore is quite another matter.
This may require calling out the National Guard. But there is no National Guard anymore. It's been transformed into the President's private little army and sent off to an endless war on the other side of the world.
The primary issue that I am trying to raise is whether anyone in the NTSC decision loop is actually considering this possiblity.
Looks like Microsoft and Intel are making a home entertainment box. That sounds a lot like the X-Box (ok, this won't be a gaming platform, but it will be a box for the living room), and we know that X-Box was, while not such a bad thing to buy, not really that well-accepted by the general public. Must we accept that things will be different this time? What is the real threat to fair use if not many people adopt this new thing?
Or does it?
because we all know that the RIAA and MPAA produce ALL movies and music in the world.
They will never see another dollar of mine, unless it's an advertising dollar from a radio station or a Star Wars movie.
so you'll boycott as long as you don't actually have to completely stop buying from them, eh? you're still giving the MPAA companies your money when you go to see star wars, and you're still providing a market for radio advertisers (the stations are selling your ears, after all)
There are a shitton of indpendent music labels out there, you should give them a try instead of making lame excuses about the RIAA. You CAN buy music that they have nothing to do with. Start giving positive support to the businesses who are actually getting it right! Fuck the RIAA and the MPAA! Let's boycott the assholes!
...except when they put out an album I want to buy or a movie I want to see, then we can give them money, only then is it ok!
you sir, are an asshat
What do you have to say about:
1) The stock-market. (I'm reminded of "And Gates can't buy up Linux like he did with all other threats")
2) Not making content available any more, but still having it copyrighted. What I remember of commodore64, is that 10+ years later, there were a few "5 games in 1" released for newer platforms, and that was about it. Of several 1000 games.