Just like any cutting edge tech. Not so long ago you'd be writing graphics code in assembler. And dealing with the memory restrictions DOS had to offer.
On top of everything, the binary is a mismash of compiled executable chunks sitting in the interpreted code. Essentially the if a competitor or hacker gets the "executable" they can reverse engineer every bit of innovation you had done to cram your code into these tiny processors and reverse engineer your scientific algorithm at a very fine grain.
Big deal. It's funny how touchy people get the moment they do something vaguely original. The GPU's architecture is known, the optimization strategy for it is well documented. A big part of what you'll end up writing is just following the device's constraints, and so not really original.
Aren't scientists supposed to share data and knowledge, anyway?
So what are things like in IT in the USA? I hear there are people working 60 hours a week as well, and not getting paid for overtime. In the games industry, there are people working 80 hours. In the medical profession, 80 hours seems to be the average in the USA (at least according to Wikipedia).
Well, easy, that should be illegal as well.
Aside from that, studies show that productivity decreases after 40 hours anyway, so working 80 is completely pointless and counterproductive.
That only works for people who professionally drive cars. Somebody who just commutes to work isn't going to be in the right state of mind for precisely pressing the brake pedal when they suddenly realize they must brake NOW.
What gives you idea that there's some conglomerate of scientists that as a group decides "we will prioritize efficiency"? The people who made this light bulb probably specialize in fields completely unsuitable for contributing to fusion research. And scientists are people with their own interests. Just because you think that fusion is the thing we should be looking at doesn't mean anybody has to pay attention to your wishes
Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.
What a bunch of nonsense. There's a limited amount of oil in the ground anyway, even if shale oil increases the amount. That changes absolutely nothing about peak oil, except perhaps by postponing it by a little bit.
Also, things like shale oil are energy intensive to extract. Oil is only convenient because so far getting it has been easy. If you need to spend 2 gallons to dig up and progress 1 gallon, then it doesn't matter how much there is.
I think he was referring to trusted platform module (TPM) which can be used for good and not so good purposes. I don't see why Netflix would be interested in controlling your hardware. They have no stake in what happens to video that isn't delivered by them since they aren't the producers and are simply getting paid for being a provider.
Er, no. There are no good purposes for a TPM. See below. And TPM is pretty much equivalent to controlling my hardware, because that's what it's for: providing a way to certifiy to some third party that I've not modified my system, which includes starting from the bootloader and up to the browser I'm running.
TPM already exists and is installed in Intel based computers. Some encryption programs (The kind that keeps others from looking at YOUR stuff) can take advantage of it to increase data throughput. I think the hardware acceleration and being a "black box" are what Netflix is referring to.
Aha, that proves you have no clue what you're talking about. The TPM is in no way an accelerator. It's a slow, cheap chip, that sits on a slow bus. Any acceleration if it exists comes from special CPU instructions, which are completely separate from it. This existed on say, VIA CPUs well before the TPM came into being.
What the TPM is, is a key management device. It provides attestation (for instance, it could be used to prove to Netflix that my system hasn't been modified), and can work as key storage for say, disk encryption. The first is definitely not in my interest, and the second has very limited utility as the only thing it adds is tying disk encryption to a particular device. This is most of the time not in my interest either. Laptop falls and breaks? Say goodbye to your data, because you can't move that disk into a new laptop and type your password. Therefore I avoid any hardware that has a TPM like the plague.
The clue being that he mentions being beneficial for open source software since it wouldn't require some module that may not be compatible with the GPL or other licenses since it is already present in a lot of newer computers.
This goes directly against what the GPL intends to do: make software modifiable by the end user. A TPM is able to certify to a third party that I'm running a RIAA Certified (TM) version of Firefox. That is a perversion. The point of OSS for me is to really modify my software, and not just as some theoretical benefit.
This way Netflix would be able to offer streaming on platforms not currently supported by Silverlight.
Two things.
1. In my opinion, freedom and control of my hardware is more important than what Netflix wants. If lack of DRM is inconvenient to them, that's their problem.
2. The whole argument hinges on the incorrect idea that DRM is an enabler. It's not. Refuse it consistently, and content providers will have to offer content without DRM, as they have with music.
An interesting part of the discussion (TFA, basically) was that it was difficult if not impossible to completely ensure this in an opensource browser, because there wasn't really any way to stop the user from modifying the browser and dumping the decrypted frames and audio.
And that's precisely the problem I have with it. I absolutely do not want any of that crap on my computer. And a non-modifiable open source browser goes against the whole idea of what open source is about.
I don't believe you intended on making a straw man argument, so I'll ask again. What are your concerns about HTML5 based DRM other than your inability to "pirate" movies? Nevermind the fact that this does nothing to address the P2P file sharing and only exist to allow services like Netflix to exist.
No, that's precisely it. I'm simply thinking long term. Netflix's Mark Watson said:
There exist many devices with content protection mechanisms of various sorts baked into their firmware/hardware. Open source software could make use of such capabilities in just the same way as it makes use of other hardware capabilities,
This is an outright admission that hardware control is coming next. And I'm just not going to wait until they get to that stage.
What are your concerns about HTML5 based DRM other than your inability to "pirate" movies
It's about control, not piracy. This is for services like Netflix. If I'm a subscriber, I'm paying for it, therefore I can't possibly be a pirate regardless of delivery method. Even un-DRMed files will require an account to download, so I don't see where the piracy would be happening.
Nevermind the fact that this does nothing to address the P2P file sharing
Exactly. Therefore it in no way stops me from obtaining the content illegally, and is not about piracy at all, but control.
You say you don't want it and yet you say you are forced. Either you want it or not. No need for the hyperbole.
I have no clue what you're saying here. I object to DRM. I don't want to support it in any shape or form, therefore I oppose any widespread support for it in hardware or software, because then I'd inevitably have to pay for something that supports it, making me indirectly pay for development of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
Well buy the DVD then and rip it. There are perfectly good reasons to go with this.
Perfect example, btw. DVDs are a failed form of DRM that's been so cracked it's as good as if they didn't have any. Yet go figure, movies still sell on DVD. DRM is unnecessary.
Just don't expect to be using any download services ever because it totally unreasonable to think they would stream an entire library of content to your device in a format which can be ripped off by all and sundry. Even if you claim you are the most honest person in the world, you can bet for every one of you there are 100 other people delighted to just rip content.
I don't object to download services existing. I object to them being made an integral part of web standards.
Also, I think youtube, vimeo and magnatune must be a figment of my imagination.
And if we all grew wings we could fly. We can all conjure up scenarios which are never going to come to pass. The fact is that DRM is here to stay.
Wrong, the situation with music proves it's absolutely not necessary. The industry will whine about it, then still go and sell you the content because to do otherwise is suicide.
If you oppose DRM as it is implemented, a far better tact than lobbying for its abolishment is to lobby to put the rights back into DRM. If DRM actually proved my ownership of some digital content then I could argue for doctrine of first sale and all the rest of that stuff to apply to my digital content. I could sell my content, loan it, donate it with impunity. DRM can be a force for good but it requires legislation and some form of management platform that protects my ownership.
No, DRM is a travesty that must be completely done away with. There's no such thing as reasonable DRM. To "put the rights back" into it is to simply give me a plain MPEG (or whatever format you prefer) file.
Well, take the inability to downgrade the firmware on some cell phones and consoles, for instance. What is the purpose of that?
Normally, nobody would give a crap what I run on my hardware. However, DRM hinges on not letting the user do certain things. That means that when the DRM system has a fault in it that does allow getting around the limits, it must be plugged. Otherwise it would be just the matter of taking an old device, downloading a movie or whatever on it, and exploiting the flaw to get a copy.
So you get things like forced upgrades (no upgrade, no service!) and the impossibility of downgrading, even if the upgrade turns out to be buggy as heck. You can only hope that the manufacturer deems the issue important enough to fix in a future update.
So, somebody else is dictating what I run on my hardware. That is loss of control.
It is very different. In banking through TLS, the end user gets completely unencrypted data. You can copy/paste, save or print the page from the bank website if you like. And the security of the whole thing doesn't depend on the computer limiting you in any way.
In contrast, with DRM, the end objective is keeping the decrypted data from ever being available to the user, which involves making the hardware and software work in such a way that the user is unable to get to it.
The notion that unavailability of DRM will cause providers to suddenly come to their senses and offer their products DRM-free is absurd. Rather, they will continue to offer it through systems that support it. DRM will disappear as companies realize that it is costing far more in profits that it gains them, not because somebody imposes it upon them.
No, that was precisely it. IIRC, the catalyst of it was iTunes removing DRM. So as a distributor you could either sell through iTunes, which didn't give you DRM but had a huge userbase, or you could sell it DRMed to a tiny market. Guess which was the better option economically.
It's simple: if the DRM market shrinks enough it won't matter how much they want it, it'll simply be a road to bankruptcy to try to insist on it.
But they cannot require you to purchase DRM content. You still have a choice whether to buy it or not. But it sounds like you want to deny that choice to others.
Sure, if you want to see it that way, yes, I want to deny that choice to others.
This is ridiculous sophistry. Being somebody who theoretically can play that kind of content does not put a cent in any provider's pocket. Their profits come from actual customers, not theoretical ones.
It does have a very important effect. How a product gets offered is affected by how it can be delivered. For instance, games are made taking into the account the number of people with each console. Well, if I object to a method of distribution, I get a better effect by not being available on it in the first place. If I'm in the set of people who can play non-DRMed video, but not in the set of people who can play DRMed video, then if you want me as a customer you HAVE to release it without DRM.
Why would anybody want to have access to "DRM protected content"? It gains you nothing over plain content. When DRM for music went away, were you suddenly unable to buy music? No, they still sell it to you, just without DRM. And you probably get it cheaper too, because without DRM they have no hold on you.
But trying to prevent others from having access to DRM-protected content is making the decision for others.
And by making DRM a standard, they're making a decision for me too. See how it works?
I don't want to provide support for DRM in any shape or form. But it's not as easy as just not subscribing to Netflix, because this kind of standard will ensure that I will ultimately have to pay for it, in one way or another. By simply using a browser that supports it, because there's a standard for it, I will be counted as somebody who can play that kind of content, no matter how much I don't want to. And if I use a commercial OS, part of the money I pay will be spent on developing the functionality that Netflix wants, even if I want nothing to do with Netflix.
If Netflix really wants some special video playing tech, they can manufacture their own tablet, and write their own software. So that their subscribers cover 100% of the cost, and I 0%.
Movies are not a necessity of life, so there's always a way to not buy into it. Don't like the terms? Read a book, instead.
And I don't. Yet one more reason to object to having my hardware and software be forced to support something I don't want to.
I think that DRM on video will ultimately die out, much as it has on music, as providers realize that users are willing to pay for convenience. I don't want to own any movies, I just want to be able to watch what I want, when I want, and I am willing to pay for the convenience of not owning and organizing my own video files. Eventually, producers will realize that they are just wasting money with this sysiphean pursuit of absolute control.
Here we disagree: I do want to own my movies. I want to be the one who decides, absolutely, what I watch, when I watch, where I watch, and on what terms I watch.
But obstructing the technology is not a way of hastening that transition.
Why not? If everybody right now decided that they will not accept DRM, it'd die tomorrow. The more opposition there is, and the less convenient it is, the faster it will die. It won't go away because the industry decides to be nice one day, it will because it's the most profitable option. People complained a lot about DRM on music, and look, it went away.
I must have read a different article. All I see is a desire for a standardized mechanism to allow DRM protected video to play using plugins within HTML5
DRM == giving control of my computer to somebody else.
The only thing remotely close to what you are concerned about is perhaps they are trying to take away your ability to view copyrighted material without subscribing to a service providing the video stream. In that case, I'm not sympathetic to your cause.
No, it won't actually do that, because I still could obtain the content without subscribing to the service, I'd just have to find it on a P2P network.
Sure it will: the browser at the very least. And to make it effective instead of just pointless it'll eventually require hardware restrictions.
So I don't really see how it is any of your business what hardware I buy or what software I install in order to run Netflix.
It's my business because even if I don't watch Netflix, a standard will ensure that my browser will have to implement it anyway. And I don't want to contribute a cent to that.
Er, no it isn't. You are not forced to use the service, but if you do you abide by the terms and conditions of usage
I object to the enforcement technology itself existing. Whether the service is something I want to use or not is another matter entirely.
The encryption is there to stop people from ripping off the content in ways the service does not permit, possibly for contractual reasons with the content providers.
Laws and influence. If they get their way eventually hardware without such things simply won't exist. There won't be a way not to buy into it, because every single computer will come with it included.
Dear Wowsers. The internet IS NOT YOURS EITHER. Don't like a protocol, file format, or DRM scheme? DONT USE IT.
And I won't. But I'll also use all other avenues available: I'll make sure to be as much of a pain in the ass as possible to those who work against my interests. They try to use legislation, and standards and I'll make sure to extert the opposite pressure.
so what fucking business is it of yours as to how Netflix delivers content? Its not your business at all, BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS NOT YOURS.
It's an attempt to screw with my hardware and software, which is very much my business.
Bullshit. The music industry didn't want that either, yet go figure, now MP3 is sold with no DRM.
The industry, in the end, cares about money. Make DRM unprofitable, and it'll go away, one way or another. Making it disappear is just a matter of putting up a decent opposition.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like any cutting edge tech. Not so long ago you'd be writing graphics code in assembler. And dealing with the memory restrictions DOS had to offer.
Big deal. It's funny how touchy people get the moment they do something vaguely original. The GPU's architecture is known, the optimization strategy for it is well documented. A big part of what you'll end up writing is just following the device's constraints, and so not really original.
Aren't scientists supposed to share data and knowledge, anyway?
Well, easy, that should be illegal as well.
Aside from that, studies show that productivity decreases after 40 hours anyway, so working 80 is completely pointless and counterproductive.
Russia did build one.
That only works for people who professionally drive cars. Somebody who just commutes to work isn't going to be in the right state of mind for precisely pressing the brake pedal when they suddenly realize they must brake NOW.
No, stop staring at the sky, and get off your ass and do something about it.
At least make a donation to the EFF.
Heh, only in the US people vehemently argue for their right to get screwed.
Except things don't really work that way.
What gives you idea that there's some conglomerate of scientists that as a group decides "we will prioritize efficiency"? The people who made this light bulb probably specialize in fields completely unsuitable for contributing to fusion research. And scientists are people with their own interests. Just because you think that fusion is the thing we should be looking at doesn't mean anybody has to pay attention to your wishes
Because other people often end up paying when people like yourself end up flying out of their windshield.
What a bunch of nonsense. There's a limited amount of oil in the ground anyway, even if shale oil increases the amount. That changes absolutely nothing about peak oil, except perhaps by postponing it by a little bit.
Also, things like shale oil are energy intensive to extract. Oil is only convenient because so far getting it has been easy. If you need to spend 2 gallons to dig up and progress 1 gallon, then it doesn't matter how much there is.
Er, no. There are no good purposes for a TPM. See below. And TPM is pretty much equivalent to controlling my hardware, because that's what it's for: providing a way to certifiy to some third party that I've not modified my system, which includes starting from the bootloader and up to the browser I'm running.
Aha, that proves you have no clue what you're talking about. The TPM is in no way an accelerator. It's a slow, cheap chip, that sits on a slow bus. Any acceleration if it exists comes from special CPU instructions, which are completely separate from it. This existed on say, VIA CPUs well before the TPM came into being.
What the TPM is, is a key management device. It provides attestation (for instance, it could be used to prove to Netflix that my system hasn't been modified), and can work as key storage for say, disk encryption. The first is definitely not in my interest, and the second has very limited utility as the only thing it adds is tying disk encryption to a particular device. This is most of the time not in my interest either. Laptop falls and breaks? Say goodbye to your data, because you can't move that disk into a new laptop and type your password. Therefore I avoid any hardware that has a TPM like the plague.
This goes directly against what the GPL intends to do: make software modifiable by the end user. A TPM is able to certify to a third party that I'm running a RIAA Certified (TM) version of Firefox. That is a perversion. The point of OSS for me is to really modify my software, and not just as some theoretical benefit.
Two things.
1. In my opinion, freedom and control of my hardware is more important than what Netflix wants. If lack of DRM is inconvenient to them, that's their problem.
2. The whole argument hinges on the incorrect idea that DRM is an enabler. It's not. Refuse it consistently, and content providers will have to offer content without DRM, as they have with music.
And that's precisely the problem I have with it. I absolutely do not want any of that crap on my computer. And a non-modifiable open source browser goes against the whole idea of what open source is about.
No, that's precisely it. I'm simply thinking long term. Netflix's Mark Watson said:
This is an outright admission that hardware control is coming next. And I'm just not going to wait until they get to that stage.
It's about control, not piracy. This is for services like Netflix. If I'm a subscriber, I'm paying for it, therefore I can't possibly be a pirate regardless of delivery method. Even un-DRMed files will require an account to download, so I don't see where the piracy would be happening.
Exactly. Therefore it in no way stops me from obtaining the content illegally, and is not about piracy at all, but control.
I have no clue what you're saying here. I object to DRM. I don't want to support it in any shape or form, therefore I oppose any widespread support for it in hardware or software, because then I'd inevitably have to pay for something that supports it, making me indirectly pay for development of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
Perfect example, btw. DVDs are a failed form of DRM that's been so cracked it's as good as if they didn't have any. Yet go figure, movies still sell on DVD. DRM is unnecessary.
I don't object to download services existing. I object to them being made an integral part of web standards.
Also, I think youtube, vimeo and magnatune must be a figment of my imagination.
Wrong, the situation with music proves it's absolutely not necessary. The industry will whine about it, then still go and sell you the content because to do otherwise is suicide.
No, DRM is a travesty that must be completely done away with. There's no such thing as reasonable DRM. To "put the rights back" into it is to simply give me a plain MPEG (or whatever format you prefer) file.
Well, take the inability to downgrade the firmware on some cell phones and consoles, for instance. What is the purpose of that?
Normally, nobody would give a crap what I run on my hardware. However, DRM hinges on not letting the user do certain things. That means that when the DRM system has a fault in it that does allow getting around the limits, it must be plugged. Otherwise it would be just the matter of taking an old device, downloading a movie or whatever on it, and exploiting the flaw to get a copy.
So you get things like forced upgrades (no upgrade, no service!) and the impossibility of downgrading, even if the upgrade turns out to be buggy as heck. You can only hope that the manufacturer deems the issue important enough to fix in a future update.
So, somebody else is dictating what I run on my hardware. That is loss of control.
It is very different. In banking through TLS, the end user gets completely unencrypted data. You can copy/paste, save or print the page from the bank website if you like. And the security of the whole thing doesn't depend on the computer limiting you in any way.
In contrast, with DRM, the end objective is keeping the decrypted data from ever being available to the user, which involves making the hardware and software work in such a way that the user is unable to get to it.
No, that was precisely it. IIRC, the catalyst of it was iTunes removing DRM. So as a distributor you could either sell through iTunes, which didn't give you DRM but had a huge userbase, or you could sell it DRMed to a tiny market. Guess which was the better option economically.
It's simple: if the DRM market shrinks enough it won't matter how much they want it, it'll simply be a road to bankruptcy to try to insist on it.
Sure, if you want to see it that way, yes, I want to deny that choice to others.
It does have a very important effect. How a product gets offered is affected by how it can be delivered. For instance, games are made taking into the account the number of people with each console. Well, if I object to a method of distribution, I get a better effect by not being available on it in the first place. If I'm in the set of people who can play non-DRMed video, but not in the set of people who can play DRMed video, then if you want me as a customer you HAVE to release it without DRM.
Why would anybody want to have access to "DRM protected content"? It gains you nothing over plain content. When DRM for music went away, were you suddenly unable to buy music? No, they still sell it to you, just without DRM. And you probably get it cheaper too, because without DRM they have no hold on you.
And by making DRM a standard, they're making a decision for me too. See how it works?
I don't want to provide support for DRM in any shape or form. But it's not as easy as just not subscribing to Netflix, because this kind of standard will ensure that I will ultimately have to pay for it, in one way or another. By simply using a browser that supports it, because there's a standard for it, I will be counted as somebody who can play that kind of content, no matter how much I don't want to. And if I use a commercial OS, part of the money I pay will be spent on developing the functionality that Netflix wants, even if I want nothing to do with Netflix.
If Netflix really wants some special video playing tech, they can manufacture their own tablet, and write their own software. So that their subscribers cover 100% of the cost, and I 0%.
And I don't. Yet one more reason to object to having my hardware and software be forced to support something I don't want to.
Here we disagree: I do want to own my movies. I want to be the one who decides, absolutely, what I watch, when I watch, where I watch, and on what terms I watch.
Why not? If everybody right now decided that they will not accept DRM, it'd die tomorrow. The more opposition there is, and the less convenient it is, the faster it will die. It won't go away because the industry decides to be nice one day, it will because it's the most profitable option. People complained a lot about DRM on music, and look, it went away.
DRM == giving control of my computer to somebody else.
No, it won't actually do that, because I still could obtain the content without subscribing to the service, I'd just have to find it on a P2P network.
I object to people using my hardware to control their content. And really I object to people trying to control their content too.
IMO the copyright lobby has already got way too much. It's time to cut those things down considerably.
Sure it will: the browser at the very least. And to make it effective instead of just pointless it'll eventually require hardware restrictions.
It's my business because even if I don't watch Netflix, a standard will ensure that my browser will have to implement it anyway. And I don't want to contribute a cent to that.
I object to the enforcement technology itself existing. Whether the service is something I want to use or not is another matter entirely.
I don't really care
Laws and influence. If they get their way eventually hardware without such things simply won't exist. There won't be a way not to buy into it, because every single computer will come with it included.
And I won't. But I'll also use all other avenues available: I'll make sure to be as much of a pain in the ass as possible to those who work against my interests. They try to use legislation, and standards and I'll make sure to extert the opposite pressure.
It's an attempt to screw with my hardware and software, which is very much my business.
Bullshit. The music industry didn't want that either, yet go figure, now MP3 is sold with no DRM.
The industry, in the end, cares about money. Make DRM unprofitable, and it'll go away, one way or another. Making it disappear is just a matter of putting up a decent opposition.