Slashdot Mirror


DRM and the Myth of the Analog Hole

Art Grimm writes "Movie studios want to punish legitimate customers for legally purchasing content, while the real pirates go right on stealing. ZDNet's George Ou writes: "There seems to be a persistent myth floating around the board rooms of the movie companies and Congress that analog content is the boogie man of music and video piracy. In fact, they're so paranoid about it that they're considering a mechanism called ICT (Image Constraint Token) that punishes law-abiding customers for content that they legally purchased. But ironically, the real content pirates who make millions of bootleg movies have no intention of ever taking advantage of the so called "analog hole" because that is the slowest and lowest quality method of stealing content.""

314 comments

  1. Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know what research the author of TFA has done on bootleg DVDs, but I've seen a few a friend brought back from Thailand.

    The ones that hit the street before even the US release of the DVD are either from a video camera in the theater or from copying a screener. Often you can see the screener warnings while watching the movie.

    Additionally, to serve an Asian market, many have had additional Asian subtitles added and then were recompressed, causing quality to diminish.

    Bit-by-bit copies are fine and good in theory, but that's for discs already in release, serving the languages for which the discs already have subtitles or alternative soundtracks. But by then, there's already been a brisk trade in bootlegs those films.

    Yes, the analog hole is inefficient and not the best way to copy something. It's merely an example of how a determined pirate can still get around most DRM. It's like protecting graphics on the web. You can disable right clicking, do odd things with MIME types, etc. But in the end, all someone needs to do is capture the screen and crop out the image.

    Long and short, DRM and copy protection stops casual copiers. But dedicated copiers, if left with no other alternative, still have the analog hole as a last resort. And once one dedicated copier puts something on the file sharing nets...

    1. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by vmardian · · Score: 1

      >> The ones that hit the street before even the US release of the DVD are either from a video camera in the theater or from copying a screener. Often you can see the screener warnings while watching the movie.

      Movies hit DVDs so fast these days that most of the bootlegs in China and Malaysia are sourced directly from DVD releases. I'll estimate that 15% are from video cameras in the theatre.

      --
      PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
    2. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by stanmann · · Score: 0
      The ones that hit the street before even the US release of the DVD are either from a video camera in the theater or from copying a screener.
      And just in case the story poster missed it, HERE IS YOUR ANALOG HOLE. WIDE OPEN, AND USED BY PIRATES WORLD WIDE!!!

      Yeah, once the DVD is out, there are better ways, but 0 day movie releases almost always exploit "the analog hole" in some way.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    3. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by DewDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everything has been said about movies that can be said. But i've noticed everyone is kinda focusing on DVD's and movies still in theaters. In some ways..the analog hole is being closed in the HD world. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players aren't going to include componet video output and the newer HDTV componets are abandoning componet as well, per FCC ruling, going exclusively to HDMI and DVI connections. Which not only has a LOT of HDTV owners up in arms because our sets are going to be completely useless, but does in a way close the analog hole in the HDTV world. Then again, it's only a matter of time before someone makes a converter. However, the audio world is the one place i continue to see an analog hole exist. SACD and DVD-Audio players use analog outputs rather than optical or coaxial digital signals to carry thier audio to the reciever. Analog audio is good quality, let's not forget we live in an analog world..our eyes and ears process analog. The main problem in the piracy world is taking advantage of this hole properly, which many won't do because of the time and expense involved. I'm an audio engineer, I quite honestly find audio Cd's quite lacking in the sound game. The whole audio and DRM thing has come up before, along with discussions of the analog hole. The problem with the hole in the audio world is the equipment is almost good enough to capture an analog source with virturally no noticable loss of signal. It was even brought up a few times that record companies go back to distributing on vinyl to prevent piracy, it MIGHT work comsidering few people have the capability to properly record vinyl. It still boils down to someone will find a way..even if you've got someone with clip-leads in the back of a TV set reading the raw RGB being sent to the projectors (at least until we abandon CRT technolgy)..the methods will keep getting more creative..and the quality may or may not in As far as movie theaters..that's a losing game. Cameras keep getting smaller and smaller and more hidden in everday objects. Even if you place IR emitters around the screen to "overpower" the brightness of the screen in video carmera...a simple IR filter fixes that. So, in the myth of the analog hole...i couldn't call it busted..and i wouldn't quite call it confirmed as quality issue is there..but i'd diffently call it plausable.

    4. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Feel free to correct me, but I thought that bit copy isn't possible on CDs and DVDs due to the nature of the medium and error correction, and that some copy protection schemes use the bad sectors on the original so that if it sees bad sectors on the copy that are different, it won't play.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Additionally, to serve an Asian market, many have had additional Asian subtitles added and then were recompressed, causing quality to diminish.

      Are you sure we're talking about DVD still? With the DVD I know, subtitles are stored completely separately from the video.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    6. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      I thought that bit copy isn't possible on CDs and DVDs

      Try this; http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like protecting graphics on the web. You can disable right clicking, do odd things with MIME types, etc. But in the end, all someone needs to do is capture the screen and crop out the image.

      You will now be sued by every website for aiding and abetting the pirates...

    8. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like protecting graphics on the web. You can disable right clicking, do odd things with MIME types, etc. But in the end, all someone needs to do is capture the screen and crop out the image.

      Or look in their browser cache, of course. If you don't want people to have the image, why is your web server sending it to anyone who asks for it? (Even if it's sent with no-cache headers, all of that stuff is client-enforced... or client-ignored.)

    9. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Part of why they recompress (and strip out extras and other stuff) is because most DVDs are dual layer. Its significantly cheaper for the priate to recompress it to fit on a single layer blank than it is to produce a bit-for-bit copy on a dual layer disk.

    10. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      True, at least for the first part. In the world of low-budget audio CD recording, after mixing and mastering you'll get one or two "master" copies of your CD. Then you treat that CD like god on a disk and send that specific copy out for replication. What you don't do is burn a few copies for yourself and your friends, give the master to your mom, burn another copy from your copy, shit on it, and send that CD off for pressing.

      Point being, CD data still degrades with time and duplication.

    11. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Are you sure we're talking about DVD still? With the DVD I know, subtitles are stored completely separately from the video.

      And pirates might take the quick and dirty approach and overdub subtitles on the video stream. Simpler than tacking on real subtitles.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by valshaq · · Score: 2, Informative

      But when your system is completely DRMified, this won't be possible anymore.
      Any non-complying application will be unable to be started.
      Booting an alternative system will be unable to access the content you even have in your IEs cache because it's heavily encrypted.
      That's what "Trusted" means.
      Systems not "trusted" will not be able to fetch that "content" anymore, naturally.

    13. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Long and short, DRM and copy protection stops casual copiers. But dedicated copiers, if left with no other alternative, still have the analog hole as a last resort. And once one dedicated copier puts something on the file sharing nets... ...it will be more convenient to download the pirated version of the film than to buy it in a store and jump through whatever hoops they want you to jump through in order to get it to play. Video games reached this point a few years ago - there are lots of people who go out and buy a game, then download a pirated version (or just a crack) so they can play it without all the anti-piracy crap.

      Steve Jobs touched on this issue when he introduced the iTunes Music Store. Apple understands that in order to make money selling music, they have to make it significantly less hassle to buy it legally than to pirate it. The MPAA hasn't figured this out yet.

      I don't watch very much TV, so I have no interest in paying for cable or satelite TV. However, I really like The Daily Show. I used to pirate it via BitTorrent, but then SuprNova got shut down, then another torrent site got shut down, TVTorrents doesn't seem to have new episodes posted on a regular basis, the P2P networks I've looked at are unreliable and slow and don't usually have new episodes... there are probably other places I could look, but it's just a pain in the ass. So when Apple announced they would be selling a monthly subscription, I jumped at the chance to throw money at them. Why? Because it's significantly easier than pirating. It's not perfect yet (iTMS MultiPass isn't as smooth and seamless as Podcasts are), but it's not a pain in the ass.

      I don't have much money to spend on entertainment right now. If you want any of it, you have to give me something I want for a price I think is reasonable without being obnoxious about it. Period.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    14. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And pirates might take the quick and dirty approach and overdub subtitles on the video stream. Simpler than tacking on real subtitles
      Simpler, and for languages that don't use a latin alphabet, you can at least be sure that every DVD player can show the subtitles properly. The realy cheap DVD players bought in those countries often don't have local language support.
    15. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of why they recompress (and strip out extras and other stuff) is because most DVDs are dual layer. Its significantly cheaper for the priate to recompress it to fit on a single layer blank than it is to produce a bit-for-bit copy on a dual layer disk.

      One thing which often gets overlooked by the "industry" (and associated press) is that to the majority of viewers "quality" comes a long way behind availability. There are plenty of people who will quite happily watch a VHS recording full of dropout recorded from poor quality broadcast.

    16. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Mprx · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're doing it wrong. It's 100% possible to get bit identical copies of audio CDs. Use correctly configured good CD ripping software such as Exact Audio Copy and a high quality drive, and there is no generational loss. I've tested this myself, and the CDRs rip to bit identical wavs to the original CDs. (The error correction isn't guaranteed bit identical, but it gets regenerated each generation, so it doesn't matter).

    17. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed that ICT will not do anything for the "screener" analog hole?

      Gosh, how idiotic can you guys get?

      ICT is supposed to protect DVDs for god's sake, not theatre screens, you don't use a camera to get a screener out of your TV...

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    18. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

      "Bit-by-bit copies are fine and good in theory, but that's for discs already in release, serving the languages for which the discs already have subtitles or alternative soundtracks. But by then, there's already been a brisk trade in bootlegs those films."

      Not true. I sit in Thailand now, where guesthouses play pirated DVDs on a daily basis. Usually, the guesthouses leave the English subtitles on, so those the who want to watch the movie can hear over the conversation of the people who don't.

      Unless the movies are really old ("The Last Emperor" and "Amadeus" were perfect), the subtitles are APPALLING. On almost every single one, there are TONS of errors. And these are public-release-DVD rips. They have full DVD menus and no screener warnings.

      My favourite mistake is from "Memoirs of a Geisha", where at one point, according to the subtitles, the lead actress says, "I was a famous truck." I don't remember the real line, but it sure as hell wasn't that. I'm pretty sure the real line didn't contain a single one of those words.

      A couple of times other times, I remember thinking "The subtitle guy watched this with the Chinese subtitles on, and translated them with Babelfish." The words were all correct, but the grammar was jumbled straight to hell, and if they had actually listened to the movie, there was no way that they could possibly think that that was what the actors were saying.

      The pirated DVDs I've seen generally have more subtitle options than the real thing too. The ones I've picked up in Northern Laos have had at least English and Chinese, with most of them also having Thai, German and French.

      It seems like the pirates are paying an "interpreter" to sit down with the Chinese version of the movie and scrawl down whatever the hell they think the actors are saying. Sometimes when the actors are speaking quickly, or using obscure idioms, the subtitles just stop altogether.

      It's quite an interesting "industry".

    19. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      and for languages that don't use a latin alphabet, you can at least be sure that every DVD player can show the subtitles properly.

      You can be sure of that anyway. DVD subtitles are bitmaps, not characters that need to be rendered.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    20. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Novus · · Score: 1

      Aren't DVD subtitles stored as images anyway, making font availability and coding irrelevant? A quick search turns up a page describing the DVD subtitle format.

    21. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I have seen quite a few of those pre-release copies. They are sold in broad daylight in street markets all around my country. For 5 Euro, you can buy 3 movies.

      In my opinion, they are not worth it. Usually, image sucks, you can see people standing and hear people laughing during the movie. Most of the time, the sound is out of sync with the image, making it a pain to watch. I could never stand to watch more than 10 minutes of any of such movies.

      € 5,00 for 3 movies is really cheap, may sound tempting, but for me, it's not only wasting money, but wasting time. I can't see why people buy such crap.

    22. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by rikkards · · Score: 1
      Which not only has a LOT of HDTV owners up in arms because our sets are going to be completely useless, but does in a way close the analog hole in the HDTV world.

      That is one of the risks people have taken buying a bleeding edge TV before Blu-Ray and HD-DVD came out. But I heard (I believe on here) that Component video will be available for one if not both formats.
    23. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by jaiyen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm in Thailand too, and agree the subtitles are next-to-useless. It's not just the English subtitles either, the Thai subtitles are just as bad. They seem to have been run through an automatic translator and left at that. E.g. a guy who's been shot shouts out "I'm not going to make it!", which is translated as "I probably will not continue doing it!" . Mind you, I guess you can't really expect perfect translation for 100B a disk.

      Have a look at this blog entry I came across too about the situation in China, funny stuff - http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2005/03/23 /closer-subtitle-surrealism

    24. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by dikkyboy · · Score: 1

      THE BIGGEST ANALOG HOLE EVER When i watch a film i can actually recored it in my head by burning synaptic pathways. I can replay bits when ever I like and can actually describe bits of the film to friends. Its a real DRM nightmare for the studios I can tell you.

    25. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "screener" refers to the preview DVD sent to movie critics and others in the media.

      The pirated movies from cameras in the theater are typically called "cams" or "telesync". Many times you can even get the projection booth techs in on it, or they ARE the pirate, and you can get the cam mounted IN the booth with audio piped from the projector to the camera.

      CAM's are the analog hole, yes, and it takes some work to get the projection framerate converted to match up with NTSC/PAL. Unmatched framerates result in dim and flickery bootleg movies, who wants to watch that?

      And there's the issue of the audio... many times the audio is recorded via other means than the camera and it's synced up later - because the microphones on the camcorder are lame, or would pick up the people around the pirate. They'll place a audio recorder, either mp3, minidisc, etc, near a speaker.

      Yeah, it's a lot of work to produce a good quality bootleg movie, but you only gotta do it once, and then EVERYBODY gets a copy. And then you get the cred.

    26. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      And just in case the story poster missed it, HERE IS YOUR ANALOG HOLE. WIDE OPEN, AND USED BY PIRATES WORLD WIDE!!!

      I thought you were going to post a link to the Goatse.cx guy with a sentence like that. Anyway, what stops people from still going into a theater with a video camera? They're getting smaller and smaller and harder to detect. Putting complex DRM or analog-crippling output on a DVD isn't going to stop people from doing that.

    27. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long ago did you have to buy an HDTV to not have DVI or HDMI included in the set?

      And please don't start another damn war over Analog v. Digital in the audio world. If it is done right digital audio sounds as good or better then analog. I cannot stop saying how annoying those pops and cracks that come with analog are. Not to mention that most analog media is harder to keep "healthy" over the long haul then most digital medias.

      Btw, What the heck is an audio engineer? Is that the fancy term for a high end salesperson? or one of those degrees from Devry?

    28. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you got the shit deal; it's not like that elsewhere.
      I have seen a CAM movie the day BEFORE it was released in the US, in english, good quality and nobody talking. The theatre seemed to be empty, and it was crisp+clear. It was hard to tell apart from a normal dvd. The dvd producer had even put a makeshift DVD-menu on it.
      The 'analog hole' is the best way for a pirate to get zero-day movies. Me, I just wait for DVD release a few weeks or a month later, and get a DVDrip.

    29. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      How about using a kind of photographic printing process? Detect pits and lands on master disc using laser. Cut out pits corresponding to lands, leaving lands corresponding to pits, in metal stamper. Stamp out pattern of pits and lands in plastic blanks. Metallise stamped surface. Add protective layer.

      You don't need to crack any encryption, much less touch an analogue signal. This method is obviously only good for large runs .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    30. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      Yes, component video will be availble on both formats. I don't know about blu-ray but HD-DVD does give the studio the OPTION to reduce the resolution. Even if the studio enables this option you will see something around 720 lines (better than the 480 lines of DVD). I'm looking to the HD formats more for data storage than video. This is because I have my DVD system hooked up to a 20 inch TV with a Composite connection.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    31. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      THE BIGGEST ANALOG HOLE EVER When i watch a film i can actually recored it in my head by burning synaptic pathways. I can replay bits when ever I like and can actually describe bits of the film to friends. Its a real DRM nightmare for the studios I can tell you.

      Don't worry. They're working on it. When the Memory Rights Management system comes out, all your memories are belong to them.

    32. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by BVis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Analog audio is good quality, let's not forget we live in an analog world..our eyes and ears process analog. The main problem in the piracy world is taking advantage of this hole properly, which many won't do because of the time and expense involved. I'm an audio engineer, I quite honestly find audio Cd's quite lacking in the sound game.
      Now that I've listened to DVD-Audio and SACD, I agree that CDs are lacking. But you're an audio engineer and I'm an uptight elitist asshole, and we represent a very very very small percentage of the market. Most of the great unwashed couldn't give two shits about the quality of the experience they're having; they care that it's cheap and loud. When consumers begin to adopt HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray, most of them will buy the inevitable converters to plug them into their older HDTVs (because they're used to having to buy extra stuff, since they don't understand or don't care about how to do things the way they're engineered), thus incurring the "analog hole" penalty, and either won't notice the difference or won't care. Thus the DRM doesn't have a negative effect on sales, even though the consumer is getting a quarter of the quality they're paying for.
      It was even brought up a few times that record companies go back to distributing on vinyl to prevent piracy, it MIGHT work comsidering few people have the capability to properly record vinyl.
      The key word there is "properly". People will go back to using their old-fashioned cassette decks, or capture the output in some other way that's been around since the 70's. There's a marked loss of sound quality, but again, people either don't notice or don't care.
       
      IMHO this is the most important factor in trying to fight onerous DRM: The average consumer's complete apathy towards and/or ignorance of the drawbacks of the technology.
      As far as movie theaters..that's a losing game.
      And now we've hit on the REAL cause of theater revenues dropping in recent years. People used to like going to the movies. They paid a few bucks, got a decent seat, some popcorn, STFU'd, and watched the movie on a big screen. Now, you pay an arm and a leg, get a plastic seat, pay the other arm and leg for popcorn (or risked ejection by bringing your own snacks), yack yack yack incessantly throughout the movie (either to their companions or their cell phones), and watch the movie on some screen that probably has been completely poorly maintained, if at all, and listen to sound on blown out K-Mart quality speakers. Even the bigwigs at the MPAA have admitted that the poor theater experience contributes to the loss of revenues they're seeing. (There are exceptions to this experience; I saw V for Vendetta on opening weekend in a "premium cinema" near where I live. It's expensive, sure, but not all that much more than a regular theater, and when you factor in that the popcorn is free, the seats are leather, you have 2 of your own armrests, a pull-out tray table, and a full bar in the lobby that allows you to bring drinks into the theater, not to mention the THX spec sound an video, it's a fucking bargain.
      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    33. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by computechnica · · Score: 1

      You can always use a HD camera to capture it straight from the screen. Of course there is already a

    34. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      When consumers begin to adopt HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray, most of them will buy the inevitable converters to plug them into their older HDTVs (because they're used to having to buy extra stuff, since they don't understand or don't care about how to do things the way they're engineered), thus incurring the "analog hole" penalty, and either won't notice the difference or won't care.

      That reminds me of my parents. When they subscribed to DirecTV, they had their receiver connected to the TV through the analog coax input (having to tune the TV to channel 3 to view their satellite channels). I properly connected it for them using the component inputs and they were impressed with how much the quality improved. I saw V for Vendetta on opening weekend in a "premium cinema" near where I live.

      What city? I'm trying to find a theatre nearby that offers premium seats. For as often as I go to the movies, I'd gladly pay a little more and get nice seats and good sound. One of my favorite cinema experiences was seeing the 2nd Xmen movie at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. When I was living in LA, I would often see a lot of movies at the same theatres wheir their premiers were shown. There are a lot of nice old fashioned theatres in LA that are very well maintained and provide an excellent movie experience.

    35. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I always thought that's how the professional bootleggers did it. They just stamped out the copies, just like the authorized distributors.

      --
      What?
    36. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by danwhalley · · Score: 1

      >Steve Jobs touched on this issue when he introduced the iTunes Music Store. Apple understands that in order to make money selling music, they have to make it significantly less hassle to buy it legally than to pirate it. The MPAA hasn't figured this out yet.

      erm... anyone know how I can copy music which I legally own from my ipod onto my pc? oh yeah... that's right I have to hack it!!!

    37. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by BVis · · Score: 1

      I'm out in the MetroWest area of Massachusetts; the theater in question is an AMC in Framingham, attached to the multiplex on Flutie Pass. (Yes, that's really the name of the street.)

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    38. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by shmlco · · Score: 1

      The music on your iPod should already be on your PC. And on a backup drive.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    39. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      I tried to RTFA, but I couldn't get past the second sentence. I'm not sure how to parse, "In fact they're so paranoid about it that they're considering a mechanism called ICT (Image Constraint Token) that punishes law-abiding customers for content that they legally purchased," in english. I think that the author is misusing punish and leaving out some important words, but I can't be sure. Is he trying to say that hollywood is punishing consumers with lousy movies? Or maybe it's that consumers are being punished for buying those lousy movies?

      What's up with all the poorly written articles being posted to /. lately? The one about Lenovo being investigated is almost unintelligible.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    40. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...someone should really write a shareware or freeware program that allows you to copy music off your iPod onto your hard drive. You'd think with all the people with iPods, someone would have thought to write software like that.

    41. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Guiness17 · · Score: 1

      Here here. Fully agree on the 'obnoxious' thing.

      There are several retailers, small and large, that I avoid because I feel this way.

      --
      Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
    42. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is one thing I don't get when they're talking about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, and downsampling anything playing on the wrong monitor or whatnot.

      Pirates don't give a shit about quality, they'll downsample it themselves to save on storage and bandwidth. Even now that DVD burners are pretty ubiquitous, most files are still swapped with an upper cap of 700mb to burn on a regular CD, and I don't see that changing anytime soon - a 700mb divx rip is quite "good enough" - going to 4.7GB doesn't buy you that much and the files take a lot more time to download. Quality-wise, most new releases are only available as camcorder rips from a theater... it's obvious these people aren't concerned about high-def.

      You'd think that they'd be smart enough to look at this and realize AVAILABILITY is the main motivator for piracy, not QUALITY, but all their DRM solutions are designed to protect quality at the expense of availability. Idiots, the lot of them.

    43. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      How is your music on your iPod and not your PC. iPods are only meant to mirror the music you have in iTunes. Without any hacking the only music on your iPod is music you already have on your PC.

      Anything else?

    44. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by crashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A digital SPDIF out is built into 99% of DVD players, most of which play regular ol' audio CD's. Since a PC has been determined by the courts to NOT be a recording device (the RIAA vs. lost the MP3 Players case), so SCMS is not an issue, the SPDIF out looks to be a yawning Digital Hole, although digital capture would be limited to a 1X speed. SPDIF to USB anyone? I'm sure there are some cheap (under $70) USB Audio Adapters that will enable SPDIF CD ripping from a DVD player ... in fact, a cheap cable that's just SPDIF-to-USB has been a dream of mine --- truly a RipCord (TM, I hope soon). I'm a software guy - otherwise I'd create this thing ... any volunteers in the hardware world? We will all be grateful to you for the death of ALL audio CD copy protection.

    45. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      One thing which often gets overlooked by the "industry" (and associated press) is that to the majority of viewers "quality" comes a long way behind availability. There are plenty of people who will quite happily watch a VHS recording full of dropout recorded from poor quality broadcast.
    46. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      Oops, lets try that again. I'd just copied a quote and was about to start writing my comment when I hit the submit button. D'oh!
      One thing which often gets overlooked by the "industry" (and associated press) is that to the majority of viewers "quality" comes a long way behind availability. There are plenty of people who will quite happily watch a VHS recording full of dropout recorded from poor quality broadcast.

      Personally, what I like about movies is solid acting, plot, and direction. These can come through on any recording from high definition video through a barely watchable overly compressed copy. Unless it is something I really want to see right away with the full big-screen experience, all the bells and whistles in the world won't make that much difference for me.

      So when you say "quality" you need to be specific, you mean "media quality" or "image/sound quality", because to me a large portion of a film's overall quality is something technology won't substantially impact. Compare some of the great classic films, their images projected onto today's screens, and the images are grainy, color is black & white or sometimes oversaturated where it does exist, sound is thin, but they still stand up as great films.

    47. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Now that I've listened to DVD-Audio and SACD, I agree that CDs are lacking. But you're an audio engineer and I'm an uptight elitist asshole, and we represent a very very very small percentage of the market."

      And you are reasonable too. An even smaller part of the market. :)

      CD's aren't any worse for most people-because aside from preferring convienence, they CAN'T hear the difference. I mean how many double blind tests show differences between an identical recording on all three mediums (except for the bit rate)? I suspect most releases for SACD and DVD-audio are probably remastered to a significant degree. Add that to the fact that most people are easily fooled when they WANT to believe something is better.

      Some people do hear real differences. But most only THINK they do.

    48. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're an audio engineer and I'm an uptight elitist asshole, and we represent a very very very small percentage of the market. Most of the great unwashed couldn't give two shits about the quality of the experience they're having; they care that it's cheap and loud.

      You might be surprised. The problem isn't that nobody cares about quality.

      I took my gf to listen to speakers (at a small hi-fi store -- no Bose here). She was a little surprised that she really could hear the difference in quality among the speakers. But when it comes right down to it, she's not going to spend $4000 on a pair of speakers.

      The more you pay, the more you get. Unfortunately, to get the next increment in quality, you have to pay significantly more money. For speakers, $4000 is beyond the sweet spot for most people. And anything beyond CDs is beyond the sweet spot, too. SACD is great, but do I want to regularly pay twice as much for something that will only be heard differently on one of my CD players? Nah.

      Or look at it this way: the difference in price between a good performance of a piece and a lousy performance of a piece may well be 2x or more -- similar to the CD/SACD price differential. I'd rather have a good-quality recording of an excellent performance, than an excellent-quality recording of a mediocre performance. And the excellent performance I'll be able to listen to anywhere -- like in my car. It's simply a smarter way to spend my paycheck.

      With computers, people are getting used to paying slightly more (or even the same as before), and getting drastically improved performance. Trying to sell something for drastically more money that offers slightly more performance is a tough sell, even to those of us who want it.

    49. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by BVis · · Score: 1
      I took my gf to listen to speakers (at a small hi-fi store -- no Bose here). She was a little surprised that she really could hear the difference in quality among the speakers. But when it comes right down to it, she's not going to spend $4000 on a pair of speakers.
      While I wouldn't argue the point that "audiophile" speakers are hideously expensive, you don't have to spend quite that much to get a set of speakers that you can hear a difference on when you're comparing SACD/DVD-Audio to CD. I have a set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers (MovieWorks II, 5.1) attached to a 70 watts per channel $500 Onkyo amp. The setup cost me about $1200 - and I have to say it's been worth every penny. We use it every day, for TV, movies, all sorts of things.
      The more you pay, the more you get.
      While that's technically true, you do come to a point of diminishing returns IMHO.
      Unfortunately, to get the next increment in quality, you have to pay significantly more money.
      I disagree, for the reasons above.
      SACD is great, but do I want to regularly pay twice as much for something that will only be heard differently on one of my CD players? Nah.
      SACDs are generally not twice as expensive, they may be a few dollars more expensive than the regular CD version, and if you find them when the record first hits the market, they can be the same price. DVD-Audio disks will generally be more expensive due to some marketing nonsense, but not twice as much. And the DualDisc format (CD Audio on one side, DVD-Audio on the other) is roughly equivalent in price to the same title on regular CD. It's in the recording industry's interest to encourage the new formats, not because they're of higher quality, but so they can make people buy their entire collections over again (like what happened with CDs.)
      And the excellent performance I'll be able to listen to anywhere -- like in my car. It's simply a smarter way to spend my paycheck.
      Most SACDs include a CD-Audio compatible track; you can put them in your car player just as if they were regular CDs. (But IMHO this is the best argument for being able to make backup copies of your music disks: If your car gets broken into, you're out a 10 cent CDR instead of your $15 CD, and you still have your music.)
       
      I'm not trying to be picky or pedantic here, I like the formats and would like to see them gain wider acceptance. (And no, I don't work for the RIAA :)
      With computers, people are getting used to paying slightly more (or even the same as before), and getting drastically improved performance. Trying to sell something for drastically more money that offers slightly more performance is a tough sell, even to those of us who want it.
      I disagree with you here; I find that the difference in price between the fastest CPU avaliable and the next fastest is disproportional, and the price difference between SACD/DVD-Audio is more than proportional to the quality improvement.
       
      If you'd like to hear some titles that IMHO really do sound better on SACD, try Steely Dan's "Gaucho" (SACD), the Who's "Tommy" (SACD), Nine Inch Nails' "With Teeth" (DVD-Audio compatible DualDisc), and Blue Man Group's "Audio" (DVD-Audio) on a decent set of 5.1 speakers (like the CSW set I have). I bet the difference will not only be noticeable, but striking.
      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    50. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > The more you pay, the more you get. Unfortunately, to get the next increment in quality, you have to pay significantly more money.

      Yeah, it's a decreasing returns of spending 2x the money.

    51. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed"

      It's the bomb er s that are well fed, the bomb ee s are the ones upon whom the bombs are dropped.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    52. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by DewDude · · Score: 1
      But you're an audio engineer and I'm an uptight elitist asshole, and we represent a very very very small percentage of the market.


      In a lot of ways, we're one in the same. Part of the requirement to be an audio engineer is being an uptight elitist asshole.

      Now what i said about lack of analog component on blu-Ray/HD-DVD isn't entirely true. I had misread an article i pulled it from. On Blu-Ray, analog outputs will be DOWNSAMPLED to 480p..on HD-DVD it's up to the studio. I know a lot of you are saying that's a risk..but here's the thing. It's problems like this that cause a LOT of formats to fail in the public. I'm surprised DVD made it since they were lacking RF outputs, which consumers had been used to since the 70's, requiring those to buy additonal boxes...meaning consumers are willing to spend extra to hook stuff up.
      HD had been around since about 1998 and things almost standardized..now they're changing the standards and making a lot of current equipment no better than what we've got now. As a consumer it angers me. I paid $1200 for an HDTV last year because the market had somewhat stabalized and it wasn't really much of a "early adoption", and now with all this new stuff coming out i'm not going to even be able to fully use it. But I'll save my outrages at the industry and such for another slashdot article.

      i personally don't go to theaters anymore for the basic reason of, i'm not going to basically spend the same amount as a DVD to see a movie once..then leave the movie with nothing other than memories and maybe a few screencaps snuck with my Sidekick...$8 for a ticket..$6 for popcorn....$6 for a soda??? It's almost CHEAPER to go to a baseball game or minor-league sporting event event than it is to see a movie in a theater. (While food at major events is about the same price..ticket costs are WAYYY up there.) Where is all this money going to? It's obviously not going into the customer expierence? The steats are uncomfortable and broken, the floors are always sticky, the carpets in these places are horrible and they've got people running around the lobby like a maze. I've been to only one nice theater (Landmark E Street in DC) which was a slighly upscale theater showing artsy/ind. films (i did break my no theater rule for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and it was a small theater, but, good big clear screen, nice sharp sound...and it was reasonably priced..$15 got me a ticket, two hot dogs,soda and some popcorn. Last time i went to a Regal Cinema..the ticket alone was $8.50. No wonder movies are making such bigger numbers at the box office, the price of a ticket i'm sure has gone up 8000%. However, the DraftHouse cinema was nice....pricy..but you can smoke in the theater.

      Anyway, to make this short, the downfall of the industry is going to be the industry itself. They're going to do this, and that and change things on consumers and as a result, euventually, they'll alienate intelligent consumers who won't have antything to do with them. However, judging by the masses and masses of people i see in Wal-Mart..i don't think there are any intelligent consumers left. Stick crap in a big blue box and mark it with a sale tag, and people will buy it.

      It's sad.
      So very sad.
    53. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      How is your music on your iPod and not your PC. iPods are only meant to mirror the music you have in iTunes. Without any hacking the only music on your iPod is music you already have on your PC.

      Pressing the delete key in iTunes counts as hacking now? What sad times we live in.

      Seriously though, it would be nice if Apple made it easier to copy music off an iPod, so if you've ignored Apple's recommendation and haven't backed up your music, you can at least recover some of it from your iPod.

      But since I don't have an iPod, I don't really care that much. :-)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    54. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by rsdavis9 · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong but....
      I can make perfect bit for bit copies of audio cds.
      But I cant make perfect bit for bit copies of dvds that are css encrypted. I can read an iso from the disk and then burn that iso to a dvdr but then the movie doesnt play. And I have read about this and apparently there is a track on the dvd that isnt accessible to the reader directly and cant be burned to a dvdr. So to copy a dvd you have to rip the dvd by decrypting the css protection then you can mkisofs and burn that iso. I have also read that dvdrw *may* have this track available for writing. So in conclusion the dvd copy is bit for bit perfect movie quality but it isnt a bit for bit copy of the disk since the resultant copy is unencrypted with css.

    55. Re:Bootlegs often aren't bit-by-bit by danwhalley · · Score: 1

      my pc broke.... HDD crash... whatever... the point I'm making is that I should be able to move the music which I legally own between any hardware I also own, is that unreasonable? yeah I know there's 3rd party sofware out there but why should it even be necessary?

  2. Analog over digital any day for me... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0, Troll

    I would prefer analog over digital, but I'm in the slim minority. I'm just weird like that.
    I especially loved analog cell service, but Verizon is apparently killing that now.
    Analog is going away one way or another, but I'll keep it in my life wherever possible.

    1. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You take an tenth-generation analog copy, I'll take a tenth-generation digital copy, and then we'll see which one looks and sounds better...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by HTL2001 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had a phone that was capable of analog on verizon... it sucked the battery dry ~5x faster than digital, even while not making calls....

      --
      By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
    3. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you will when those brain cancer cells hit...

    4. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by cinnamoninja · · Score: 1

      I had a phone that was capable of analog on verizon... it sucked the battery dry ~5x faster than digital, even while not making calls....

      Sure, but I bet you actually had signal? I have been a happy Verizon customer for several years, as I had better signal than any of my friends. Then, I switched to a Treo, which only does digital.

      Boom, low to no signal, almost anywhere I cared about. I love the phone, but analog is just further deployed.

      Cinnamon

    5. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What makes waves as opposed to bits so important that you'll keep it in your life "wherever possible?" What an idiotic statement to make. It'd be like turning down a pacemaker for your bad heart because it uses a battery instead of a steam engine.

    6. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by dingen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, a digitally shot, digitally editted, digitally mastered and digitally distributed movie definitely looks better analog.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    7. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fact, I transfer all of my DVD's to VHS. Just for quality.

    8. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a tool.

    9. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The winner of that challenge depends completely on the analog and digital methods used to copy. It's completely conceivable that a tenth-generation analog copy could look better than a tenth-generation digital copy if you pitted an knowledgeable, meticulous analog copyist against an uninformed digital copyist who made bad choices involving lossy compression. (And lossy compression is the only kind you can use for online distribution.) I'm not saying either would look great, but digital does not always mean lossless or even superior.

      I mean, there are some pretty awful-looking digital videos floating around on the web.

    10. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Analogue cell phones sound better to some people because they use more bandwidth - which is also why the service was more expensive and phased out in favour of digital. Unless you're using your cellphone to listen to a concert, you don't need hi-fidelity reproduction when it costs significantly more.

      Given a choice between analogue and digital consumer formats for e.g. movies, digital is the clear winner. To get something as good as DVD video in analogue format, you'd be looking at a super-expensive, big, high-speed tape system like studios used to use, or film, which has the same drawbacks.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by oasisweb · · Score: 1

      I cannot see any obvious way analog could be more useful than digital, so I'd really like to know why you feel that way about analog. Would you be so kind as to explain your point of view?

    12. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by SilentResistance · · Score: 1

      Please correct me if I'm wrong/confused, but isn't it a lot harder to be infected by a Sony-BMG rootkit if you prefer waves over bits?

    13. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by misleb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Same here. I just can't decode those 1's and 0's in my head fast enough.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    14. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Cool...Tool rule.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    15. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      You should transfer to film. That way you will have a viewable movie 50 years from now after the DVD plastic fogs over and the aluminum flakes off. And chances are that you will be able to find an antique projector to show it because you can bet that there won't be any working 50 year old DVD players.

      --
      What?
    16. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      How about I make a first generation analog copy and just use digital copying from then on?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    17. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      well then you lost that fight before it began.

      a 10th generation Analog copy will be able to be copied for 10 generations. at the rate Digital signal's are going you will be lucky to make a first generation digital signal copy.

    18. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      May I ask where the hell you are that still has more analog than digital? Bet that means no one uses cell phones (i.e. analog deployed, little consumer interest, no need to redploy digital)
      The amount of spectrum needed for a single analog call can be used for about 3 TDMA calls (no idea about GSM), or 25-35 CDMA (real-world tests; theoretically MUCH higher).

      Besides, the phone itself matters BIG TIME! An Audiovox will have shit signal compared to a nice LG (8100) or Motorola (e815). I have no idea where Treo fits in, but compare it to other phones with the same provider (all digital).

      Oh yeah, all the big carriers are deploying exclusively digital now (LG 8100 has no analog mode, neither do many other newer phones)

    19. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      The digital part isn't why they sound worse- it's the codecs. Most phones use either 8 or 13k codecs- which can't reproduce sound anywhere near as well as a full band of analog.

      Up those codecs to use the same bandwidth, and it would sound A LOT better than analog.

    20. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Aziraphale+Jasra · · Score: 1

      On a related note, you can even get their entire catalog on vinyl (while, all the albums, we still don't have Salival, their DVD/VHS + CD Video/Live/Outakes collection. Hopefully we'll at least get the music from that on vinyl in the future; as amusing as I would find a Laserdisc + Vinyl release in this time period, I doubt it will happen).

    21. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That way you will have a viewable movie 50 years from now

      That must be why movie studios spend millions of dollars restoring master copies of old films (gone with the wind etc.) then... or are you just talking rubbish? The best way to preserve something long-term is to keep copying it (like medieval monks with manuscripts), and that works better with digital methods (and extensive error correction codes) than with analog.

    22. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you have to look at it in code. The image displays work for regular content, but there's way too much DRM to decode the Digital Movie. I don't even see the 100101010110001's any more - all I see is blonde, brunette, Carie Ann Moss...

    23. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by bjprice · · Score: 1

      This explanation isn't entirely relevant to the thread, but perhaps it'll help you to understand why some people really do prefer analogue.

      Your senses are analogue. When you hear a sound wave from a piano in real life, it is analogue. Your eardrum vibrates producing analogue waves, which are sent to your brain (and yes, eventually "digitised" as far as in that the brain is an electrical appliance...).

      A CD recording of that piano will approximate the analogue waves into a digital representation of the sound. When you play back that CD, the player will convert the digital approximation back into an analogue wave, which sounds mostly like the sound the piano made, but without the data above its own digital limits (44.1KHz, 16-bit etc). MP3 (or any other lossy format) is several orders of magnitude worse. But I'm hoping you knew that.

      With an analogue record, for example, the noise it "hears" is recorded onto wax, still in analogue format, pressed to vinyl, and then played back afterwards. Much truer to the source.

      Most people either claim they can't hear the difference, or don't think it's worth the bother. A small but highly vocal minority do.

      --
      v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
    24. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by mlewan · · Score: 1
      You seem to forget that there is a level, beyond which it actually is impossible to hear the difference between analog and digital. Our ears are blunt instruments, and they only perceive a certain resolution. Your current computer screen may have 20" and a resolution 1280x1024 pixels, and you may say that it cannot render curves perfectly, as you can see the pixels. Imagine a resolution of 1280000000 x 1024000000 for 20" and try to claim that you still would be able to see the pixels.

      It's the same thing with digital sound. Raise the resolution enough, and it is impossible to tell the difference. No one can do it. If you were to argue that the current digital sound has too low resolution, I would not argue with you. But if you claim that digital sound can never be as good as analog for a human's blunt ears, regardless of sampling frequence, I say you are much mistaken.

    25. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vinyl copy of Led Zepplin's Presence sounds WAY better than the CD.

      A Tool CD sounds way better than a vinyl copy.

      The reason is, when you convert from analog to digital, or digital to analog, you get the worst of both worlds; you get the analog noise coupled with the digital aliasing, and the CD's crappy sample size.

      So for Tool (or anybody else that records in digital, meaning everybody) I'll take the CD.

    26. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years. Plus, the old tech has proven to be mcuh more durable. We can still use 50 year old telephones, phonographs, movie projectors, etc. I don't believe that CD and DVD players will be so fortunate. This more due to their low manufactured quality than anything else. I would be interested in knowing how old the oldest currently running microchip is. Anyway, if Hollywood were to re-copy those old films to new film, they could virtually ignore it for another 50 years. If they put it on digital, they'll have to re-copy every time the tech becomes obsolete, and they'll have to use a new format. And error correction can only go so far. The only way a CD or DVD can last as long as film, vinyl, etc. is if they are made out of glass(or quartz) and gold. These are the only materials that I know of that don't degrade over time. However, the issue of the player will remain unresolved...unless they make one with vacuum tubes and neon lasers :-)

      --
      What?
    27. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and then played back afterwards


      Along with whatever miniscule particles of dust have managed to settle on the vinyl, resulting in pops and scratches. Very true to the musicians vision.
    28. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by cinnamoninja · · Score: 1

      May I ask where the hell you are that still has more analog than digital?

      I have problematic reception in DC, suburban Maryland, and South Texas. Verizon is famed for having the best network, but my guess is it's only the best when you have a phone that supports both analog and digital.

      Cinnamon

    29. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by bjprice · · Score: 1

      I'd pick a dusty record over a scratched CD any day :-)

      --
      v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
    30. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      Those films are over 50 years old. There is no digital medium that has proven to last that long (for obvious reasons), but so far, due to format changes, new tech, etc. digital has shown to require much more maintenance than things like film, vinyl, and even tape. I personally think it's better to have to re-copy once every 50 years as opposed to once every 10 or 15 years.

      When Star Wars IV-VI had their first facelift with new digital effects in 1997, they had to start with restoring the old analog masters which had deterioated a lot after only 14-20 years. White colors had gone blue, etc.

      50 years seems a little optimistic to me.

    31. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the issue of the player will remain unresolved...unless they make one with vacuum tubes and neon lasers :-)

      I've wondered if this is possible. Anyone know if it would be remotely feasible to build a DAC using a bunch of thyratrons?

    32. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      You might need a space the size of the Empire State Building. I remember seeing some early(long before they went to market) CD players in Vegas. They occupied a full sized trunk. One of them went up in smoke. Very entertaining.

      --
      What?
    33. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by Aziraphale+Jasra · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I've been able to find out, Opiate, Undertow, and Ænima were all recorded, mixed and mastered in analog. Lateralus was recorded partially in analog and partially in digital (Maynard's vocals and any needed punch-ins were done in digital), but was mixed and mastered in analog. It's also likely that the digital stuff was done at higher then CD levels of quality. For Lateralus, whether the CD or vinyl is better does end up coming to preference regardless, as it's a picture disc (albiet a very well made one), meaning it's slightly noisey compared to normal vinyl (normal vinyl doesn't have the pops and crackles, at least not if it's clean, well cared for and you have a turntable that doesn't suck), but the other three releases sound far better on vinyl. There is also something to be said for the large size of the art.

    34. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Are you actually finding spots without digital coverage, or just finding that your phone will drop down to analog mode occasionally? the former suggests a strange hole (shouldn't be ANY in a major metropolitan area like DC), the latter could suggest a capacity issue (if there are certain bands are reserved for analog, they'll be usable when all the digital bands are full) or just some freak conditions of the network (CDMA is mind-numbingly complicated, and everything is constantly in a major state of flux)

    35. Re:Analog over digital any day for me... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Yeah... what bjprice said. ;)

  3. But it's important to keep in mind... by O'Laochdha · · Score: 4, Informative

    That this "penalty" is only a decrease in resolution. Unless they have a gigantic TV, in which case my guess would be that they could afford the better technology, the average Joe won't notice unless he's specifically looking for it.

    1. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      I keep hearing this comment. I can only assume that you don't have HDTV yourself? HD content looks significantly better than SD on a 36" TV, and the improvements get dramatically more noticable as you go up from there. Besides, prices on 50"+ TVs are dropping like crazy these days. Also, you're ignoring all of those folk who have large format TVs without the various proposed digital interfaces already, who aren't in the immediate market to upgrade them (and if they did, you're ignoring the people who repurchased those large yet older HDTVs).

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    2. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think "Average Joe" will instantly notice if his new DVDs look no better than his old ones, and be very angry! To make matters worse, once the disk is opened it cannot be returned. To avoid this travesty, those of us in-the-know need to inform "Average Joe" before he gets ripped off.

      I will not buy any DRM crippled product, movies or music and am not shy about encouraging others to boycott them. Respect my personal property rights after the sale, or there will be no sale.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Baricom · · Score: 1

      I don't have HDTV, because when I visited the local big box retailer, I was not at all impressed with the quality. The channel I was watching had a HDnet bug, so I'm pretty sure it was a native HD signal and not upconverted. However, the quality was just horrendous. The picture had visible artifacts throughout - not typical pixelization you see on a bad MPEG-2 SD feed, but just general fuzziness that was not at all like the crisp, sharp picture everybody says HDTV has. The 36" NTSC TV next to the HDTV had a far cleaner picture.

      Granted, the difference could be chalked up to signal quality, but if they can't get a clean signal at the store, I don't think I'd have better luck at home.

      I'm not going to pay $2500 more for a DRM-restricted TV with worse picture quality than the current standard.

    4. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      so why am i buying this high res copy again? i don't really consider drm-laden "better technology"

    5. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Justin205 · · Score: 1

      So you don't buy DVDs? Because, although the 'DRM' was cracked long ago, they're still encrypted with CSS.

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
    6. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      But average Joes aren't buying $1,000 HD players; videophiles are. The people with the old analog HDTVs would seem to be exactly the people who would complain about downrezzing.

    7. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Tekzel · · Score: 1

      Thats odd, I don't have an HDTV because I can't yet afford one. However, when I went to the local mega-super-electronics store and looked at the display models, I was hugely impressed. It all depends on the signal you send to it, and the quality of the device itself. Looking at a cheap model playing a dvd was much better than any normal NTSC signal I have ever seen though. I just can't figure out how you could have seen a for real HDTV playing a for real HDTV signal and it look anywhere near as bad as a standard analog NTSC signal. Unless they had some kind of equipment problems, which is possible.

    8. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That this "penalty" is only a decrease in resolution.

      Considering the whole point of buying an expensive HDTV is to increase the resolution, that is a pretty big penalty.

    9. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Also, have you noticed that on digital transmission, if theres alot of moving objects you get pixelization? Ie. when theres a scene with alot of rain, or snow - or anything with lots of small moving objects, the quality goes down the drain.

    10. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      Depends quite what signal it was getting, but maybe it was getting 1080i and can't do a good job of deinterlacing? Seriously, it bothers me that we're still stuck with interlacing after all this time.

      I've also heard reports of fuzziness resulting from a lack of ability of some televisions to properly figure out exactly what HDTV signal it's getting ("wait, is this 1080i/50? 1080i/60? 720p? Gaaah, I can't understand!") so it just drops down the signal a bunch. Naturally, the places that sell these things are the last place that is going to know anything about them (so sad, but so true) so I could see them not understanding that, and probably having caused it to some degree somehow.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    11. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Shano · · Score: 1

      And if videophiles are anything like audiophiles:

      1. You could sell them exactly the same data stream on a different format and they would insist it looks better
      2. In fact, you could downsample, recompress at minimum bitrate, and they would still insist it's a richer experience, and more accurately reflects the director's intentions

      So long as you put a few glowing glass things in the top of the box (needn't actually be vacuum tubes, so long as they look similar), they'll be happy.

      OK, I admit it, I'm just cynical because I can't afford the latest and greatest technology.

    12. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by albanac · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing this comment. I can only assume that you don't have HDTV yourself? HD content looks significantly better than SD on a 36" TV

      ... up from there? You do realise that in much of the world, the UK included, a 36" TV is *huge*? The majority of single young people I know have 14" or 15" TVs: most families I know who own a TV are happy if it's 24" because they probably recently upgraded from a 14".

      Yeah, there's also lots of people with 28", 32" widescreen TVs around these days. They're less than half the price they were when I bought one for the first time, seven years ago. However, comma. The idea that starting at 36" and going up from there is relevant to normal people is pretty much alien to anyone outside the US, or possibly Japan, as far as I know.

      ~cHris
    13. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      In the US, I'd think most living room TVs are 24" or greater. I have a 24" TV in my bedroom, and a 36" TV for the living room. After 36", it is considered a big screen TV (I believe).

    14. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In my experience, 32" is the largest of 'normal' TV's in the USA. Though I'll agree with that most living room tubes are greater than 24". In this case, I think that it's reasonable to say that slashdot users that have TV's are going to tend to have larger ones.

      I have a 32" that I bough years ago on special, but my parents have been hanging onto the 27" living room and 24" downstairs for years... My grandparent's are even smaller.

      I checked out walmart and a few other stores, and the largest SD displays I saw were 32". The largest 'reasonable price' HD screens were also 32". I'm talking to go above 32", the price more than doubled.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      I don't have HDTV, because when I visited the local big box retailer, I was not at all impressed with the quality. The channel I was watching had a HDnet bug, so I'm pretty sure it was a native HD signal and not upconverted. However, the quality was just horrendous. The picture had visible artifacts throughout - not typical pixelization you see on a bad MPEG-2 SD feed, but just general fuzziness that was not at all like the crisp, sharp picture everybody says HDTV has. The 36" NTSC TV next to the HDTV had a far cleaner picture.

      Granted, the difference could be chalked up to signal quality, but if they can't get a clean signal at the store, I don't think I'd have better luck at home.

      I'm not going to pay $2500 more for a DRM-restricted TV with worse picture quality than the current standard.

      HDTV relies heavily on a good signal. Think of it this way. There are tons of MPEG videos on the internet, some work safe, some not (you know what I'm talking about). Usually they are low resolution compared to a 1024x768 or higher monitor. Stretching them to the full display shows tons of artifacts, because there is not enough signal data for a clean picture. HDTV is no different. Most DVDs are compressed lightly and look beautiful on an HDTV, even at 480p resolution. Each pixel is crisp and clear, there are few if any artifacts, and the color is precise. Comparing this to NTSC is like comparing a Pinto and a Mustang. Sure, the Mustang isn't the best sports car, but I'd much rather drive that than the Pinto.

      I've seen some shabby HDTV displays, e.g. S-video hookup into a widescreen HDTV monitor. That or buggy HDTV feeds, even at Best Buy. I think they have a satellite feed, and I guess they have problems sometimes. At least Best Buy knows enough to use component or DVI. My advice to you is to look around a little bit more. I own a 36" CRT HDTV. It's at the low end of HDTVs, but a million times better than any NTSC TV I've ever seen. It even supports DVI, so I won't be locked out of the new formats (although they won't look much better, at least I can buy new DVDs in higher resolutions for my next TV).

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    16. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by nnn0 · · Score: 0

      that's the spirit ! i never buy crap like that. i never buy DVD's, i don't download from itunes or places like that, i don't buy copyrighted books and the most important part; i don't use that Windoze crap. the world ain't gonna be a better place to live until people starts to understands how utterly crappy it is :)

    17. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Also, some of us deliberately buy TVs (and monitors) smaller, due to a higher pixel density, meaning a sharper picture. A 30" TV with the same amount of physical pixels as a 36"+ one will look MUCH sharper. It's only when the higher resolutions are bolstered with an even higher physical pixel count that the quality improves.

      Then there's the abomination of projection TVs, which without exception are blurry. A HD projection TV is a joke, as it won't be any sharper than a non-HD CRT.

    18. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by winwar · · Score: 1

      "I think "Average Joe" will instantly notice if his new DVDs look no better than his old ones, and be very angry! To make matters worse, once the disk is opened it cannot be returned. To avoid this travesty, those of us in-the-know need to inform "Average Joe" before he gets ripped off."

      Why? Until the "average Joe" gets pissed nothing will change. And frankly if they haven't realized this by now they are part of the problem.

    19. Re:But it's important to keep in mind... by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Average Joe just bought a 40+ inch HDTV which DOES look much worse when he's watching SDTV than his old 27 incher, at the same 6 foot distance from his recliner. He'll brag to his friends about his ICT'd Blu-ray picture just the same.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  4. Repeat after me: by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It ain't about stopping ``piracy.'' Not even in the slightest.

    It's all about control, and the power that goes with it.

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:Repeat after me: by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Right on, it's all about pay-per-view.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Repeat after me: by cinnamoninja · · Score: 1

      It ain't about stopping ``piracy.'' Not even in the slightest.

      Weeelll, it is about stopping piracy. It's just not about stopping professional bootlegging and piracy. It's about stopping casual end-user piracy.

      They want to make it hard to give a copy of content to a friend. It's not that they care about the actual copy made that way, but they think that this way they can change the morals of consumers. If they make it hard to casually copy something, and say loudly how illegal and terrible it is to want to, maybe people will buy instead of downloading.

      Cinnamon

    3. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not beat around the bush. Control is the objective, but how can you achieve that level of control voluntarily?

      The name of the game, and the root of the issue, is exploiting the coercive power of government. The winners are those who have the ability to do this. The losers are those who rely on voluntary association to sell thier product. Without government and its special "right" to employ coercion as a business model, none of this would be possible.

    4. Re:Repeat after me: by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right on, it's all about pay-per-view.

      That's part of it, but not even close to all of it, or even the main goal, IMHO.

      Even more important to the big media interests is keeping individuals and independent groups from being able to distribute content freely.

      This is their biggest threat: the ability of anyone to create content and distribute it over the internet to anyone interested for free or whatever the individual or group feels is fair.

      Without exclusive control over distribution and promotion, the whole media cartel collapses. Making proprietary DRM mandatory keeps the media cartel in control by locking out those without the ability to pay licensing costs, and/or making the terms of any such licensing such that it is useless for distributing independently created content.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Repeat after me: by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      If they make it hard to casually copy something, and say loudly how illegal and terrible it is to want to, maybe people will buy instead of downloading.

      I'll take option three and do without their magnificent, most holy content altogether.

    6. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to get modded to +5 on Slashdot:

      "It ain't about stopping ``x'' Not even in the slightest.
      It's all about control, and the power that goes with it."

      Try it for yourself! Replace x with anything that the current mob of Slashdot Sheeple are against - you'll get modded up, 'cause "control" and "power" are the current Slashdot buzzwords.

      There are a LOT of idiots posting and modding here now, and they all seem to have 6-digit UIDs. I wonder why that is?

    7. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not at all what it's about. It's about locking out competition for profit, not changing morals.

    8. Re:Repeat after me: by Slithe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest problem facing independent distribution is NOT global corporations; they have little to fear from independent developers. The biggest problem facing independent media is not the difficulty of production/distribution; the biggest problem is that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILLING TO CREATE MEDIA!!

      Steve Wozniak, the (co)founder of Apple Computers, once remarked that he thought every one would write the software he or she needed, and people would be free of the big software companies forever! While many quality open source applications are available, there are still many software niches where open source alternatives are either nonexistent or lacking compared to a commercial alternative.

      When desktop publishing software became affordable, some analysts predicted that every person could have their own magazine; this is not the case. You do not have to spend much to distribut your music online, even if you want to charge money for it. You do not have to spend much to start an amateur film studio, yet there are not many independent films out there on the 'net'. Hell, there are not even that many amateur pr0n films! (at least, not at the rate I go through them)

      For independent development to flourish, people just have to shut up and start producting: software, music, literature, videos, etc.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    9. Re:Repeat after me: by blibbler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats an interesting idea, but do you have anything to back it up? All of the encryption systems I have heard of are entirely optional (at the option of the content producer.) CSS and region restrictions have always been optional on DVDs. All of the fancy DRM techniques used in the next generation HD disks are also optional (consider Sony's choice to use a lower level of protection for their (at least initial) releases) and once the burnable variety is available (likely to be a lot earlier in the cycle than for CDs and perhaps even DVDs) the different groups will want consumers to be creating HD disks using their own technologies.
      The original mp3.com had 2 services: one where small content producers were able to make their songs available to the public for free (or at least at low cost); and one where people were able to register their purchase of regular CDs, and stream it over the internet. Unsurprisingly, the recording industry went after the second service, and did not care about the distribution of independent content.
      Bit-torrent is used to distribute linux ISOs, independent games, independently produced movies and independent "TV" shows. Torrent sites focusing on the legal distribution of these are not sued or prosecuted while sites that solely distribute "pirate" material are targeted.

    10. Re:Repeat after me: by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I can back it up to this extent.

      4 hours of my life were spent watching Star Wreck instead of Hollywood Dreck.

      That's 4 hours.. at least... that I didn't consume hollywood product. And I turned my buds on to it too.

      It's just starting- but there is a lot of good stuff out there. Jeez- at least 20 hours of solid star wars stuff. Also a lot of non-hollywood songs (magnatune.com for one) that are inexpensive compared to label stuff and really professional.

      I don't think TV/Movie folks care yet- but I do think that the music folks care.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Your post is so much bullshit that I had to break out my hip boots.

      Here's what the "big media interests" are really worried about: They worry about people taking their copyrighted material and distributing it illegally, thereby depriving them of the money that they are entitled to by virtue of owning those copyrights. Ignore for a moment whether or not they pay the artists sufficiently in your view, ignore whether or not you think that it is worth what they charge, ignore whether or not you'd have bought it in the first place, ignore whether or not they are making sound business decisions with regards to their approach to the Internet as a distribution method in your estimation - ignore all the rationalizations that so many post here.

      They want to be paid, on their terms, for their copyrighted material, because the terms are theirs to dictate for such, in EXACTLY the same way that you have the right to dictate the terms for anything that you copyright. Want to release your songs, movies, posts for free? GOOD for you! Doesn't entitle you to someone else's for free, unless they CHOOSE to offer them as such.

      They know that just because anyone can "create content" and distribute it easily doesn't mean that it's worth anything, even if it is given away. Sturgeon's Law, right?

      And the sad truth is: Even as the Internet has created a new distribution medium that is increasingly accessible, much of what is distributed through it *is* crap. Look at all the blogs, discussion sites and so forth, and tell me I'm wrong.

      And that is the real challenge, to all of you that want to "stick it to The Man": Create things of value, yourselves, and release them for free with the same conviction that you feel as you infringe on the others' copyrights.

      It isn't likely that most of you will, or can. The truth is, many of you just want to be entertained for free by that which others create, regardless of the terms under which they choose to release it.

      But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

      I almost posted this non-AC... but, I'm afraid that I simply don't have the courage to withstand the downmodding of the pro-copyright infringement faction here.

    12. Re:Repeat after me: by Voltageaav · · Score: 1

      Good for you. The rest of the world and myself, want the content. Myself, I'll admit I downlaod a few songs here and there, but if I like what I hear, I also buy the CD. I have almost four weeks worth of music on my computer and over 90% of that is from CDs that I own. What are you posting about this for if you don't care anyway?

      --
      Someone save me from this sanity.
    13. Re:Repeat after me: by Doppleganger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are a LOT of idiots posting and modding here now, and they all seem to have 6-digit UIDs. I wonder why that is?

      Because a population of 899,999 is very likely going to have more idiots in it than a population of 99,999?

      Seems like there's a lot of idiots posting anonymously, but that's not much of a revelation either..

    14. Re:Repeat after me: by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that I don't care --- I enjoy music and film. However, when the cost of listening to music and watching films includes upgrading my home theatre equipment, being forced to purchase replacements rather than be allowed to make backups, and being restricted to the RIAA/MPAA catalog to the exclusion of independents without the capital to make their offerings compliant with the whole DRM scheme, I will do without and seek other forms of entertainment.

    15. Re:Repeat after me: by blibbler · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that there is a lot of independent content. The comment I was responding to was arguing that the primary reason for DRM was to prevent people from accessing alternative content, and not to reduce privacy. While I am sure that they would prefer seeing you buying content from them rather than getting free independent content, I have seen no connection between that and the way that DRM has been handled so far. The large media companies have done plenty of nasty stuff for real without all of the player haters inventing additional, phony, evil motives for their actions.

    16. Re:Repeat after me: by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem facing independent distribution is NOT global corporations; they have little to fear from independent developers. The biggest problem facing independent media is not the difficulty of production/distribution; the biggest problem is that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILLING TO CREATE MEDIA!!

      I was coming at the topic from my view as a musician, and I agree as far as software goes, the doors are wide open. There are better tools, developmental models, and online assistance available than ever before. Although I have released musical content, (yes, you can copy it for your friends..please? :P) I have yet to release any software. I'm learning fast, though!.

      I *will*, however, forego any attempts at contributing content to amateur pr0n...at my age, it would be just wrong on so many levels. :-|

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:Repeat after me: by tobybuk · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with you more. -1, FlameBait means you hit a raw nerve with the 16 year old school kids who think content created should be free of charge.

      Anyone who wants to distribute content can do so now. They are free to use DVD's (sans DRM anyone can do so without hindrance), they can post their creation to the internet. Hell they can even snail mail VHS videos, 8mm or whatever to anyone.

      I wonder why I come here when a comment as on the mark as your is -1,FlameBaite'd

    18. Re:Repeat after me: by -brazil- · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The biggest problem facing independent distribution is NOT global corporations; they have little to fear from independent developers. The biggest problem facing independent media is not the difficulty of production/distribution; the biggest problem is that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILLING TO CREATE MEDIA!!

      No. Lots of people are creating media. The biggest problem is that people are not willing to find and support stuff that's not shoved down their throats with millions of marketing dollars.

      The herd mentality of the consumers is what keeps the media cartels in business, because only they have the promotion infrastructure to create the big hits that make big money.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    19. Re:Repeat after me: by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1


      They know that just because anyone can "create content" and distribute it easily doesn't mean that it's worth anything, even if it is given away. Sturgeon's Law, right?

      And the sad truth is: Even as the Internet has created a new distribution medium that is increasingly accessible, much of what is distributed through it *is* crap. Look at all the blogs, discussion sites and so forth, and tell me I'm wrong.


      Like most of the so-called music that populates the charts these days ;-)

      For an example of good free content, consider the Baen Free Library: http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm
      A collection of older SciFi novels that are given away as marketing(?) freebies by the Baen publishing house. And it works BTW:
      Most of the books I buy for entertainment these days are from Baen.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    20. Re:Repeat after me: by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that there is a lot of independent content. The comment I was responding to was arguing that the primary reason for DRM was to prevent people from accessing alternative content, and not to reduce privacy. While I am sure that they would prefer seeing you buying content from them rather than getting free independent content, I have seen no connection between that and the way that DRM has been handled so far. The large media companies have done plenty of nasty stuff for real without all of the player haters inventing additional, phony, evil motives for their actions.

      I was coming from the point of view that DRM and companion legislation is in the cooking-frog stages, and hasn't *quite* gotten there *yet*.

      I'm looking ahead to things like Trusted Computing and further future legislation trying to "clean up" the internet and bring it and "piracy" and "terrorism" under control.

      As far as music content, there already are 2 worlds. The world of the labels with intense marketing and promotion, wide distribution, and payola for airplay.

      Then there is the other world of independent music, with little more than word of mouth marketing and virtually no access to brick and mortar distribution markets.

      This even applies to available venues in which to perform. Many won't even acknowledge a promo/press kit from an unsigned or independent-label band. I know, as I am in an independent blues band. I won't reveal the bands' name here as I don't feel it appropriate.

      The situation for independently created and produced music is changing slowly, but I don't expect it to occur without the media cartels fighting back with everything they have.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is their biggest threat: the ability of anyone to create content and distribute it over the internet to anyone interested for free or whatever the individual or group feels is fair.

      So the big media houses that make movies with billion dollar budgets are afraid that joe sixpack will make a better movie with his home equipment? That's doubtful. They don't care about content creation... they care about content copying

    22. Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was coming from the point of view that DRM and companion legislation is in the cooking-frog stages, and hasn't *quite* gotten there *yet*.

      In other words, inventing additional, phony, evil motives for their actions.

  5. Analog hole unnecessary by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The reality is you don't have to use the analog hole. Any encryption scheme is going to have a set of keys that will be, at a minimum, susceptible to some sort of clever replay attack. Even a DVD player hooked to the internet and sharing keys with a movie studio would ultimately fall victim to this.

    The whole thing is stupid. The studios will never win.

    --
    Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
    1. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by utlemming · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just wait till some sort of open source decryption project opens that has the sole purpose of breaking DRM keys. Kind of like the SETI project. Sure it'll take forever for someone to break the codes, but if you use a distributed project that uses idle clock cycles, you could break DRM keys. And the more computers you get, the faster the break times.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    2. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by synaptik · · Score: 1

      For HDCP, your 'replay attack' would only work if all recipients of the digital bootleg had the same display device... and I don't mean just the same model of display from the same manufacturer; I mean one with the same decryption keys as yours. While I don't know this next statement is true for a certainty, I strongly suspect that the decryption keys in the display terminus are unique to each device that comes off the assembly lines.

      Plus, the replay would be a decompressed encrypted stream, meaning that entropy would be very high, and therefore compression efforts after capture would yield a negligible reduction in file size, at best. Translation: you'll be P2P'ing a big honking file.

      Oh, and to top it off: your compression scheme would have to be lossless, further limiting your gain from compression efforts. Lossy compression would mess up the encrypted data in undesireable ways.

      So yeah... your replay attack works for HDCP, but only for small values of "works".

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    3. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by danielk1982 · · Score: 1

      Uhh...no. Even a distributed project using every single computer on internet could not brute force a properly encrypted content in some realistic timeframe (say, your lifetime).

    4. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Panaphonix · · Score: 1

      Has anyone cracked WMA yet? Cuz I have an empty mp3 player and a Yahoo Unlimited account, and I'm not in the mood to use the analog hole. So what's the verdict?

    5. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Ssssh, you're not supposed to provide examples that disprove the Slashdot conventional wisdom. Repeat after me: All DRM schemes have been cracked; all DRM schemes will be cracked.

    6. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Any encryption scheme is going to have a set of keys that will be, at a minimum, susceptible to some sort of clever replay attack

      I can hack any encryption with only two things:

      1. A car battery.
      2. One guy who knows the master keys.
      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Social engineering? That's a bit old... (but effective)

    8. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by cortana · · Score: 1

      who needs to brute force anything? The studios have to *give* the decription key to the viewer, otherwise they will be unable to view the content!

    9. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by cortana · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes.

    10. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bruteforce won't be necessary. Encryption only works when the people wanting to control the information are the only ones to have the keys.

      Give the keys to the consumer, and someone will crack them.

      Don't give the keys to the consumer, and his HD-player won't be able to play any movies, and thus no sales.

      The only thing they can do is try to hide the keys so that the consumer can't find them, but not so good that the player can't find them. It's not going to work.

      Microsofts Trusted Computing has a much better chance of working, because the only thing they need to hide is the public key for validating the signature, not a decryption key. And public keys don't need to be secret in the first place. The private key for signing the software is never going to leave the Microsoft vault.

    11. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      You haven't thought this through.

      HDCP generates a cipher bitstream. The cipher depends on the key in the graphics card, the key in the receiver, and a random seed. The graphics card outputs (content xor cipher). If you can record the encrypted output stream, and then convince the graphics card to send a black screen to the monitor, encrypted using the same random seed (and the keys are the same because you use the same graphics card and monitor), then you can know record (black xor cipher).

      (content xor cipher) xor (black xor cipher) = content xor black = content.

    12. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by synaptik · · Score: 1

      The HDCP cypher is re-calculated every 120 vsyncs (approx. every 2 seconds,) and the transmitter queries the receiver at that same period/interval to make sure that they are both still on the same page, so to speak. What if that new Ri-prime calculation incorporates some of the specific video data sent during the prior frame, as a salt?[*] Then the specific content sent will have an effect on the encryption keys used over time, and consequently your XOR trick will not work.

      Getting the graphics card to use the same random seed twice may also be a challenge.

      [*] I say, "what if..." because it's been a while since I've read the HDCP spec, and I don't recall if my conjecture is really the case, or not.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    13. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      calculation incorporates some of the specific video data sent during the prior frame, as a salt?

      It seems to be highly unlikely. The re-synching is needed to make sure exactly what you said "to make sure that they are both still on the same page". If it uses the data from the video stream, then how are you supposed to watch the movie from the middle, or to fast forward? Or, say, if you switch the channel, then go back?

    14. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by synaptik · · Score: 1
      It seems to be highly unlikely. The re-synching is needed to make sure exactly what you said "to make sure that they are both still on the same page".

      You took me too literally. When I said "...on the same page," I was employing an anglo-centric idiom that means (in the context of this discussion,) both the transmitter and receiver are each fully aware of what the other device is doing at that exact point in time. I didn't mean "page" as in a frame of video, which you seem to have thought.
      If it uses the data from the video stream, then how are you supposed to watch the movie from the middle, or to fast forward? Or, say, if you switch the channel, then go back?

      Then-- if my CRC salting conjecture is fact, and not fiction-- you affect the calculations of Ri-prime from that point forward, as compared to what they would have been if you just passively watched the video from beginning to end with no user intervention... but so what? Both transmitter and recipient still have all the information they need to salt the next Ri-prime calculation with a CRC of the previous frame sent across. They are, as I said, still "on the same page" with respect to the encryption algorithm.

      You might now raise the objection that using the prior video frame's CRC to salt the key for the next 2 second period can cause loss of encryption synchronization between transmitter and receiver, should transmission errors creep in that cause the calculated CRC values to not match (ie, using frame CRC as a salt would cause them to no longer be "on the same page."

      My response would be: You're right, but the transmitter would notice this discrepancy 2 seconds later, and initiate a new handshake; essentially starting the encryption process over from scratch, at whatever point in the movie you happened to be at, at the time. End user would experience about 2 seconds of snow, in the meanwhile, until the system corrected itself.

      But again, this is somewhat conjecture because I can't recall if IEDQ actually does that, or not.
      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    15. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for posting as AC. I already moderated this thread. Forget about teaching English. I understood what you meant and wrote exactly what intended.

      Yes, this is all hypothetical.

      You're right, but the transmitter would notice this discrepancy 2 seconds later, and initiate a new handshake; essentially starting the encryption process over from scratch, at whatever point in the movie you happened to be at, at the time.

      Exactly right. But then what's the added value of using the video stream data as an extra protection? The would be hacker can reset the encryption every two seconds and get the movie in chunks. Sure it's likely to be more expensive for the hackers, but so it would be for the equipment manufacturers.

      I think the re-synching scheme is intended for error tolerance only. The problem can be seen today with normal DVDs. If a DVD is damaged, the decompression may fail and cause blocks on the screen. Fast forward resets the decompression and the blocks go away.

    16. Re:Analog hole unnecessary by synaptik · · Score: 1
      (I realized, when seeing that your post was AC, that there was a risk that English was not your first language. That was why I gave the English lesson.)

      No, the hacker would get 2 seconds of snowy static, until Ri and Ri-prime matched again. Ri and Ri-prime aren't the decryption keys, but they are hashes of the current encryption/decryption key. So the xmitter assumes that if Ri and Ri-prime match, that the receiver has calculated the next decryption key the same way it has. If Ri and Ri-prime did not match, then the keys on either end of the pipe will not match either; causing decryption to fail... and I can vouch from experience that this results in snowy static. (Ri is the xmitter's calculated hash, and Ri-prime is the receiver's. They are exchanged over the serial DDC bus. Also, since Ri is a shorter # of bits than the actual key, you can occasionally get a false-positive, wherein Ri==Ri_prime, but the keys are different. But because of the way the scheme is designed, this would only be a one-in-65536 chance, and wouldn't happen repeatedly in succession... so it's a detectable corner case.)

      Also, the "2 second scenario" would only happen on a temporary cable disconnect, or a glitch in the signal (perhaps caused by EMI.)

      You also asked:

      But then what's the added value of using the video stream data as an extra protection?

      The "added value of using the video stream" as a salting process for subsequent key computations would have been to address the security issue presented by gnasher719:

      HDCP generates a cipher bitstream. The cipher depends on the key in the graphics card, the key in the receiver, and a random seed. The graphics card outputs (content xor cipher). If you can record the encrypted output stream, and then convince the graphics card to send a black screen to the monitor, encrypted using the same random seed (and the keys are the same because you use the same graphics card and monitor), then you can know record (black xor cipher).

      (content xor cipher) xor (black xor cipher) = content xor black = content

      I think gnasher719 assumes that the encryption method itself makes primary use of an XOR gate to mask the cleartext with the encryption key. If his conjecture is right, then he has a good point. But I countered by stating that the HDCP folks could alleviate that risk somewhat by using the CRC of the decrypted frame as a salt when calculating the next encryption key. Then gnasher719's scheme (as stated) becomes ineffective, because he has 2 unknowns to solve for now, not just 1. Of course, he might be able to compensate by adding a new XOR term to his stated formula, provided that he can learn the value of that new term. I believe he can.

      But, I still maintain that gnasher719's greatest hurdle is coaxing the transmitter to use the same pseudorandom seed for both the black stream, and the subsequent real stream. That's where his exploit really falls down.

      I think the re-synching scheme is intended for error tolerance only. The problem can be seen today with normal DVDs. If a DVD is damaged, the decompression may fail and cause blocks on the screen. Fast forward resets the decompression and the blocks go away.

      In the case of HDCP, it is for both error tolerance, and for detecting man-in-the-middle attacks. DVDs correct them selves when you do that, because of how MPEG is set up; every so often, there is a full still image of a frame on the disk (I think they are called "I frames".) Stuff in between the I frames are temporal deltas. So, when things get out of whack, just skip past the deltas to the next I frame (or whatever its called) and you're back to good.

      BTW, it seems that the HDCP 1.1 spec is free (libris) for viewing by anyone: Link

      Consequently, I just re-RTFM'd, and... revision 1.1

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
  6. Blah Infringement = Infringement/piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So... the author talks about RIAA lies and propaganda over the analog hole, and how it's bad, which I agree with, but uses the framing of copyright infringement/piracy as something it isn't - a trademark of RIAA propaganda? Somebody's getting influenced!

  7. Yay! by Ardeocalidus · · Score: 5, Funny
    "DRM and the Myth of the Analog Hole"

    Oh my god! Is it geek porno night already?!

    1. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am ashamed to say that I first read the title of this as:

      DRM and the Myth of the Anal log Hole

    2. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "DRM and the Myth of the Analog Hole"

      Oh my god! Is it geek porno night already?!


      Sure... it's a double feature along with "Attack of the 60 inch HDTV vaginas".

    3. Re:Yay! by barefootgenius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yip!

      *Debbie does DRM

      *Analog Angels

      *Bi-girls, One Digit, One Hole

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  8. But what about semi-pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't the movie studios efforts at least prevent an ordinary consumer from burning copies of movies for his friends? Keep in mind that high-capacity writable discs are coming.

  9. Piracy is their excuse.. by SoCalDissident · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their real fear is that it is becoming easier and easier for people to make THEIR OWN CONTENT and distribute it for free, aka youtube.com. Some of the best movies have been low budget movies produced by a few people with vision.

    1. Re:Piracy is their excuse.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any 99% of youtube.com content is just novel... or plain sucks in quality, really.

      It's all about quality, the rule should be you get what you pay for, but I do agree the studio need to clean up their act on the quality side (i.e. better stories).

    2. Re:Piracy is their excuse.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [i]Any 99% of youtube.com content is just novel... or plain sucks in quality, really.[/i]

      That's funny, I'd probably say that about current theatrical releases.

    3. Re:Piracy is their excuse.. by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1
      Their real fear is that it is becoming easier and easier for people to make THEIR OWN CONTENT and distribute it for free, aka youtube.com. Some of the best movies have been low budget movies produced by a few people with vision.
      Moreover, as blogs success shown this threat is very real. But blogs, as a form of cheap novel art is just a beginning. Music and movies will catch up soon.
      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    4. Re:Piracy is their excuse.. by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

      i think homer simpson put it like "instead of one bigshot controling the all the media, now a thousand freaks are xeroxing their worthless opinions".

      replace xeroxing with serving, you have what blogs are.

    5. Re:Piracy is their excuse.. by lucaslucaslucas · · Score: 1

      While I don't know too much about film, but music has already caught up. There's plenty of website where people distribute their music, freely. For instance, check http://www.sectionz.com/ .

      It's so cheap these days to make music, no need for expensive equipment.

  10. It isn't about piracy by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole analog hole (and DRM in general) really isn't about piracy. The studios and labels know they won't be stopping anyone who wants to rip the off on a larger scale.

    Instead, it's about us not format shifting, basically. The idea that you can take music or movies you bought and play wherever you are, at full quality, is anathema to them. They want us to pay for the CD. Then pay for the mobile phone version. And the portable player. And the car. And ...

    A lot of the movie and music sales - and an even larger part of the profits - the past fifteen years have been people rebuying stuff they own in a new format. Beloved LP recordings and worn out VHS tapes were bought again as CD:s and DVD:s. But now, with fully digitalized content, there is little reason to ever do that again. Copies don't degrade, and the quality is already high enough (especially for music) that a new format just isn't very tempting.

    But if you stop people from moving their data from evice to device, people will have to re-buy their content whenever they get a new device. It's an eternal upgrade revenue stream, like the shift from recordings to CD, but without any improvement in the viewer experience;without even having to pay for remastering or repackaging, in fact. And the more fine-grained you make the mesh of walls, the more often we have to pay again. Studios probably love that online services aren't standardized or compatible with each other; it means another resale every time someone switches from one service to another.

    In fact, if I were a studio executive, and of a manipulative frame of mind, I'd back one service to the hilt - for, say, three or four years. Then I'd switch allegiance to a new (but incompatible) service, nudging everybody to switch, and pay again. If I'd be _really_ manipulative, I'd look at what my fellow executives in other studios are doing and try to coordinate the shift with them (no need to actually make a shady deal; just follow the group). I wonder a little, in fact, just how much time iTunes has left as the current king of the hill.

    A steady stream of income without ever even having to produce any content. Who would not love that business model?

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:It isn't about piracy by tazan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree for the most part. They don't care about professional pirates. They've already figured out they can't do much about them. They are trying to keep the average user from being able to copy it. Analog is a huge hole in that regard, because even the hopelessly incompetent can use it.

    2. Re:It isn't about piracy by SloJohn · · Score: 1

      Money, Money, Money if you are not a CEO or investor in the Media Conglomerates you cannot fathom the motives of these Corporations

      --
      erin go bragh!
    3. Re:It isn't about piracy by jonwil · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why the RIAA are pushing so hard for cd copy protection. Its because of all the people that take CDs (either bought or borrowed from somewhere) and rip the CDs to MP3 players. The RIAA doesnt like this because:
      1.All the people using CDs borrowed from mates etc etc
      2.People who then copy the MP3 files back off the MP3 player and give it to people
      and 3.They cant sell you a locked down version of the file to play on your player.

    4. Re:It isn't about piracy by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The other thing is that people shifting their media means their CDs and DVDs remain intact. If you rip your CD to your PC and then to your iPod, you can put your CD on a shelf, and probably never need to touch it again.

      That means no losing it, no scratching it or anything else that could generate a repeat sale.

    5. Re:It isn't about piracy by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I wonder a little, in fact, just how much time iTunes has left as the current king of the hill.

      The RIAA really hates the Apple right now, because with the marketshare they've got, Apple has become powerful enough to be able to dictate terms. The major labels can't afford to refuse to sell their content on the most popular music download site in the world (because people will buy music from another label on the iTMS, instead), so Apple can continue to insist that all songs must be sold for the same fixed price and purchased songs never expire.

      As long as Apple doesn't allow a record label to dictate that purchased songs must expire, then there's no danger of what you describe. The music consumers want will be available on the iTMS (because they can't afford not to sell it), and even if something new comes along they won't re-buy their existing purchases (because they don't expire)... and I don't think the RIAA can come up with adequate motivation to drive customers away from the iTMS.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:It isn't about piracy by aug24 · · Score: 1
      The studios and labels know they won't be stopping anyone who wants to rip the off on a larger scale.

      Indupitably.

      If the pirates are looking at losing their revenue stream, they'll just wire a SCART cable to a parport cable and write a ripper. Even I could do that.

      And if, one day, I find I can't play my legally bought CD in my car, or my computer, or on my next gen DVD player, then I for one will certainly be downloading the content, with no moral qualms whatsoever.

      Plug that!

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    7. Re:It isn't about piracy by steevc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Years ago I heard a reference to 'format fatigue', i.e. we got bought CDs because we were bored with vinyl. B*ll*cks I say. New formats are introduced to get us to buy again. It worked with vinyl->CD and VHS->DVD because everyone could see the advantage. It didn't work with CD->DVDA or SACD.

      I don't anticipate buying movies again on the new DVD formats. My DVDs sound and look good enough with my 28" CRT and basic surround system and I don't re-watch them much anyway. Audio-/videophiles may think differently, but they are a small minority. I'll consider a new player when they get affordable.

    8. Re:It isn't about piracy by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll up the ante and say that my DVDs (the well produced ones) look excellent on a 51" high quality RPTV. The best produced DVDs are between good and very good, even on a 119" screen (my previous setup) through a HD FP.

      IMHO, there are relatively few things which look significantly better at high definition, and most of those would benefit from full 1080p, and a system which can provide that resolution. Team sports played on large fields is one of them (like football - both types).

      I own about 250 movies on DVD, and I really don't plan on re-buying 95% of them. There are a few lousy transfers I'll probably get, though I'd be happy with a better produced DVD (Thomas Crown Affair, Titanic come to mind). Most of my discs are about the story, not fantastic resolution. Will Animal House get better in HD? Waking Ned Devine? Of course not.

      Sadly, the new formats are aimed at better picture and sound, but are limited largely by the environment, in addition to the cost of the setup. Heck, I'm picky about my audio, but I still rip to 128kb for the MP3 discs I put in my car because - lets face it - you can't tell the difference with wind noise at 70MPH.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    9. Re:It isn't about piracy by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Indupitably Come on, this is slashdot, anything can be duped.

  11. this blurb is terrible! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've seen few summaries so bad. First of all, it's so dripping with bias that it's hard to understand what is even being said. The write-up should include details, not opinion! Also, it fails to make the basic distinction between copyright infringement and theft.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:this blurb is terrible! by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      Its not the blurb/summary, its the article... Not only did the author of the article wear his bias on his sleave, he didn't even do his research to fully understand what he is talking about!

  12. the analog hole isn't a myth... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and what's more, it IMNSHO can never be entirely plugged.

    So long as content has to be displayed, it has to be converted to analog signals in the process. And while it may take a large amount of effort to "uncover" the hole - such as, disassembling an LCD panel and tapping into the driver circuitry - it only takes one person to redigitize the open content and distribute it, and all of a sudden it's everywhere again.

    There *IS* one strategy that might work; it involves adding a system for embedding a digital watermark to the decryption mechanism, which could help content owners track stolen content back to the one who did the stealing (assuming that person or group had no way to cover their tracks). But if the content owners implemented such a strategy, there'd no longer be a reason to cover the hole!

    All I can say is, if I do purchase a HD-disc and then discover it won't play at full resolution on my hardware, I'll simply download a free-market copy. I'm sure they'll still be available.

    1. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by eluusive · · Score: 1

      They already do that watermark stuff with screeners. Those people remove the watermarks from the screens already too.

    2. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're talking about a whole different sort of watermark.

    3. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by kimvette · · Score: 1
      All I can say is, if I do purchase a HD-disc and then discover it won't play at full resolution on my hardware, I'll simply download a free-market copy. I'm sure they'll still be available.


      I downloaded the high-definition version of Terminator 2 when I discovered the "Windowqs Media 9" 1080i version of the film included on the second DVD was:

        - Interactual's proprietary format, NOT Windows Media (it was WMV in name only)
      and
        - Viewing was limited to 5(!!) days

      Nowhere on the box was either mentioned. So. upon discovering (upon rebooting to Windows) a) that I had to install Interactual's player and b) I had only five ****ing days to watch the thing, what did I do?

      That's right, I went to a torrent site and downloaded the thing. I'm sorry I wasted my money on the ****ing "ExtremeDVD" because nowhere was the REQUIREMENT of Interactual (it was listed only as "recommended") nor the five-day limit on viewing ever mentioned on the packaging.

      It wasn't much money, but the deceptive marketing STILL has me pissed off. Thank GOD for BitTorrent!! :D
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There *IS* one strategy that might work; it involves adding a system for embedding a digital watermark to the decryption mechanism, which could help content owners track stolen content back to the one who did the stealing (assuming that person or group had no way to cover their tracks).

      Of course, that would require that no one in the world be allowed to buy a movie without using a credit-card. And even then there's untraceable prepaid cards.

    5. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by David+Gould · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Yes, the "analog hole" is real, in the sense that it prevents any DRM scheme from ever being able to completely eliminate any possibility of copying, but it's very deceptive, for all the reasons mentioned already (real pirates don't use it anyway, it's all about control, etc.) Another reason, which I haven't seen mentioned yet on this thread, is more subtle: it's psychological manipulation, hiding the fact that they're asking for new rights.

      By referring to the possibility of analog copying as a "loophole", they create the impression that it's something new, and that it's not a situation that has previously been considered acceptable. But of course, before we had digital content [*1], all copying, legal and illegal, was analog. Their whole argument for justifying laws like the DMCA was that with digital content came the possibility of digital copying, and that, since this removed the generational-loss problem, copying became more practical (shifting the balance against them), making such laws necessary just to restore the previous balance. But since analog copying was already part of the previous balance, adding laws to block it would be shifting the balance toward them, more than it ever was in the pre-digital days.

      In short, they're rewriting history: reinforcing the false impression that the rules established in the DMCA have always been part of traditional copyright law, and that to leave the "analog hole" open would be to take away something that they've always had, when in fact, closing it would be to give them something that they've never had.

      --
      [1] if anyone can remember a time sooo far back as the early nineties -- Gods, I'm old (29).

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    6. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by TFloore · · Score: 1

      All I can say is, if I do purchase a HD-disc and then discover it won't play at full resolution on my hardware, I'll simply download a free-market copy. I'm sure they'll still be available.

      I have a question in response to this statement.

      After you discover that your purchased product is inferior to the pirated version, will you continue to purchase the crippled legal version? Or will that be your last purchase of HD content, and you will then become purely a consumer of pirated content, because it is a better product?

      That's my problem.

      I'm avoiding going HD because I know myself well enough to know how frustrated I'd be buying an inferior purposefully-crippled product, and then having to download a pirated non-crippled format anyway. I'd quickly swear off buying HD content, just to avoid the frustration. Note that I didn't say I'd avoid HD content, just that I would avoid buying it.

      And I don't like that. I actually like being a law-abiding citizen. But not when the game is rigged.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    7. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by Firehed · · Score: 1
      Give me a call when it'll stop people getting a videocamera and a tripod and I'll start to get concerned. Until we're all in The Matrix, it needs to be analog before our brains can interpret it. I'm quite confident that music put out digitally on speakers is going to cause some serious damage, aside from sounding atrocious. Sure, the signal can be digital, but everything needs to be decoded before it's spit out.

      Your idea is thwarted by Macrovision and the like. A content protection that's still in the analog signal, but invisible (well, outside of the visible picture). Sure, that too can be broken, but it's still another link in the chain. As it is, pirates need to break every link, but most are about as strong as wet toilet paper.

      As I've been saying, the HD crap is going to cause a lot of headaches at retail stores at the very least. It just works out so that it's probably illegal under the DMCA for people to even publish a warning about downsampled content now.

      Think of what you need for next-gen media. HDTV set. HDMI input. HDCP-compliant HDTV (I guess it's implied in the spec, but I'd wager it's not a part of HD-ready which is probably what most people have). $900 player. $30 movies. Benefits over DVD: somewhat higher picture and sound quality, the latter of which probably is negligable on your typical consumer-level setup. Now DVDs: Any TV. Composite input or better, even RF coax for some players. $50 player. $15ish media or $4 rentals. Benefits over VHS: hugely higher picture quality, interactive menus, digital surround sound, media which doesn't deteriorate over time, smaller media, nicer players can upsample content to HD output (not having used an upsampling player I can't comment on its effectiveness, but I'd bet in most cases it's better picture quality than a HD set itself doing the upscaling).

      Point being that with VHS->DVD, the costs weren't insane and the restrictions were minimal (region coding and some UPOs), while the improvements over the previous format were monumental. With DVD->[HD winner], the costs are crazy all around, the restrictions are over the top and the difference in quality (in my eyes, anyways) isn't nearly as noticible.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      After you discover that your purchased product is inferior to the pirated version, will you continue to purchase the crippled legal version? Or will that be your last purchase of HD content, and you will then become purely a consumer of pirated content, because it is a better product?

      I refuse to answer, on grounds that it might tend to incarcerate me.

    9. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With all due respect, D/A/D conversion means that the "analog hole" is now always a first generation analog copy. While they've never put DRM on analog copying, you can't claim that a redigitization is anything like the tenth generation VHS tapes that were floating around.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by mpe · · Score: 1

      They already do that watermark stuff with screeners. Those people remove the watermarks from the screens already too.

      It's not as if "screeners" are created for anyone's benefit except the studios'. Including allowing movies to be nominated for awards before they even been released.

    11. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by mpe · · Score: 1

      After you discover that your purchased product is inferior to the pirated version, will you continue to purchase the crippled legal version?

      Remembering that "inferior" can easily include such factors as when something is available and ability to "space shift". These can easily be more important than technical quality. Even price might be the most important factor. Especially where the choice is between having the "pirate version" now or waiting years for the "legal version".
      At some point the industry needs to realise that they need to "globalize" and that DRM mixed with malware drastically lowers the value of their product.

    12. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Now DVDs: Any TV. Composite input or better, even RF coax for some players. $50 player. $15ish media or $4 rentals. Benefits over VHS: hugely higher picture quality, interactive menus, digital surround sound, media which doesn't deteriorate over time, smaller media,

      In many cases the "better picture quality" is only likely to be an issue with pause. The display being more of a limiting factor than the media. You also get multiple sound tracks and subtitles, both of which you can use when you want to as well as random access to the content.

    13. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're just proving the old proverb - "give someone an inch and they'll take a mile".

    14. Re:the analog hole isn't a myth... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      As it is, though, pause quality can be a fairly important selling point. Take two screenshots, compare it to a pair of 30-second clips. I compared screenshots, and while I was somewhat impressed, I know that I could care less whether I can count how many hairs on someone's head when the movie is playing. As long as the picture is as sharp as intended (since focus is used as a cinematic technique as well as a sanity preserver), I'm pretty happy. VHSs were relatively blurry when compared to DVDs. While HD stuff has more detail, it's no sharper.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  13. Few studios will use it by jheath314 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As far as I can tell from the chatter, only W-B seems dead-set on using ICT. Fox has decided against it, University probably won't, and Disney likewise seems to be leaning on the side not activating ICT (for now). A few weeks ago Sony surprised me by also opting out.

    I'm not sure why the media companies are trending so softly on this issue... most people with analog HDTVs won't know the difference between the degraded and full-resolution versions anyway, and the video-philes who would catch on are likely too small a group to really impact the companies.

    Me, I'm so disgusted with the whole DRM mess that I feel absolutely no compulsion to get HD in any form. Perhaps as my current technology begins to wear out I'll find myself spending more time in the real world, with its amazing "true to life" resolutions and frame-rates.

    --
    Procrastination Man strikes again!
    1. Re:Few studios will use it by raitchison · · Score: 1

      As you said, most studios won't be using ICT for now because it's already gotten a decent amount of attention and they want to make abig deal out of making it a "non issue" so it won't be a barrier to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD adoption.

      Once the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD war has been won (the only sure thing is the loser will be consumers) and the winner has made significant inroads in the market I don't think there's a chance in hell that the studios won's start turning on ICT, they will do it for a few "select" titles first and before you know it (before 2010) vritually all new movies will:

      1. Only be available on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (whciver one ends up winning), specifically not available on DVD
      2. Have ICT enabled

      The only way to prevent this is for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to fail in the market

    2. Re:Few studios will use it by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The whole ICT thing is useless anyway.
      Pirates arent going to care that they get a lower quality image from component output. They will just use the lower quality image, use a DVD version of the film (the bandwidth to distribute any kind of "high definition" content over p2p, bittorrent etc is not there and wont be for quite a while yet and even for physical bootlegging they will still be using normal DVDs for some time to come as too few people can play any kind of high def content) or use a crack for HDCP (I believe there are actually cracks in existance that crack the entire system, not just specific devices).

      The people who will care are all the early adopters with their high definition TVs who now find that they need to buy another $$$$$ TV to watch any high definition content. If one standard was to drop this image constraint crap from the standard altogether then they could easily win the "high definition standards war"

    3. Re:Few studios will use it by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They will just use the lower quality image, use a DVD version of the film (the bandwidth to distribute any kind of "high definition" content over p2p, bittorrent etc is not there and wont be for quite a while yet

      Well, these new players support modern codecs like H.264, which means you can distribute HDTV in DVD-size, like you can distribute DVD in CD-size. If you think normal DVD-images aren't being traded, look again. Besides, I don't how it is around you but around me bandwidth is rapidly increasing. Our neighbour country Sweden is starting to offer 1Gbps residential connections in a very few select places. I know the students at the university I went to are now capped at 10GB/day due to excessive bandwidth use. That's two DVDs a day, per student! Myself I got 26/1.5Mbps cable, but I'm paying blood. However, 20Mbps ADSL2 is now cheaper than 1Mbps ADSL three years ago, just not available where I live now. And this is a fairly sparsely populated country, ask those in Japan or South Korea what's standard around there. Anyway, yes HDCP is already broken, but only in the sense that you can "tap into" an existing connection. That makes it rather unfeasible for those people whose very problem is tha they don't have such a device. Of course, it won't stop any pirate...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Few studios will use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason could be to get better market penetration and avoid an initial backlash. Most of the HD titles that have been announced so far are throwaways like Fantastic 4. Once the initial wave of reviews has passed you may see ICT creep back in. All it takes is one USAToday review or a evening news program bitching about ICT and a big chunk of sales will disappear.
      What probably has happenened is that the heads of the various HD marketing divisions figured this out. The only current playback method for HD quality bootlegs is through a computer and the segment of the population with the hardware to take advantage of them is too small to matter. If HTPC takes off and gains console level market share then ICT will swing back but until then its a ugly painful solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    5. Re:Few studios will use it by drew · · Score: 1

      The only way to prevent this is for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to fail in the market

      Well, then, problem solved.

      Neither of these products will ever go anywhere far. To me, the war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD looks amusingly like the war between DAT and MiniDisk, or DVD-Audio and SACD. To borrow a line from PCU, "It doesn't matter who wins, because they're all losers."

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    6. Re:Few studios will use it by raitchison · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I predict that either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will in fact take over and do to DVD what DVD as done to VHS.

      Most people are conditioned to think that newer=better and anything with the words "High Definition" is vastly superior to anything that doesn't.

      By initially opting not to use ICT the studios will successfully prevent the public from seeing one of the few noticable negatives of the new formats, people with a 2 year old HDTV won't see a degradation in quality and the people will lap it up.

      It will get even wose once the FCC finally kills the NTSC signals and the price of HDTVs drops like a rock (right now they are artificially inflated because they are a premium over SDTVs) people will want new "High Definition" movies to go with their new "High Definition" TVs.

    7. Re:Few studios will use it by drew · · Score: 1

      DVD didn't win out over VHS because of higher picture quality. 90% of DVD player owners can't tell the difference between DVD quality and VHS quality unless the VHS tape is old and worn. DVD replaced VHS for many of the same reasons that CD's replaced VHS- namely random accessibility and durability. DVD is "good enough" for most consumers.

      It may be true that most people associate newer==better, but most of the non-tech-obsessed world doesn't really care if they have the "best". Not to mention that the term "High Definition" has been so abused that many people I know stopped caring about it long ago. My parents haven't bought a new TV in at least 15 years. They probably won't buy a new one until this one dies (which admittedly may not be too far off), and whether they get an HDTV at that point is anyone's guess. And I know plenty of other people who are the same way about their TV's.

      Bluray or HD-DVD may get more market penetration than DVD-Audio or SACD merely by virtue of XBox/Playstation sales, but outside of that, they are going after roughly the same type of market- A market that is willing to pay more than 5 times more than is neccessary for their TV, and twice as much for their movies (and probably the player too). DVD will still be king for a long time to come, because DVD offered significant advantages over any preceding format to virtually everyone without requiring any upgrade beyond a new player. Bluray and HD DVD cannot offer any advantage over DVD other than picture quality, and often even that only at the expense of a new TV, and that is simply not enough for most people to care.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  14. Ohhh the average Joe notices.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a modest sized TV, and when I play a hi-def source, about 9 out of 10 of my "average Joe" friends immeditaly say something like "Wow... that is an awsome picture" ... but they never say that for a standard-def source on the exact same TV. Even a superbit DVD will only rarely get a "Nice Picture" comment.

    They may not know what 1080i is, but they know something good when they see it.

  15. the free will hole by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it is impossible to empower a customer to consume your content while at the same time restrict their ability to copy it, by any means, with any technology, with any scheme you can devise

    it's simply a matter that providing them the tools to consume your media also provides them the tools to copy it, and it is simply not possible to do one without also enabling the other

    it's philosophically impossible, no analog hole need apply

    the philosophical impossibility is supplied by the concept called "free will"

    no company, no matter how much time, technological innovation, or money it has, can defeat a group of poor technologically astute teenagers with time and motivation on their hands to consume your media without your restrictions. no human-devised security sytem cannot also be defeated by human beings. there is no such thing as a technological fix to human ingenuity

    the poorest of your customers, who are therefore the most motivated to steal your content, just happen to also be your prime target demographic audience as well

    in other words, the current ip system is simply doomed

    checkmate

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the free will hole by recharged95 · · Score: 1
      'the philosophical impossibility is supplied by the concept called "free will"'

      Yeah right, tell that to the bottled water industry. I don't see them going out of business anytime soon. Free will? Somewhat illusionary.

    2. Re:the free will hole by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you don't *have* to buy bottled water. same psychology as starbucks: people like to splurge on themselves. you *have* to go through time warner if you want the movies they own the rights to. this is a limitation on what you consider yours: your culture. thus the resentment and the impetus to act

      there are two kinds of riches: financial riches and cultural riches. content creating companies are limiting the public domain as much as they can, and will push the limits forever, until there is no public domain. the impetus to do that is driven by financial gain, theirs, at a corresponding culturual loss, ours. songs and movies that should have gone into the public domain years ago won't go into the public domain now until you are dead, thanks to sonny bono

      so that is what is happening in your world todya. ip law has ceased to make sense and ceased to be morally sound. corporations are enriching themselves at your detriment. you should own your culture, all of us should own our culture. but if it were up to bmg, time warner, etc., they would own your culture forever

      it's a balance. the content creators DO have a right to limit your access to content they create. this provides them with an incentive to create content. but only in certain ways, and only for a certain amount of time. and yet currently, the limitations on what they can do to limit your access and how long they can limit it are exapnding beyond the common sense balance between financial incentive and cultural considerations

      what do those limitations do? they impoverish you. not financially. they impoverish you culturally

      that's not morally right, nor even financially sound, in the long run, for the content owners. for pulic domain culture is the basis for the creators of content for the next big financial gains of tomorrow

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:the free will hole by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Water cannot be copied at no incremental cost.

    4. Re:the free will hole by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      11:15. Restate my assumptions.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    5. Re:the free will hole by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's a balance. the content creators DO have a right to limit your access to content they create. this provides them with an incentive to create content.
      One important thing you forgot to mention is that those rights they have are not inherent. We, the society, grant them those rights for our benefit. If those rights do not serve towards their intended purpose, they can just as well be revoked.
  16. Oh yeah by Cybert14 · · Score: 1

    Movies for a long time as film are actually four or so times better than even upcoming blurays. So just convert them from way back and sell the same damn movie for a higher price and watch money pour in!

    Wait until they hear about HD audio. Well, SACD crapped out so that scam didn't work.

  17. Solution... by all204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a solution to all this DRM nonsense... Make and play your own music (I play guitar), they can't DRM or control that in any way. Besides it is a very satisfying and rewording hobby.

    ~Allen

    1. Re:Solution... by Petrushka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Make and play your own music (I play guitar), they can't DRM or control that in any way.

      Yet.

      No, I'm serious. I too am a musician (piano, mostly). Consider: it's not out of the question that some software company might decide one day that they want to control what you do with your own data that you have created using their software. After that, there's not a big conceptual leap between controlling what you do with your data and controlling all private artistic output; the only thing missing is the technology.

      OK, OK, my tinfoil hat is on really tight today, but I'm thinking say a few decades into the future, when everything might potentially be "tagged" in one way or another, -- including acoustic musical instruments. And that bit, I fear, is not at all a paranoid fantasy; I think it's very likely.

    2. Re:Solution... by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was recently looking for a DVD player/recorder for my parents. They wanted the player for two reasons, one to record shows they like, and two to send some home videos off to my sister in England. When I went to a few stores to check out the models they had, I asked one of the sales staff if the recorders could encode region free DVDs (so my sister could pay them on her TV). He looked at me like I was some kind of crook and actually said: "here in Canada we obey international copyright law".

      Sure I could have reencoded the DVDs after they were recorded, but that is beside the point. My parents own the copyright to their home videos and should be able to do whatever they want with them. This is just another case of the industry hurting the consumers.

      We didn't buy.

    3. Re:Solution... by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Well apparently some people have had similar problems with software applying restrictions to homemade video imported through video capture cards because the software assumed it was a recording of live TV. Of course, the whole point is moot if you're running Free software on reasonably open hardware. One like you, whose tinfoil hat could use an adjustment, would probably claim that the days of such systems are numbered, but I tend to think that as long as there are big companies with investments on the Open Source side of F/OSS there will be hardware platforms open enough to run Free software.

      If there becomes a way to tag acoustic instruments... well damn. Let's just say I'm glad my clarinet was made in the 60s. But as you think it's very likely without any evidence that it's even possible, I'll say I can't see it happening without providing any evidence for that either.

    4. Re:Solution... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Make and play your own music (I play guitar), they can't DRM or control that in any way.

      yet.

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:Solution... by az_bont · · Score: 1

      DVD Recorders shouldn't place a region code on recorded discs, so your ownly obstacle is the NTSC television standard, which isn't really much of an obstacle.

      Just about any European TV made in the last 15 years or so should be able to handle an NTSC-encoded disc, as European DVD players send a PAL60 signal rather than an NTSC one when playing NTSC discs - by using NTSC framerate and resolution but using PAL colour information, they can trick most televisions that aren't completely ancient (pre-remote control era) into playing back with a proper image.

    6. Re:Solution... by duerra · · Score: 1

      He looked at me like I was some kind of crook and actually said: "here in Canada we obey international copyright law"

      Besides the fact that this guy clearly doesn't know what he hell he's doing (DVD recorders don't limit via region - at least, not the ones I've looked at), had this buttmunch said that to me, he would have been either jobless or leveled out in about 2 minutes flat, depending on his position.

      There's no reason why you should have taken that kind of abuse. It's not necessary, and unless you did something about it and happened not to mention it, you did a disservice to a lot of other people by not taking care of this assclown on the spot.

    7. Re:Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Make and play your own music (I play guitar), they can't DRM or control that in any way.

      > Yet.

      I believe they already do this in Germany. It's *illegal* for you to give away your own music. Instead, there's a state agency which people are supposed to pay royalties to and from that the artist is supposed to collect 'em.

      That's right. You *can't* give your songs away for free there.

    8. Re:Solution... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      back in the days of DAT recorders, even if it was your OWN RECORDING, the scms would try to stop you from copying your own (owned) data.

      consumer decks ($500 and less) had scms. you have to pay closer to $1k to have the 'right' to record and copy your own data!

      this was back in the early 90's. I see things have not changed for the better since then..

      (I used to build and sell boxes that got around the SCMS 'protection'. I guess they don't really apply anymore since no one does realtime dat->dat or cd->dat copying via serial. but when 2gig drives were not common and 2hour dat tapes were cheap, this was the only real way to copy digital audio.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  18. Battle of the DRMs by Randall311 · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA: *compairing DRMs with the MPAA... "I see that your schwartz is as big as mine! Let's see how well you handle it."

  19. I don't buy it by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It ain't about stopping ``piracy.'' Not even in the slightest. It's all about control, and the power that goes with it.

    I cannot believe that. Power for power's sake? Why? You seem to think these guys are a kind of evil overlord trying to keep the peons in their place. That's about the silliest possible motivation there could be because it flies in the face of reality.

    NO, what motivates these guys is money, pure and simple (not that there's anything wrong with that since I'm an ardent capitalist). They want to do whatever they can to make as much money as the can for as little cost as they can. Following that logic, we find that if something costs them money or reduces the amount of money they can make, they'll be against it. But here's what you fail to realize: the customer is in the driver's seat here, not the media moguls.

    If DRM is too intrusive or obnoxious, consumers won't buy into it, especially since DVD's are already here and "good enough" for most folks. If the industry starts getting heavy handed with ICT, consumers can and quite likely will revolt. Then, faced with the prospect of losing money, the industry will capitulate. They need our dollars (or pounds, or Euros, or whatever) far more than we need them. Deep down, they know that. The problem is that most consumers don't know it yet. But if pushed, they will discover it quite fast.

    It's not about power, it's about money. No matter what the media moguls do, the one thing they cannot do is force us to buy their products. We have the power of choice, they do not.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:I don't buy it by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people like us here at slashdot sometimes forget that the minions out in suburbia are quite happy to keep paying out money so that they can have their heads filled with propoganda. The sad thing is most of them don't even know it is going on. The power that comes with controlling the media is HUGE! Just take a look at what the nazis did with their controll of the media.

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    2. Re:I don't buy it by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They do force people to buy their products. They simply make sure that the competition doesn't exist. And that is the why they need power.

      So, even if they lose some money on the short term, the *AA will try to get power, because if they don't, the money will go to the competition on the future (and they'll need to adjust their prices). Although money is the final obective, you'd better think about power to understand them, not money.

    3. Re:I don't buy it by Draknor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But here's what you fail to realize: the customer is in the driver's seat here, not the media moguls

      Except, we're not. Or at least, not actively driving. Sure, consumers *could* stop buying DRM, but we won't. The media industry will continue to slow turn up the heat, until we're long past boiling and we don't even realize it. Look at it the history of it --

      1. We started with Macrovision, so you couldn't connect two VCRs & copy commercial tapes.
      2. Laserdiscs - no consumer-level recorders, so no problem there
      3. DVDs - region control & CSS, not supposed to be able to rip & copy
      4. HD/Bluray - DRMs starting to get a little more intrusive

      It's not going to happen over night, but once the HD/Bluray standards finally settle and people start buying & upgrading equipment over the next decade, HD & Bluray's DRM will seem like CSS does now - annoying, but not without its workarounds. And then they'll come up with the next big DRM control, and technical people will gripe about it and Average Joe will remain about as clueless.

      The only way consumers will "revolt" is if they crank up the heat too fast. This industry doesn't move *that* fast, and they're smart enough to not alienate their entire customer base all at once.

      In fact, the industry's biggest danger is consumers moving to other forms of media & content before the industry can react -- stuff like iTunes, podcasts, videoblogs, whatever's next. I definitely agree with previous posts in this thread that media moguls are in the DRM movement for control; if they can control the content & the distribution, they get to control where the profits go.

    4. Re:I don't buy it by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      This actually reminds me a lot of the "original" divx, a temporary dvd format pushed by compusa and rca iirc.. it flopped, miserably... same with the "disposable" dvd rentals... the fact is, things that go "too" far, don't get accepted enough to stick around.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    5. Re:I don't buy it by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the Wikipedia article:
      "DIVX was sold primarily through the Circuit City, The Good Guys, Ultimate Electronics, and Future Shop retailers."

      And:
      "Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures, for instance, initially released their films exclusively on the DIVX format"

      DIVX was marketted wrong- it was pushed as a replacement for DVDs and failed due to the restrictions and whatnot (i.e. same thing here), but as a rental model, it might have had a chance.
      Nowadays, however, I think it would be crushed by VoD

    6. Re:I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Money is only interesting because it IS power. You know, like a battery... that is, as long as you can count on someone being to willing to give you work or resources for your money.

      Money in itself is a way to get power, one of many. But to nobody except say coin collectors is it an end in itself.

    7. Re:I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way consumers will "revolt" is if they crank up the heat too fast. This industry doesn't move *that* fast, and they're smart enough to not alienate their entire customer base all at once.

      But does alienating their customer base slowly help? Are the lost customers going to come back, before they alienate the rest? Look at any peer2peer network... Those are the people they already lost. I don't think they are going to come back. Heck, they even lost me, and I don't want to download illegal MP3s (only legal MP3s for me, please).

    8. Re:I don't buy it by LionOfMacedon · · Score: 1

      I agree with your post, except that you very conveniently have assumed that all customers are infact *AWARE* of the drm and whatever other crap is thrown at them, yes they vote with their wallets, hats fine. but they wont.if they did, then sony media should be bankrupt by now. the general public is not technologically aware,neither are they even interested, if it plays, hats enough for them. most of us who visit /. are geeks, we understand how these work, general populace dosent.it's ultimately about money, but to get the money from their customers, they need power. people will buy this junk, there are people who want to test out products at first, then there are the pissing contest types who have to buy it because some of their friend's friend purchased it, then we have the average people who will upgrade when their set goes kaput, which it inevitably will. they too will have no choice except this junk.i seriously doubt it(drm) would go away, unless it stops average people from watching their movies, they wont bother.sad,but true.ofcourse,if they really mess up the drm like sony did, it might go away, but I think they've learned their lesson. the water's just starting to get hot, it yet has to boil, which it will soon.

    9. Re:I don't buy it by VirtualLemming · · Score: 1

      Power = Money
      Money = Power

    10. Re:I don't buy it by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The day when downloading a movie from the Net is easier and gives you a beter quality product than buying it from the content producer is the day consumers will start jumping ship in droves.

      Look at "protected" music CDs (hi Sony!) vs mp3s downloads from the latest and greatest P2P network.

      If you have any kind of portable MP3 player, pirating the music IS the best option. (sad really)

      (This is not completely so, thanks to Apple an iTunes)

      Thus for movies, the scenario of turning the heat on too fast is still viable even when studios are slowly heating up the DRM fire. This is because consumers don't feel the heat in a linear way (the absolute number of hurdles do i have to jump over to seem the movie), but instead in a non-linear one (how many hurdles do i have to jump over by comparisson with the other ways of getting the same content)

      DRM will not protected against pirating of the movies simply because for each movie DRM only has to be broken or bypassed once for the movie to become available in the Net.

    11. Re:I don't buy it by SilentMobius · · Score: 1

      As the other reply posits, we aren't in control, although I disagree on the "why"
      If the public _would_ complain they make sure that they've paid for legislation that criminalizes most, if not all, of the activity they don't like. So by the time we see the full effect of the tech limitations we may not like it but _its against the law_ to do otherwise.

      And once if passes in the US, WTO pressure starts to force other countries to fall in line. Thankfully some governments aren't as spineless as the UK ("my" govt)

      --
      Loop, twist and loop again.
    12. Re:I don't buy it by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      We have the power of choice, they do not.

      No, you merely have the illusion of choice: Pepsi vs. Coke, Apple vs. Microsoft, Verizon vs. Sprint vs. T-Mobile, etc. In each case, big players collude to reduce real choice and keep real competitors out of the market. Often, that kind of collusion doesn't even require explicit communication: every one of the big players already knows what's in the best interest of the established players and acts accordingly.

      No matter what the media moguls do, the one thing they cannot do is force us to buy their products. We have the power of choice, they do not.

      First of all, they can force you to buy their products, through advertising; you theoretically have free will, so in that case, you aren't "forced", but over the population, advertising works and sells stuff that people wouldn't want to buy if they thought about it rationally.

      Secondly, there are two kinds of consumer choice. There is consumer choice in a free, competitive market. And then there is consumer choice in a monopoly market, where your only choice is not to consume. The kind of choice you're talking about for DVDs is the latter, and that's not a good choice at all.

    13. Re:I don't buy it by mjh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Except, we're not. Or at least, not actively driving. Sure, consumers *could* stop buying DRM, but we won't.

      But isn't that part of the point? If the mass of consumers don't stop buying DRM then aren't they all saying that DRM doesn't bother them? Sure it bothers you. And it bothers me. But we can hardly claim that it bothers most everyone if it doesn't bother them enough to stop purchasing it.

      I guess I don't buy this argument. If the media companies do something that consumers *really* don't like, consumers will find a way around it. And that way will cut into the media companies profits. Which will create a profit incentive for some other company. Which, as you point out, has happened before. The good news is that it will happen again.

      You can worry about it if you like, but consumers really are in the drivers seat.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    14. Re:I don't buy it by albanac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not about power, it's about money. No matter what the media moguls do, the one thing they cannot do is force us to buy their products. We have the power of choice, they do not.

      There's something of a series of responses I'd like to make here.

      Firstly, there's no question that you're right that this is about money. You seem to have missed the basic reality that in the West, and indeed most places, money == power, up to the point of full-scale nuclear military engagement. Without money, you can't run a war: why do you think the US national debt is so much higher now than it was in 2000? You can work from there right down the scale to the two guys on the street who see a hot dog stand and are both hungry. The one who has $5 has the power to become fed, the one who does not lacks this power. But you're right: it's about the money.

      Your comment about the power of choice, unfortunately, is theoretically fine but practically irrelevant. The US consumer really doesn't have the power of choice, and most consumers in the Western world lack it as well; those in some corners of Europe like Scandanavia and the Czech Republic have more than most. This is because any given consumer has the power of choice, but consumers en masse do exactly what they're told. Marketing works. Targetted and co-ordinated marketing works (take a look at how we got into Operation Cobra II in the first place). The only arenas in which Western consumers have actual choice are those in which there are competing products made by companies who have to compete on quality and price: arenas like, for example, high grade sports equipment or food. Lots of choices there. The current area of discussion, however, is a cartel-based industry. There is no competition on price (prices are standard). There is no competition based on quality, because while the cartel may display the occasional interneicine rivalry, everyone in the club knows that they aren't competing against each other: all they have to do is keep making less movies at more money per movie every year, and because they are the only game in town, the general public will keep watching their movies. In case you doubt that comment, apply google to the problem and take a look at the number of movies made per year and how that indicates a trend over the time period from 1920 to the present day. Cross-reference with average price per movie.

      Now we get to the meat of the issue. Just as with the produced-band, hip-hop canned pap industry (otherwise known as the Recording Industry of America Association) the cartel which rules movies has seen a very worrying trend. People aren't spending as much money on movies as they used to. They're still buying the merchandise, which helps: they're still buying movies and going to see them in the cinema, but they're doing so less often. The obvious conclusion from this is they don't like the movies, or consider them (or their media) to be overpriced for the quality. This, however, is not something a cartel can admit. The cartel in question are looking for any way to maintain their profit margins: that's their job. Their profit margins are not based on quality or competition: they are the only game in town. What are their profit margins traditionally based on?

      Leverage of a monopoly status. The term 'gatekeepers' is a useful one: see Jim Baen for a more developed version of this argument from the point of view of a print literature publisher. Publication of entertainment, be it books, films or music, was once an industry with a staggeringly high cost of entry. You had to be One of Us (tm) already to be able to afford to enter the industry, and if you got into it and weren't already one of us, you'd soon have enough cash that you were acceptable to the club. This high cost of entry meant that a cartel-based industry could develop without problems. Back in the day, the cartels *did* compete, but the losers got bought by the winners until pretty much all movies distributed by Hollywood today are owned

    15. Re:I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look at it the history of it

      You try to paint these four items as showing some kind of "slippery slope" pattern, but they seem pretty tenuously related if you ask me. People tolerated Macrovision because it was tolerable. I don't see any evidence to support the assertion that it raised our threshold for what we will tolerate in the future. The reason DRM seems to be becoming more intrusive is because of advances in technology, not because of any change in our tolerance. In fact, it has only just recently started to test the limits of our tolerance (e.g., Sony rootkit).

      I definitely agree with previous posts in this thread that media moguls are in the DRM movement for control; if they can control the content & the distribution, they get to control where the profits go.

      IOW, you agree with the GP that it IS about money, which was his point. But otherwise, your statement is vacuous. Obviously, they need to control the content in order to make a profit. That's the whole point of copyright.

    16. Re:I don't buy it by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Lust for money, justified by any means, IS a form of evil. Duh!

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    17. Re:I don't buy it by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      what motivates these guys is money, pure and simple

      That's the economics 101 view. Supply, demand, maximize profits. Simple, but not the real world.

      Most high-level business decisions are made because of someone's ego. When Orson Wells was blacklisted in Hollywood, it wasn't because it would make someone more money, it was because "Citizen Kane" pissed off one of the richest men in the world.

      Powerful people who have lots of money want more money not because they want to roll around in the cash, but because of the power that comes with it. In the US, once you have a few million, you can have just about any lifestyle you want, with respect to things. What you can't have is the power of someone with 100 million, and he doesn't have the power of someone with 1 billion.

      The cartels (music, movies, diamonds) mostly care about losing power. Money is simply a means of measuring and directing power, not a primary motivator for these people.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    18. Re:I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not about power, it's about money.

      When I get confused about the money||power relationship, I always consult the definitive work on the subject, the movie 'Volunteers':

      Chung Mee: Opium is my business. The bridge mean more traffic. More traffic mean more money. More money mean more power.

      Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.

      Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.

      Chung Mee: Money is Money.

      Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?

    19. Re:I don't buy it by bogado · · Score: 1

      And what exactly do you think money is? Money is a representation of power, wanting money is the same thing as wating power. But money is not the only type of power, the goverment has many way of distributing power besides money, regulations that permits only a few people releasing and distribute something is an example.

      The whole point of the entretainment industry is keeping the amateur out of the way, easier for movies since big produtions are simply out of reach of the casual home user. But when you talk about music, if internet becomes the rule of distributing music, who can predict if the next biug hit isn't a garage band from Austria or a single musitian that hacks music toghether with his computer in a village in a small village in japan?

      Those guys did not signed their souls to big record companies, they can distribute their music themselves, and where is the big power, the big money of the RIAA? They have no power over those musitians, and that is what they are afraid of.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    20. Re:I don't buy it by zephos · · Score: 1

      The point is that there is not another option. It isn't as though you can go into Wallmart and choose the DRM version of your favorite DVD for $15.00 and the DRM free version of your favorite version for $25.00. If you want to legally own the movie you are required to purchase it with some form of DRM included.

      This is the problem with massive DRM controls. Would I buy more music from iTunes if I didn't have to get the DRM heavy aac files? I would absolutely. In fact the only reason I don't buy more from iTunes is that legally bypassing their DRM by burning the files to CD and re-ripping them to DRM-free mp3s is that the things I want to buy [audio books mostly] are so large as to make me burn 10-20 CDs a shot. Not fun.

      Consumers are often more interested in getting the content than anything else. This of all the Linux users who shout "Free Software" yet use proprietary drivers, have libdvdcss installed and any number of legally suspect programs installed.

      The only way the market will show consumer contempt is through choice between DRM and non-DRM. The fact that there is no choice leave either the option to submit to DRM or to refuse to have such content.

      Imagine is hardware manufacturers made hardware that only ran pre-approved, DRMed, signed programs. This would kill open software like GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc. If this were the case are you to honestly suggest that all those disenfranchised people were to just give up computers, programming, whatever until the market decides this is unhealthy? In principle I agree they should, but in reality this would never happen. People don't work this way and the pressures of the individually are always greater than the pressures of the market. [Otherwise Free Software advocates would never use Windows, even for their jobs.]

    21. Re:I don't buy it by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      They do force people to buy their products. They simply make sure that the competition doesn't exist. And that is the why they need power.

      So, who comes to your door with a gun and forces you to buy a DVD or get shot in the head?

      Oh, you mean that doesn't happen? Then that must mean -- gasp! -- you choose to buy what they're selling. There, now...that wasn't so hard, was it? Thinking comes naturally after you do it for a while.

      Seriously, though, competition has nothing to do with this. Entertainment is an optional part of life. You can live without it, hence my statement that the entertainment industry needs us more than we need it. If consumers boycotted everything tomorrow, the entire industry would collapse in a month. Yet if you went a month without buying a movie, going to the theater, or buying a CD, would you die of it?

      You have the power of choice. Quit acting like someone else is forcing your hand and own up to the responsiblity of living.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    22. Re:I don't buy it by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Your comment about the power of choice, unfortunately, is theoretically fine but practically irrelevant. The US consumer really doesn't have the power of choice.

      Not true. Until Congress passes a law forcing me to buy X number of movies and CD's every month, I have the right to refuse to purchase entertainment. There! That wasn't so hard, was it? You're acting like entertainment is something as essential as air, water, food, or clothing. It isn't. I can entertain myself by taking a walk, playing with my kids outside, or any number of ways that don't involve me paying someone else. If you're trying to spin this as some Western lack of freedom, you're barking up the wrong tree. Also, your allusion to war and money is a bit specious.

      This is because any given consumer has the power of choice, but consumers en masse do exactly what they're told.

      Sheep get what sheep deserve, then. I will have no part of it if and when I choose to opt out. Until then, DRM isn't causing me any headaches at all. All my gear is current with HDCP from end to end. If things get too intrusive beyond just that, I'll simply take my ball and go elsewhere. If things get really annoying, consumers will do this en masse despite any marketing.

      So in conculsion, it is about power, from the point of view that it is about money and money is power.

      Allow me to let you in on a little secret that seems to have elluded you: power is not taken. Power is given. The media conglomerates have power (or money if you choose to use the terms interchangeably) because consumers give them money (aka "power"). Consumers can, if they so choose, vote with their wallets and put the conglomerates in their place.

      Movement of this type is already being observed in the form of lower CD sales and lower box-office receipts. True, there's no widespread revolt, but that's because, to most people, copying a DVD isn't something they even care about doing. Rip it to a PC? Give me a break. Outside of the tech community, nobody gives a damn about that. The new DRM will, if anything, give legal owners more legal rights to make personal copies. I'd prefer no DRM at all, of course, but when faced with DVD's which have no legal means of copying and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray DRM which allows personal copies, it's quite clear the latter is better than the former.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    23. Re:I don't buy it by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      No, you merely have the illusion of choice: Pepsi vs. Coke, Apple vs. Microsoft, Verizon vs. Sprint vs. T-Mobile, etc. In each case, big players collude to reduce real choice and keep real competitors out of the market. Often, that kind of collusion doesn't even require explicit communication: every one of the big players already knows what's in the best interest of the established players and acts accordingly.

      [sigh] You can lead a Slashdotter to logic but you cannot make him think.

      You're forgetting the one choice that no one can deny you, the one choice that is always yours to make: you can refuse to purchase the wares they are offering! Build a model airplane! Fly a kite! Play golf! Go for a walk! Collect butterflies! Use your goddam head as something other than a counterbalance for your torso! Have human beings such as you really degenerated so far as to be mere sheep? Are you unable to conceive of the fact that you are in charge of your life, that you make the choices? My God, your response has got to be the single most apathetic thing I've read all day long. Please, get a grip on your life and re-assert some control of your surroundings.

      I mean this in all seriousness and not as a flame. If you're so far gone that you cannot grasp the concept of personal responsiblity, you need some serious help.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    24. Re:I don't buy it by albanac · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph has nothing to do with the quote from mine, so I'm going to ignore it except for this:

      Also, your allusion to war and money is a bit specious.

      Um? Okay. It was intended as an illustration of ways in which money and power are synoymous. Having money provides power: on a small scale, it provides small power and on a large scale it provides enough military technology to take over the world.

      This is because any given consumer has the power of choice, but consumers en masse do exactly what they're told.

      Sheep get what sheep deserve, then. I will have no part of it if and when I choose to opt out. Until then, DRM isn't causing me any headaches at all.

      Apart from being an apparent demonstration of my point, this seems totally irrelevant. Any given consumer (in this case you) has the power of choice, and it sounds like you're exercising it. Well done. Consumers en masse do what they're told by marketeering, media saturation and cultural peer pressure. Your response is "Sheep get what sheep deserve", which while it seems to indicate that you in fact agree with my point, is a bit superfluous, and implies a value judgement that I, at least, would not be comfortable making. I was commenting on the reality of modern mass-perception engineering. You don't seem to have disputed the accuracy of my comment.

      Allow me to let you in on a little secret that seems to have elluded you: power is not taken. Power is given. The media conglomerates have power (or money if you choose to use the terms interchangeably) because consumers give them money (aka "power"). Consumers can, if they so choose, vote with their wallets and put the conglomerates in their place.

      Which they won't. How many people boycotted Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy merely because its profits went to a member of the MPAA? Moving on: they already have spectacular reserves of money. These guys are complaining about falling profit, not falling bank balances. They're scared because they're adding less to the mountain of money each year, not because they're having to actually dip into the mountain of money to make new movies. They've already got the power, because it was given to them years ago and they were intelligent with how they invested it. One way they invested it was in politicians: the end result is the Bono act, the DMCA, and whatever similar modifications of law the politicians they invested in pass next year. That's another illustration of ways in which money provides power.

      Also: power is not taken, it's given? Tell that to the current citizens of Iraq. Power was taken away from the Ba'ath party, by the men with guns. Power is now being taken away from the moderates who want to try and run a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, by the other men with guns. Some power is awarded by default, some power is given willingly, some power is taken by force. No nation on earth in the 21st century has anything like the record that the USA has in terms of taking power by force.

      Your last paragraph is fundamentally irrelevant to my point, though relevant to the original article under discussion. Will the slow-boil method allow the cartel to keep consumers jogging along without any kind of real change in consumption patterns? I don't know. I really don't think there's enough evidence to say, yet.

    25. Re:I don't buy it by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the one choice that no one can deny you, the one choice that is always yours to make: you can refuse to purchase the wares they are offering!

      As I was saying, that's the choice you have under a monopoly; it's not the same choice that you are supposed to have in a free market.

      That was the same choice people had, say, under the AT&T monopoly. There is a special branch of economics that deals with just that choice.

      I mean this in all seriousness and not as a flame. If you're so far gone that you cannot grasp the concept of personal responsiblity, you need some serious help.

      I mean this in all seriousness: if you don't grasp the difference between a choice in a monopoly market and the choice in a free market even after someone just explicitly pointed this out, you should probably just give up writing anything altogether.

      And if you don't understand why it bothers people when a small group of companies has monopolized and is controlling culture and mass communication, and the only choice they have is to participate in a commercialized mass culture or limit themselves to those few niches of our society where culture can eek out an existence without corporate interference, then you're just an uncultured boor.

    26. Re:I don't buy it by Nebot · · Score: 1
      But here's what you fail to realize: the customer is in the driver's seat here, not the media moguls.
      This is where I feel you are wrong. Why pay $20 for a disk that cost a few cents to make. Because The "media moguls" as you call them said so. The consumer left the driver's seat a long time ago, if we were ever there in the first place. If you listen to a song on the radio it is because the record companies wanted you to hear it, that's the only reason the radio stations get music. If you like the music you have to buy it but again the music is monopolized because only one record company has that song by that artist. The customer didn't say "I will pay such and such" the record company said "This disk will cost you so much." and even if there is only one song on the disk or only 30 minutes of music on the disk of the 80 minutes of recording time it is the same price, set by the company. America is driven by one thing, money. To the record companies the customer is nothing more then a pawn. They put on the nice face because they want you to continue to purchase their products. Oh they are so nice they sent me 3 free Cd's. Get a grip on yourself. The company could send you 1000 free Cd's and still not loose any profits from the one you bought. Wake up. The company is the only ones getting rich from what they have. If I had a band recorded my own music I would only need one hit album to be a multi-millionaire. Do the math. 1 million Cd's @ $10 each (half the price of commercial ones) subtract the cost of the media ($.12 each) I just made $9,880,000 when they all sell. Divide it among a 4 person band and 1 computer geek is $1,976,000 each. Not bad for a few days of time. (more then I make in a month) But the professional guys done ever see close to that. So don't give me the line the industry doesn't control, it's all about control, it's in the contract. NeBot --------------- All of the ideas here are mine. If you don't like them go somewere else.
    27. Re:I don't buy it by drew · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe that. Power for power's sake? Why?

      Of course not. It's not power for power's sake, it's power for money's sake. Power of any kind, but especially power to control a consumer market, is easily translated into money.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    28. Re:I don't buy it by mjh · · Score: 1
      The point is that there is not another option. It isn't as though you can go into Wallmart and choose the DRM version of your favorite DVD for $15.00 and the DRM free version of your favorite version for $25.00. If you want to legally own the movie you are required to purchase it with some form of DRM included.
      That's true, but you don't have a right to own a copy of that movie no matter how much you may want to. The current owner of that movie is only willing to give it to you if you agree to DRM. That's the deal. Take it or leave it.

      And you shouldn't be surprised by this. The same deal is true with my house. If you want to purchase my house, you can either accept the terms that I offer or not. You don't have a right to my house until we agree on the terms. The guy who owns my favorite DVD isn't willing to sell it to me w/out DRM. That's his/her right. If I don't like it, that's really sad for me, but that's that.

      Content "owners" just like home owners may be irrational and make stupid decisions. If you think that they're not taking reasonable offers for the thing that they own, is irrelevant. They own it. It's their prerogative to be irrational with it.

      Imagine is hardware manufacturers made hardware that only ran pre-approved, DRMed, signed programs.
      If this were a big enough problem then there'd be an oppurtunity for someone to create hardware that works differently. If people *really* want it, then they'll buy it. Note for example, that the hardware that you're worried about is simply non-existant on the market today. People don't want it, so it has negligible (at best) market share.

      My point? Consumers are in the drivers seat.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  20. So what? by ylikone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Was it discussed by Slashdot readers at Digg? No? Then shut the f*** up.

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WhY DOnT U ShUT THe FUcK UP.... FAGGOT!!!! You just got pwned!

  21. "Analog Hole" alive and well, see bittorrent sites by ylikone · · Score: 1

    Have a look at the majority of new (and not yet released) movies that you can download from bittorrent sites... they are usually "Cam" copies, meaning somebody used a camera to copy it off the big screen. And guess what, people download these and watch them! The quality may not be great, but you get the gist of the movie and whether it is worth it to see on the big screen or rent it later.

    --
    Meh.
  22. Not a myth, they know exactly what they are doing. by linuxtelephony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt it's a myth. I bet they know exactly what they are doing. It's just all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

    They know they are fighting a losing battle with the "digital copies" that won't be affected by closing the analog hole. However, they also know that they have a captive audience of people that have already purchased their product. These people, at some point, WANT the purchased product.

    Media shifting has (or at least was, don't know if recent case law has overruled or changed it) been legal as fair use. That means it is (or was) legal to copy a CD to casette if you legally purchased the CD and wanted to listen to it in your car cassette deck.

    The media companies don't like this. They want you to have to pay them a second time for the different media. They could not (or at least I don't think they have) stop the fair-use media shifting directly. Now, however, using the guise of piracy, they are taking steps to stop people from being able to do their own media shifting. The end result will be, at least what the media industry hopes will be, a large customer base of people that they know will spend money, since they have once already, on their product that will be more inclined to spend money again for different media.

    Think about it like this. If an older album sold 10,000,000 copies on cassette, and the same album then sold 1,000,000 copies on CD, the media industry will look at trends like that and see an automatic 10% revenue source for minimal work. Now, suppose a CD sells 10,000,000 copies, and the next audio format comes out. If they can make it imposible to copy that CD to the new media format, then it is likely that they'll be able to capture another 10%. 10% doesn't sound like much, but if they sell 1,000,000 copies of a song, and they are pocketing 1 or 2 dollars, that's 1 to 2 million dollars extra, times the number of titles they can repeat this process with.

    In the end, I think they know exactly what they are doing.

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  23. My 2 cents by Temujin_12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When someone listens to a song the emotional attachment is made with the artist of the song, NOT the company that produced it. I personally feel the whole DRM situation would taper off if this emotional attachment was reflected economically when a consumer purchases a CD. That way the consumer has an emotional incentive to obtain the song legally since their purchase goes directly to the artist and enforces this emotional attachment. The same is true for movies, books etc. The problem is that in order for this to happen, the large producing/publishing companies will have to go away (or at least fall backstage). These companies know this, and what we are seeing is their attempts to stop natural economic and technological trends. Once it becomes economically feasible for an artist/author to produce/publish their work somewhere else, either by themselves or via companies that don't demand ownership of their work, they will do it, and DRM, as well as large producing/publishing companies won't be needed as much.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    1. Re:My 2 cents by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I just don't see this.

      How is any of this stopping artists selling music. I know what people say "they wanted to close down the P2P networks to stop artists from sharing music", but there's nothing to support that at all.

      There are people out there freely offering MP3s of their music on web sites on a "go ahead, use as you like" and the RIAA aren't doing anything about it.

  24. Re:Not a myth, they know exactly what they are doi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10%, I like it.

  25. Pirates = Scapegoat by DMouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real analog hole that the studios are trying to eliminate is the massive amount of legal content already in people's homes that the studios think is stopping people from buying new content.

    Pirates are just a useful scapegoat.

  26. Real-time monitoring of the sharing nets? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >And once one dedicated copier puts something on the file sharing nets...

    I wonder how far off we are from the day when the "internet" content can be actively monitored. Already we are hearing rumblings about how P2P traffic can be easily identified and QOSed as desired. Or how the file sharing networks get infiltrated.

    I wonder how far off we are from the day when pirated content, the sender, and receiver are identified in nanoseconds and calls routed to the appropriate local law enforcement agencies?

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Real-time monitoring of the sharing nets? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      BayTSP claims that they are already spidering torrent sites and P2P networks constantly so that they can identify and sue the "first sharer" of files within minutes. (Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they?) But supposedly the real bad guys never use P2P networks; they're hidden behind private "topsites" that are already encrypting their traffic.

    2. Re:Real-time monitoring of the sharing nets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine is dumpsite for series for one of the bigger "topsites" or wares crews. Any data going in and out of the network is via. secure ftp, from there on it goes up on p2p sites by anonymous transmissions.

    3. Re:Real-time monitoring of the sharing nets? by rikkards · · Score: 1
      Already we are hearing rumblings about how P2P traffic can be easily identified and QOSed as desired.


      Yep Rogers set it up and even admit it. Traffic was horrid during beginning of December. After I found out about uTorrent in Late December, there have been points where I have downloaded 400M under 10 minutes. This shows though how quickly response to checks can be done.

      I wonder how far off we are from the day when pirated content, the sender, and receiver are identified in nanoseconds and calls routed to the appropriate local law enforcement agencies?


      All depends on whether the method they determine who the interested parties are and if it becomes the fruit from the poisoned tree. Granted only law enforcement need warrants though.
  27. News flash! by edunbar93 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Government and media producers are out of touch with reality! News at 10! Film at 11!

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    1. Re:News flash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Government and media producers are out of touch with reality! News at 10! Film at 11!

      Torrent online by 12!

    2. Re:News flash! by nub!s · · Score: 3, Funny

      now that you mention it... my 5 years old nephew thinks tv stands for TorrentVision. ----nubis :)

  28. Re:hehe, old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could have married a fat man though, think about that.

  29. Re:"Analog Hole" alive and well, see bittorrent si by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Actually, more and more copies are "DVD" copies (either copies given to people like film reviewers, awards judges or others or copies stolen in some form from pressing plants, DVD authoring shops or something else)
    "cam" films are getting less and less.

  30. Not going to work... by curtvdh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because it requires the co-operation of hardware manufacturers. Sure, your Big Names are going to fall in line - Sony, Philips, Pansonic etc. But there will still be a host of Chinese/Korean/Singaporean manufacturers who will simply disregard the DRM restrictions. I have a DVD player imported from Korea - plays MPEG-2/MPEG-4, PAL/NSTC, completely disregards region encoding and Macrovision 'quality control', and lets me skip any part of the disc that I want (none of this 'cant use the remote on this piece of video' crap). Plus, is has Component Video Out, DVI/HDMI OUT, VGA Out - pretty much any connector you can think of, it has it. Cost less than $150 (minus shipping).

    The studios are fooling themselves if they think all hardware shops are going to fall in line. Right now, less than 5% of containers arriving at our ports are screened for radioactive materials - do you really think that some know-nothing Customs Agent is going to care about a harmless DVD player?

    1. Re:Not going to work... by Akoma+The+Immortal · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me which company it is? I am constantly switching from France to Canada and I am always cronfronted with this region coding nastiness.

      I will be happy to support this hardware manufacturer.

      Regards.

      --
      assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
    2. Re:Not going to work... by trosenbl · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. This has been my favorite post today.

    3. Re:Not going to work... by Guiness17 · · Score: 1

      Probably a Malata or Apex. Start here:

      http://www.nerd-out.com/forum/
      lots of great info on off-brand DVD players.

      --
      Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
    4. Re:Not going to work... by Akoma+The+Immortal · · Score: 1

      Thanks mate!

      It is really apreciated.

      Regards,

      --
      assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
  31. Overstepping. by catwh0re · · Score: 1
    While I agree that by introducing restrictions the studios create more business opportunities to leech from the consumer.

    What the studios do need to recognise is that entertainment is an optional business. No one -needs- to purchase a DRM movie or audio disc.

    Herein lies their problem, they want to somehow grow profits, but punish their bread+butter customers in the process, because they can't think of any better way to restrict content to traditional use.

    I think they should just go back to the old method of ensuring sales. Which was bundling, CD's that come with lyrics and great album art. Movies that come with the figurines/posters/etc. Collectors edition crap, etc.

    This will actually entice a consumer to buy the real-deal instead of just obtaining a pirated copy from somewhere.

    Another quick point to make, people that buy pirated-anything are usually the kind of people that weren't going to part with their money for a sh!t-sequel anyway. Good movies always have always led to good DVD sales(such as the Lord of the Rings series which sold very well as DVDs), bad movies, i.e 90% of what a studio produces in a year simply don't have good DVD sales.

  32. Re:Not a myth, they know exactly what they are doi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't DRM something that you don't own the output of. In my "music room" I produce something that two-channel, or even 5.1 channel, stereo can't reproduce. Therefore I am immune to "DRM," and don't really care about all this worry -- who says that the studios will always own the rights to distribution? Pixar + Disney + Apple = ?

  33. Fill that hole! by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "the so called "analog hole" ... is the slowest and lowest quality method of stealing content."

    They are already willing to degrade quality in order to prevent fair use. What's a little more then?

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  34. Retarded world we live in by TimothyJones · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am so fed up with entertainment business. I don't mind spending my money on things I like and someone can provide but the whole thing is retarded, and getting more retarded still. I don't believe MPAA, RIAA, studios, labels and the bunch are morons and thinnk that somehow, by introducing all the restrictions they'll eradicate piracy and stand to make significant profit, if bigger profit at all due to that fact. It is all about control and someone going "Because I said so and you little shitheads bow down to me!" Recently there was this thing with French having a problem with iTunes and locking into iPod, and I don't particualrly care for the French but you know what? They're right. Wanna provide content and sell songs? Fine, but don't limit people to some specific equipment. Otherwise, kindly fuck off! Chevys are not required to fill up at a special GM gas station, how are songs or movies any different? They're not.

    I can't have simply a satellite receiver, oh no, I need to have a CrapTV receiver and if for some reason I'd like to switch or buy some "other" programming, well receiver goes to the trash. What is the goddamned deal here? Same with the cell phones, cable tv, sat radio and few other things. I really cannot fathom how can equipment manufacturers even go for this crap? It is almost unimaginable that we have somehow managed to build a universally accessible Internet. Someone must have had a brain fart and forgot to grease our public servants.

    Back in the day I truly enjoyed my first TiVo. Awesome product and what a concept. Add a dash of DirecTV and one ends up with TiShit. The thing changes channels on its own to record infomercials, convininently and regularly reorganinzes my channel list to include removed by me shopping channels, bitches constantly about not being able to call home and a host of other annoying things. AND to top it all off we're being charged $5 or so a month for a DVR SERVICE. What fucking service!? I bought the damn thing for top dollars, it's a computer with a hard drive and all it does is record what I tell it to. What service!? That whole DRM shit is really no surprise and will likely go the same way. We enjoyed having pricey but no less standardized CD's and DVD's for a long while but the end is near. We'll end up with yet another "service". Wanna listen at home? Here you go. Wanna listen in your car? Sure, you'll need to pay more for this additional, exciting "service". Wanna listen to some other record label? Well you'll need a whole new equipment for that. Actually it's already here in the form of sat radio. It's not about piracy at all. Frankly those who'd even consider watching a video-recorded movie are pathetic losers who have no appreciacion for film, any film and will not spend real money on it anyway. Pirates will do whatever they do and no crappy DRM will stop them just like all the software activations and cable/sat scrambling haven't done a thing but to annoy and limit an already and duly paying customer. Actually it may as well increase the demand for pirated media not because it's cheaper or free, but because you'll be actually able to listen to it, watch it or use it. It is not about providing customers with content, it's about controlling what you do and selling sub-content. Commercials on TV don't work cause everyone hates them so they need to sell shit some other way. They'd be glad to precede every song on a CD with an "information from our sponsor" and to ensure sponsor's happy, it'd be neat if they could guarrantee that the customer will definitely listen to the promo - cause he's got no say in the matter. Yea, he paid for the CD, who gives a shit, we can make more money this way. It also be cool if we somehow made it a law prohibiting turning down the volume for the promo's duration. Many DVD's already have that great feature and one must sit thru several minutes of stupid - ehem pardon me, "exciting" previews before they get to watch a movie that they paid for. They're so exciting they have to make us watch it, to watch it. Some media

    1. Re:Retarded world we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is insightful, but I don't think people will sign on to a boycott everything campaign. It is too complex, and limiting.

      We need instead an easy to understand targeted campaign, Fight Club style. Why not choose one company, one of the most egregious offenders (SONY?), and for a period of one year, buy nothing from them. Yeah, it will start small at first, and some folks won't go along, but the rest of us can shame them.

      There is safety in numbers - too many companies collude, all engaging in bad practices together. Thus, a boycott is impossible, because this person over here is saying "Microsoft sucks" and that person over there is saying "SONY sucks" and no one can agree and discontent just dissipates. But the fact is, they ALL suck. So why not, then, choose just one as an example to the others, and intentionally damage its bottom line?

    2. Re:Retarded world we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't watch TV, I don't watch movies, and I only buy used cd's. I can do it -- can you?

    3. Re:Retarded world we live in by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice idea in theory.....

      Problem is to many are just plain straight addicted to the content.

      Yeah that's right you heard me their addicted to the music and the media they just can't get enough of it. It has nothing really to do with them not being able to co-ordinate their hate against one company or another. So simply asking them to boycott even one would make many go through severe withdrawls that they would kill their best friend their lover heck anybody you asked them to just to get their next fix.

      Ok maybe not but it does certainly seems that way.

      Very few only a limited number of people are able to (or want to) go cold turkey and kick the habit altogether by not listening or watching the "content" so I have serious doupts as to something even like this having any real success. It would really have to be something that so pisses everybody off that they'll make the sacrifice for just a little while and hope it makes a impact on the industry as a whole so they'll back off but if not people will loose interest or sight of what they were doing it for after a short time and fall into accepting it.

      Why do you think kings and emperors or pharoses and sultans were able to control the masses? By having a core group of heavyily armed men trained to kill? No if the kingdom or country all turned against him and his men it wouldn't matter how heavily armed they were or how well trained the masses would simply overrun them and overthrow the king. A fact that was demenstraited by the French during their revolution (ok so a pompus, arrogant, greedy, powerhungry little pipsqueek came out of that but still) when the people are pushed to the brink with no other recourse they will act. But if they can't do so in significant numbers or bring a speedy resolution to the comflict and so they can set about redoing everything then the whole thing peeters out fast it's human nature and it's how a few can control so many for so long even though the masses hate them.

      That's the thing that caused me such problems for so long about human history trying to understand how a larger number of people could allow themselves to be controled by a few people or by one man for so long or end up going from one bad controlling leadership to another so quickly and easily so often.

      It's just plain nuts, Even the US is ripe for some power mad dictator or mordern day Ceaser to step in and take control because we have lost the drive to fight against it ala red dawn (which would never happen in real life as people would end up sadly giving in).

      Even our founding fathers had a tough time of it convincing the people of the colonies to take up the sword against the crown. It took almost a decade of failed attempts to set off the revolution untill the boston tea party caused the king to send in troops that loyalists started badgering one night drawing a crowd and a coupel thrown rocks later the small scared cornered garrison open fire (in self defense mind you) killing several colenists leading to outrage amoungst the public and resulted in the american revolution (after some creative wood cut drawing propaganda of course).

      Even then victory wasn't a forgone conclusion if the founding fathers hadn't gotten washington to put his head into the noose with them by signing the declaration of independance (making him as much of a traitor punishable by death as they were the war which up till then was going nowhere might have ended with the colonies surrender made a radical change in course) after that washingtons forces started fighting much more aggressivly and ended up winning the war.

      If it hadn't been for some well placed and much needed pushes at the proper time the US would never have fought this war nor won it.

      Would such a thing happen now if it was needed? I kinda doupt it the enemy is much better prepared and

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  35. Re:hehe, old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't seen "her", have you?

  36. Good idea, let's do it by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The biggest problem facing independent distribution is the signal-to-noise ratio. It's easy enough these days to make a movie, CD, app, or any other sort of media and distribute it -- and people are doing that nonstop. On any college campus, there are more artistic events than crowds to attend them. The problem is sorting out the good stuff and delivering it to passive consumers.

    Old Media established itself performing that service. Now, it's becoming clear that we don't really need them to do it for us, with mainstream music and Hollywood blockbusters becoming ever more WTF-ish and handy Web apps making the task of finding high-quality independent stuff ever easier. I don't think consumers a whole see these copyrights as being anywhere near as valuable as the corporate owners do. Remember that Netscape used to sell for $40 [didn't check fact at all], videotapes used to sell for aroun $99, and a CD with one good song would sell for $20 (as opposed to $0.99 on iTunes). I'm suggesting that a media copyright isn't a perfect monopoly: As competitive, free and independent media proliferates, the value of a media copyright approaches zero.

    Steve Wozniak, the (co)founder of Apple Computers, once remarked that he thought every one would write the software he or she needed, and people would be free of the big software companies forever! While many quality open source applications are available, there are still many software niches where open source alternatives are either nonexistent or lacking compared to a commercial alternative.

    It gets better every year. I've found OOo even more effective than MS Office, at a company where everyone else is using MS Office. That's nuts.

    When desktop publishing software became affordable, some analysts predicted that every person could have their own magazine; this is not the case.

    Note the following:

    Yes, the analysts were wrong: Everyone actually has several of their own magazines now. The problem is that media isn't worth what it used be. So media companies struggle to hold onto the most valuable things they have, while consumers see less and less importance in any single item.

  37. offshore jobs by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The funny thing is that the studios would almost certainly see a lot less actual piracy if they would stop having their DVD presses run cheaply in China and other places where it's sometimes difficult to find a legit DVD.

    I guess they added up the figures and came to the conclusion it's still cheaper doing it that way. They only fake the losses when they need to force through some new law.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  38. idiotic post by nyet · · Score: 1

    480i/480p/540p are noticably HORRIBLE on the smallest of HD TVs

  39. A-Hole. by sihker · · Score: 1

    I see they want to make the hole tight.

  40. Sick of it ALL by ol2o · · Score: 1

    After years of people freaking out about DRM and the like, i can say only this .000000003 knows how to copy shit. It's (mp3-4) have been out forever. If this is a new thing to you then point being, forget about the DRM. nobody worth shit is copying anything. Do they want to crack down on the dude that sells homemade dvds on canal in nyc. he's big bucks, like ten big bucks or who are they after? stop paying dumbasses to chase the boogy man and enforcing small pieces of legislation that will someday add up to tracking your children from home to their domicile (aka the cage) where they can egg their life. we are the first world country. we have to accept that our well intentioned crap is going to end up very chaotic at the other end of the world. if it comes down to 4 dvds a year instead of 150 years of privacy legislation, then let the .00000005434 copy the screwy song/movie. it's out of the league of the average consumer.

    1. Re:Sick of it ALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your random post generator is somewhat cool but it doesn't quite pass the Turing test just yet.

  41. You need to stop furthering their myths yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You wrote, "That means it is (or was) legal to copy a CD to casette if you legally purchased the CD..."

    Um, no. Under fair use it has always been legal to copy even if you just borrowed it, or rented it, or whatever - you do NOT have to OWN the original.

    [Fair use is a Constitutional right (the same as copyright is - in other words, they are on the same legal footing). Fair use rights have been recognized by some courts in court decisions, including all the way up to the US Supreme Court in the Betamax decision. And, Congress wrote a few of the relevant factors down in statute (although the statute by no means encompasses the whole field). I don't recall anything in the Betamax case, or anywhere else, where the US Constitution was definitively interpreted to allow the copying only of stuff you OWN].

    When I hear RIAA/MPAA myths like yours spreading, I fear those organizations are actually winning. Maybe they are losing the technological battle, but they sure as hell are winning the propaganda battle, if even their antagonists are spreading their own lies for them.

  42. "Analog" piracy: It's not a myth by GhodMode · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know any real content pirates, but I am one of their regular customers. Perhaps the ones George Ou knows do things differently.

    I'm American, but I live in a "relatively modern third-world country" (Malaysia) and I can tell you that over 80% of all DVD and VCDs sold here are pirated from an analog source ... Not just 80% of pirated copies, 80% of all sold.

    All of the three shopping malls here (KK) are loaded with video stores. Only one of them (Speedy video) doesn't sell pirated DVDs/VCDs at all.

    Pirates don't care about the quality. Sometimes it's barely watchable. They just want to get as many copies of their pirated movies on the shelves as possible. Usually, it's from some guy sitting in a movie theater with a video camera.

    DRM and any other acronym they throw in there is just a waste of time and money for everyone. It will only make things more difficult for the paying customers. If people can watch it or listen to it, they can make a copy of it. With just a little bit of effort, people can make excellent copies of any original, regardless of the copy-protection.

    -- Ghodmode

    1. Re:"Analog" piracy: It's not a myth by taxevader · · Score: 1

      Err.. wouldnt it make more sense for them to download a decent quality copy off the net and mass duplicate that? For new releases they could just record the Malay soundtrack from the cinema and use VirtuaDub to add it to the decent copy. Whats their obsession with using analog sources?

      --
      -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
    2. Re:"Analog" piracy: It's not a myth by GhodMode · · Score: 1

      For me it makes more sense to download a decent quality copy off the net. Most of the time, the movies I download with P2P are much better quality than the pirated ones I get. But it doesn't make sense for pirates ...

      There are only two broadband providers here and the max available speed is 1Meg per second down. With that speed it takes anywhere from 24 hours (if I'm very lucky) to 1 week to get a movie. So, it's slower.

      Unfortunately for Malaysians, there is no Malay soundtrack. All foreign movies here are sub-titled in Malay and Mandarin ... that took some getting used to :)

      So, it takes two hours for a guy to sit in a theater. Then it probably doesn't take too long to transfer the movie to VCD or DVD and make thousands of copies for distribution.

      Also, I have the impression that most Malaysians are not Internet savvy. The nerds like us are just as savvy as us, but I think that perhaps a slim majority of Malaysians don't really get what the Internet is for and certainly don't realize they can download movies. My sister-in-law is always amazed when I bring her children Disney movies to watch and she doesn't really get how I can "download them from the Internet".

      I didn't mean to steer this into a discussion about Malaysians' support of of video and music piracy, but I think it's still relevant to the topic as piracy is seen as more of a problem in Asian countries.

      -- Ghodmode

  43. are you comparing me to the movie pi? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i'm flattered ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  44. Let them kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by Secrity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I fervently hope that the content industries lay the DRM as thick and as heavy as technologically possible. If the DRM is wimpy, people will not know who to blame for the DRM annoyances that they have to put up with. If the DRM is heavy enough and intrusive enough, maybe people will start to understand WHY they the movie that they bought won't play right with their 2 year old television. I also hope that people start returning movies and music when they can't do with it what they think that they should be able to do with it.

  45. anal by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Am i the only one who misread this as anal hole.

    1. Re:anal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:anal by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      No in fact you didn't misread it.
          It is infact our Anal-log holes that's in question and the entertainment industry wants to plug it with guess what. *&%% plugs!

          That's right they wanna stick em right up our Anal-log holes, It gives them a certain sick kind of pleasure and us a disgusting dirty feeling (aside from thoughs perverse few that get off on that kind of thing).

          Lol J/K you're the only one :D

          Does kinda sound similar when you think of it though.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  46. Its not about "pirates" by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its about control of the consumer/citizen.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  47. Markets don't always work by Britz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a big libertarian over here in Europe (which would translate to democrat in the US, yes, we are so far apart!), but there might be times when markets do seem to fail. The DVD was a large success. But the next generation? DRM is just one of the areas where the entertainment industry seems hopelss. Will the consumer "wait and see" for HD-DVD and Blue-Ray? I guess they will. Will they wait for DRM to actually work? Most likely! Will that translate into much sales? Hardly!

    Same happened to the music industry and online distribution. They slept through it. They didn't even combat online piracy very good. They still don't. Maybe in part because Kazaa promotes the most popular and therefore acutally serves them. But iTunes came along pretty late in the game and still much earlier than the labels themselves.

    Many people now have some sort of 5.1 or 6.1 Dolby Digital system at home. The music industry could sell all their stuff in sourround and reap similar profits to the movie industry with their old stuff on DVD selling like mad. Competing formats, no marketing, complete failure!!!

    I still don't think the government should get involved in many of those cases, simply because markets sort it out eventually (see iTunes). But they would serve the industry much better if they would take lead in some sort of standard body. It might take longer with the government involved, but shorter and cheaper than the upcoming standards war.

  48. Jeeze, misinformatrion from sales droids by fnj · · Score: 1

    Your sales droid is an idiot. DVD recorders do not place region codes in the DVDs they record. There would be no reason to. Region codes are about controlling marketing costs for commercial videos. That's the only reason they exist. So you can record your own videos and anyone will be able to play them (subject to the NTSC vs PAL issue - and that is a real issue for North America vs Europe). What you would have some trouble doing is copying commercial VHS tapes or DVDs - but you clearly state that isn't your purpose.

    So just go ahead and buy the gosh darn recorder. Players and TVs which can show both NTSC and PAL are readily available in Europe.

    1. Re:Jeeze, misinformatrion from sales droids by igb · · Score: 1
      I routinely buy Region 1 DVDs. Everyone has multi-region players, and they'll drive standard PAL TVs with NTSC DVDs via every input other than UHF.

      ian

    2. Re:Jeeze, misinformatrion from sales droids by spxero · · Score: 1

      Yes, the sales guy is an idiot. However, I am able to region-encode with my DVD burner. While it would defeat part of the purpose of having a burner, that 'feature' is there.

  49. Re:"Analog Hole" alive and well, see bittorrent si by nub!s · · Score: 1

    I like to watch movies at full quality, not just "get the gist of it". If you are planning to watch it later in hi-res, when you know its worth it, you would regret the fact that you didn't do that the first time around. In the other hand, when studios realize that people doesn't give a shit about the fx most of the time, they would start worriying abuot the scripts. Maybe the inability of the industry to provide quality scripts is what leads them to focus in the fx, wich is the only appeal of their movies, if they take your hability to rip their movies at hi-res (just for the fx), then you have nothing to rip. And since most drm protection involves reducing quality, y think there is a big chance of them shooting themselves in the foot.

    ----nubis :)

  50. No surprises here... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    But ironically, the real content pirates who make millions of bootleg movies have no intention of ever taking advantage of the so called "analog hole" because that is the slowest and lowest quality method of stealing content.

    Yeah, I hear you only get shit out of it. *rimshot*
    Hmm, that gave a disturbing mental image of "content extraction". :-S

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  51. Fed up with DRM? by rdfield · · Score: 1
    http://www.mvine.com/ is an Indie label that hosts music and videos unencumbered by DRM.

    Download the free stuff and share with everyone you know.

  52. I think you underestimate by corvenus · · Score: 1

    The propensity of the masses for being docile. It would take too much effort for people to revolt against something like that. And even if half the masses do revolt, the other half will be enough to ensure that the media moguls pursue their goals, and the dissidents will eventually fall back in line.

  53. Analog copies = VHS on DVD by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    In my experiance the quality of an analog recording is never any better than a VHS tape.

  54. that's the way, uh huh, uh huh... by rvega · · Score: 1

    analog content is the boogie man

    Really? KC is implicated in all this?

    Oh, you must mean bogeyman...

  55. Nothing to add, but... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to say that you're 100% right. Brilliant post.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  56. exactly by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    except that, for our overwhelming numbers, we do not employ teams of rabid lawyers and lobbyists, so our interests, even though they should be first and foremost, are not looked after

    just example #13,245 of money warping american democracy

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Re:Not a myth, they know exactly what they are doi by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Media shifting has (or at least was, don't know if recent case law has overruled or changed it) been legal as fair use.

    Media shifting is still perfectly legal in this country (the US). However, thanks to our good friend the DMCA, it is now illegal to break any system designed to prevent copying, no matter what the reason.

    So it boils down to this: a standard redbook CD has no copy protection on it. Thus, it is perfectly legal for you to rip the CD to your computer and make a mix CD for your car, compress to mp3 for your iPod, and print out the raw bits and wallpaper your living room. However, almost all commercially-produced DVDs contain copy protection in the form of CSS. So while it is legal for you to copy the content of a DVD you own to another media (DVD, DVR, VHS, SVCD, whatever), the act of bypassing the CSS in order to get to the content is illegal. Most DVD players paid a licensing fee for the DeCSS algorithm, and likely signed a contract stating that they will not allow someone to use that algorithm to make a copy. So you can't hook a DVD player up to a DVD+R player and make a copy of your favorite movie (by design), nor does PowerDVD include a dumpvideo function. Any player which did not purchase a license and sign a contract is illegal, including every player available for Linux.

    However, I'm pretty sure that clause of the DMCA has never been tested in court in the context of Fair Use, so it's hard to say whether it will stay legal for long.

    I use mplayer on Linux, and fully exercise my fair use rights by watching the DVD I rightfully purchased. Sometimes I even dump the video to the hard drive and flip a few bits to convert from VOB to MPEG-2, for backup purposes on my RAID data server. Except for the fact that mplayer's DeCSS algorithm is illegal in this country (and only illegal because of a law on shaky ground), everything I do with my DVD video is perfectly legal under both my fair use rights and precidents set in the Betamax and Rio mp3 court cases.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  58. ICT--like it matters? by Samah · · Score: 1

    Seriously though...
    You don't NEED to use an analog cable to exploit the so-called "analog hole". Cam rips are performed by sneaking a portable video camera into a theater--ie. dark noisy environment, people walking in front of the camera, having to hide the camera occasionally, camera tilted or wobbly, etc.
    What's stopping pirates from just pointing a higher quality camera mounted on a tripod at a widescreen TV? Or even a nice projector setup in their own home! This way they can control the video and get it just how they want--and seriously how hard is it to simply record your digital optical out into nice surround sound?
    The point is this--at some point the consumer needs to be able to see and/or hear the content. Once you have a picture displayed and/or audio played, it's game over for all DRM schemes.
    The only way I see of DRM being completely successful is to not supply the consumer with anything at all.

    --Samah

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  59. always blame the others! by __aalwyc6372 · · Score: 1

    the industry created piracy, by developing better and better means of making copies. they didn't really think, that all those empty cdr(w)s, dvdr(w)s and recorders would have sold so good, if they were used for backups only? i mean, common, who really creates so many backups?

    on the other hand they take extra money for every piece of hardware, you could possibly copy copyrighted material anyways. so they create a whole industry make billions and then criminalize their customers only to get more money by suing the shit out of them?

    it's like lockheed martin sues anyone who kills someone with their "products". i really wonder when they start cinema ads, where they tell you not to use a weapon to cause harm and everyone who does is a criminal!

  60. REALLY simple way to solve the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *AA please note:

    1. Drop the prices of CD's and DVD's to $2 and the problem will go away.

    2. Publish REAL music, not this manufactured crap, and more people will buy.

    Duh.

  61. DRM will last about an hour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am almost positive that the day they release the new DRM protected HD-DVD, the crackers will have broken it by midnight of that day. DVD Jon said he will break the new HD-DVD, and many others will be working on it too. Professional video suppliers will be selling HDTV to DVI/D-Sub patch cables, made in China or wherever. With a proper patch cable and software, it should be relatively easy to copy HD-DVD's, despite the *AA's best efforts. DVD Fab will no doubt release a new version that will simplify it down to a couple mouse clicks. IMHO life will go on, the sun will still rise, and people will still watch copied discs. There are also the underground people whose survival depends on it, like the local guy here who sells 33 copied DVD's for a $100, good quality copies, guranteed, pick any movies you want, he'll get it- he ain't going to sit still for this DRM crap.