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?"
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.
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! :)
Thats exactly right! I'm not buying any equipment that has any form of DRM in it, I've found myself another hobby that doesn't involve MY equipment telling me what I can and can not do..
since when does a self respecting geek use "shakycam" style... Much better to rig up a stationaty mount and an automatic High resoloution digital camera pointed at a good High Def, LCD screen, (they cant protect the Audio anywhere near as well since theyd be stabing their faces in if they pissed off audiophiles will decades of high quality audio gear they like to use for listening on) and then frame step through making sure you get a good clean shot of each frame before moving on. ... days later... ther you are.. a high res non shaky pirate!
XML - A clever joke would be here if
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.
Actually, this is only approximately the case. Indeed, you can record any analog output they produce. However, high-quality output is going to be via digial channels, and they have total control over these (imagine a DVD player that doesn't output a picture unless the TV produced a digitally signed certificate).
Now, as long as no-one forced you to by DRM'ed media (i.e. it's private industry doing whatever they want with their product), it's difficult to argue against -- exactly because it has nothing to do with copyright law. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the ??AA will try to get Congress to pass a "DRM is mandatory" law (e.g. in response to the recent ruling on the Broadcast Flag).
Till then, expect to pay more for a Trusted-Computing free PC (think of it as your "??AA cartel tax").
...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.
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...
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?
Hmm, what you seem to be implying is that upon purchase you are entering into a contractual agreement with the dvd manufacturer. I dunno where you buy your DVD's at, but, I've never signed or even had a gentleman's handshake in binding agreement as to what I would or would not do with a DVD I purchased. I never agreed to anything but exchanging money for said DVD. Now grant it...the DVD probably contains copyrighted content, which there are laws pertaining to (unauthorized distribution, etc). But, that is copyright law, law of the land. I still never bought a dvd with any type of agreement or contingency with the DVD's sellar, distributor or creator.
Again...where do YOU buy your DVD's at where you have to enter into some type of formal agreement as to what you'll do with it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
DRM is intended to stop the consumer from exercising many of his/her fair use rights (see "copy it" and "remix it" above). DRM does *not* stop the distribution of copies, which is actually illegal.
Down with the DMCA!!!
[javac] 100 errors