Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Western Digital Service Restricts Use of Network Drives

Posted by Zonk on from the drm-means-don't-read-disk dept.

sehlat writes "Via BoingBoing comes the news that Western Digital's My Book(TM) World Edition(TM) II, sold with promises of internet-accessible drive space, is now restricting the types of files the drive will serve up. 'Western Digital is disabling sharing of any avi, divx, mp3, mpeg, and many other files on its network connected devices; due to unverifiable media license authentication. Just wondering -- who needs a 1 Terabyte network-connected hard drive that is prohibited from serving most media files? Perhaps somebody with 220 million pages of .txt files they need to share?'" Update: 12/07 03:28 GMT by Z : To clarify, it actually seems as though this is a bad summary. The MioNET service that WD packages with the networked drives is responsible for the rights of users via the network. There are a few (obvious) ways to get around that.

7 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Why bother? by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't have media files on it, it might as well be 512 MiB.

    --
    <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
  2. So rename your files and go on about your business by JudgeFurious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems simple enough. I'm downloading "The_Golden_Compass.pdf" or some such rubbish should take care of it.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  3. Not the right question... by hawkeye_82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who needs a 1 Terabyte network-connected hard drive that is prohibited from serving most media files? Perhaps somebody with 220 million pages of .txt files they need to share? That's not the question we need to be asking.

    The question we need to be asking is - "How can I replace the firmware on that thing and make it my bitch?"
  4. More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two hundred million files labelled like this:

    Latest-Movie[axxo].txt (filesize 700MB)

    Seriously, I don't know why they even try to bother any more. Regardless of your political position on piracy, it's a hole that they can't plug, no matter how many DRM methods they devise or U.S. senators they bribe.

  5. Re:WD My Book driver suck. Stick with Seagate by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually that's about the just of it.

    The LAST thing I need when buying hardware is to have a fucking piece of HARDWARE deciding what files it will / will not hold. Hardware is hardware - do what I tell you to do, do it reliably and without questioning my motives, intent, or desires.

    This is tantamount to a car that won't turn left because the onboard GPS doesn't think there's a road there - well guess what, I'm not driving to work by committee. When it comes to hardware, when I say 'jump' your ONLY question better be 'how high?'

    The important thing to remember is : I'm going to forget ~why~ I don't buy Western Digital hardware long before I forget that I ~don't~ buy Western Digital hardware. A year or now it will simply be 'I don't remember why, but there's no fucking way I would buy a WD drive.'

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  6. Last time I buy a WD drive... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would I buy such a large drive if I don't intend on using it for media.

    It really isn't WD's place to restrict filesharing.

    1. In the first place, this is a troubling precedent. My own hardware won't obey my instructions? Does WD believe they still own the machine, even after I've bought it?
    2. Technical issues aside, this means that most users won't be able to share their home videos and sound recordings. So, no garage band videos allowed.
    3. Media files aren't the only things copyrighted. For example, most text files, binaries programs, etc... are also copyrighted. In fact, almost every file on your PC, is copyrighted. So if WD is concerned about copyright violations, they shouldn't allow any type of file to be shared.

    This is truly a troubling precedent. The problem is that by building a device which automatically attempts to enforce copyright law, they build a precedent which can be used against them in the future:

    • RIAA Lawyer: So you manufactured the device knowing full well it could be used for copyright infringement, did you not?
    • WD: Well, um, yes.
    • RIAA Lawyer: So you admit that you contributed to copyright infringement, do you not?
    • WD: Well, it's not like that -
    • RIAA Lawyer: Yes! Yes it is like that! See - you put the restriction on filesharing on one of your drives, but neglected to place it on the rest of them! So you could have prevented filesharing, but chose not to. You deliberately made this device capable of copyright infringement...
    • Later... During Congressional anti-terrorism hearings...
    • Expert: Yes, we've known for a long time that simulating a nuclear weapon requires large amounts of data - typically beyond the capacity of the PC, until WD started manufacturing large capacity disks...
    • Congresscritter: (to WD) Why did you make such large capacity drives?
    • WD: Well, we intended them to be used for media...
    • Congresscritter: Such as movies?
    • WD: Well, um...
    • Congresscritter: Because that would be copyright infringement.
    • WD: Um, no. We didn't intend them to be used for copyright infringement.
    • Congresscritter: Ah, so you intended them to be used for something else? What else would someone do with a terabyte of data?
    • WD: Well, um...
    • Congresscritter: It's fairly obvious to everyone here that you helped terrorist countries with their nuclear ambitions - you even went so far as to make the drive unable to share media. Clearly, you had some other purpose in mind.... Let me help you out here - you knew they could be used for terrorism, but hoped that no one would find out. You put your profits above the safety and security of the American people.

    Electronic devices don't decide what's legal and illegal - the courts do. When people think that they are capable of doing so, two key things are going to happen:

    1. Manufacturers will be held liable for any illegal use of their products, and:
    2. To minimize liability, the functionality available to the end user will be extremely crippled.

    It is really unfortunate when our fear of what someone might do with technology overrules the good that they are doing with it.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  7. Re:A Sign of Things to Come and How to Fight. by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    t has one particular feature, optionally installed, that allows access to your drive from the Internet at large, and this one feature limits the filetypes you can share.

    Sooo, if I want to buy one to use as a server to allow all of my relatives to get pictures of the family and such, it will work. If I throw in an MPG of my son playing soccer, oooops... denied.

    Wow. What a great feature.

    Point is, it still sucks. Arbitrary limits based on the file extentions are stupid and pointless.
    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."