the last part of your post makes sense but the first doesn't.
the actual drive itself is doing the encrypting... it doesn't need a "host" to tell it yes or no. if the file being copied is tagged a certain way, and is copied to the device, that's that.
the problem then becomes that it requires an "Approved" OS to get the files back from them, in an "Approved" manner. meaning that they are designed for Insidious Computing Machines only. anything that does not meet those reqs will not be able to retrieve those files in the normal manner.
SD and sony magicgate flash memory products also have similar restrictions. don't buy those products either unless of course you want to finance their putting Digital Handcuffs on you.
"i just won't use that part of the product"... then it's a good thing that you didn't pay for that part of the product and only bought the part that allows free and uncrippled access to data...
in order to hack a product using RSA, you'd go for the weakest link. the encryption is the strongest link so you'd try to avoid attacking it directly.
but since that contest is unrelated to DRM and since DRM !HAS! to be viewable, it isn't nearly the same thing.
DRM-crippling is the worst form of encryption therefore.
xbox/ps2/gc were protected by high end encryption also... and by protected i mean they were denied to the lawful owner of those machines. that's what DRM and Insidious Computing are ALL about. preventing the real owner of products from having full access to them. that's stealing in the truest sense.
i say, "fuck em". one i won't buy their products, 2 i'll help others in gaining back their property from the clutches of those legal thieves.
they already have it for audio. so you have it backwards.
it's called Secure Audio Path. (Secure meaning Ignorance is Strength).
video is later to the game because it involves a lot more hurdles and is far costlier to produce (guess who'll be paying for those Digital Handcuffs...).
people keep missing the point though.
it's not just windows.
any system where you will want to play HiDef "protected" content will need a DRM-crippled solution like this.
so that means those "alternative" os's will have to implement these restrictions if they want to play back those videos... unless they are de-crippled and distributed over the net...
so officially, only one other OS in the world has to support this and it aint linux or BSD. they are including TPM/TCPA DRM-crippled, Insidious Computing chips on new motherboards and cpus faster than you can count. they want this to succeed so badly, they are willing to pass on the costs to you, their beloved "consumer".
all new video cards and new monitors will come with Crippling Technology.
and you will say "fine i didn't want to play their crappy DRm-crippled videos/music anyway"...
that's all good and well except for every 1 person who refuses to buy in, 1 million people who have NOT BEEN EDUCATED about the evils of Insidious Computing, will be financially supporting those backstabbing companies.
GET THE WORD OUT.
TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO AVOID THESE PRODUCTS LIKE THE PLAGUE.
and tell them to let one other person know about this conspiracy. and yes it is a conspiracy. if it weren't, we would be hearing the "mainstream media" telling us about the horrors and evil-ness of this scheme. it's a "relatively: secret plan to commit a crime. the crime being to put unlawful restrictions on copyrighted items. that itself goes against the copyright agreement enshrined in the constitution. if we had unbribed legislators and judges, that would be a crime and they then would revoke their copyright privileges.
TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS and tell them to tell others about this nefarious plot.
the whole point of online distribution is to cut out the middlemen. and unless they do something stupid like control all online activities in the name of national security, you and everyone else will be able to publish anything at any time with very little money.
but the real reason is always going to be DRM and Insidious Computing. they don't want you to have more control over a piece of copyrighted item than is absolutely neccessary. and that's why with things like STEAM, the smart people already are on to them about what kind of a future we'll have when everything needs to connect to the net (E.T. was a BSA agent) in order to "authenticate"... never mind that you paid for it already, they want to do a lot more than just control. as we've already seen with STEAM, they track everything you do, when you do it, how many times you do it and they have a record of your ID, address, etc.
no thanks.
i'll take my discs instead of DRM-HELL. (not that discs aren't DRM-crippled already).
stupid kids and their love of shiny things. they're paving our way to Digital Hell.
for every post i make, 2000 people post why DRM is good and some of the slightly smarter people even claim it's a necessary evil (never mind that it only bothers the paying customers).
whatever. i guess i'll just find myself a nice dystopian future and bask in the glow of artificial light.
and remember, each purchased unit belongs wholly and solely to you. you own the chips inside the machine, you own the lcd screen, you own the interconnects, you own the speakers, you own the right to fully access each of them.
calling it "homebrew" does a disservice to the property rights "movement". it makes it sound like you have no business using and programming the chips you paid good money for.
Arbitrary Code Execution, ACE.
using technical means to prevent you using your own property is a crime in my book.
and no, "business model" is no excuse in removing your lawful rights in using your own property any way you wish. sell it for 3 times as much but leave my access alone. i want it to make it illegal to rent products but call it buying. if you want people to have limited access, call it renting and then set prices accordingly. if you want to sell items outright, then behave accordingly. the problem is, they want the benefits of selling with the benefits of renting. that's a commerce no no not to mention unethical and immoral.
please don't use the word "homebrew" or if you feel you must, at least give it some thought each time you do.... see if it matches up with the world you want to live in. words have a lot of power... use it wisely.
thanks to your friends at the copyright cartel, they've made sure that anything that's copyrighted today, will enter the public domain long after we die. and then every 20 years, they hire steamboat willie and company to "lobby" "congress" to extend the duration yet again.
most of the works of the last 75 years are still copyrighted. they should all have been in the public domain.
the recent highly publicized infringement issues have to do with the public becoming increasingly fed up with the one-sided nature of the current copyright fiasco.
if authors would willingly enter their works into the public domain 5 years after their creation, i could have a lot more respect for them and their temporary monopoly. that you and other authors want to profit for 75 years plus the lifetime of the author is not only ridiculous but it breaks the original intent of copyright.
and though it may be technically infringement to copy those works, i condone taking back what belongs to the public.
copyright should last a limited time not until the universe collapses and the sun goes nova. the fact that it lasts so long ALONE is enough incentive to never or rarely release new works.
the copyright agreement has been broken.
you don't have a moral right to ask that people respect it. legally is a different matter but laws are not absolute, especially when hundreds of millions of people disagree with them.
all works by default come from the public domain and belong in the public domain. copyright is an unnatural right; it can only be tolerated if its scope is extremely narrow in both duration and magnitude. and since things like DMCA and DRM-crippled, and Insidious Computing, that further encroaches on customers' ability to use copyrighted purchases in ways they wish.
you want respect? give the same in return, then we'll talk on that day.
having to choose between microsoft and sony is like choosing between lucifer and beelzebub.
neither one is appealing.
sony is a member of the copyright cartel afterall (RIAA and MPAA). they've both engaged in anti-customer and anti-competitive behavior.
feel free to disagree but they're both sobs for various reasons.
both formats are also DRM-crippled up the wazoo.
we're arguing which poison pill is better for us...
we as end-users (customers) need to reject both formats.
it's in our best interests to get a format that we can actually own as property. preventing lawful use of property through technical means is disgusting and is against the law (if we had any competent/unbought judges and legislators).
well the only real reason to get an HDTV is for playing games on.
connecting your computer to an HDTV display or even using it to play console games is going to be a much better experience than watching it on a relatively small computer monitor.
but since it's not theft and that most people who wanted the sets couldn't afford it and wouldn't buy it anyway...
what has the company making the videos (which since they already sold to tv networks, already made all their money back and 10 fold profits) really lost?
they already made all their money on the first run on tv. this is just gravy. and the people who cannot afford 100 bucks for a season of dvds, who copy them aren't costing the producer anything.
it's an irritant but you cannot state lost revenue when those people would never have bought it in the first place at that ridiculous price point.
the best way to prevent infringement is first of all, reduce the copyright duration to 5 years. then also take their heads out of their posterior and lower prices to something remotely reasonable. tv shows from 10-15 years ago... they made a ton of profit on the first run... then an enormous profit in syndication.
yes it is infringement but frankly i don't give a shit. they more than made their fair share of profit... guaranteed by copyright law. by extending copyrights to infinity and beyond, they broke their side of the agreement.
i won't feel sorry for them nor will i lose any sleep.
those who extend copyright duration to gain a little more profit, deserve neither sympathy nor the protection of legitimate law. - Benny F.
they still require signing but are more likely (relative to sony) to grant you "authorization" (don't you just like how in the modern world you need permission to access your own property?)
so the tapwave isn't a good example.
a good example would be something like the gamepark32 (and it's newer brother). there's no "signing" required or supported on the hardware.
and may i say that " Why throw your money at Sony, who does their best via DRM and everything to keep you out" is an EXCELLENT idea.
stop supporting DRM and Insidious Computing with your hard earned dollars (drachmas, lira or pesos etc.).
starve them to death financially.
they DON'T recognize any other type of protest.
if i had my own country, i wouldn't let merchants lock customers out of their own property but then again, sane people never get into any positions of power. (lest they offend monied interests).
one the one hand it helps the new users, prevents lots of common headaches/problems and helps in backing up.
but for all that positive effects it provides, what it asks in return is that you give up virtually all your control over your data/software/interaction.
that also means no more tinkering with the source and adjusting settings that they won't allow.
the other problem with this mentality is that it wants to become ubiquitous. they won't settle for small niche markets and the like. they know what kind of "benefits" it provides them. it will become the equivalent of STEAM for business and productivity applications.
no, the price is far too high in my estimation. i fear one day in the future people will want to hand over all their computer software/access to a remote entity. all the freedoms we enjoy today could become a relic.
Slashdot Mirror
the last part of your post makes sense but the first doesn't.
the actual drive itself is doing the encrypting... it doesn't need a "host" to tell it yes or no. if the file being copied is tagged a certain way, and is copied to the device, that's that.
the problem then becomes that it requires an "Approved" OS to get the files back from them, in an "Approved" manner. meaning that they are designed for Insidious Computing Machines only. anything that does not meet those reqs will not be able to retrieve those files in the normal manner.
SD and sony magicgate flash memory products also have similar restrictions. don't buy those products either unless of course you want to finance their putting Digital Handcuffs on you.
"i just won't use that part of the product"... then it's a good thing that you didn't pay for that part of the product and only bought the part that allows free and uncrippled access to data...
RSA doesn't live in a void.
in order to hack a product using RSA, you'd go for the weakest link. the encryption is the strongest link so you'd try to avoid attacking it directly.
but since that contest is unrelated to DRM and since DRM !HAS! to be viewable, it isn't nearly the same thing.
DRM-crippling is the worst form of encryption therefore.
xbox/ps2/gc were protected by high end encryption also... and by protected i mean they were denied to the lawful owner of those machines. that's what DRM and Insidious Computing are ALL about. preventing the real owner of products from having full access to them. that's stealing in the truest sense.
i say, "fuck em". one i won't buy their products, 2 i'll help others in gaining back their property from the clutches of those legal thieves.
they already have it for audio. so you have it backwards.
it's called Secure Audio Path. (Secure meaning Ignorance is Strength).
video is later to the game because it involves a lot more hurdles and is far costlier to produce (guess who'll be paying for those Digital Handcuffs...).
people keep missing the point though.
it's not just windows.
any system where you will want to play HiDef "protected" content will need a DRM-crippled solution like this.
so that means those "alternative" os's will have to implement these restrictions if they want to play back those videos... unless they are de-crippled and distributed over the net...
so officially, only one other OS in the world has to support this and it aint linux or BSD. they are including TPM/TCPA DRM-crippled, Insidious Computing chips on new motherboards and cpus faster than you can count. they want this to succeed so badly, they are willing to pass on the costs to you, their beloved "consumer".
all new video cards and new monitors will come with Crippling Technology.
and you will say "fine i didn't want to play their crappy DRm-crippled videos/music anyway"...
that's all good and well except for every 1 person who refuses to buy in, 1 million people who have NOT BEEN EDUCATED about the evils of Insidious Computing, will be financially supporting those backstabbing companies.
GET THE WORD OUT.
TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO AVOID THESE PRODUCTS LIKE THE PLAGUE.
and tell them to let one other person know about this conspiracy. and yes it is a conspiracy. if it weren't, we would be hearing the "mainstream media" telling us about the horrors and evil-ness of this scheme. it's a "relatively: secret plan to commit a crime. the crime being to put unlawful restrictions on copyrighted items. that itself goes against the copyright agreement enshrined in the constitution. if we had unbribed legislators and judges, that would be a crime and they then would revoke their copyright privileges.
TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS and tell them to tell others about this nefarious plot.
education is the key.
whenever someone (inevitably) mentions that boycotts don't work , i am reminded of this quote by a relatively unknown person:
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
-Mahatma Gandhi
ironic, that a secure OS is called Open(BSD).
the whole point of online distribution is to cut out the middlemen. and unless they do something stupid like control all online activities in the name of national security, you and everyone else will be able to publish anything at any time with very little money.
but the real reason is always going to be DRM and Insidious Computing. they don't want you to have more control over a piece of copyrighted item than is absolutely neccessary. and that's why with things like STEAM, the smart people already are on to them about what kind of a future we'll have when everything needs to connect to the net (E.T. was a BSA agent) in order to "authenticate"... never mind that you paid for it already, they want to do a lot more than just control. as we've already seen with STEAM, they track everything you do, when you do it, how many times you do it and they have a record of your ID, address, etc.
no thanks.
i'll take my discs instead of DRM-HELL. (not that discs aren't DRM-crippled already).
stupid kids and their love of shiny things. they're paving our way to Digital Hell.
for every post i make, 2000 people post why DRM is good and some of the slightly smarter people even claim it's a necessary evil (never mind that it only bothers the paying customers).
whatever. i guess i'll just find myself a nice dystopian future and bask in the glow of artificial light.
yeah, like relinquishing them back into the public domain some time this millennium.
then we could sell and trade games/software/etc for just the price of duplication/media/effort/time.
public domain, hehe, what a quaint notion.
homebrew != arbitrary code execution.
and remember, each purchased unit belongs wholly and solely to you. you own the chips inside the machine, you own the lcd screen, you own the interconnects, you own the speakers, you own the right to fully access each of them.
calling it "homebrew" does a disservice to the property rights "movement". it makes it sound like you have no business using and programming the chips you paid good money for.
Arbitrary Code Execution, ACE.
using technical means to prevent you using your own property is a crime in my book.
and no, "business model" is no excuse in removing your lawful rights in using your own property any way you wish. sell it for 3 times as much but leave my access alone. i want it to make it illegal to rent products but call it buying. if you want people to have limited access, call it renting and then set prices accordingly. if you want to sell items outright, then behave accordingly. the problem is, they want the benefits of selling with the benefits of renting. that's a commerce no no not to mention unethical and immoral.
please don't use the word "homebrew" or if you feel you must, at least give it some thought each time you do.... see if it matches up with the world you want to live in. words have a lot of power... use it wisely.
no, merely that not financially supporting them being the first step. it's not even close to being the only leverage customers and the public have.
like security through obscurity, it won't be remotely effective as the sole means of protection. only one layer in a multi-layer sandwich approach.
boycott (non-financial support) is a small part of the whole fight and it isn't stupid when combined with other efforts.
but even when you do buy those devices... keep these things in mind. there's more than one way to skin a copyright cartel.
actually, nothing enters the public domain.
thanks to your friends at the copyright cartel, they've made sure that anything that's copyrighted today, will enter the public domain long after we die. and then every 20 years, they hire steamboat willie and company to "lobby" "congress" to extend the duration yet again.
most of the works of the last 75 years are still copyrighted. they should all have been in the public domain.
the recent highly publicized infringement issues have to do with the public becoming increasingly fed up with the one-sided nature of the current copyright fiasco.
if authors would willingly enter their works into the public domain 5 years after their creation, i could have a lot more respect for them and their temporary monopoly. that you and other authors want to profit for 75 years plus the lifetime of the author is not only ridiculous but it breaks the original intent of copyright.
and though it may be technically infringement to copy those works, i condone taking back what belongs to the public.
copyright should last a limited time not until the universe collapses and the sun goes nova. the fact that it lasts so long ALONE is enough incentive to never or rarely release new works.
the copyright agreement has been broken.
you don't have a moral right to ask that people respect it. legally is a different matter but laws are not absolute, especially when hundreds of millions of people disagree with them.
all works by default come from the public domain and belong in the public domain. copyright is an unnatural right; it can only be tolerated if its scope is extremely narrow in both duration and magnitude. and since things like DMCA and DRM-crippled, and Insidious Computing, that further encroaches on customers' ability to use copyrighted purchases in ways they wish.
you want respect? give the same in return, then we'll talk on that day.
yeah, like giving them money and then not using them for playing movies is a great incentive for them to stop screwing their customers.
how about not buying it at all, including data storage?
you're just subsidizing their DRM inroads with your hard earned money.
you are in effect paying them to bend you over.
every cent they get, is one more cent to hang you with.
if you want to buy it, fine but don't say it's pro-customer or that you won't be screwed over by their DRM... you will be just not directly.
so playing movies in your fragile next-gen device is a smart thing to do?
those drives aren't meant to be movie players and will only lower their life expectancy.
look at the problems of current gen consoles. how many drives were the cause of premature failures? playing movies on them will only speed it up.
except by now it'll have turned gray.
having to choose between microsoft and sony is like choosing between lucifer and beelzebub.
neither one is appealing.
sony is a member of the copyright cartel afterall (RIAA and MPAA). they've both engaged in anti-customer and anti-competitive behavior.
feel free to disagree but they're both sobs for various reasons.
both formats are also DRM-crippled up the wazoo.
we're arguing which poison pill is better for us...
we as end-users (customers) need to reject both formats.
it's in our best interests to get a format that we can actually own as property. preventing lawful use of property through technical means is disgusting and is against the law (if we had any competent/unbought judges and legislators).
only blu-ray has the remote-lockout capability as far as i;ve heard.
so both are equally DRM-crippled but with blu-ray they can remotely lock out players.
and then you'd say "how can they succeed if i never hook up my player to the net?"...
they will give you plenty of incentive to do so. they know people have no desire to connect their player to the net without benefit.
anyway, if we were smart as end-users, we wouldn't buy either format. they are both anti-customer and contain DRM-cippled technology.
neither is any better than the other in that respect.
fuck em both.
no i'm saying you won't get copyright privileges unless you distribute.
what's the point of copyright if anyone can just keep it all to themselves?
if you don't distribute it, then by definition you don't NEED the protection offered by copyright.
how can anyone distribute a work which is locked up in a vault in your home?
it actually has to.
i mean why give them the privilges of copyright and then let them sit on it until they die?
that would be like granting patents for which there is no disclosure about the inner workings of a product.
he may not have to publish it today but if he never does, why should the public give him the privilege of copyright?
well the only real reason to get an HDTV is for playing games on.
:-)
connecting your computer to an HDTV display or even using it to play console games is going to be a much better experience than watching it on a relatively small computer monitor.
size does matter... but only when it does...
"Crazy Frog Ringtone Plagues Absolutely Everyone..."
so they poisoned an innocent frog.
those bastards!
copyright is a public agreement for the author to have a limited monopoly in return for publishing said work.
so by definition, if you never intend to publish it, you don't have copyright protection.
you want the benefits of copyright yet never want to distribute...
then it's very simple... you forfeit your copyright.
but since it's not theft and that most people who wanted the sets couldn't afford it and wouldn't buy it anyway...
what has the company making the videos (which since they already sold to tv networks, already made all their money back and 10 fold profits) really lost?
they already made all their money on the first run on tv. this is just gravy. and the people who cannot afford 100 bucks for a season of dvds, who copy them aren't costing the producer anything.
it's an irritant but you cannot state lost revenue when those people would never have bought it in the first place at that ridiculous price point.
the best way to prevent infringement is first of all, reduce the copyright duration to 5 years. then also take their heads out of their posterior and lower prices to something remotely reasonable. tv shows from 10-15 years ago... they made a ton of profit on the first run... then an enormous profit in syndication.
yes it is infringement but frankly i don't give a shit. they more than made their fair share of profit... guaranteed by copyright law. by extending copyrights to infinity and beyond, they broke their side of the agreement.
i won't feel sorry for them nor will i lose any sleep.
those who extend copyright duration to gain a little more profit, deserve neither sympathy nor the protection of legitimate law. - Benny F.
i can't, it's not open.
thanks, i'll be here all year, try the low carb pasta.
actually tapwave is just a kinder gentler sony.
they still require signing but are more likely (relative to sony) to grant you "authorization" (don't you just like how in the modern world you need permission to access your own property?)
so the tapwave isn't a good example.
a good example would be something like the gamepark32 (and it's newer brother). there's no "signing" required or supported on the hardware.
and may i say that " Why throw your money at Sony, who does their best via DRM and everything to keep you out" is an EXCELLENT idea.
stop supporting DRM and Insidious Computing with your hard earned dollars (drachmas, lira or pesos etc.).
starve them to death financially.
they DON'T recognize any other type of protest.
if i had my own country, i wouldn't let merchants lock customers out of their own property but then again, sane people never get into any positions of power. (lest they offend monied interests).
welcome our buffer overflow overlords.
who'd have thunk it?
that BO's would be a freedom fighting geek's best friend.
reminds me of DRM and tivo-like "contracts".
taking the software out of the hands of users...
one the one hand it helps the new users, prevents lots of common headaches/problems and helps in backing up.
but for all that positive effects it provides, what it asks in return is that you give up virtually all your control over your data/software/interaction.
that also means no more tinkering with the source and adjusting settings that they won't allow.
the other problem with this mentality is that it wants to become ubiquitous. they won't settle for small niche markets and the like. they know what kind of "benefits" it provides them. it will become the equivalent of STEAM for business and productivity applications.
no, the price is far too high in my estimation. i fear one day in the future people will want to hand over all their computer software/access to a remote entity. all the freedoms we enjoy today could become a relic.