I'm not entirely clear on why the NCTIS has the right or ability to force the industry to do it, although more than likely that's because I don't know very much about the NCTIS.
From the article:
However, what's likely to create a firestorm of industry protest is that the proposed mechanism introduces problems to moving data between compliant and non-compliant hard drives. Modifications to existing backup programs, imaging software, RAID arrays and logical volume managers will be required to cope with the new drives, The Register has discovered.
It seems to me that the industry response to the technical difficulties imposed by the "standard" make it far less likely to actually happen.
Also from the article:
The proposal makes use of around a megabyte of read-only storage on each hard drive that isn't usually accessed by the end user for a "Media Key Block".
Although this seems like a pissant technicality, we might be able to raise a fuss over that one meg of space.
And from the article again:
The Register understands there is fierce opposition to the plan from Microsoft and its OEM customers. Generating hundreds of thousands of images each week, the PC industry relies on data going from one master to many reliably and smoothly. Imaging programs face the same problem as restore software: the target disk isn't the same as the originator disk. Microsoft Redmond already has put in a counter-proposal that eschews low-level hardware calls.
As much as most Slashdotters hate Microsoft, they may be helpful in stopping this (at least, for now). RMS' response is also quite interesting.
Our main hope is that industry and consumer opposition will blow this piece of crap out of the water. The two less likely hopes are that (a) the standards committee will realize what an asinine action (and, probably, invasion of privacy) this would be, and (b) that manufacturers will give the finger to the standards body.
"The BBC are reporting that the British intelligent services and the police want all of the telephone calls, e-mails and internet traffic in the countr to be logged and kept in storage for [7] years.... "
Intelligent, my foot. Intelligence, maybe, but not intelligent.
... for a couple of reasons. First of all, as somebody else touched on briefly, languages mix all the time. There's an absolutely obscene number of English words that are derived (and obviously so) from other languages, including Spanish. Examples? How about, say, libertad and liberty? Don't like that one? How about argumento and argument? Heck, how about "no?" This seems like pretty good evidence that an influx of words from other languages doesn't destroy the first.
Second, if English is destroying Spanish... why on earth would it be the only language? Why aren't we English-speaking imperialists a danger to French? Or Russian? German? Japanese? so on, so forth.
Yes, eMusic has violated Napster's TOS by using a bot. I hope that (a) Napster bans them (I suspect they will, since they're probably looking for any excuse to do something like that), and (b) courts throw out any evidence obtained with this method on the grounds of illegal method.
Now, what about the Metallica/Dr. Dre suits? Did the security firm sit down and handpick through all of the Metallica/Dre hits to make sure they weren't live or mislabeled, or did they use a bot?
(... please tell me they used a bot, because then people can raise a fuss about it...)
Also -- what about identical files? If Person A, in, say, Connecticut, buys a track from eMusic and shares it, and Person B in... I dunno... New Mexico has another legitimate copy of the song (but not the one bought directly from eMusic) and downloads it, is that infringement? What if his CD-ROM drive can't extract digital audio (that was a problem for me until I got my burner)?
Basically, I'm not convinced that eMusic has the right to restrict access to content on the basis of whether or not the file originally came from their site (heck, when I think of it in those terms, it looks like an attempt to monopolize!).
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but technically the law is on their side. I think it sucks that they're going to the trouble and expense of enforcing a copyright which no longer serves to profit the company, but it is their legal right.
Slashdot Mirror
No sir. Don't like it.
I'm not entirely clear on why the NCTIS has the right or ability to force the industry to do it, although more than likely that's because I don't know very much about the NCTIS.
From the article:
However, what's likely to create a firestorm of industry protest is that the proposed mechanism introduces problems to moving data between compliant and non-compliant hard drives. Modifications to existing backup programs, imaging software, RAID arrays and logical volume managers will be required to cope with the new drives, The Register has discovered.
It seems to me that the industry response to the technical difficulties imposed by the "standard" make it far less likely to actually happen.
Also from the article:
The proposal makes use of around a megabyte of read-only storage on each hard drive that isn't usually accessed by the end user for a "Media Key Block".
Although this seems like a pissant technicality, we might be able to raise a fuss over that one meg of space.
And from the article again:
The Register understands there is fierce opposition to the plan from Microsoft and its OEM customers. Generating hundreds of thousands of images each week, the PC industry relies on data going from one master to many reliably and smoothly. Imaging programs face the same problem as restore software: the target disk isn't the same as the originator disk. Microsoft Redmond already has put in a counter-proposal that eschews low-level hardware calls.
As much as most Slashdotters hate Microsoft, they may be helpful in stopping this (at least, for now). RMS' response is also quite interesting.
Our main hope is that industry and consumer opposition will blow this piece of crap out of the water. The two less likely hopes are that (a) the standards committee will realize what an asinine action (and, probably, invasion of privacy) this would be, and (b) that manufacturers will give the finger to the standards body.
inigima
"The BBC are reporting that the British intelligent services and the police want all of the telephone calls, e-mails and internet traffic in the countr to be logged and kept in storage for [7] years. ... "
Intelligent, my foot. Intelligence , maybe, but not intelligent.
inigima
... for a couple of reasons. First of all, as somebody else touched on briefly, languages mix all the time. There's an absolutely obscene number of English words that are derived (and obviously so) from other languages, including Spanish. Examples? How about, say, libertad and liberty? Don't like that one? How about argumento and argument? Heck, how about "no?" This seems like pretty good evidence that an influx of words from other languages doesn't destroy the first.
Second, if English is destroying Spanish... why on earth would it be the only language? Why aren't we English-speaking imperialists a danger to French? Or Russian? German? Japanese? so on, so forth.
inigima
On the legality of eMusic's course of action:
Yes, eMusic has violated Napster's TOS by using a bot. I hope that (a) Napster bans them (I suspect they will, since they're probably looking for any excuse to do something like that), and (b) courts throw out any evidence obtained with this method on the grounds of illegal method.
Now, what about the Metallica/Dr. Dre suits? Did the security firm sit down and handpick through all of the Metallica/Dre hits to make sure they weren't live or mislabeled, or did they use a bot?
(... please tell me they used a bot, because then people can raise a fuss about it...)
Also -- what about identical files? If Person A, in, say, Connecticut, buys a track from eMusic and shares it, and Person B in... I dunno... New Mexico has another legitimate copy of the song (but not the one bought directly from eMusic) and downloads it, is that infringement? What if his CD-ROM drive can't extract digital audio (that was a problem for me until I got my burner)?
Basically, I'm not convinced that eMusic has the right to restrict access to content on the basis of whether or not the file originally came from their site (heck, when I think of it in those terms, it looks like an attempt to monopolize!).
inigima
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but technically the law is on their side. I think it sucks that they're going to the trouble and expense of enforcing a copyright which no longer serves to profit the company, but it is their legal right.
inigima