Slashdot Mirror


RIAA vs Linux and DVDs

PlayfullyClever writes "The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction, using well-proven tactics as explained in Preventing DVD Playback on Linux Like Prohibition in the 1920's. Are their heavy-handed tactics to lock up and control everything we touch signs of plain old human stubborness?" Or more likely- greed.

43 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. Who's doing what to whom when how? by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I did read the friendly article but couldn't quite connect RIAA with Linux and DVDs.

    There's no mention of RIAA/music/movie in the article, and hardly any mention of Linux.

    So what's happening now? Is it some kind of bullets, leathers and baked beans? Someone please enlighten me.

    1. Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? by brufar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you have to read the related article to get the RIAA link. {a href=http://lxer.com/module/newswire/lf/view/48802 />The RIAA - Hollywood - DRM - Linux Suicide Pact

      --
      far...out
    2. Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      Prohibition in the 1920s was actually very successful at preventing DVD playback on Linux, so I guess the thinking is that it's a pretty good model to go with.

      Unfortunately, it's kinda tricky:

      Step One: Don't invent the DVD yet.

      Step...

      D'oh!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Who's doing what to whom when how? by sd_diamond · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do know that the open-source liquor industry has gone way downhill since Prohibition was lifted.

  2. This article.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    .... besides making no sense whatsoever, is depressingly difficult to masturbate to.

  3. Fear more than greed by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The executives making the decisions don't understand the technology and have fortunes built upon the success of Brittney Spears. They are trapped by their own business models and the only way out is something not only new and unproven but something that they can't wrap their brains around. Net result: fear. Fear of failure, destitution, and the loss of everything they have gained on the work of others. Fear.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Fear more than greed by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have to disagree with this. This is about power. The record companies want to dictate how you use their product. They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them. This is why they call people "pirates" when they do what they want with their own stuff. Real pirates are thugs who forcibly board other people's property and take control over it which, by the way, is what Sony has done.

      Somebody needs to make a video of Sony DRM pirates sailing the intenet sea with Monty Python's tune of the Crimson Permanent Insurance sung in the background...

    2. Re:Fear more than greed by bsartist · · Score: 4, Informative

      They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them.

      Likewise, there are a lot of folks on the other side of the fence, who can't get over the idea that purchasing a CD does not give them the right to distribute copies of that CD to a million of their closest friends.

      This is why they call people "pirates" when they do what they want with their own stuff.

      Pop quiz: Who went to the Supreme Court to defend the idea that a manufacturer of a device that can be used for piracy is not liable for the actions of end users who abuse it for such activity, so long as the device has "substantial non-infringing uses"? Answer: Sony, a member of both the RIAA and MPAA. Who, in the same case, helped establish the precedent that time-shifting is legal under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law? Again, Sony did.

      The *AA's have not, to the best of my knowledge, taken any sort of action against someone who was simply time- or media-shifting "their own stuff." In fact, as shown above, at least one member of these cartels has gone to a lot of trouble to defend your right to do just that.

      They have, on the other hand, filed many lawsuits where the target of the lawsuit was allegedly distributing copies of "stuff" without having obtained a legal license to do so. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

      I dislike the media monopoly as much as anyone - in fact, I'd read and been alarmed by Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly" book before most of the people here had even heard of the RIAA or MPAA. But let's be realistic - straw-man arguments and paranoid, ill-informed rantings are not helpful to the cause.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    3. Re:Fear more than greed by curunir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree that this is all about power, I believe you're confusing who they're trying to exercise power over.

      This is not about preventing piracy. It never has been. Every study shows that piracy doesn't cut into the amount of money they make. Those that pirate weren't likely buyers to begin with and some end up becoming buyers because they like what they downloaded and want it in a better form. What this is about is maintaining their hold on the distribution chain. The record labels are the middle men between the consumer and the artists. As technology continues to enable and simplify a direct connection between artists and consumers, the labels become less and less necessary.

      By holding these technologies back, what they are really doing is preserving the situation where artists are forced to go through them to be able to reach consumers. They're preserving the situation where they can force onerous contracts on artists that give that result in the labels receiving the vast majority of the profits from music sales. They're preserving the cartel arrangement that allows charging ~$15 for a plastic disc that costs < $0.50 to create. Home studios are already well within the capabilities of many artists and CD manufacturing can be purchased at very reasonable prices. These were once functions that only record labels could offer. Now the only thing they have left is the distribution network. Filesharing and other technologies that allow artists to market directly to their fans will eventually obviate the last function that labels provide and make them completely unncessary.

      That's what they're fighting. That's the power they're trying to maintain.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    4. Re:Fear more than greed by Golias · · Score: 3, Funny

      The things you own end up owning you.
      - Tyler Durden


      I'd like to be owned by a big mansion, a yact, and a Lotus Esprit Turbo, please. Where do I post my "for sale" sign?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  4. What he say? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction,

    ...it have no chance to survive, make its time?

    (Someone had to say it.)

  5. Good analogy by SlashAmpersand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA states that during Prohibition alcohol consumption fell initially, then rose to heights never before seen. P2P sharing was huge a few years ago. I don't have any data to back this up, but it seems to me that it's taken a pretty big fall. Is there going to be a rise similar to alcohol consumption during Prohibition? On the other hand, I can hardly wait to see Homer the mp3 Baron...

    1. Re:Good analogy by Yartrebo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It hasn't. Bittorrent taken a bit hit, but other networks have taken up the slack. As of a few months ago, Emule/Edonkey was the number one system.

      It's still probably the greatest source of wealth creation on internet, and definitely is the greatest source of traffic.

  6. Re:let's see by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, They're trying to compare the same idea of a minority group trying to assert their will about what your rights are against the people who clearly have another idea entirely. No matter how many warehouses they raid and how mach DRM they place on their products the people are going to continue to play and view media how they choose.

  7. One major flaw in the analogy... by L0neW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article uses Prohibition as a comparison...but Prohibition was not a product of corporate greed. It isn't like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. got together and said "Let's find a way to prohibit alcoholic beverages so that we can control what America REALLY ought to drink --our product!"

    Starting with a flawed analogy usually leads to a flawed article --as it did in this case.

    --

    Never look down your nose at others. Someday, someone is bound to see your boogers.
    1. Re:One major flaw in the analogy... by pidge-nz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the Hemp vs Cotton Growers would be a better analogy...

      IIRC - Hemp is a better fibre than cotton - at least FAR easier to grow, seeing as it grows like a weed (*cough* whoops, no pun intended). Which is why the cotton farmers "back then" didn't like it.

    2. Re:One major flaw in the analogy... by Twanfox · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Agreed. Having read the bulk of the article, I find a lot of claims and assumptions of the work stated without proof or even Common Sense reasoning. A few examples...

      It attempts to enforce an absolute value advantage where none exists and eventually prohibits mutually beneficial exchanges.

      If you increase enforcement, the courts will ease the penalties because judges will see the law as unfair based on the volume of cases they see.

      I'm curious what absolute value advantage is attempting to be enforced by the DMCA. Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality, to remove a cause of crime, and failed to do so. I suppose I can see a similar case in the DMCA, but copyright is not morality, it is purely a legal right granted to content creators. Additionally, how does the DMCA prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges? It prevents you from breaking encryption in order to get at the underlying data in it's raw format. However, those people willing to pay and be approved for licensing of the decryption methods make the products that allow us to use this content. The only thing you are, in theory, denied is the raw data that is used to compile the movie. You are not denied access to view the movie, given an appropriate device to decode and display it, nor are you denied from purchasing the encrypted disk.

      The latter quote makes me laugh, though. How many murder cases would it take for judges to see that laws against murder are unfair? The law generally dictates the range of penalties allowed to the courts to decide, and few courts seem willing to judge the validity or constitutionality of laws when dealing with a case. However, I doubt very seriously that the simple number of cases will really influence the penalties handed out.

      There is a lot of talk in this article, and a lot of references to Prohibition as a mirror for the current situation. My view on copyright withstanding, this article makes a very poor case of proving why these kinds of laws are doomed to fail.

  8. Re:Learn to preview.. . by brufar · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    far...out
  9. Wrong **AA? by angryflute · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shouldn't that be the MPAA, not the RIAA, which would have an issue with Linux circumventing the encryption of DVDs?

    1. Re:Wrong **AA? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Probably. But the article made no sense whatsoever anyway. It appeared to be something about Prohibition being difficult to enforce, like the DMCA. It then blathered on about banning mutually beneficial exchanges or something, and collapsed from there.

      I don't think the author's intent was to come up with anything but a bunch of buzzwords that would guarantee a front page setting on Slashdot and, thus, lots of ad-revenue generating site hits. In that respect, it's kind of surprising how few ads the article has, and how it isn't split into eleven pages. I mean, look at it: "RIAA" (Booo!) "DMCA!" (Booooooooooooo!) Linux! (YAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!) "It's like Prohibition man, Prohibition! That was also when The Man tried to keep the people down!" (WOOOOOOOOOO!)

      Why's the MPAA not in there? Because it's not as big a BUZZWORD as RIAA. We ALL know that the RIAA is evil. I mean, this is practically a satire of a P2P pirate's stream-of-consciousness. The only thing that makes me stop short of thinking that's exactly what it is is the lack of the "word" "Rediculous".

      What a load of crap. Bring back Jon Katz! At least his stuff made sense enough to disagree with.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  10. RIAA by OneSeventeen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like it would be more the MPAA to me, but I agree with the first post, there isn't much of a mention of any assosication targeting Linux as an opponent needing to be overcome.

    I think the only thing that stands in the way of watching DVDs on Linux is the obvious difference in opinions on how Intelectual Property rights should be handled, which was briefly touched upon in the article.

    If only end-users didn't copy so many DVDs, Movie studios wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their movies. Of course, I also feel that by purchasing the DVD, I should also be purchasing the rights to view the DVD, which would include decoders for whatever operating system I use, but that's from an end-user standpoint, not a developer/legal standpoint.

    At the very least, DVDs should list system requirements if they are going to require more than just the hardware that reads data from the DVD in order to play them.

    --
    "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
  11. Read between the lines by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's talking about the DMCA being as enforceable as Prohibition. The RIAA and MPAA and Linux and DVDs certainly are involved with the DMCA.

  12. slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction

    Oh, please. Even the people who don't think they should have to pay for their expensively produced entertainment will have to realize that actual destruction of the entertainment industry will leave them without anyone really professional to rip off. I mean, you don't have to sleep with a copy of Atlas Shrugged to see the basic truth of it. The rubber has to meet the road someplace, and at some point the Peter Jacksons of the world will not be able to raise the cash for a Really Swell Giant Ape Movie.

    And before someone says that artistic patronage, bar gigs, miming in the streets and wearing sandals was good enough 2500 years ago, and real artists shouldn't care about financing actors and makeup artists, blahditty blah... oh, never mind. There, I've said it for you. It's not about whether or not there should be a rational way to play your DVD on your Linux laptop. There should be. The problem is the shrill tone (and glee) in comments like the original post. That does not help matters.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole by JaxGator75 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      God Forbid we're deprived of yet another version of King Kong instead of several flavors of individual artistic expression...

      /Devil's Advocate, as I would likely never bother to observe anybody's crappy homemade movies until they hit some kind of Top 20 on a popular portal

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    2. Re:slashdot user on fast track to hyperbole by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
      At least with music we have moved to a model where you CAN afford to do a pro recording in your garage with 5 grand. That day is coming for movies as well. A family member of mine has a movie studio more or less. He does all his sets in CGI, then bluescreens everyone in. He sucks at it right now, but in 5 years he'll be dangerous, and in 25 years the technology will have caught up.

      Remember that the original purpose of movie studios and music companies was to provide funding to purchase equipment to artists, and channels to distribute music. If we don't need those services, these guys are out of business. With music that has already happened. You can distribute music online very cheaply, and a low-end masternig grade soundcard is $500.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  13. I'll drink to that by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some history about the Linux flap:
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/archive/g arfinkel.txt

    Some other page I found by accident about file sharing:
    http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  14. Nope. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful
    > The entertainment industry has put itself on the fast-track to destruction

    Not a chance. They fought (and survived) through player pianos, sheet music, record players, radio stations, juke boxes and casette tapes. They'll still be around, greedily fighting the direct-neural-interface players 100 years hence.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  15. New DVDs that block use in computers by acherrington · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was at blockbuster the other day and rented the Longest Yard, then took it home. Much to my suprise, the DVD blocked the watching of the movie on my computer. I took the DVD to blockbuster, and told them that I was cancelling my blockbuster pass because I was unable to watch movies on my computer (I have no normal TV as everything is ran through the computer using beyond TV). I figured that should put the most pressure on the MPAA. If blockbuster lobbies against MPAA because their revenue basis is dried up, it should make a good battle where only consumers win... i hope.

    --


    Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
    1. Re:New DVDs that block use in computers by acherrington · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It was windows, with a legally licensed DVD player and drive. If you look on the bottom of the DVD case at blockbuster you will see a thing that says "anti-piracy protection installed" or some jive like that. Thats how I know what DVDs won't play in my computer any more. No more playing them on laptops during flights or busrides either. :(

      --


      Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
  16. Hmm...what was this about? by Mr.Spaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA seems a little disjointed and difficult to follow. Reads more like rambling than any sort of informative article or persuasive opinion piece.

  17. It was said well enough long ago by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny
    Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

    I just wish they'd hurry up and die from their mistakes so something better can come along.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  18. DMCA vs. Prohabition passage by Cr0w+T.+Trollbot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    our brilliant government passed the Eighteenth Amendment commonly referred to as Prohibition.

    It is misleading to say "our brilliant government" passed Prohabition. It would be more accurate to say "our brilliant GOVERNMENTS" passed Prohibition, as it required a 2/3rds majority of votes in both the House and Senate, as well as being ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Grave mistake though it was, Prohabition was still an issue whose passage was sufficiently popular to overcome the step hurdles against amending the constitution.

    The DMCA, by contrast, has shown no such popular support, and did not go through nearly as rigerous a process or well-debated to be enacted into law. That's a rather fundamental difference, and one that renders his anaology to inexact to be meaningful, if not his overriding point.

    Crow T. Trollbot

  19. dude, it's the *corporations* by igotmybfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    yeah man, it's the corporations... they're like, taking over and stuff. if we could just like, get together, and show the corporations that we don't need their profit-mongering and extortion and capitalism, then that would show them!

  20. I'll yell you who... by rbochan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Submitter, aka PlayfullyClever trying to use the /. crowd's love for linux+entertainment to bump up his google page rank on the site he just registered yesterday?
    Why else would TFA have nothing to do with the submission?
    Bealtes-Beatles in disguise, with diamonds?

    FYI
    Domain Name: PLAYFULLYCLEVER.COM
    Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
    Updated Date: 30-nov-2005
    Creation Date: 30-nov-2005
    Expiration Date: 30-nov-2006

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  21. Re:Not RIAA / Linux / DVD by Liam+Slider · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Corporations want ownership of materials; Private individuals want free access those materials. Therein lies the battle.
    No, the private individuals want access to property they've already paid for. Corporations want control of property that isn't theirs without consent, and expects the owners to pay them for them to take control. Somewhat different battle here.
  22. Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "...if the lack of a player were really the reason Linux users have to rip a DVD..."

    I think you have 2 issues confused here. In Linux, you do NOT have to rip the dvd to watch it. However, before the DVD encryption scheme was cracked...you could not use your computer's dvd player to watch your perfectly legally purchased dvds. DVD Jon broke the encryption scheme...and now, dvd players on Linux boxes can do the exact same thing that someone using OSX or Win. can do with their purchased media.

    The ease in ripping the dvd's was just a side effect from having the encryption broken. But, you can rip a DVD on any OS...not just Linux.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  23. speak for yourself kiddo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*

  24. DVD encryption is about old bandwidth assumptions by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    DVD encryption is about old bandwidth assumptions.

    You can rip DVD's without breaking the encryption; the only thing ripping them does is rduce the overall payload size.

    It's perfectly functional to image copy a DVD to another DVD (which is what the pirates do, when they are not simply shutting down the legal assembly line production at 6 PM, and running off another 20,000 copies between 8 PM and 12 AM from the legal masters).

    It's also perfectly functional to make something that looks to the system like a DVD drive driver, but actually operates from a disk image instead of real DVD hardware, so you can take the image copies of a DVD and feed them into your completely legal commercial DVD player software.

    The *ONLY* thing that DVD encryption does is:

    (1) make it hard to decide which bits you need to move from machine A to machine B so you can watch the whole movie, and

    (2) defeats compression of the cleartext DVD contents (which is minimal, since it's already a compressed format), and

    (3) prevents transcoding to an alternate lossy format to reduce the transfer size (which is *supposedly* something the MPAA et. al. don't care about anyway, as they are apparently not concerned with digital-analog-digital copying, which the DVD encryption can't prevent in the first place)

    In other words, it's about keeping the bandwidth required to move DVD content from point A to point B as high as possible to adjust the economics of digital copying to artifically inflate the costs relative to the benefits.

    And guess what? These bandwidth assumptions are no longer valid.

    If you are willing to take the approach of the pseudo-DVD device driver, you don't need DeCSS, and that converts everything from a DMCA violation to a simple copyright violation.

    -- Terry

  25. Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback by quantum+bit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and it might make sense for them to create a "legal alternative" that makes it unnecessary for programs like VLC to contain CSS decoders.

    Yeah, well, that's not good enough. Chances are any "legal alternative" they come up with would be your standard bloated skinned media player that doesn't follow any UI standards and eats up a ton of resources. Probably binary-only and would only run under certain conditions (i.e. exactly the right library versions & machine architecture).

    I use mplayer because:

    A) It doesn't have a GUI (I disable it during the compile), and doesn't require a mouse. It has consistent keyboard shortcuts that do everything I need. The keyboard shortcuts work over stdin, so I can launch it from a remote ssh session and have full capabilities.

    B) It can be easily remote controlled from either another computer or any other device I set up.

    C) It's small and fast

    D) It runs on my preferred platform (FreeBSD)

    E) By default it just plays the main DVD title and not any annoying menus / trailers / FBI warnings. It ignores the DVD's desire to disable my navigation functions. I highly doubt anything DVD-CCA approved would have this capability.

    As far as I'm concerned, I acquired a legal right to use the content however I wish when I purchased the media. If the law disagrees, the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Until then, the media companies can suck it.

  26. Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback by legirons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "So cut the crud. this is about whether or not people have the right to rip and secondly if they have the right to re-distribute."

    Where did you get that from? I agree that the right to play DVDs on linux is a distraction, designed to make it easier to explain the argument to slow friends, politicians, and the general public.

    But the actual issue it's concealing is the ability to play standard media formats [DVDs] on Free Software.

    That's why a "WinWord-viewer"-style DVD player for linux wouldn't be accepted -- nothing to do with everyone being thieves or whatever you were trying to imply, but simply that Free Software is trustworthy and the DVD industry isn't.

    In fact, mass media in general is just a side-issue - the important thing is that the owner of a computer should be able to control what it does. That's why people are so outraged at DVD drives that prevent fast-forwarding, or play unskippable adverts, or only allow you to change regions 5 times, or dial-up to the internet to download a license (and a list of new restrictions that your computer will impose on you)

    Sorry to quote RMS again, but "trecharous computing" really is the phrase for this stuff.

    And too many people are fooled by the "if you don't run Windows Media Player with DRM then you must be a copyright-infringer" argument that's so easy to trot-out when someone demands that they be in control of their own computers.

  27. Re:RIAA sanctioned linux playback by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Informative
    As you say one can view but not rip.

    But the ability to view implies the ability to rip. What, in the end, is viewing, if not ripping to video memory rather than to the hard disk?

    Effectively what we're doing is something like

    $ cat /dev/dvd | decss | videoplayer | /dev/videocard

    That's a legitimate use for decss, right? Viewing. But what if instead we

    $ cat /dev/dvd | decss | transcode > piratecopy.mpg

    As the earlier post said: we need decss in order to view these DVDs. However, by its very nature that also allows us to rip. The same is true of commercial, closed source, Windows DVD players, it's just that there it's rather more difficult to obtain the decrypted video data and direct them to the hard disk rather than to the video card.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  28. Open Source Beer by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Informative
    I do know that the open-source liquor industry has gone way downhill since Prohibition was lifted.

    I think you're wrong about that, and I'll prove it with my Open Source Beer:

    • 4 oz. Victory Malt
    • 1 lb. Crystal Malt (10L)
    • 1 1/2 oz. Nugget
    • 1/2 oz. Nugget
    • 1/2 oz. Perle
    • 1 1/2 oz. Cascade
    • 7 lb. Canadian Bulk Light Malt Extract
    • 2 tsp. gypsum
    • White Labs California Yeast (WL001)

    Mash grain at 150 degrees in 80 oz. water for 20 minutes. Sparge with 80 oz. water at 170 degrees. Add extract, 1 1/2 oz. Nugget, 2 tsp. gypsum. Add water to about 3 gallons. Bring to a boil. Boil for 15 min., add 1/2 oz Nugget. Boil for 30 minutes, add 1/2 oz Perle. Boil for 15 minutes (total 1 hour boil).

    Cool to 75 degrees, then pitch yeast.

    Ferment for about 1 week, rack to secondary, add 1 1/2 oz. cascade.

    Allow secondary to ferment for about 1 week. Rack to priming bucket, adding about 5 oz. priming sugar (preferred) or dry malt extract. Bottle. Allow about 30 days before refrigeration.

    THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.

    There you go!

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
    1. Re:Open Source Beer by sd_diamond · · Score: 5, Funny

      THIS RECIPE LICENSED UNDER THE GPL.

      Great. Now I won't be able to drink it while using MS Word.