Slashdot Mirror


Install Copyright Filters on PCs, Says RIAA Boss

Don't squeeze the Sherman writes "At a conference last week, RIAA president Cary Sherman said he didn't support mandatory filtering by ISPs, but in a video clip posted by Public Knowledge, Sherman offers a far more troubling 'solution': installing filters on users' PCs. From Ars Technica's coverage: 'The issue of encryption "would have to be faced," Sherman admitted after talking about the wonders of filtering. "One could have a filter on the end user's computer that would actually eliminate any benefit from encryption because if you want to hear [the music], you would need to decrypt it, and at that point the filter would work."'"

9 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. LOLOLOLOLOL by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How the hell did these clueless fucks get so much power?

    Oh yeah. Lobbying. God bless free speech!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You laugh, and while I agree he is an idiot, if they built DRM into CPU microcode we're fucked. They are already laying the foundations with crap like TPM and the like.

    2. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could buy the cpu if you want and let it attempt to work out whether the result of this innocuous calculation results in a waveform or bitmap which happens to be contained somewhere in its enormous brain.

      Besides, there is a bigger reason this will never be implemented:

      How can it detect infringement without having something to compare it against?

      Remember, google have pretty much said to the big movie people "Sure, we will block all your shit but you have have to give us a copy of everything you want blocking first".

      Do you think the RIAA will give us all a full copy of everything we aren't allowed to view or listen to?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by spazdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter. The DRM can go as deep as they like but they will never be able to escape virtualization. Alan Turing has already explained, better than any of us ever could, why their goals are impossible.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    4. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of cracking the DRM, why not crack their skulls?

      Not everyone listens to music all day.

    5. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by renegadesx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Intel and AMD will never comply to putting DRM at the processor level, the open source market is too big to entirly cut them out and its obvious any RIAA DRM solution will NEVER make it's way into the Linux kernel.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
  2. Re:Brainstorming broken? by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, it makes me wonder why these people are even let out in public without chaperons. At the very least they should have a lawyer and someone technical around at all time. The technical guy to hopefully whisper "uh, that won't work, and it's a bad idea" in their ear every time they come up with one of these stupid ideas, and the lawyer to say "that's not our official opinion, and this is all off the record" every time one of these guys opens their mouths.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  3. How about installing a greed filter... by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...on his PR statements, and a bullshit filter on his mouth?

    I have better things to do with my PC than protect your artificial and increasingly indefensible "rights". People and organizations buy PCs to conduct business, science and for their entertainment, not to put money in your coffers you greedy fuck!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  4. I'd like to believe that this would not happen... by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But in 1995 I honestly believed that no company would be stupid enough to automatically run code delivered in an email message, and in 1997 that Microsoft would be forced by public opinion to back down on the obviously absurd integration of the browser and the desktop, and in 2000 that people would reject an operating system with components to lock them out of their own computer... after all, dongles had proven to be a passing fad, surely people were wising up to things like this.

    I no longer believe in any limits to the complaisance and naivete of the computer-using public.