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."

Comments

Nice link

[orta]

It'll be good at educating the masses, though it does seem really dumbed down, feels a bit abstract to me.

Re:Nice link

[vingt]

It didn't look like something that'll engage the attention of anyone that matters. By that, I mean that it isn't a particularly well-done, entertaining cartoon sequence that also raises questions or drives a call to action. It's boring, the characters are uninteresting, the "story" is only the message. No wordplay, no good characterisation, no hook. The items that are destroyed are so generic and undetailed that they carry no identity, conveying no sense of loss when destroyed. I don't come away from it feeling that anything personal and valuable is under threat. So it remains a little cartoon sequence, easily forgotten. It certainly won't lead anyone not already fired up to go learn more, write a congresscritter, etc.

Outside of the geek universe, this is worthless. It's the difference between the MPAA, RIAA & other lobbies and the "good guys". The bad guys know their marketing - they successfully sell their policies to those who can mandate them. The good guys are really ineffective at selling resistance to anyone that could be heard - including "the masses".

  Perhaps this would have gotten some attention if it was done as high-def, burned to Blu-Ray, and handed out at the locations where the Samsung player is launching this weekend?

Re:Nice link

[script_daddy]

It didn't look like something that'll engage the attention of anyone that matters. By that, I mean that it isn't a particularly well-done, entertaining cartoon sequence that also raises questions or drives a call to action. It's boring, the characters are uninteresting, the "story" is only the message.

I tend to agree. Simplified, hyperbolic, and in the end, unengaging. I think the talk Cory Doctrow gave to the Microsoft Research Group about DRM is a much better way to introduce friends and relatives to the issues at hand. Of course, it requires a slightly longer attention span than what's required from the animation linked to in TFA, but I find that I often underestimate my non-tech friends ability to absorb information. Especially when it comes to issues that very much concerns them. Excerpt:

Here's what I'm here to convince you of:

1. That DRM systems don't work
2. That DRM systems are bad for society
3. That DRM systems are bad for business
4. That DRM systems are bad for artists
5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT

And he does just that..

Re:Nice link

[dnoyeb]

I don't agree that the bad guys are so good and the good guys suck as you seem to characterize. Your are overreacting.

The cartoon was uninspired and not worth forwarding to anyone I know, I agree.

How do you let someone know that there is a new law that will let someone walk in your front door and change your television channel? its very hard to convince anyone of that because its so preposterous. People will think you are just exaggerating. The cartoon does not seem to understand that.

Everyone understands cartoons

[Foktip]

THATS AWESOME! Now i can show little kids why theyre screwed in the future.

Re:Everyone understands cartoons

[ThePengwin]

My god! it all makes sence now!

But this tale needs a hero!!

Re:Everyone understands cartoons

[WilliamSChips]

# add a little yast and Linux will rise up #

I prefer for my Linux to emerge from the Portage, myself.

Analog Hole

[Feneric]

I think I personally would have visualized the character of "Analog Hole" as a lot older... certainly not a kid.

Re:Analog Hole

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Well.. whatever his age should be.. he's a real "a hole"

Re:Analog Hole

[rackrent]

True...the real "analog hole" is based on the old RCA jacks, the coaxial cables, etc. The day I see the RIAA/MPAA successfully eliminating those from new consumer electronics, that's when I know we've lost.

I'm clinging to my turntable and my cassette decks. We might be the only ones left standing.

Re:Analog Hole

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the RIAA and friends visualize "Analog Hole" (or a. hole) as an older man too, sort of like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx

Re:Analog Hole

[kfg]

Every portable mp3 player has a headphone jack by nature.

. . . consumer electronics . . .

The ultimate tool in the war, stop being a consumer. Learn to make your own . . .including music and video. Fill the world with "hole."

KFG

Re:Analog Hole

[Kjella]

Well, that part didn't really deal with the "analog hole" at all. She was trying to copy a short clip from a DVD - aka "fair use", but on a computer you're normally dealing with digital copies. Nevermind that audio/broadcast flag are anti-consumer, analog hole is pro-consumer and something they are trying to eliminate. Then again it's a teaser, not trying to be technically accurate.

Anyway, the concept of analog "hole" only makes sense in the context of trying to stop digital copies. If we say A is an analog copy and D is digital, we started out with:
AAAAAAAAAAAAA = crap

Then we got CDs, but there was noone who had CD burners at the time:
DAAAAAAAAAAAA = crap

Nobody gave a damn that there was an "analog hole", I don't think the concept even existed. Then everybody and their mother got computers and CD burners, and suddenly you got all-digital copies:
DDDDDDDDDDDDD = perfect

Then they started inventing DRM, and got that protected through the DMCA. That was supposed to stop digital copying, with varying degrees of success. However, in those cases where they succeeded you still had the analog hole:
DADDDDDDDDDDD = near perfect

So the concept of an "analog hole" is very young, because it makes absolutely no sense without digital copies and DRM.

Re:Analog Hole

[CastrTroy]

They've already done it. With the new HD-DVD and BluRay players, they still have the analog jacks, but the movies can contain flags such that only standard definition content is output when using the analog jacks. They will be able to control which content it put out on which jacks. Even some digital outputs won't be able to get HD content. Only HDMI, which is absent on quite a few HDTVs.

Re:Analog Hole

[CastrTroy]

I remember when they first came out with DVD drives for computers I saw a few reviews in magazines, and most of them were saying, sorry, no screen shot, because the included software blocked the ability to take screen shots somehow. Which really sucks for those trying to do a review and push the product. Yeah, we'd like to show you how nice these new DVD's look, but they won't let us. I'm sure you'll see a lot of this smae stuff again with the new HD formats.

Re:Analog Hole

[macemoneta]

You forgot the false premise of DRM and the analog hole - the last step is always analog, because human media I/O is analog. So in reality, a perfect copy is:

DDDDDDDDDDDDDA = perfect

As a result, no matter what the protection is or how impervious to compromise it is, you can always:

DDDDDDDDDDDDDADA = near perfect

This is why those selling the concept of DRM to media companies are selling snake oil. Until experiencing media requires an implant, an acceptable quality copy can always be made, stripped of all DRM. It's not the answer that the guys in suits want to hear, so until someone with two brain cells gets control of the the media company this nonsense will continue as customer abuse.

Re:Analog Hole

[iminplaya]

Fill the world with "hole."

And then count them all...

Re:Analog Hole

[iminplaya]

Who cares about this too heavily pixelated "HD" crap anyway? Learn to be happy with a 5 inch black & white. Better yet, find a different way to pick up chicks. These people get away with this because we all gotta have the latest gizmo. And the lemmings are going to buy it, with or without DRM. Because the babes just can't resist a 60 inch plasma with 43% more dimensions(why limit yourself to only 3?)...and super-duper "UVRay" 3 million petabyte drive spinning at 40,000 rpm. Oh, and don't forget the polyester suit.

Re:Analog Hole

[r3m0t]

"This is why those selling the concept of DRM to media companies are selling snake oil. Until experiencing media requires an implant, an acceptable quality copy can always be made, stripped of all DRM."

That is where you are wrong. My new supa-protect(TM) system (with built-in speakers) can be built-in to all media devices. Then the headphone and line-out ports are removed and the whole thing is sealed.

The supa-protect system adds noise signals to all output from your music player. Any recordings of this music will inevitably include this unbearable noise.

If anybody attempts to open the device, it explodes.

What do you think?

Re:Analog Hole

[dangitman]

Actually, it is possible to make very good analog copies. Just as it is possible to make shitty digitally-ripped MP3s. I'd much prefer a good high-end tape recording of a nicely-mastered vinyl record, than a shitty digital rip of a poorly mastered CD. And CDs are getting increasingly poor mastering and engineering applied to them. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it sounds good.

Re:Analog Hole

[ncc74656]

The supa-protect system adds noise signals to all output from your music player. Any recordings of this music will inevitably include this unbearable noise.

You're getting "noise" and "music" mixed up. Understandable, really, given the state of the "music" industry today.

Re:Analog Hole

[bob65]

DDDDDDDDDDDDDADA = near perfect

That copy is rarely "acceptable quality", and even a close-to-acceptable quality is very hard to produce using this method. DRM is mostly aimed at stopping casual copying by the general public, and so those applying it are probably not that concerned (comparatively) with this "DDDDDDDDDDDADA" copy

Re:Analog Hole

[springbox]

Well, that part didn't really deal with the "analog hole" at all. She was trying to copy a short clip from a DVD - aka "fair use", but on a computer you're normally dealing with digital copies.

Normally. But for recording a quick clip off of a DVD it's a lot easier to run the analog out into your computer's capture device (if you have one; analog in) rather than trying to fuss around with decrypting the data to extract it digitally. Notice that the girl in the last part was doing just that; making an analog capture from her "DVD PLAYA."

Nevermind that audio/broadcast flag are anti-consumer, analog hole is pro-consumer and something they are trying to eliminate.

Pro-consumer? Seriously? The only way for me to capture TV for later viewing is to use the analog outputs on the back of the Comcast owned digital receiver, and really, that's my only option. I don't see how plugging analog holes, especially in this case, would be beneficial for people in my situation.

Re:Analog Hole

[uid7306m]

I see trouble for science, too. Lots of science gets done with computer electronics:
speech research and psychology research is done 100% with consumer audio and video cards.
Lots of other fields use a mix of consumer andio/video and specialized analog to digital
converter cards. They'll all get hurt.

Why? Because you need to be able to trust your data and understand it.
Science is hard enough if your tools are trustworthy. If your tools start doing
unknown processing on your signals, you're in deep hot water (or something smellier).
At best, you'd have $10k of grant money to get the VEIL spec and (hopefully)
someone who can tell you if it is important. More likely, you'd waste time
testing your I/O devices, and then hope (with fingers crossed) that they'll
work in your real experiment.

It's a mess. Many people will pay for this in terms of increased costs,
greater complexity, mysterious failures and (in my case) midnight worries
that VEIL will somehow screw up my experiments. And all for what?
Movies, I suppose. But somehow, I suspect that we'd still have movies to
watch even if piracy abounded.

Re:Analog Hole

[ultranova]

I remember when they first came out with DVD drives for computers I saw a few reviews in magazines, and most of them were saying, sorry, no screen shot, because the included software blocked the ability to take screen shots somehow. Which really sucks for those trying to do a review and push the product. Yeah, we'd like to show you how nice these new DVD's look, but they won't let us. I'm sure you'll see a lot of this smae stuff again with the new HD formats.

I'd be nasty, publish a black rectangle (or whatever the screenshot shows up as) and state - completely truthfull - that this is a screenshot of a HD disk.

In any case it doesn't matter, my eyes aren't getting any more upgrades - in fact, as time goes on, they'll get several downgrades - and DVD(rip)s are good enough for me.

Re:Analog Hole

[dosius]

Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

-uso.

Spot on!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great cartoon, gets the point across very well.

Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[Jazzer_Techie]

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.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[babbling]

One problem I run into when trying to explain DRM to people is that they think I'm mistaken or don't believe me. They think they will always be able to record TV shows, and that nothing can stop them from doing so. They think that they will always be able to find a way to break encryption and use music they've purchased however they like.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[martinultima]

I'd have to agree – that was one of the most well thought-out animations I've ever seen, even compared to the ones that weren't propaganda against digital rights management. Definitely great attention to detail, too (at least with all the parody titles) – hopefully this will make people realize that this actually will affect them, and isn't just something that super-techies and/or Slashdot readers don't like because it doesn't work on Linux. Disclaimer, I'm a super-techie and a Slashdot reader who does the kind of thing they want to ban all the time on Linux...

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer, I'm a super-techie and a Slashdot reader who does the kind of thing they want to ban all the time on Linux...

You did animated kiddie pr0n?

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[martinultima]

Let me clarify a bit for idiots like you and everyone in Hollywood: The type of thing the MPAA/RIAA wants to ban that the EFF is objecting to in this particular video. Creative misinterpretation is not your friend.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[Maelwryth]

IMHO there would be a lot more public outcry if the laws weren't enforced selectively. Currently the method is to prosecute a small number of people to put the "Fear of God" into the rest. Imagine the outcry if all the people breaking the law were sued. I could see quite a few things becoming legal very quickly (or the collapse of the court system)
Personally, I found the animation to be a little too vague and in the future. I can imagine people watching it and saying, "Oh. that will never happen to me."

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[bcrowell]

The video is very cool and well done. But along the same lines as what you were saying, the video seems to assume that people understand copyright law, including fair use, and then goes on to explain how DRM can prevent you from doing things that are perfectly legal. The thing is, most people don't understand copyright law, and have never heard of fair use. The video uses the example of a kid trying to put a video snippet in her electronic school report. Although that clearly falls within fair use, I think most people, who don't know about fair use, would either think (a) the kid should be stopped from doing it, because it's illegal, or (b) it's illegal, but the law is stupid, so it's ok for the kid to break it. Same thing on the personal use exception, which would be relevant for the DVR example. I was unclear myself on the example of the mix CD -- is the EFF saying it's legal under personal use? Would it depend on whether the woman is his wife, who lives in the same house with him, or his girlfriend, who doesn't?

They think that they will always be able to find a way to break encryption and use music they've purchased however they like
I've heard a lot of speculation about how the analog hole could be plugged, for example, but so far I haven't seen it happen. It seems likely to me that any analog copy-protection system could be worked around by a sufficiently sophisticated digital or analog filtering system. Then the question is whether the media industry can make the relevant filtering software or hardware illegal. If it's as simple as a band-reject filter, then it doesn't seem likely.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[evanism]

Sick shit like this doesn't need a technological solution like DRM, it needs a sharp knife.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[Krimszon]

Well, they are looking at it the wrong way. You need to explain that having to break the encryption is exactly the problem.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[redcane]

To me it seems silly that the law would treat a mix tape destined for a wife/live in girlfriend/live out girlfriend differently. I mean, the intent is the same, and if the law does treat these cases differently it is discriminatory. Still, It's an interesting point, since the law could easily be worded in a way that is intended to be fair, but not end up being interpreted that way.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[JimBowen]

It seems likely to me that any analog copy-protection system could be worked around by a sufficiently sophisticated digital or analog filtering system. Then the question is whether the media industry can make the relevant filtering software or hardware illegal. If it's as simple as a band-reject filter, then it doesn't seem likely.

No I think the point with plugging the analogue hole is, rather than an analogue content protection system, removing the analogue signal altogether, at least up until the light is emitted from the screen.. Obviously this can't be done with audio, but with digital LCDs it would be nigh on impossible to grab the image from the TFT matrix itself, and illegal of course under the DMCA.
Analogue TV is being switched off soon, and analogue methods for transferring video betwween devices are being phased out and replaced by digital ones such as DVI and HDMI, which support DRM all the way to the TFT matrix.
Maybe you are going to illegally reverse engineer the circuitry in your new LCD TV to try to grab the unencrypted digital image somewhere, but that is likely to be inside some IC.

If anyone makes a (legal) HD-DVD or blu-ray player with analogue outputs (at least that can't be disabled by some flag on the medium), I'll eat my hat.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[Tim C]

You know what? They're right. As long as the signals end up in analogue, there's not a damn thing that can be done to prevent them from being recorded. If I can hear something, so can a microphone. If I can see something, so can a camera.

Sure, the quality won't be as good as a digital copy (although with expensive equipment and a lot of time and skill, it can be pretty damn close), but it'll be good enough. As you well know, it only takes one person to do it, for it to be available to everyone.

Now that's not to say that it's ok, or that the problems with DRM aren't real. I'm just pointing out that we potentially face a very inconvenient future, rather than a dire one, where content is concerned.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[bcrowell]

What you're saying sounds more plausible to me for video than for audio. I have a hard time imagining the RIAA convincing the entire audio industry to stop selling amps with analog output and speakers with analog input. Even if they did, it wouldn't be that hard to open up the speaker box and attach alligator clips at the input to the crossover filter. I also haven't heard any rumors that FM radio was going to be eliminated, although I suppose it's conceivable that it would go the way of analog TV.

Re:Great Introduction to the Perils of DRM

[babbling]

What happens when the analogue recording devices (yes, cameras and microphones) stop being made, or create content that is locked with DRM, preventing you from spreading it? What happens when the signal is encrypted even as it enters your TV/monitor and speakers?

These sorts of things are not just me speculating. They're the goals of the organisations pushing DRM.

progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[yagu]

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.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[dcollins]

Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology?

I think that's old-school thinking. It's what I heard when I was growing up, but I haven't heard industry spokespeople argue that in many years.

Nowadays the reasoning seems to be that "free market" indicates an intrinsic right to do whatever you can to make money, period, good or bad. They don't even bother with a how-it-helps-society argument anymore. As a citizen, you're supposed to just suck it down and shut up.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[Kaimelar]

As a citizen, you're supposed to just suck it down and shut up.

Corporations don't see people as "citizens" anymore. We're not even their customers -- we're consumers. Language always gives one away.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[ichigo 2.0]

Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology?

Yes, and it does. Bittorrent, warez, mp3s are all products of the market. But the RIAA/MPAA doesn't want to compete and decrease their profit margins, so they push for laws that make their competitors illegal, thus resulting in a market that certainly is not free. If you want an example of how things go when the cartels can't legislate their competitors away, look at China where they had to drop their prices to compete with piracy.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[westlake]

Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology? Oh wait, yeah, Microsoft, never mind

How many american households owned a computer before MSDOS and Windows? How many after?

The commodity PC running Windows has had an extraordinary impact on technology.

The buyer at entry level expects to see networking, a 3 GHz CPU, DX9 level graphics, multichannel HD audio, 100 GB of hard disk storage, and read-write optical drives at $500 or less.

In system bundle complete with monitor, ink-jet color printing, and free home delivery.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[Millenniumman]

The intrinsic right you're referring to is the right to do whatever you want without infringing upon others' rights, and have full rights over any property you acquire without infringing upon anyone else's property rights. Capitalism and the free market have driven most innovation.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[asuffield]

Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology?

You have to realise that when a capitalist is talking about 'innovation' they mean 'greed'. Not new things that are good for you - new ways for the plutocrat to acquire your money.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[asuffield]

Corporations don't see people as "citizens" anymore. We're not even their customers -- we're consumers. Language always gives one away.

This is very true. It's always a good idea to see what a corporation calls you.

If you are a client, then they think of you as an integral part of the process. You are involved in the development of whatever they are selling to you, and it is built around your needs. Outsourcing companies, good hotels, and lap dancers think like this.

If you are a customer, then they think of you as an individual who makes a take-it-or-leave-it decision about their product. They will attempt to make as many people as possible want to take it, but won't worry too much about missing a few around the edges. Still, they need to keep you happy and won't do something that's bad for you without a really good reason. The good ISPs and expensive high street stores think like this.

If you are a consumer, then they think of you as tied up, prone, on the floor, while they defecate their products onto you and then send you an invoice. It doesn't matter what you think, you don't get to make a choice. The big media companies think like this. So do the telephone carriers, and most other monopolies.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[dangitman]

The intrinsic right you're referring to is the right to do whatever you want without infringing upon others' rights,

And that is something most of the hardcore greedmongers don't support. They want to be able to do whatever they like to make money - and screw everybody else's rights.

Capitalism and the free market have driven most innovation.

Wouldn't it be the actual smart and creative people who do that? Capitalism is just an economic framework. It does not cause people to be smart or inventive. How about giving humans and inventors a little credit? Most innovative people I know do it out of passion and curiosity, not a desire for money.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not quite. I work in a business that sells client-server software. In my company we call the people who purchase our software "customers" even though they're technically our clients, because to do otherwise would make a lot of our internal communications, memos, etc a lot more convoluted.

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[bar-agent]

*sigh* You always gotta cause trouble, dontcha, AC?

Re:progress stops at the cost of capitalism

[WilliamSChips]

How many american households owned a computer before MSDOS and Windows? How many after?

That's the fault of IBM and Compaq, not Microsoft. MS just rode in the wave, and had IBM chosen CP/M or some other system, it would still have happened.

Excellent!

[elgee]

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.

Subtitles

[Rekolitus]

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.

Re:Subtitles

[pjbgravely]

I think this is a good idea, but I really wish more people would put subtitles on their flash videos

Do you mean like this?
Sorry I couldn't find a flash version in a hurry.

Re:Subtitles

[Cal Paterson]

I just seriously wish someone would figure out a way to play videos inside a browser without having to use flash. This functionality is really badly needed. I'm not a web developer, but no Free alternative comes to mind.

Well, at least they were cool enough to provide an MPEG4 option.

Re:Subtitles

[Anonymous Coward]

What, like the mplayer plug-in? It's free, but it relies (obviously) on mplayer, which is far from perfect IMHO.

Re:Subtitles

[Cal Paterson]

I happen to think that mplayer is perfect. :p

The mplayerplug-in actually does sound like the trick for the job. Pity it doesn't have wider use.

Re:Subtitles

[stonefoz]

http://..../ grabs a text, small? text file and maybe some pictures. It's even names after what is does, grab text files from somewhere else. Video, audio, flash and other multimedia realy need some new type of link system so I know that lynx isn't going to be happy from the start. Embeding everthing-under-the-sun aproch also limits choices to all but the great people that have enough knowlage to monkey with firefox internaly and is anti-competitive because of this fact. Personaly I'd like to see hyper-multimedia-tranfer-proto:// inplemented in an at least semi-standard way instead of replaceing my browser with a huge flash player (which I'm not about to try and make work for amd64, I already have to have two copies of enough things), or worse yet, an activex who-knows-what. I'm not saying that there isn't a place to put new and intovative media in the public, but convoluting a well working standard to do so just isn't the way.

In a recent survay, Jack Danials beats a Gramernatzi, at 3 to 2 odds.

Re:Subtitles

[ncc74656]

I just seriously wish someone would figure out a way to play videos inside a browser without having to use flash.

Why does it have to play within a browser window? I'd rather have it just start another instance of mplayer (or whatever) and play in that.

Re:Subtitles

[Cal Paterson]

Well, whatever. If we had something that was Free, it would obviously be flexible enough for people to do whatever.

Don't forget...

[spiritraveller]

The bad guys can make cartoons too.

Re:Don't forget...

[Stormwatch]

Hey! That movie ripped off a sound effect from The Jetsons!

Re:Don't forget...

[Roger Wilcox]

This video is ludicrous! It is a very misleading propaganda piece that does not provide anything near the whole story. The logical holes in it are so large that I can't imagine anyone could take it seriously.

Either there is enough bandwidth to handle all Internet traffic, or there is not. If there isn't enough bandwidth, then something is going to give. Dividing up the traffic and dedicating "lanes" to specific services won't stop a bottleneck from occurring - it will only ensure that the most profitable services are given prefrence, relegating content that the telcos can't profit from to whatever bandwidth is left.

And all of that is ignoring the enormous potential for censorship that comes with the end of network neutrality. It is a grim future indeed.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you meant to say is that that movie licensed a sound effect from the Sound Forge library.

That's kind of the whole point of this debate. Idiots like the EFF paint DRM as some kind of evil monster, when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen to find a technological solution to what's clearly a societal problem.

Re:Don't forget...

[rjdegraaf]

The bad guys can make cartoons too.

Indeed 'bad guys', the movie is in favour of stopping net neutrality.

Re:Don't forget...

[kfg]

Forget? It's what provided the stimulus for the EFF's efforts along this line.

It's an information war and this is the firing of a return volley.

KFG

Re:Don't forget...

[spiritraveller]

That's kind of the whole point of this debate. Idiots like the EFF paint DRM as some kind of evil monster, when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen to find a technological solution to what's clearly a societal problem.

The problem with DRM as a technical solution is that it uses my computer against me. My computer works for me. It doesn't work for anyone else without my permission... and that's why I don't use DRM.

DRM isn't "evil" until people no longer have the choice of refusing it.

That is why the EFF's campaign is important. It educates people about it, so that the market will make the right decision before DRM becomes an inescapable de facto standard.

Re:Don't forget...

[Professor_UNIX]

Did you watch the cartoon?? They're in favor of not regulating the Internet and keeping cool technologies like HDTV or on-demand movies or VoIP from our homes. They're in favor of very high bandwidth fiber optic links coming into our houses and being able to properly segment those links to ensure quality of service for the services in question. I think that's an awesome idea so I can ensure my VoIP phone from my cable company gets the QoS it needs to function without being choppy while I'm watching on-demand video or streaming content from an authorized content provider like my cable company or one of its authorized affiliate service providers.

Why should companies like Google or Slashdot get a free ride to use MY bandwidth that *I'm* paying for just to serve me streaming video or geek news? Shouldn't these sites pay their fair share instead of offloading the costs to me? Sure, Slashdot buys bandwidth from some provider, but what about *my* provider? Who is going to offset the burden on their network to provide me with Slashdot's services? Why should I be forced to pay for that content?

/devil's advocate view of the completely ludicrous stance the telco and cable monopolies are portraying

Re:Don't forget...

[ichigo 2.0]

when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen

The problem is that these people want to sell the things they own and still own them afterwards.

Re:Don't forget...

[iminplaya]

...when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things...

These are people who claim to own things they have no real right to own. Hopefully, society will start to realize that. The societal problem arises from the utter hypocrisy of IP law. The government overextended their monoploy privileges. Is it immoral to "steal" from a thief? To take back what is rightfully everybody's?

Re:Don't forget...

[aembleton]

Shouldn't these sites pay their fair share instead of offloading the costs to me? Sure, Slashdot buys bandwidth from some provider, but what about *my* provider? Who is going to offset the burden on their network to provide me with Slashdot's services? Why should I be forced to pay for that content?

Like you pointed out sites like Slashdot and Google pay their provider for their bandwidth. As you choose to consume their content, why shouldn't you be expected to pay for the cost of receiving it. If you are expected to pay for the cost of receiving it, as you do now, then you can choose the best provider for your needs. That maybe down to the cost, speed, download limit or some other metric.

The point is you currently get to choose your ISP, if Slashdot and Google had to pay your ISP to serve to you, then Google or Slashdot might choose not to pay some ISPs, which will reduce your choice of providers, thus probably raising prices. And, then what happens if say Google payed ISP-A, but not ISP-B, but Slashdot payed ISP-B and not ISP-A. You might end up in a situation where in order to access all of the sites you want to access you need several ISPs. How is that going to be cheaper?

Then you might reach a situation where you have proxies for accessing the content through different ISPs, so to access Google you connect via a proxy running on ISP-A network. Even if somehow you did save some money, would it really be convenient? Is convenience not worth anything to you?

Re:Don't forget...

[Codename.Juggernaut]

Someone should really create a more accurate flash representation from the one shown on the "internet of the future" site. One that shows that the extra roads are toll roads, and the "single lane" mentioned when referring to the "dumb pipe" is actually a massive, expansive highway, paving over the entire landscape instead of subjecting information to specific lane caches.

Also show the streaming video stalled to a halt on its single lane because all streaming video online gets a meager share (decided by the Telecoms: "lol 1%!!!!") because that's supposedly, according to the Telecoms, what's clogging up our current trillion-lane highway. They squelch streaming video through limited customer-available bandwidth, and get paid more to do it - kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

and at the end, they need "Paid for by the companies that will profit by this, while everyone else pays more."

So many ideas, so many ideas! Damn my poor flash skills, I can't make it myself :(

Re:Don't forget...

[westlake]

The bad guys can make cartoons too

...and they will be called "Ice Age," "Finding Nemo," "The Incredibles" and "Cars."

I'll wager that the EFF campaign will have less public visibility than any single Disney title added to the rental shelves this weekend. Which is the minimal requirement for political effectiveness.

Re:Don't forget...

[arminw]

.....it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen......

How about selling the product for a lower price and making it more convenient to buy than to steal. The iTMS shows the way to do it with music. Yes, it is possible to get the same music free from some places on the Internet, but it is nor anywhere near as easy, not is the quality uniform. If Apple made iTMS DRM free, they would not sell fewer iPods and the number of downloads would increase, because now everybody could use the easy to use iTunes program to download music to all the other players also. Ipods would still work seamlessly with iTunes, whereas the other players are more troublesome. None of the copying technologies from the piano rolls forward have ever DECREASED the amount of money creative people have made in the long term.

Re:Don't forget...

[Twiceblessedman]

Yup they can! In canada we even have Captain Copyright to teach children about giving up their rights that they have. Luckily, it's not catching on I think or maybe I'm just being naive and hopeful.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

i detected sarcasm as the very last line (at least i hope thats what it was). you need to be more careful, im sure you nearly made it to a stack of foes lists with that one

Stupid, like everything from the EFF

[BlackTriangle]

PS I love the pictures from when those gun nut EFF freaks blasted the shit out of a koran.

Racism, it's an American institution.

Dirty smelly backwater libertarians who eat colloidal (sp) silver and have that nice hue to them, these fuckers who don't know shit, gotta love em.

What a bunch of jokers. Noone in normal life cares, you assholes. Your animation sucks.

My friends, my REAL WORLD, NORMAL friends, 19-25 years old in age, would think I was a freak of nature if I showed them this animation.

You're in your own little fantasy world. Get out of the fantasy world and join the rest of us here in reality. And Grow up, assholes.

What good is it...

[a_greer2005]

if the only people who see this are already in agreement with the EFF on this one?

Re:What good is it...

[hasbeard]

Maybe the idea is to put something out there so that people can show it to other people or give them a link to it...

Re:What good is it...

[vertinox]

if the only people who see this are already in agreement with the EFF on this one?

Post the link on your blog. Email it to your family members. Print the link on business cards and hadn it out to strangers on the street.

Really cool cartoon!

[Per Wigren]

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?

Re:Really cool cartoon!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ready to spend some money on that!

Re:Really cool cartoon!

[kfg]

How much money would be needed for that?

Doesn't really matter. Everytime you buy any of their shit you participate in insureing that "they" have a lot more.

. . .TV channels (during commercial breaks)

Ahhhhhhhhh, Grasshopper. You have failed to follow the money and come to the logical end of the trail. You will not be ready until you can snatch the media outlet from my hand.

KFG

Re:Really cool cartoon!

[crush]

That would be nice, but if the experience of Adbusters is anything to go by, you won't be able to buy the spot. Why? Because TV/cable channels are worried about alienating their major customers (that's not you and me, that's the big corporations that are pushing for DRM and their affiliates and partners that buy the majority of advertising air time) and are anyway owned by some of the major forces pushing for DRM.

If only they could get it shown in cinemas

[Zane Hopkins]

Just before the warning about how piracy is putting the movie industry out of work.

Re:If only they could get it shown in cinemas

[canuck57]

Just before the warning about how piracy is putting the movie industry out of work.

Or another way to look at it is that the movie industry is price fixing and the market is balking. Resorting to extorting it's paying customers to keep prices artificially high is just alienating it's customers.

While the big companies like Sony, BMG, MGM and others are behaving like this, smaller more efficient and creative upstarts are happening all over the place, outside of the USA. It will not be long before this breaks the big monopolistic practices of the RIAA/MPAA.

I also believe they underestimate the consumer resistance to this. Very few people actually will buy a Blu-ray device in the first few years because of cost. The high cost will delay it's deployment. Reliability issues will plague it. The devices will be DRM laden and restrictive. The industry will spend millions to hype it's acceptance but in the end it will be broken.

Re:If only they could get it shown in cinemas

[NeuroManson]

I think there'd be a grand opening of the world's largest ice skating rink in Hell when that happens.

No boobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boring animation. Where's the tits, nudity, sex, etc? There's not reason to spread such rubbish.
And I wonder to what 'senator' I would send the message. We don't have senators in my country. But maybe this is us-only. Maybe that explains why it's censored from things that mean something. Like boobs.

Bah.

Perfect opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be the perfect opportunity a company to differentiate - by not selling DRM-tainted products.

Re:Perfect opportunity!

[kfg]

. . .differentiate - by not selling DRM-tainted products.

That's why "they" are working on getting it required by law.

KFG

Re:Perfect opportunity!

[SeaFox]

That's why "they" are working on getting it required by law.

What law (bill) is that?

I find it hard to believe they can pass a law requiring people to put copy restrictions on their own creations. If I record a song and I want to give it away to anyone, there isn't any law that can say otherwise. That sounds like a restriction on free speech. After all, what is the difference between a song and a political message?

The real issue is that almost all mainstream entertainment is held by a small number of companies, who happen to have ownership or at least major partnerships with all the mainstream distribution channels for their type of entertainment. So even if your independantly made product did appeal to the Average Joe, good luck getting wide exposure (advertising or actual distribution) unless you're part of the Good 'Ol Studio's Club. And if you don't support their view on issues like DRM, and they aren't getting any piece of your revenue pie, you're not going to get in good with them and your effort will see little light of day without it winning something at Cannes or Sundance.

The problem isn't so much the DRM or the companies that want it. It's that those companies for the immediate future hold most of the keys to consumer's doors. They artifically limit access to the alternative so they are somewhat of a necessary evil for large-scale success.

Re:Perfect opportunity!

[kfg]

I find it hard to believe they can pass a law requiring people to put copy restrictions on their own creations.

I did not speak of the creations. I spoke of the hardware.

KFG

What good is your post...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Captain Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what Captain Copyright would say?

Re:Captain Copyright

[saskboy]

Stupid Captain Copyright would probably make some stupid about his nemesis the EFF.

Captain Copyright: Ma'am, you can't buy that used CD, the artist doesn't get royalties from it!
EFF: Don't worry Ma'am, buy the CD, I'll PROTECT YOU!
Captain Copyright: Oh you're mean EFF! Meanie! Don't make me throw lawyers at you and this woman!

Re:Captain Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain Copyright vs. the EFF. I can hardly wait.

Many people just dont get it!

[rehashed]

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.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[The Cisco Kid]

Er, 'recording tv shows', and 'making a favorites CD' (also known as a 'mix CD') is exactly what the first two topics were about.

HDTV (actually DTV) is what everyone is talking about migrating to, and the FCC is mandating. Existing analog broadcasts would be gone. And using a DVR is exactly about recording TV shows. VCR's certainly wont be useful, since big media wouldnt let anything digital have an unprotected anlog output.

And while you could certainly make a mix CD from existing current standard CD's, big media would very much like to only offer music in a DRM format, which wouldnt include standard CD's.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[rehashed]

That was exactly my point.

People will be thinking "HDTV? Digital Radio? How does that affect me?". Examples given should have been obviously relevant to what people are familiar with, otherwise its pointless

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[westlake]

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.

I could spent hours or days producing a compilation CD.

Or I could simply type out a playlist for use with Rhapsody or Y! Unlimited.

Drawing on a library of professional rips 100-500 times the size of my personal collection and offered to friends as a one click download for their home networks and portable players, and, of course, my own.

Tell me what you think makes more sense.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[r3m0t]

"Tell me what you think makes more sense."

That would be the method which doesn't include me paying for the same song twice. And no, I don't want a subscription, I have all the songs I need on CD anyway.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[rehashed]

To the small sample of the population I have asked - making a compilation from their CDs.
If you think that because you use Rhapsody, so does everyone else, then you are very much mistaken - there is a whole world of people out there (the majority) who dont use any form of online mechanism for purchasing their music.

As I said - this advertisement doesnt appeal to the mass market - it only seems to appeal to people like yourself. THAT is the problem.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[westlake]

If you think that because you use Rhapsody, so does everyone else, then you are very much mistaken - there is a whole world of people out there (the majority) who dont use any form of online mechanism for purchasing their music.

The point is that you don't have to buy anything. I took a look at the time I was spending on BT and the P2P nets. It didn't make any sense when the all-you-can-eat buffet from Netfix is $20-$30 a month.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[assassinator42]

But you can't burn the songs to a CD. And a vast majority of portable music players can't play those files. I'm guessing that even a majority of non-iPods can't play those files.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[The Cisco Kid]

'Todays kids' know exactly what HDTV and Digital Radio are, and they know that each is set to turn 'old' TV, and 'old' radio into dinosaurs. And they know fully that if you want to record TV in the future, you use not a VCR but a DVR. And they understand the possibility that 'their music collection' will very likely come from 'Digital Radio', in the future.

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[rehashed]

I see - so you think a campaign to target a non-voting demographic is going to help....

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[The Cisco Kid]

By 'todays kids' I refer to many persons who are of legal voting age. I wasnt talking about highschoolers (although they too know that those terms mean)

Re:Many people just dont get it!

[rehashed]

I see - so this advertisement was only meant to target that demographic.
Boy, did they get that wrong.

To One Side

[Rydia]

It's a nice introduction to one side of the issue. I understand that /. is all about knee-jerk reactions and huge generalizations, but DRM itself isn't (if anything actually can be) evil. The concern is with the current use of it, along with a large echo chamber of people who are upset that it would destroy their ability to pirate.

DRM to constrain legitimate use = Bad
DRM to constrain piracy = Good
DRM written poorly and given too much control = Bad

Re:To One Side

[crhylove]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:To One Side

[tddoog]

I watched the cartoon and it doesn't say anything about DRM. It talks specifically about the law being pushed through congress that infringes on fair use rights.

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."

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM to constrain piracy = Good

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.

Re:To One Side

[vertinox]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Rydia]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:To One Side

[stinerman]

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.

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.

Re:To One Side

[Blakey Rat]

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?

Re:To One Side

[crhylove]

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

Re:To One Side

[crhylove]

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

Re:To One Side

[Eideewt]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Eideewt]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:To One Side

[Eideewt]

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.

Re:To One Side

[WilliamSChips]

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.

Re:To One Side

[kimvette]

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.

Re:To One Side

[crhylove]

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'll say this very slowly...

[Kihaji]

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.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[tepples]

Fight the laws and bad applications of DRM, not DRM itself.

But isn't almost every use of DRM in a work distributed to the public a "bad application"?

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[Kihaji]

But isn't almost every use of DRM in a work distributed to the public a "bad application"?
Almost every isn't every. Document dissemination by governments/companies where you want to absolutely verify that either they sent it to you, or you are the only one who can manipulate/read it are one case where well implemented DRM would be beneficial. Or, any place that the artist(not the publisher) wants to protect their work. Companies internal documents, to aid in ensuring that they don't get "leaked".

DRM will not fix all the problems in the above senarios, but it would be helpful as a piece of the overall solution.

The same thing going on here is what happened with research into nuclear energy. Nuclear bombs == bad(bad application), nuclear power plants == good(well, psuedo good now, all good when fusion gets worked out)

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[tddoog]

DRM is only referenced in the summary. The cartoon does not say that DRM is bad. It notes the aspects of the PERFORM law that infringe on fair use rights and how they can be used against consumers. What the EFF is trying to do is make sure that (more) laws aren't made that take rights aways from the unsuspecting public.

I sure as hell wish the EFF was around during all those stupidass copyright extensions.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[The Cisco Kid]

Preventing someone else from reading something the government sent me without *my* permission would be fine. The government, preventing *ME* from showing someone else what the government sent me, *IS* abuse of power. If the govt sends me an illegal threat, I have *every* right to show that to my lawyer, the press, or whoever I want.

DRM can never be open, becuase if it were, it would be defeatable.

DRM isnt about protecting rights, its about taking yours away so that big media can prevent you from moving from one platform to another without having to pay them again each time.

'Registering' a media player so that it can track what you listen to and when smacks of invasion of privacy.

Big media would love digital downloads to take off in a form they can keep a tight fist on, if only so that they can start phasing CD's out or start charging more for them, since in their current form (as long as you don't run MS OS's that ignore the audio CD part and run the DRM programs on the data part) they don't trample on fair use rights such as the ability to make backups and to media and format shift.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[Kihaji]

DRM can never be open, becuase if it were, it would be defeatable. DRM isnt about protecting rights, its about taking yours away so that big media can prevent you from moving from one platform to another without having to pay them again each time.
Spoken like a true sheeple. DRM can be open, most cryptographic algorithms are open, and they seem to be doing just fine. And the example you gave is one of the bad uses of DRM.

DRM is like AJAX, it isn't a specific technology, but an application of other technologies to manage what others may do with something. Encrypting a message is DRM, SSL is DRM, anything that prevents others from seeing or doing what they want with some digital data is DRM.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[Creepy Crawler]

---DRM can be open, most cryptographic algorithms are open, and they seem to be doing just fine.

Absolutely wrong.

You have Public Key Crypto on one side with GPG as the prime open-source implementation. You communicate to somebody else and can guarantee documents are not tampered with. If you're trusted, you have complete control over YOUR content. Fair.

Then you have DRM, a PKI system in which you are the receiver and the attacker. They give you the key to decode and the cyphertext (and you watch/listen) to the plaintext. It is NOT an encryption system, but instead is a content control system. NOT GOOD.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[pla]

Document dissemination by governments/companies where you want to absolutely verify that either they sent it to you

That doesn't take DRM, it just takes a digital signature


or you are the only one who can manipulate/read it are one case where well implemented DRM would be beneficial.

...Until you need to show that document in court to prove your innocense in some matter, but thanks to the chip in your head, no one but you can see it. But that couldn't happen, because of course we'd always let the government have master decryption keys, and the government would never engage in any wrongdoing of a nature where they might block the decryption of politically damaging evidence... Right?


Or, any place that the artist(not the publisher) wants to protect their work.

Protect it from what? You've just described one of the biggest problems with DRM, not a good reason for it. Even ignoring our fair use "rights", how will you feel when you go to show your grandkids your favorite (but obscure) childhood book, only to find it no longer in print, and the only copy you have uses your own retinal static (encoded at the time of purchase) as the decryption key? Does that "protect" the artist, or just condemn him to historical oblivion?


Companies internal documents, to aid in ensuring that they don't get "leaked".

Yeah, real pity we plebes learned about the NSA spying on us; about Enron and Worldcom, about Israel's nuclear program (which, incidentally, broke international law no less than Iran's); And let's not forget the recently unmasked "Deep Throat", who ruined the career of a nice friendly honest guy like Nixon.


DRM will not fix all the problems in the above senarios

Yes, actually, it can - The problem here comes from those scenarios having a far more obvious dark side than a bright side.



I don't think you work as an industry shill, because you sound sincere. But you need to realize that every application of DRM, even the ones you might contextually call "good", can and will come back to bite us.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[Kihaji]

I don't think you work as an industry shill, because you sound sincere. But you need to realize that every application of DRM, even the ones you might contextually call "good", can and will come back to bite us.

Well then why don't we just get rid of the real source of all this, digital media. Wait, we can go even further, computers. All computers are henceforth deemed evil and wrong, and should be eliminated, because in some future time they may be used in a way that will come back to bite us. Wait, they already are...OMG!!!!

If you are too slow to catch on, the same rhetoric that you, and every other anti-drm the technology people spew, can be said about ANY technology. That is why I said before, DRM the technology is not wrong, DRM the technology is not evil, BAD uses of DRM are. And, just because you can't think of any use for them NOW, or the implementations NOW are bad, does not mean that in 5-10 years that situation will still exist. Going back to nuclear power, had we not persued it because of the potential for it to wipe out the human race, we would not have a lot of knowledge we have today because they would not have had nuclear power.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[pla]

DRM the technology is not evil, BAD uses of DRM are

Agreed. At the moment, however, all uses of DRM count as "bad". And I use that universal quantifier deliberately, not sloppily.


If you are too slow to catch on, the same rhetoric

Interesting choice of words... Starting a comment about effective speaking/writing ability with an ad hominem.


the same rhetoric that you, and every other anti-drm the technology people spew, can be said about ANY technology.

Can it?

"All uses of [computers] count as bad". Hmm, no, that doesn't hold.
"All uses of [digital media] count as bad". Nope.
"All uses of [Slashdot] count as bad". Well, perhaps time-wasting, but... ;-)

"All uses of [technology] count as bad"? Evidently you have a false premise.

Yes, all technology can lead to change, whether social, legal, economic, medical, or what-have-you. Some change we may consider "good", some change "bad". How do you divide the two, though? Personally, I would say that change leading to increased personal freedom; to better health; to mutual financial benefit; to generally increased happyness among the largest group possible - we should call "good". Change that decreases our freedoms; that makes us less healthy; that benefits one at the expense of another; that decreases overall happyness - we should call "bad".

DRM, as its very reason for existing, reduces our available choices. It profits the few at the expense of the many. It makes no one happy, as even those who benefit from it use it only out of a paranoid fear of those out to infringe on "their" intellectual property. For those reasons, as well as the more obvious slippery slope, I consider DRM "bad".

YMMV.


just because you can't think of any use for them NOW, or the implementations NOW are bad, does not mean that in 5-10 years that situation will still exist.

In 5-10 years perhaps I'll agree with you.

Of course, if I have it right, in 5-10 years we'll have to scrawl conversations like this on a subway wall because the new Verizon(tm) Slashdot(R) Forums(C) won't allow me to post words like "DRM", "democracy", or "falun gong".

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[arminw]

......That is why I said before, DRM the technology is not wrong, DRM the technology is not evil, BAD uses of DRM are......

All DRM, by definition is breakable, because the recipient and the attacker are one and the same. In order to watch or listen, the key has to be used at some point. The evil is not in the DRM, but making it illegal by way of the DMCA to allow anyone to go fishing for the key. If the DMCA did not exist, DRM would have disappeared by now.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[The Cisco Kid]

See, thats where you are wrong. Cryptography can be open becuase you and the person you are communicating with both want to protect the encrypted information from disclosure. But if you give your recipient the key, they can decrypt it and share it with anyone they want. Now perhaps the software/cryptography has an option that says 'display only', but if its truly open they (or other developers) can write software that ignores that option.

The problem with that working with DRM is that the recipient is specifcally the person that the publishers (RIAA/etc) are trying to prevent from having full access. Their ability to do that depends on preventing third parties from writing software that can access the 'content', or that can decrypt it, and preventing the 'recipients' from actually having access to the decryption keys.

Re:I'll say this very slowly...

[Eideewt]

Well said.

Way too dumbed-down !

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Way too dumbed-down !

[Ithika]

Well, it was a cartoon. But so are South Park and Oruchuban Ebichu. It doesn't mean the content is in any way aimed at the under-fives.

I think it's a nice follow-up to the Creative Commons promotion tool that was released last year some time. I can't remember what it was called, but it was a nice, public-friendly rendering of the ideas that CC stands for. Unfortunately when I just watched the video for this EFF animation my sound wasn't working, so I don't know if it had funky sounds or amusing commentary.

Re:Way too dumbed-down !

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have been using Linux.

Re:Way too dumbed-down !

[PunkOfLinux]

I really hate to feed the trolls, but this is an absolutely asinine comment. I just watched the video and the sound worked FINE... Linux is now to the point that it can do anything (media-wise) that Windows can.

What DRM needs...

[abigsmurf]

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.

Re:What DRM needs...

[vertinox]

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)

And if I have a Mac or Linux box?

Re:What DRM needs...

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

I think the answer might be, "be prepared to either pay to keep a Windows box (or other high-priced proprietary equipment) around, or just accept that you can't enjoy certain types of media." So just save yourself some trouble, become a pessimist, and know that there will always be more American Idol-watching, mouth-breathing, "if you're not a pirate you have nothing to worry about" types than you, and that DRM will become part of access to popular media in the future no matter how hard we little peons argue against it. Don't you feel better now? :)

Re:What DRM needs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Everything's futile. No one should bother doing anything about DRM because it's here to stay, of course.

It's probably just me...

[cp.tar]

... 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.

Re:It's probably just me...

[tddoog]

In the late 1700s there were people who didn't really care that much about taxation without representation and all that. Although, there were some others who were able to foresee the downsides to having a distant king controlling everything they could do. Naturally, the small minority of those who had some understanding did their best to mobilize the people to start a revolution. If you want to see propaganda, read Common Sense by Thomas Paine. But that was one of the tickets that informed the people and started the revolution.

Don't look down on people because they are not tech savvy and don't spend their time babysitting their senator. Public representatives are supposed to be people we can trust and some people still believe they can trust them.

If you really care about this issue then educate people about it (like the EFF is trying to do) and make them care about it too.

Re:It's probably just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

But most people, sadly, don't really give a damn.

It's probably true (I haven't read the studies on apathy), but is it sad?

Most people on /. would say "yes" without hesitation, but if you think about it, what kind of harm can you do to the die-hard oblivious and the apathetic?

You take away their rights, they don't care. They just do what they do.

What about the law, you say? The best resistance for people against opposing powers is to not care. They can't be expected to follow laws if they are completely unaware, and laws that the people don't like would become meaningless text. Where would you find the manpower to enforce these laws if no-one cared?

So, I propose the last form of activism: inactivism! I promise that, if you do it right, you will be truly happy for the rest of your life.

Re:It's probably just me...

[cp.tar]

What about the law, you say? The best resistance for people against opposing powers is to not care. They can't be expected to follow laws if they are completely unaware, and laws that the people don't like would become meaningless text. Where would you find the manpower to enforce these laws if no-one cared?

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat, if my Latin serves me.

As long as there is a silent minority which not only cares, but actively passes laws which restrict other people who are, at the time, completely unaware of the fact, there will also be the apparatus which will enforce those laws. Which is what I'm talking about.

It is your right not to care... but when most people do not care, what good is democracy?

Re:It's probably just me...

[Aadain2001]

As another poster mentioned further up, the problem isn't that people don't care about these rights, it's that they cannot see anything as a real threat to those rights. We'll always be able to get around the DRM somehow and have some fair use. But the majority of people just do not believe that anything will really interfear with their ability to watch TV or listen to the radio or use their computers.

I can envision what will happen in the future if these laws pass. No one will believe that anything is wrong, until the day they try to do something that they should easily be able to do (MythTV/Open TV recorders, record radio, etc) and they run head first into the restrictions. Of course people will get mad and pretty soon almost everyone will in same way be violating those laws just so they can use their products in a fair way. Suddently the arrests will start coming out, and people from little kids to grannies will be arrested under laws ment for real criminals who make money off of pirating. Can you just imagine the image of grandma behind bars because she circumvented some weak DRM so she could watch her TV? That's when people will finally sit up and demand that these laws be struck down/removed.

Re:It's probably just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there is a silent minority which not only cares, but actively passes laws which restrict other people who are, at the time, completely unaware of the fact, there will also be the apparatus which will enforce those laws

Why? The enforcement is a separate process to the making of laws. Sure you can stand up in front of an apathetic crowd and preach protection, better living standards, support, organisation, etc, but no-one will care. And sure you can kick and scream and whinge about it, but it'll do no good. No-one is interested in enforcing your law.

what good is democracy?

Democracy is designed to make society work, not the other way around. Democracy would crumble, but hey. Apathetic anarchy* isn't any worse is it?

* You know the difference between anarchy and social chaos, right?

To complete the collection

[Bromskloss]

...combine with similar movies about software patents and trusted computing.

Propagandhi?

[Distinguished Hero]

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.

Re:Propagandhi?

[aleander]

Stop spreading your anti-propagandist propaganda!

[*sigh* yeah, that's propaganda. Your point being?]

Re:Propagandhi?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If the RIAA were to put out something like this, it would be (rightly) referred to as propaganda.

You mean kind of like that inane 'Matrix' themed cartoon that the RIAA put out a couple years ago?

Re:Propagandhi?

[MrSteveSD]

Propaganda isn't necessarily bad or about spreading lies. It got those connotations during WWII when the NAZIS used it. Prior to the war, companies and governments were happy to use the word propaganda to describe what they were doing. I mean, you wouldn't think of a poster describing the dangers of unprotected sex as being propaganda would you? but it is. These kind of animations/videos can spread around very quickly with little cost to the producers. If you can make your animation cool enough and funny enough you can deliver your propaganda payload to a large audience. Propaganda isn't wrong or evil, but the message can be. What I would like to see though is the creators of these films to cite references (or provide relevant links) and to encourage viewers to find things out for themselves. Perhaps that would make it a little less propagandistic.

Re:Propagandhi?

[Petrushka]

"Propaganda" is basically just the Latin for "advertising". It's a neutral term. -- at least until you start introducing cognitive or psychoanalytic techniques with the express aim of bypassing the target audience's conscious judgment.

(OK, other Latinists out there, it doesn't literally mean "advertising, -- but basically. Supposedly coined from the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide founded by Gregory XV, according to Wikipedia.)

Don't forget to Digg The Corruptibles too

[saskboy]

Help make The Corruptibles a big story on Digg as well.

minus 2, Tr0ll)

[Anonymous Coward]

main7ained that too

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[evanism]

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

Obligatory Simpsons

[LM741N]

Homer: "Hmm, DRM eh?" He starts thinking: "Mmmm Donut Rights Measure- aaaaahhhh."

OK, I just made that up.

PlayForNever

[AnyThingButWindows]

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.

That's not an animation!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:That's not an animation!

[Phil John]

Second link under the "Watch" title is an XVid MPEG4 file, XVid being an open source video codec.

And y'all DID notice....

[Nick Driver]

...which of those two cartoons easily allows you to save a copy, and which one does not? Or did anyone miss that?

I don't like it

[Godji]

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.

Re:I don't like it

[Catamaran]

I'm a member and big proponent of EFF, but I have to say: this looks like crap. The anti-piracy ads put out by the MPAA are slick, viceral, and they get the (wrong) message across. EFF just doesn't know how to compete on this level.

On the other hand, Downhill Battle has been doing a brilliant job of exposing the RIAA and MPAA for the pigs that they are. We need more such agitators.

Re:I don't like it

[NeuroManson]

Not to mention the overwhelming numbers of people who are not online and cannot view the cartoon, let alone have the ability to understand the message of the cartoon. Most people probably think DRM is a new kind of cough medicine, thanks to the decades spent on keeping the public ignorant.

And as long as these estimated hundreds of millions of people are ignorant of the issues, they're going to ignore what their congresscritters do, as long as they keep them thar homosexuals from getting married and keep shoveling money into Halib- er, Iraq. Since Alito is in the SCOTUS, it's more than likely we'll see other precedents, such as Universal VS Sony, reversed as well. Since all of the companies that used to promote copying or timeshifting under fair use are now themselves major holders in the **AAs, they'll ironically stand side by side with him in the process.

It does...

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:Propaganda, like you wouldn't steal a ...

[freqmod]

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?

Devil's advocate?

[cbr2702]

Maybe it's the position you're arguing, maybe it's the way you're arguing it, but it's not making sense.

Free Market != Monopolization or Over Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

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

To view but not reproduce or modify

[tepples]

DRM can be open

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 DRM, SSL is DRM, anything that prevents others from seeing or doing what they want with some digital data is DRM.

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.

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

"Evil always wins, because good is stupid."

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No kidding...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of retarded toons out there.

But you can fight back, by teaching them the value of decent security systems :) Oh, and there are good videos out there, too.

Factual Inaccuracy

[Morosoph]

Piracy is bad, it hurts the economy, it hurts businesses, not to mention it's against the law.

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?

Remind you of anyone?

[Stoutlimb]

Did anyone else here notice that the "Broadcast Flag" Corruptible is a spitting image of Condoleeza Rice?

Is this clown on?

[dangitman]

The EFF needs to call the New Justice Team to sort out these bad guys. I bet Citizen Snips is involved in this plot.

---

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!

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[jbertling1960]

I am not a consumer, I am a man.

Some day...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You missed the point of the Analog Hole

[twitter]

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.

Re:You missed the point of the Analog Hole

[cuantar]

You make a very good point. Copyright is supposed to be temporary, and although Big Entertainment seems to feel otherwise, it's certainly easier for them to convince Congress to pass "anti-piracy" laws that close off the means of making copies legally than to get a perpetual copyright bill passed. They can make their arguments under the guise of the protectors of creativity by pushing DRM, but perpetual copyright seems a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Re:You missed the point of the Analog Hole

[dangitman]

The point is that new technology will remove rights people are used to and enjoy.

Yes, I understand that. But if that was the point, then why say that analog copies are "crappy" and digital copies are "perfect"? When in reality, there are some great analog copies, and some shitty digital copies? It just distracts from making your point to make such incorrect generalizations.

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[arminw]

......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.

WWJLD? (John Lennon)

[Zaphod2016]

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.

Re:WWJLD? (John Lennon)

[Zaphod2016]

In fact, not only is this music almost 50 YEARS OLD, but 50% of the band is now DEAD!

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The fact is, not all DRM is bad,

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.

Re:Nice link - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[LordNightwalker]

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.

Agreed. it was too hard to follow.

[arkarumba]

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.

Cartoon was WEIRD!

[TheDarkener]

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).

STOP INSULTING......

[Anonymous Coward]

"The RIAA and MPAA, what a bunch of fucktards."

Kindly stop insulting fucktards the world over.

Is that an Odd Todd Cartoon?

[lbmouse]

Either someone is copying Odd Todd or he just sold out.