Holding an unsubstantiated belief is the definition of religion
... says who?
Me believing to be the worlds greatest lover/hacker/driver isn't a religion, is it?
To quote from wikipedia:
Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.
So I'd claim that my personal belief that there is no god isn't religion, whereas if i were to get together with other similar-minded people for some atheistic rituals, it probably would be a religion.
That's because trademarks apply only to the business areas they are registered for. For example, the manufacturer of shiny computers can use the same name as the record label that released the Beatles' records, since they aren't in the same business. (Until ITMS, that is.)
Firebird-the-database is a DBMS, which, as everyone knows, is a big piece of metal that doesn't move and holds important data. Firefox-the-browser is a vehicle for travelling through the intartubes. It's obvious that the former is almost (but not quite) entirely unlike a car, whereas you probably would need a drivers' licence to use the latter, if it weren't for the lawlessness of teh intartubewebs.
Actually, you said it was the only reason and I objected to that. I did not argue that DRM isn't used for the reasons you said, I argued that they aren't the only reasons (and not even the primary one). This is what you said:
"The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that."
Since that was posted as AC I can't prove that I didn't say that, only claim so, which I hereby do[1].;)
I'm with you on all these points. My initial comment was simply that you were ignoring DRM as a deterrent to piracy which I believe is the primary purpose.
Good to see that we agree on the "side effects" DRM can have. Now for the "primary purpose" thing, we could probably argue about that all day long; since we can't read the minds of label bosses and film studio executives, we can only guess about what their primary intent is, but I doubt that "primary purpose" vs. "side effect" is relevant at all. If i can't format-shift the music i paid, it doesn't matter to me if that was intended right from the start, if it was just found to be a great idea or even if it is totally accidential.
DRM will have all those effects once it works good enough and is widely applied, and that's what is relevant if we want to assess the morals of DRM.
[1] Actually I could imagine plenty of uses for keeping a user from making full use of data that he can access, most of them having their "acy" prefixed with "priv" and not "pir".
there are fundamental differences between incompatible hacks to the Red Book standard and DRM-equipped content files
That's correct; i made a distinction between nuisances that are intentional and those that are implementation artifacts. Obviously, if you try to hack DRM onto something that was designed without DRM in mind, you'll end up with lots of the latter.
But that certainly doesn't mean that properly designed DRM systems cannot have bugs, too.
DRM'ed files, on the other hand, must have their DRM stripped to be distributable illegally.
Strictly speaking, you're wrong here. I'll use DVDs as an example for proper DRM systems here, since the cryptographic strength is no concern. If a large-scale piracy operation has the machinery to produce a 1:1 copy of a DVD (which isn't possible with consumer DVD burners, but certainly with the equipment that the legitimate content producers have), they can easily produce pirated DVDs with the DRM intact and they'll play perfectly on any DVD player.
Actually, the factories that press the original DVDs could simply press some more than the copyright owner ordered, and those would be playable illegal copies with the DRM intact. AFAIK large-scale clothing/shoe counterfeiting often works like that.
There have been some tools distributed to do this but it's unlikely that the practice is widespread because unencumbered versions are already available.
Do you have anything to back that up? I doubt it is even possible to distinguish between originally-unencumbered copies and DRM-stripped ones to gather numbers for this kind of estimation. Or did you mean that people don't strip DRM themselves because DRM-stripped copies are easily obtained from P2P networks? Then I'd have to agree, but that doesn't exactly demonstrate that DRM works.
For example, the only DRMed content I've ever purchased were TV shows (Lost, Desperate) from iTMS. I wanted to try the video feature before tools were widely available for downconversions. Rather than trying to strip the DRM in order to format-shift I simply bittorrented alternate versions. I may not have the legal high ground but I have a moral one since I've paid multiple times already. It doesn't matter in my case since the network itself makes those downloads freely available now. The DRM did prevent me from format-shifting but it also prevented redistribution.
That was one of my main points. The fact that your shows were DRMed made you jump through hoops to format-shift (you had to download them a second time). Had you pirated them right away you could easily have shifted them without a second download.
there is the reality of the existence of DRM and that's to discourage pirating, not limit usefulness.[typo fixed]
Are you sure that device-shifting, time-shifting, format-shifting limitations aren't intentional? Once DRM works really good and you can't just hop onto bittorrent or usenet to download unencumbered versions of your bought files, do you really think you won't have to shell out once for the $WHATEVER_COMES_AFTER_THE_CD, once for the ipod file, once for the zune file? Once HDTV and HDMI make it impossible to record stuff from the TV do you really think they'll send you recorded versions for free if you can prove that you watched the show?
Actually, DRM doesn't work against large-scale piracy (think bootlegged CDs/DVDs) AT ALL.
It only works against casual copying.
It also makes the software and hardware more complicated than required and therefore increases costs and decreases quality.
In combination with DMCA-like laws, it serves to turn "copyright" into "CopyWatchTimeshiftFormatshiftMediashiftOrDoAnyhth ingAtAllWithTheStuffYouJustSpentMoneyOnRight".
DRM and DMCA-like laws (in combination with the insane length of copyright protection) give a huge part of
The fact that no one makes unauthorized copies of DRM-laden files is a testament to DRM's effectiveness, not an example of its uselessness. Try again.
Since at first I didn't succeed [getting my message across], I'll dust myself off and try again:
$LARGE_MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE releases DRM-laden content. $NICE_GUY buys said content and has to put up with whatever annoyances the DRM throws at him, which are twofold:
By design, DRM reduces his options as to what to do with the content, or makes some of those options more complicated (activation etc.). If he runs into such a barrier (wants to format-shift, wants to play on a different computer, wants to make a backup copy or a copy for a friend), that's one annoyance. Please note that depending on $NICE_GUYs intentions, some of the copies he tries to make would be legal to make if the content wasn't DRMed[1].
There's also accidential annoyances (bugs and exploitable security holes in the DRM software) that $NICE_GUY has to put up with. Since DRM tries to accomplish something that's essentially impossible (making a number that you can read and remember but not write down), DRM systems are complex and sometimes have to intentionally break standards (e.g. CD Audio "Red Book"), and you end up with a CD that you can't play because the error correction in your CD player doesn't work the exact way the DRM manufacturer assumed.
While $NICE_GUY struggles with the annoyances he paid $MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE to sprinkle the content with (DRM doesn't come for free), $EVIL_PIRATE_HAXOR has removed the DRM from the content and the unprotected copy found is ways through various invitation-only FTP servers to $P2p_NETWORK_OF_THE_WEEK.
$LAWSUIT_CANDIDATE now downloads the content and enjoys it without having to put up with any annoyances. That's a side effect of $MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE's interesting[2] decision when confronted with a competitor that offered their content for free but at a lower quality (only the raw content, no booklets or extras, maybe compressed a bit more, etc.) and a bit more different to get at (have to know how to use P2P software).
They decided to lower the quality of their own offering so that not only piracy is cheaper now, it's also more convenient. In that sense, DRM is indeed rather effective.
[1] DMCA and similar laws protect DRMed content specifically. That means, with unprotected content, if the copyright owner tells you that you're only allowed to access the content on Tuesdays, it's perfectly OK to say "yeah, whatever" and ignore said wish. If the content is DRMed and the DRM enforces that restriction, suddenly the law requires you to comply. [2] read "retarded".
I want to add that #4 (BG being a good guy) and the idea that Microsoft is evil (for various definitions of "evil") aren't mutually exclusive, so what Mr. Gates does with his private fortune (and he certainly does much good) shouldn't cloud our judgement of Microsoft's actions which are a totally unrelated thing.
It's certainly good for the copyright holder when you've obtained that data through unauthorized distribution.
Except that DRM only works against those who obtain the data legally while those who obtain the data through unauthorized distribution actually get the data without DRM.
You going off on how much you love Jews, and on the otherhand, say they get away with too much, anti-Semitism is a joke, etc. I usually see this argument among those with an agenda. "I love Jews, but I think they should jump of a ledge!"
Am I the only one who just had that old game pop up in his head? "Oy vey! More Lemmings!":)
I doubt anyone would consider himself a "raving lunatic". To be fair, as far as I know you, I wouldn't call you a raving lunatic either.
nor would I consider any of the "raving lunatics" to be true Muslims. Pretty much in the same way any educated Christian would question the methods used during the crusades.
I think that the RLs don't care what sane people consider them, they most certainly consider themselves to be true muslims. Much like the crusaders did consider themselves good christians. Sane muslims claiming the RL muslims aren't "true" muslims is a cheap cop-out. That's like saying the crusaders or the inquisition weren't actually christians. Obviously there are ways in which the teachings of the respective religion can be interpreted in both sane and RL ways. Of course, for me as an atheist, it's easy to claim that those are deficits of the religions, but what good is a religion, if it can be interpreted any way you want? Please note that this isn't a criticism of islam only; to creatively mashup Lessing and Tolkien metaphors, IMO its time for mankind to throw all their stupid rings into the volcano.
</rant>
However, our heavy reliance on the media today gives us a rather distorted view of reality.
Full ACK, but that's by definition (all media must be biased somehow), and the possibilities to access news with a wide range of different biases are way better (or at least no worse) today than even ten or twenty years ago. (Example: Salam Pax)
Of course someone who only gets his news through one channel will get that channels bias, too. The problem is IMO an educational one; people should be taught to diversify their information sources.
You can't deny the blatant bias of the mainstream media nor can you claim that the west is treating Israelis and Palestinians as equals (In your own words: Israel is more or less a western country).
That certainly depends, over here (Austria), during the Israeli invasion in Lebanon, Israel certainly didn't look too good in the media and got its fair share of criticism, and while I think that Israel must be able to do something if rockets are lobbed at it from lebanon and the lebanese government is unable or unwilling to do anything about it, the Israeli actions were certainly portrayed as too severe if not unjustified in the media.
This is/. for heaven's sake; Nobody wants to burn anything besides DVDs here.
Slashdot Mirror
Me believing to be the worlds greatest lover/hacker/driver isn't a religion, is it?
To quote from wikipedia:
So I'd claim that my personal belief that there is no god isn't religion, whereas if i were to get together with other similar-minded people for some atheistic rituals, it probably would be a religion.
s/here/on\ this\ planet
Made that a bit less ambiguous.
Someone able to produce a perfect replica of a picasso won't be able to fake some papers?
Assuming it was a perfect copy (on the molecular level), how would you even know the difference between original and copy?
That's because trademarks apply only to the business areas they are registered for. For example, the manufacturer of shiny computers can use the same name as the record label that released the Beatles' records, since they aren't in the same business. (Until ITMS, that is.)
Firebird-the-database is a DBMS, which, as everyone knows, is a big piece of metal that doesn't move and holds important data. Firefox-the-browser is a vehicle for travelling through the intartubes. It's obvious that the former is almost (but not quite) entirely unlike a car, whereas you probably would need a drivers' licence to use the latter, if it weren't for the lawlessness of teh intartubewebs.
Since that was posted as AC I can't prove that I didn't say that, only claim so, which I hereby do[1].
Good to see that we agree on the "side effects" DRM can have.
Now for the "primary purpose" thing, we could probably argue about that all day long; since we can't read the minds of label bosses and film studio executives, we can only guess about what their primary intent is, but I doubt that "primary purpose" vs. "side effect" is relevant at all. If i can't format-shift the music i paid, it doesn't matter to me if that was intended right from the start, if it was just found to be a great idea or even if it is totally accidential.
DRM will have all those effects once it works good enough and is widely applied, and that's what is relevant if we want to assess the morals of DRM.
[1] Actually I could imagine plenty of uses for keeping a user from making full use of data that he can access, most of them having their "acy" prefixed with "priv" and not "pir".
"Ich bin ein Amerikaner"
That's correct; i made a distinction between nuisances that are intentional and those that are implementation artifacts. Obviously, if you try to hack DRM onto something that was designed without DRM in mind, you'll end up with lots of the latter.
But that certainly doesn't mean that properly designed DRM systems cannot have bugs, too.
Strictly speaking, you're wrong here. I'll use DVDs as an example for proper DRM systems here, since the cryptographic strength is no concern.
If a large-scale piracy operation has the machinery to produce a 1:1 copy of a DVD (which isn't possible with consumer DVD burners, but certainly with the equipment that the legitimate content producers have), they can easily produce pirated DVDs with the DRM intact and they'll play perfectly on any DVD player.
Actually, the factories that press the original DVDs could simply press some more than the copyright owner ordered, and those would be playable illegal copies with the DRM intact. AFAIK large-scale clothing/shoe counterfeiting often works like that.
Do you have anything to back that up? I doubt it is even possible to distinguish between originally-unencumbered copies and DRM-stripped ones to gather numbers for this kind of estimation. Or did you mean that people don't strip DRM themselves because DRM-stripped copies are easily obtained from P2P networks? Then I'd have to agree, but that doesn't exactly demonstrate that DRM works.
That was one of my main points. The fact that your shows were DRMed made you jump through hoops to format-shift (you had to download them a second time). Had you pirated them right away you could easily have shifted them without a second download.
Are you sure that device-shifting, time-shifting, format-shifting limitations aren't intentional? Once DRM works really good and you can't just hop onto bittorrent or usenet to download unencumbered versions of your bought files, do you really think you won't have to shell out once for the $WHATEVER_COMES_AFTER_THE_CD, once for the ipod file, once for the zune file? Once HDTV and HDMI make it impossible to record stuff from the TV do you really think they'll send you recorded versions for free if you can prove that you watched the show?
Actually, DRM doesn't work against large-scale piracy (think bootlegged CDs/DVDs) AT ALL.
It only works against casual copying.
It also makes the software and hardware more complicated than required and therefore increases costs and decreases quality.
In combination with DMCA-like laws, it serves to turn "copyright" into "CopyWatchTimeshiftFormatshiftMediashiftOrDoAnyhth ingAtAllWithTheStuffYouJustSpentMoneyOnRight".
DRM and DMCA-like laws (in combination with the insane length of copyright protection) give a huge part of
Since at first I didn't succeed [getting my message across], I'll dust myself off and try again:
$LARGE_MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE releases DRM-laden content. $NICE_GUY buys said content and has to put up with whatever annoyances the DRM throws at him, which are twofold:
While $NICE_GUY struggles with the annoyances he paid $MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE to sprinkle the content with (DRM doesn't come for free), $EVIL_PIRATE_HAXOR has removed the DRM from the content and the unprotected copy found is ways through various invitation-only FTP servers to $P2p_NETWORK_OF_THE_WEEK.
$LAWSUIT_CANDIDATE now downloads the content and enjoys it without having to put up with any annoyances. That's a side effect of $MEDIA_CONGLOMERATE's interesting[2] decision when confronted with a competitor that offered their content for free but at a lower quality (only the raw content, no booklets or extras, maybe compressed a bit more, etc.) and a bit more different to get at (have to know how to use P2P software).
They decided to lower the quality of their own offering so that not only piracy is cheaper now, it's also more convenient. In that sense, DRM is indeed rather effective.
[1] DMCA and similar laws protect DRMed content specifically. That means, with unprotected content, if the copyright owner tells you that you're only allowed to access the content on Tuesdays, it's perfectly OK to say "yeah, whatever" and ignore said wish. If the content is DRMed and the DRM enforces that restriction, suddenly the law requires you to comply.
[2] read "retarded".
I want to add that #4 (BG being a good guy) and the idea that Microsoft is evil (for various definitions of "evil") aren't mutually exclusive, so what Mr. Gates does with his private fortune (and he certainly does much good) shouldn't cloud our judgement of Microsoft's actions which are a totally unrelated thing.
Except that DRM only works against those who obtain the data legally while those who obtain the data through unauthorized distribution actually get the data without DRM.
You misspelt "NSFW".
You must be new here.
[01:10] * ignorance is now known as G0D
[01:11] * G0D sets mode: +v Scott_Adams
[01:12] * G0D is now known as ignorance
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Meme.
Me too! And worst of all, I actually emerged mozilla-firefox-bin!
The original project proposal actually was for a game called "TAG" but on the way up the corporate food chain, a little typo was introduced.
Not if either party has Jack Thompson as its lawyer.
Note to self: if posting non-ascii characters, especially if they are the most important characters of the whole fucking post, use Preview.
ASCII-compatible replacement, because i can't be bothered to look up the character codes: "Lao kip" "Vietnamese dong" "Euro".
You misspelled . One currency sign certainly isn't enough for those greedy fuckers with their "internationalisation effort" and stuff.
Am I the only one who just had that old game pop up in his head? "Oy vey! More Lemmings!"
Shouldn't it be whitehouse.edu then?
Shouldn't it be whitehouse.edu then?
Probably. But that's because windows sucks. :)
I doubt anyone would consider himself a "raving lunatic". To be fair, as far as I know you, I wouldn't call you a raving lunatic either.
I think that the RLs don't care what sane people consider them, they most certainly consider themselves to be true muslims. Much like the crusaders did consider themselves good christians. Sane muslims claiming the RL muslims aren't "true" muslims is a cheap cop-out. That's like saying the crusaders or the inquisition weren't actually christians. Obviously there are ways in which the teachings of the respective religion can be interpreted in both sane and RL ways. Of course, for me as an atheist, it's easy to claim that those are deficits of the religions, but what good is a religion, if it can be interpreted any way you want? Please note that this isn't a criticism of islam only; to creatively mashup Lessing and Tolkien metaphors, IMO its time for mankind to throw all their stupid rings into the volcano.
</rant>
Full ACK, but that's by definition (all media must be biased somehow), and the possibilities to access news with a wide range of different biases are way better (or at least no worse) today than even ten or twenty years ago. (Example: Salam Pax)
Of course someone who only gets his news through one channel will get that channels bias, too. The problem is IMO an educational one; people should be taught to diversify their information sources.
That certainly depends, over here (Austria), during the Israeli invasion in Lebanon, Israel certainly didn't look too good in the media and got its fair share of criticism, and while I think that Israel must be able to do something if rockets are lobbed at it from lebanon and the lebanese government is unable or unwilling to do anything about it, the Israeli actions were certainly portrayed as too severe if not unjustified in the media.
LOL