Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Real Purpose of DRM

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the man-keeping-us-down dept.

Roberto writes "Gorgeous nerd Annalee Newitz hacked a political interpretation to recent vacuum cleaner cockfights at O'Reilly's ETech: 'Hollywood corporations have finally admitted that the real reason they built digital restriction management (DRM) software into PVRs and DVD players was to stop geeks from turning their recording devices into back-alley combat machines. You haven't seen ugly until you've watched what a DVD player without DRM can do to a TiVo.' Don't try to even think of this at home."

56 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Dude... by SigILL · · Score: 5, Funny

    April fools day is *so* yesterday.

    --
    Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
    1. Re:Dude... by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      April Fools was yesterday. Today CowboyNeal goes off on a search for real news, only to find yesterday's fake stories. He then posts it on Slashdot.

      Never believe any Slashdot story on April 1st... or April 2nd.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  2. The REAL Purpose of DRM by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    A late attempt to keep the secret of printed word hidden from the peasants and the surfs.

    Those uprisings do cause ever so much trouble.

    -Lord Rove II

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM by randomiam · · Score: 3, Funny

      Peasants don't surf.

    2. Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM by macsox · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...because once the surfs get ahold of the printed word, the ink starts to run, and the pages get all soggy.

      --
      go get it
    3. Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 2, Funny

      A serf on the other hand...

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
    4. Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Funny

      And serfs are unpeasant...

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    5. Re:The REAL Purpose of DRM by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's worse than that, they're revolting.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  3. What's the point? by Phantombrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would someone even want to turn a DVD player into a battlebot? And even besides that, Why would makers care? If more DVD players get destroyed, that means more are bought. Why spend more money to make less?

    --
    echo YOUR_OPINION > /dev/null
  4. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Don't try to even think of this at home."

    What the hell does that mean?

  5. Re:Gorgeous? by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude! This chick just made a joke about Ubuntu *and* Gentoo users in the same sentence and then went on to disparage Red Hat users. I don't know what bug is up your nether regions, but I for one am in love. (She also discusses "USB devices." *drool*)

  6. Re:Gorgeous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another one *shudder*.

  7. Err... by remembertomorrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I the only one who feels more confused after reading TFA?

    Is this supposed to be a joke, or some form of satire? A "jest" at "nerds"?

    --
    Registered Linux user #421033
    1. Re:Err... by xtieburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A lot of people seem to be getting confused or thinking this is an April fools but to me it seemed pretty straight forward.

      It was an exagerated story of geeks going mad with modifications in hardware in order to give sarcastic support towards DRM. Basically shes slagging off the companys for claiming to put DRM in to stop people doing dangerous terrifying things when in actual fact its just to make more money at the expense of normal consumers.

      At least thats what I thought it ment. It seemed clear when I read it. After reading half of the comments here im beginning to think that maybe im completely wrong and in fact it was totally nonsensical waffle...

  8. Re:Gorgeous? by Chowderbags · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're forgetting, it's "Gorgeous nerd". It's relative at that point.

  9. Re:Gorgeous? by LouisZepher · · Score: 5, Funny

    In your case then, "beer holder", not "beholder".

  10. Posted March 14, 2006. by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    from TFA: Posted March 14, 2006.

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    1. Re:Posted March 14, 2006. by SigILL · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the Slashdot editors turned the funny final paragraph of TFA into the whole subject of the story, and that just ain't funny on April 2nd.

      TFA's cool though; I'll give you that.

      --
      Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
    2. Re:Posted March 14, 2006. by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slow news day :)
      We used all the _real_ news yesterday.

      --

      when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  11. Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! by munehiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, imho she is not that bad, and you should consider that:

    1) you don't see the body
    2) the photo is BW
    3) the photo is small
    4) the photo is crappy
    5) there are people that appear not so good in photo but they are pretty in real life.
    6) and most important, a girl can be gorgeous in her ideas and behavior, and you evaluate more and more this point of view as you get older.

    therefore, you have to figure out in real life.

    --
    -- "If A equals success, then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Einstein
  12. Looks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be nice if women could be judged on the merit of their ideas instead of their looks. Just a thought, you know :-P.

    1. Re:Looks... by Lispy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please don't complain that /. is not women friendly. Not after yesterday. I am still suffering. :)

    2. Re:Looks... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bet you're just saying that because you're ugly.

  13. Re:Gorgeous? by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and one wonders why there aren't more geek women...

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
  14. Re:Gorgeous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which one?

  15. Re:Gorgeous? by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Funny

    "That's a man, baby!" - Austin Powers

  16. Re:Gorgeous? by Joe+Enduser · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Obligatory references to the caricature of the desperate slashdot audience aside, the blatant sexism of refering to this intelligent, witty and inspiring woman as "gorgeous" almost counters that of tagging every article on the front page as "gay" in the sense of a general derogatory term.

    Btw. Slashdot, thanks for fixing that.

    --
    Have Linux installed at your place in Amsterdam, for cheap
  17. Re:Gorgeous? Take beer goggles off please! by darkonc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All you can really tell from the picture is that she's not ugly. As a sometimes photographer, I'd say that they're not particularly flattering pictures.

    I've seen people go from drab to sexy with just a change of clothes. These webcam images say that there's a good bit of room for potential. I definitely not expect a date with her to be drab.

    .... and a freaking school photo! How many hot babes do you know that have ID pictures that make them look like complete blobs? Besides. Intelligence counts for alot, and she seems to be missing nothing there. we can work on the rest later.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  18. Nerd != Fugly; by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it's "Gorgeous nerd". It's relative at that point.

    30 seconds on google image search, NSFW!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  19. digital rights management by henster29 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its rights.. not restriction

    1. Re:digital rights management by Shai-kun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what they want you to think.

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    2. Re:digital rights management by n6kuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's restriction, not rights.
      Rights are inherent; they don't need to be "managed".

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    3. Re:digital rights management by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But [rights] need to be enforced sometimes, no?

      No, they don't. In the absence of outside influence, one's rights are maintained. Even criminal law doesn't enforce *rights* - it imposes restrictions upon behavior for which there is no right.

      Anyway, DRM doesn't preserve or enforce any rights. All it does is enforce restrictions that content producers have deemed desirable. Hence the phrase "digital restrictions management", untouched by the marketing wonks at the ??AA.

  20. Re:Gorgeous? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some more images here; though sadly the one in bikini is not her. I'm afraid on the "hot or not" scale, it's "not".

  21. Re:Oh, of course by Winlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me make formal introductions...Rodness, humor. Humor, Rodness.
    Or, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn "It's a joke son, get it?"

  22. Digital Rights by Jerf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your digital rights to swing your digital arm ends where my digital nose begins!

    (Digital, digital, didgeridoo...)

  23. Evasive tactic by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hollywood doesn't want the words "fair use" to be uttered to their congresscritters, and they want to draw attention away from the Sony fiasco. This is just an evasive tactic to lend legitimacy to DRM.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  24. Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by svkal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do the Slashdot editors really feel that introducing a woman by a description of her (in this context irrelevant) physical looks is appropriate? (I say "woman" because I have a hard time imagining that Slashdot would introduce a male with a similar adjective: a case in point is that it was obviously a joke when they commended Linus Torvalds on his physical looks yesterday. If they were to do it in a non-joking manner, that would obviously be just as inappropriate as this.)

    As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic in that it seemed to imply(obviously through exaggerations as Slashdot normally does on April Fool's) that women would like pink and ponies rather than technology news. I'm quite willing to let that slide, knowing that subtle humour is not really Slashdot's forte - but really, they shouldn't push their luck by describing female writers as being "gorgeous" the day afterwards.

    (I do know that "political correctness" is largely frowned upon at Slashdot, but really, this isn't about submitting to some ever-changing and arbitrary standard, it's about basic politeness and showing respect for the people you are describing. You don't bring things like physical looks into the picture unless they are somehow relevant, and you certainly don't set different standards for what is relevant depending on the gender of the person being described.)

    (Oh, and if anyone feels the need to argue that though "gorgeous" in this context obviously wouldn't be said about a male subject - given the gender of the Slashdot editors - it is a harmless one-word compliment which doesn't lastingly change the focus of the discussion: do note that there's already a thread contesting that Ms. Newitz is "gorgeous" based on a 120x130 grayscale picture in her profile. (Which in and of itself confirms some stereotypes about geeks.) Would there be such a thread debating this unless the submitter/editor had seen it fit to mention this in the introduction?)

    1. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Professr3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Excuse me. Allow me to refer to this particular female, then, as Ugly Ms. Newitz. We wouldn't want to compliment a person just because they look attractive, now would we? Especially if the compliment couldn't, in good faith, be given to a guy. I'm sure nobody ever called Brad Pitt gorgeous, no sir! I shall make certain that all the Slashdot editors are sacked, and then sacked again.

    2. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by svkal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fair point. But if the editors do occasionally edit(though I do know that's in question), they did make a choice by leaving it in there. Furthermore, they accepted the story, so it's not unreasonable to say that they have a bit of editorial responsibility.

    3. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by cgenman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, it wasn't the slashdot editor but the story submitter that referred to the author in that way.

      Likewise that introduction would be obviously inappropriate if the author's story was about an OpenSSH vulnerability or a commentary on the sad state of Windows Vista. In that case writing about physical appearances would be an irrelevant distraction which would imply judgement of factual nature of the article in question based upon the physical appearance of the person. Whether or not that judgement is positive isn't important.

      But on a farcical story about cockfighting roombas that line isn't very clear. Can a comedian be demeaned by references to her appearance? Are they making less relevant a story that is already, at core, irrelevant? It again implies a degree of judgement, and a reminder of the prevalant nature of physical judgements in this culture. (I might add, the most insidiously judgemental people about women's appearances are largely other women)

      I personally would have edited out the reference to her "gorgeousness." But the question remains... In a non-serious, non-professional context, is it OK to slip in an irrelevant compliment about someone looks?

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before the parade of guys comes in ripping on the parent poster, I wanted to make a small comment.

      I have a friend who is a former figure-skater and an otherwise knockout bombshell blonde. She's smart, witty, catty, and has legs that could stop an artillery shell. She also loves computers, and was working on finishing up a degree in Computer Science while working in IT.

      That is, until all the geeks chased her out.

      Asking her to crawl under a desk to fix a cable whenever she'd wear a skirt (never on the jeans days), making lewd comments 'just out of earshot', and all kinds of other crap nominally pulled by thirteen-year-old boys.

      She got tired and left for the other side of the business world. Makes more money, and doesn't have to put up with the juvenile bullshit.

      So, guys, listen up -- you want more geeky women, you've got to treat them like human beings, and not like sex objects.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    5. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A backhanded compliment, implying that a woman's beauty is in any way relevant to the content of her writing. If you can't see why this is a putdown, then there's really no hope for the Slashdot demographic.

    6. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not a thing you wrote rings true. "Other side of the business world"? I work both and there is no other side, just the same distribution of assholes. She wore short skirts working IT, knowing the physical work entailed? She worked IT just for Comp Sci geeks who chased her from the field? None of the narrative, what little there is, makes any sense. It's a bullshit moral fable on a topic which doesn't need artificial stories to justify itself.

    7. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As was pointed out yesterday by several posters, this year's April Fool's was more than a little misogynistic [...]

      You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Mysogyny is an aversion or hatred of women. I have a six year old daughter, and believe me, the "PONIES" stuff was a pretty good (if way, way too obvious to be a prank) parody. But it doesn't signify mysogyny in any way.

      Similarly, describing Ms. Newitz as "gorgeous" may be clumsy, insensitive and more than a little bit objectifying, but it's hardly mysogynistic. The overwhelming majority of single straight male slashdotters don't hate women, they just don't get them (in more ways than one).

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    8. Re:Meta-commentary: "Gorgeous" really relevant? by mattOzan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In mentioning the attractiveness of Ms. Newitz, Slashdot isn't really breaking any ground here. She was named one of the top ten sexiest geeks of 2005 by multimediatrix and sex educator Violet Blue.

      I'm sure she is lurking here and taking it all in stride. An accomplished journalist, she writes about techno-sexuality herself all the time--just take a look at some of her published pieces:

  25. O.M.G. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this really such a slow news day that this is news?

  26. Did someone have too much to drink yesterday? by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Cause this sure as hell is not "news" of any kind. Mod me down if you want but this was a waste of fucking time to read. Decently hot chick or not, the article was bogus as hell. Who gives a rats ass about this? Sure fighting robots is cool, but some half assed non-true tagline that is full of shit is not cool in the least.

    Is it a slow Sunday or what? Is this the best that's come into the old Inbox today?

    --
    Aw Frell this
  27. Re:Gorgeous? by PixelScuba · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Annalee would have a response similar to this

  28. Huh? by FullCircle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone have a clue WTF this article is about?

    If the summary is that bad, I'm not about to click the link.

    --
    If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  29. LAME! NO PONIES!!! by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TFA is useless! No kittens! No ponies! No fluffies!

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  30. It's official: Slashdot has jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's sad when an entire discussion on the dangers of DRM descends into a debate on the relative "hotness" of a woman shown in a 120x130 grayscale picture.

    1. Re:It's official: Slashdot has jumped the shark by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative

      The debate is not and never has been about whether or not she is hot. It's about how that is even relevant.

  31. Yeah but. . . by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I buy a Roomba and reprogram it to think it's a pony? OMG!!!

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  32. Re:"Looks first" -- even on slashdot by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I'm a woman and the first thought that went through my mind was "funny how they criticize her looks but don't mention their own". In my experience, guys are quick to shoot down a woman's looks regardless of how good-looking they're not themselves. Frankly, if some pudgy, out-of-shape geek criticizes my looks I can easily fix that problem... with a fork.

    But yeah, the fact that there were comments about her looks made me roll her eyes. I've read articles that had pics of the guy in question and never once made a comment on his looks. Perhaps I will in the future - why shouldn't I?

    Disclaimer: I've just been to a site where 90% of the files to download weren't available because "this entry is not approved". So I'm a bit irritated anyway.

    --
    I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  33. Re:Gorgeous? by stor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't you post some pics of yourself and we'll let her comment?

    Do you dudes wonder why you don't get laid? When you put a woman down like that it shows off your ego for the nanoparticle that it is.

    This isn't "Women 101": this is the test you need to pass to get into Women 101.

    Cheers
    Stor

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"