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?
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.
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
"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.
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.
Bah. DRM wouldn't be a major obstacle without the DMCA. That law gives copyright holders unlimited power to protect their content by making it illegal to circumvent protections no matter how trivial it is. The discs or players aren't the real problem, the DMCA is. Accept this and then complain to your local politicians. Don't waste your time here, since if the DMCA is changed you could circumvent whatever bs protection they have (and you know someone will break any such protection scheme eventually (CSS)).
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
How is this different from floppy disk copy restrictions from the 80s? This just prevents fair use by restricting backup copies.
Oh, because the internet grew up and people got used to getting stuff for free.
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!
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.
DRM isn't and can't be for regular products. You aren't reproducing your lipstick, car, lawnmower, or flashlight. The only reason DRM is being implemented is because you can give someone a copy and still have it yourself.
DRM is not a good thing, but not because it's unique to digital media.
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.
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.
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...
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.
You have made a valid point; albeit what you said, was probably not what you meant.
We have "pissed off" the people who provided us the media. The reason for this being: we don't need them anymore - p2p does a much better job of providing just about any kind of movie/music to me than the RIAA/MPAA has ever done. I can d/l the even the most obscure ancient live bootleg in a few hours - good luck finding that in a store. So why should I continue to pay the providers when the p2p community can do their job much better? Remember that 90% of the money you pay for a cd flows into the provider's pocket; only a fraction of the remaining 10% will feed the creator (aka artist).
The real question is: how can we benefit from p2p without "pissing off" the creator. What is currently a "crisis" for the providers might end up as great opportunity for the creators. Imagine the artists getting twice the money per sold cd and the consumer paying only 20% of what an average cd costs nowadays.
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.
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