Laws restricting you on how you can use your property? Thats new!
The DMCA (which is a fairly stupid law, agreed) only restricts you from hacking your way around someone elses content protection. It does not prevent you from using your computer. It does not prevent you from installing unsigned drivers, etc. It doesnt prevent you from doing shit.
Any media player application that has been given a decryption key may decide not to play - but thats THEIR application. Playing THEIR content, which you licensed under THEIR rules. The DMCA prevents you from hacking around THEIR scheme.
Is this getting thru to you? If all of this worrys you then DONT BUY DRM CONTENT. Simple.
Your computer is yours. It will always be yours. It may not be considered "approved" by someone else - but you know what? I don't like your computer either. You may not view any haikus I publish on it. Is your computer no longer "yours" now?
Sony Player 10000 was NEVER yours. James Bond III: Sharks with FRIKKIN Lasers was also NEVER yours. So if you think you have some moral right to be able to watch MY content, without abiding by MY license conditions, then frankly you can either fuck off, or take it up with congress.
Now the DMCA criminalizing you breaking a bunch of license conditions, thats a whole other stupid story. I think the DMCA is a load of horse shit, but I do recognise the rights of the "artist" to license their work under whatever terms they see fit.
Without the DMCA you are still breaching the license terms of the content. Its on a very similar level to downloading it from bittorrent.
Your moral stance on this may vary, but I really can't be fucked arguing if you are a freetard. In summary: Their shit, their rules. Don't like it? Get someone elses shit. Quit whinging.
And now an analogy that I'm sure someone will object to...
You buy a car. You want to "upgrade" the carb with a custom device. You can't, the car wont run with non-factory mods.
Can I object?
This is more like you buy a car from Microsoft. Then you buy an aftermarket CD player from Adobe. Then you buy a donut and jam it in the CD slot, and the CD player stops working. You then press eject and have a huge butthurt whine about how Microsoft Car DRM stopped your CD player from working, and also you couldn't remove the donut.
Sadly, this analogy is a pretty apt description of some retard not handling a broken crack, and not understanding file permissions. (Windows doesn't "protect Adobe's dlls", its a load of horseshit).
The information is not your property. Neither is the key it is encrypted with.
If you wish to decrypt the information with the key, and the owner of the information says that all drivers on your machine are signed by someone they trust, then you should probably be buying the information of someone else.
The fact that MS provides a API/policy framework for checking this trust is a hell of a lot better than being forced to install some half-assed rootkits from Sony and only use their player. This fact is also largely irrelevant if you aren't playing DRM protected media anyway.
The hardware remains yours, and you are completely free to fuck around with it as much as you like. Vista DRM will not stop you. You may change something that conflicts with Sony's policy - but if you aren't buying and playing Sony's media, then you won't need to give a shit.
They are huge and crazy ideas. The Vista/7 DRM schemes are well documented on Microsofts own site. He probably thought you were crazy when you opened your mouth reciting some of the garbage I read on here about "magic hidden processes" which "monitor everything that goes to your screen / soundcard" for copyrighted content.
There is an attempt at an open source DRM implementation in the works as well, to allow people to watch modern high def discs on Linux. No idea if Sony will decide they trust it and hand out some keys. I'd be leaning towards a no - they tend to like their pointless obfuscation schemes.:P
What collusion? The only collusion I see is Big Media getting together and saying:
"Hey fags. We are (for whatever reason, correct/logical/fair or not) going to start offering our movies only under DRM. You guys can help us make a DRM system that we are happy with, or we'll do it ourselves. Also, Billy you'll be locked the fuck out, DeCSS - Nevar Forget. Oh and we got a nice bunch of laws passed so we'll sue anyone back into the stone age if they try to bypass our shit *strong look at ballmer who is gripping a chair threateningly*".
Everyone else in that room would have been all like this::(
You, as the owner of said PC, can make yourself a trusted third party by putting your damn cert in the trusted root store. You can then remove everyone elses, if you are sufficiently paranoid.
This does not at all help you if you choose to run a program which checks that all drivers/whatever are signed by someone in its own trusted list (ie: SuperBluRay player plus), while it checks the phase of the moon, and anything else in its stupid ruleset.
You are confusing code-signers-your-pc-trusts, which you have complete control over*, with code-signers-sony-trusts, which you obviously will never have control over. Their program can obviously check whatever policies they like.
* Complete, but I have no idea what Windows would do if you flagged Microsoft's authenticode signature as untrusted. Nothing stopping you resigning all the binaries with your own trusted cert though... fun.
No, this is like you turning up to Hockenheim and asking to ride your homemade motorbike around it. The track marshals say "No, your bike is not approved to ride on our track". Then Bill turns up on his $uzuki (heh $), and the design is approved (by their stupid rules) and he can ride it. Their track, their rules.
There is nothing stopping both of you from going and riding on a different "free as in freedom" track. Theres nothing stopping you from building your own damn track and not approving anything that Bill owns (nice!). But you can't get Hockenheim, cos its copyrighted.
There, like with protected media path, is nothing stopping you switching the wheels on an approved Suzuki. You are free to do that! Just don't expect the Hockenheim track marshals to let you on the track with your modded bike. You can install whatever drivers you like, mess with the trusted certificates, whatever. It doesn't stop you. Just don't expect a "trusted" media player to accept your modified shit...
It does suck if you really want to ride Hockenhiem (slash watch Revenge Of Bond III), but like a movie - the track design is copyrighted, and the owner is free to allow access to it under whatever stupid-ass terms they like. If the terms are sufficiently stupid-ass, then nobody will ride on the track.
The massive butthurt in the original article just screams two things: "Guy fails to crack Photoshop" and "Guy fails to understand file permissions".
No it bloody well isn't and I'm sick to death of this broken-ass analogy.
When you are dumb enough to buy DRM content, or dumb enough to use a program that creates DRM content, all you get is the same damn content which is encrypted. You dont "get" the key, you have to use someones stupid program to play it back. Sometimes this stupid program (ie playing back media player) will go check a bunch of driver signatures to see if its people they trust (aka PVP). Why did you buy this content? Why would you buy a BluRay with ICT enabled... when it comes with the condition that the entire HDCP chain is checked? There was an option - don't buy the damn DRM encumbered content - and you don't have to worry about all this DRM shite!
Its barely more than checking the signature of your binaries to make sure they haven't been hacked.
The constant FUD that suggests theres some kind of maelevolant process in the background checking your MP3s against a central database deep in the bowels of redmond, and deleting them / sending in the party van, is about on par with the editorial quality of this stupid article.
Also, what is preventing a malicious app from calling it self a "copy-protected" program?
Because there's no such thing?
Windows DRM is just signed code and an API to answer the question "is everything in this chain signed by trusted parties?". So your BluRay player app is trusted, can check the signatures of all the drivers on the way to the HDCP output, and will decrypt the disc, and play it over protected path (which is just a permissions thing - nothing sinister).
You can mess with this shit as much as you like and the OS won't stop you. You'll just break the signatures - and that means your WhateverPlayer application will refuse to play. That'll teach you to buy DRM content. Next time get unprotected content.
If you felt like it you can create your own chain of trust for Authenticode and DRM, etc. It won't be part of everyone elses trust chain - but then you can go make your own DRM content and tell Sony to fuck off. Bonus points if its porn involving a Sony executives mum.:D
What the heck are you smoking? Microsoft can do whatever the hell they like when it comes to selling their OS.
Repeat after me: Antitrust laws protect the economy from company which has a monopoly in one market from using this position to gain influence in another market. There is nothing wrong with a company having a monopoly in, say, the OS market. If they start to charge too much for their OS, then the competition will take marketshare back.
I would take a guess... a stab in the dark... and suggest that the people who can't afford a $350 computer should probably not be considered in discussions regarding $350 operating systems.
It reminds me of the low income areas in Australia - the ones that aren't currently on fire - take a drive through there and marvel at the $500 cars with $2500 rims.
And I suppose hes also complaining about the >10% ($350,000) dividend payout in late 2004? I guess the other 20 odd dividends in that time introduced serious butthurt as well... Poor fella.
1999 - 2004 MS's share price was on the receding end of the bubble. If you actually cared to check you would notice that since 2004 they split and then have been paying out regular dividends - keeping their share price flat.
Here's the key issue: MS is making money hand over fist, as a simple look at their basic financial profile will show you.
They have much higher profit margins and ROI than anyone else in their sector. Compare JAVA vs MSFT.. even GOOG. Then come back with a straight face and suggest that MS isn't being managed effectively.
Possibly a bunch of investors are having butthurt and think they can do better? If they really cared they would put their money somewhere else. More likely they are too scared to put their money anywhere else and want their risks reduced even further.
My advice to them: Go buy a bunch of copper or some other metal, and shut the hell up.
That's, pushing an ideology, exactly what you are doing by requiring MS Office.
Educating students using the tools their future employers are going to ask them to use when they graduate is not pushing an ideology.
The university also teaches QWERTY... its a defacto standard. You want to change defacto standards? Feel free. Just don't mess with the future of a bunch of kids to try and force change in the workplace.
A university is supposed to provide a well-rounded education. Indoctrinating into the world of Microsoft might be helpful in getting a white-collar-grunt job, but it is not in any way vital to a liberal arts education.
I hear that DVORAK is a superior keyboard layout to QWERTY. I think it would be beneficial for universities to only provide DVORAK keyboards.
After all, a university is about providing a well-rounded education. Indoctrination in the world of QWERTY may be useful in getting a white-collar job, but is not in any way vital to a proper education.
Oh, but wait, if we take off our idealogical hats, and realise that both FOSS and MS software cost the uni close to zero dollars, then why aren't we picking the defacto standard? Or is it somehow the uni's job to drive changed based on some people's viewpoint?
Slashdot Mirror
Laws restricting you on how you can use your property? Thats new!
The DMCA (which is a fairly stupid law, agreed) only restricts you from hacking your way around someone elses content protection. It does not prevent you from using your computer. It does not prevent you from installing unsigned drivers, etc. It doesnt prevent you from doing shit.
Any media player application that has been given a decryption key may decide not to play - but thats THEIR application. Playing THEIR content, which you licensed under THEIR rules. The DMCA prevents you from hacking around THEIR scheme.
Is this getting thru to you? If all of this worrys you then DONT BUY DRM CONTENT. Simple.
Your computer is yours. It will always be yours. It may not be considered "approved" by someone else - but you know what? I don't like your computer either. You may not view any haikus I publish on it. Is your computer no longer "yours" now?
Sony Player 10000 was NEVER yours. James Bond III: Sharks with FRIKKIN Lasers was also NEVER yours. So if you think you have some moral right to be able to watch MY content, without abiding by MY license conditions, then frankly you can either fuck off, or take it up with congress.
Now the DMCA criminalizing you breaking a bunch of license conditions, thats a whole other stupid story. I think the DMCA is a load of horse shit, but I do recognise the rights of the "artist" to license their work under whatever terms they see fit.
Without the DMCA you are still breaching the license terms of the content. Its on a very similar level to downloading it from bittorrent.
Your moral stance on this may vary, but I really can't be fucked arguing if you are a freetard. In summary: Their shit, their rules. Don't like it? Get someone elses shit. Quit whinging.
Can I object?
This is more like you buy a car from Microsoft. Then you buy an aftermarket CD player from Adobe. Then you buy a donut and jam it in the CD slot, and the CD player stops working. You then press eject and have a huge butthurt whine about how Microsoft Car DRM stopped your CD player from working, and also you couldn't remove the donut.
Sadly, this analogy is a pretty apt description of some retard not handling a broken crack, and not understanding file permissions. (Windows doesn't "protect Adobe's dlls", its a load of horseshit).
OH SHIT! I hope its not me!
The information is not your property. Neither is the key it is encrypted with.
If you wish to decrypt the information with the key, and the owner of the information says that all drivers on your machine are signed by someone they trust, then you should probably be buying the information of someone else.
The fact that MS provides a API/policy framework for checking this trust is a hell of a lot better than being forced to install some half-assed rootkits from Sony and only use their player. This fact is also largely irrelevant if you aren't playing DRM protected media anyway.
The hardware remains yours, and you are completely free to fuck around with it as much as you like. Vista DRM will not stop you. You may change something that conflicts with Sony's policy - but if you aren't buying and playing Sony's media, then you won't need to give a shit.
They are huge and crazy ideas. The Vista/7 DRM schemes are well documented on Microsofts own site. He probably thought you were crazy when you opened your mouth reciting some of the garbage I read on here about "magic hidden processes" which "monitor everything that goes to your screen / soundcard" for copyrighted content.
There is an attempt at an open source DRM implementation in the works as well, to allow people to watch modern high def discs on Linux. No idea if Sony will decide they trust it and hand out some keys. I'd be leaning towards a no - they tend to like their pointless obfuscation schemes. :P
What collusion? The only collusion I see is Big Media getting together and saying:
"Hey fags. We are (for whatever reason, correct/logical/fair or not) going to start offering our movies only under DRM. You guys can help us make a DRM system that we are happy with, or we'll do it ourselves. Also, Billy you'll be locked the fuck out, DeCSS - Nevar Forget. Oh and we got a nice bunch of laws passed so we'll sue anyone back into the stone age if they try to bypass our shit *strong look at ballmer who is gripping a chair threateningly*".
Everyone else in that room would have been all like this: :(
You, as the owner of said PC, can make yourself a trusted third party by putting your damn cert in the trusted root store. You can then remove everyone elses, if you are sufficiently paranoid.
This does not at all help you if you choose to run a program which checks that all drivers/whatever are signed by someone in its own trusted list (ie: SuperBluRay player plus), while it checks the phase of the moon, and anything else in its stupid ruleset.
You are confusing code-signers-your-pc-trusts, which you have complete control over*, with code-signers-sony-trusts, which you obviously will never have control over. Their program can obviously check whatever policies they like.
* Complete, but I have no idea what Windows would do if you flagged Microsoft's authenticode signature as untrusted. Nothing stopping you resigning all the binaries with your own trusted cert though... fun.
No, this is like you turning up to Hockenheim and asking to ride your homemade motorbike around it. The track marshals say "No, your bike is not approved to ride on our track". Then Bill turns up on his $uzuki (heh $), and the design is approved (by their stupid rules) and he can ride it. Their track, their rules.
There is nothing stopping both of you from going and riding on a different "free as in freedom" track. Theres nothing stopping you from building your own damn track and not approving anything that Bill owns (nice!). But you can't get Hockenheim, cos its copyrighted.
There, like with protected media path, is nothing stopping you switching the wheels on an approved Suzuki. You are free to do that! Just don't expect the Hockenheim track marshals to let you on the track with your modded bike. You can install whatever drivers you like, mess with the trusted certificates, whatever. It doesn't stop you. Just don't expect a "trusted" media player to accept your modified shit...
It does suck if you really want to ride Hockenhiem (slash watch Revenge Of Bond III), but like a movie - the track design is copyrighted, and the owner is free to allow access to it under whatever stupid-ass terms they like. If the terms are sufficiently stupid-ass, then nobody will ride on the track.
The massive butthurt in the original article just screams two things: "Guy fails to crack Photoshop" and "Guy fails to understand file permissions".
No it bloody well isn't and I'm sick to death of this broken-ass analogy.
When you are dumb enough to buy DRM content, or dumb enough to use a program that creates DRM content, all you get is the same damn content which is encrypted. You dont "get" the key, you have to use someones stupid program to play it back. Sometimes this stupid program (ie playing back media player) will go check a bunch of driver signatures to see if its people they trust (aka PVP). Why did you buy this content? Why would you buy a BluRay with ICT enabled... when it comes with the condition that the entire HDCP chain is checked? There was an option - don't buy the damn DRM encumbered content - and you don't have to worry about all this DRM shite!
Its barely more than checking the signature of your binaries to make sure they haven't been hacked.
The constant FUD that suggests theres some kind of maelevolant process in the background checking your MP3s against a central database deep in the bowels of redmond, and deleting them / sending in the party van, is about on par with the editorial quality of this stupid article.
Photoshop crack fails! DRM blamed! Noobs can't understand filesystem permissions, DRM is bad! etc fkn etc
Because there's no such thing?
Windows DRM is just signed code and an API to answer the question "is everything in this chain signed by trusted parties?". So your BluRay player app is trusted, can check the signatures of all the drivers on the way to the HDCP output, and will decrypt the disc, and play it over protected path (which is just a permissions thing - nothing sinister).
You can mess with this shit as much as you like and the OS won't stop you. You'll just break the signatures - and that means your WhateverPlayer application will refuse to play. That'll teach you to buy DRM content. Next time get unprotected content.
If you felt like it you can create your own chain of trust for Authenticode and DRM, etc. It won't be part of everyone elses trust chain - but then you can go make your own DRM content and tell Sony to fuck off. Bonus points if its porn involving a Sony executives mum. :D
In the bed? On the floor? Near the window, by the door?
III'MM NUKING MATT DAEMON....
So thats why I spent forty minutes and a hundred pages describing the exact characteristics of my "gun" this morning while taking a leak...
What the heck are you smoking? Microsoft can do whatever the hell they like when it comes to selling their OS.
Repeat after me: Antitrust laws protect the economy from company which has a monopoly in one market from using this position to gain influence in another market. There is nothing wrong with a company having a monopoly in, say, the OS market. If they start to charge too much for their OS, then the competition will take marketshare back.
I would take a guess... a stab in the dark... and suggest that the people who can't afford a $350 computer should probably not be considered in discussions regarding $350 operating systems.
It reminds me of the low income areas in Australia - the ones that aren't currently on fire - take a drive through there and marvel at the $500 cars with $2500 rims.
It could be GTK. GDI is very fast, but horribly kludgy. WPF is better in design - but also slower.
Would not surprise me at all if the rendering end was slowing things down. (Plus the general horrible-ness of X).
It should have hoisted up two black balls to show it was out of command.
Cue the GNAA jokes in 3... 2....
In Soviet Russia vehicle drives you (and you are tied up by the KGB in the boot, not having any idea where you are facing).
I dunno... Google seems to think its worth paying Mozilla tens of billions of dollars a year for its default status.
Or... ya know... google is all about FOSS. Go team!
And I suppose hes also complaining about the >10% ($350,000) dividend payout in late 2004? I guess the other 20 odd dividends in that time introduced serious butthurt as well... Poor fella.
1999 - 2004 MS's share price was on the receding end of the bubble. If you actually cared to check you would notice that since 2004 they split and then have been paying out regular dividends - keeping their share price flat.
Here's the key issue: MS is making money hand over fist, as a simple look at their basic financial profile will show you.
They have much higher profit margins and ROI than anyone else in their sector. Compare JAVA vs MSFT.. even GOOG. Then come back with a straight face and suggest that MS isn't being managed effectively.
Possibly a bunch of investors are having butthurt and think they can do better? If they really cared they would put their money somewhere else. More likely they are too scared to put their money anywhere else and want their risks reduced even further.
My advice to them: Go buy a bunch of copper or some other metal, and shut the hell up.
Yes it is. What the hell else do you call a GDP?
Educating students using the tools their future employers are going to ask them to use when they graduate is not pushing an ideology.
The university also teaches QWERTY... its a defacto standard. You want to change defacto standards? Feel free. Just don't mess with the future of a bunch of kids to try and force change in the workplace.
I hear that DVORAK is a superior keyboard layout to QWERTY. I think it would be beneficial for universities to only provide DVORAK keyboards.
After all, a university is about providing a well-rounded education. Indoctrination in the world of QWERTY may be useful in getting a white-collar job, but is not in any way vital to a proper education.
Oh, but wait, if we take off our idealogical hats, and realise that both FOSS and MS software cost the uni close to zero dollars, then why aren't we picking the defacto standard? Or is it somehow the uni's job to drive changed based on some people's viewpoint?
Photoshop allows you to specify Pantone codes on graphics elements and then approximates them for display. Similar with pagemaker, etc.