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."'"

22 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 evilklown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why don't they just say what they really want: have everyone pay for music and never get to listen to it.

    3. 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
    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. Re:LOLOLOLOLOL by NitroWolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.

      Don't ever use this as your example of why DRM is bad, because it's complete bullshit.

      Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.

      Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.

      1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough!
      2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements.
      3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price.
      4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?

      No, Beta was not superior to VHS, except on paper. In every instance that mattered, Beta failed miserably compared to Beta. Being better on paper is irrelevant, it's real world results that make a difference, and Beta had no advantage there.

    7. 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. Brainstorming broken? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny how the RIAA and MPAA both seem to be using a public forum for their brainstorming technique. Most groups would come to a conclusion in private and announce their final and ultimate strategy. Nope, these guys just come up with idea after idea and announce them before they've even contemplated what they mean or their reprocussions. If my company announced every brain-dead idea we came up with before bouncing it around in the brainstorming sessions we had- we'd kill ourselves off with bad PR alone!

    If you read TFA he goes on to admit that it's unlikely to get people to install the filterware themselves, but maybe if they put it into routers and modems....It's worth noting that the decryption doesn't take place there, and it'd be no more effective.

    It just seems like this guy has it figured out- he understands what won't work, but he still wants to move foward with the bad plan. If you're going to go down, might as well go down swinging..?

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Brainstorming broken? by Moleculor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, if they're intentionally brainstorming in public, it's probably a smart move. Rather than getting a bunch of clueless newbies in some closed-door meeting to talk about potential 'solutions' for a month only to find out that the eventual solution decided on was a bad one and they have to go back to the drawing board, they can publicly mull over ideas, watch the reaction on the internet, and make judgements that way. It's distributed decision making. They posit an idea, the internet declares whether or not the idea is a good one, and suggests where the flaws are if it has any. Then they know where to focus their attention. For example, someone in here has already mentioned that the only way to really ensure everyone has such filtering installed is if it's on the processor itself. Now the RIAA/MPAA know to go directly to Intel and AMD to work out their little problem, rather than trying to come up with solutions that they hand out via movie or music.

    3. Re:Brainstorming broken? by mhall119 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They had a technical guy, then they found out he had the code to their program in on his workstation _and_ in version control, so they sued him for copyright infringement.

      As if that weren't bad enough, they found out that their lawyers made _two_ copies of all their contracts, and even gave one away to the other party, so they had to sue him for copyright infringement too.

      It's hard being the RIAA.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
  3. PAH! by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Having implemented RSA public key encryption/decryption on my malleus, incus and stepdius, I listen to digitally archived music by dd'ing the GnuPG-encrypted files directly into /dev/dsp, deciphering the tunes on the fly, in-ear, using my memorized private key.

    NOW HOW DOES YOUR FILTER WORK FOR THAT SETUP, SUCKERS???!11

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
  4. Fiddling while Rome Burns. by colmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah you guys go spend a bunch of money on that.

    We are so fast approaching the time when bands just have concert promoters rather than record labels. I think this is a very good thing.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  5. I have a business model! by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    But to make this business model work, it requires that the entire planet changes the way it does things and I get to control when, how or *if* how you use the stuff I sell to you. Sound good to you?

  6. Ignorance is bliss by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it's apparent that it's only their complete ignorance of how technology works--evidenced by these ridiculous statements--that lets them have any hope that their organization can possibly continue to be relevant in the face of the increasing numbers of technological workarounds for every countermeasure that they come up with.

    One might get the impression that were they to receive adequate education in The Way Things Work, they might possibly lose all morale altogether...not necessarily a bad thing, methinks.

    Perhaps we should sign them up for a correspondence course in basic computer science?

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
  7. Wonderful by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they manage to get this into Vista Service Pack 2, 2009 really could finally be the year of Linux on the desktop.

    --
    Beep beep.
  8. Re:But does it by Helmholtz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course not. Linux is a "hacker" operating system that is only used by people who try to circumvent safeguards that are used only for the protection of the children and good of the economy. Anyone using such a nefarious operating system doesn't deserve to be entertained, individually, at the low low fee of 0.01c per frame, per eyeball, per single non-sharable viewing.

    --
    RFC2119
  9. Ob by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Right to Read. If you haven't read it yet, read it now, while there is no filter preventing it.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. Ok but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You want me to run your software? I'll consider it, but you have to remember that my computer is just that... MY computer. Time on it will cost you just like it would cost from a mainframe from IBM. How much are you willing to pay me to run this software that only benefits you? If this takes too much RAM, CPU the overflow charges may be... up there.

    Your security is not my concern, and should not be expected to be my concern. Otherwise you also have a responsibility to make sure no one breaks into my house. (You should be happy to, they could steal my CDs!)

    Of course, the conditions under which I'm willing to run your software may change without announcement from time to time but will still be considered binding, much like whatever the "licensing" consists of on a CD is this week. Like your CD licensing, the wording behind this agreement will never be readily available. Perhaps I'll add extra charges for running the software on weekends...