Warner Bros. Accused of Pirating Anti-Pirating Tech
psycho12345 writes "German firm Medien Patent Verwaltung claims that in 2003, it revealed a new kind of anti-piracy technology to Warner Bros. that marks films with specific codes so pirated copies can be traced back to their theaters of origin. But like a great, hilariously ironic DRM Ouroborus, the company claims that Warner began using the system throughout Europe in 2004 but hasn't actually paid a dime for it."
not as I do.
They are all pirates. Evolutionis abount copying and improving. It is wrong to try to stop evolution.
Really, I hope this turns into one of those messy public court snafu's that really grab public attention and cause a real raucus.
This can only benefit from all the publicity it can generate.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
You don't have to worry about giving people bad directions because they're dead-end streets, so nobody will route down them. Nobody is going to be hurt by these little streets in any way.
"Take the third left"?
Is that including the road on the left that's on the map, but doesn't exist in reality.
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
How would your GPS suggest that when the street does not exist and is a dead end? You wouldn't try to find the street, it does not exist, and the GPS would never route you through a dead end.
-- Linux user #369862
This is novel in a way that the watermark is not spatial but temporal - it only minimally affects the surface of the image, but instead as the image changes over time, the watermark does too, containing much more information than the few points it presents per frame, and being much less obtrusive. Rather original and novel approach.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The cue here is the fact that mankind slowly but surely approaches that deciding point in time where everyone owes everyone else, directly or indirectly, money, but is unable to pay. Just look at U.S. - trillions in debt, everything is just promised back in promises themselves. Everything is in a perpetual state of "I owe you" . That's hardly news, since, ironically, the very natural state of existence is owing eachother. The problem is converting this into real value, and demanding it back. That's the difference part.
Likewise, by virtue of unberable capitalism economy, where you need to maximize your profits at any cost to survive, it was only a matter of time before it came to this - the fight against piracy is so acute that even pirating anti-piracy IP becomes an option. The lesson to learn here is - if you can't live by your own rules, don't impose them on others.
Media producers aren't in love with the idea of copyrights, they're in love with money. They just promote the concept of copyright when it benefits them to gain more money. If somehow copyrights were getting in the way of them getting paid, you'd see their lobbyists 24-7 trying to do away with them.
Business is in business to make money. Think of a large business as an amoeba that assimilates money. It doesn't have a conscience, just a rudimentary intelligence that drives it to move towards the money and acquire it. That's why they do these moves that are seemingly at cross purposes, like backing copyright and then ignoring copyright. Money is the underlying motive. Whatever gets a business more cash is good, much in the same way an amoeba gets food. Ethics don't enter into it - that's reserved for higher life forms.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Easy fix: only add fake dead end streets to read dead end streets, so the fake dead end only comes into play if your directions tell you to go to the end of a dead end street and continue on.
All "content" is based on common ideas and techniques. Be they musical, lyrical, dramatic, or technological ideas and techniques, they come from us, the general populace, and the previous authors, musicians etc.
They pure _hubris_ of the "content industry" is that _their_ incremental changes are "worth more" than the total body of work and understanding their particular content is based on.
So they are in the habit of, to apply their own terms to their own actions, "stealing" and "pirating" from the common man to produce their content.
But just as there is no anti-smoking advocate as loud as an ex smoker, and nobody is as fearful of being stolen from as a thief, the "content producers", knowing fully well that 99% of their content comes from someone else, demand some way to protect "their work" from being used by the next guy.
The ideal of DRM is, in its own right, the idea of building a wall around a public good. It should not surprise _anyone_ that the DRM happy thieves are willing to steal the DRM techniques as readily as they stole story ideas and plot points.
I cry a river for any company that produces DRM, or just DRM _ideas_, and has it "stolen". Just as I cried when my next door neighbor, who had motion sensor lights all over his house and had locked fences and a specially built lockable out-building, was busted by the feds for selling ill-gotten merchandise on ebay.
Its a huge "no duh, what did you honestly expect?"
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press