You're half right; I may not enter your house, but it's because that would be trespassing. But if you had a bright light that shone out from your house onto the sidewalk, there's no reason I can't use that light to read a book, or power my solar powered calculator.
I forgot to address this one. That analogy is just plain silly. Light shining onto the sidewalk from your house is not a limited resource in the sense that using it in such a way denies its owner/creator of anything. Therefore it is definitely *not* a theft of service. Stop there in the dark, if you wish, to see and select the next playlist on your iPod, I could give a care. (Loiter there too long, though, and I may come out to see what you're up to!)
Same thing sort of applies to the outdoor concert. If the promoters cared, they would move it inside. Listening from the other side of the park (if they havn't cordoned it off) is no skin off anyone's nose. Most would argue the value of the concert is in the total experience: sounds, light show, other sights, crowd, camraderie, (smells;-) the total effect of which can only be experienced within the perimeter. I used to attend concerts at Ravinia Park near my hometown in Illinois. You could go to certain areas of the park, without paying, and could hear the music. Nobody cared. If you wanted the whole shebang, you had to pay and get "inside".
All of these analogies are specious at best. They serve to confuse the issue. Stealing wireless bandwidth is, well, stealing wireless bandwidth (unless you're authorized to use it, in which case it ain't stealing). If you're authorized, you'd know it.
The only counter-argument I can think of is that you're going through their network without proper authorization.
That is the *real* point. Is it not? Anyone who knows how to use such a network also knows that they are doing so without authorization. It is thus exactly a theft of a service. However, no court is going to rule that it's your fault for using the network when there were no signs saying you couldn't, no public documentation saying you couldn't, and no security systems you had to actively bypass.
Here we disagree again. There is no "No Trespassing" sign on my front door. I am not required to post public documents stating that random passers-by may not enter to use my water, bathroom or electricity. It is a reasonable assumption to be made by reasonable individuals that this is, in fact, the case. And no company/network admin would be willing to accept the professional embarassment that would come shoud they whine publicly about their own lack of security.
Truer words were never spoken. I would be embarassed if I left my keys in the car and, as a result, it was stolen. Still doesn't make it right. (Look! I found a money bag in the street clearly marked from "1st National Bank of Podunk" with 5000 dollars inside. They shouldn't have left it laying here. Whose is it, and what should be done with it?)
Unless the company owns the land and airspace where the wireless network reaches, people should be free to stand on public ground and use their computers. If there's a hilltop in a public park from which you can see and hear a concert, or athletic event, is it 'stealing' to sit on that hill and enjoy the entertainment? Any network administrator that allows an insecure wireless signal to be accessible from a sidewalk should know better.
No way can that concert analogy come even close. Sitting any distance away and listening to the music that drifts out from an outdoor (or indoor) concert takes nothing from the promoters, the band, nor the paying audience. That is a freebie. Using a wireless network resource clearly consumes a limited resource that *is* being payed for by the legitimate users.
As for leaving their beer on the sidewalk... just plain dumb. But, didn't anyone else's mother teach them not to take what they KNOW does not belong to them?
Yup, the network admin should know better, but that doesn't make it right to take or use what is clearly not yours. If I mistakenly leave my frontdoor unlocked, it does not entitle anyone to come into my house, use my bathroom, drink my water, use my lights or anything of mine without my permission beforehand.
Why can't a community of otherwise intelligent (?) technical individuals distinguish the difference? This *is* a matter of right and wrong. "Because it's there" works for climbing mountains, but not in this argument...
Actually, that's not true. IANAL, but I believe it is legally termed "theft of services". Other examples: viewing certain cable or satellite channels without "permission" (a.k.a without paying for them), taking your mound of garbage down to the local 7-11 and filling their dumpster with it, running an electrical extension cable from the outdoor outlet on your neighbour's back porch and using his electricity while he's away.
I'm not positing whether any of these are right or wrong - I have my opinions on each but I won't get into that. There is a legal definition for these acts however and I wouldn't want to find myself on the wrong end of any of those arguments in a court.
That said, the simple act of marking with chalk on a sidewalk clearly is not theft. Doing something with that information to use services that one did not pay for would seem to fit the "theft of services", though.
This is not a "channel change" in the way you are interpreting it. In the digital video stream vernacular, a channel change can also refer simply to the act of changing the program stream (in this case for insertion of material) in a (hopefully) seamless maner.
Smooth channel changes is one of the early problems that digital video decoder and set-top box manufacturers wrestled with (some still do). Changing smoothly from one stream to another without a macroblock storm visible to the viewer still is one of the key requirements for such systems.
This capability is important not only for truly changing channels under user control, but also for insertion of local program material at the cablehead. The term "channel change" is used for both scenarios since the operations required of the set-top box are the same in either case.
Unless I missed it, the Sci-Fi channel's web site is remarkably silent on this topic. Sure seems like this is a hoax to me... Wouldn't be the first time someone reacted to a false report in a chatroom. (And I'm sure we could never imagine a chat session being hacked, now have we?)
The only item of note on Farscape's pages at SciFi.com is that new episodes will be out in 2003 to finish the second half of the "fourth" season. Looks like Crichton won't be left floating in orbit over Earth after all.
quite old technology really. The U.S. has had, for years, the capability to exploit such "emitters of opportunity" to precisely locate aircraft and even trace back projectiles to their launch point. It's a form of triangulation that involves resolving the time difference of arrival and Doppler difference of arrival of reflected signals to give both position and velocity information. The math is not too hard, but doing it in real time is real hard (at least it was back when I first learned of it).
What surprises me is that it would work with something with as intentionally small a radar cross-section as a stealth aircraft (with electronic counter measures to boot).
Self contained DVD playback in a PC is a different matter, you are correct. In our testing of our CSS descrambler and DVD apps that used it, the MPEG decode and render process handled either PAL or NTSC without a problem (on the PC display).
The issue really comes about when you move the renderer out of the box (such as is the case with a consumer DVD player and a TV). This was also true if we took the signal out of the PC to a TV or monitor via a DENC - then we're back again to the scenario as I described in my previous post.
They amount to be effectively identical, which is why they get lumped together. Also, the Key distribution of CSS *is* region specific, so its not possible to be region free and CSS'd, because not all dvd players have all decrytion keys, they only have the ones for their region. (This is more based upon the implementation rather than the algorithm of css)
Absitively false. CSS and RPC encoding are two completely independent protection methods for completely independent target end results.
CSS encryption was intended to protect the content on the disc with encryption based on disc and title keys and a consortium-issued player or manufacturer key.
The RPC encoding is intended to prevent the disc from being played in the "wrong" region.
The reason these are both often lumped together is that they are part of the same specification issued to DVD descrambler/player manufacturers, which are required (supposedly) to implement both these facets of protection in a DVD player shipped to end users.
I can tell you without fear of contradiction (I worked on a software CSS descrambler for PC's) - the master key our player used did not change depending upon what region we were set for.
I won't imply you're on crack, but your answer is not quite right, either. The PAL or NTSC info is, indeed, part of the MPEG encoded information on the disc. If you have a PAL DVD, you cannot play it unless: 1) you have a PAL TV or monitor or 2) your DVD player can emit NTSC to an NTSC TV or monitor.
Swap PAL for NTSC and vice versa in the previous sentence and you'll have the same scenario for playing an NTSC disc elsewhere in the world.
It is more like a "slap" sound, the sound your one hand makes as it slaps upside the head of the wannabe monk who asked you the question in the first place!
You cannot patent an "algorithm", but you can patent a method, or a software sequence that does something novel (or in a way that it has not been done before and shows a clear improvement over what someone of ordinary skill in the art might have created).
For example, Winograd's algorithm allows you to compute the product of two complex numbers with three multiplies and five adds instead of the usual four and two. (This was used to save CPU cycles on machines where multiplies *used to be* expensive.) This is not patented, neither is it patentable; it is a tautology.
Inventing a new progam that does something interesting, in a novel way, with complex multiplies is patentable. (farfetched e.g.... Using complex math in a new and improved text-to-speech processing method would get through the USPTO.)
Never ascribe to malice that which can equally be ascribed to stupidity (or incompetence or ignorance, etc.).
That said, I'll stick my neck out a little further. I've seen and read a lot of bad, malicious things stated about Ashcroft. Do we really believe that he wants to establish some kind of police state where the government rules every aspect of our little lives. Don't you believe it! This cannot be a power grab - he'll be gone with the next Administration. He means well, I really believe that. Problem is, he doesn't have all the facts, hasn't thought everything through (who could sift through it all?) and faced with the horrific potential of psychotic acts such as occurred on 9/11, he is terrified at what could happen if he fails to do his job. How many of us have put error checks into code for things that we thought might never happen, but we were just trying to be thorough?
The conclusion: The more freedom you give up, the more privacy you give up, the more power you give the government, the more they will screw you over. And they will use that power to do more of the things overseas that generate terrorist attacks, because YOU won't be able to tell them that they can't.
Don't look now, but I think your tin-foil hat needs adjustment!
This "the government is evil" nonsense is such tiring drivel. I do not believe, for even a millisecond, that the government is out to "screw us over". I think it it is more accurate to say that, in many areas, they don't understand or otherwise have a clue. (That said, I also believe that individuals such as Hollings-in-Disney's-pocket may be a credible counter example.) Our responsibility as citizens is to make them understand (i.e. exercise our voice in the government - the real meaning of freedom of speech) so that they can legislate and act according to the will of the people. If they don't, then our next obligation is to vote them out.
All this black helicopter nonsense does is add heat, rather than light, to the topic at hand.
Close, but not quite. Usury is the act or practice of lending money at excessive, exorbitant or (possibly) illegal interest rates. (Some credit card rates surely seem to fit that description.)
The sects you describe are fringe, at best, and could hardly be considered as "many". Any Christian organization of which I have been a part has encouraged saving (hence earned interest) and the appropriate use of loans within reason (bought a home lately?). Where they do admonish people to be careful is in the case of frivolous loans beyond people's means, credit for instantaneous gratification and the excess (usury) interest paid to credit card companies as a result.
Anything falling outside of that range would be, I admit, preaching-turned-to-meddling.
The 'logic' behind region encoding is to allow the motion picture industry to phase the release of movies across the globe.
Not all movies are released at the same time in all countries. They usually are released in the US first, Europe and Japan next, etc. A movie may actually be released on DVD or VHS in the US before it hits the theatres in some countries.
Regional playback controls are thus an attempt to keep DVD sales from eating into theatre revenues in countries where theatre release is significantly later in time than it is in the US.
I don't agree with it, but that's the reason.
What if the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about?
Funny, huh?! This is major egg-on-the-face for the developers of that so-called protection. In my 'experience', this has always been the case. Even the most sophisticated protections are defeated by the simplest of hacks. You can keep your data encrypted, and protect the decryption routines with anti-debugging methods but, at some point, the data must be rendered. Once it's rendered, it's fair game again and everything you did until that point is moot. Take TotalRecorder, AudioJacker, LoopRecorder, InternetNinja, even the PrintScreen key as examples of that. (Or a scheme of siphoning the audio from a protected DVD by rendering it in a hand-built filter graph with a splitter and dump filter in the audio path.)
This latest hack is a twist on that theme - the marked lines invalidate the disc track that's supposed to keep make your PC think it has a bad disc. If you kill the bogus track, the PC's CD-ROM drive can simply go on to rendering the next one, the real one.
No matter what you do in the digital world, there is still the possibility of ripping at the analog level. Standard consumer equipment exists that can make a really good A/D conversion and get a high-quality rendering of the audio content back into the digital realm without any DRM encumbrances. CD players exist that have digital output (S/PDIF) - run that output back into a sound card with matching inputs and you're done. Any of these so-called protected discs can be played, and ripped, in such a set-up. My goofy DVD/CD/MP3 player has such an output (yours too?). Once you have one digital copy, it'll show up on the Internet all over again.
Only by encrypting the data all the way to a closed rendering subsystem (decrypting speakers or headphones?) could you prevent this - and consumers will never stand still for that. Any solution that prevents consumers from getting their fair use out of purchased content, by that I mean the ability to play it wherever they want (iPod anyone?) is akin to handcuffing everyone in order to prevent crime.
This is a war that can never truly be won, the only solution is for the content producers to embrace the technology rather than trying to kill it. A new business model that exploits the Internet and its bandwidth and provides a reasonable exchange of fair value for goods received is the only way they can inhibit (not wipe out) piracy. If discs were fairly priced, rather than selling for 30 times their manufacturing cost, there would be little need or impetus for Joe-Sixpack to participate in piracy. If you could buy the songs you wanted, rather than pay full price for an album that has more filler than meat, that would also help.
I'd really like to see an unbiased, non-knee-jerk-reaction analysis of the so-called harm done to RIAA member studio profits by the file sharing. We've all read analysis that suggests CD sales were actually helped by the emergence of Napster. Recent downturns in the industry are more likely due to general lagging in the economy rather than lost sales due to piracy. Any 'solution' to this problem needs to take a cold, hard look at those facts, first.
I have a very curious view on this given that my 'job' for the last few years has been on the side of the protectors...
My TiVo came with an external IR emitter. If you have some sort of premium cable box (digital) you plug that emitter into the TiVo and tell it (TiVo) what type of service you were trying to control. The TiVo uses the emitter as a remote control and switches channels on the cable box just as if it were sitting on the couch watching the TV and eating popcorn. It can then record from any channel you can tune in.
Sure. Use it in movie theatres and performance halls to neuter those dumbass, suit-wearing, cellphone talking, consult-the-business-model, Viper driving, 30-something, "Hey, Bob, look at us: we're executives!" weenies who cannot be bothered to turn off their cell phones long enough for the others around them to enjoy a whole movie without an interruption from a phone beeping the tone sequence from Close Encounters.
(Can't remember where I get the first part of that rant - somewhere/sometime off a previous slashdot post. My apologies to the original author...)
I realize this is a late post and all (most readers have moved on to slash-bombing some other story), but thought I should pass along the results of some experiments I tried this week-end on a disc I suspected to be copy-protected.
I have a copy of America: A Tribute to Heroes. I tried to play this on my Wintel box, first in an HP CD-RW drive. When I popped it in, up popped the Windows Media Player to play, presumably, some secondary WMA files on the disk. I terminated the player and launched WinAmp to attempt to play the CD tracks themselves - they would not play. I then moved the disc to my second drive on that box, a DVD-ROM drive. WinAmp happily played them as CD tracks!
Finally, I took the disc over to my PowerBook with its DVD-ROM drive. Not only would it play there, but it was rippable by iTunes as well! Seems the reports I've heard about DVD-ROM drives being able to get past the copy protection are true.
Last, I took the disc back to fye where I bought it. Nobody in the store has heard of this problem, but I showed them a copy of the "return policy" page from the UMG web-site and they took it back and refunded my money without a hassle. This despite the fact it was well past their 30-day exchange-only time limit on opened CDs. If there is a backlash in progress, it hasn't hit Binghamton, New York yet.
Slashdot Mirror
You're half right; I may not enter your house, but it's because that would be trespassing. But if you had a bright light that shone out from your house onto the sidewalk, there's no reason I can't use that light to read a book, or power my solar powered calculator.
I forgot to address this one. That analogy is just plain silly. Light shining onto the sidewalk from your house is not a limited resource in the sense that using it in such a way denies its owner/creator of anything. Therefore it is definitely *not* a theft of service. Stop there in the dark, if you wish, to see and select the next playlist on your iPod, I could give a care. (Loiter there too long, though, and I may come out to see what you're up to!)
Same thing sort of applies to the outdoor concert. If the promoters cared, they would move it inside. Listening from the other side of the park (if they havn't cordoned it off) is no skin off anyone's nose. Most would argue the value of the concert is in the total experience: sounds, light show, other sights, crowd, camraderie, (smells
All of these analogies are specious at best. They serve to confuse the issue. Stealing wireless bandwidth is, well, stealing wireless bandwidth (unless you're authorized to use it, in which case it ain't stealing). If you're authorized, you'd know it.
The only counter-argument I can think of is that you're going through their network without proper authorization.
That is the *real* point. Is it not? Anyone who knows how to use such a network also knows that they are doing so without authorization. It is thus exactly a theft of a service.
However, no court is going to rule that it's your fault for using the network when there were no signs saying you couldn't, no public documentation saying you couldn't, and no security systems you had to actively bypass.
Here we disagree again. There is no "No Trespassing" sign on my front door. I am not required to post public documents stating that random passers-by may not enter to use my water, bathroom or electricity. It is a reasonable assumption to be made by reasonable individuals that this is, in fact, the case.
And no company/network admin would be willing to accept the professional embarassment that would come shoud they whine publicly about their own lack of security.
Truer words were never spoken. I would be embarassed if I left my keys in the car and, as a result, it was stolen. Still doesn't make it right. (Look! I found a money bag in the street clearly marked from "1st National Bank of Podunk" with 5000 dollars inside. They shouldn't have left it laying here. Whose is it, and what should be done with it?)
Unless the company owns the land and airspace where the wireless network reaches, people should be free to stand on public ground and use their computers. If there's a hilltop in a public park from which you can see and hear a concert, or athletic event, is it 'stealing' to sit on that hill and enjoy the entertainment? Any network administrator that allows an insecure wireless signal to be accessible from a sidewalk should know better.
No way can that concert analogy come even close. Sitting any distance away and listening to the music that drifts out from an outdoor (or indoor) concert takes nothing from the promoters, the band, nor the paying audience. That is a freebie. Using a wireless network resource clearly consumes a limited resource that *is* being payed for by the legitimate users.
As for leaving their beer on the sidewalk... just plain dumb. But, didn't anyone else's mother teach them not to take what they KNOW does not belong to them?
Yup, the network admin should know better, but that doesn't make it right to take or use what is clearly not yours. If I mistakenly leave my frontdoor unlocked, it does not entitle anyone to come into my house, use my bathroom, drink my water, use my lights or anything of mine without my permission beforehand.
Why can't a community of otherwise intelligent (?) technical individuals distinguish the difference? This *is* a matter of right and wrong. "Because it's there" works for climbing mountains, but not in this argument...
Actually, that's not true. IANAL, but I believe it is legally termed "theft of services". Other examples: viewing certain cable or satellite channels without "permission" (a.k.a without paying for them), taking your mound of garbage down to the local 7-11 and filling their dumpster with it, running an electrical extension cable from the outdoor outlet on your neighbour's back porch and using his electricity while he's away.
I'm not positing whether any of these are right or wrong - I have my opinions on each but I won't get into that. There is a legal definition for these acts however and I wouldn't want to find myself on the wrong end of any of those arguments in a court.
That said, the simple act of marking with chalk on a sidewalk clearly is not theft. Doing something with that information to use services that one did not pay for would seem to fit the "theft of services", though.
>Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue.
53966060713
Whew! I was stuck there in this thread for a moment...
This flippant answer brought to you by Mathematica 4.1 Trial Version
Come on now! I think you could come up with a better imaginary wife than that!
This is not a "channel change" in the way you are interpreting it. In the digital video stream vernacular, a channel change can also refer simply to the act of changing the program stream (in this case for insertion of material) in a (hopefully) seamless maner.
Smooth channel changes is one of the early problems that digital video decoder and set-top box manufacturers wrestled with (some still do). Changing smoothly from one stream to another without a macroblock storm visible to the viewer still is one of the key requirements for such systems.
This capability is important not only for truly changing channels under user control, but also for insertion of local program material at the cablehead. The term "channel change" is used for both scenarios since the operations required of the set-top box are the same in either case.
Unless I missed it, the Sci-Fi channel's web site is remarkably silent on this topic. Sure seems like this is a hoax to me... Wouldn't be the first time someone reacted to a false report in a chatroom. (And I'm sure we could never imagine a chat session being hacked, now have we?)
The only item of note on Farscape's pages at SciFi.com is that new episodes will be out in 2003 to finish the second half of the "fourth" season. Looks like Crichton won't be left floating in orbit over Earth after all.
Actually, breathing is obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art.
...they'll also discover the cure for "Quicksilver Madness" before this goes operational.
quite old technology really. The U.S. has had, for years, the capability to exploit such "emitters of opportunity" to precisely locate aircraft and even trace back projectiles to their launch point. It's a form of triangulation that involves resolving the time difference of arrival and Doppler difference of arrival of reflected signals to give both position and velocity information. The math is not too hard, but doing it in real time is real hard (at least it was back when I first learned of it).
What surprises me is that it would work with something with as intentionally small a radar cross-section as a stealth aircraft (with electronic counter measures to boot).
Self contained DVD playback in a PC is a different matter, you are correct. In our testing of our CSS descrambler and DVD apps that used it, the MPEG decode and render process handled either PAL or NTSC without a problem (on the PC display).
The issue really comes about when you move the renderer out of the box (such as is the case with a consumer DVD player and a TV). This was also true if we took the signal out of the PC to a TV or monitor via a DENC - then we're back again to the scenario as I described in my previous post.
They amount to be effectively identical, which is why they get lumped together. Also, the Key distribution of CSS *is* region specific, so its not possible to be region free and CSS'd, because not all dvd players have all decrytion keys, they only have the ones for their region. (This is more based upon the implementation rather than the algorithm of css)
Absitively false. CSS and RPC encoding are two completely independent protection methods for completely independent target end results.
CSS encryption was intended to protect the content on the disc with encryption based on disc and title keys and a consortium-issued player or manufacturer key.
The RPC encoding is intended to prevent the disc from being played in the "wrong" region.
The reason these are both often lumped together is that they are part of the same specification issued to DVD descrambler/player manufacturers, which are required (supposedly) to implement both these facets of protection in a DVD player shipped to end users.
I can tell you without fear of contradiction (I worked on a software CSS descrambler for PC's) - the master key our player used did not change depending upon what region we were set for.
I won't imply you're on crack, but your answer is not quite right, either. The PAL or NTSC info is, indeed, part of the MPEG encoded information on the disc. If you have a PAL DVD, you cannot play it unless: 1) you have a PAL TV or monitor or 2) your DVD player can emit NTSC to an NTSC TV or monitor.
Swap PAL for NTSC and vice versa in the previous sentence and you'll have the same scenario for playing an NTSC disc elsewhere in the world.
It is more like a "slap" sound, the sound your one hand makes as it slaps upside the head of the wannabe monk who asked you the question in the first place!
For example, Winograd's algorithm allows you to compute the product of two complex numbers with three multiplies and five adds instead of the usual four and two. (This was used to save CPU cycles on machines where multiplies *used to be* expensive.) This is not patented, neither is it patentable; it is a tautology.
Inventing a new progam that does something interesting, in a novel way, with complex multiplies is patentable. (farfetched e.g.... Using complex math in a new and improved text-to-speech processing method would get through the USPTO.)
Agreed. I don't know who said it but...
Never ascribe to malice that which can equally be ascribed to stupidity (or incompetence or ignorance, etc.).
That said, I'll stick my neck out a little further. I've seen and read a lot of bad, malicious things stated about Ashcroft. Do we really believe that he wants to establish some kind of police state where the government rules every aspect of our little lives. Don't you believe it! This cannot be a power grab - he'll be gone with the next Administration. He means well, I really believe that. Problem is, he doesn't have all the facts, hasn't thought everything through (who could sift through it all?) and faced with the horrific potential of psychotic acts such as occurred on 9/11, he is terrified at what could happen if he fails to do his job. How many of us have put error checks into code for things that we thought might never happen, but we were just trying to be thorough?
The conclusion: The more freedom you give up, the more privacy you give up, the more power you give the government, the more they will screw you over. And they will use that power to do more of the things overseas that generate terrorist attacks, because YOU won't be able to tell them that they can't.
Don't look now, but I think your tin-foil hat needs adjustment!
This "the government is evil" nonsense is such tiring drivel. I do not believe, for even a millisecond, that the government is out to "screw us over". I think it it is more accurate to say that, in many areas, they don't understand or otherwise have a clue. (That said, I also believe that individuals such as Hollings-in-Disney's-pocket may be a credible counter example.) Our responsibility as citizens is to make them understand (i.e. exercise our voice in the government - the real meaning of freedom of speech) so that they can legislate and act according to the will of the people. If they don't, then our next obligation is to vote them out.
All this black helicopter nonsense does is add heat, rather than light, to the topic at hand.
Close, but not quite. Usury is the act or practice of lending money at excessive, exorbitant or (possibly) illegal interest rates. (Some credit card rates surely seem to fit that description.)
The sects you describe are fringe, at best, and could hardly be considered as "many". Any Christian organization of which I have been a part has encouraged saving (hence earned interest) and the appropriate use of loans within reason (bought a home lately?). Where they do admonish people to be careful is in the case of frivolous loans beyond people's means, credit for instantaneous gratification and the excess (usury) interest paid to credit card companies as a result.
Anything falling outside of that range would be, I admit, preaching-turned-to-meddling.
The 'logic' behind region encoding is to allow the motion picture industry to phase the release of movies across the globe.
Not all movies are released at the same time in all countries. They usually are released in the US first, Europe and Japan next, etc. A movie may actually be released on DVD or VHS in the US before it hits the theatres in some countries.
Regional playback controls are thus an attempt to keep DVD sales from eating into theatre revenues in countries where theatre release is significantly later in time than it is in the US.
I don't agree with it, but that's the reason.
What if the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about?
This latest hack is a twist on that theme - the marked lines invalidate the disc track that's supposed to keep make your PC think it has a bad disc. If you kill the bogus track, the PC's CD-ROM drive can simply go on to rendering the next one, the real one.
No matter what you do in the digital world, there is still the possibility of ripping at the analog level. Standard consumer equipment exists that can make a really good A/D conversion and get a high-quality rendering of the audio content back into the digital realm without any DRM encumbrances. CD players exist that have digital output (S/PDIF) - run that output back into a sound card with matching inputs and you're done. Any of these so-called protected discs can be played, and ripped, in such a set-up. My goofy DVD/CD/MP3 player has such an output (yours too?). Once you have one digital copy, it'll show up on the Internet all over again.
Only by encrypting the data all the way to a closed rendering subsystem (decrypting speakers or headphones?) could you prevent this - and consumers will never stand still for that. Any solution that prevents consumers from getting their fair use out of purchased content, by that I mean the ability to play it wherever they want (iPod anyone?) is akin to handcuffing everyone in order to prevent crime.
This is a war that can never truly be won, the only solution is for the content producers to embrace the technology rather than trying to kill it. A new business model that exploits the Internet and its bandwidth and provides a reasonable exchange of fair value for goods received is the only way they can inhibit (not wipe out) piracy. If discs were fairly priced, rather than selling for 30 times their manufacturing cost, there would be little need or impetus for Joe-Sixpack to participate in piracy. If you could buy the songs you wanted, rather than pay full price for an album that has more filler than meat, that would also help.
I'd really like to see an unbiased, non-knee-jerk-reaction analysis of the so-called harm done to RIAA member studio profits by the file sharing. We've all read analysis that suggests CD sales were actually helped by the emergence of Napster. Recent downturns in the industry are more likely due to general lagging in the economy rather than lost sales due to piracy. Any 'solution' to this problem needs to take a cold, hard look at those facts, first.
I have a very curious view on this given that my 'job' for the last few years has been on the side of the protectors...
My TiVo came with an external IR emitter. If you have some sort of premium cable box (digital) you plug that emitter into the TiVo and tell it (TiVo) what type of service you were trying to control. The TiVo uses the emitter as a remote control and switches channels on the cable box just as if it were sitting on the couch watching the TV and eating popcorn. It can then record from any channel you can tune in.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 'Raj' probably reports to 'Bob'.
Sure. Use it in movie theatres and performance halls to neuter those dumbass, suit-wearing, cellphone talking, consult-the-business-model, Viper driving, 30-something, "Hey, Bob, look at us: we're executives!" weenies who cannot be bothered to turn off their cell phones long enough for the others around them to enjoy a whole movie without an interruption from a phone beeping the tone sequence from Close Encounters.
(Can't remember where I get the first part of that rant - somewhere/sometime off a previous slashdot post. My apologies to the original author...)
I realize this is a late post and all (most readers have moved on to slash-bombing some other story), but thought I should pass along the results of some experiments I tried this week-end on a disc I suspected to be copy-protected.
I have a copy of America: A Tribute to Heroes. I tried to play this on my Wintel box, first in an HP CD-RW drive. When I popped it in, up popped the Windows Media Player to play, presumably, some secondary WMA files on the disk. I terminated the player and launched WinAmp to attempt to play the CD tracks themselves - they would not play. I then moved the disc to my second drive on that box, a DVD-ROM drive. WinAmp happily played them as CD tracks!
Finally, I took the disc over to my PowerBook with its DVD-ROM drive. Not only would it play there, but it was rippable by iTunes as well! Seems the reports I've heard about DVD-ROM drives being able to get past the copy protection are true.
Last, I took the disc back to fye where I bought it. Nobody in the store has heard of this problem, but I showed them a copy of the "return policy" page from the UMG web-site and they took it back and refunded my money without a hassle. This despite the fact it was well past their 30-day exchange-only time limit on opened CDs. If there is a backlash in progress, it hasn't hit Binghamton, New York yet.