And if you cannot ride a bicycle, I suppose that industry and everyone associated with it can go to h3ll?
If I couldn't ride a bike, I wouldn't be too concerned abpout the cycle industry, or the number of cycle paths. I might have some sympathy if cyclists point out the environmental benefits, or the road safety benefits of bike travel, but why should I care otherwise?
I never said I didn't care. I asked why I should. I'm asking not as a techy who cares about this stuff. I'm asking why an ordinary person who just wants to watch the movies should care.
What about on my (hypothetical) Media Center PC using a 50" HDTV as its monitor? Or are all these companies lying when they talk about convergence, and how in the future everyone's going to have computerized home theatres?
It's a hypothetical PC. It doesn't exist! I don't care what you might do. Are you being prevented from doing anything right now? When this becomes feasable, there will be a DRMed solution to allow you to do this.
BR>
How's this for a better reason: The Public Good is more important than the **AA's profit margin!
I'm not convinced that the public good is harmed sufficiently.
So, here we have the seed of a much more promising argument.
It's true. There's no way to be sure that the company you bought the files from will continue to support the DRM, or even to exist. And since there is no profit in it, nobody is going to take over if the company goes bust.
Even if you didn't want to do this, or you think you don't know anyone else who might want to do this, why should there be artificially created restrictions stopping other people from doing this?
So, you would contend that copyright law should be changed because a person finds it interferes with her ability to control her son?
I can see how it could be a problem for her, but these rare exceptional cases are not enough to convince the average person that copyright law should be changed
are you really that stupid? many MANY times I get asked how somone can put music they bought on a MP# player they also bought. how dare they! they should be using the CD instead of that silly Thief tool called the iPod.
Well done on completely and utterly missing the entire point of my argument.
First you claim you can physically receive CDs over the net via Amazon, which isn't possible unless they've invented a matter transporter.
Why is the net relevant? It's a transfer medium, just like the internet. I mean, come off it. If your argument is that digital downloads should be treated totally differently from files ripped from a CD, you're a worse troll than I thought.
A lot of us would like to protect material from damage or destruction, or would prefer not to keep subjecting our originals to constant exposure to use.
People were happy with VHS tapes (and record) for years without being able to copy them. Why has it suddenly become an issue?
This little lady did something to the Windows Me computer we have that completely destroyed the ability for it to boot-up normally; windows kept saying there was a protection error and would not boot.
This is because she was using ME.:)
After spending time in jail and thousands of dollars in legal fees to have to prove they were innocent.
Which may well happen with any new law. Sony and Bob Monkhouse both fell foul of traditional copyright law nad had to spend a lot of money defending themselves. Both eventually won. Does thismean that copyright law itself is bad?
Consider this for a moment: If I want to use a 10-second clip from a video tape for some explanation in a documentary, say, about how that scene drove someone to kill someone, that's permissible under fair use. But if I decrypt a DVD to get that same 10-second clip, the action of breaking the copy protection on the DVD is illegal even if the use of the underlying material is legal.
Do you want to do this? I've never met anyone who wants to do this. It's only recently that it's even been possible for most people.
So as to your point of having a better reason to oppose DRM, I think being able to backup and restore the files on a computer by any reasonable method is a damn good reason.
Fair enough. Hopefully enough people wil find this a problem that they have to change their licencing scheme.
I'm not convinced. I'm an aaverage consumer, ane therefore assume everyone wants to use the product in exactly the same way as me. Why should the law be changed for these two to produce something I'm never going to see?
Ok, let's compare iTunes to CDs and tapes. Tell me how you can download physical media like CDs and tapes over the internet.
Go to amazon.com, and order them.
Traditional copyright law doesn't allow you to make copies for your friends, except under limited circumstances like scholarly fair use. Your point is invalid.
IT often is legal under fair use exceptions. Many countries explicitely make limitted copying for friends legal. This is not considered to be a crime by most people
Apple had extended the limit to 5 CPUs at the time Cory delivered the lecture to MS. The point was moot, but he's still whining.
It was an example of DRM restricting his ability to do something legitimate.
iTunes DRM is transparent with the one exception of the auth key. If you have an unbreakable DRM method without auth keys, I'm sure the industry would love to hear it.
I don't. There probably isn't one. However, if there was no DRM he wouldn't have had to do it. The argument is DRM is bad. Not that this is a bad implementation.
It doesn't matter if the media cartels WOULD release without DRM, the fact is they don't, and people ARE buying the DRM product today.
It does matter. This is the entire point f the speech.
Didn't you notice the front page/. article that the #1 CD is copy protected?
Didn't you notice the comments where it turned out it wasn't?
It's no surprise. When I was at college, it seemed half the people in my class wanted to get into IT just to earn lots of money. They saw how much a programmer could make. None of them had a love of the subject. They all became web monkeys.
Then there were suddenly a lot of people with computer skills.
Surprise surprise, the salaries went down. It's all about supply and demand.
Meanwhile, those of us with a love of the subject have the actual deeper understanding of computers that allow us to command a decent salary.
LOL... yes, because there's no cost to anyone from being jailed for a month, or having a criminal lawsuit hanging over your head for years.
This is a failing of the criminal justice system. If it appears that you broke into a computer system, you will suffer the same way. Should we remove computer crimes from the statute books?
And yes, I for one most certainly do want to copy my DVDs. I've paid for several hundred DVDs, and just like CDs they're a huge pain in the ass to store and catalog... just finding the disk I'm looking for can take five minutes.
Really. Well, bully for you. I don't. None of my friends want to do this. Mostpeople I know don't want to watch a DVD on their PC. Youre an exception. You're not going to get a lot of people on your side when you patiently explain to them they're not allowed to do something they didn't want to do in the first place.
Why shouldn't I, when I've already paid for the DVDs? What is so horrid about the idea that a customer might avoid having to spend five minutes faffing around looking for a particular movie? Companies that want my money should be making this kind of convenience easy, not hard.
You should be allowed to. But if you want to be allowed to You need to come up with some better reasons than these
He whines about how he hit the 3 CPU limit of iTunes DRM, because he forgot to decertify one of his Powerbooks before he sent it back to Apple for repair, and that he already used up his other two authorizations on his other machine, and his mom's machine
Okay, lets compare this with DRM free audio tapes or CDs.
Skipping over the apparent violation of the terms of the DRM by using one auth for his mom in another household,
If it was a violation of the terms of the DRM, then the DRM should have prevented it. Of course, traditional media allows you to make copies for friends. This is legal in most countries.
he failed to mention several points, like how you can call Apple and they will remove the dead auth for the dead machine
Oooh, how kind. If you ask nicely, then Apple may, at their sole discretion, give you permission to listen to music that you paid for. If my CD player breaks, I can play all my CDs on a replacement.
and that Apple extended the limit to 5 CPUs.
Yes, but they hadn't at the time.
But that doesn't even account for the fact that Cory was just a damn idiot that didn't deauth his machine before sending it in for service. Still, Cory whined and ranted about this problem on BB, rather than placing the blame on himself for making a stupid error.
Why should he have had to do this? DRM should be transparent. Deauthorising is not transparency.
The ultimate point of his lecture is where he rants about how nobody's calling up manufacturers and begging them for features that restrict rights, therefore there is no market demand for DRM. But he overlooks the obvious fact there are whole markets that would not exist if not for DRM.
They would if the media cartels would let them. It would only need someone to take the risk of releasing without DRM, and you'd see how succesful that is.
Actually, I think the argument that it's restricting innovation is one of the better ones. I'd like a device that could cache all my DVDs (Come to think of it, I'd like a device that could fast forward through the norwegian language copyright notice on a DVD), but the motion picture organisation wouldn't like me to have such a device.
There are all sorts of ideas I've thought of that will not be possible because of anti-piracy hysteria. A DVD download service could net billions, but if you can burn it onto a DVD, it can't be copy protected, so they're not going to do this. They're not going to do it though because of piracy fears.
But arguments that "Oh no! the blind can't watch it" or "I want to make a copy for my 5 year olds" isn't going to convince anyone excpet the blind, and those with 5 year old children that excessive copyright controls are a bad idea.
To protect your Toy Story Disc from damage by children, you put it in a a safe place, and make them ask you for it before they watch it.
If the blind wanbt to read a book, then, yes there may be a problem with anticircumvention technology. I agree this is somethign that should be addressed, but how many of you would be happy if there was an exception in the DMCA solley for circumventing copy protection to allow the disabled to access a work? Would this make it a good law?
People keep bringing up the case of Jon Johansen, and Dmitri Skryalov. They neglect to mention that both of them were found totally innocent, and in the makers of the garage door openers lost their case. Okay, so the law is badly worded to allow these actions in the first place, but we now have soem case law that explicitely spells out the exceptions.
Then there are the limits on audio copying. Well, yes, there are limits, but you are able to copy a CD to a cassette for the car, copy iTunes onto a CD, and on a number of other machines, and that is more than adequate for most people.
And just about nobody wants to build their own TV or DVD player!
The fact is, DRM and the DMCA rarely prevent people from doing anything they actually want to do. If you tyhink they're bad, then you need to come up with some reasons that are more convincing than these.
And you will lose. The taker of the photograph owns the copyright, no matter what the subject is.
I wouldn't be so sure. There is a concept of "Work for hire", which basically says that if a company employs you, then the company owns the copyright of anything you produce for them.
So, it's a bit of a grey areas as to who owns the photos.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you cannot ride a bicycle, I suppose that industry and everyone associated with it can go to h3ll?
If I couldn't ride a bike, I wouldn't be too concerned abpout the cycle industry, or the number of cycle paths. I might have some sympathy if cyclists point out the environmental benefits, or the road safety benefits of bike travel, but why should I care otherwise?
I never said I didn't care. I asked why I should. I'm asking not as a techy who cares about this stuff. I'm asking why an ordinary person who just wants to watch the movies should care.
What about on my (hypothetical) Media Center PC using a 50" HDTV as its monitor? Or are all these companies lying when they talk about convergence, and how in the future everyone's going to have computerized home theatres?
It's a hypothetical PC. It doesn't exist! I don't care what you might do. Are you being prevented from doing anything right now? When this becomes feasable, there will be a DRMed solution to allow you to do this.
BR> How's this for a better reason: The Public Good is more important than the **AA's profit margin!
I'm not convinced that the public good is harmed sufficiently.
Erm.. I'm including the DMCA in copyright law, since it is now part of copyright law.
So, here we have the seed of a much more promising argument.
It's true. There's no way to be sure that the company you bought the files from will continue to support the DRM, or even to exist. And since there is no profit in it, nobody is going to take over if the company goes bust.
They'll do that to the original even if you do make a copy
Even if you didn't want to do this, or you think you don't know anyone else who might want to do this, why should there be artificially created restrictions stopping other people from doing this?
Why do you think I care?
So, you would contend that copyright law should be changed because a person finds it interferes with her ability to control her son?
I can see how it could be a problem for her, but these rare exceptional cases are not enough to convince the average person that copyright law should be changed
are you really that stupid? many MANY times I get asked how somone can put music they bought on a MP# player they also bought. how dare they! they should be using the CD instead of that silly Thief tool called the iPod.
Well done on completely and utterly missing the entire point of my argument.
I have the passion. That's why I have the skills. I enjoy learning about computers.
Indeed I would.
Since nobody in my entire industry segment has been, I can only assume that tech companies don't want to outsource what I do.
So why am I still employed and at a higher salary than ever before?
First you claim you can physically receive CDs over the net via Amazon, which isn't possible unless they've invented a matter transporter.
Why is the net relevant? It's a transfer medium, just like the internet. I mean, come off it. If your argument is that digital downloads should be treated totally differently from files ripped from a CD, you're a worse troll than I thought.
A lot of us would like to protect material from damage or destruction, or would prefer not to keep subjecting our originals to constant exposure to use.
:)
People were happy with VHS tapes (and record) for years without being able to copy them. Why has it suddenly become an issue?
This little lady did something to the Windows Me computer we have that completely destroyed the ability for it to boot-up normally; windows kept saying there was a protection error and would not boot.
This is because she was using ME.
After spending time in jail and thousands of dollars in legal fees to have to prove they were innocent.
Which may well happen with any new law. Sony and Bob Monkhouse both fell foul of traditional copyright law nad had to spend a lot of money defending themselves. Both eventually won. Does thismean that copyright law itself is bad?
Consider this for a moment: If I want to use a 10-second clip from a video tape for some explanation in a documentary, say, about how that scene drove someone to kill someone, that's permissible under fair use. But if I decrypt a DVD to get that same 10-second clip, the action of breaking the copy protection on the DVD is illegal even if the use of the underlying material is legal.
Do you want to do this? I've never met anyone who wants to do this. It's only recently that it's even been possible for most people.
So as to your point of having a better reason to oppose DRM, I think being able to backup and restore the files on a computer by any reasonable method is a damn good reason.
Fair enough. Hopefully enough people wil find this a problem that they have to change their licencing scheme.
I'm not convinced. I'm an aaverage consumer, ane therefore assume everyone wants to use the product in exactly the same way as me. Why should the law be changed for these two to produce something I'm never going to see?
Appeal to my selfishness. Not be good intentions.
Ok, let's compare iTunes to CDs and tapes. Tell me how you can download physical media like CDs and tapes over the internet.
/. article that the #1 CD is copy protected?
Go to amazon.com, and order them.
Traditional copyright law doesn't allow you to make copies for your friends, except under limited circumstances like scholarly fair use. Your point is invalid.
IT often is legal under fair use exceptions. Many countries explicitely make limitted copying for friends legal. This is not considered to be a crime by most people
Apple had extended the limit to 5 CPUs at the time Cory delivered the lecture to MS. The point was moot, but he's still whining.
It was an example of DRM restricting his ability to do something legitimate.
iTunes DRM is transparent with the one exception of the auth key. If you have an unbreakable DRM method without auth keys, I'm sure the industry would love to hear it.
I don't. There probably isn't one. However, if there was no DRM he wouldn't have had to do it. The argument is DRM is bad. Not that this is a bad implementation.
It doesn't matter if the media cartels WOULD release without DRM, the fact is they don't, and people ARE buying the DRM product today.
It does matter. This is the entire point f the speech.
Didn't you notice the front page
Didn't you notice the comments where it turned out it wasn't?
It's no surprise. When I was at college, it seemed half the people in my class wanted to get into IT just to earn lots of money. They saw how much a programmer could make. None of them had a love of the subject. They all became web monkeys.
Then there were suddenly a lot of people with computer skills.
Surprise surprise, the salaries went down. It's all about supply and demand.
Meanwhile, those of us with a love of the subject have the actual deeper understanding of computers that allow us to command a decent salary.
Yes... This is a problem with the legal system. Not with DRM!
There speaks someone who's never had kids
Why is this so hard?
LOL... yes, because there's no cost to anyone from being jailed for a month, or having a criminal lawsuit hanging over your head for years.
This is a failing of the criminal justice system. If it appears that you broke into a computer system, you will suffer the same way. Should we remove computer crimes from the statute books?
And yes, I for one most certainly do want to copy my DVDs. I've paid for several hundred DVDs, and just like CDs they're a huge pain in the ass to store and catalog... just finding the disk I'm looking for can take five minutes.
Really. Well, bully for you. I don't. None of my friends want to do this. Mostpeople I know don't want to watch a DVD on their PC. Youre an exception. You're not going to get a lot of people on your side when you patiently explain to them they're not allowed to do something they didn't want to do in the first place.
Why shouldn't I, when I've already paid for the DVDs? What is so horrid about the idea that a customer might avoid having to spend five minutes faffing around looking for a particular movie? Companies that want my money should be making this kind of convenience easy, not hard.
You should be allowed to. But if you want to be allowed to You need to come up with some better reasons than these
He whines about how he hit the 3 CPU limit of iTunes DRM, because he forgot to decertify one of his Powerbooks before he sent it back to Apple for repair, and that he already used up his other two authorizations on his other machine, and his mom's machine
Okay, lets compare this with DRM free audio tapes or CDs.
Skipping over the apparent violation of the terms of the DRM by using one auth for his mom in another household,
If it was a violation of the terms of the DRM, then the DRM should have prevented it. Of course, traditional media allows you to make copies for friends. This is legal in most countries.
he failed to mention several points, like how you can call Apple and they will remove the dead auth for the dead machine
Oooh, how kind. If you ask nicely, then Apple may, at their sole discretion, give you permission to listen to music that you paid for. If my CD player breaks, I can play all my CDs on a replacement.
and that Apple extended the limit to 5 CPUs.
Yes, but they hadn't at the time.
But that doesn't even account for the fact that Cory was just a damn idiot that didn't deauth his machine before sending it in for service. Still, Cory whined and ranted about this problem on BB, rather than placing the blame on himself for making a stupid error.
Why should he have had to do this? DRM should be transparent. Deauthorising is not transparency.
The ultimate point of his lecture is where he rants about how nobody's calling up manufacturers and begging them for features that restrict rights, therefore there is no market demand for DRM. But he overlooks the obvious fact there are whole markets that would not exist if not for DRM.
They would if the media cartels would let them. It would only need someone to take the risk of releasing without DRM, and you'd see how succesful that is.
Actually, I think the argument that it's restricting innovation is one of the better ones. I'd like a device that could cache all my DVDs (Come to think of it, I'd like a device that could fast forward through the norwegian language copyright notice on a DVD), but the motion picture organisation wouldn't like me to have such a device.
There are all sorts of ideas I've thought of that will not be possible because of anti-piracy hysteria. A DVD download service could net billions, but if you can burn it onto a DVD, it can't be copy protected, so they're not going to do this. They're not going to do it though because of piracy fears.
But arguments that "Oh no! the blind can't watch it" or "I want to make a copy for my 5 year olds" isn't going to convince anyone excpet the blind, and those with 5 year old children that excessive copyright controls are a bad idea.
How many people want to make a copy of anything?
To protect your Toy Story Disc from damage by children, you put it in a a safe place, and make them ask you for it before they watch it.
If the blind wanbt to read a book, then, yes there may be a problem with anticircumvention technology. I agree this is somethign that should be addressed, but how many of you would be happy if there was an exception in the DMCA solley for circumventing copy protection to allow the disabled to access a work? Would this make it a good law?
People keep bringing up the case of Jon Johansen, and Dmitri Skryalov. They neglect to mention that both of them were found totally innocent, and in the makers of the garage door openers lost their case. Okay, so the law is badly worded to allow these actions in the first place, but we now have soem case law that explicitely spells out the exceptions.
Then there are the limits on audio copying. Well, yes, there are limits, but you are able to copy a CD to a cassette for the car, copy iTunes onto a CD, and on a number of other machines, and that is more than adequate for most people.
And just about nobody wants to build their own TV or DVD player!
The fact is, DRM and the DMCA rarely prevent people from doing anything they actually want to do. If you tyhink they're bad, then you need to come up with some reasons that are more convincing than these.
But doesn't this infringe on the company's constituional right to screw over their customers?
The article is a bit vague on the details. It appears that the privacy policy doesn't actually imply it's a contract.
Makes a complete mockery of privacy policies, of course.
And you will lose. The taker of the photograph owns the copyright, no matter what the subject is.
I wouldn't be so sure. There is a concept of "Work for hire", which basically says that if a company employs you, then the company owns the copyright of anything you produce for them.
So, it's a bit of a grey areas as to who owns the photos.