Their product would sell just as well on the Google Play Store if it wasn't shitty code. The great thing about IOS is anyone who isn't running the newest version is SOL. The android market base is far hotter and developers continue to blame android for not making much money on it, rather than write a decent app that doesn't rely on the IOShit framework.
You sound like a jealous Android user. Why is that?
Google is trying to become like Apple margin-wise. But with all the fragmentation and lack of normalization of their platforms, you can expect a lot more decisions like this one.
You mean we'll have to use the internet with no ports open whatsoever? Or that they'll shut down port 22 only? Both cases are ridiculous.
But whatever means of communication they leave open, you'll still be able to embed a piece of encrypted data in it. And with steganography, you'll be able to make it as if no piece of encrypted data was embedded.
Also, please tell me how e-commerce is going to survive if you can't input your CC number on a secure connection. As a matter of fact, how will any website that require authentication be able to survive in such an environment?
Always get nervous when reading stuff like this - I'm sure they'll use it an excuse to regulate the Internet for everyone, not just so-called terrorists. Remember: freedom isn't free.
Also: war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc.
What do you want them to regulate? Just get everything through SSH and they'll get... nothing.
Get off of Slashdot! Everybody knows that all police are working full time on edge cases and civil liberties abuses that are in no way effective at preventing, detecting or punishing any individual occurrence of any widespread crime!
Interesting? This is modded INTERESTING!!! Oh my... Things have gone too far.
Strangely though, consumer television/video playback formats are increasing in resolution, while common audio formats have been regressing.
Where did you see that audio formats have been regressing in resolution? Since the CD (first digital format), all audio is 44.1/16 or better... Hard to call that a regression.
Now , if you're talking about bitrate and not resolution, remember that bitrate per pixel is constantly decreasing in video.
Why not 1000KHz? 1GHz? I mean, the wave form will be much, much much nicer. On a screen. Because your ears will hear the exact same thing.
All that you describe is theory of signal. Of course, the wave form will be much better reconstructed at 192KHz. Of course. The real question is: can anyone make out the difference *with their ears*?
Why stop at 192khz/24bits (remember, it's 192KHz, not 192KBits/s). If you refuse most people can hear the difference btw 44.1KHz and 192KHz, why not crank it up to 10MHz? 10GHz? And why stop at 24bits? Why not 1024bits? 1Mbit? Did you do some tests or is it just some kind of gut feeling?
No professionally conducted double blind test has found any difference above 16/44. None. Even including people that claimed they could tell the difference before the test weren't able to differentiate anything above 16/44. The only ones that claim that are people that have never taken a properly conducted AB double blind testing.
Don't you find it intriguing? It's a bit like telepathy. Some claim they are able to do it. But it has never been proven and boy, have there been a number of tests on this subject! This doesn't prevent some mono zygotic twins to claim they could feel their sibling's accident from 1000km away.
I wouldn't take anything this guy would say he did ! There are methods to cheat on an ABX test. This guy is so sure he'll hear the difference that he'll cheat to convince us he can hear the difference !
Audiophiles are some of the most amazing people I've ever seen. I've seen some buy $5000 power cords. Yes, that's five thousand dollars.
These guys should be left alone. Just shield any cable with gold and sell them for a couple of thousand bucks, making a 98% margin. That's what they want!
You think they'll eventually get it to work and that they'll be happy with it and some "compromise" from both parties will make the actual system work (the actual system being a system where people are "licensed" a movie, so a system that is different than the current music system).
I think the chances are very very very slim that they'll get something that work. But even if they did, I think it will not chance piracy at all and so that they'll keep pushing for other more stupid stuff because all the money invested in DRM (that we will pay make no mistake on that one) will be a monumental waste.
I think piracy is here to stay and no legislation or technology is going to change that. What they should do is adapt to this new environment. They could try to make it as convenient to "legally" download a movie than it is now to pirate it. And I think it is the only way out for them.
DRM is crap. It will never work and it will most likely always get in the way. So why do it?
Another reply because I realize I haven't been making much sense with my "no compromise from the people" idea.
Of course, people will make compromise. A new tax to fund the poor artists? Sure. A new law that restrict many things one can do with one's computer in the name of saving the poor Hollywood? Fine.
As a matter of fact, these things have already happened in most "industrialized" countries.
But these are lies and deceptive tactics. None of that will "save the artists" as they put it. None of this is necessary. None of this reduces piracy. These are ersatz and won't change a thing to the bottom line.
A real compromise - the only one conceivable that may get the result Hollywood needs - is to give Hollywood total control over what happens in every home. Because piracy happens at home without getting out, on your computer/phone/mp3 player.
Look, they've already tried it. SONY did release an audio CD with a trojan embadded that installed itself on every PC and which gave them total control of all the PCs infected. Gosh, just thinking about it, it scares me. And they got away with it with nothing but a slap on the wrist!
This is what they need. Nothing else will have any impact on piracy. And no amount of pleading will give them that - at least not if the people is half aware of what they're up to.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
No, i'm saying copyright infringement occurred perfectly well before the internet and continues to exist outside of the internet and in those areas it's not as though your communications are being tapped to prevent copyright infringement.
Of course it did exist, but Hollywood did not see it as a threat to their very existence, until the Internet. It's the internet that scare them (and rightfully so) so they act like desperate people. And this is why they go to extreme measures to try to fight it. It's the Internet that made them do all the crap they're doing, not the other forms of Piracy.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
No, because you only want some people to know what it is, those people you authorize.
Fine with that.
You were the one talking about a compromise on both parties.
And it was in reference to the copyright holders and their customers, not DRM and privacy.
Yes, and I explicitly asked what compromise you can think of for the people. If you think about it, there are none. There are none possible except a stupid "honor" engagement of not screwing up? I mean, the people doesn't make compromises except the one necessary for their own survival, unless these compromises were forced down their throat by a forceful regime. Give me *one* example in history where any population made a compromise that didn't involve their very existence? It will not happen. You may wish it will, but it won't.
That was just small talk or do you have something in mind? If it is just smalltalk, please tell me know so I don't spend any more energy. If it is not, please tell us your ideas.
I don't have the answer, but you'd have to be a monumental fool to think that hollywood will continue to spend billions creating entertainment works and release them freely in the hopes that people will just pay for them even though they don't have to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to require a compromise on both sides, hopefully the general populace will reject current DRM as unworkable and hollywood will come up with a less inconvenient solution more fitting to the concept of a person having a license to the content rather than a device.
So tell me: Did the music industry just crumble in 2009? Remember, that is the year all DRM was off (iTunes, Amazon music, etc, all serve non-DRM files since then - and some before then.) No. It did not crumble. The problem with you people is that you equate "no DRM" with "zero revenue for Hollywoood". It is simply not true. Less revenue, maybe, but is that bad? Did you see the last paycheck of Tom Cruise? Come on. There's fat out there that can get trimmed. And no, there is no indication whatsoever that piracy will kill Hollywood. There is no evidence for that matter that DRM will reduce piracy. The internet is killing distributors, because it renders their job obsolete, but not the artists/producers/etc, which are the persons that matter really here.
You are completely missing my point, by almost a thousand miles. I'm not talking about something I wish, or something I think is "moral" or something I think is OK. I'm talking about the way it is. What I describe in my posts are the way things work right now, and I'm trying to explain how and why they are this way. What you're talking about however is an hypothetical world where publishers and the public would reach an "understanding" with mutual "compromises".
Of course, why would i dispute the facts of the way things are? Why wo
copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
We've always been able to do that without the internet, and even now you could still just as easily do that. If it's not piracy on the internet it will just be piracy through another avenue, and since there is always going to be a requirement for secure and encrypted business & government communications there will always be privacy.
We've always been able to do this, it is true, but not on the same scale. Today, I can send an album to anyone anywhere on earth in a few seconds, from the comfort of my own home. This is what the internet brought to the picture and it is huge. Before you had to copy a tape - inconvenient, not free and poor quality - or burn a CD - inconvenient not free either. Today, you could also copy it on a USB stick. LAN parties are a rarity for the common people so I didn't even talk about it. But all of that have TWO major problems: It is a one to one sharing, and you need physical contact or proximity in order to do it. It made piracy naturally limited. The internet is changing the game RADICALLY here, and I don't understand how you can ignore it. I can share an album with ALL my friends at once in a few clicks from my own sofa. I can even share it with the whole world for that matter, not only my friends. That is a game changer when it comes to copyrights infringement.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon.
Wrong, you never used disks? Or transferred data over networks? Have you never seen the enormous LAN parties where everyone is connected and people share data? The internet wasn't the invention of the ability to share data.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered a business where any competitor could have shut them down in a quick trial? Come on...
And why do you think they had to license them under FRAND terms? If there is a widely adopted DRM standard then they will also have to be licensed under FRAND terms.
Point already taken in your previous post, but ok, fine.
My bank information is some data I only trust my bank with. And i have an agreement with my bank that this data will stay private. This is why it does not flow freely. Trust me, if i publicly disclosed my credit card number on the web, it would flow freely from that point on.
Yet you will do everything in your power to make sure that this doesn't happen and that the only people that get access to your credit card number are the people you authorize to do so. You won't let that information flow freely.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
what kind of compromise on the people side could be thought at that point that did not jeopardize our right to communicate with privacy? I'm really open on that one. I c
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
You're obviously an idiot - replying to someone you believe to be trolling - or you don't believe i'm trolling and you're just attempting to label me as such simply because you don't agree. Try and act like an adult having a rational discussion rather than name-calling because you don't agree.
ok, point taken. Let's do just that.
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet.
No one is taking that away from you.
copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
So I suppose they were monitoring what you do in your house with their content before the internet came along? You know, doing what you suggest here but in the real world? Oh that's right, they haven't, so obviously your argument fails. Copyright isn't new and copyright enforcement isn't new.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon. THIS is the difference btw the real world and the internet. The internet is the ultimate (so far) communication device. And the copyrights we're talking about are just protecting data. Just that. That's the very thing the internet enables us to share!
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device.
And it should be based on the user, not the device. So a user account can be authorized and that user account can span any device you like. That's not the way it is but that's the way it should be. It can be transparent much like your internet banking security is transparent, it's not as though your bank will refuse you access because you're using linux.
the very concept of DRM is to try and have data "locked in" your device, which is so absurd i'm not even sure how you can make sense out of it. It obviously cannot be completely locked in since it needs to get out for you to enjoy it. So... DRM fails by it's own definition... How can that make any kind of sense?
They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
Oh come on, don't be obtuse, that's no different to saying existing phone manufacturers could have pushed apple immediately out of the phone business by refusing to license their 3G patents, oh of course they didn't do that just because they're so nice and they didn't want to, not because there are laws preventing such things.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered
All those people you mention are dead and buried. No you didn't beat the British Empire, not even once. Your ancestors did. And of what they learned, you lose a sizeable part for every new generation your country produces.
The fact that your government/institutions were able to consider SOPA/PIPA - something that have no clue as of what it would do to their own fucking country - is a sad reminder that the days you're talking about are gone and long gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Their product would sell just as well on the Google Play Store if it wasn't shitty code. The great thing about IOS is anyone who isn't running the newest version is SOL. The android market base is far hotter and developers continue to blame android for not making much money on it, rather than write a decent app that doesn't rely on the IOShit framework.
You sound like a jealous Android user. Why is that?
Google is trying to become like Apple margin-wise. But with all the fragmentation and lack of normalization of their platforms, you can expect a lot more decisions like this one.
You mean we'll have to use the internet with no ports open whatsoever? Or that they'll shut down port 22 only? Both cases are ridiculous.
But whatever means of communication they leave open, you'll still be able to embed a piece of encrypted data in it. And with steganography, you'll be able to make it as if no piece of encrypted data was embedded.
Also, please tell me how e-commerce is going to survive if you can't input your CC number on a secure connection. As a matter of fact, how will any website that require authentication be able to survive in such an environment?
Always get nervous when reading stuff like this - I'm sure they'll use it an excuse to regulate the Internet for everyone, not just so-called terrorists. Remember: freedom isn't free.
Also: war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc.
What do you want them to regulate? Just get everything through SSH and they'll get ... nothing.
Dr I read like lighting ourselves will now be done by cool objects? Could that be a cure to the global warming?
A laptop is in the "portable' category, but not in the 'mobile' category, such as the iPad. So it "does less" than an iPad in that regard.
Your move. If you insist of using stupid marketing labels, I can play too.
Get off of Slashdot! Everybody knows that all police are working full time on edge cases and civil liberties abuses that are in no way effective at preventing, detecting or punishing any individual occurrence of any widespread crime!
Interesting? This is modded INTERESTING!!! Oh my... Things have gone too far.
Strangely though, consumer television/video playback formats are increasing in resolution, while common audio formats have been regressing.
Where did you see that audio formats have been regressing in resolution? Since the CD (first digital format), all audio is 44.1/16 or better... Hard to call that a regression.
Now , if you're talking about bitrate and not resolution, remember that bitrate per pixel is constantly decreasing in video.
Is there a way to read this while at the same time not paying them $40?
Yes, for many purposes, its good enough. But its obviously not perfect.
Of course. But why would you need perfection? Are your ears "perfect"?
Why not 1000KHz? 1GHz? I mean, the wave form will be much, much much nicer. On a screen. Because your ears will hear the exact same thing.
All that you describe is theory of signal. Of course, the wave form will be much better reconstructed at 192KHz. Of course. The real question is: can anyone make out the difference *with their ears*?
The answer is no.
Why stop at 192khz/24bits (remember, it's 192KHz, not 192KBits/s). If you refuse most people can hear the difference btw 44.1KHz and 192KHz, why not crank it up to 10MHz? 10GHz? And why stop at 24bits? Why not 1024bits? 1Mbit? Did you do some tests or is it just some kind of gut feeling?
No professionally conducted double blind test has found any difference above 16/44. None. Even including people that claimed they could tell the difference before the test weren't able to differentiate anything above 16/44. The only ones that claim that are people that have never taken a properly conducted AB double blind testing.
Don't you find it intriguing? It's a bit like telepathy. Some claim they are able to do it. But it has never been proven and boy, have there been a number of tests on this subject! This doesn't prevent some mono zygotic twins to claim they could feel their sibling's accident from 1000km away.
You sound just like them.
I wouldn't take anything this guy would say he did ! There are methods to cheat on an ABX test. This guy is so sure he'll hear the difference that he'll cheat to convince us he can hear the difference !
Not everything you think you perceive is stuff you actually do hear. Did you know that?
Can't read the article without paying...
Audiophiles are some of the most amazing people I've ever seen. I've seen some buy $5000 power cords. Yes, that's five thousand dollars.
These guys should be left alone. Just shield any cable with gold and sell them for a couple of thousand bucks, making a 98% margin. That's what they want!
What is the problem with Quick Basic? It came for free and it was quite ok.
No network access? Might be fine for you, but for an MMORPG programmer on the other hand...
ok, let's summarize:
We both think current DRM is broken.
You think they'll eventually get it to work and that they'll be happy with it and some "compromise" from both parties will make the actual system work (the actual system being a system where people are "licensed" a movie, so a system that is different than the current music system).
I think the chances are very very very slim that they'll get something that work. But even if they did, I think it will not chance piracy at all and so that they'll keep pushing for other more stupid stuff because all the money invested in DRM (that we will pay make no mistake on that one) will be a monumental waste.
I think piracy is here to stay and no legislation or technology is going to change that. What they should do is adapt to this new environment. They could try to make it as convenient to "legally" download a movie than it is now to pirate it. And I think it is the only way out for them.
DRM is crap. It will never work and it will most likely always get in the way. So why do it?
Another reply because I realize I haven't been making much sense with my "no compromise from the people" idea.
Of course, people will make compromise. A new tax to fund the poor artists? Sure. A new law that restrict many things one can do with one's computer in the name of saving the poor Hollywood? Fine.
As a matter of fact, these things have already happened in most "industrialized" countries.
But these are lies and deceptive tactics. None of that will "save the artists" as they put it. None of this is necessary. None of this reduces piracy. These are ersatz and won't change a thing to the bottom line.
A real compromise - the only one conceivable that may get the result Hollywood needs - is to give Hollywood total control over what happens in every home. Because piracy happens at home without getting out, on your computer/phone/mp3 player.
Look, they've already tried it. SONY did release an audio CD with a trojan embadded that installed itself on every PC and which gave them total control of all the PCs infected. Gosh, just thinking about it, it scares me. And they got away with it with nothing but a slap on the wrist!
This is what they need. Nothing else will have any impact on piracy. And no amount of pleading will give them that - at least not if the people is half aware of what they're up to.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
No, i'm saying copyright infringement occurred perfectly well before the internet and continues to exist outside of the internet and in those areas it's not as though your communications are being tapped to prevent copyright infringement.
Of course it did exist, but Hollywood did not see it as a threat to their very existence, until the Internet. It's the internet that scare them (and rightfully so) so they act like desperate people. And this is why they go to extreme measures to try to fight it. It's the Internet that made them do all the crap they're doing, not the other forms of Piracy.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
No, because you only want some people to know what it is, those people you authorize.
Fine with that.
You were the one talking about a compromise on both parties.
And it was in reference to the copyright holders and their customers, not DRM and privacy.
Yes, and I explicitly asked what compromise you can think of for the people. If you think about it, there are none. There are none possible except a stupid "honor" engagement of not screwing up? I mean, the people doesn't make compromises except the one necessary for their own survival, unless these compromises were forced down their throat by a forceful regime. Give me *one* example in history where any population made a compromise that didn't involve their very existence? It will not happen. You may wish it will, but it won't.
That was just small talk or do you have something in mind? If it is just smalltalk, please tell me know so I don't spend any more energy. If it is not, please tell us your ideas.
I don't have the answer, but you'd have to be a monumental fool to think that hollywood will continue to spend billions creating entertainment works and release them freely in the hopes that people will just pay for them even though they don't have to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to require a compromise on both sides, hopefully the general populace will reject current DRM as unworkable and hollywood will come up with a less inconvenient solution more fitting to the concept of a person having a license to the content rather than a device.
So tell me: Did the music industry just crumble in 2009? Remember, that is the year all DRM was off (iTunes, Amazon music, etc, all serve non-DRM files since then - and some before then.) No. It did not crumble. The problem with you people is that you equate "no DRM" with "zero revenue for Hollywoood". It is simply not true. Less revenue, maybe, but is that bad? Did you see the last paycheck of Tom Cruise? Come on. There's fat out there that can get trimmed. And no, there is no indication whatsoever that piracy will kill Hollywood. There is no evidence for that matter that DRM will reduce piracy. The internet is killing distributors, because it renders their job obsolete, but not the artists/producers/etc, which are the persons that matter really here.
You are completely missing my point, by almost a thousand miles. I'm not talking about something I wish, or something I think is "moral" or something I think is OK. I'm talking about the way it is. What I describe in my posts are the way things work right now, and I'm trying to explain how and why they are this way. What you're talking about however is an hypothetical world where publishers and the public would reach an "understanding" with mutual "compromises".
Of course, why would i dispute the facts of the way things are? Why wo
copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
We've always been able to do that without the internet, and even now you could still just as easily do that. If it's not piracy on the internet it will just be piracy through another avenue, and since there is always going to be a requirement for secure and encrypted business & government communications there will always be privacy.
We've always been able to do this, it is true, but not on the same scale. Today, I can send an album to anyone anywhere on earth in a few seconds, from the comfort of my own home. This is what the internet brought to the picture and it is huge. Before you had to copy a tape - inconvenient, not free and poor quality - or burn a CD - inconvenient not free either. Today, you could also copy it on a USB stick. LAN parties are a rarity for the common people so I didn't even talk about it. But all of that have TWO major problems: It is a one to one sharing, and you need physical contact or proximity in order to do it. It made piracy naturally limited. The internet is changing the game RADICALLY here, and I don't understand how you can ignore it. I can share an album with ALL my friends at once in a few clicks from my own sofa. I can even share it with the whole world for that matter, not only my friends. That is a game changer when it comes to copyrights infringement.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon.
Wrong, you never used disks? Or transferred data over networks? Have you never seen the enormous LAN parties where everyone is connected and people share data? The internet wasn't the invention of the ability to share data.
You dismiss the internet as a game changer when it comes to communication? I don't know what to tell you really. See my answer above.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered a business where any competitor could have shut them down in a quick trial? Come on...
And why do you think they had to license them under FRAND terms? If there is a widely adopted DRM standard then they will also have to be licensed under FRAND terms.
Point already taken in your previous post, but ok, fine.
My bank information is some data I only trust my bank with. And i have an agreement with my bank that this data will stay private. This is why it does not flow freely. Trust me, if i publicly disclosed my credit card number on the web, it would flow freely from that point on.
Yet you will do everything in your power to make sure that this doesn't happen and that the only people that get access to your credit card number are the people you authorize to do so. You won't let that information flow freely.
Yes. We all have information that we want to stay private. So we don't publish these data. Because we don't want others to know what it is.
what kind of compromise on the people side could be thought at that point that did not jeopardize our right to communicate with privacy? I'm really open on that one. I c
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
You're obviously an idiot - replying to someone you believe to be trolling - or you don't believe i'm trolling and you're just attempting to label me as such simply because you don't agree. Try and act like an adult having a rational discussion rather than name-calling because you don't agree.
ok, point taken. Let's do just that.
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet.
No one is taking that away from you.
copyright infringement detection on the internet *has* to do it. Think about it for a minute: if i can communicate "privately" with someone over the internet, then i can send him/her every piece of data i want: my latest pictures, the latest star wars movie, everything. If there is privacy, there can be infringement and no detection of said infringement. This is why the lobbies are pushing SOPA so hard. And yes, SOPA is about removing the ability to hide something while communicating on the internet.
Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
So I suppose they were monitoring what you do in your house with their content before the internet came along? You know, doing what you suggest here but in the real world? Oh that's right, they haven't, so obviously your argument fails. Copyright isn't new and copyright enforcement isn't new.
so... You don't know the difference between the real world and the internet. Copyright enforcement is at a turning point. Because before the internet copyright infringement was ALWAYS linked to something physical that a) cost money to produce and b) could be seized by the law enforcement if stumbled upon. THIS is the difference btw the real world and the internet. The internet is the ultimate (so far) communication device. And the copyrights we're talking about are just protecting data. Just that. That's the very thing the internet enables us to share!
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device.
And it should be based on the user, not the device. So a user account can be authorized and that user account can span any device you like. That's not the way it is but that's the way it should be. It can be transparent much like your internet banking security is transparent, it's not as though your bank will refuse you access because you're using linux.
the very concept of DRM is to try and have data "locked in" your device, which is so absurd i'm not even sure how you can make sense out of it. It obviously cannot be completely locked in since it needs to get out for you to enjoy it. So... DRM fails by it's own definition... How can that make any kind of sense?
They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
Oh come on, don't be obtuse, that's no different to saying existing phone manufacturers could have pushed apple immediately out of the phone business by refusing to license their 3G patents, oh of course they didn't do that just because they're so nice and they didn't want to, not because there are laws preventing such things.
they could *not* have locked Apple out because they had to license their patents under the FRAND terms. You think Apple would have entered
If you are interested in my answer, here it is: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2689135&cid=39144575
All those people you mention are dead and buried. No you didn't beat the British Empire, not even once. Your ancestors did. And of what they learned, you lose a sizeable part for every new generation your country produces.
The fact that your government/institutions were able to consider SOPA/PIPA - something that have no clue as of what it would do to their own fucking country - is a sad reminder that the days you're talking about are gone and long gone.