Slashdot Mirror
Intel Stands Up For Consumers in Next-gen DVD War
Sanity writes "According to a Macworld story, Intel is standing up for the interests of consumers in the war between Blue-ray and HD-DVD, by making its support for either format contingent on support for 'mandatory managed copy', the ability to copy content to 'home servers' so that it can be accessed from around the home. While it is refreshing to see someone consider the (often ignored) interest of consumers in the world of DRM, it appears that 'mandatory managed copy' will still allow content producers to limit what consumers can do with the content and equipment they own well beyond the limitations imposed by copyright law. Thus the question over DRM remains: should we be policed by our own property?"
As with all DRM, if I can watch it once, I can record it without the DRM. I wish they'd understand that.
No, we should not be managed, watch-dogged or even monitored by our property.
If we don't own it, then don't bother *selling* it.
If you wish to call it renting, or leasing, then call it that.
FYI- there is *NO* such thing as Intellectual Property. It doesn't exist. It's not a material object.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
this can only be a good thing people!
Not enough people give a shit for it to matter. -1 Tru Dat, homies.
How can there be no such thing?!
I just bought 40 acres of Intellectual Property on ebay and got an incredible 1.9% finance rate!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
should we be policed by our own property
No, but the moment someone breaks fair use and delves into full-scale copyright violation, they lose their right to honestly answer in the negative. However, for those who do follow fair-use laws, we should not be limited by our technology by treating us as guilty until forced (by way of DRM) to be innocent.
Intel is big into the "digital home" market, with its VIIV platform and various peripherals designed to serve content over network links. Of course it wouldn't want this business compromised by controls in upcoming DVD formats. Hardly the champion of the little guy; Intel is championing its own business interests, nothing more.
Breakfast served all day!
They want to keep sales of PCs going by allowing you to transfer contents back and forth between your server.
Next you'll be telling me that they're standing up for my rights by including mandatory DRM management at the hardware level and putting a serial# on each chip to uniquely identify a PC.
How is this different from floppy disk copy restrictions from the 80s? This just prevents fair use by restricting backup copies.
Intel stands up for consumers? This is the same company that implements "Trusted Computing," right? Seems to me that they are just looking out for their best interest.
Reality test... am I dreaming?
Somehow, I doubt that they are standing up for consumers. They are probably just planning on marketing a nice, "home server" to us instead. Most companies don't do things to help people. They do things to benefit themselves. While there are a few exceptions out there, I really doubt that Intel is one of them.
Every time a restriction or limitation is imposed, a work-around will be developed. Necessity is the mother of invention, and you can't just disregard the will of the people.
End transmission.
This is completely psuedo-altruistic. Intel is standing up for themselves as it has the opportunity to create a market for these "home servers." Although this may be good for consumers, this is fully in Intel's best interest, plain and simple.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
This must be a first .. Intel standing up for us regular old customers ...
.. nothing to see here, move along.
oh wait, I just RTFA
-GenTimJS
"Thus the question over DRM remains: should we be policed by our own property?"
Well, since it's only your property if you choose to buy it, then YES. Not because it's right or fair, but because YOU ACCEPTED THE DEAL.
If you don't like it, don't buy it in the first place.
1) lipstick with a DNA detector to see if you let your friend borrow it 2) your car requires fingerprint identification on stearing wheel 3) your lawnmower can only mow your own lawn 4) flashlights only work within a 5 mile radius of your house At least they can never DRM my pokemon cards. I can trade those puppies as much as my heart desires.
Yeah, right. More like "Intel stands up for potential future profits." Why is any corporation in business? To help consumers? To provide superior hair cleaning products? To build superior cars? To write outstanding software? No, none of those reasons. They are all in business for one reason alone: To make money. If they think it will make them money in the future, they'll stand for it and their PR department will spin it as "We're on your side, consumer buddies!" If you can't see past the corporate and marketing B.S. to the realities of life, you need to go back to junior high school.
Has the decision just to do with consumer's interest or is it more related to sale of their viiv based products? Consumers won't buy PC based digital home theatres, if they won't be able to rip of their movies from the disks (HD-DVD or Blu-ray) and put it on their PC's hard disk.
Just my 2 cents
I would like to change the world,
but they won't tell me the source code.
years of endless debate and millions in funding, and any product that is released will be hacked within the month
when you pit the well-funded r&d department of a major corporation against a million highly motivated, poor teenagers who want their media fix, the teenagers win, every single time
you can't control the consumer
listen again, very carefully, dear corporate megalomaniacs:
you can't control the consumer
make it too constrictive, and no one will buy
give them no other option than to buy you, and it will be hacked
that's really about it
so give it up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the answer to this is that "nobody ever said that it was against the law to 'partially' sell property or rights to property. If they want to sell the viewing rights to a movie without selling you the right to copy, then they have every right to do so.
this is a free country for sellers as well as buyers. dont forget that.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
It already pisses me off that they won't let me skip the FBI warning or the movie studio splash screen. Can't fastfoward, can't skip, can't press "DVD Menu" - drives me nuts. This crap has gone far enough, they should have mandatory "Do whatever you want with it" clause instead. I guess they will try to say that skipping watching the studio splash screen is from now on illegal and protected by the DMCA.
I cannot recall a time when someone looked after my interests and it was considered a "good" thing. Thanks Intel for sheltering me from the cold cold world and helping me decide what format I should use. While I can see where adopting standards help confused consumers I wouldn't suggest tagging it with some epic mumbo jumbo about championing the cause of the common people only to be followed up with some DRM nonsense. Why can't people just say that they are choosing a standard to support their technology, that way you can sound "realisitc." Then again I didn't RTA so I might be making a snap judgement...aren't those great! :)
then don't buy DRM.
it really, really is that simple.
if people don't buy DRM, companies will make products without it and lobby to remove laws stopping them from selling the products people will buy.
however the chance of Joe Consumer giving a shit == null.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Same business interests sure but Microsoft probably has a little more clout here than Intel does. For me, this would be the deciding factor between HD DVD and Blu-Ray.
Wrote a bit more about this here.
I'm sick of this. DRM is our fault.
WE are the ones who used napster. WE are the ones who used LimeWire. WE are the ones who made P2P a household name - and what we did was piss off (and scare) the very people who provide us with the things we were sharing.
DRM arose out of the Record Companies AND Artist's fears that their businesses would colapse if they didn't do something. Does DRM increase profits for the RIAA or MPAA? NO!!!
At least not directly - it does help them by makeing sure there is a 1 to 1 sale/customer scenario.
Can DRM be excessive? YES! I'm not arguing that. I *am* saying that if we hadn't been sharing, and INSTISTING on sharing files this wouldn't have happened.
For those of you who don't remember, Metallica fired a warning shot across the P2P bow when they had Napster ban all the users who had downloaded their songs. And what did we as a community do? We downloaded more! We stuck it to the man!
Now we cry because the man is sticking it to us?
Let's grow the fuck up. Let's start paying for content that we would have had to pay for before P2P.
Well, the dvd and the box and the leaflet inside are your property, the content on the dvd and the picture on the leaflet are not. Just like software really.
Intel is standing up for the interests of consumers in the war between Blue-ray and HD-DVD
...How about: Intel is standing up for its relationship with Apple in the war between Blue-ray and HD-DVD.
y .html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/mar/10blu-ra
Wah Sig!
While it may have some form of DRM on it, at least it can't DISABLE THE FUCKING PLAYER! What a crock-o-shit that is!
...DRM, Broadcast Flag, ETC...its all crap.
Write your congressman (or whatever you have in your country) tell them you want Fair Use to be made word of law not just implied. Tell them what you believe "fair use" means and that you want that to be law. You want all the anti-fairuse tech, in fact all tech that limits you in anyway even similar to this made illegal.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Without managed copy, HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are protected by AACS, and AACS is either cracked or it isn't.
But managed copy allows movies to be trans-DRMed into Windows Media DRM (and possibly others, like FairPlay), thus introducing an OR into the attack tree. To access the content, you only have to break AACS or WMDRM (or FairPlay or whatever). This makes the overall system much weaker (which is good or bad, depending on your viewpoint).
And BTW, why isn't Intel lobbying the DVD Forum/DVD CCA to allow managed copy for regular DVDs? It'll be a curious world where you're legally allowed to copy HD-DVDs but not "inferior" DVDs.
I assume that the idea behind Managed Copy is to allow one to copy movies one owns to some sort of home entertainment computer. If that is the case, how would this equipment be able to tell whether I actually purchased the disk or rented it from Blockbuster? I do not think that fair use allows one to copy a rented movie, although I may be wrong. In any case, the studios are definitely going to be against the idea of someone copying rented or borrowed movies.
If it ends up with Intel, AMD, IBM, ARM, et.al. only producing DRM hardware then I'll stay with my current hardware (I'm not a gamer). I'd rather wait an extra second/minute/hour for some piece of software to do it's processing than being robbed of my rights given to me by eons of trade traditions and by law when I buy hardware or software - If I don't own what I buy then why am I paying for it as if I an buying it and not renting it under some strange company's oppinion of what I can and cannot do with it???
I am a huge fan of F/OSS, but never ever will I buy hardware that only works with DRM or software for that matter. Might I add that I havn't bought a piece of software since '97 when I made a total switch to GNU/Linux!
By the way, DRM stands for Dumb, Ridiculous Monopoly.
Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me...
Intel is talking out of both sides of their mouth. If they really gave a damn about the rights of citizens, they would tell Hollywood to cram it, repudiate CPRM and CPPM, and lobby for copyright reform.
I'm not impressed.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Intel standing up for the consumer? Umm...Intel has a money stake in this matter: ripping content off of DVDs, CDs, etc. and burning content onto such media requires beefy machines with expensive processors. It's far more likely Intel is standing up rip-able content not for the sake of the consumer, but for the sake of their own bottom line.
Of course, MacWorld reporting such favorable news towards Intel is no kawinki-dink either.
Oh well, I suppose all news is biased in some way or another. Excuse me while I go watch Fox News now.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
What I'm sick of is this whole "sell a product with one hand and revoke rights with the other."
If they're going to sell a DVD, they should have to list any kinds of user limitations up front. Can't skip the FBI screen? List it. etc. If you don't agree, you don't buy.
I'm sure that the MPAA could develop a standard, so announcing this info would be as simple as a short acronym on the label or in the ad.
If they're going to revoke my rights to the unlimited use of a product, it needs to be spelled out before they sell the thing to me, NOT afterwards. None of this 'well, what did you expect?' nonesense. The burden is on them to be upfront. Shrinkwrap denial of rights should be illegal.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Although I understand why DRM is supposed to be good, I disagree with it too. Primarily because it unnecesarily cripples functionality for honest users. Those who want to "steal" will continue to "steal". it only takes 1 person to crack a disc and put it on the internet for the rest.
> "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
I hate to be bad guy here, and I especially hate how I'll unjustifiably lose my positive karma for saying thus, but when people say things like:
it appears that 'mandatory managed copy' will still allow content producers to limit what consumers can do with the content and equipment they own well beyond the limitations imposed by copyright law.
I cringe. You do not own the content. You bought specific use rights. They sold you the content contingent on certain usage standards you agreed to. Ergo, you only own the right to use it in very specific ways. You do not own the content simpliciter, as much as you would like to. DRM simply enforces the contract you agreed to and which the law recognizes.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Why can't anybody claim that? Even a mass murderer can make true claims about the law and morality. Just because one is a criminal doesn't make him any less able fight for consumer rights.
... it is mandatory on all personal computers. Sure, it is easy to get along without DVD, music CDs and so on. But when you can't buy a computer without DRM, then what do you do?
Remember that circumventing DRM is not forbidden in many countries.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
A clarification is needed.
5 .html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051004-538
As you can see from my coverage here, Intel isn't hinging support for Blu-ray on Managed Copy support. They're going to have to support it either way. Rather, Intel is trying to get the two parties together again to talk about unification, but they're stressing the importance of managed copy to the whole discussion.
This hits at exactly the problem with these restrictions, as well as EULAS. I don't find out what the limitations on my rights will be with one of these products until I buy it, bring it home, take off the shrink wrap, and try to use it.
Then, the product cannot be returned for a refund (most places will only exchange for the same product).
This is why I no longer purchase their products.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Dude, I don't think we own those properties. We purchased the right to use the content. If we own the properties, shouldn't we get a share of the royalty?
Well, I hope you get modded up so people can see that the **AA's propaganda machine is having a horrible effect on us peons. DRM has, since its inception, limited the user's rights far beyond those specified by copyright law (as the grandparent pointed out). Certainly, by purchasing content on a medium, you have not magically become the author of that content. However, the law MUST recognize consumer rights in that situation; or at any rate, more rights than "you now temporarily have the right to experience the content alone, so long as the powers that be don't mind, and in the way that said powers deem acceptable". In such a state, it could be the case that our entire lives exist at the behest of corporations (especially in a world that's becoming more and more dominated by software and 'net services).
That's the most intelligent, well-reasoned argument I've heard in....well...probably forever.
Kinda makes me feel like I'm not in Slashdot anymore, but that's a different movie...
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Maybe they will finally decide to sell content based on licenses. That could also turn into a bad thing though. Instead of licensing it to the user, they may license it to a single computer, or require extra money somehow to license it to be used by all 4 members of a family. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic though... I just find it hard to believe a huge corporation could be fighting for the consumers.... In capitalist America, you don't drive the buying market, the buying market drives you!!!
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
you can't drive over the speed limit
now go look at your average highway
now there's no slippery slope here in my argument: i am not saying murder is ok, i'm saying people speed on open highways: there is a difference, and there is NO slippery slope on the issue
now, you tell me if armageddeon level moral invectives is appropriate for talking about ripping off record companies on your living room computer
is it like speeding? or is it like murder?
if i pass a law in your town saying your hedges have to be 18" high and you let them grow to 20", can i go at you with the same level of moral outrage i would go after a pedophile?
now tell me again about the grave immorality of copying your dvd in your home for your best friend
now tell me about the slippery slope
it's bullshit
common sense always prevails, no matter how many sabres are rattled
it's just a big game of intimidation, and no one is buying it
legality should flow from MORALITY
not from well-paid corporate lawyers and well-funded congressmen
now, of course you can talk about the morality of ripping off a record company
but the crime syndicate extortion efforts and the big brother drm intrusions that the record companies employ to fight those who rip them off takes it to a whole new level of immoral behavior
so what i say is this: record companies have every right to fight piracy
but their current tactics suck, and make them lose out even more in the end
their tactics don't make sense from a moral and a business perspective
the consumer is king
the consumer will ALWAYS be king, the fantasies big brother paranoid schizophrenics who have been reading too much scifi does not apply
the consumer is in charge, not the corporation
you can't replace the carrot with a stick and expect no fallout
and the high holy moral righteous indignation of ripping off warner brothers on your home computer simply doesn't work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All the recording and playback equipment are made by big corporations. I hope you can keep your old VHS camcorder and VCR in operable condition for the next few decades...
They should make a law saying that NO format can be protected from basic fair use rights. They are called rights for a reason. It would be like a car being chipped from the manufacturer where you could not open the hood unless you were a certified technician with all the bells and whistles of a fancy computer they use at the dealership.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
http://malfeasance.50megs.com/
Last i checked fair use was ambiguous for a REASON. This is the primary reason why i hate DRM so much. With DRM our "fair use" is subject to the limitations of some corporate bonehead's imagination. Intel has been a big supporter of TCPA/NGSCB and now wants all disks to be rippable only with DRM. SCREW THAT! my friends and i make anime music videos. In order to do that you have to not only copy it, but convert it into an "unmanaged" format. I don't need the bounded thought of intel getting in my way. If intel really wanted to get on board for consumers, they would be demanding the disks be DRM free.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
From http://www.picketwyre.com/~mye/i_am_not_a_consumer .html">Mye Laande's rant: Do yourself a favor - everytime you see or hear the word "consumer" used in a sentence this week, substitute "citizen", and watch your attitudes change.
I'll bet you if I take an HDCAM and point it at a good HDTV, the resulting rip is so good you don't really care that it was made analogue.
Ok so right now that's impractical, HD cameras are pro only because of the cost. But for how long? DV has brought broadcast quality to the hands of consumers. It's comming with HD as well, and will probably be here before it gets adopted on a large scale.
Henceforth my terms for the purchase of any music or movies is that I'm allowed, without fear of reprisal, to kick the relevent lawyer or exec in the nuts if they attempt to limit my freedom of enjoyment of my property.
Lets see how they like those hidden licence terms.
I refuse to buy anything that imposes DRM or copy protection. If I can't purchase a version of my favorite DVD region free, then I don't buy it. Period. If you don't like the way things are, change them by starting with your purchasing power.
The Road not Taken (Frost)
[snip]
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
You can be sure that Intel is no Robert Frost. They'll take the eight-lane superhighway every time.
The trouble with "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" is that it's really just a coincidence. It's where the road less traveled and the superhighway happen to intersect. In other words, if that's the case, enjoy it while it lasts.
I imagine most American families don't have a home server. In fact, they may think a home server is some sort of special Dominoes guy who goes so far as to put the pizza on your plate.
Anyhow, I'm just saying, a narrow discussion on a point that'll affect like 5% of customers really doesn't say much about DRM on the whole. A nice symbol, maybe, but it doesn't seem to be Intel pushing for consumer rights, as most consumers are unaffected.
Well said! I'd mod you up if I had points!
Paramount just announced support for Blu-ray with Warner expected to follow suit sometime this week. Universal will be forced to announce support shortly thereafter.
It's all over folks -- HD-DVD is deader than dead.
>> Thus the question over DRM remains: should we be policed by our own property?"
This question begs that the property would prevent us from violating law. In truth, none of the DRM solutions do that - they simply make it extremely difficult to NOT purchase redundant licenses, licenses that ARE NOT DEMANDED by the law.
That is not policing, and is merely a tool to produce a new revenue stream. In the immortal words of Steve Wright... "I bought some batteries, but they weren't included... so I had to buy them again." Or more approprate, the anecdote about Disney, regarding the rejection of one-time-view VCR tapes - "How will we know how many people are sitting in front of the TV?"
Policing has nothing to do with it.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
"Sometimes it's gets pretty stupid around here"
Thank you for writing a subject that concisely summarizes your post.
"Well, since it's only your property if you choose to buy it, then YES. Not because it's right or fair, but because YOU ACCEPTED THE DEAL."
I see. So when you buy a carpet that just happens to devour anyone who steps on it, you have no reason to complain. You should just stand on it and enjoy the experience. After all, you chose to buy it, and "you accepted the deal."
Talk about distorted reasoning.
Even if you knew the carpet would devour you before you bought it, it's illegal for you to modify the carpet under the DMCA. You can't cut off its razor-sharp teeth, even though you "bought" the carpet.
With DRM in DVD drives, you buy the hardware, but you can't modify it. (Modifying it is illegal in most circumstances under the DMCA.) You didn't "accept the deal." The deal was decided entirely by the companies that bribed the Congressmen, with campaign contributions, to pass the DMCA.
I hate copyright. I believe it is just a coercion by government to provide a "time limited" monopoly.
In this situation, copyright doesn't make sense. Copyright uses coercion to supply an author with zero reason to police the distribution of their work. The laws also use coercion to give the consumer a loophole to an author's "property."
Honestly, without copyright law, we'd have two situations I forsee:
1. Authors develop copy protection schemes to control access.
2. Authors can freely distribute the work ("public domain") and offer value added services to generate more income.
I feel the Internet will drastically affect copyright law, showing how futile more laws will be.
I didn't actually see anything about DRM in the article, just a claim that `mandatory managed copy' allows consumers to copy the data from the medium.
Given that there's no need for special hooks in a readable *medium* to enable copying, I guess that the fact that they emphasise something as mundane as `you can copy this' implies something fishy. Like, they presumably mean `we have a way of enabling you to copy data within limits.'
The fact that it's *readable* is enough to enable copying--just read the data, and then write it somewhere else. So, the `we can enable you to copy with limits' is really just `we can limit your copying'.
So, Intel is apparently doing nothing but advocating a DRM scheme. How is that `standing up for consumers'?
-rozzin.
If I press menu or ff during the FBI warning, it displays an anti-symbol and will not accept any further keypresses. Or front-panel buttons. Even power. I actually have to UNPLUG the mofo (which resets everything)
Needless to say, I only did that a few times!
Man, you really need that seminar!
Sure, there will be unportected bits transfered... From the decoder chip inside the TV to the CRT Ray gun, or LCD controller, or whatever. Unless you want to open your TV and solder leads on to rip these bits, it seems pretty secure to me. You'd be much better off trying to break the encryption, which will probably happen.
If you don't like it, don't buy it in the first place.
I know and I don't plan on buying any of these new devices, but that really doesn't solve anything.
The "If you don't like it, don't buy it" philosophy would be fine in a free market, but we don't have a free market. We live in a market dominated by the MPAA, who has nearly full say in the crafting the laws that govern how the market works.
The big movie studios will eventually release all their material in these new formats, so everyone else will buy equipment that will support all the restrictions required to view the media. Then the few good movies that I do want to see / own will also be released in these formats because they are standards, and because that is what everyone has equipment for. Just look at CSS - even indepentant movies are released on DVD, and most of them are encrypted because that is just how things are done and most of the producers don't know or care enough about the issue to go out of their way to get a DVD made without it.
I'm tired of the cartels having full say in what direction the industry goes, and then giving us the "choice" of thier way or the highway. I'm tired of being given the "choice" of new competing ideas each of which entail less rights than I already have now. It probably won't be long before the broadcast flag law is passed mandating some DRM, and I won't even have an illusion of a choice any more.
I'm tired of being treated like a criminal. Has it really gotten so bad that can't be trusted to watch a movie without supervision because I might break the law? Don't you see how rediculous that is? There has to be a certain amount of trust in a free society.
If you value your freedom and that of your children you might want to make sure you buy only DRM-free devices and recordings.
OK, there's no such thing as Intellectual Property. Fine. Agreed.
But I think it's pretty clear that the precise arrangement of bits that make up a movie/song performance/book are something that took a lot of work to create, and which people are willing to pay to watch/listen to/read. Out of curiosity, if it's not intellectual property (which we've already agreed doesn't exist), do you have a name for it? Or any particular way to encourage people to put in the work to make those movies/etc?
Basically, if it's not intellectual property, what is it?
"MacWorld": proponents of a proprietary system
"Intel": vendor of hardware that feeds said proprietary system
"Stands Up for Consumers": LOL!
This ridiculous verbage is just spin for the clueless.
Clippy is my friend.
All VARs have my company's best interests at heart.
Soylent Green is good for you and our society.
Bah.
my friends and i make anime music videos. In order to do that you have to not only copy it, but convert it into an "unmanaged" format. I don't need the bounded thought of intel getting in my way.
But just FYI, creating these "music videos" is copyright infringement, and exactly the type of thing that DRM is designed to protect against.
Personally, I don't like DRM, and if you are making personal music videos for your own consumption, more power to you -- but from a technical standpoint, what you are doing is copyright infringement, and stopping that is sort of the whole point of DRM...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Thus the question over DRM remains: should we be policed by our own property?
The question really is, will you knowingly buy something that polices you? If you do, you have zero sympathy from me. Hidden DRM, you have sympathy. Refusing to succumb to consumerism and just not buying something which acts in a way you don't like gets you far more sympathy.
People need to take a stand and just ignore the "crap" that they complain is being foisted upon them. For exactly what reason do you have a DVD player if "everything Hollywood produces today is crap". Why do you own a CD player if "everything the RIAA produces is crap"? Why waste bandwidth stealing it? I don't have cable television because I fervently believe that while there is worthwhile programming, the vast majority of it is stinking horse shit, and I don't feel like paying Comcast $50/month for the priviledge of my home being used as a septic tank for them, the TV production companies, and their advertisers. Yeah, I don't see a lot of stuff, but frankly I don't think I'm missing anything. If someone offered me a 100% guaranteed way to pirate full fledged DirectTV without the possibility of getting caught, I'd turn it down. If these new DVD replacement technologies have restrictions on them I can't live with, you can be damn sure I'm not going to buy them, no matter how popular they end up being.
Maybe I'm just getting old and this is the beginning of the "all new technology from this point on is against nature" phase of life Douglas Adams talked about. Maybe I don't really care.
If you didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it. The fact is most consumers neither know nor care about DRM and most of the Slashdotters who whine about it don't care enough to do the obvious thing.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think I would be more than happy to splice directly into the display circuits of an LCD to get around this. Now where's my soldering iron?
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
If he is doing this entirely for his own use, it is *NOT* copyright infringement.
Personally, I think it is unfortunate that they chose the term 'copy' right, since at the time 'copying' and 'publishing for sale' were effectively the same thing technologically.
Copyright should be renamed (and redesigned, in keeping with today's technology) to allow limited rights to 'publish for profit'. If the intention of today's copyright was translated into yesterdays technology - it would be illegal for one person to read a book to another - each 'recipient' of the story contained in a book would have to have their own 'license'.
All of these companies, including Intel, are shooting for "DRM + laws" and working hard to make such laws international in scope. Once done, any non-DRM content past a certain date will automatically be illegal in effect.
Sure, what about your own home pictures, etc. you ask?
Simple: your equipment will automatically implement a default DRM policy and attach it to any file created with that equipment. You or, more likely, the vendor of your software utility will become the "content provider" and manage the DRM policy's details -- but you won't be able to remove it.
Once this becomes the de facto standard of the world, the true digital divide will be Open Source software/hardware versus non-Open Source. But, if possible, that will be legislated out of existence also.
So what, you ask? I'll just do it anyway. Yea, but you'll be a criminal. And someday, your usage of illegal content will be reported by that unsuspected wireless router or some hidden Sony background updater....
And you know what? If you continue to hang on to that analog equipment you'll be likened to those rabid anti-government types hiding in the mountains of Idaho with their guns.
But it won't matter. The internet's core routers and servers will support DRM all the way baby. And automatically report you for being the terrorist and theif that you must be.
DRM and copyright are mutually exclusive.
if a product contains any form of DRM they forfeit their copyright.
copyright laws PROTECT the authors. so they can't have it both ways.
if you want the protection of copyright, that by definition means you cannot encumber your product. the customer who purchases it has the right to use it any way they wish, short of distribution. if you interfere with that right, it means that you DO NOT abide by copyright law. hence you give up the copyright privileges you enjoy.
DRM and Copyright can NOT coexist. one infringes on the rights of the customer to do with what they wish with the product.
there are no licenses with regards to copyrighted materials. your MONEY buys you the right to use it, not words on a piece of paper (usually seen after the box has been opened) called a "EULA".
a EULA is not valid, no matter how much the software and copyright cartels proclaim. you are selling a copy... SELLING a COPY!. when you sell a copy, the customer has the right to use that copy any way they wish, short of distributing it. you infringe on that, then people have a right to assume you do not want to abide by the laws of copyright.
courts are manned by incompetent judges who don't understand the concepts of copyright or computer software related issues. and legislators are even more incompetent and "bought".
i don't hold out ANY hope that we will get a "power that be" to hold up the other end of the copyright agreement. they keep piling it on in favor of the "content authors", which i call compilers (knowledge/information is neither created nor destroyed, merely recompiled). all of this belongs in the public domain by default. copyright is an unnatural law that hopes to make compilers release more works in return for a small period of exclusivity (monopoly) so that they can benefit monetarily from it, hence ENCOURAGING new releases...
copyright doesn't give the compilers the right to restrict how a copyrighted item/product is used, except distribution (which i needn't mention, it's in the law). when they use DRM and Insidious Computing to prevent LAWFUL uses, they break their side of the agreement and in my estimation, gives the public the right to break the DRM and use the copy as a public domain entity.
DRM and Copyright are mutually exclusive therefore as you can see.
DRM breaks the compiles side of the agreement. or "contract" if you will...
as far as i'm concerned, they brought this mess on themselves.
RMS = the right to read.... it keeps coming more true every day.
software compilers? you need to register with the central authority to even posses one.
hardware with analog outputs? those have been made illegal in 2020.
these and more things are coming... your actions now will determine if they do or not.
the number one step to countering this is education.
tell your family and friends, in a casual and non-coercive way what Insidious Computing and DRM (Draconian Restriction Management) is really all about. tell them that those shiny gadgets, cell phones and consoles are all about preventing the real owner of said property from making full use of them. tell them about how those locked-down and crippled devices can be made to do so much more but those greedy cartels don't want people to own their property but merely rent them but still get the right to call it selling. unless your device is leased or rented, you have EVERY RIGHT to use it in any way you wish and any technical means to prevent you is AGAINST THE LAW.
and no, copyright is not property. if it were, it wouldn't have a time limit so don't let any shills, online or in the media distract you from the real meat of the issue.
the way i see it... if they don't make copyright and related issues reasonable and limited in duration and scope, the people have a right to take it in their own hands. copyright wasn't intended to last longer than the heat-death of the universe. and the DMCA is like DRM for t
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
If he is doing this entirely for his own use, it is *NOT* copyright infringement.
While practically the might be the case, from a purely technical legal perspective, it's not -- there is no carte blanche given to "personal use" or "noncommercial use." Copying an entire book for "personal use" is STILL copyright infringement -- maybe from a practical matter it is not something that anyone would ever bother to enforce, but it is not legal.
Copyright should be renamed (and redesigned, in keeping with today's technology) to allow limited rights to 'publish for profit'.
I agree that noncommercial infringement of copyrighted works should be treated differently than infringement for commercial purposes -- and oftentimes it is treated differently. But I'm not sure what you are saying here -- are you saying that copyright should allow "limited" publication for profit by people other than the copyright holder? If so, that just doesn't really make sense -- if you are going to include that in the copyright laws, might as well do away with them altogether...
And maybe that's a good thing, I don't know -- but I don't think it is likely to happen anytime soon...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
A tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive....
Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their consciences. --C.S. Lewis
getting close to the real question is: what property rights should be allowed to exist regarding intellectual property?
Its been stated other places (ArsTechnica) that the Manditory Managed Copy functionality is in both Bluray and HD-DVD, but it can be setup so that the user has to pay a fee to store the DVD on their local "home server". The problem is that the movie industry can have the feature, and just charge $100 for it, so that no one can use it. Its stupid, but I wouldnt put it past them (casual piracy, friends swapping DVDs around between each other) is probably their biggest fear. Between me and my friends, we could share each others collection as long as our home media servers have enough harddrive space (at 25GB per disc, thats a lot of space for 100s of DVDs - you're talking 10s of TB).
Rental DVDs (Blockbuster, Netflix) will have different SKUs with Manditory Managed Copy disabled.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
"... Intel is standing up for the interests of consumers in the war between Blue-ray and HD-DVD, by making its support for either format contingent on support for 'mandatory managed copy', the ability to copy content to 'home servers' so that it can be accessed from around the home."
A slightly less onerous DRM regime is "standing up for ... consumers"??? And slashdotters don't call "big lie" on this phraseology??? It's just abusing their excessive market power a little less. This is the frog-boiling principle in action.
Ignore me and mod up ewhac above: really standing up for citizens would mean calling Hollywood on its bluff that they wouldn't offer content if they couldn't lock it down.
What makes it even worse is that the sellers of DVDs specifically tell you that you are BUYING THE MOVIE. When they adverise it, they don't say "buy the dvd". The say "BUY SPIDERMAN ON DVD". The say "HITCHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, OWN THE MOVIE". Then you go to the store where there is a sign that says "SALE". You pick it up and pay money for it, and you get a SALES RECIPT. In all fairness, the MPAA members are commiting fraud on virtually every DVD sale they make. The are absolutly clear that they are selling you the movie. They are not licensing you the movie. The reason they don't advertise to buy a license to the movie today is because they know that, contrary to the belief of many people here, Joe sixpack does NOT know the current state of copyright. Joe Sixpack has no idea that courts are allowing MPAA members to sell a product, and then steal it back from the purchaser.
If the MPAA members would advertise "Rent/License your copy today!" in their commercials, many of thier critics would stop criticizing them.
"the moment someone breaks fair use and delves into full-scale copyright violation, they lose their right to honestly answer in the negative"
This is like saying the moment i destroy someone's bed or furniture with a steak knife, i should not be allowed to use anything sharper than a butter knife for any purpose no matter how legitimate. I just can't eat any more prime rib or carve chicken i guess because i cut up my brother's supersoaker when i was 8.
That "revenge" philosophy is wrong on so many levels.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
unfortunately i've never seen one. I also wish i had the money to buy a banner on this site to continually display your post for 4 months. sadly i don't have that money either.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If they are so adamant about limiting our use that isn't under copyright law. I say they should be required to put on a sticker much like the ratings stickers that will inform us of the inability to due certain things or of a copy protection notice. Either that or have a lawyer standing by with contracts so they can have legally binding situation. No signature equals no deal to me. How about the next time I buy something at BestBuy, I come back a week later and demand that I get a free item, because by me buying their merchandise that is what they agreed too???
quoting/sampling for purpose of parody/critique is fair use. an AMV is all about parody/critique. the videos exist because they reflect in some way on the piece(s) being used within.
parody is perfectly legal. While it's certainly on the thinnest part of the ice, you have no right to go declaring it a violation.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It's not actually encryption unless there is a secret key involved somewhere, and is really breakable, by just one guy even. Only one person needs to figure out how that decoder chip in the TV works, and he can write an algorithm that anyone can use to fix their files. You can never stop this until you can get everyone running on a managed virtual machine that doesn't allow editing of binary files or creation of new ones, and this will never happen (Not unless they outlaw linux, I mean!).
It's actually a lot worse than you and the parent suggest.
...
If DRM inhibits the casual, non-profit copier, but does nothing to stop organized crime from making and selling copies by the hundreds of thousands, then DRM is on-balance favoring organized commercial piracy.
But it goes even further than that. By reducing private copying, DRM creates a much larger market for the copies made by organized crime. There is nothing the high volume criminal piracy rings must love more than the RIAA/MPAA's strong curtailing of amateur copying.
As many have said before, the RIAA's extortion tactics smell very much like organized crime. Given that their efforts support actual organized crime so well, it really makes you wonder
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The digital equivalent of a TBC or video distribution amplifier will have to exist to support the same type of functionality commonly done today.
Those types of devices will have to have a digital certificate built into them, and that will be a place to get high quality video. That's a place off the top of my head.
The parent suggested a complex workaround, but more likely, we'll see the equivalent of what we have now with chinese DVD players: press the magic code on the remote and the copy-protection is gone.
You see, the only people who have an interest *really* in the DRM are the hollywood studios; everyone else in the chain would rather not support it as it costs them money and makes their products less desirable.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"However, I think everyone can agree that a fully automatic assault rifle could take out quite a few people in an airport in no time flat."
Which is why you aren't allowed to own one.
You never really were allowed to own an "assault rifle", whatever that means. Fully automatic weapons have been banned by the ATF longer than most of us have been alive, and are only allowed for use in certain circumstances (i.e. collectors or museums).
What politicians are calling "assault rifles" is banning guns that mimic military rifles. Its the equivalent of taking a 1995 civic, putting a loud exhaust, big spoiler, stripes, big wheels and tires and then calling it a race car. Its not.
So-called "assault rifles" aren't.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"full-scale copyright violation"
Like what... copying it to our computer so we can keep a couple movies on our HD without wearing out the DVD drive and batteries?
I feel like such a pirate!
In the old VHS days pretty much anyone could copy stuff and therefore there was no need for distribution.
With new harder DRM only a few will be able to copy stuff but since todays pirates have worldwide distribution (p2p) at their fingertips it only takes one person who's able to circumvent the DRM to allow ALL people to circumvent it.
Waiting for you by the bridge
Does Van Eck Phreaking really work?
or is just a cool sounding idea that Sci-Fi writer love to play with?
You wouldn't have worry about resolution, after all it's just a matter of timing.
The coils of the antena might make a pretty cool looking wall hanging behind the TV.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
Come on people, I expected more from the /. crowd
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
now do we realy believe that one of the creaters of such restrictions realy has our best intrest?
as jude JUDY would say "bap bap.. don't piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining!"
I have had acces to all my movies and song throughtout the home for years it is called, MP3 and XVID! Do I realy need MS and INTEL changing my network so that I can no longer acces my files?
PLEASE!!!!! YOUR REVOLUTION IS DE EVOLUTION of the worst kind! THANKS BUT NO THANKS I rather put my balls in a bat of acid!
what property rights should be allowed to exist regarding intellectual property?
None.
What sort of patent rights should be allowed to exist regarding acreage of forest?
Copyright/patents/trademarks are not property. They are entirely separate from property rights and from each other, and they *must remain* entirely separate from property rights and from each other.
Copyright is a limited monopoly to commerciallize a work and the right to sue people who infringe that right. It does not cover outside of the creation and distribution of new copies and public performance (section 106 of US law), and even that is subject to all sorts of limitations and exceptions (sections 107 through 122 and probably other parts of US law).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
No, I'm saying the rights reserved for the original author/creator of a work should *only* be the right to *sell* copies of the work. Reading someone a book (technology circa 1800) or making copies of video/audio and letting someone else view/listen (equivalent, modern technology) should not be restricted.
Copyright/patents/trademarks are not property. This is correct. However the content the Copyright/patents/trademarks is on, is Intellectual Property. The clearest property rights is to property in the Public Domain. The Public Domain is a Commons and the right to it is held by everyone, essentially.
and that the author owns the copyright and the people own the work.
My beef with fair markets and "to the letter" contract law in the case of copyrighted works has nothing to do with price. All of my friends are very heavily into various fandom and remix cultures. One does political/commercialistic/conspiratorial parodies, another does anime music videos and fanfiction, another acid industrial remixes, and another acid jazz remixes. I myself will often edit songs from older ages to remove distortion which new speaker systems bring to light, or will alter subtitle tracks on foreign works to offer better translation. All these things are impossible with drm, and all these things would not be possible if one were to hold contract law over fair use. Fair use is not about copying for redistribution, it is about allowing people to customize uses for works they buy when the cost of providing such custom uses would be too burdensome for the seller to evaluate on a singular basis. Big business is about providing goods palatable for the average mass market, without fair use (without allowing flexibility to break the letter, but not the spirit, of contracts) the specialized market (the long tail) gets chopped off. This is why DRM is so terrible; in short it subjects people's creativity to the limitations of some MBA's inadequate imagination.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!