The one thing that is holding me back from buying a consumer PVR/DVD recorder is that none of them are network enabled. Sucks to be limited to the internal HDD or disc-swapping -- I want to save recorded stuff to my network storage too!
And all the talk of being able to edit recorded material on the device itself -- bah humbug I say. I want a device that allows me to use Adobe Premiere to edit stuff, not the OSD!
Hey, isn't this what nachi (was supposed to do) did to msblast? So a virus that tries to clean up another virus in computers is BAD, but releasing one in humans is GOOD?
I'll bet you, oh anonymous coward with the big mouth, have never set foot in the woods in your life. Probably can't get your ass off that chair in front of your computer.
Sad that FIGHTING FOR MY FREEDOM only means no-one gets to observe you SITTING ON MY ASS ALL DAY.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The RIAA's actions are a REACTION to the millions of files being shared across the net. I'll bet you that they wouldn't have become so keen on DRM if all people really wanted to do was make lots of copies to play for themselves on all their own different devices.
The reality is very different to that. It's the unlicensed _distribution_ of music that has given rise to DRM. Sure, DRM is problematic in that it just can't restrict unlicensed distribution without restricting copying, period.
Anyone who bleats about his/her "rights" when it comes to copying music should be spending less time whining about the RIAA/DRM and more time challenging their friends, families, and more than likely themselves about distributing music without a licence to do so.
With so many IP addresses available (when it is finally implemented globally) free market principles should see the price of a fixed IP address plummeting. 1/340 billion billion billion billion of today's IP pricing doesn't even compute in financial terms, does it?
Guess it will be a good test of just how free the internet economy is...
I don't think the problem is the "do-not-forward" bit. The real problem is that it is Microsoft, or some other 3rd party, that will enforce the bit. That puts control of a document NOT in the hands of the corporate, but some other third party. The rights to do things with content should be controlled by the owner, not some third party, and certainly not someone as evil as M$.
You can play for free, altho to customize your character you have to pay. Chatting is controlled using Multiple Choice, so no chance of Evil Perverts Arranging Cross-State Meetings(tm). Only works with IE, however.
Oh, you play a toon character that has to play practical jokes on Evil thingies.
DRM:today you have access to the kernel. Tomorrow?
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
DRM isn't bad? Do you have any idea what DRM/means/? DRM requires content to be authorised by central "trusted" authorisation servers. That means that access to/your/ content is controlled by whoever controls the authentication servers. That means that you have to ask permission to view your own data!
How can that possibly be good? How can you give a mandate to something like that?
Pretending that it is an "arms race", and making sure everyone's got it would mean that DRM would become ubiquitous -- and that any data anyone produces will be placed under the dominion of the despotic maniacs behind "Trusted Computing".
Open Source should NEVER get into bed with DRM. It's laughable to think that anyone could DREAM that DRM would permit Open Source [software or content's] continued existence. Can you imagine giving someone sponsored by Bill the control over your access to the linux kernel? Allowing DRM to become ubiquitous, even tacitly supporting DRM would make that situation a reality.
It's the victim's fault, you see
on
Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, YOU'VE entirely missed the point of DRM. The trouble with your analogy is that you've decided that there are certain kinds of theft that are acceptable. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter whether I've left my door unlocked, or locked, or forgotten my walkman at the fast food joint -- or set my stereo up on the sidewalk. Somebody helps themselves to my property, it's theft, pure and simple. I shudder to think that there might be judges who will rule on the basis of your twisted perception of relative morality instead of on the basis of the law.
If DRM was what you say it is, then why are the media giants going after the file-swappers? If you're right, they don't have a leg to stand on! Their music is "out in the open". Nonsense -- they're going after the file swappers because the file swappers are in breach of copyright. There is already a basis in law that allows for prosecution of ppl who illegally copy. DRM is NOT about legal protection. DRM is about CONTENT CONTROL.
Slashdot Mirror
The one thing that is holding me back from buying a consumer PVR/DVD recorder is that none of them are network enabled. Sucks to be limited to the internal HDD or disc-swapping -- I want to save recorded stuff to my network storage too!
And all the talk of being able to edit recorded material on the device itself -- bah humbug I say. I want a device that allows me to use Adobe Premiere to edit stuff, not the OSD!
Hey, isn't this what nachi (was supposed to do) did to msblast? So a virus that tries to clean up another virus in computers is BAD, but releasing one in humans is GOOD?
I'll bet you, oh anonymous coward with the big mouth, have never set foot in the woods in your life. Probably can't get your ass off that chair in front of your computer.
Sad that FIGHTING FOR MY FREEDOM only means no-one gets to observe you SITTING ON MY ASS ALL DAY.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The RIAA's actions are a REACTION to the millions of files being shared across the net. I'll bet you that they wouldn't have become so keen on DRM if all people really wanted to do was make lots of copies to play for themselves on all their own different devices.
The reality is very different to that. It's the unlicensed _distribution_ of music that has given rise to DRM. Sure, DRM is problematic in that it just can't restrict unlicensed distribution without restricting copying, period.
Anyone who bleats about his/her "rights" when it comes to copying music should be spending less time whining about the RIAA/DRM and more time challenging their friends, families, and more than likely themselves about distributing music without a licence to do so.
Guess it will be a good test of just how free the internet economy is...
I don't think the problem is the "do-not-forward" bit. The real problem is that it is Microsoft, or some other 3rd party, that will enforce the bit. That puts control of a document NOT in the hands of the corporate, but some other third party. The rights to do things with content should be controlled by the owner, not some third party, and certainly not someone as evil as M$.
Feenix?
= No fee, plus phonetically flipping the bird.
You can play for free, altho to customize your character you have to pay. Chatting is controlled using Multiple Choice, so no chance of Evil Perverts Arranging Cross-State Meetings(tm). Only works with IE, however.
Oh, you play a toon character that has to play practical jokes on Evil thingies.
DRM isn't bad? Do you have any idea what DRM /means/? DRM requires content to be authorised by central "trusted" authorisation servers. That means that access to /your/ content is controlled by whoever controls the authentication servers. That means that you have to ask permission to view your own data!
How can that possibly be good? How can you give a mandate to something like that?
Pretending that it is an "arms race", and making sure everyone's got it would mean that DRM would become ubiquitous -- and that any data anyone produces will be placed under the dominion of the despotic maniacs behind "Trusted Computing".
Open Source should NEVER get into bed with DRM. It's laughable to think that anyone could DREAM that DRM would permit Open Source [software or content's] continued existence. Can you imagine giving someone sponsored by Bill the control over your access to the linux kernel? Allowing DRM to become ubiquitous, even tacitly supporting DRM would make that situation a reality.
No, YOU'VE entirely missed the point of DRM. The trouble with your analogy is that you've decided that there are certain kinds of theft that are acceptable. Theft is theft. It doesn't matter whether I've left my door unlocked, or locked, or forgotten my walkman at the fast food joint -- or set my stereo up on the sidewalk. Somebody helps themselves to my property, it's theft, pure and simple. I shudder to think that there might be judges who will rule on the basis of your twisted perception of relative morality instead of on the basis of the law.
If DRM was what you say it is, then why are the media giants going after the file-swappers? If you're right, they don't have a leg to stand on! Their music is "out in the open". Nonsense -- they're going after the file swappers because the file swappers are in breach of copyright. There is already a basis in law that allows for prosecution of ppl who illegally copy. DRM is NOT about legal protection. DRM is about CONTENT CONTROL.