New Consortium to Push UDI and Include DRM

MarsGov writes "Intel, Apple, Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image formed a consortium to promote Unified Display Interface (UDI) as the new standard to connect computers to monitors and TVs. UDI will be HDMI and HDCP "anti-piracy" compatible. "

Comments

Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

So much of the computer industry today is based on preventing competition. Software patents, DRM, DMCA lawsuits for interoperating with others' software... (Though reverse-engineering for interoperability was supposed to be allowed, just look at Blizzard and bnetd to see how this turned out in practice.)

Does anyone really think hardware manufacturers are promoting DRM to fight "piracy"? Kind-hearted, generous manufacturers just looking out for the poor little media industry? No, they are racing to be the first with a de-facto DRM system everyone has to use, so that they can license their DRM and be the toll-collectors for all digital communication. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether a sufficient majority of corporations ends up accepting one of the DRM systems, or Congress ends up enacting one of them as law, it has virtually nothing to do with stopping "piracy" and everything to do with eliminating competitors, both in the hardware and media industries.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

AIUI all of these gatekeeper DRM technologies only operate when taking media that tells them to operate. So if you buy a HD "DVD" in 2006 it may not output at HD if it doesn't like your pre-crypto HD TV, but if you hook up your HD camera footage to your TV then it will operate correctly at the highest resolution.

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

That's an important distinction because nothing in these locked up media systems prevents the creation of alternative liberally licensed media: there is no "toll collector" aspect to it I can see.

If you don't like the way the locked-up media is being increasingly locked up, just think "What would rms do?"

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[IAmTheDave]

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the entertainment industry is always trying to get laws passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in the content before playing said content.

However, you're right, it is to "please" the industry, because if the industry is "pleased" then that particular brand of DRM will show up in the laws the RI/MP/**/AA write for the protection of the American People, and thus licensing fees will roll in, because, you know, you HAVE to license it or your product breaks laws.

These companies see DRM as something that is just a truth, and laws will be enacted regarding it, so why fight it, make money licensing it. Or in the case of this consortium, don't license it, but the best offense is defense, so protect yourself from having to pay to license another company's technology. That's the point of this consortium - everyone agree on a standard, and noone will collect while others are paying out the nose.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[spitzak]

No. It is highly likely that future devices will NOT play even non-protected content to a non-DRM display device. This is simply because the circuitry will not talk to the device unless it can negotiate it's DRM encryption. The original poster is quite correct that the designers expect to force every manufacturer to pay for their technology. If they were seriously interested in preventing piracy they would release a totally free design so everybody can build it, with some kind of registry of what keys are legit as opposed to fake keys built by hobbyists to try to circumvent.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

> See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware
> has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the
> entertainment industry is always trying to get laws
> passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in
> the content before playing said content.

Considering HDTV-type appliances, and not consoles, the laws I heard about all involve a demand (bit, descriptor or whatever) about DRM encoded in the *media* that must be honoured by the players if present.

Neither the laws nor the DRM apply to media where the DRM demand is absent because the content is liberally licensed. One can say then that the laws are not evil if you will be consuming media without those bits set since all the crypto becomes completely transparent. The content vendors can set that bit if they like and it really flows from Copyright law alone that you must abide by its license or feel the hot breath of law enforcement on your neck. The problem is not that they can now additionally police their license in the players more effectively (tha, eg, Macrovision) but that you wanted their content without wanting to have to abide by the license terms.

If you find the license terms unacceptable them rms has shown the way. In that sense the more locked up and hateful the existing media restrictions become the better.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

> No. It is highly likely that future devices will NOT play
> even non-protected content to a non-DRM display device

What makes you think that this is the case? The laws being mooted involve "Broadcast flags" and so on to indicate protected content that needs the crypto handshake. Do you really think HD camcorders, for example, will be unable to display recorded content at HD resolution?

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Jobe_br]

IMO, what is needed in this case is for consumers or technologists, even companies that are innovating new products, to demand that any technology that is written into a law that forces compliance meet certain Open standards. The technology needs to be entirely transparent and open, software interfaces/implementations are provided without any license/copyright/use restrictions. Any hardware is provided with full schematics, fully documented, etc. Any and all processes, technologies, software, algorithms, etc. are provided without patent encumbrances.

If this approach is not adopted, to its fullest extreme, innovation will be impacted. In a society and economy based on capitalism, dependent on ever increasing growth, anything less would be quite bad.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

The toll-collector aspect is twofold:

1) You have to buy hardware with DRM built into it -- otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain.

Usually this DRM is protected by patents and/or trade-secrets, so every individual piece of hardware needs a license from the IP holder. At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys and/or registration of public encryption keys with a central authority. This probably won't be a free service, and by definition can't be a public service, otherwise the private keys will be exposed to the public and the system does nothing.

2) Despite what they tell us, a working DRM system cannot freely permit unscreened content from third-party, independent producers.

Here's why: if the system allows unflagged media to enter and be displayed normally, it allows an independent content creator to release non-DRM-encumbered content. It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.

Therefore, the only DRM system that has a chance of working is one that requires all content to be registered in some manner, even if the registration is provided without charge (at a loss) to independent creators. This means you can't distribute your newest novel without going through a corporate/government approval body.

It's certainly possible no functional DRM system will ever enter widespread use, and I hope this is the case. However, the only functional DRM systems will meet both of the above criteria. In my limited foresight, that is what the DRM supporters are actually attempting, only in small steps at first.

(I wrote this reply soon after you posted, but Slashdot's excessive anti-anonymity measures have delayed its posting for over 58 minutes. For this reason, I'll be unable to reply again even should your life depend upon a response.)

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Ash Vince]

anti-piracy compatible = linux incompatible

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, at the consumer level there are almost never licenses involved. Software is the one exception, and there's still a lot of debate about whether it really involves licensing or if it's just unenforceable doubletalk.

Additionally, DRM is incapable of making exceptions where the law makes exceptions. This is particularly true where the exception at issue is fair use, since any manner of use is capable of being fair, in the right circumstances. DRM also does not expire when a work enters the public domain, and is essentially a method by which authors are trying to get eternal copyrights, which is forbidden by the Constitution.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[spitzak]

Sure they will. What I meant is that the HD camcorder will not plug into a monitor that does not implement this DRM chip, whether or not the signal is protected.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

> otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain ...
> At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys

These displays will work normally until and unless they meet media that demands extra assurances. If you don't plan on getting such media, as far as I heard this whole DRM thing will not trouble you.

> This probably won't be a free service

I hate what is happening with the laws and media lockup as much as anyone, but this is just FUD.

> Despite what they tell us, a working DRM system cannot freely
> permit unscreened content from third-party, independent producers

I do not believe this reflects the reality. People are creating their own content more than ever. If you look at DVDs, for example, there again is unencrypted content working compatibly on all readers I know of alongside the encrypted content.

They are after these laws because the encryption system is not waternight, not because it is watertight.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

There is some kind of implicit or explicit license involved in a consumer buying a typical CD or DVD, because each one comes with a list of "rights" that are "reserved", eg here is what it says on the back cover of my Das Rheingold DVD:

''This programme is under copyright protection
and may be shown in private homes only.
Any rental, lease, barter deal or repurchase,
copying, reproduction or recording as well as
public exhibition or similar commercial acts
serving the same economic purpose, or their
sufferance, unless permitted by the copyright
holder or under applicable law, will result in
civil and/or criminal action being taken.''

As for DRM killing 'fair use'... yes it's evil and stupid. BUT you have to buy the encumbered junk first. If you decide not to give money to the people treating you like that, then it causes you no problems at all.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

> What I meant is that the HD camcorder will not plug into a
> monitor that does not implement this DRM chip, whether or
> not the signal is protected.

That seems more possible, but why is that a problem? HD content won't play on a monitor without a HD-compatible chipset either. So long as the DRM chip is transparent by default ie, to media not marked as restrictively licensed, it won't bother me to have it in there. It's like motherboards having Firewire when you don't use Firewire.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[wernercd]

With that analogy in mind what I think people are afraid of is this type situation:

motherboard without firewire OR a camcorder without firewire (assuming you simply want to use USB) they will refuse to work together.

Without both sets having 'standard based DRM enabling chips', regardless of use/nonuse, they won't work with each other.

Would you accept a camcorder (with Firewire) that won't work with a motherboard (Without firewire) when you only use USB? Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but that's how I understand the FUD situation.

And honestly, I can believe the industry would attempt this. Sony is a prime example of how far Big Brother will go in their fight against 'piracy'.

I hope I'm making sense with this, i just woke up lol. But any sort of forced DRM Scheme is not something that I would tolerate personally... it's the reason i don't buy music anymore. Just my 2c tho.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[cpt kangarooski]

There is some kind of implicit or explicit license involved in a consumer buying a typical CD or DVD, because each one comes with a list of "rights" that are "reserved"

No there isn't. The spelling of the one you posted indicates that the publishers might be writing it for areas outside the US, but being familiar with US copyright law, I'll assume that that is not the case.

This programme is under copyright protection

Not relevant.

and may be shown in private homes only

Basically because there's no private performance right in copyright. Copyright, with regards to simply showing a movie, only exists for public showings or showings to people beyond a family and its social acquaintances. So this is basically just restating the law.

Any rental, lease, barter deal or repurchase,
copying, reproduction or recording as well as
public exhibition or similar commercial acts
serving the same economic purpose, or their
sufferance, unless permitted by the copyright
holder or under applicable law, will result in
civil and/or criminal action being taken.'

So, aside from that being a threat, not a license, what it says is that if the applicable law permits it, they won't do anything. Which stands to reason, since they can't. Again, it's just restating the law, it's not a license.

BUT you have to buy the encumbered junk first. If you decide not to give money to the people treating you like that, then it causes you no problems at all.

Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that. Specifically, I'd like to make copyright and DRM mutually exclusive and to have the law encourage (possibly by having the government do it) breaking DRM systems. Legal protections are fine (to a degree), but technical ones are totally unacceptable. Adhesive licensing to the general public as a substitute for sales is also something I'd bar; publishers can either sell copies outright, or not sell to the public, or negotiate licenses, or offer licenses that aren't substitutes for outright sales.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[wirehead_rick]

In fact, hardware has the capability to ignore DRM,

Wrong.

This specific technology prevents this. It is not possible to use a non-HDCP compatible Firewire interface on, for example an HDTV, with an HDCP only Firewire output. The source device will refuse to send the data if the display does not support the protocol that the DRM technology is implemented with (HDPC).

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[mrchaotica]

> otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain ...
> At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys

These displays will work normally until and unless they meet media that demands extra assurances. If you don't plan on getting such media, as far as I heard this whole DRM thing will not trouble you.

That's what the AC addressed here:

It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.

In other words, any DRM system that would actually prevent copyright infringment would necessarily disallow un-"protected" content, because any method of allowing non-DRM content (including all Free content) would allow cracked (i.e. de-DRM'd) content as well.

> This probably won't be a free service

I hate what is happening with the laws and media lockup as much as anyone, but this is just FUD.

No, this isn't FUD. In fact, we're only one step away from it now. For example, SSL certificates aren't free, unless they're self-signed. And because of the point made above, the equivalent of self-signed (or unsigned) certificates could not be allowed at all in the DRM system, or it stops working. Therefore, there would necessarily be a central licensing authority to which all content must be submitted. Moreover, there's no reason to belive licensing would be free, because Verisign isn't free.

Make no mistake, any DRM system that worked as I describe would be very, very bad. Not just because it would create a "DRM tax," but because it would also make censorship trivial merely by witholding licenses from anyone that Central Licensing doesn't like. In effect, we would all become digital serfs, with Microsoft and the RIAA (or this consortium -- whoever wins the battle) as our Lord and Master.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

> For example, SSL certificates aren't free, unless they're self-signed

http://www.cacert.org/

Bad example.

A genuine 'tax' aspect will be coming in the form of the patent rights in the codecs needed to encode to the media.

The kind of closed systems you are worrying about already exist in signed games for consoles and the special optical media needed for PSPs, but isn't credible to take camcorders and HD camcorders out of the public's hands. AFAICT all upcoming AV systems for TV-style use will naturally allow unencrypted content at the highest quality going on.

People are producing free media content at the moment, eg,

http://channel101.com/
http://channel102.net/

it's not such a great leap to imagine that from these small beginnings in a few years one will be able to at least get part of your entertainment needs direct from the Internet to your HD TV without DRM at all. The more restrictive the traditional media the better the chance for growth in the liberally licensed stuff, so I have come to welcome and encourage all this DRM garbage so long as unencrypted content plays by default.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[bitspotter]

Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that.

For a while, I was thinking it might actually be refreshing to simply stop buying DRM'd media, and watch "civilization" disappear behind crypto over the next 5-10 years. Finally, I'd be free of it! Hollywood tries to threaten us by saying if their output wasn't protected, they'd stop making it. It backfired in my case, because all I said was "REALLY?! Promise?"

Then I realized I was being naive. Advertising will not be DRM'd. As much as the copyright cartel would like, reviewers and my friends and neighbors won't stop talking about movies, tv, and music I can't afford (money, or timewise).

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[mrchaotica]

Well, I'm talking worst-case scenario. I certainly hope you're right, and that DRM wouldn't succeed anyway due to a future rich with user-created content. However, I'm still going to preach doom-and-gloom in the hope that it'll wake up others to the dangers of DRM, and that they'll help create that bright future.

Besides, you still shouldn't welcome and encourage DRM anyway, because even commercial stuff shouldn't have it. Fair Use and the Public Domain should be protected too, yoiu know!

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[tepples]

http://www.cacert.org/ - Bad example.

You're right. Cacert.org is a bad example because it lists "Inclusion into mainstream browsers!" as a goal, not a feature. Cacert.org certificates are no more "trusted" by Firefox and (more importantly at the moment) Microsoft Internet Explorer than a "Snake Oil CA" (that is, self-signed) cert. Get bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215243 resolved and then we can talk.

isn't credible to take camcorders and HD camcorders out of the public's hands.

If MPAA can convince Congress that failure to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in HD camcorders would only increase the quality of the analog hole, on the other hand...

The more restrictive the traditional media the better the chance for growth in the liberally licensed stuff

Unless those who control the restrictive traditional media start suing independents on grounds of infringement through subconscious copying. If it worked against George Harrison on his solo debut, then it might work against you.

HDCP

[Landak]

HDCP protection you say? Good thing it's already been broken (albeit anonymously). Coming new to you, DRM'd speakers, and your very own set of ContentProtection ((TM)) eyelids!

Re:HDCP

[afidel]

I'm not sure why this was modded funny, it is one of the most insightful and scary posts on slashdot in a long time. Just follow his link and you will understand how truely evil the DMCA is.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a felony for me to hook a real monitor up to one of these things, right?

Re:Great...

[DigiShaman]

Wwooooooo. Your such bad boy! And I thought I was top dog around town when I rape young girls.

Seriously, our legal priorities in this country are FUCKED UP! Can we please reserve harsh punishments for the true "scum of the earth" type people?

Re:Great...

[gnud]

uhhm, how is this offtopic? Read parent post before moderating, perhaps?

Re:Great...

[ToasterofDOOM]

This highlights one of the key problems of DRM. Stop fucking treating your customers like criminals!
Yes, I have karma to burn

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. It wouldn't work without breaking the protection.
If OTOH you were to break the protection and allow it to work, then it would be a felony.

Hopefully with the reexamination of that portion of the dmca they will change that.

Sounds cool

[ReformedExCon]

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

That would be awesome.

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content).

Re:Sounds cool

[cyber_rigger]

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

I would love it better if there were no DRM systems .

Re:Sounds cool

[waif69]

MPAA/RIAA defines fair usage: By purchasing this overpriced media, you are granted certain rights. You have the right to watch/listen to this media one time only, if you watch/listen to this media with other persons present, you are required to pay a surcharge that will be automatically deducted from you bank account. If you desire to watch/listen to this media again, you have the right to have the purchase price of this media charged to your bank account directly or to present your financial information to store that will provide you another overpriced media that you will have the right to watch/listen to one time. You have the right to not watch/listen to this media after purchasing. You have the right to give this media to someone else as a gift, providing you do not watch/listen to it first. These are your rights as granted by the MPAA/RIAA Congress of America.

Re:Sounds cool

[giorgiofr]

So, what's YOUR problem, selfless guy? You are so respectful of the law and pay your dues, you have certainly nothing to hide or to fear. The most draconian DRM will be no problem for you.

Re:Sounds cool

[Tethys_was_taken]

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

While you're getting him that Santa, how about bringing me a pony?

Re:Sounds cool

[FatMacDaddy]

"There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement. You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back (though you certainly can challenge their methods and fight to defend your legitimate rights as a user of the content)."

Hmmm, your post seems to have gotten scrambled during transmission. I'll fix it up for you.

There used to be. It was called copyright law. Then a bunch of corporations decided that the law wasn't good enough and we didn't really need a public domain. You can't really blame consumers for fighting back (though you can certainly challenge their methods).

There, much better.

Re:Sounds cool

[Mr. Slippery]

It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement.

Yeah, it surely was bad when industry decided they were above the law of the land and got Congress to create unconstitutional copyright laws that created eternal monopolies on content to people who weren't the creators of that content. Once citizens saw that copyright was about greed rather than about allowing artists to make a living off their work, it ceased to be effective.

You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back

Oh! I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said "above the law" I naturally thought you meant the bastards who have shredded the law of the land in order to maximize their profits, not the guy who wants to make a mix CD for his girlfriend. Yeah, we really have to fight that guy.

Re:Sounds cool

[bechthros]

"Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law"

You're exactly right. And those people were mostly Disney, and the Gershwin heirs. They decided that the words that were in the Constitution regarding copyright and public domain works weren't good enough. So they bribed Mary Bono and some others in Washington into changing the rules, thereby freezing the date at which works enter the public domain.

So hey. You wanna play rough? That's cool. But it's fucking ON now.

Re:Sounds cool

[ajs318]

Copy prevention is mathematically impossible; this is not a limitation of present technology, but a limitation of the universe. I hope I do not need to explain why.

Of course you have the added problem that the motivation which encourages consumers to copy content, is exactly the same one that encourages content creators to seek ever more payment for it: the deep-seated Cave-man hunter-gatherer instinct. Twenty thousand years of evolution have not altered the instinct, just created new ways for it to manifest itself.

The best way I can think of to put it is like this: Whenever you get something without paying for it, your brain rewards you by ordering the release of a shot of endorphins {basically, your body's homebrew version of heroin; or more accurately, heroin and similar substances artificially stimulate the endorphin receptors}. This is exactly the same as what happened when Cave-man brought down an animal with a spear. We like the effects when our endorphin receptors get stimulated, so we tend to repeat behaviour which results in those effects. And whenever a fatcat executive thinks of a way to gouge more money out of already-overstretched consumers without any extra effort, their brain orders them a shot of endorphins too.

I have just one piece of advice for the record, TV and movie industries. Ask yourselves why, when there is a photocopier in many newsagents' shops, do people still buy newspapers, magazines and books, instead of copying them? Then try applying the same principle to other forms of content.

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We're talking about using DRM that restricts the user's access to content today, not the absurd increases in copyright durations legislated by several national governments recently. Please take your straw man outside the building to burn.

Re:Sounds cool

[blugu64]

I beg to differ! What happens when I want to BUY music online and play it on my ipod, or rio, or whatever when the device doesn't support that form of DRM (or any at all on some devices!) then I can't even play music that I paid for! That is 100% perfectly fair use, and there are situtations that I wouldn't be able to listen to my music because of the DRM...

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My problem is that if a minority of selfish people hadn't abused the system on a massive scale, then we'd probably have viable, reasonably-priced on-line distribution today, and that would have been a benefit to everyone. Instead, the lawbreakers are driving all the paranoid media industry bigwigs away from that model, and towards DRM-restricted crap that makes it hard and/or illegal for the rest of us to do otherwise reasonable things like we used to. People like you have started a shooting war with the media industry lawyers, which no-one will win in the long run, and which is catching the majority of people who just want to enjoy decent content at a fair price in the cross-fire.

Re:Sounds cool

[giorgiofr]

Your mind certainly works in an interesting way. Let's see. I disagree with your point. Therefore I am your enemy. Therefore I MUST be some disgusting piece of scum. Therefore I am certainly a pirate. How cool.
If you don't think this analysis is correct, please point out where in my post I said I am a pirate.
Besides, go cry me a river, you and your bullshit with happy people's lifes ruined by big meanies like I'm supposed to be. If there's a shooting war then pick up a rifle and shoot.

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Coward]

if a minority of selfish people hadn't abused the system on a massive scale, then we'd probably have viable, reasonably-priced on-line distribution today...

With all due respect, I call bullshit.

Re:Sounds cool

[hackwrench]

Sure you can, on the approved devices. It's not the fault of the copyright holders that you get yourself into this situations. Next you'll be complaining that you can't play a CD on a record player. Since you aren't one of the aforementioned 'selfish people' you should be able to appreciate this. While you aren't "Anonymous Brave Guy", you posted to the thread where his assertions apply, so this applys to you. 'Selfish people' are the people who want a 'fair use' that the copyright holder don't believe in. That is, if you accept the 'in large numbers' arguement.

Re:Sounds cool

[hackwrench]

...the lawbreakers are driving all the paranoid media industry bigwigs away from that model

If they are really lawbreakers then they will held responsible to the law. If the law is wrong, then they aren't lawbreakers, and they won't. Without this basis to evaluate the law, laws make no sense. This is the reason prohibition was revoked.

Property is a relationship that naturally arises between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Civilization is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.

Therefore, if there is loss of freedom and prosperity, it follows that property has been infringed upon. The only question that matters is whose property it actually is.

Material is defined as follows:
1. The tangible substance that goes into the makeup of a physical object
2. Information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form

Re:Sounds cool

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

'Selfish people' are the people who want a 'fair use' that the copyright holder don't believe in.

I suspect we all want to make fair use of the content we pay for. The difference is that before the song-swappers came along and took the piss, the rest of us could actually do it. Since the lawbreakers and the media industry lawyer escalated everything, we often can't. No-one won here: the lawbreakers who get picked on get their lives ruined by absurd penalties, the media industry isn't making any more money, and the rest of us can't do what we used to. The only people who are winning are those who rip off the media industry and don't get caught.

Re:Sounds cool

[hackwrench]

But the absurd copyright increases came first. All copyright infringements from that point forward has to be viewed in light of that. Furthermore, since DRM is the tool of those who benefit from the copyright increase, the same motivations for the copyright increase has to be examined for applicability to DRM. In that light, your assertion that "You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back" which is dependent on the the concept that DRM is just fighting back, fails to hold water. Furthermore your assertion "large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law" caused copyright to cease to be effective also fails to hold water, since by your own admission the copyright increases were absurd.

Re:Sounds cool

[squiggleslash]

I have just one piece of advice for the record, TV and movie industries. Ask yourselves why, when there is a photocopier in many newsagents' shops, do people still buy newspapers, magazines and books, instead of copying them? Then try applying the same principle to other forms of content.

Well, at a guess, I'd say it's because a newspaper costs 25c, whereas a photocopied newspaper probably costs close to that in dollars. Even if we just photocopy the articles we want, at 10c each, assuming none are split over several pages and the guy at the newsagent has no problem with us doing this, we're probably looking at 50c-$1. And what you're left with isn't as managable as a newspaper either.

Endorphins are generally released in response to pain BTW, and most releases are related in some way to pain (the only counter example I can think of right now is that there's some research out there that proposes video games can cause the release of endorphins, which is bizarre but possibly the result of the brain believing it should be in pain.) Hunter-Gathering is certainly an unlikely cause for release of the compound.

Re:Sounds cool

[ajs318]

I'd say it's because a newspaper costs 25c, whereas a photocopied newspaper probably costs close to that in dollars. Even if we just photocopy the articles we want, at 10c each, assuming none are split over several pages and the guy at the newsagent has no problem with us doing this, we're probably looking at 50c-$1. And what you're left with isn't as managable as a newspaper either.

Exactly so. If the pirates can sell DVDs as cheaply as they do, then the studios can sell them just as cheaply -- and make just as much profit because they would sell more copies of each title.

Endorphins are generally released in response to pain BTW, and most releases are related in some way to pain (the only counter example I can think of right now is that there's some research out there that proposes video games can cause the release of endorphins, which is bizarre but possibly the result of the brain believing it should be in pain.) Hunter-Gathering is certainly an unlikely cause for release of the compound.

They are also the body's "feelgood" chemical when you are not in pain. That "just had sex" feeling is just a huge endorphin rush.

Re:Sounds cool

[hackwrench]

You seem to have an abbeviated view of history. As I have indicated elsewhere, analog copies are inexact, making analog backups an issue. Also you appear to be unaware of or have forgotten Macrovision which was in effect before copying was widespread. I have seen some VCR's have issues playing back Macrovision VHS tapes. How's that for trampling on fair use?

Re:Sounds cool

[diogenes57]

Yeah, it surely was bad when industry decided they were above the law of the land and got Congress to create unconstitutional copyright laws that created eternal monopolies on content to people who weren't the creators of that content. Once citizens saw that copyright was about greed rather than about allowing artists to make a living off their work, it ceased to be effective.

Do you really believe the majority of copyright violators are merely downloading "Steamboat Willie" or other such material that would do no harm to anyone if publicly released? Not likely, but rather they are downloading movies before they hit the theaters and new music by the disk-full. If I were a content producer I would be upset about it too. These copyright violators are greatly to blame for this whole DRM mess. If P2P were not such a huge problem, why would anyone bother to institute DRM? The solution lies not in a change in technology but in a change in society. We need a world where people respect one another regardless of if they can be seen by the other party or not. We need to start by educating people that stealing is wrong and it is stealing to take something without paying against the wishes of the owner. Yes, I agree information wants to be free, but if you say your information costs money I will either consider the value of your information or turn to a free source. But I hope I would never take it against your wishes.

Re:Sounds cool

[Austerity Empowers]

Not many people download movies "just as they hit the theater". Try it, you'll find the quality so low it's not worth stealing.

As for the rest I wonder why people are doing it. Is it because, as you say, they are theives? Or because they can't get what they want how they want it at a price that is reasonable. Anyone who downloads movies as they hit the theater is certainly not doing so to avoid payment, he just wants to watch a movie at home, now. Not wait a year for the DVD, or stand in line and pay $10 to watch 30% commercials in a dirty theater. I'm not sure how pampering the MPAA on this is helping sponsor the creation of new material, unless you really think charging people for the movie, the pay per view, the cable channel and the vhs/laserdisc/dvd/hd-dvd/newformat2k is really what people had in mind when they invented the concept of a copyright. The goal was only to reward creative people to stimulate new ideas.

The same sorts of arguments could be made about music. Apple has no trouble selling songs at $.99, but CD's at $15 aren't flying off shelves. Probably because there is only 1-2 songs per CD that are worth listening to. Similarly, why drive all the way to a music store to buy a CD that just takes up space when you can throw it on your hard drive for a buck and have it now?

Rather than address new market needs and responding to cost concerns, they're antagonizing consumers. The response is overwhelming, consumers are finding it easier and easier to take for free what they could otherwise be paying for. Copyright law is, after all, completely artificial. The harder these groups push their case, the more people think about it and realize "I'm stealing what, exactly?".

Re:Sounds cool

[tepples]

But the absurd copyright increases came first.

The term extensions weren't exactly "first". The No Electronic Theft Act was passed a year before the other two, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were passed a week apart in October 1998, which is almost simultaneous in the congressional timescale.

DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance will see in this example how terrible copyright legislation is for content creation. The intent of copyright (to give authors a certain time-limited protection over what they create) has been destroyed, and is now controlled solely by a few massive corporations that control almost every form of media.

UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares.

The Internet blew up, in my opinion, based entirely on people's ability to be heard and to hear others. You're seeing millions of bloggers who write freely in order to be heard, not in order to sell their thoughts by coercing others not to copy them. You see people quoted (not always being referenced either), you see people copying and re-posting, and you're seeing massive "piracy" of every copywritten work. Copyright not only failed, but ignoring it created the biggest form of media in literally years. The Internet is at least two orders of magnitude bigger than all the old-media productions in all of history, combined.

What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market. Podcasting is replacing the radio for a small percentage today, but in 10 years where will radio be? It will be an overregulated monopoly that no one listens to because it attempts to target too broad a market.

TV and cable will be another forgotten phenomenon, at least in the way we watch it today. Hundreds of channels of regulated media can not compete with millions of vidcasts, especially as production qualities go up.

Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years.

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ScentCone]

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

You do seem to forget that billions of people actually like pretty packages and beautiful people, and that's why they pirate the work in those forms, performed by those beautiful people. Some people even take on projects that they can only afford to produce if they know that they can sell their work for actual, spendable money. People who deliberately seek out bar bands, dinner theater actors, and street magicians for their entertainment always have been able to, and always will be able to. People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off. That doesn't matter to you, because you don't like that sort of entertainment. Which, is fine, since the people you do like aren't worried about the cash flow anyway, and even if you do buy media from such people, they probably wouldn't want to stamp their data as rights-managed, lest they offend you and their other fan.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

Actually, I love big productions. My lady and I go to other cities all over the world to see them live, and we attend film festivals to see them first.

When Serenity came out in theaters, I liked the plot so much I went 4 times (x2). When the DVD came out yesterday, I bought one copy for myself and 6 for presents. Yet when Serenity was released on ThePirateBay, I downloaded it until I could buy it. Why did I pay Joss Whedon and Universal for their DVD? Because I wanted to support their FUTURE efforts, not their past ones.

Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

The consumers will also be fine with DRM. It will only succeed if it meets the needs of all parties. If it doesn't, another format will succeed. You can't stop entertainment, but you can stop those who don't allow every party to profit from the transaction.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

I don't believe in copyright either, that's why my use of downloaded media seems very fair to me. ;)

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[daw]

Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

All fine and good, except only half the project is content producers banding together to create stronger technical protections and hardware to enforce it. The problematic half is them banding together to pressure for the passage of laws mandating that every TV contain these technologies, criminalizing hacking them etc etc. So the libertarian "let the market decide if it wants DRM" dream is, well, a dream.

I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

All fine and good, except only half the project is content producers banding together to create stronger technical protections and hardware to enforce it. The problematic half is them banding together to pressure for the passage of laws mandating that every TV contain these technologies, criminalizing hacking them etc etc. So the libertarian "let the market decide if it wants DRM" dream is, well, a dream.

Right now, they rely on the DMCA and other stupid laws to protect their BADLY WRITTEN DRM. If they want stronger DRM, they have to realize they can't rely on laws to protect bad programming.

I personally wouldn't buy a proprietary media format, but if consumers do, then producers should be free to make whatever they want. I believe that competition will let the cream rise to the top.

I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.

Let's ignore copyright for a moment and look at the most restrictive protections on content not using the law: subscriptions. Many writers (including myself) have private subscription newsletters that people pay to receive. They could copy these newsletters (and some do) the majority don't -- they want the information and they don't want many others knowing about it. I look at some of the US$1000 per year newsletters I used to subscribe to and I never saw them hitting the public eye.

The same is true with any information. You can sell information that is valuable, and you can sell information that isn't. If it doesn't have much value, you have to make your money by offering it to the widest audience at the lowest price. $2 for a TV show per person (x10,000) versus $1000 for an investment newsletter (x20) is the same money. Which has a bigger market, and which is more valuable?

Copyright can't change simple economics. If you make a product that is good quality and people want to see more, they'll pay for it. If they don't care about it, they won't.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[Secret Agent X23]

People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off.

I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[Anonymous Coward]

Your posts are confusing and make elaborate claims to get people to pay attention to you. In this thread, you state UDI is the final step to control old media formats. Uh no, there will be hundreds more until they get it right. UDI is a blip on the map.

The Internet may become two orders of magnitude bigger than some old media productions, but right now it isn't, compared to TV. TV has penetrated far more households, is in more stores, restaurants, etc. (think how many offer Internet access versus having a TV in the lobby), and is generally a much more accepted medium.

Futhermore, do you honestly think that Podcasting will replace the radio in your daily commutes? That it will replace the music in stores? That it will replace the background noise at work? Podcasting is more of an active and engaging media where listeners go and seek out their shows (which generally do not have music). Just like Howard Stern has his niche audience, podcasting will have theirs.

As for TV and cable, you have to be kidding me if you think they're worried about being replaced by millions of poorly done vidcasts. Look at newspapers and the Internet or better yet music and the Internet, and I think you'll see a similiar move by TV and cable. Millions of people flock to the established names every day. They don't go to Joe Schmo's blog for news or listen to Jane's Doe latest song. They go to NYTimes and download their [RIAA artists] music. Right now, their worry is that they can't make any money off of the people blatently copying their works not about the millions of piss poor vidcasts.

BTW, the Internet does not offer equality between people. Laws and restrictions are still upheld and enforced. There are still people that carry more weight than others. Just because everyone can start their own blog doesn't mean that all blogs are equal (nor should they be IMO).

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[iamacat]

Well, I don't mind pretty packages and beautiful people, but lately is getting to be too much. TV is unwatchable because of growing ad time - and skipping them is still work. I have to burn and re-rip a CD-RW to give a song I like to my girlfriend. I can not put a video of myself dancing on my home page without muting the sound. So I am starting to get off my butt and look for free (libre is more important for me at this point) stuff that I can still enjoy, even if it's kind of cheesy. At least if I like something from project Gutenburg, I can just send a link to a friend. Hey, anyone happens to know any good free ballroom dance music?

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[NeutronCowboy]

Here is something else the content producers will have a hard time competing with: their old products. I've got a few DVDs, some more music CDs and a whole boatload of games for a variety of systems. A lot of the games I haven't finished, mostly due to lack of time. You know what I'm going to do once these DRM'ed monitors come out? I'll keep my old TV and play my old games, music and DVDs. I'll borrow stuff from friends. It's enough to keep me busy for at least a decade. And if my old stuff breaks and doesn't work? Then there's always the internet with its free content that will keep me entertained.

The content producers are aware of this, and are fighting this with their dreams of built-in obsolescence. To that, all I can say is good luck. I doubt I'm the only one who likes to own stuff instead of rent.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[Anonymous Coward]

People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away.

They may not go away, but studies have shown that younger generations are spending far less time on TV and movies and more time on internet and video games (esp. multiplayer online). The simple fact is this: interactive entertainment is more enjoyable and more social. As 3D graphics continue to improve and the quality of internet content and interaction continues to rise, this trend will only accelerate. What happens when you don't need a cast of thousands, beautiful people, exotic locations, and a huge CGI farm... because it's all done real-time and still looks almost photo-real? And what happens when users of online game engines / interactive worlds begin defining most of the content? Perhaps in the future only the quality traditional "A" movies will survive -- those with substantive literary value, top-notch acting, etc. Perhaps Hollywood will realize it's not even worth producing all those crappy action movies with no plot, dramas with no depth, and formulaic comedies with canned humor. Maybe video games and MMORPG's are the new "B" movies; they certainly have better "replay" value! (..and they don't need heavy-handed DRM schemes)

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ScentCone]

I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?

My comment was in response to someone that wants to abolish copyrights. Bad as piracy is, at least the filmaker, or author, or musician actually does have recourse when someone deliberately, flagrantly rips them off. If I can't copyright my $100M film, what's stopping someone from making copies and selling them for $0.10 each in Taiwan (oh, well, that's already happening, but you get my drift).

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[Jarnis]

... and, for example in the case of TV, people have been trained to think that TV is 'free'. Or, that at worst, you pay a monthly lump sum for access to a wider selection. Individual programs are not 'worth' anything beyond a small trouble of enduring to sit thru commercials.

Hence, people see NOTHING wrong with recording and copying TV. People have taped shows and loaned them to friends since beginning of time, and such tapings are considered to be mostly worthless. Yes, most people understand that making a business out of recording TV broadcasts is illegal and not ethical. And, lookie, its' illegal by even the oldest copyright laws I've seen...

Yet the DRM overlords want, in the name of 'protecting their content', to limit everything to the point where TV becomes utterly useless. Watching, in essence, is 'copying the content to your brain'. Trying to make something uncopyable, yet readable/watchable, is like trying to make water not wet.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

"Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance"

    Come again? Exactly how many fans of your blog do you think there are on Slashdot?

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[clcobra]

Well Done! :/

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[yourlord]

The biggest flaw in your idea is that the companies that control the hardware, which is not something a disconnected group of internet jockies can reproduce, are trying to institute total control over you. Who are those small and independant content creators going to peddle their creations to when the hardware everyone uses refuses to display anything but what MegaCorp(TM) approves.

Your rights to use your hardware as you see fit are what is under attack. Don't think for a minute that once these coalitions have the keys to control what you can and can't do with your gear they won't block everything else but the drivel they approve.

If I can't sell my music in mp3 format because it will cost a fortune to license it, I can sell it in vorbis format. But if these guys get what they want then that option will be eliminated because you can bet your salary they will block an open and unfettered format like vorbis from playing on every device you own. Once they get this level of lock in they will even be able to prevent people from giving away content for free by refusing to play ANYTHING that isn't signed by the MPAA/RIAA/whoever industry group.. All in the name of security/piracy/etc..

Welcome to the new order. Here's your number.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[MemeRot]

Exactly. The effects of 'piracy' in the US are miniscule. Sure some people download crappy copies of movies off of PirateBay. Big deal. Most people pay to buy a movie they liked in the theater, or at least rent it from Blockbuster if their friend recommends it.

In China pirate dvd shops that operate on a massive scale and are operated by and taxed by the government sell pirate dvds for $2. That's the market that hollywood and others are concerned about. Overseas markets often produce three times what domestic markets do for movies. Right now you often can't even buy legit dvds in china, and many of the pirate ones are 'real' dvds, the same chinese factories that crank out legit dvds during the day to send to the us crank out pirate dvds at night to sell locally.

Of course none of this is hurting Hollywood's profits; this year's slight 'slump' only exists because there isn't an unexpected Passion of the Christ this year like last. They just want to be free to make huger profits in the future. Check this out: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID= 11281&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html/
This was passed by Unesco basically to affirm the countries have the right to encourage their own film-making industries and not just consume all the Hollywood we want them to. The vote was 148-2. I don't know which other country voted against it with the US.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[MemeRot]

dada21 posts all the time on copyright issues right here on slashdot.

He gets the most erratic modding I've ever seen. Looks like his recent posts have all been modded up, but it's normal for half his posts to be modded flamebait and half insightful.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ScentCone]

Exactly. The effects of 'piracy' in the US are miniscule

I'll see your exactly and raise you another one. The reason the impact in the states is less than overseas (I don't know about "miniscule"... that probably depends on where you sit) is that we do have recourse in the US, and the government isn't seeing piracy of foreign material as just another tax vector. If we had no copyright protection in the US, it would be the end of the type of work we're talking about.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ScentCone]

Watching, in essence, is 'copying the content to your brain'. Trying to make something uncopyable, yet readable/watchable, is like trying to make water not wet.

The very best effort I can make to tell you about the latest episode of Deadwood on HBO cannot, ever, replace actually watching it. There's no means by which I can transfer my experience of that entertainment over to you. In fact, that's the whole point... they produce something really good, and I really enjoy my experience watching it, and when I try to explain it to you, the real message is: "you should get HBO, too." Handing you a bit-wise copy of the show does not give you an incentive to subscribe, and thus through your subscription, help them to pay the people that make that show so great.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ClamIAm]

Many writers (including myself)

It's interesting that you state you're anti-copyright and a writer. Do you release all your work into the public domain? Apparently not, since your posts contain nothing stating this.

Protection

[medgooroo]

What concievable reason is there for users to want this kinda of protection on a video standard? Eliza protection? feh. Surely it just takes one manufacturer to develop something "clean" for a similar price and it'll be a preferable product. HM. and perhaps users to care...

Re:Protection

[Xrikcus]

It worked very well for DVD players that ignore region codes, but it only takes a fiddling of the law to disallow it and you have to rely on illegal imports...

Re:Protection

[ergo98]

What concievable reason is there for users to want this kinda of protection on a video standard?

A lot of media companies are fearful of PCs. A lot of PC companies want to support the media companies, and to make them more comfortable, because it expands their market (e.g. media center PCs that support digital/HDTV feeds, for instance), and brings more utility to their customers.

doesn't appear to be required, though?

[Artifex]

Looking past the news report and skimming the documents, I see nothing in the core spec (vol 2) nor the physical spec that requires DRM by default? If I'm reading the specs right, It may be HDMI and HDCP compatible, but you can certainly develop without them. I could be confused, of course, so wait to see if Stallman to revisits the project. Notice that this project has been going on for quite some time. :)

Re:doesn't appear to be required, though?

[Andrew_Work]

The link in the summary to the ProjectUDI website appears to be in error. There is apparently some confusion between the Uniform Driver Interface and the Unified Display Interface. The scope for confusion must have been known when the Unified Display Interface project was named.

I guess the movie studios and music companies....

[8127972]

..... have managed to bully hardware and software companies into playing ball with them. I guess doing this is cheaper than being sued.

Anti fair use?

[cyber_rigger]

I get the feeling that this will limit fair use as well.

and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[GuyverDH]

Dongles anyone? Interposed between computer and device that override the repsonses to answer back as an *APPROVED* device for the non approved one.

DUH

Next idea please.

Here's one - track down those that traffic in the pirated goods, and arrest them.
Quit treating customers as criminals.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Surt]

The next step in this path of course is to outlaw the building of such dongles. Given the level of crypto handshaking required, building a dongle will not be an in your garage type of project, so whoever does manage to build such a dongle will be exposing their company to significant legal liability.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Politburo]

Not really. It would be much like mod chips, imo. A Canadian (or other civilized nation.. Sweden, etc.) company sells the hardware, but with no software. You download the software and flash the hardware.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[wernercd]

Depends on where the company is located at.

Same reason PirateBay is still running

**IA don't own the world... yet :/

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Surt]

You mean like modchips where those guys from california got arrested for selling modded xboxes? No civilized nation is likely to remain outside this consortium for long, free trade agreements will force everyone into line with the content owners. When even China is starting to make noises about cracking down on piracy, I think all hope is pretty well lost.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Politburo]

You mean like modchips where those guys from california got arrested for selling modded xboxes?

No, I don't. Do you want to try reading my post again?

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Surt]

I've read it 3 times now, and I don't see what would make anyone believe that selling unsecured hardware would remain legal in any WTO country.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[acaspis]

The next step in this path of course is to outlaw the building of such dongles.

Ever heard of something called DMCA ???

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[jonwil]

Just build a device with an FPGA, a way to program the FPGA plus a pair of HDMI cables with all data going through the FPGA.

Sell the FPGA unprogrammed. Or better yet, come up with some legitimate use for it (i.e. something you could do by processing a HDMI/DVI signal that doesnt involve breaking DRM) and have the users download the HDCP module for it from a server in a country where the copright cartels cant touch it (preferably one with no DMCA like laws and that is not friendly with the big US media corps or the US government which means they wont listen when the US wants the sites shutdown)

Or better yet, GPL (or something similar but more suitable for hardware) the FPGA code and watch as it gets mirrored on so many web sites that its impossible to shut down (ala the source code and info to decrypt DVDs)

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Surt]

That only applies in the US. This has to be attached to WTO membership of course.

Re:and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[Alsee]

Dongles anyone? Interposed between computer and device that override the repsonses to answer back as an *APPROVED* device for the non approved one.
DUH

Well the DUH part was correct. It doesn't work. They know about that sort of attack and it is the first thing they designed it to prevent. It uses assymetric crypto and authentication signatures. Sticking an extre device in the middle of the line just gives you encrypted garbage. You can't read any of the data, and the raw encryption key never appears on the data line for you to intercept either. You cannot read any of the data and you cannot forge a fake "approved" message without a genuine key with the proper authentication signature.

And if you do manage to rip a valid signed crypto key out of a genuine device, it would (1) be illegal to sell that "dongle" device, and (2) they will immediately spot that that key has been duplicated and is being used in multiple peices of hardware and I expect they have systems in place to revoke keys so that other devices then reject the connection.

DRM is evil, and software DRM is just plain brain-damaged-stupid, but this new DRM hardware rollout is going to be ugly. Just about all of the normal easy attacks we're used to against normal stupid DRM schemes don't work anymore. You generally have to physically crack a microchip, and even then they have ways to kill that key if you try to give it out for everyone to be able to be able to use it.

-

Why?

[iainl]

So this is to be a new, "Unified" display interface that is compatible with HDMI.

So, umm, HMDI with a differently-shaped plug, then?

Re:Why?

[iainl]

And the answer, is... ...RTFA. The summary, as so very often, is completely misleading. This isn't a Unified DISPLAY Interface at all, but a Unform DRIVER Interface.

So it's a list of standard API calls that devices should support to communicate with the screen (among other things that you might want computing devices to communicate with. There are UDI specs for SCSI and a stack of other things too). Including (the one bit the summary did get right) having a uniform call to turn HDCP on or off.

Re:Why?

[Deven]

RTFA, indeed. The new story WAS about a display interface, and the submitter evidently did a search on "UDI" and jumped to the conclusion that Project UDI was related -- it's not.

Apple DRM

[DJ_Tricks]

If this is any thing like Apple's Fairplay DRM, all you will have to do is bend over one pin and it will be turned off. It's a little bit off extra work on the consumers part, but thats why Apple does it. They know the average consumer usally is lazy and as lathargic as a slug.

Re:Apple DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why Apple does it.

You know this for a fact? All I see is every time DRM is being used Apple is in there serving it up to you. But of course that's a good thing(TM)....

Re:Apple DRM

[DJ_Tricks]

I can not confirm or deny any information that I might have gotten past the "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Feild"(TM). Just let it be known that Apple really does not like being told what to do so they tend to like to do it half assed when they have to "Settle" in order to appease the media fatcats.

Riddle me this...

[vertinox]

How can the DRM software tell the difference between legitimate free software or a pirated work?

Re:Riddle me this...

[jfengel]

The original works can be tagged in a variety of ways. The DRM software notices the tag and will only output through the certified devices. The DRM is built into the OS and therefore difficult to circumvent. Usually something about the file is tagged to the computer/devices that it's allowed to be played on.

Legitimate free music or video won't be tagged, and so the DRM software ignores it; it can be output on any device.

Note that this is mostly about protecting music and/or video, not software (except by a wide definition of "software"). The UDI governs output devices. There are other bits of the DRM (e.g. Palladium) that can be used to restrict the copying of software, and the same will apply: legitimate tagged copies will be allowed to run; illegally tagged copies will be forbidden; untagged software like free software will run.

Re:Riddle me this...

[Surt]

The whole point of this exercise is to make a pirated work impossible. A free work has no encryption, so it plays wherever you want. A studio work has encryption which can only be decrypted by DRM devices, and the whole path from disc to screen/speakers is encrypted, so copying is impossible. In the (studios) ideal world, you can't even stick a camera in front of the screen to record because digital watermarking tells your camera not to record the image. Granted, a fully secure situation like this is a fair ways off, but the studios are taking the long view, and this is a necessary step along a perhaps 50 year long road to get there (most of the years required are spent waiting for non DRM managed devices to break down mechanically).

Re:Riddle me this...

[vidarlo]

How can the DRM software tell the difference between legitimate free software or a pirated work?

This could be done real easy if they wanted. They could give out a key, free for anyone to use, without any drm restrictions, and have the hardware handle that signal. Then, the F/OSS software could have the key proving it was not a pirated copy.

Re:Riddle me this...

[deathy_epl ccs]

I think the last thing the F/OSS community wants to do is support DRM... it kind of goes against both the motivations and principles of the concept.

Re:Riddle me this...

[vidarlo]

It'd need not be supporting DMR, but simply sending a key carrying the information that this is _not_ DRM'd, and is no restrictions on. Simple as that. You have the key, you can decrypt that information.

Re:Riddle me this...

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok, but then someone comes along and either a) reverse-engineers or b) decompiles the software and finds a way to remove the encryption. Then it's on a torrent or downloads site, and it'll be encryptionless, so it shows up as a free work.

Re:Riddle me this...

[Surt]

My guess is that no one removes the encryption because the datapath is secure: you can't even open the file to read the bytes without a security license. And you certainly wouldn't be allowed to copy any bytes that you're allowed to read outside of the trusted computing secure sandbox.

Re:Riddle me this...

[tepples]

I think the last thing the F/OSS community wants to do is support DRM

O rly?

$ drminfo kitten.wmv
Author: Jiminy Doe
License: CREATIVE_COMMONS BY-SA 2.5
$

Another Standard

[Billosaur]

From Channel Register:The UDI initiative is being led by Intel and its new best friend, Apple, along with Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image. The likes of Nvidia, Foxconn, JAE Electronics, THine Electronics and FCI are also contributing to the spec.

However, they've got competition. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has already begun work on DisplayPort, its answer to DVI's successor standard. DisplayPort is set to support both internal and external monitor connections, and can be used with multimedia kit.

So, once more we have two groups vying to make their technology a "standard", which then leads to a protracted battle over whose "standard" should be adopted. And in the midst, some technology will likely come along to make the new "standard(s)" obsolescent.

Dead before it starts

[InsaneProcessor]

This looks to me like another standard the is dead before it is even thought of as a real standard. Does anyone remember I2O?

Wrong UDI Link

[sgauss]

I think the link to UDI is to the Uniform Driver Interface folks. I think this UDI is different.

What's the point?

[fyonn]

we already have HDMI. It supports digital video transfer, has loads of bandwidth and even supports the transport of audio along the same cable. It supports HDCP and it is the standard for High Definition TV. my TV has 2 HDMI ports already.

I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.

make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.

is there any other reason to introduce UDI?

dave

Re:What's the point?

[Apparition-X]

"is there any other reason to introduce UDI?"

Yes. To force you to buy a new display device. New TV, new monitor for your computer(s), new video iPod/PSP/whatever. Just keep you buying. It is insulting and offensive to the consumer, but almost certainly true.

Another point: why not come up with a hardware standard that is sufficiently extensible that it supports future technologies? If consumer electronics is going to get onto the personal computer growth and revision curve, with new technologies every few months, it has to become more modular. I am not, and I suspect few others are, willing to upgrade everything every year or two because one component is upgraded. Just my opinion, but this is a critical weakness in the strategy of every major consumer electronics manufacturer at the moment.

Re:What's the point?

[dgrgich]

I thought much the same thing - until I wondered if size were an issue. Maybe the computer manufacturers want a connecter that is small enough to fit on a laptop. HDMI is pretty small but maybe they want it to be smaller still.

Re:What's the point?

[Eccles]

Looking at things like USB with its mini version, it seems like you could have more than one type of connector for a given signaling spec.

DMR bad...

[coastin]

My wife got me a new pair of glasses last week and now when I look at another woman's boobs they look pixilated. Damn DRM...

Re:DMR bad...

[stunt_penguin]

DRM....Divorce Reason Monitors? Watch yourself bud.

Re:DMR bad...

[coastin]

LOL - Good advice, stunt penguin!

Re:DMR bad...

[stunt_penguin]

What you really want to do is hack the glasses, install linux and program them so that they block out advertising, dupes on slashdot, ugly women, politicans, lawyers and fast food. You'd loose weight, have more money (no advertising) be surrounded by beautiful women and the world would be a wonderful place. Perfect.

Re:DMR bad...

[coastin]

Embedded Linux on glasses, not a bad idea. I like the projected results too...

DVD Jon will crack it!

[VaderPi]

Let them put the DRM in. It will just get cracked, and then we will use it like we want to anyway. It will be against the law, and the guy that cracks it will probably face a law suit. What we need to wait for is grandmother or a teacher getting sued for using the crack under what would normally be fair use. Then maybe the public notice how bad it is getting. Or maybe they will screw up the DRM and it will open the doors for display viruses. Screw pop up porn ads. How about in monitor ads. Little Billy will have a hard time why the naked women on the screen won't go away. In short, I fear that DRM must first get worse before it will get any better.

Good Luck to Them

[Bullfish]

Let me see, no Linux on Xbox, that's been done, no more p2p, p2p use exploding still, 500 forms of copy protection on CD's and DVD's broken, MS windows activation broken, etc, etc

Another thing to challenge and have broken.

Sooner or later somebody is going to wake up, charge a fair price, allow fair use, and make a profit without alienating their customers

On the other hand, how long did Rip Van Winkle sleep?

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[Anita Coney]

I don't think hardware manufacturers were bullied. If DRM is mandated, e.g., to watch HD on a computer you need a certain videocard and a certain monitor, then users will have to upgrade. If they upgrade, they'll have to buy all new stuff. This is a huge boon to manufacturers and software companies.

For the record

[lfd]

The UDI pointed to by the project udi.org link concerns the "Uniform Driver
Interface," an attempt at specifying and implementing portable device drivers.
It bears absolutely no relationship to a "Unified Display Interface."

So much for editors checking the facts...

Lobbyists will stop that.

[bigtallmofo]

Surely it just takes one manufacturer to develop something "clean" for a similar price and it'll be a preferable product.

Uh-oh, you just told them the hole in their logic! Now they'll have to get their lobbyists in gear to make it a crime to:

1. Manufacture, advertise, sell or possess a display device that isn't protected by DRM. The fine will be $100,000 per incident with an incident defined as infinite theoretical losses effectively making your fine infinite. Just write a sideways "8" in the amount column when sending in your check.
2. Scribble on the monitor with a #2 pencil or some other such simple DRM-thwarting technique.

Re:Lobbyists will stop that.

[Billly Gates]

Go google the "Fritz chip"?

I credit slashdot for stopping the bill. Believe it or not after links to elected us officials came in posts the bill was canned. Thousands of angry emails scared the politicians.

Take a lesson.

Too bad this is a consortium and not a bill. Otherwise the slashdot effect can alter the laws for our own good.

Re:Lobbyists will stop that.

[MemeRot]

Remember the Pinnacle DVD player? Region free and let you skip all the pre-movie stuff you wanted?

I think they get you by licensing. Like to license the DVD decryption code you had to agree to support region coding and the other junk. I'm sure Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will have similar schemes. Too bad we can't just have an open standard.

This is moot., as the consumer wont embrace it

[Anonymous Coward]

People wont buy stuff that has less capabilities then an item they already own.

By crippiling their own products they are ringing a death chime for their industry. People would rather buy something cheaper with more capability, then something expensive and limiting.

The companies that do embrace this "standard" are going to get TROUNCED by the companies that do not.

Batteries

[faqmaster]

The people-as-batteries scenario in The Matrix was just an accurate metaphor for what the "content industry" would like us all to become. Plugged up with inputs they alone control, we provide only the juice to keep the diabolical system going.

Bullying isn't necessary.

[TheSpoom]

These companies try to develop the best DRM technology because they know that the media companies are heavily, heavily lobbying on making DRM required in everything you see, hear, or experience. If their system becomes the one legislatively mandated, well then, you've got yourself a government-supported monopoly there, and a steady income from the licensing of the DRM technology, for which you can charge whatever you want.

Of course, if DRM becomes law, I'll be among the first to break it.

Re:Bullying isn't necessary.

[TheSpoom]

Oh, and if you're looking for an example...

Re:Another Standard:good!

[spectrokid]

When you can choose between a region-encoded DVD player and one which isn't, you buy.....
When you can choose between one display standard which has been hacked and one which hasn't....
Competition is not just going to drive down prices, it is also going to lower the efforts done on DRM.

The more interesting news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The more interesting news would be who is not part of this alliance. They are the people I want to buy stuff from.

wont stop anything.

[Lumpy]

As I sit here at work ripping a DVD with an illegal copy of DVD decryptor I can tell you the the only people this will boter is the person at home that is not aboe to or want to dig a little deeper and find a way around it.

Why am I violently violating some poor movie companies copyright as I type? well I'm evil and want to watch the movie on my portable mpeg4 media device. I know, pure unadulterated evil.

I have long ago decided that I need to become skilled in breaking the law so that I can have my entertainment on my terms in my own way.

Re:wont stop anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remain where you are, we will be there to collect you shortly.

Yours,
The RIAA

What year are we living in?

[digitaldc]

I noticed that this website is very outdated. For example:
UDI FAQ Last Updated September 7, 1999
Shouldn't they try and update the site a bit so at least you don't feel like you are reading 6 year old information?

Re:What year are we living in?

[wootest]

It's the wrong interface - Uniform Driver Interface instead of the Universal Display Interface.

Re:What year are we living in?

[wootest]

Er. Correction:

It's the wrong interface - Uniform Driver Interface instead of the Unified Display Interface.

What does drivers have to do with anything?

[Greger47]

Why talk about something called Unified Display Interface and then link to the site www.projectudi.org which concerns itself about the Uniform Driver Interface?!?. Slashdot editors at its best I guess...

Not that the Uniform Driver Interface is that great idea either, it's some kind of let's make some cozy wrapper that lets hardware manufacturers cross platform binary only drivers.

And what about Unified Display Interface? The only thing I can find about it is the sensationalist blurb on The Register. Have they just invented a new name for the new DisplayPort standard from VESA maby?

/greger

Re:What does drivers have to do with anything?

[Svenne]

Nope, it a competitor to the DisplayPort.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

but where's the mythbusters interview!?

[TheCreeep]

I tried asking this question on another article's thread (namely the polar bears drowning thingy) and some yahoo modded me -1 Overrated. OVERRATED!?! not even offtopic!
Now I want some answers, and I'm not the only one.
We will storm the servers, make our voices heard!!

Who's with me??
erm... guys?
guys...?

Bad Link????

[spectrokid]

The link is to something called the Uniform driver interface, some kind of attempt to make OS-neutral drivers. Is this the same thing??

...I remember when...

[zen611]

*sigh* I remember when industry standards were a good thing...

So?

[Pig Hogger]

Software and hardware DRM-bypassing solutions will be readily available from outside the US.

So it is not really a problem.

Direct attack at free software and open hardware

[Theovon]

If you can't buy a monitor with analog or DVI, then open-standards hardware projects (like the Open Graphics Project) will be shut out. This isn't just about protecting IP rights. This is a direct attack at Free Software in general.

Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[ajs318]

How about replacing the cathode ray tube in one of these TV sets with a dummy one?

From the current flowing in the scan coils, we can determine where the electron beam is on the screen {though to generate a standard timing signal, we really only care about when it jumps to the left hand side or the top}. From the three grid drives, we can get the levels of red, green and blue light emitted by the nearest pixel.

Apply some rudimentary signal conditioning which, if you could get the circuitry to fit on an A6 size piece of breadboard, you really would not be trying at all; and you have a set of signals suitable for feeding into any old-fashioned SCART socket on any old-fashioned TV set or DVD+RW recorder.

There is no way to protect any kind of content against the "dummy CRT" attack -- and once it has been successfully applied, the content is now unprotected for all time

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Lumpy]

It's easier than that.

This past week I was able to play with a Canon XL1HD camera. and with a small amount of setup I recorded a "protected" Live PPV content off our Calbe system digital box with a Hd projector this camera and a $9.95 35MM slide to Video converter box I had laying around at home.

The resulting copy looked only slightly worse than the origional signal on the Cable TV. if viewed on a PC or a sane sized HD television it was highly acceptable. It only looked muddy whe shown on the projector at it's normal 10' size.

So it's already broken. I can take what was recorded and compress lightly and have something that is better than most illegal copies of shows or movies on the net.

it was mostly done as a proof example to the Exec's here that were touting how secure the content is.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Foobar of Borg]

You know what this means, don't you? It means that university engineering schools are simply pirate training academies. All those universities are getting rich off of training pirates! I mean, it's not like engineers produce anything! Was Britney Spears an engineer? Was Ben Afleck? No, of course not! Then why do these "universities" think that they are training anyone of any worth? All they are doing is producing pirates who are destroying the financial standing of the RIAA and MPAA, whose products are as important as the air we breathe and the food we eat. Remember, when you rip a CD or DVD, you are aiding the terrorists and killing small adorable puppies.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[lisaparratt]

Why do you think they're trying to phase out CRTs? An LCD display is a lot harder to crack.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Surt]

You're assuming that you can still legally own a CRT based display in 20 years, and that unique per disc watermarking won't allow them to track down who performed this feat.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Cheerio Boy]

Why do you think they're trying to phase out CRTs? An LCD display is a lot harder to crack.

Ummm...having looked into quite a few LCDs over the years I doubt a real pirate would be slowed by an LCD.

Seriously though - if you can open the LCD you can most likely get to the direct lines then piggyback off those to copy the signal to something unprotected. It would take some significant amount of work due to the addressing involved in an HD display but it would still be doable.

Anti-piracy methods are only good until a pirate grabs a compiler or a soldering iron.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[ajs318]

First point: there's plenty of life yet in the cathode ray tube. And LCD panels are harder to interface to, but not that much.

As for "unique per-disc watermarking", that too can be defeated. If it's out-of-band, it's trivially easy to do so, and most probably will already have been stripped away by the time the signal arrives at the display device; even if it's in-band, it is not hard to do. If you can get several source discs, you can average the signals from them.

I personally am not convinced that unique per-disc watermarking would even be economically viable. Though I wouldn't put it past them to lie about it either.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Knetzar]

Wait, now killing puppies is being associated with those evil prirates? Insult those thieves all you want, but leave me and my puppy killing alone.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Zanthrox]

Re: Britney Spears...

A little off topic, I know, but it had to be said since you say she wasn't an engineer. She does have a rather handy guide to semiconductor physics (http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm) out there...

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[lisaparratt]

Until you integrate the decrypter into the driver circuitry, and the driver circuitry into the same semiconductor as the panel itself. Then you have to do semiconductor scale soldering, which I'd imagine would foil all but the most 1337 pirate.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Cheerio Boy]

Until you integrate the decrypter into the driver circuitry, and the driver circuitry into the same semiconductor as the panel itself. Then you have to do semiconductor scale soldering, which I'd imagine would foil all but the most 1337 pirate.

Point. But this would also seriously increase the price of an LCD in our current technology structure.

And the one thing they *IAA don't want to lose is sales for any reason.

Besides - by the time this sort of thing becomes common there will either be global companies that produce this stuff without the restrictions or we'll be at a technology point where people can start producing stuff like this themselves. I hope anyway... Maybe a little wishful thinking on that second part but provided we don't destroy ourselves we should see a serious increase in the complexity of technology in the next ten years or so. That would bring us to at least nanotech IMHO.

Piracy controls on my monitor?

[cstec]

That was easy. Not interested...

Look to China

[DumbSwede]

Having been to mainland China recently I beginning to think they have things right in their economic model which is basically capitalism for things that are, well, capital. And communism for all things that are IP. With 25 years of 10% growth they are doing something right. So much so I felt compelled to write an essay on this only two days back (you can never go wrong pre writing stuff on IP or P2P for Slashdot).

Follow
Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism
for my economic opus and ode to media bashing.

Re:Look to China

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that a rather good read, very nice. For me, the grain of sand in this pearl is here.

"Unlike goods and services however, ideas and entertainment will get produced whether they are paid for or not"

May I add my own observation as a practicing free content producer. When I posted recently on Slashdot about the difficulties in simply giving away content I was accused by some rabid voices of having "a sense of entitlement". The sentiment was quite fierce, apparently "all artists think the world owes them a living". That really made me think and take a good look at my motivations. Are all artists, scientists and thinkers fundamentally driven by narcissism? What exactly is 'recognition' and what possible hope can anybody have of achieving it in a world of 6 billion people? (I hope you can take it as read that I don't work on art for the money and that my work is actually rather good). Then I thought back to history classes, to primitive art, which was practiced regardless of recognition in an age long before instant TV idols. Through most of history artists and scientists never enjoyed so much as a whisper of praise within their own lifetimes, let alone financial reward. Now, I hate any argument that starts "There are two kinds of people in the world....", but this is one case where I think the black and white version is useful. On reflection I realised that actually I couldn't give a damn whether my ideas propagate and prosper, if they don't the loss is not mine. Basically I am just doing what I would be doing anyway as a free man. It is a spiritual pursuit between me and my God (harder for me as an Athiest). But there are some people who only recognise money as currency. Anything to which they cannot attach a monetary value is by definition valueless. Since nobody is there to tell them which ideas are good and which are bad then ideas have no value. They basically cannot discriminate for themselves, someone needs to tell them that Pop Idol A is brilliant and worth paying 15 bucks a CD for. The main psychological motivation of the 'consumer' is the opposite to the 'producer'. The producer is individual, free, uninhibited, but the consumer wants safety in the crowd, conformity, acceptance and he is willing to pay a high price for this assurance. At least thats how I see it in terms of American culture. The reason why capitalism and communism are both equally flawed is that neither accounts for both kinds of people. The disparity is, as you rightly point out, producers will produce anyway, it is in their psychological nature, but consumers are screwed without producers. Anyway, I've lost track of where this ill formed babble is going, but I think you are so very on the nail about Chinas two stream system. Capitalism for those whos only currency is money, socialism for those whos motivation is humanist is a winner, and the border along which to make that partition is obviously IP, splitting the tangible and intrinsicly valuable from the intangible and INVALUABLE.

Re:Look to China

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a sad sad day when we have to look to China as as a glowing example of intellectual and informational freedom.

Re:Look to China

[Dave21212]

That's a wonderfully written and thoughtful post (and on /. no less!). It's the kind of thing that I usually mod up and even 'friend' the poster for.

My simple question is, why post it as AC ?

Re:Look to China

[Alsee]

Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism

Your paper would get a slightly warmer reception in the US political arena if you change the title to:
"Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Kiddy Porn".

-

Re:The solution is simple

[limabone]

This rarely works unless it proves to be a problem for Jane & Joe Sixpack. For every 1 person who votes with their wallet on products that they don't agree with, there are 10,000 who don't care.

If the DRM doesn't cause any hindrance to their ability to use the product then most people will not care (the CEO of Sony was right when he basically said no one gives a shit about DRM, except their DRM was not invisble to the consumer).

Antipiracy compatible...

[Jugalator]

And flexibility incompatible...

I wonder if they even got the definition of piracy right... ;-)

Well, exactly

[CdBee]

I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my Mac - a G4 733 bought cheaply on eBay - but in the background behind my desk, you'll still find a small Windows PC (SFF Compaq desktop, probably) which will be dedicated to ripping DVDs to .mpg files which will then play cleanly on any system, no matter how DRM'd up it is.

Not that I seriously believe anyone will be able to stop me doing what I wish with my own PC, no matter how clever they think they are. I'm doing this because the ripper software I have runs on Windows.

Re:Well, exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need is MacTheRipper, it's free (as in beer) and will output a decrypted VIDEO_TS folder.

You can then use DVD2One (yes they have a Mac version, not free-as-in-beer) to shrink it to a single DVD-R, or stick it on your portable player, or whatever. Works great.

RE: Oh... gosh!

[fshalor]

Can we *PLEASE* have our hardware back!!!

20 minutes into the future

[Matey-O]

You guys aren't thinking progressively enough...Max Headroom had it right.

They don't want to just control copying, next they'll want to remove your TV's OFF switch!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

HDMI doesn't thave enough bandwidth...

[YesIAmAScript]

HDMI is a subset of DVI plus audio. In making the HDMI connector much smaller (and cheaper), they removed a lot of conductors, like DVI-A (analog) and the ability to have dual-link.

Without dual-link, HDMI is useless for computers in the future. The most expensive (and thus highest revenue and profit) panels already use dual-link DVI. Additionally, technically, 1080p cannot even be carried on HDMI or single-link DVI because the bandwidth is too high. However, companies are stretching the spec to make HDMI (and HDCP) work at 1080p. I don't think this stretching can be done to cover the larger (30") computer panels that are already in use.

Re:HDMI doesn't thave enough bandwidth...

[Kjella]

HDMI is a subset of DVI plus audio. In making the HDMI connector much smaller (and cheaper), they removed a lot of conductors, like DVI-A (analog) and the ability to have dual-link.

HDMI also includes support for 8-channel uncompressed digital audio. Beginning with version 1.2, HDMI now supports up to 8 channels of one-bit audio. One-bit audio is what is used on Super Audio CDs.

Without dual-link, HDMI is useless for computers in the future. The most expensive (and thus highest revenue and profit) panels already use dual-link DVI. Additionally, technically, 1080p cannot even be carried on HDMI or single-link DVI because the bandwidth is too high. However, companies are stretching the spec to make HDMI (and HDCP) work at 1080p. I don't think this stretching can be done to cover the larger (30") computer panels that are already in use.

Signalling method: According to DVI 1.0 specification. Single-link (Type A HDMI) or dual-link (Type B HDMI).
Video pixel rate: 25 MHz to 165 MHz (Type A) or to 330 MHz (Type B).
Single link max: 1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz (154 Mhz). More than 1080p, hell enough for 1080p60 which is more than any of the HDTV standards.

HDMI is equal to DVI in pretty much every way, except form factor, included sound and mandetory HDCP (optional on DVI). Whatever runs on single link DVI runs on HDMI, whatever runs on dual link DVI runs on HDMI-B. Do you have any more anti-HDMI FUD?

So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"...

[eno2001]

...that people bought yesterday? There's going to be an uprising if people can't watch current content on their monitors due to DRM. The industry should NOT be allowed to just make you HAVE to buy new hardware simply to access current content. That SHOULD be illegal if we had sane regulations that favored the consumer.

Re:So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"...

[Wesley Felter]

You don't need a new monitor to access current content (DVDs). You only need a new monitor to play HD-DVD and Blu-ray, which are not out yet.

Re:So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"...

[eno2001]

Yes... but the monitor that I buy today should last at least a decade. So if I'm still using it in 2009 and I want to watch DVD-HD or Blu-Ray or whatever the hell else is DRMed out the wazoo, why should I be forced to buy new hardware to watch current programming at that time? I can understand beyond a decade, but less than that is wastefull and inefficient.

Re:So What Does this Mean for "old monitors"...

[tepples]

So if I'm still using it in 2009 and I want to watch DVD-HD or Blu-Ray or whatever the hell else is DRMed out the wazoo, why should I be forced to buy new hardware to watch current programming at that time?

You'll still be able to use the S-video output at 480i or 576i. HDCP specs allow for downscalers to output an analog signal, but only in standard definition and likely only with Macrovision gain control.

The problem

[RaNdOm OuTpUt]

The problem with DRM is that it has to be trademarked (well, it doesn't HAVE to be, but they will). Because anybody who wants to can go to the USPTO and look at the trademark information, INCLUDING HOW THE PRODUCT LOOKS, and then break the DRM. Of course, not everybody will do this, but if they don't they probably weren't trying to pirate, but were just copying a CD for a friend, which most people see as OK.

You miss the point

[Schezar]

"Legitimate free music or video won't be tagged, and so the DRM software ignores it; it can be output on any device."

Then all the pirates have to do is get the content (analogue hole as a last resort) and re-release it sans tag. If the "copy-protected" devices display anything without a tag, they are effectively useless.

The only workable method is to only display things with a VALID tag and lock everything else out: much harder to beat.

Re:You miss the point

[javachip]

I think an inevitable tie-in will be copy "protection" and malware "protection". The "easiest" way to do this is to force all content to come from white-listed conglomerates via DRM style technologies. That would be a death-knell to open source software, indie music, and many other bottom-up forces of good in the Internet.

God, I hate where this is heading...

Re:You miss the point

[jfengel]

In theory, this closes the analog hole. In practice, you're right: it takes only one person to crack the thing (whether through the "physical hole" of pointing a camera at a monitor or via an illegal DRM-free device) and release it on P2P to make it universally available.

I wouldn't expect them to try to require devices to play only tagged items. If they do, they'd have to authorize a number of content providers, and with that many copies of the key running around the pirates would certainly be able to get a hold of one. That's effectively what allowed DeCSS to be written.

Is it going to help? Possibly a bit. It prevents just anybody from ripping their CDs and DVDs and putting them on the Internet. Well, it would, if the CD standard didn't make them rippable unless you do something stupid and break the standard, and if DVD hand't already been broken, and if the new hi-res DVDs weren't far too big to share on 99.999% of the world's internet connections.

It does prevent you (more or less) from easily using the analog hole to copy streaming media and downloaded music/video. Personally, I expect that they're going to try to get rid of standard CDs (breaking backwards compatibility) and sell things only using a new, heavily DRMed, standard.

If that slowed down the progress of things to P2P, it would make it easier to find the originators and charge them, and/or convince people to use more reliable pay services.

Or not.

New /. design to break non-IE browsers with popups

[iamacat]

How can we complain about known evil companies if slashdot resorts to unclosable popups that obscure the content? Screenshot in Safari

Hmm :/

[Cmdr_earthsnake]

This is probably what "computing" is gonna look like in a few years the way things are going... http://static.flickr.com/33/54527579_d26f010334.jp g Enjoy.

Doesn't matter

[Ryan Amos]

Hardware-based DRM has proven time and time again to be totally ineffective at stopping anyone from doing anything. By nature of being hardware based, it can't change. Because it can't change, it's a stationary target for hackers and someone *will* find a way around it in a matter of months.

It can be legislated to hell and back and it still won't make a bit of difference. I guarantee you a lot of countries have bigger problems than enforcing American patents/copyrights and have no interest in complying with any anti-circumvention laws either. Someone will crack it, the crack will get out into the wild, and it'll be like the DRM never existed.

Let them waste their money developing expensive DRM schemes that a 17 year old in Romania will break 6 months after it's released. The laws don't exist to prosecute this kind of thing in many countries, nor should they. MPAA/RIAA tired of losing money? Stop producing crap and people will buy it. But look at their members' profit/loss sheets recently, what they say in public is in polar opposite to what they tell their shareholders...

Re:Doesn't matter

[Surt]

Yep, windows media has been a sitting duck for what, 2 years now, and the cracks are all over the place ... oh wait, no they aren't.

Strong encryption based drm will work just fine.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ryan Amos]

Yes but hardware based DRM has a lot more problems with keeping the keys secure. Someone will fuck up, a key will get into the wild, and they can't go back and change all the existing devices.

It's exactly what happened with CSS and it will happen again. 256-bit AES won't help you if someone can get a valid key.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Surt]

It's a false assumption that they can't go back and change all existing devices: the plans are already in the works to require that future devices have an internet connection and be flash upgradeable to handle this potential risk. If the content owners succeed then such an upgrade will become mandatory (your device will stop functioning if you don't allow it to update regularly). Look at how the DirecTV people do this for a model of what will be coming (just imagine them being able to do it on a daily upgrade cycle rather than the semi monthly cycle DirecTV is stuck with).

That's only half the battle

[dstone]

the content is now unprotected for all time

Sort of. This is an excellent, clever way to copy the content. However, consider that the copy you have captured may still be watermarked or otherwise uniquely identifiable.

From the perspectives of piracy-detection and legal-prosecution, you may still be on dangerous ground: copies made as you suggest may be tracable and still cause grief for you or anyone posessing them, depending on how the courts interpret "fair-use" that week. I hope using the technique you suggest for personal backup purposes would be legitimate, but you've clearly circumvented a digital rights mechanism (and possibly left evidence in the copy) and I am not a lawyer.

Tracking "Pirate" goods

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet they will track "Pirate" goods... especially these so called DONGLES, the people who make them, and the evil people who use them to break the law!

It is bad to break the law, it is even worse to break "THEIR" laws!

A few observations

[bebing]

For the following, piracy means copyright infringement not covered by fair use, more specifically black market type stuff.

1. If you can watch or hear something it is possible to pirate it.

2. If it can be pirated it will be pirated. Well, if it's profitable to be pirated that is, i.e., the closer the prices are between legit and pirated copies the less profitable pirating is.

3. If 1 and 2 are true, then piracy will never be stopped.

4. The producer or the consumer or a combination of the two will have to absorb the loss. Sources of compensation can include lawsuits against pirates.

I think it should end there.

Re:A few observations

[cuncator]

2. If it can be pirated it will be pirated. Well, if it's profitable to be pirated that is, i.e., the closer the prices are between legit and pirated copies the less profitable pirating is.

As an aside, does anyone else find it asinine that the price of CDs and DVDs hasn't dropped to reflect the lower costs of manufacturing? And if it was all about maximizing shareholder and company value, maybe if they fired all the lawyers and paid their CEOs less than US$10 million a year (plus bonuses of course) then a reasonable price could be charged and still have the same net profit.

#include "std_lowcaffeine_disclaimer.h"

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[jZnat]

Dude, people are still running Windows 98; I severely doubt that there will be any mass migrations to "new and improved" DRM'd hardware. My parents still use VHS instead of a PVR, and I'd have to say that they're more technologically aware than Joe Beerbelly. The only thing to fear for now (other than the public's ignorance) is the **AA lobbying to get DRM a mandated part of hardware, also outlawing analog devices (despite how futile that idea is).

In other news, /.ers need to write to their state's congresscritters (if applicable). I'm sure the EFF has some pre-written letters you can send.

Me verses you.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance will see in this example how terrible copyright legislation is for content creation. The intent of copyright (to give authors a certain time-limited protection over what they create) has been destroyed, and is now controlled solely by a few massive corporations that control almost every form of media."

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG. "

Wow! So you're a "massive corporation"? Looks like you might want to go on a diet.

"Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years."

Funny how slashdotters fall upon those "laws and restrictions" every time there's a GPL violation. Hey why don't we simply dispense with those cumbersome "borders" and depend on everyone being good boys and girls.

We already have a perfectly good sytem but apparently a few don't want to use it. I make something people want, and people vote with their dollars weither they want it. Copyright, much like the GPL is for those who don't want to play by the rules.

"UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares"

Psychology 101: I can't get what I want, so I really didn't want it in the first place.

"What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market."

Small content producers are a different species of human beings. They believe that everyone is good, and therefore they don't need any kind of legal protection from those who would abuse them.

"DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people."

And it took the stick to convince others to "just say no". Glad to hear that you think that piracy is just confined to those you hate (big producers, beautiful people, pretty package).

Re:Another Standard:good!

[Billosaur]

When you can choose between a region-encoded DVD player and one which isn't, you buy.....

I don't want to have to choose. I want one format, one standard, agreed upon by the majority. Rememebr VHS vs. Beta? Beta died and that probably wasn't a good thing, but the fact is that even after VHS ascended to the heights, we then had the European PAL format and all this other rubbish.

When you can choose between one display standard which has been hacked and one which hasn't....

That is of course the weakness - one standard means one line of attack for a hacker. But if everyone can begin from the same base, development of appropriate countermeasures can be developed as long as everyone pools their resources. It's in the best interests of companies to share data on things which affect everyone.

Competition is not just going to drive down prices, it is also going to lower the efforts done on DRM.

How? Two different standards means two (or more) ways to approach DRM. And the idea is not to allow DRM to propogate, but make it unnecessary.

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[bhima]

If you think that's bad you should see it in Camino

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[tehshen]

Lucky you, it continues down the page for me. :(!

/etc/hosts, here I come

Ah, great catch

[Artifex]

Thanks for pointing that out. That explains a lot :)

Project UDI is unrelated.

[Deven]

Why do people insist on reusing names for unrelated things? Project UDI is a technology allowing device drivers to be portable across different operating systems and platforms. Project UDI doesn't address display technologies, much less DRM. This "Unified Display Interface" seems to be something entirely different, and it's unfortunate that they're trying to re-coin the "UDI" acronym. The UDI link in the summary is simply wrong.

On the other hand, Project UDI is a very cool technology that people should be supporting, so I guess the extra exposure could help, as long as people don't confuse UDI (Uniform Driver Interface) with UDI (Unified Display Interface)... *sigh*

Re:Project UDI is unrelated.

[Alsee]

Why do people insist on reusing names for unrelated things? ...trying to re-coin the "UDI" acronym.

17576 three letter acronyms should be enough for anybody.

-

Re:Project UDI is unrelated.

[Deven]

17576 three letter acronyms should be enough for anybody.

Must everything be a TLA?

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[arminw]

......If they upgrade, they'll have to buy all new stuff......

That's a big IF! Current video, just like today's average stereo and even buggy, virus prone Windows, is plenty good enough quality for millions of current users. Any HD TV upgrading incentive is nowhere nearly as compelling as the transition from VCR to DVD or from vinyl LPs to audio CD were about 20 years ago. Both vinyls and VCR tapes, for example were subject to wear and reduced quality, each time they were played. There was nothing even the most careful handling would help to elimiate this problem. The optical technologies removed this large disadvantage. In the case of VCR vs DVD the fact that DVDs don't need to be rewound and are random access also was a very compelling reason for users to upgrade. By millions of users upgrading, the media companies made gobs of money from re-selling the contents of their vaults back again to consumers of the new playback devices.

The only advantage I can see the new, expensive HD format has over the current DVD, is higher resolution. None of the previous very compelling reasons to upgrade apply. A conventional DVD played back on a big screen TV is plenty good enough for most consumers. This is also true of the present broadcast TV progrmming. HD TV does not reduce in any way the frequency nor obnoxiousness of the innumerable commercials on most channels nor improve on the content itself. For a long time, manufacturers of large screen monitors will have to provide connectivity to existing signal sources. Not many consumers have a desire to replace their DVD collection just for a clearer picture alone.

Stupid crap

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something some 16 year will break over the weekend and post on the net. Move along, nothing to see here.

W

I never get to use this quote

[bagsc]

Joe: DVDA?
Monitor: It's the only way a monitor my age can compete in this industry.

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[jZnat]

Block the ads. Either use Firefox and Adblock, or edit your /etc/hosts file using some already-made filters of ad sites.

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[iamacat]

You must mean "niload ad site entries into my /machines directory" :-) Anyway, I already use an adblocking stylesheet, I guess it's time for some updates.

Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose-Free ride over.

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, you're right, it is to "please" the industry, because if the industry is "pleased" then that particular brand of DRM will show up in the laws the RI/MP/**/AA write for the protection of the American People, and thus licensing fees will roll in, because, you know, you HAVE to license it or your product breaks laws."

Warmcat already made a good point. Now here's one for you. Please backup your claim that a content producer will HAVE to license their content else it will break laws.* I can only assume in the absense of proof that your engaging in FUD, and Lord knows that ONLY big corporations engage in that.

*For those paying attention. The content producer may have to agree to certain terms UNDER CONTRACT LAW to get their content onto a certain platform. e.g. consoles. But it's NOT illegal for them to withhold it from that platform. The OP wants us to believe (FUD) that somehow free choice will disappear because of DRM. NO, what will at worst disappear is content produced AND under DRM. Good if you believe all the slashdot talk about content quality (I'll refrain from pointing out the conflicted message illegal P2P sends). Bad if you want that content without honoring the reciprocal agreements (you know? Give me GPL code, I obey the terms)

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose-Free ride over.

[IAmTheDave]

Please backup your claim that a content producer will HAVE to license their content else it will break laws.

You've misread my statement. It's not the content producer, it's the hardware manufacturer that will have to obey the DRM that exists in the content - thus denying the ability to record a show on a DVR, or denying copy ability, or timeshift beyond 90 minutes, or whatever the DRM says. So the content providers KNOW that the hardware sold in the US will abide by their rules, thus killing fair use. That's what I meant.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose-Free ride over.

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been attempts from the industry for laws that will do exactly that -- where unlicensed media (no DRM encoding) will not play, or will only play in a crippled manner.

The justification given by the cartel goes something like this.

Any pirated copies of their content will not have DRM encoding, therefore anything without DRM must be pirated and should be crippled, so that it's not easy to pirate the content ... that's already ... well, never mind that part. Have a fact-finding trip to our studio in the south of France, and do you have any "charities" that need funding?

I don't think they've had much success, but it's logic similar to what I have heard coming from Orrin Hatch and others in open hearings.

Let's color "DRM" right

[Eivind Eklund]

Let every geek expand DRM as Digital Restrictions Management. It's a small step of the way, by calling the cards as they are.

Eivind.

1080p is 1080p/60

[YesIAmAScript]

You assumed 1080p is 1080p/30? That was pretty stupid. It's not. People want a single format that both 720p(/60) and 1080i(60 fields per second) can be uprezzed to without loss of spatial or temporal resolution. That is why 1080p is coming around, and why it is 1080p/60.

As to single link, it is enough for 1920x1200, for example, Apple sells 23" single-link monitors that do 1920x1200. But, depending on the size of the front and back porches (both horizontally and vertically), a signal with less spatial payload resolution may not fit on single link DVI/HDMI. For example, the first 1920x1200 analog LCD panels used signal timing that could not be represented on DVI single link. It is my understanding that 1080p doesn't fit in the DVI single link spec either.

My understanding is that with the inactive areas, 1080p is 2240x1126*59.97fps. This is a pixel clock of 151MHz. The HDMI spec is (or was) max 150MHz (DVI is 165MHz). I believe the 165MHz for HDMI you mention is this later stretching of the standard to accomodate 1080p.

As to HDMI being equal to DVI, except for that I didn't know dual-link existed, I believe I also said HDMI was the equal of DVI plus sound, except that I mentioned that HDMI doesn't have the lines that DVI-A uses for analog video.

Re:1080p is 1080p/60

[Anonymous Coward]

So computer companies can build a $1,700 monitor that can squeeze 1920x1200 into a 150MHz pixel clock, but consumer electronics companies cannot build a $5,000 HDTV that can squeeze 1920x1080 into the same bandwidth? Awesome. I think this is why I'm buying my next TV from HP.

DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

If we as consumers simply don't buy thier shit it will never become popular.

I'm pleased...

[JustNiz]

I'm pleased that they're using HDCP as it's been cracked already.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/236

Its going to be really interesting to see how successful the new consortium is in forcing US copyright legislation on the rest of the world.

Or, perhaps, hardware not made in the US, or for US export only, will have versions of the interface that don't include DHCP. Gee. I wonder how long it will take for US consumers to buy their hardware from outside the US instead.

please send (constructive) comments to...

[HTH NE1]

Whenever someone puts forth a technology to take away more of your access, having them say, "please send (constructive) comments to", is a big "screw you, dissenters; we're doing this whether you like it or not" right to your face.

Next will be parallax restrictions to ensure only one person gets to see the content, and then comes plugging the memory hole:

"You are trying to remember copyrighted material. Visit Rekall to purchase a one-time-use decryption key to access this memory."

DRM vs. the freeing of information-proponderance

[Anonymous Coward]

"I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?"

Hmmmm...

Q: How does Asia know when it has a Bird Flu epidemic?
A: When everyone's dead.

save money, skip drm

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to stand up in the industry and point out the historical irrelevance of copy protection in preventing duplication.

Every new workgroup thinks they have the solution. And theirs is just as easily broken as those that preceeded it.

If the goal is to detur, lower prices.

Just rent me my PC for $12/month

[gelfling]

Really that's where we're going like the AT&T of yore. We're just going to pay for the right to rent a PC and software that the **AA owns and can do with whatever they want anyway.

We need to just quit fighting and give in and give up and move on to the next technology they can't kill yet.

Oh and make sure you make it Federal law to disable my cellphone when I'm watching one of your piece of shit movies in the movie theater, because well you know, you own my right to talk as well.

Re:Just rent me my PC for $12/month

[aristotle-dude]

You do have a right to talk but that does not include disturbing other people with your cellphone conversations in a movie theatre during the show. You also have freedom of speech but that does not mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre either.

Ain't no one touching my dongle...

[SeanDuggan]

If they want my dongle, they're going to have to pry it out of my stiff dead hands! Er... that doesn't sound quite right...

it's the source signal...

[YesIAmAScript]

The emitter of the signal decides the pixel clock. The emitter in this case has to meet the HDTV spec.

The HDTV spec is how it is because it had to work with CRT displays too. CRT displays need porch time to "wrap" the electron beam back from right to left or bottom to top. So the analog HDTV signal had to have those timings. And since DVI doesn't change the temporal characteristics of the signal (only digitizes the analog level on a fixed clock), that meant DVI/HDMI had to have those timings.

Frankly, given that the FCC/ATSC didn't specify 1080p/60 ahead of time, they could have changed the porch sizes for just it and just said "CRTs will never do 1080p/60", because they likely won't anyway. I don't know why that option wasn't taken. Perhaps someone else knows.

So, to go to your last sentence, HP can't fix this problem.

Re:it's the source signal...

[askegg]

This is not a flame. If you read the HDMI 1.2 specs it basically says "Use DVI for video transport". The DVI spec does limit the clock speed in single link mode to 165MHz, but there is NO limit in dual link mode. This effectively makes the bandwidth unlimited (ignoring physcial limitations).

Re:it's the source signal...

[Wesley Felter]

A Blu-ray player or PC that is driving a digital display doesn't need to include any "porch time". So now I'm wishing that they had defined two 1080p timings; one with legacy analog crap in it and one without.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM == you do not own your computer, television, dvd player, etc... or anything on it and have no privacy

may they all burn

hello sheep---welcome to the collective

Why is SCO so heavily involved in this?

[Animats]

Look at who's writing the Universal Driver Specification. Go to page 5, and look at the affiliations of the authors. There are nine people from SCO, more than from any other organization. SCO doesn't have much of a technical staff left. If they're devoting nine people to this effort, they must forsee some major benefit. There's some hidden agenda in this. Where's the kicker in this? Start looking.

Also worth noting: there's nobody from Microsoft, and nobody from Red Hat. IBM has some people, but IBM is so big they send a few people to any standards effort.

My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, let me be clear, because I'm getting tired of people (not just you) reading things into my posts that aren't there.

I am no apologist for the big media industries. I think their lobbying to get copyright terms extended to almost geological timescales is both morally wrong and probably bad for business in the long run too. I think fair use provisions should be rights, and should explicitly include common things like making back-ups, format-shifting and making compilations, and moreover I think any attempt by a copyright holder to actively restrict the enjoyment of those rights by a legitimate holder of a copy of the material should be subject to legal blocks. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their ineffective-against-real-lawbreakers but annoying-to-genuine-customers DRM and shove it if that happens to conflict with the above (as it almost inevitably will). Finally, it's about time the whole industry was dealt with over its transparent price-fixing and other anti-competitive behaviour, as provided for in law.

There, now I've got that off my chest, I will also say that I belive the underlying principle of copyright is sound. Our economies work, and pretty well in comparison to many others, based on some basic capitalist principles. People who rip off copyright material are upsetting the economics at best, and screwing a genuinely needy content creator out of fair compensation for their work at worst. I have no sympathy for people who do this, get caught, and get punished in a proportionate manner. If you rip an album, put it on P2P, let thousands of people copy it illegally, and get caught, then I have no problem whatsoever with your being fined a few thousand times the current selling price of the album, and I don't for an instant buy the usual weasel words about people not necessarily buying the album otherwise, or about the guy who buys more music as a result of the illegal copying (whom I strangely have never met).

Now, to address the specific point you mentioned, sure, let's view copyright infringement as it applies today, and that DRM is designed to combat, in light of the extended copyright duration we agree is too long. How many of the works covered by DRM today would have been out of copyright under a more reasonable timespan of, say, 10 years? What proportion of material traded on obviously mostly illegal P2P nets is less than 5 years old, and still easily available at stores? What proportion is less than three months old, and probably still recovering genuine expenses that those responsible for creating the work incurred, never mind making a profit or covering the media groups' other expenses on acts that didn't work out? (Yes, I know the big media players are very good at passing this on -- which just means you're slamming the good guys who actually make new content if you dodge paying early on.)

If you can show a serious level of correlation between the content widely swapped and increasingly distributed with some form of DRM attached, and the content that is now covered by extended copyright periods but wouldn't have been under the original duration, I'll read your comments with an open mind. Maybe you'll even convince me that my current position on this issue is wrong. However, right now I suspect that the vast, vast majority of illegal copying that DRM is aiming for would be well within even the original copyright durations, and the whole extended duration thing, while a valid concern in its own right, is nothing but more smoke and mirrors to try and justify an ethically dubious position to most illegal swappers.

Re:My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[hackwrench]

First, you are making an unwarranted assumption that DRM is targeted at preventing just the infringment of the time extended copyright, and not targeted at curtailing what you would consider "fair use".


Second, you're ignoring the material that would be public domain under the reasonable copyright, but is locked up in vaults, so isn't making it into the P2P channels.

You are also ignoring the fact that something has to make up for the lack of derivative works of the copyrighted materials that would be in the public domain.

Lastly, you're ignoring the fact that the penalty for infringing on new copyrights is the same as old copyrights, and that newly copyrighted material is on copy-consistent digital media, and that old content is on degrading, copy-degradtion, media. I'm not asking you to condone the efforts of the P2P networks, just to abandon your current, flawed stance. There's plenty of smoke and mirrors on all sides here, but your stance is one of clarity on the users of the DMCA's side.

Re:My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[squiggleslash]

Welcome to my friends list. Excellent post.

Re:My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[JonToycrafter]

Your argument is good by Slashdot standards, so I'd like to engage you for a minute.

Let's take as given that the principle of copyright is sound. Generally speaking, I agree. However, if we accept the idea of copyright, particularly as a social contract, what recourse do you suggest when one side breaks their part of the social contract?

You seem to be suggesting that it'd be OK to circumvent DRM on works that would be out of copyright, but not those that are newer and should expect the protection of copyright.

The original "now it's ON" poster is saying that he feels that it's acceptable, in light of big media's violation of the social contract, to retaliate. How do you feel about that idea? Is it ever OK to break your side of the social contract?

Specifically, I wonder if you see a difference between a) breaking a DRM-breaking researcher (ala DVD Jon) and b) sharing RIAA content with the intention of financially harming the RIAA. Say, in retaliation for putting folks like 2600 magazine to legal expense for linking to DeCSS.

Re:My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[bechthros]

You weren't asking me, but I'm gonna butt in anyway.

There are times when it is critically important to honor a social contract (the vast majority of the time). There are also times when it's critically important to break one (divorcing an abusive spouse, fighting in one's own self-defense).

Any market needs a black market to keep the white market good for both providers and consumers. The exaple I always give is packs of chewing gum. Supermarkets don't sell packs of gum for more than a dollar because they know that the only real consequence would be a vast increase in the shoplifting of gum. OTOH, if they were able to completely eradicate all shoplifting, you bet your bottom dollar the price of gum will be 10 times what it is today in a year from now. This is why most stealing is bad, but a little stealing can change the world. Everything in moderation, remember.

As to copyright, everybody forgets that when the Constitution was being written the entire concept of copyright was twofold - to ensure that creative people could make money off their works, but ALSO and EQUALLY to ensure that, after they'd had their fair shot at capitalizing on their works (which is to say, 7 years after they died), others wouldn't be deprived of their enjoyment. Copyright is now perceived by the vast majority of the public to be a thing which protects only the sellers, and never the buyers.

You are correct that I feel the first shots were fired by big media. But the first shots I'm referring to were not the Sonny Bono law. No, the first shots would have to be the release of 8-track tape. After succesfully lobbying to have home taping made illegal, big media tried to make everybody go out and buy their record collections all over again. Ever seen an 8-track deck you could record on? Ever wonder why not? I remember going to see my Uncle in Idaho, and how aglow he was over the fact that he'd had a casette recorder imported from Japan. I didn't see what the big deal was, until he explained they were still illegal here. Even at that early age, I wondered what the music companies could possibly be thinking. Then they tried to tell us we couldn't record their TV shows onto the VCR's they sold us. The Supreme Court disagreed. Then they came out with CD's to pull the 8-track trick all over again. They knew full well when they did this that they were opening the Pandora's box of lossless duplication, and chose to procedd in spite of this, because they were greedy and wanted more money. Then there was the DAT thing. Then the DCC and Minidisk things. Then the DVD/CSS thing. Now the DRM and TCPI things. Without exception, every single "anti-piracy" trick they've ever pulled has been either defeated or rejected by the marketplace. I have no doubt that DRM-ing everything everywhere will take upwards of 10-15 years, and even then it will be so frought with stupid complications that many people simply won't buy.

The funny thing is that, after trying unsuccessfully to keep home taping illegal for the exact same reasons they're parading out against file-sharing, they made billions and billions of dollars selling cassette tapes to the public.

Re:My take on copyright - to stop the assumptions

[Mr2001]

Our economies work, and pretty well in comparison to many others, based on some basic capitalist principles. People who rip off copyright material are upsetting the economics at best, and screwing a genuinely needy content creator out of fair compensation for their work at worst.

Huh. I'd say copyright itself is what upsets the economics. Songs and movies are not inherently subject to the same economic laws as scarce goods; copyright is an attempt to force them into an economic model where they don't really fit.

I don't for an instant buy the usual weasel words about [...] the guy who buys more music as a result of the illegal copying (whom I strangely have never met).

Really? Let me introduce myself.

My name's Mr2001, and I have bought more music because of illegal P2P file sharing than I ever would have otherwise. Just off the top of my head, I can think of over a dozen albums I bought solely because I downloaded some of the songs first, came to like them, and decided to check out the band's other material. Before the advent of Napster, I only ever bought music from a couple artists that I knew I liked.

The most recent purchase I can credit to P2P is The Bloodhound Gang - Hefty Fine. Others include albums from Garbage, Bush, Cake, No Doubt, Evanescence, Daft Punk, and Fatboy Slim. In fact, the No Doubt CD I bought is a singles collection, and I already had nearly all the tracks on it; I made the conscious choice to throw a few bucks their way for the music I'd already been enjoying.

HTH.

Pile up that bale of straw and torch it

[gelfling]

Or, in the real world consider it might actually be important and if you're that thin skinned maybe you need to stay home in your bubble. See it works both ways.

Re:Pile up that bale of straw and torch it

[aristotle-dude]

Or, in the real world consider it might actually be important and if you're that thin skinned maybe you need to stay home in your bubble. See it works both ways.

Are you as much of an asshole in real life? I hope not or you could end up getting the shit kicked out of you by the security guard when you are asked to leave and put up that kind of attitude.

Theatres are private establishments with their own rules. If you don't like their rules, you can take a hike.

You must be one of those idiotic Americans that everyone hates so much. You give your fellow countrymen a bad name.

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[chez69]

see this post to see how to block it

The market

[ichigo 2.0]

it has virtually nothing to do with stopping "piracy" and everything to do with eliminating competitors

But isn't piracy essentially a competitor? Hopefully the movie and music industries get this sooner rather than later, and start competing with prices and with quality. Personally I think the next-gen HD formats need zero DRM, because the quality difference between a ~2 gigabyte rip vs. a 30 gb HD movie is enormous, nevermind the insane download times. Of course bandwidth will eventually catch up, but this would only put more pressure on making buying movies even more lucrative, with more extra stuff or cheaper prices.

"One man's pirate is another man's free market fighter." - ichigo 2.0

:)

Antipiracy ?!?

[mnmn]

On a monitor?

So now pirated movies just wont display?? What about pirated MP3s? Need a DMCA compliant sound card?

Or they dont want the monitor's controller's firmware copied elsewhere?

And whats with the new slashdot page popup style ads? I could barely understand the screen. I hope the slashcode developers move the ads either to one side or the top. Shouldnt look like msn.com.

The real trouble with copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been subverted and perverted, at least the USA idea of copyright.

Copyright was supposed to protect commercial aspects only; if I write a book, Random House can't make money from it without paying me. It was supposed to protect the artists from the publishers, not the publishers from the public. It was not supposed to prevent me from making a private copy for myself or friends for no renumeration. I should not be able to sell copies of Britney's abysmal crap, but I should be able to share it if I wish. Regardless of what the media giants say, P2P will not kill music, people will still buy CDs and tickets to shows (and often CDs at shows). It does level the playing field, allowing my musical friends to get their work in front of a wider audience, which is unfortunate for the established players.

Copyright is supposed to be "time limited" and was once a mere 20 years. 20 year copyrights are reasonable. 200 year copyrights are not.

Copyright was supposed to be so work would wind up in the public domain for other authors and artists to use (Disney using Grimm stories).

The DMCA is backwards - if a work is protected by technological means, it should lose its copyright. Compare it to patents; patents were to keep people from taking their inventions and processes to the grave with them. Now, a book will turn to dust before its copyright expires.

The original idea of copyright was good and if implimented correctly would work, and be a good thing. What we have now doesn't and isn't.

I am, however, adamantly opposed to plagairists. There must be a hundred copies of my Quake cheats out there, none with any attribution at all. I hate it. The idea that I gave work away for free and others take it, call it their own and profit from it (ads) pisses me off no end.

-mcgrew (I give my stuff away BTW. MRC="candidly" and damn it's hard to read!)

Bush Comment in sig

[miller701]

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Do you have a source for this?

Mods

[sgt scrub]

Then can we expect this type of item http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vga+to+dvi+co nverter&btnG=Google+Search to be considered a "mod"?

I think the primary requirment for a perfect capitolist society is, "Keep consumers ignorant." When something conflicts with the directive then pass laws to force compliance. It looks like the boss will have to keep passing laws. Well, until they start teaching ID in schools.

Movie studios could do this, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have to do is upgrade movie theaters to use super high resolution projectors. They could make a presentation that is literally impossible to reproduce in the home, and would look so fabulous that people would gladly pay to actually come to the theater.

You know...provide a value add. This has happened before, when tv's first came out they were made in the 4:3 aspect ratio to replicate the movies. So the movies moved to 16:9 (or whatever).

Simple. What was the problem again?

Lee

I want a computer

[NitsujTPU]

I don't want another television. I don't want another piece of garbage delivering media content to me. Some of us, in this world, want to do work on our computers, and don't want to pay for a bunch of equipment to that takes away our rights.

What next? Shall I pay you to punch me in the face?

Re:I want a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

What next? Shall I pay you to punch me in the face?

I wish. That's been outsourced too!

"HRW Exposes CIA's 'Dark Prison' in Afghanistan"
http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=128960

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[c9a9t]

I used to have that problem at lots of sites but I find it rarely happens using elinks, Dillo or Opera (at least in Debian or FreeBSD). It is a bit surprising at /. though...

I doubt it

[penguin-collective]

That's an important distinction because nothing in these locked up media systems prevents the creation of alternative liberally licensed media: there is no "toll collector" aspect to it I can see.

That's not how it is going to work in practice. DRM technologies, connectors, and protocols used by these new systems are patented; people will have to license them and get keys in order to publish stuff for free, only the cost will be so high that publishing free content won't make much sense.

What the RIAA and MPAA really fear is not piracy, it's open source-like competition. In fact, high quality free content is already eating into their profits.

quite right, and one more point

[penguin-collective]

Your analysis is quite right: you will not be able to create open content without paying for patent licenses and keys (directly or indirectly).

Additionally, however, one should be aware that this is likely no accident: the RIAA and MPAA members are probably more concerned about new competitors entering the market and the distribution of open content than about piracy. So, while the ostensible goal of DRM is to curb privacy, it is ultimately more about creating barriers to entry.

What?

[jgoemat]

Why is this marked interesting? It has nothing to do with the story, nor is it all that interesting. The document is 'Uniform Driver Interface', it has to do with creating drivers that will run on multiple variants of Unix with little or no changes. The only thing it has to do with this story is that the acronym UDI is the same as for the device in the story, UDI (Unified Display Interface). Plus this document is from early 2001, it isn't even the same SCO. This document has people listed from old SCO, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. This is from before Caldera bought UnixWARE from Santa Cruz, from 18 months before they hired Darl McBride, and from two years before they starting suing people and changed their name to SCO.

Re:What?

[Animats]

You're right.

The original article had a link to the wrong "UDI" spec. That's been fixed, after some previous comments on it being wrong.

Re:New /. design to break non-IE browsers with pop

[jZnat]

Adblocking stylesheets are so 2003. :P

(i.e. I remember doing that a couple years ago; before that was disabling JavaScript for certain sites to nullify .js ads)

A possible alternative copyright framework

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

However, if we accept the idea of copyright, particularly as a social contract, what recourse do you suggest when one side breaks their part of the social contract?

I think it would have to depend on the way it was broken, and the damage to the other party.

For someone who's paying for the content, for example, there's a huge difference between burning a compilation CD of your favourite tracks and giving them to your SO, and putting the whole album on a high-bandwidth P2P link and advertising it. The penalties involved should be enough to compensate the copyright holder and to act as a deterrent, but should be proportionate to the real damage caused.

I think the other way around is more black and white, because copyright holders basically either supply an unencumbered version of their content in exchange for whatever compensation is agreed, or they do something that's going to limit long-term freedom or various fair uses for pretty much everyone getting the content. In the latter case, a simple court order to provide an unencumbered version should always suffice to fix any damage, as long as this is realistically accessible to the general public so that people don't feel that it's easier to just go out and spend more money on a new copy (profiting the copyright holder at the expense of the public). Of course, copyright holders might devise new ways to respect fair use while still distributing DRM'd content, and combined with some sort of escrow to guarantee that the content can't remain locked up once the copyright protection expires, that might present a mutually acceptably alternative.

Incidentally, I think it's worth saying here that I don't think copyright should be used to protect everything from being copied. I believe that some things should be protected by separate, more tightly targetted, and more restrictive provisions, partly because not everything is about money, and partly to avoid any arguments for increasing copyright universally because of these special cases. Some examples that come immediately to mind are:

1. "official secrets" type legislation, where for genuine security reasons it may be necessary to prevent copying the material for a long time or to avoid the usual safeguards about escrow;
2. private communications, where IMHO for ethical reasons, a private communication from one individual to another should never be disclosed without the consent of the author (at least for as long as the author remains within living memory);
3. the question of balancing the importance of freedom of speech with the need to protect the vulnerable, and whether it should ever be legal to copy some types of material by default -- I question whether there is any need to distribute kiddie porn other than for crime fighting or, just possibly, very restricted academic or journalistic purposes, for example.

In each of these cases, I see no compelling public interest in copying the information, and a good reason for keeping the material restricted effectively forever (where the meaning of "forever" depends on the nature of the information and the damage that might be done by its general circulation).

You seem to be suggesting that it'd be OK to circumvent DRM on works that would be out of copyright, but not those that are newer and should expect the protection of copyright. The original "now it's ON" poster is saying that he feels that it's acceptable, in light of big media's violation of the social contract, to retaliate. How do you feel about that idea? Is it ever OK to break your side of the social contract?

Well, there are several independent questions there, I think.

As to the DRM issue, my take on it is that if the DRM prevents any fair use, it shouldn't be allowed, or the law should compel the copyright holder to facilitate that fair use in some reasonable way. On the other hand, if the DRM stops someone illegally distributing the content on a wide scale but

The DRM chain's weakest link?

[istartedi]

Tubes are on the way out. Will there be encryption key exchange between an LCD panel and the player, with the LCD panel containing a fully integrated encryption engine? Then what?

I can see somebody taking an array of fiber-optic cables and making a grid with the same resolution as the LCD, and capturing signal that way. I'd actually like to see that, just for the pure artistry of it.

When, oh when, will sanity come back to intellectual property. Somewhere between the GNU zealots who want everything to be free, and the corporate nazis who want you to spend 20 years in prison for downloading 5 minutes of music without permission, there must be sanity.

Entry Barrier

[nurb432]

So, one can assume that the barrier of entry to produce equipment or content that is compliant will be so high as to squeeze out the little guy.

Sure, its optional today. Tomorrow it wont be. Is everyone blind and cant see the 'creep' that is taking place?

you know, I'm glad

[briancnorton]

As I look at the back of my home theater, I see 35 cables required to hook up this nonsense. It's about time that SOMEBODY gets together to figure out and promote a simple, high quality way to hook up AV gear. You all can bitch and moan about how consumers don't want DRM, but I can tell you that I, as a consumer DO want just 1 freaking cable per device.

But then again, I don't steal music and movies ;-)

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[SeaFox]

The only advantage I can see the new, expensive HD format has over the current DVD, is higher resolution. None of the previous very compelling reasons to upgrade apply. A conventional DVD played back on a big screen TV is plenty good enough for most consumers.

I'm curious at what point will the reselling of content in a new format will be worthless to consumers. People replaced their analog VHS for digital DVD because of the extras and teh new hotness of digitally restored higher picture quality.

But how much sharper can it be made? Isn't there a point where the content providers will have no more detail to wring out of the original 70mm film. Is there enough resolution to make a worthwhile HD release of older films or will consumers have to upgrade and rebuy simply because electronic manufactures will adopt some new format that (convienently) is not backwards compatable with the old media?

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[arminw]

.....People replaced their analog VHS for digital DVD because of the extras....

Convenience and ease of use are usually the bigger reason to upgrade to a technology that is basically the same as its predecessor. Vinyl LP and CDs both convey prerecorded music. For most listeners the quality difference between the two was not the deciding factor, but ease of use, portability and much smaller storage space needed for a given amount of music. We are seeing these same factors again in the runaway popularity of the ipod digital music players. However this time " buy all your music again" gravy train left the recording industry in the station, because most users of these new devices are re-coding the music they have already bought into the new format themselves.

For video, the VCR quality was and still is sufficient for most consumers, but again the convenience of random access and smaller form factor is what persuaded the great majority of users to switch to DVDs. The HD format doesn't bring any of these compelling incentives to switch and just as you said, most existing material in the vaults is not that much superior in sharpness than the existing DVDs already provide. The new video iPods and other small video players along with easy to use software, like iTunes, will again foster convenient means by which consumers will be able to transfer content they have already bought on DVD or VCR to these.

  Current copyright laws allows users to do this. The DMCA and DRM and any other laws the media companies might bribe the polititians to pass, will not be able to stop this. No law can nor ever has prevented people from getting what they want. Write your Congress persons to not vote in laws that are useless anyway and make it artificially more difficult for everyone to enjoy the content they have already paid hard earned money to the movie companies for.

Then what was the reason for the Bono Act?

[tepples]

Do you really believe the majority of copyright violators are merely downloading "Steamboat Willie" or other such material that would do no harm to anyone if publicly released? Not likely, but rather they are downloading movies before they hit the theaters and new music by the disk-full. If I were a content producer I would be upset about it too.

It doesn't make sense. If the major publishers of proprietary works of entertainment were primarily upset about infringement of copyright in works first published in the past five years, then why did they lobby for laws that affect Steamboat Willie and (more importantly) thousands of works whose copyright owner cannot be located through any reasonable amount of investigation?

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

People who deliberately seek out bar bands, dinner theater actors, and street magicians for their entertainment always have been able to, and always will be able to.

That's where the RIAA has such a big advantage. In Fort Wayne, Indiana, for instance, concerts put on by acts not signed to an RIAA label are usually held in an area that serves so many alcoholic drinks that by law, minors can't get in the door. How can independent bands promote their recordings to high school students and college underclassmen?

Re:Go away, you're not 21

[ScentCone]

That's where the RIAA has such a big advantage. In Fort Wayne, Indiana, for instance, concerts put on by acts not signed to an RIAA label are usually held in an area that serves so many alcoholic drinks that by law, minors can't get in the door. How can independent bands promote their recordings to high school students and college underclassmen?

Um... spend money to book facilities where they don't serve alcohol? Or, work with a business partner to help promote their music... you know, like a record label? It's almost as if those people do it professionally or something! If you want big exposure, you usually pay the price of having another party involved - someone who knows advertising (and can buy it at good rates), etc. Or, you can do all of that yourself, and have almost no time to make new music. People who want to thrive, financially, in that world, realize that there's a reason every area of activity is specialized. Concert and recording promotion is one of those specialties.

Slashdot is in the USA

[tepples]

That only applies in the US.

And in Australia. And in European states that have "properly" implemented the EU Copyright Directive. Besides, you're posting on Slashdot, which is operated and hosted in the United States, and the laws in question restrict importing as much as manufacture.

This has to be attached to WTO membership of course.

It already is: TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

Video game consoles

[tepples]

In theory, this closes the analog hole. In practice, you're right: it takes only one person to crack the thing (whether through the "physical hole" of pointing a camera at a monitor or via an illegal DRM-free device) and release it on P2P to make it universally available.

In practice on Slashdot, the term "analog hole" includes the camcorder method. Some of the doom-and-gloom prophets that visit this site like to discuss what the Congress could potentially do to the market for high-definition camcorders at the direction of MPAA studios.

I wouldn't expect them to try to require devices to play only tagged items.

PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube, Nintendo DS, PSP, Xbox 360...

If they do, they'd have to authorize a number of content providers, and with that many copies of the key running around the pirates would certainly be able to get a hold of one.

Unless the set-top box maker controls all media replication. This is exactly the case in the video game console market.

and if the new hi-res DVDs weren't far too big to share on 99.999% of the world's internet connections.

Scratch a couple nines off that figure once fiber to the premises becomes more widespread. Remember that even VHS/VCD quality movies were once too big to transfer over home connections.

Personally, I expect that they're going to try to get rid of standard CDs (breaking backwards compatibility) and sell things only using a new, heavily DRMed, standard.

They could do it tomorrow by releasing a title exclusively on DVD Audio with Windows Media managed copy. Discs would have three folders (AUDIO_TS for DVD Audio players, VIDEO_TS for DVD Video players and computers, and WMA for PlaysForSure compatible handheld audio players). But at this point, the major record labels aren't likely to switch because of the incredible installed base of CDDA players, especially those owned by people who do not have a recently manufactured Windows PC.

DVD needed a new monitor

[tepples]

You don't need a new monitor to access current content (DVDs).

When DVD Video first came out, a lot of people needed to buy a new TV monitor because DVD players only had composite outputs and too many TVs only had RF inputs. The hack of running it through a VCR, which had worked with video game consoles, did not work through many VCRs because unlike game consoles[1], DVD Video players output a Macrovision signal, and affected VCRs applied automatic gain control all the time, not just during recording[2], distorting the video signal. Though dedicated RF modulators work to convert the signals, most dedicated RF modulators that were available in retail chains at the time had inputs only in a proprietary form factor, namely that of the PlayStation or Nintendo AV output, not the industry-standard RCA shape. So yes, one often did have to buy a new TV monitor with a composite or S-video input in order to watch DVD Video.

[1] Video game consoles prior to the PlayStation 2 were not capable of outputting Macrovision signals. The PS2 was also the first console to play DVD Video.

[2] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, enacted in October 1998 after DVD Video was first introduced in the United States but before DVD Video became popular, specified that all VCRs marketed to residential end users must apply automatic gain control while recording.