Slashdot Mirror
EFF Gets Animated About DRM with The Corruptibles
Lurker McLurker writes "An animation from the EFF shows DRM technology as a group of supervillans who aim to invade your home, interfere with your devices and stop you from using your digital media the way you want to, even if it is legitimate. Doesn't say anything about the subject most of us wouldn't know, but a great link to send to your friends as an introduction to the issue."
It'll be good at educating the masses, though it does seem really dumbed down, feels a bit abstract to me.
my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
THATS AWESOME! Now i can show little kids why theyre screwed in the future.
I think I personally would have visualized the character of "Analog Hole" as a lot older... certainly not a kid.
What a great cartoon, gets the point across very well.
I think this is a nice piece of work from the EFF. There are plenty of people who would be more concerned about DRM if they understood its potentials. I know I've talked with my father (who is very low tech) about DRM, and he certainly was legitimately concerned about what I told him. I've made backups of some of his CDs for him, and he likes knowing that he can keep the originals safe. We talked about how breaking DeCSS to make a legitimate backup copy of a DVD is illegal under the DMCA, and he thinks something like that is unreasonable. Right now, non-tech people just aren't running into deep issues of DRM. The most DRM they've probably run into is iTMS FairPlay, and thanks to Apple's 'generous' terms, they rarely, if ever, run into something they can't do. I think more people would be concerned about DRM if they understood what it's potential consequences are, and I think this animation does a good job of doing that.
Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology? Oh wait, yeah, Microsoft, never mind.
Really, reading some of these proposed laws the clear message from the RIAA/MPAA is, "To ensure our continued hand-in-the-cookie-jar obscene money making machine, we demand the government enact protective legislation." Guess what? They're "gettin' 'er done"! Innovative ideas and extensions and forks of cool, useful, for-the-betterment-of-man technology fall by the wayside by fiat, at the entertainment industry's prompt.
Again, ignoring the thesis for the moment that increased use of all of these digital technologies actually serve the entertainment industry spurring new growth in unexpected demographics, the new and improved technology traditionally has been the keystone of other new technologies. Often, as mentioned in a recent slashdot article, new directions are discovered accidentally. Squelch digital devices and you squelch potential new and rich fields of devices.
The RIAA and MPAA, what a bunch of fucktards.
That is excellent and I hope it gets widespread exposure.
Now what I would really like to see is it broadcast on the major tv channels. Let me know if hell is freezing over.
I think this is a good idea, but I really wish more people would put subtitles on their flash videos, the EFF no exception.
Seriously, how hard would it be to spend some 10 minutes adding subtitles?
I do like the idea, though.
The bad guys can make cartoons too.
if the only people who see this are already in agreement with the EFF on this one?
What would be REALLY cool is if it can be shown on the major TV channels (during commercial breaks) every once in a while... How much money would be needed for that?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Just before the warning about how piracy is putting the movie industry out of work.
This should be the perfect opportunity a company to differentiate - by not selling DRM-tainted products.
if the only people who see it are already in agreement with what you're saying?
Conclusion: your post is either useless or wrong. In either case, why post it?
I wonder what Captain Copyright would say?
I have shown this clip to a few colleagues, and they just dont understand how these things effect them.
Talking about HDTV, mixing down from Digital Radio, and Digitizing commercial products for school projects is not the way to appeal to the mass consumer market.
Recording TV shows and making a favorites CD out of your music collection are more accessble principles to the mass market, and these are what should be highlighted.
DRM is not evil. DRM is not wrong. Improper application and bad laws are.
Fight the laws and bad applications of DRM, not DRM itself.
My daughter caught a glimpse over my shoulder and asked "What are you doing? Why are you watching a cartoon?" It would seem that a serious subject would deserve a serious presentation. EFF could have done better.
Is a unifying standard. You should be able to use a DRM'ed piece of media in every electronics device you own, not one or two which happen to share a DRM standard out of chance. MS to be fair seem to have made reasonable efforts to unify DRM with it's 'plays for sure' thingy (although I've no experience on how restrictive it actually is) If you can register devices as belonging to a household and buy a variety of different forms of DRMed media that understands you're just switching it between devices in your own home, I think most people would be fairly accepting of it. However at the moment we've endless forms of DRM that don't recognise owners as needing to play something on more than one device (ESPECIALLY a competitors device). VHS, CDA, DVD all were successfull because they'd play on devices you'd want them to play on (if you had the equiptment/software), DRM'ed digital media needs to recognise that people don't care if it's sony, apple or MS' software. They just want to play their games/videos/music when they want and how they want.
Now see, I had mod points today, and unfortunately there isn't a mod "wrong", otherwise I'd have used it right away.
DRM IS WRONG. In any form ever for anything. It stifles the advance of human progress, be it technologically, in the arts, or even politically. Advocating DRM ever for anything is like advocating AIDS ever for anything. Sure occasionally some real fucktard like Dick Cheney might get AIDS and that would be great. However, AIDS itself still sucks, and I'd advocate taking him out another way.
Specifically in this case prison time for purjury and election rigging until his pace maker gives out. Over all AIDS is still bad. Just like DRM.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
... but I read that as "indoctrination to the issue".
But let me ask you just one thing: if people are so disinterested and/or uneducated that the have to be introduced to the rights they are about to lose... how does that portray democracy?
From where I stand, I just see sheeple... all the rest of us only differ in the power we wield or do not wield. But most people, sadly, don't really give a damn.
I do hope EFF will bring more people to their senses... it's just the fact that this is the method needed to do it that peeves me.
Ignore this signature. By order.
...combine with similar movies about software patents and trusted computing.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
A 'legitimate' use would be to copy part or all of some media for personal use, like shifting to other formats. As long as you don't give the copies to somebody else, there should not be a problem. You can't stop the 'hardcore' pirates from making copies, DRM just hurts legitimate users. The only people with a 'problem' are the media sellers who would love it if you had to buy more than one copy of the same movie/music for each of your locked down devices. If your device breaks, too bad. Buy a new one and repurchase all of your media. Think of the starving artists, I mean companies! I have read about this debate too many times and it gets old.
You know what I think? I think this post was written by an RIAA astroturfer to make all of us look like drooling assholes.
And if I'm wrong, STAY OFF OUR SIDE, you cretin.
The real problem is that it is almost impossible to constrain piracy while not infringing on fair use. These same types of things were brought up with the advent of VCRs and there has been no companies that have gone bankrupt (to my knowledge) because of VCRs. In my opinion, DRM is not necessary, and companies could make even more profit without it if they gave the consumers more options to get what they want, how they want it. Take a tip from Burger King, "Your way, right away."
If the RIAA were to put out something like this, it would be (rightly) referred to as propaganda. Does propaganda automatically become acceptable if you support the message being propagandized? Is such a thing really "a great link to send to your friends as an introduction to the issue"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Help make The Corruptibles a big story on Digg as well.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Yeah, if anything actually can be universally, unanimously considered good or bad...
Personally, I'm all for intellectual property as a concept.
BUT
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn people about it. Following the law (or any law for that matter) is not the right thing to do, it is one thing to do, just like there are other things to do.
No piracy = Good sounds awfully like (and I loathe this term with a passion) a knee-jerk reaction.
Oh, and also, there is the debate about whether the **AA is using DRM to monopolise distribution channels, therefore eliminating competition, but I withold my judgement on that one.
DRM to constrain piracy = Good
Well DRM does not constrain piracy. It only hurts the
Zip. Nadda. Not one bit.
If a pirate wants to copy something or get a copy of something, he already has the tools to bypass whatever DRM you throw at him. Those who end up being hurt all the time is Joe Six packs who buy a copy and then the company that sold him the media goes bankrupt or his drm copy goes bad and he couldn't make fair use backups of it.
The "truth" about DRM is to make people buy media twice when they already own a licence for it.
And guess what happens to DRM when the copyright expires in 100 years from now? You still have DRM and may heaven help you if you are a historian trying to research early 21st century history and can't seem to find tools to read archaic DRM schemes (although I'll give our descendants the benefit of the doubt with computer skills by 2100.)
Not to mention this media is supposed to go into public domain once the DRM expires... But DRM is cheating the spirit of copyright law by making this impossible.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Its not really too abstract, as it reflects how these DRM people see themselves.... somehow fighting villainy in all its forms, but not realising that they themselves are corrupt due to the legal violence they commit against others.
Given their druthers, these people would have your brain or body micro-chipped, and if you believe otherwise, many here would think you are not playing with the full deck.
Decent copyright, and decent IP is understandable and even desirable, but when these SOB's enter every part of every transaction and sanction what I can, or cannot see, and monitor my every trivial activity - I keep hearing the soft bell of a Certain Story.... 1984... O'Brien: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
Its a disturbing read, and for who're BRAVE enough to download (free from Australia) it, you may see the very similarities in the book and what DRM is.... the ability to "re-write history" the ability to make un-people or un-events (revoke DRM to your demographic/country/voting area).....
This is not a political issue, but a human freedom. Its a form of pseudo fascism, as in 1984... the owners of the content will be The Ministry Of Truth.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Homer: "Hmm, DRM eh?" He starts thinking: "Mmmm Donut Rights Measure- aaaaahhhh."
OK, I just made that up.
Play For Sure only works on Windows, therefore its not a standard, and never will be. If it doesn't work on everything, like my Apples, and Linux boxen, then its not a standard. PDF is a standard, just because Adobe happens to sell software that works with Postscript Document Formats doesn't mean that Adobe's software is a standard. I don't think DRM will ever be a standard. This is mostly becasue of greed, and all the companys like Sony want to do their own thing to fulfill their twisted motives. Sony doesn't want to you use your own devices. Sony wants you to buy the same media again, and again. IANAL. But there are actually laws against those practices believe it or not.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
It's some kind of unviewable Flash nonsense that doesn't work on my operating system, and which I wouldn't enable even if it would work.
When are sites going to start posting actual videos instead of the pseudo crap that is Flash?
DRM to constrain legitimate use = Bad
DRM to constrain piracy = Good
DRM written poorly and given too much control = Bad
Add
DRM + RIAA = Extortion + Price Fixing
Me, I wait until I can rent it for $5 or less.
...which of those two cartoons easily allows you to save a copy, and which one does not? Or did anyone miss that?
I'm glad the subject got a such a vigorous debate.
Constraining piracy is good. Piracy is bad, it hurts the economy, it hurts businesses, not to mention it's against the law. You can try to justify it, but it's not yours to say that it is therefore right. It isn't.
And I agree, there should be a -1 Wrong moderation. For factual inaccuracy. As it were, we have someone with Excellent Karma at -1 for a post without getting either flamebait (it's obviously not) or troll (which, again, it obviously is not) simply because that user dared to play devil's advocate and bring up the unpopular argument.
And, for the record, I am completely against DRM. I'm just too intellectually honest to pretend that just because I believe something the opposite argument is utterly without merit.
As much as I love the EFF and everything they do (I donate every month), I don't like the movie on its purely presentational qualities.
1. It presents too many things too fast. Everything happends too fast. I showed it to someone unfamiliar with the issue, and who had only vaguely heard some of the terms used (analog hole, fair use, and the like). Her reaction was in the lines of "Huh? What the...? Can you play that again?"
2. It uses a foolishly cartoonish "superhero" style. When I see those overly comic-style "superhero" images with sharp lines, simple colors, and dumb logos on their chests, I find them stupid. They look stupid. This gives the whole video a comic feel, taking away any seriousness it might have wanted to imply. It fails to shock the unsuspecting viewer with what should be a shocking revelation. Don't get me wrong; the problem is not any crude drawing, but the adherence to the "comic superhero" style. Even the voice-over sticks to it...
3. It doesn't explain anything. What's going on? This is the most difficult one to get right, but a video has to at least try to explain part of the issue. You could say it only tries to turn your attention to the issue, but it doesn't... the video, as it is, requires one to do some serious background reading. How many people, who have never bothered with the issue before, are going to just stop what they were doing and start reading about DRM?
Number 2 is the biggest flaw in my opinion. Most people would oppose DRM if they knew about it, but if I send the link to anyone who's even a little sceptic about the importance of opposing DRM and the magnitude of its danger, that person would laugh at me. One already did, saying "What the hell is this bullshit?". The question was about the cartoonish guys, not the issue presented. I love the idea though, and hope they will come up with something better next time.
That is one of the common statements made on slashdot regarding DRM, but it's not accurate or sensible to make such a sweeping declaration that DRM is *always* bad. DRM is a valuable document control mechanism in the workplace. All those companies who have had controlled documents sent out by email/floppy disk/etc. have tried encryption, but it doesn't work well. If a dozen people need to collaborate on a single document, encryption becomes real troublesome; there is nothing to say that the unencrypted document won't be accidentally stored somewhere it shouldn't be.
DRM avoids this. You can essentially lock the document to its working environment. If the file leaves that environment, it's useless. I'd like to think my bank and my employer both value their data enough to take measures like this as a matter of routine. If ID fraud can be avoided by companies deploying DRM en masse to provide document control, I'd welcome that. The number of people who have their personal information left around on printouts (that shouldn't exist) would probably wish to see this kind of process as well.
DRM on material that is intended for 'public' consumption, though, is another matter. There, I would agree with you that DRM can be onerous and is, generally, undesirable.
It's basically the same as the Windows Media Player plugin + the Quicktime plugin + the RealPlayer plugin...
Or, in other words, it's what everyone should've been using anyway. Just throw an mpeg in there, it'll play in at least as many places as Flash, but without all of the Flashy crap.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
DRM is the digital equivalent of shoplifting tags and entrance scanners. Now as a consumer, anti-shoplifting devices don't do anything for me, except indirectly in the sense that they deter theft. If stores don't pay attention to shoplifting, they go out of business and prices would go up. How do I know that? Because thousands of establishments have independently decided to invest in them and have been using them for decades, even though it costs signficant sums of money, and retail is an intensely competitive set of industries.
Of course, the same sorts of arguments against DRM can be made against anti-shoplifting devices: they aren't truly effective because quite a bit of shoplifting goes on anyway, the store owners are greedy, their business models are outdated, the laborers that make the goods get paid peanuts, many of the goods are crappy etc. Why don't you include them as a target of your rants as well?
You mean like the shorts before most dvd's and movies in the cinemaes telling that you wouldn't steal a car, or a movie, to tell us that downloading is illegal? Isn't that some sort of propaganda?
Maybe it's the position you're arguing, maybe it's the way you're arguing it, but it's not making sense.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
As i see it, a free market is when anyone is allowed to enter and compete. Not government passing legislation for big business. When one company does not have to deal with competition, they loose the incentive to innovate. Additionally when a government places too much limits on a market, it creates an environment where it is difficult to innovate.
So, I have a paid subscription to Rhapsody (since I like to stream music while using Linux) and everything is good.... but then one day I wanted to actually buy some tracks and put them on my old mp3 player. WRONG. After buying the tracks (about $10 worth) I discovered that I could not transfer them because my mp3 player was "not supported" which really means "does not restrict you by supporting DRM". So I was pissed... I promptly went and loaded up my Gnutella client and DOWNLOADED all the tracks I just paid for in mp3 format, in a short period of time. Good work with that DRM there guys. It really works !
I'll be using Gnutella from now on to get my tracks. Screw them and their DRM.
-D
Define "open". Given DRM that permits viewing but prohibits copying, it's impossible to implement such DRM in free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation or by the Debian project because an attacker can edit the source code to tee(1) the work to a file, build the program, run the program, and make an unencumbered copy.
Encrypting a message is privacy: only the holder of the intended recipient's private key can view or reproduce it. Encrypting the digest of a message is authentication: the message came from somebody with the sender's private key. SSL is privacy with a bit of authentication added to exchange keys past a man in the middle. The term "digital restrictions management", on the other hand, is most commonly understood to refer to technical measures that authorize the owner of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord[1] of a work to view but not reproduce or modify the work, even where the law otherwise permits such reproduction or modification (such as the copyright exemptions of 17 USC 107 through 122). What are the honorable uses of such DRM?
[1] US copyright law defines "phonorecord" as any physical medium in which a sound recording is fixed, and "copy" as any physical medium in which any other work is fixed.
I think this cartoon goes over the line. If anti-piracy groups released a video portraying pirates as supervillians who invade your home and take your money and never give it back, we'd all be making fun of it.
The fact is, not all DRM is bad, and to paint the issue in absolutist terms does a disservice. Far too much is made over DRM on Slashdot. If DRM is too draconian on a product, customers simply won't buy it and will choose a different product. Rights aren't being violated, and society isn't being made to collapse--it's just another product on the market place to reject or accept, and life goes on as usual.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Or in this case, becasue Evil can afford more competent Web designers.
The EFF site apparently has some bad code that chokes Opera dead, but the bad guys' animation plays cleanly.
There are plenty of retarded toons out there.
:) Oh, and there are good videos out there, too.
But you can fight back, by teaching them the value of decent security systems
I agree that piracy is bad: it undermines the natural sense that we should respect the terms of a contract, however to say that it hurts the economy and business, at least in the case of 'cultural works' turns out to be false: the advertising effect cancels out the displacement effect almost exactly, at least when the pirated work isn't payed for.
The real sin then is to charge for pirated work: this causes a real displacement of funds that would otherwise have been funding new works. People appear to spend as much of their spare income upon music and film, whether they pirate or not.
It is against the law, certainly, but I'm afraid that you've very much earnt yourself a "-1, wrong". Sorry: what appears to be common sense or even is integrated in the assumptions behind the wording of the US constitution itself isn't necessarily true.
If common sense is reality, why do physicists waste their time studying quantum theory?
Wikileaks, no DNS
Did anyone else here notice that the "Broadcast Flag" Corruptible is a spitting image of Condoleeza Rice?
It is if you do not hold the private keys. In the case of an employer using it, then the employer better have the private keys.
---
Go, go, go New Justice Team
Go team, go team,
Team team team
Who's that newest Justice Team?
The New Justice Team
Captain Yesterday is fast
Also he is from the past
Not just fast but from the past
Captain Yesterday!
Super King has all the powers of a King
Plus all the power of Superman,
Also he's a robot.
Ain't it cool? Super King you rule!
Clobbarella beats you up
Clobbarella beats you up
Who does she beat up? You!!
Clobbarella!
Citizens, never fear
Crazy do-good freaks are here
Until they run out of steam...
Miracle cream, miracle cream
Gives the power to the team
Its effects wear off for sure
So they just slop on some more
The New Justice Team!
Go, go, go New Justice Team
Fighting justice is their quest
Super King, Clobbarella
And all the rest
Here's to you new Justice Team
Do the things that make a team
Help each other do some things
Winners don't use drugs!
The New Justice Team!
... and then they built the supercollider.
I am not a consumer, I am a man.
They'll introduce a medium that plugs directly into Your brain. Call this Y. A few more people will start to fear invasive technological change and return to "old-school" analog. However, there will be as many people who buy into it -- people who give up their autonomy in exchange for mass media's cheap, comfortable contro--entertainment. This new world order will be called
DAAADDDDYYY
CDs are getting increasingly poor mastering and engineering applied to them. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it sounds good.
The point is that new technology will remove rights people are used to and enjoy. My digital copy is just as good as the original but that's just the beginning. I can give you exactly what the big three dumb music companies can. If they make it crappy to thwart copying, the competition can do it better and I can still give you the same crap. Either way, they have lost the distribution monopoly 1920's radio technology and bad laws gave them. Enter BS like the broadcast flag and other anti-copying legislation and what most people consider fair use goes into the toilet and we all take a trip back to 1930. No one really wants to go that far back, so the EFF has put that right up front. All of us still expect to be able to share our music with our friends. That we won't be able to in the future, even if we hold onto ancient tape decks, is shocking.
That the analog hole can be closed to anything but the crappiest techniques is news. Most people don't know that they can't make a tape recording of their DVDs. Sooner or later the bastard child of DRM will eliminate the analog rights we have and copyright, which demands that protected works enter the public domain at some point, will be completely without justification or purpose.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Screw you. If i want to use DRM, I should be able to. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Making blanket statements like, "DRM is wrong" is stupid... what if I want to send a read-only PDF file to someone because I don't want the terms of the agreement changed before they sign. That's DRM... is that wrong?
Comment of the year
......The fact is, not all DRM is bad,......
In fact DRM is wonderful, great and there should be more of it. What is bad is that the makers of DRM, with the DMCA, have gotten the law on their side in cat and mouse game of breaking all DRM. Let Sony and whoever wants to come up with the most draconian DRM they can pay someone to invent, but then allow someone even more clever come up with and legally distribute tools to break the encryptions.
All content creators have to realize that the easier it has become to copy their work, the more money they have made in the long run. Starting with the piano rolls, which were really early digital copies, through the VCRs, easier copying has always meant more money for artists and all their hangers on. Binary bits are inherently copyable. Does anyone really believe that Apple would sell fewer iPods and there would be fewer music downloads from iTunes if Apple simply dropped the DRM?
Trying to prevent, by law, digital copying, is like trying to prevent the tide from coming in. Up until now, content makers have always figured out how to use the new, better copying technology available to the public to make more money than ever. I predict that in 20 to 30 years, DRM will be regarded in the same way as we today regard prohibition laws enacted in the early 1900s. These laws back then even rose to the level of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment, not just a plain dumb law, such as the DMCA.
All theory is gray
I am a Beatles fan. Back in the day, I bought all their greatest albums on vinyl (still have 'em too). A few years later, I bought them again on tape. A few years after that, I bought them again on CD. The other day I was an inch away from buying a Beatles track on iTunes because a friend had never heard it and (like most 21st century geeks) had a PC but no record player.
But I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Now, to be clear, I have pissed away a dollar on many things for no real reason. I have purchased gasoline simply to sit in traffic buring it away. I have "super sized" a meal at McDonalds, only to leave some fries uneaten. I have even purchased soap and toothpaste, even though it sits alone and ignored off in the bathroom somewhere.
I have already paid for this media three times, twice as a first-generation consumer (i.e. the tapes and CDs were bought at a normal record store), presumably everyone who is "supposed" to get paid got paid...TWICE! Furthermore, this wonderful music is nearing 50 YEARS OLD at this point. At what point does this material join the public domain? At what point have I paid enough money to enjoy this music without further hassle?
Needless to say, this is not a technical issue at all IMO.
Oh, and just in case the RIAA and MPAA bots flag this post as "gullible consumer, add to mailing list"; please know that I *have* downloaded music from Napster...lots and lots of it. The result? I spent at least $1,000 the year I discovered Napster buying material from artists I might never have learned of otherwise (and not just old stuff either). Napster was one of the greatest sources of free advertising they ever had, and the day it went down was the day I discovered that Internet radio was the only "compromise" they would get from me in this regard.
I realize I am preaching to the choir, so I'll shut up here. The only point I wish to make is this: non-geeks who have no idea what DRM is or why they should care can certainly understand my situation. Next time you find yourself turning purple while debating this issue with some fool, ask them point blank: "How many times have YOU purchased ALBUM WHATEVER?" If the answer is "more than once", I'll rest my case.
barack to the future?
The fact is, the underlying purpose of all DRM is to make your very own property act against you and act for someone else. I really don't know why anyone except for the people profiting and gaining power from it can't see why it is bad.
You make cogent points. However, you're kind of making the case that software is similar to material goods. This is a dangerous area to tread in as it's a mixed metaphor. Information is not Material Property. It's important we draw philosophical distinctions and try not to draw lines based on the pretext of either type of "property". It is my fundamental belief, and indeed there is much scientific evidence, that knowledge and open standards for all help society, individuals, and all human relationships. Knowledge is power, and the more impowered we are as individuals the better we can strive for self enhancement as a species, and hopefully as a collective ecosystem as we begin exporting ourselves and our ecologies to other planets and steller or interstellar bodies.
In fact there are a great many human values we should openly discuss wanting to take with us on this journey.
I for one welcome our new GPL overlords, and await a ticket on any one of the colony ships, if not for me, than at least for some of my DNA be it personal or through progeny.
I'm also a big fan of other human values like kindness and scientific curiosity. I bet most slashdotters are, as well as most people.
Now I sound all preachy and lame, thanks for pulling me out of my endless documentary bit torrent regime.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
See I disagree altogether. DRMS is not good. Didn't you hear my AIDS comments above? Those weren't a troll. I think that the ends don't always justify the means, and DRM is a good example of that.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
If anti-piracy groups released a video portraying pirates as supervillians who invade your home and take your money and never give it back, we'd all be making fun of it.
And in turn, it's the anti-piracy groups' good right to be making fun of this. I don't see the problem. Besides, don't tell me you've forgotten all those anti-piracy educational messages and videos depicting copyright infringers as the worst scum of the earth, or the ones suggesting what happens to your analog hole in prison once their lawyers get to you?
customers simply won't buy it and will choose a different product
That's assuming:
- Joe Average Customer is actually aware of the effects DRM will have on his ability to do things he now takes for granted.
- There will in fact be other products to choose from. Since the entertainment industry is lobbying hard to make DRM mandatory, I wouldn't count on it.
And since DRM is tightly coupled to all the great new stuff like digital radio, HDTV, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, next-gen OS'es etc... one can't avoid buying DRM if he wants to keep up with the latest tech. Of course, one could keep on using his current stuff, but that's assuming his current stuff will keep working once the new tech rolls out. And guess what? Once the new tech is in place, the old tech will be outphased, so that in say 5 years your current TV set won't be able to pick up anything anymore because everything is either digital or HD. And then of course, there's the issue of every piece of electronics wearing out and breaking down after a while.Rights aren't being violated
Except our fair-use rights. Or don't you agree that those are in fact rights?
it's just another product on the market place to reject or accept
The three "evils" depicted in the cartoon are:
- The audio flag
- The broadcast flag
- Lawfully plugging the analog hole
The entertainment industry is lobbying to get all three of those mandatory by law, thus eliminating any kind of competing technology. They do not plan to introduce "just another product on the market place to reject or accept"; they're aiming at making this product the only product available on the market place (at least legally). There is no "reject or accept", there will only be "obey and consume".Now, tell me again how this, in your point of view, is not a bad thing?
I agree though; the cartoon sucks, like most "edutainment" pieces. The script is so lame and hyperbolic that it fails to captivate anyone's interest.
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
I would LOVE to have some "effective" propaganda to distribute to friends and family, however this is not it. The narrator spoke too quickly and I found it hard to follow even though I already understand the issue. If it difficult for the initiated to follow, how effective is it going to be on the uninitiated?
The best way to have someone to learn something is to have them associate with it. The clip tries to do this, by using common examples, but doesn't give enough "wait time" for the example to sink in and make this association. It jumps to the next scene too fast, which draws the attention away from the association. Just keeping up the excitment by quick-changing scenes is not enough. Without "the association", people don't FEEL the issue.
That said. This COULD be very effective, and practice makes perfect. I'd like to encourage more of these be produced, to help the unitiated identify their own interests are at stake.
Some ideas for next time:
+ Analyse the enemies' clips - particularly the "You wouldn't steal a purse. You wouldn't steal a car, etc..." This uses:
+ Repetition
+ Analogy - stealing a car is the same as copying 1's and 0's
+ A series of small "plausible" arguments, which combined lead to a startling conclusion
+ Produce three separate clips each concentrating a single issue. This would make it easier for people to digest the message - and they can be released over a period to string out the interest.
+ Rather than a single person, have two friends in a conversation - one helping the other - a common scenario which allows the lesser abled to identify with it (and those are probably the majority we need to convert to the cause)
An example this storyline...
+ To set up the absurd, start with "Imagine..." using a VCR to tape a TV show, and the police bust in. How absurd! BUT.....
+ Then repeat scene but show recording HDTV, and the police bust in - but this time the law supports them. Then link to the appropriate authoritive material ie extract from a Bill being debated.
+ Then switch to scene of neighbour watching police taking both friends in cuffs from house to cars with flashing lights saying "glad its not me".
+ Rewind that neighbour to when he had the opportunity to oppose the law, but didn't with some reference to negatives of inaction eg "first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not act). The scene are activists protesting to politicians, but then some big coporation donates money to the compaign coffers, and the activists are dismissed, and the neighbour "says nothing"
+ Fast forward neighbour to a short time later after opening scene, when a friend of theirs brings over a HDTV show he taped "the other night" but it doesn't play on the neighbour's machine. The neighbours friend pulls a blackbox to allw it to be played, and BAM! the cops turn up and arrest both.
+ Pan to third neighbour watching second neighbour being taken away and saying "glad its not me"
or, something like that..... sorry it got a bit more involved than I meant - bit still, rather than "fantasy" superheros, try a "more mundane" "real life" examples that people can EMPATHISE with. To maintain peoples attention, just lay a pumping music track over it. It seems to work in the anti-paracy adverts pushed at the movies.
Another example, and one that I'd LOVE to see would be a spoof of the "You wouldn't steal a car!!!" which would then have a follow up scene going "BUT HEY!! If you could click on the car and drag a copy of it across the street that you could use, all without depriving the original owner of theirs, wouldn't that be cool."
bye for now.
It's more like buying a product that stops working when you use it in an unapproved manner. Like a screwdriver that you can't pry open a can of paint with, a hammer that pounds nails but not chisels, a mattress you can't take the tags off of, or scissors that cut cloth but not paper. Not because of technical limitations, but because the manufacturers think it might possibly hurt their business.
You'd be a fool to believe that they couldn't defeat your DRM, change the contract, and send it back to you. The only safe solution is to read it before accepting it. Trusting DRM to keep the contract intact is just asking to get bitten in the ass. And yes, that is wrong. You have no right to control whether they modify the document that you've given to them. As you said, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." What you do get to do is decide whether to agree to the contract. It's up to you to make sure it says what you think it does.
So you're saying that DRM (as a concept) is a bad idea because that specific implementation isn't perfect and it can be broken.
That's like arguing, in 1905, that the automobile (as a concept) is a terrible idea because, on your specific Oldsmobile, the hand crank starter can be dangerous.
Comment of the year
No, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to rely on DRM, and *also* that no one has a right to control how a person changes information in their possession.
Certainly to 'abstract'. No kid under 15 would even know WTF they're talking about. It's like anti-propoganda, and it's not interesting.
Hate to say it, but they need to think more like....the MPAA in terms of entertaining and informing at the same time. It reminded me of a really bad 50's "instructional" video, where the narrator spoke to fast (and in monotone), and the animation followed no actual plot (and no likeable characters, just a bunch of random scenes).
Bah. Good job guys, but we need to be more creative than showing Tux on a "MythTV" DVR - like anyone is going to understand that anyway (especially those who spend a LOT of time watching movies).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
"The RIAA and MPAA, what a bunch of fucktards."
Kindly stop insulting fucktards the world over.
Either someone is copying Odd Todd or he just sold out.
Because the anti-shoplifting devices go out when you buy the product. Once you own the clothing, you own it for good(until you give it away because it no longer fits, but that's a different story). Not the same with DRM, which remains forever. Now for library rentals they aren't removed because it's a rental, but you don't own the library books for good, the library still owns them. Next astroturfing please. And yes, DRM does hurt me as a legitimate consumer. My iPod occasionally corrupts something and loses the DRM keys. Without those, I can't play songs bought from iTMS.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
DRM IS WRONG. In any form ever for anything.
Oh really?
What's your IP address? I'd like to log into your computer and see what you have. I'm sure you do not have a password set since that is a form of DRM.
Also, I'd like to clone your cellphone and to know what your ATM card number is, please.
Not all DRM is bad.
DRM which is put into effect to eliminate fair use rights allowed under Copyright Law is bad. Not all DRM is bad. DRM protecting your bank account, your cellphone, and your computer is good, right? DRM in credit card processing terminals is good, right? DRM on your VOIP connection and VPN is good, right? It does not restrict your fair use of ANYTHING.
Besides, Microsoft, AutoDesk, Adobe, etc. have all gained popularity due in large part to piracy. A limited amount of software piracy is a good thing for exposure, at least for larger software vendors, e.g., if you take M$ Office or Adobe Photoshop home to learn them, it's not a bad thing for Microsoft or Adobe at all. Now, if you use those "pirated" programs for commercial gain, that's just horrible (unless it's Fair Use in replacing a software CD after Adobe refuses to replace bad or lost media, etc.) but in those Fair Use instances you really ought to have backed up the original software, put the originals in a safe place and worked from the backup disks.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I don't think the common definition of DRM has anything to do with passwords. You have several mixed arguments there, and that one is semantic. I don't think any computer expert would argue about passwords for banking etc.. I don't think anybody considers that "DRM". Same for cell phones, etc.
As for software piracy, that shouldn't be an issue because you should be using FOSS. It's not just an ethical decision, but overall the software seems superior and less buggy, and helps foster software innovation, and therefore all of us collectively.
Have you ever installed Acrobat? Why anybody would even CONSIDER using an Adobe product is really confusing to me. You may just as well submerge your machine in a bucket of water and give it power. Some people will argue "blah, blah, photoshop, blah, blah", but first of all photoshop is grossly over priced, secondly The Gimp is almost as good for nearly all of the same uses, and thirdly, I'm going to mention Acrobat again so that Adobe gets the black eye it well and truly deserves.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.