Slashdot Mirror
Vista a Threat to Internet Freedom?
BBC columnist Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on. "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away. Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit. [...] governments and corporations around the world are making a concerted effort to dismantle the open internet and replace it with a regulated and regulable one that will allow them to impose an 'architecture of control.'"
Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
How long before some lobbyist convinces the government to make it mandatory to use an *AA approved protocol/operating system which can be used to ensure that their IP 'rights' aren't being violated?? In which case, MS (or, one or two other *AA licensees) will become the gatekeeper(s) of all data on the internet?
When they outlaw unencumbered internet protocols and operating systems, only criminals will be running them.
Doffs tinfoil hat
While I don't think that the above is (imminently) likely, it certainly seems to be the direction regulation is moving to. If you can't convince the *AAs/government/terrorist police that you're above board, your activities are to be shut down until such time ad you can prove that you conform to their expectations.
And, since the *AA's seem to be able to push through any law they can afford (which then gets pushed down the throats of the rest of the world), I'm afraid the paranoid scenario seems more and more probable.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Don't kid yourself. Microsoft had *nothing* imposed on them.
Microsoft's interest in DRM is in vendor lock-in and software piracy control -- Microsoft has it's own interests in making sure that every piece of digital data is made to behave like a physical object (uncopyable). Just take a look at who started the Trusted Computing Group -- which is making hardware (TPMs) DESIGNED specifically for DRM (the fact that it has other uses is incidental). Microsoft, Intel, HP, Sun, IBM etc etc. All of these companies want total control over their customers, and all have EULAs that they want enforced by the control the hardware offers.
You're all about users rights, but what about my rights as a developer or music producer? I have a right to sell my product at whatever I choose and if people don't buy it so be it, but for them to steal it instead is a mockery of the system and endangers my right to profit from the fruits of my labor. It cost me $160k to go to college and years of my life to get to the point that I can write good software so who's going to protect my rights?
...or why I should care?
All I see in this article is an opportunistic activist using the launch of Vista to reiterate a general disdain for corporate hegemony with a bunch of vague platitudes and appeals to emotion.
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No.
So, what's really behind this diatribe?
People always complain about how their rights are being taken away and they have no freedom. You have the freedom to install Vista or not to install Vista, or to download and install the DRM crack or not to. I haven't paid for music in any format or for any software in the last 10 years and I never will. I refuse to pay for something I don't own. So it doesn't bother me at all what music and movie business is doing these days. And if they make it so that there is no other way, I guess I won't be listening to anything other than a radio. And if they lock down Windows to the point where I can't use it at all without paying for it, I'll switch to Linux.
When are you going to understand that information wants to be free?
Music, films, software, games, are nothing more than ideas, and ideas can NOT be the property of one individual. They are to be shared by all mankind. To wrap ideas in DRM and charge money for them is an affront to humanity, itself!!
GIVE ME LIBERTY (TO ENJOY ANY AND ALL DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYMENT), OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Just go Linux; be free. Especially Ubuntu; easy, free, capable and no threats. I keep telling people this, somehow they think Microsoft is some warm, fuzzy teet from which they won't wean.
Linux brings back the fun; to those times before Microsoft when you *owned* the computer, so you could put anything on it you wanted to. Guys with CP/M used to attach all kinds of funny things to their computers, always grinning when someone told them "it can't be done", yet there's the proof that it could.
And with the net, you can share the experience with everyone else. There's no "this year's agenda", there's no one to tell you no. Why on Earth would anyone give up that freedom, to get no technical support over the phone, net, or local computer store?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?
For the most part the studios and artists that create works do not retain the copyright for those works because it is the distribution channels that have been taken over by monopolists and cartels. To equate the person who owns the copyright with the creator of a work is misguided. Do you know how much an average musician makes from the copyright on their songs? Less than nothing. In exchange for making songs and transferring the copyright to a label, most musicians sign a contract that puts them in debt. It is the only way to get their music widely distributed. Most of them make money selling trademarked t-shirts, and doing live performances. If copyright disappeared tomorrow most musicians would probably make more money.
If you want to, you create the culture and give it away.
Yeah, and have basically no chance of reaching the mainstream audience.
The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.
Books are an interesting example. Do you know how many books make a profit after the first 3 years? Less than 1%. If my grandmother wrote a book 40 years ago and died 20 years ago, the chances are the copyright for that book would be owned by a publishing house who would intentionally bury it, so that the work could not be freely printed and it did not compete with current offerings. The vast majority of books, TV shows, and songs are intentionally being held by companies who do not offer them for sale, effectively erasing them from public. You mention public domain books, but most books written since the 70s will likely never, ever enter the public domain and of those that do, most will be DRM'd in some way so no usable copy may ever exist.
Some of those are probably the greatest works of literature of those decades, but were too progressive for their time and were tossed in a bin. What is copyright and why does it exist? My natural human right to free speech means that if you sing a song and I hear it, I have the right to sing that song too. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that right, designed to motivate the creation and archival of more works. If the works are no longer archived and no one can see or read them and they are not for sale so no additional revenue is motivating the author's to create, why are works still copyrighted? What is the justification for restricting my free speech?
Anyone who takes the time to see how many and what artistic works are vanishing, the last copies rotting away, becomes concerned about the issue. Our artistic heritage is being buried for about 1% increase in profit. We need reform and that reform should take DRM into account.
One thing, if you don't read the entire post please don't comment on it. This is a long process but the biggest problem is people are acting like idiots about all this stuff and the companies are feeling threatened rather then realizing their actions are causing them problems.
First things you don't need a vista, music, movies, or anything else of that sort. This is important to understand before I proceed with this post because people have to understand music, movies, and the rest are elective choices, not rights that they are entitled to.
Second piracy is NOT an answer. I don't care how much you feel you're entitled to a movie or music. Stealing it instead of supporting that industry is theft, not "your right". I don't care what the RIAA or MPAA did to you, your mother, some random woman, or your dog. They own the rights to that music or movies. If you think that they shouldn't, inform your favorite singer, actor, director about alternatives. Don't support them, or what ever, but don't give them a reason to feel morally entitled to your money.
When you pirate anything you basically give the opposition a right to send you to jail, you have stolen the profits from them. You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. If you really wouldn't have bought the music, then don't download it. Why do we have DRM and lawsuits? Because people pirate movies and music and the RIAA feels a need to control this.
The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule. There's not much you can do if you want to hear a soundtrack to a foreign film, but again realize that if X company buys the rights to the soundtrack you should expect to buy it at a reasonable price. (what ever the current rate is for cds. Remember the idea here is not to screw the company, the idea is to get them to realize that their tactics are wrong).
Third, start boycotting. This is the most important thing, don't steal it, don't borrow it and don't return it. Don't listen to that new Britney Spears/Enimem/Weird al cd unless you have bought it through a process that you agree with. Find a way to get music you like with out DRM, buy it that way. But at the same time if you are buying music don't start giving music away to all your friends. If they come over feel free to play it for them or loan them the disc but don't rip a copy for them, don't go and post it on bittorrent. That just shows you're helping people steal from the company and doesn't correctly support the process.
The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. That's the ONLY way you're going to stop DRM and stop the tactics of the groups. Find better groups and bands or alternative software if you're so pissed about it. But stealing them and bitching about DRM loses it's effectiveness once you have stolen the media because they actually do have to protect their media or at least find a way that people have a way to control the rights to their own property. Remember, the RIAA might steal from the artist but downloading the music also means the artist isn't getting any money. (I don't care if the artist only gets 25 cents from the RIAA, downloading that music means that 25 cents isn't being given.)
Already done that when XP became pervasive. However I already had request at work asking about our Vista compatibility. *sigh*
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The cost of production is still the same.
The cost of distribution goes from whatever it is now to practically zero.
I won't pay NZ$30 for a DVD but I would be perfectly happy to pay $3 for a legal drm-free download (about what I pay to rent a DVD now). And I'd far rather pay $3 than piss around with emule, downloading crappy handycam rips and mislabeled files at often barely-dialup speeds.
I'd probably buy three or four movies a week at that price and I suspect a hell of a lot of other people would too. I also suspect that most (but not all) people who paid would treat it like a rental; watch it a few times then delete it to make space for new movies.
I suspect that at one tenth the price they would easily sell far more than ten times the volume, making the same or likely more profit simply by giving consumers exactly what they want.
But I'll probably never find out for sure, because the MAFIAA have decided they're in the business of selling little plastic disks rather than the business of providing entertainment..
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Stealing != Copying.
People need to grow up about this "Intellectual Property Rights" nonsense, which are neither property, nor rights.
Did you build your own compiler?
Did you build your own motherboard?
Did you go to school to learn Theory & Application? What about all those people who donated their time and effort _SHARING_ their knowledge of Algorithms? And you want to profit off their work then bitch over a few people that see copyright for what it really is -- an _artificial_ right. The ONLY reason the government has that right, is because _the people_ decided it was OK to _give_ it to the government.
If I may extend the discussion to music...
Did you build your own instrument?
Did you build your own mixing studio?
Did you listen to any other music?
Obviously this guy cares more about profit, then people listening to his work and getting free exposure / advertising. A true artist produces something because he values his own work -- if other people do not, he does not have the right to enforce his artificial prices on others, whether that price is near zero or not. Fortunately most people will realize that the artist should be supported so they can produce more, but there will always be a percentage of people who, quite justified, don't owe a dime to anyone. To those artists that get their "panties in a knot", "Get over yourself! You're like the pessimist who complains the jar is half-empty, ignoring the fact that it is also half full."
i.e.
Am I "stealing from the artist" when I record a song off the radio so I can listen to it again at my convenience?
Am I "stealing from the artist" when I listen to the CD at a friends place?
Am I "stealing from the artitst" when I buy a used CD?
Am I "stealing from the developer" if I use the software at a friends?
Produce something that _others perceive as valuable_, and you'll be rewarded. More importantly, do it because you love doing it. We already have enough people doing it because "they want to make a buck."
The fact is, 99% of all musicians were influenced by their peers, and the people they grew up listening to. Saying you own the "right" to a specific order of notes, is as about stupid as a photographer trying to claim he owns the copyright on a photo. If I retake the photo with my own camera, in the same location, and same time of day, do I now _also_ have copyright?!
Seriously, this fixation with money, is getting tiring. There is more to life then money.
--
You prove your religion, by the way you live your beliefs.
You hit it right on the spot. That's one of the best analogies for digital copying there is. Because, what is it exactly that makes "enhanced dirt" different from any other kind of valueless dirt? Answer: the organic matter it contains. Once you get a small sample of this "enhanced dirt" you can make a culture of whatever is the living matter in it that makes it so special.
Living matter replicates itself endlessly, just like digital data. Give me one sample of a fungus or bacteria and I can make an indefinite number of copies at a very small incremental cost. And that's the reason why the corporation lobbyists have pushed for regulations that make living things patentable. There are plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc, that have existed for thousands or maybe millions of years, yet they are patentable by the first corporation that fills a claim. How's that for prior art???
You seriously prefer the pre-web internet to today's?
Today, I can get on the net with a cell phone from the middle of nowhere. Or I can get on the net from a random coffee shop.
I can get access to a huge number of top-quality scientific papers.
I can buy music and literature in electronic form quickly and for a reasonable price.
I can e-mail my parents and call people on the other side of the world for free.
I can get up-to-the-minute news on dozens of different subjects delivered straight to my computer, with automatic alerting for interesting stories.
I can still use Usenet. It's gone downhill a bit but it's still an incredible collection of experts in many fields.
You probably won't get a spontaneous response from Stephen Hawking these days, but you can still e-mail him if you like. Given all of the above, I'll take that tradeoff and then some.
I happen to agree that there are valid scenarios for Trusted Computing but disempowering the user is not among them. This is an imposition of Vista and not a consequence of buying a DVD.
Saying you own the "right" to a specific order of notes, is as about stupid as a photographer trying to claim he owns the copyright on a photo. If I retake the photo with my own camera, in the same location, and same time of day, do I now _also_ have copyright?!
I agreed with your statement until I got to the end and read this, above. A photographer does own the rights to any and all photos s/he takes unless they shoot while working for hire or until they sale the rights. That does not mean they have the right to prevent someone else from taking the same photo, except in certain circumstances. For instance I have the right to take a photo of someone in a public space without their permission just as everyone else does. Now if the person is identifiable I can't sale the photo unless I get their permission, but I can sale it without a release if the person is not identificable. I can't prevent someone else from enjoying the same rights however,. I love to walk around a lake near where I live and take photos of the wind surfers on the lake, often I wish I were out there too, and I have no right to prevent others from doing the same though I do have the right to prevent someone else from using the photo I took.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm endlessly amused by all the passionate arguments about Vista, and DRM, and Internet freedom.
For once, I'm finally starting to see a few people thinking about this objectively. The truth is simple. It only matters what they do in Redmond if you use their stuff. If you don't, Redmond doesn't matter. DRM only matters if you want to watch HD-DVDs or Blue-Ray or whatever. DRM doesn't matter if you don't care.
Far as Internet freedom... I do care about this one. There is only one Internet and I want to make sure it stays neutral and equal. I want this to the extent that I hope all costs are passed down to end users equally and not based on content or anything else. This is what we have now and it's fine. Even with all the file sharers clogging my bandwidth, I still don't want anything to differentiate content with pipe speed. I also don't want e-mail taxed at all... ever!
What I want is for people, government and businesses to leave me alone as much as possible. I don't want "things" invading my life. Vista doesn't invade my life and neither does DRM. So who really gives a shit what they're doing in Redmond or Hollywood? Only people that don't like them and continue to grovel back to them for a fresh beating.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
Not sure wth code names have to do with anything, but IE, with ActiveX and its deliberate focus on incompatibility, is a great example of what I'm talking about.
As far as MSN being an ISP-- that's not how I remember it. Wikipedia's history matches my memory better: "MSN was originally conceived as an online service provider in the vein of America Online, supplying local and proprietary content through an interface that matched that of Windows 95's Windows Explorer. Following the rapid adaption of the Internet, partly fueled by the built-in IP protocol capabilities of Windows 95, the service was then rebranded in a new "MSN 2.0" incarnation, which combined access to the Internet with web delivered proprietary content."
I very distinctly remember Bill Gates saying that the Internet was a fad and that everybody should use MSN instead. I remember laughing at that. Sure, some people inside MS knew better. But just because Windows 95 had TCP/IP capabilities doesn't mean that they weren't trying to lock people into proprietary technologies.
Apple's no shining knight either. It's pretty clear that Jobs would be just as greedy/exclusive as Gates if he had the opportunity. But only the guy at the top can really get away with that, so for the time being I find the Apple products I use less intrusive than the MS products I've used. I'm just glad Linux/OSS is around to keep them both somewhat honest.