Yes, I'm aware we've already had an article about this. I thought that seeing how one news source interpreted (reported) the events might be informative. Here's a Wired article on the same which even *includes* a link to de-CSS: DVD Lawyers Make Secret Public.
From CNET: A digital rights licensing group seeking to ban the controversial DVD decryption program known as DeCSS has shut down yet another potential distributor: a California state courthouse.
He said Finder. Not Mac OS X. Finder. The Finder will always be limited to 31 char (barring unforeseen hacks), since the Finder goes bye-bye with the introduction of Mac OS X. (Except under emulation, but that'll still be the old, non-LFN Finder chugging away.)
I just tried out the character limit using vMac on a G4 (boy is the emulation fast!). Both in System 5 and System 6, there's the 31 character limit (27 char for disk names). So it goes way back.
If someone had been savvy enough to publish a copy (in print, not on the internet since the courts don't recognize that) of the de-css evidence before this hearing took place, I do not see what the judge and/or plaintiffs could have done about it. In the future this might be a good tactic.
It's up to the company to keep its trade secrets secret, not the courts.
I'm with you, Jimmie Funk. The courts and coporations seem not to realize that simply not understanding some else's form of expression does not allow suppression of that expression. Whether interpreting how an encryption scheme works, or using a domain name similar to that of a corporate entity (in this case, a domain name secured well before the corporation came into existence), the right to voice one's self is an inalienable right. The Constituion spells it out, but the people themselves know they should have this right to speak and express, whether written in stone or screamed into the wind.
One's and zero's -- perhaps streamlined, but the electrons flow for one reason only: the sharing of information, the expression of a person's view into the world...
No, you own the CD. You are merely prohibited by law from copying the information found on the CD and then reselling it (and, purportately, sharing it). To make an.mp3 backup of the CD's contents is perfectly legal, too. The law prohibits you from sharing (via copying) this backup, or selling the back-up itself (unless your original has been destroyed; in that case, you are in a quasi-gray area of law). In essence, if you are not going to sell or give away your copies, you are entitled to make as many archival copies as you wish (though the law only provisions for one, you are not doing anything wrong to have multiple copies, you are merely being cautious about the probabilties of the original being destroyed and/or you may just want to have access to the recording wherever you spend your time, so you keep a separate copy at all your favorite locations).
I'm not sure if your only knowledge of computers is how to use a web browser,
That's a rather poorly thought out conclusion. I was replying in the context set up by the original poster:
...expect to see Barnes and Noble go down some, since they've been running win2k for months now on their servers.
Now a more appropriate conclusion is that the servers under discussion are web servers. As shown in my original post, Barnes and Noble is not running W2K on their servers. What they may or may not be running on their internal servers is up for pure speculation.
To address your concerns about Lucas' decision: it was made for marketing reasons, not because of possible bottlegging (the VHS version will be bootlegged too, and it's a lot easier to). TPM is a product which when withheld in digital (DVD) format becomes more valuable due to the creation of artificially-inflated demand. In addition, people who would have just bought the DVD version are forced to settle for the VHS version. At some point in the future, after sales of the VHS version have levelled-off, the DVD version will be released. Then those who bought the VHS version but want DVD become a 2nd sale (of essentially the same product) which would not have occurred otherwise. Yes, Lucas is in it for the money. Don't have any delusions (grand or small).
I should point out that taking your name from the Hitchhiker's series' character is also a form of piracy.
Last, I am concerned about your presenting an opinion like this in connection with your position at Ambrosia software. I like their stuff, but feel inclined to take my business elsewhere if your opinion is a publicly held reflection of company beliefs.
Sorry, but that's how it works. However, if you agree to let a corporation deny your speech rights by, say, signing an employment contract, you have only yourself to blame. The government is not allowed to deny people's free speech. When it does, seek relief in the courts. I would care to hear what examples of free speech denial you have in mind so that I might address them. I believe Seattle is a good example of the U.S. denying free speech rights through the use of excessive and violent force. WTO or not, the U.S. Constitution still has to be followed. Again, seek relief in the courts. Costly and time-consuming, yes; but it is about the only way to ensure one's rights. If you do not stand up for a right, you lose it.
Actually, for all their actions, the DVD Consortium is not at all concerned about de-CSS. They plan to lose. What they want is to be able to point at this case so they can convince the U.S. Congress to pass new, more restrictive laws to allow for nearly un-breakable encryption schemes in the future AND an addendum to the current DMCA clearly making it felonious (Federally) to hack at it. All this noise is for future schemes. They are aware that they've lost for the present.
Plus, of course, they have to justify their existence.
Placing one's interpretation of how a technology works onto a website does *not* constitute an attack. It does, however, constitute speech, which in the United States of America is protected by the Constitution as being free. Neither the government nor a Corporation has the right to deny a U.S. citizen's right to speak freely, which includes the free publication of interpretive works.
This is off-topic to the article (about Internet presence effecting the upcoming presidential election), but on-topic to the smargle^smargle AC bastard post (now I'm giving bastards a bad name).
I mentioned this recently after finding crap like this posted to another article.
I had a thought a long time ago about this. My thought was that Moderators should be given Unlimited -1/10 OTTroll points, which any given moderator can only apply once to any given post. Then when 10 Moderators have all agreed that a particular post is obvious off-topic trolling (or the similar), that post loses 1 point without any Moderators having had to give up Mod points unnecessarily.
I believe this would keep down the noise.
As far as 'Net presence of candidates, I haven't surfed to a non-news outlet site which mentions the upcoming candidates yet. I do think Bush should admit to what drug use he has taken part in so we can know.
All of you are forgetting that the sole purpose of the product would be to expire after a day's play. Even an idiot can surely see that if the user is allowed to make a backup copy then the product would not be sold in the first place. If an idiot can understand that then I believe the courts would too.
It does not matter what an idiot would or would not see. As it stands, in this hypothetical exploration, the product is being sold. What matters is what your next paragraph gets at:
You're also forgetting that the law protecting you right to make copies is about "fair use" copies. This is not a "fair use" copy because it would allow you to keep a recording permanently when it was licensed for only one day's viewing. There can be no "fair use" justification for making a backup when the thing only has to last one day, for crying out loud!
'Fair use' applies to any and all software. The intentions of the seller are not taken into consideration. A one day viewing experience may very well have as a necessity (or just for safety's sake) a backup of the contents of the media because corruption of the media can occur even during one day's use.
With regard to contract law, IANAL and I'm not certain about the US in particular, but in the UK at any rate, when a sale is made there is an implied contract which does not require any signature. This is the basis for consumer rights so I imagine there is a similar provision in the US. What this means is that shrinkwrap licenses are legitimate - at least as long as the terms are displayed on the outside of the packaging. So, as long as there is a prohibition against backups printed on the outside sleeve of these one-day DVDs, any laws about the right to make backups would be superseded.
Yes, there is an implied contract (as with any sale in the U.S.). It is for the sale of the good (ownership is transferred) and representation of the good by the seller (which have to be accurate, i.e., truthful [else fraud]). The other part of the contract (called consideration in legal terms, and necessary for the sale to occur) is for the buyer to agree with the seller upon a set price and to pay that price (in legal tender, or other recognized means). Nothing else is a part of the transaction unless it is explicitly stated or written on the bill of sale (prominent signs stating sales policy within a store do count).
The shrink-wrapped based license or other licensing terms are essentially unenforceable unless the buyer has signed a contract with the terms of the license and, thereby, agreed to them. Making the purchase of software in-and-of-itself does not force acceptance of the accompanying license terms.
A piece of paper on the outside of the package (no matter how nicely written) does not supercede this.
Since the present DVD system doesn't support this technology, it will fail (why use something that becomes useless after use with no means to regain use).
In a couple of years, the DVD Consortium will have used de-CSS to convince our legislators (in the U.S.) to allow 128-bit (at least) or greater encryption and they'll no longer use MPEG-2, but instead a compression method which only they know (and own the patent to).
This will be implemented hardware-only with the highest possible (with regard to cost effectiveness) data-security in place. Then what remains of the DIVX idea and this self-destructing DVD idea will be combined.
An on-board modem (software only) will be part of this new optical disc reader which uses blue-laser technology. Consumers will buy discs locally or over the Internet (by mail). These discs will not work until the user gets online with their next-generation DVD player (NG-DVD) and buys a set period of viewing time or number of screenings. A single viewing may already be included with the purchased disc, but the user will have to get online before it is activated.
Usage will be bought, sold, and tracked over the Internet. Because of future reductions in hardware cost and faster processors, the addition of this technology will not cost significantly more (like DIVX did) and this technology will be integrated into the standard from the beginning so all NG-DVD players will play view-limited disks.
The clincher (which you can infer from above) is that the degrading feature will be reversible by logging onto the Internet and using their system. The problem of users somehow doing this themselves (chemically or phreakin' the hardware) will be solved in the mega-encryption combo compression scheme, which will not be active as well unless the Corporation's machine on the other end of the Internet has a record of your viewing rights.
So, the blocking dye'll be a secondary deterrent against unapproved viewing, with hardware encryption/compression being primary.
Yes, the machine will have to be online whenever you watch a view-limited movie.
You will still be able to purchase regular discs at the standard industry price and view them as often as desired without being online.
On digital cable (which right now runs about 40/month) there are about 200 pay-per-view movies running at any given time. So selection is not so bad; it's just limitted to new releases AND they have to be the new releases which the ppv company picked.
Sometimes I feel like I would like to watch one of these PPV movies, like when I see that the South Park movie is playing in the interactive program guide, but I don't. The reason I don't is because I do not like the idea of missing part of the movie because I have to take a piss or want to get a drink.
I know that it's the same in a movie theatre, but I'm in my home and by renting at the same price (actually rental's coast less), my movie viewing experience is not inconvienced.
So, basically, $7.47, $7.14, $7.07, and $6.33 per a gigabyte. A single-sided DVD holds 4.7 GB (which most movies come on). Thus, it will cost about $35, $33.50, $33.20, or $29.75 for the storage space to keep a single DVD on each of the above drives, respectively.
I'm not sure about how effective software data compression programs will work on MPEG-2 encoded video, but that could be a further means to reduce space (thus cost).
Basically, the price per gigabyte of hard drives is not yet where it needs to be to make DVD backup cost effective, but next year it will be.
Yeah, it's patented and the DVD Consortium is the watchdog which sues anyone who tries to make it without a license.
This was the reason CD-RW disks were originally $30 to $40 apiece; the company which licensed the right (no pun intended) to manufacture them decided to charge exhorbitant licensing fees and require manufactures to charge above minimum set prices.
As you can see by today's pricing, CD-RW's really only cost a little bit more than CD-R's to manufacture.
At the time, rewritable CDs did not have much competition in the 650 MB rewritable/archival quality storage business (3-4 years ago) except from Jaz drives and SyJet which cost $80+ apiece (though bigger). Why charge cost plus when people are willing (or dumb enough) to pay much more?
This sounds like the only reasonable way to do it. That way each renter would have, say, 3 to 5 of these special DVD's which they could reuse again and again by going back to the store WHEN they want to get another movie. You could even rent in advance this way, and then not watch it until you're ready.
The main difficulty I see is [1] keeping the blockbuster employees honest (so they don't give you extra days for free, or to their friends, or to themselves -- a computer could track this though) and [2] the big problem which the original degradable DVD's have: people will probably come up with their own way to reset the DVD at home.
It amazes me how many people do not understand the difference between morals and ethics. This is not morally wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Ethically, perhaps -- if you actual do make a copy which violates copyright law and is not fair use. Don't try to call that theft. It's not.
Btw, you did BUY it. That's why you have it at your house encoded on a disc. Your loser mentality is really irking me. This is an advancement of technology that will happen whether or not slashdot talks about it.
The movie will still be there on the disc even after it has been played to the point that the dye blocks out a normal DVD players laser mechanism from picking up on it. Can you steal from an inanimate object? (Help! Help! My bits are being read! My bits are being read!)
Canadian copyright law ALLOWS icravetv.com to do its live rebroadcasting. These companies should be suing the Canadian government if they think somethings wrong with this (harmless) approach, not http://www.icravetv.com.
Steve Jobs was referring to version 5.0 of IE which is not even available yet (looks to be late Feb/March).
Netscape blows goats because Microsoft pushed it out of business. AOL bought what remained of the battle-worn company for a pittance. So, while revisons of IE keep coming, there's no equivalent movement on the Netscape side...
If microsoft had played fair, the situation would be much different today.
You pay for your web-access by the second? You can get it free you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm aware we've already had an article about this. I thought that seeing how one news source interpreted (reported) the events might be informative. Here's a Wired article on the same which even *includes* a link to de-CSS: DVD Lawyers Make Secret Public.
From CNET:
A digital rights licensing group seeking to ban the controversial DVD decryption program known as DeCSS has shut down yet another potential distributor: a California state courthouse.
Read the full article here.
My favorite quote: "If they didn't file it under seal, they could be seen to have given up the their (trade secret) rights."
Gosh, I hope so!
I remember reading on Steve Wozniak's page that Zerox got paid plenty by Apple to be able to use its GUI technology.
('Course Microsoft never paid anybody.)
He said Finder. Not Mac OS X. Finder. The Finder will always be limited to 31 char (barring unforeseen hacks), since the Finder goes bye-bye with the introduction of Mac OS X. (Except under emulation, but that'll still be the old, non-LFN Finder chugging away.)
I just tried out the character limit using vMac on a G4 (boy is the emulation fast!). Both in System 5 and System 6, there's the 31 character limit (27 char for disk names). So it goes way back.
If someone had been savvy enough to publish a copy (in print, not on the internet since the courts don't recognize that) of the de-css evidence before this hearing took place, I do not see what the judge and/or plaintiffs could have done about it. In the future this might be a good tactic.
It's up to the company to keep its trade secrets secret, not the courts.
I'm with you, Jimmie Funk. The courts and coporations seem not to realize that simply not understanding some else's form of expression does not allow suppression of that expression. Whether interpreting how an encryption scheme works, or using a domain name similar to that of a corporate entity (in this case, a domain name secured well before the corporation came into existence), the right to voice one's self is an inalienable right. The Constituion spells it out, but the people themselves know they should have this right to speak and express, whether written in stone or screamed into the wind.
One's and zero's -- perhaps streamlined, but the electrons flow for one reason only: the sharing of information, the expression of a person's view into the world...
No, you own the CD. You are merely prohibited by law from copying the information found on the CD and then reselling it (and, purportately, sharing it). To make an .mp3 backup of the CD's contents is perfectly legal, too. The law prohibits you from sharing (via copying) this backup, or selling the back-up itself (unless your original has been destroyed; in that case, you are in a quasi-gray area of law). In essence, if you are not going to sell or give away your copies, you are entitled to make as many archival copies as you wish (though the law only provisions for one, you are not doing anything wrong to have multiple copies, you are merely being cautious about the probabilties of the original being destroyed and/or you may just want to have access to the recording wherever you spend your time, so you keep a separate copy at all your favorite locations).
I'm not sure if your only knowledge of computers is how to use a web browser,
...expect to see Barnes and Noble go down some, since they've been running win2k for months now on their servers.
That's a rather poorly thought out conclusion. I was replying in the context set up by the original poster:
Now a more appropriate conclusion is that the servers under discussion are web servers. As shown in my original post, Barnes and Noble is not running W2K on their servers. What they may or may not be running on their internal servers is up for pure speculation.
To address your concerns about Lucas' decision: it was made for marketing reasons, not because of possible bottlegging (the VHS version will be bootlegged too, and it's a lot easier to). TPM is a product which when withheld in digital (DVD) format becomes more valuable due to the creation of artificially-inflated demand. In addition, people who would have just bought the DVD version are forced to settle for the VHS version. At some point in the future, after sales of the VHS version have levelled-off, the DVD version will be released. Then those who bought the VHS version but want DVD become a 2nd sale (of essentially the same product) which would not have occurred otherwise. Yes, Lucas is in it for the money. Don't have any delusions (grand or small).
I should point out that taking your name from the Hitchhiker's series' character is also a form of piracy.
Last, I am concerned about your presenting an opinion like this in connection with your position at Ambrosia software. I like their stuff, but feel inclined to take my business elsewhere if your opinion is a publicly held reflection of company beliefs.
Sorry, but that's how it works. However, if you agree to let a corporation deny your speech rights by, say, signing an employment contract, you have only yourself to blame. The government is not allowed to deny people's free speech. When it does, seek relief in the courts. I would care to hear what examples of free speech denial you have in mind so that I might address them. I believe Seattle is a good example of the U.S. denying free speech rights through the use of excessive and violent force. WTO or not, the U.S. Constitution still has to be followed. Again, seek relief in the courts. Costly and time-consuming, yes; but it is about the only way to ensure one's rights. If you do not stand up for a right, you lose it.
Actually, for all their actions, the DVD Consortium is not at all concerned about de-CSS. They plan to lose. What they want is to be able to point at this case so they can convince the U.S. Congress to pass new, more restrictive laws to allow for nearly un-breakable encryption schemes in the future AND an addendum to the current DMCA clearly making it felonious (Federally) to hack at it. All this noise is for future schemes. They are aware that they've lost for the present.
Plus, of course, they have to justify their existence.
Think this is wrong? I do. Call the Honorable Elfving and let him know.
SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT
Main Courthouse:
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 299-2964
(408) 299-2074
Department 2: Honorable William J. Elfving
Courtroom Clerk: Diane Greco
(408)299-3402
Courtroom Reporter: Peytie Schuler
(408)299-3280
Placing one's interpretation of how a technology works onto a website does *not* constitute an attack. It does, however, constitute speech, which in the United States of America is protected by the Constitution as being free. Neither the government nor a Corporation has the right to deny a U.S. citizen's right to speak freely, which includes the free publication of interpretive works.
According to Netcraft, Barnes and Noble is running IIS4., not IIS5
www.bn.com
is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
www.barnesandnoble.com
is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98
This leads me to speculate that you do not have a source for your information.
This is off-topic to the article (about Internet presence effecting the upcoming presidential election), but on-topic to the smargle^smargle AC bastard post (now I'm giving bastards a bad name).
I mentioned this recently after finding crap like this posted to another article.
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/01/18/2111232&cid=328
Re:Offtopic: AC attack.
I had a thought a long time ago about this. My thought was that Moderators should be given Unlimited -1/10 OTTroll points, which any given moderator can only apply once to any given post. Then when 10 Moderators have all agreed that a particular post is obvious off-topic trolling (or the similar), that post loses 1 point without any Moderators having had to give up Mod points unnecessarily.
I believe this would keep down the noise.
As far as 'Net presence of candidates, I haven't surfed to a non-news outlet site which mentions the upcoming candidates yet. I do think Bush should admit to what drug use he has taken part in so we can know.
All of you are forgetting that the sole purpose of the product would be to expire after a day's play. Even an idiot can surely see that if the user is allowed to make a backup copy then the product would not be sold in the first place. If an idiot can understand that then I believe the courts would too.
It does not matter what an idiot would or would not see. As it stands, in this hypothetical exploration, the product is being sold. What matters is what your next paragraph gets at:
You're also forgetting that the law protecting you right to make copies is about "fair use" copies. This is not a "fair use" copy because it would allow you to keep a recording permanently when it was licensed for only one day's viewing. There can be no "fair use" justification for making a backup when the thing only has to last one day, for crying out loud!
'Fair use' applies to any and all software. The intentions of the seller are not taken into consideration. A one day viewing experience may very well have as a necessity (or just for safety's sake) a backup of the contents of the media because corruption of the media can occur even during one day's use.
With regard to contract law, IANAL and I'm not certain about the US in particular, but in the UK at any rate, when a sale is made there is an implied contract which does not require any signature. This is the basis for consumer rights so I imagine there is a similar provision in the US. What this means is that shrinkwrap licenses are legitimate - at least as long as the terms are displayed on the outside of the packaging. So, as long as there is a prohibition against backups printed on the outside sleeve of these one-day DVDs, any laws about the right to make backups would be superseded.
Yes, there is an implied contract (as with any sale in the U.S.). It is for the sale of the good (ownership is transferred) and representation of the good by the seller (which have to be accurate, i.e., truthful [else fraud]). The other part of the contract (called consideration in legal terms, and necessary for the sale to occur) is for the buyer to agree with the seller upon a set price and to pay that price (in legal tender, or other recognized means). Nothing else is a part of the transaction unless it is explicitly stated or written on the bill of sale (prominent signs stating sales policy within a store do count).
The shrink-wrapped based license or other licensing terms are essentially unenforceable unless the buyer has signed a contract with the terms of the license and, thereby, agreed to them. Making the purchase of software in-and-of-itself does not force acceptance of the accompanying license terms.
A piece of paper on the outside of the package (no matter how nicely written) does not supercede this.
Btw, IAAL.
Since the present DVD system doesn't support this technology, it will fail (why use something that becomes useless after use with no means to regain use).
In a couple of years, the DVD Consortium will have used de-CSS to convince our legislators (in the U.S.) to allow 128-bit (at least) or greater encryption and they'll no longer use MPEG-2, but instead a compression method which only they know (and own the patent to).
This will be implemented hardware-only with the highest possible (with regard to cost effectiveness) data-security in place. Then what remains of the DIVX idea and this self-destructing DVD idea will be combined.
An on-board modem (software only) will be part of this new optical disc reader which uses blue-laser technology. Consumers will buy discs locally or over the Internet (by mail). These discs will not work until the user gets online with their next-generation DVD player (NG-DVD) and buys a set period of viewing time or number of screenings. A single viewing may already be included with the purchased disc, but the user will have to get online before it is activated.
Usage will be bought, sold, and tracked over the Internet. Because of future reductions in hardware cost and faster processors, the addition of this technology will not cost significantly more (like DIVX did) and this technology will be integrated into the standard from the beginning so all NG-DVD players will play view-limited disks.
The clincher (which you can infer from above) is that the degrading feature will be reversible by logging onto the Internet and using their system. The problem of users somehow doing this themselves (chemically or phreakin' the hardware) will be solved in the mega-encryption combo compression scheme, which will not be active as well unless the Corporation's machine on the other end of the Internet has a record of your viewing rights.
So, the blocking dye'll be a secondary deterrent against unapproved viewing, with hardware encryption/compression being primary.
Yes, the machine will have to be online whenever you watch a view-limited movie.
You will still be able to purchase regular discs at the standard industry price and view them as often as desired without being online.
On digital cable (which right now runs about 40/month) there are about 200 pay-per-view movies running at any given time. So selection is not so bad; it's just limitted to new releases AND they have to be the new releases which the ppv company picked.
Sometimes I feel like I would like to watch one of these PPV movies, like when I see that the South Park movie is playing in the interactive program guide, but I don't. The reason I don't is because I do not like the idea of missing part of the movie because I have to take a piss or want to get a drink.
I know that it's the same in a movie theatre, but I'm in my home and by renting at the same price (actually rental's coast less), my movie viewing experience is not inconvienced.
.cig
Western Drive Caviar 30.0GB, 5400 RPM, EIDE Hard Drive: $223.97a sp?registered=0&dept%5Fid=2&pf%5F id=101
.com/Product.asp?ProductId=80260
http://store.westerndigital.com:80/store/product.
Seagate Barracuda 28.0GB, 7200 RPM, EIDE ULTRA ATA/66: $199.99
http://www.computers4sure
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 27.2GB EIDE UltraDMA/66 5400 rpm internal hard drive: $191.99
http://www.egghead.com/ca tegory/inv/00041912/02351925.htm
Maxtor 40.0GB EIDE, ULTRA-DMA/66, 5400 RPM, 9 ms: $252.95
http://www.buy.com/comp/product.as p?sku=10227545
So, basically, $7.47, $7.14, $7.07, and $6.33 per a gigabyte. A single-sided DVD holds 4.7 GB (which most movies come on). Thus, it will cost about $35, $33.50, $33.20, or $29.75 for the storage space to keep a single DVD on each of the above drives, respectively.
I'm not sure about how effective software data compression programs will work on MPEG-2 encoded video, but that could be a further means to reduce space (thus cost).
Basically, the price per gigabyte of hard drives is not yet where it needs to be to make DVD backup cost effective, but next year it will be.
Anyone else care to present an analysis?
Yeah, it's patented and the DVD Consortium is the watchdog which sues anyone who tries to make it without a license.
This was the reason CD-RW disks were originally $30 to $40 apiece; the company which licensed the right (no pun intended) to manufacture them decided to charge exhorbitant licensing fees and require manufactures to charge above minimum set prices.
As you can see by today's pricing, CD-RW's really only cost a little bit more than CD-R's to manufacture.
At the time, rewritable CDs did not have much competition in the 650 MB rewritable/archival quality storage business (3-4 years ago) except from Jaz drives and SyJet which cost $80+ apiece (though bigger). Why charge cost plus when people are willing (or dumb enough) to pay much more?
This sounds like the only reasonable way to do it. That way each renter would have, say, 3 to 5 of these special DVD's which they could reuse again and again by going back to the store WHEN they want to get another movie. You could even rent in advance this way, and then not watch it until you're ready.
The main difficulty I see is [1] keeping the blockbuster employees honest (so they don't give you extra days for free, or to their friends, or to themselves -- a computer could track this though) and [2] the big problem which the original degradable DVD's have: people will probably come up with their own way to reset the DVD at home.
It amazes me how many people do not understand the difference between morals and ethics. This is not morally wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Ethically, perhaps -- if you actual do make a copy which violates copyright law and is not fair use. Don't try to call that theft. It's not.
Btw, you did BUY it. That's why you have it at your house encoded on a disc. Your loser mentality is really irking me. This is an advancement of technology that will happen whether or not slashdot talks about it.
The movie will still be there on the disc even after it has been played to the point that the dye blocks out a normal DVD players laser mechanism from picking up on it. Can you steal from an inanimate object? (Help! Help! My bits are being read! My bits are being read!)
Canadian copyright law ALLOWS icravetv.com to do its live rebroadcasting. These companies should be suing the Canadian government if they think somethings wrong with this (harmless) approach, not http://www.icravetv.com.
Bloomberg News is reporting that Real *won* the injunction.
2 36.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.10 05-200-1526236
http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-1526
Now, which is it?
Steve Jobs was referring to version 5.0 of IE which is not even available yet (looks to be late Feb/March).
Netscape blows goats because Microsoft pushed it out of business. AOL bought what remained of the battle-worn company for a pittance. So, while revisons of IE keep coming, there's no equivalent movement on the Netscape side...
If microsoft had played fair, the situation would be much different today.
You pay for your web-access by the second? You can get it free you know.