Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:41 UTC
Windows For the first time, the Windows operating system will wall off some audio and video processes almost completely from users and outside programmers, in hopes of making them harder for hackers to reach. The company is establishing digital security checks that could even shut off a computer's connections to some monitors or televisions if antipiracy procedures that stop high-quality video copying aren't in place.
Order by: Score:
That's the reason number 6
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

why you wouldn't want to use Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That's the reason number 6
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "That's the reason number 6"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

More like reason #1 to tell the content producers to go **** themselves.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: That's the reason number 6
by Marcellus on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: That's the reason number 6"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

You have the choice to not buy or view the content at all.
Now if you want that to have any effect on the content producers, you just have to convince the other 99.99999% of the buyers and viewers as well.

Viewing what content producers produce is not a godgiven right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That's the reason number 6
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's the reason number 6"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Never said it was, but the content producers who are the ultimate source of all the drmified bullsit that people keep whining about. The only thing that will stop said bullshit is if a large portion of consumers (all of them, paying or otherwise) refuse to play the game anymore.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Viewing what content producers produce is not a godgiven right."

No but being able to use my HDTV I bought last year is! I already have seen partial ramifications of this. When I plug my HD cable box into my tv using the HDMI interface, it shuts down and displays a nice big message: "Your connection does not support HDCP, this interface has been disabled."

Now you want to tell me that it is my fault for buying a $3000 TV and paying $130 a month for HD cable, and I can't watch using the supplied cabling. For now I am able to use the Y-Pb-Pr connection, but there has been talk about abandoning that altogether.

This whole industry wants to move to HDTV, but they keep changing all the standards around, and are going to isolate so many people who were the early adopters.

Frankly, I think there is growing grounds for a class-action lawsuit against the MPAA, the computer industry, and television industry, to not f**k the consumers over who have already spent thousands of dollars individually to have the newest equipment. FAIR USE!!!!!!!!!!! It IS a component of copyright law plain and simple. Right now, the industries are about to rape us financially.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: That's the reason number 6
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: That's the reason number 6"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Unfortunately, most of the people this new copy protection applies to probably won't notice or care. This is another fine example of how, because of the actions of some scumbags who download illegal software and songs, Microsoft and Hollywood are ruining it for everyone else. Now, do some of you people out here understand why stealing is bad for all of us? You thieves have putting us on the road to tyranny!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That's the reason number 6
by ickus on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's the reason number 6"
ickus Member since:
2005-08-16

You do realize that a lot of movies on the internet have been traced back to the studio distributing them... Like Revenge of the Sith for example. That was leaked from the studio's.. No one "stole" it.. They just downloaded what was available. Infringement yes, theft no.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That's the reason number 6
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's the reason number 6"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Damn straight.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That's the reason number 6
by ucedac on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's the reason number 6"
ucedac Member since:
2005-07-13

No matter how many times "ignorant" people say it, but the truth is that downloading a file or a thousand is not stealing.

And calling people "scumbags" not only doesn't help your case, but clearly shows that you download files too. Otherwise why are you so concern about other people's downloads?

Do you care so much about other people's media-bussines for free?

What do you mean exactly when say "that they're runing it for everyone else"? what are they runing?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

For the record, I don't download illegal music/other files like that. What I mean by Microsoft and Hollywood ruining it for everyone is that, because of these new software restrictions, eventually you won't be able to even possibly (if you have older hardware) watch movies/other "trusted content". I don't care what other people do, but I do care about the fact that pirates will take away our freedoms with there actions (forcing the recording industry to respond by restricting media for everyone else who would gladly pay for it). The best illustration of what I'm talking about is the United States Patriot Act which basically allows government to have unprecedented powers of surveillance and seizure (and all because the government is too lazy to deal with our borders in this country; they'd rather lie to us and make us believe that just because of 9/11 we should all give up the remaining shreds of our constitution for the common good [the war against terrorism]).

Reply Score: 0

RE: That's the reason number 6
by Ressev on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:13 UTC in reply to "That's the reason number 6"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Actually, more like reason 6 not to buy Vista.

I am sympathetic to content providers concerns over piracy, but honestly, who is going to want to buy a whole new computer and monitor to play their new content. It would be cheaper to keep the older one and buy a individual HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player. I doubt it will help Linux either unless they crack the content - but how they will keep up on the changing security patterns for the online validated content...

Well, I'm not worried since I am not hooked on content, but this will be interesting to watch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: That's the reason number 6
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE: That's the reason number 6"
Anonymous Member since:
---

personally i just wont buy the content or the player, since i wont be able to watch it in High def anyways. i will just wait for the regular dvd version.

Reply Score: 0

How long will it take...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

for some average hacker to disable every countermeasure Microsoft ever dreamed of?

My guess: less than 7 minutes.

-- meianoite

Reply Score: 0

RE: How long will it take...
by Tom K on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "How long will it take..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

So why don't you show me how far along the hackers are on WMP 10 DRM? Oh ... what's that? No progress at all? Shame.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: How long will it take...
by Tyr. on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: How long will it take..."
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

So why don't you show me how far along the hackers are on WMP 10 DRM? Oh ... what's that? No progress at all? Shame.

Ah so *you're* the guy using WMP10. Such a lonely existence, eh ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How long will it take...
by corentin on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE: How long will it take..."
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> So why don't you show me how far along the hackers are on WMP 10 DRM? Oh ... what's that? No progress at all? Shame.

There is no need to crack DRM systems if you can copy a stream once it is in clear form.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How long will it take...
by Tom K on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How long will it take..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, so show me the tools that do it.

Tyr: I have it installed, yes, but I don't believe I have any WMV 10 videos. I know for sure that I don't have any DRMed content. That wasn't really my point though. My point was the smug sense of superiority of the parent poster is ill-founded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: How long will it take...
by Tyr. on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How long will it take..."
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Tyr: I have it installed, yes, but I don't believe I have any WMV 10 videos. I know for sure that I don't have any DRMed content. That wasn't really my point though. My point was the smug sense of superiority of the parent poster is ill-founded.

Point taken. I'm confident the tools will come when/if the format ever gets really popular though and then I'm talking encoded content, not the client version.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: How long will it take...
by corentin on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How long will it take..."
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> Point taken. I'm confident the tools will come when/if the format ever gets really popular though and then I'm talking encoded content, not the client version.

There are already some tools (drmdbg and drm2wmv) but they do not really work yet.

Maybe DVD Jon will crack it, too ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: How long will it take...
by Ressev on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: How long will it take..."
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Maybe DVD Jon will crack it, too ;)

- I doubt it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: How long will it take...
by corentin on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: How long will it take..."
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> I doubt it.

Then someone else. Microsoft engineers got better at security their products, but crackers got better at cracking them too. It is the same game since the eighties, nothing new.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How long will it take...
by Tyr. on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How long will it take..."
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no need to crack DRM systems if you can copy a stream once it is in clear form.

That's the entire point of the aticle. Degrading or even completely stopping the stream when Windows detects that the stream will not be encrypted and could be compromised.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How long will it take...
by ma_d on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How long will it take..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

What if whenever DRM audio plays all of your audio input devices are shut off?

Reply Score: 1

RE: How long will it take...
by gg3po on Wed 31st Aug 2005 23:56 UTC in reply to "How long will it take..."
gg3po Member since:
2005-07-06

How long will it take...
for some average hacker to disable every countermeasure Microsoft ever dreamed of?
My guess: less than 7 minutes.


Knoppix already boots in less than 7 minutes ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Charles Heston
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft, you can have my media when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Reply Score: 1

Dang!
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just taking over your computer! Soon you will not be able to do anything that MS does not sanction! Wow!

Reply Score: 4

Helpdesk 2007
by Tyr. on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:59 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

Customer: Help, my computer won't display anything anymore
Helpdesk: Did you run any illegal blue-ray's sir ?
Customer: No, suddenly everything went black, help !
Helpdesk: The copy protection must have been triggered by a virus. I want you to take out your system restore disk ...
Customer: *CLICK*
Helpdesk: Sir ... sir ?

Reply Score: 2

Meh...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Normally I would be worried on such a move but some good natured hacker will find a way around things.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Meh...
by corentin on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:18 UTC in reply to "Meh..."
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> Normally I would be worried on such a move but some good natured hacker will find a way around things.

In fact, they ultimately want to push the protection layers down to the hardware (you know, that 'trusted computing' thing). It is not that harder to crack, but it is much more expensive (e.g. if you have to use a high-bandwidth logic analyzer to grab the clear digital signal between two ICs).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Meh...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

It gets worse. Like in the PSP, they've even locked down the hardware. Chips are set up to make these sniffers useless - encryption and other goodies. As these chips get faster, it doesn't matter if there's a performance hit by encrypting all inter-chip communications.

This is the new DRM baby, and it's going to bite us all in the ass. HARD.

Reply Score: 0

I see...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In short, the company is bending over backward--and investing considerable technological resources--to make sure Hollywood studios are happy with the next version of Windows

So that's why it's taken so long and why Microsoft has dumped features. Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

Right
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

DRM is often used to restrict people from exercising the rights given to them by the US Government (at least in the US jurisdiction).

For example, a person has the right to make backup copies. A person has the right to copy songs from an audio CD to a digital audio player.

See http://www.eff.org

Reply Score: 2

RE: WMP 10 DRM
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Doesn't mplayer play WMP 10 DRM?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WMP 10 DRM
by gg3po on Thu 1st Sep 2005 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE: WMP 10 DRM"
gg3po Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes it does. But that's not all. Just do a:

mplayer -dumpstream $url

...followed by a:

mencoder stream.dump -oac mp3lame -lameopts vbr=3:br=96:q=4:aq=4 -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg4:vbitrate=300 -sws 2 -o myFreedomFile.avi

...to convert it to a format that respects your rights a bit more.

Reply Score: 1

re: content producers
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Most of the consumers some of you talk about are on the clear, and buy their legal copies of the crappy cartoon movie their little kids use to like at a given time, is just that this majority of people do not consider fair to buy a new copy each time the litle kid steps on the dvd, screwing the original.

Those consumers have another more reason to not to upgrade to vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: content producers
by Marcellus on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:36 UTC in reply to "re: content producers"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

"Those consumers have another more reason to not to upgrade to vista."

Ah yes, and these consumers are obviously playing all their content on a computer and not a dedicated player on a display that if a HDTV is likely already HDCP compliant.

These consumers also obviously took backup copies of their VHS tapes back in the days, and DVD's nowadays...

Have you ever tried to get a broken disc exchanged for a new one? From the place you bought it originally or directly from the distributor.

Reply Score: 1

/grinz/
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So how much are you willing to pay for have the candy-link graphics and DRM in Vista?

I enjoy hearing how much people pay for this crap while I hack on Linux.

I'm paying with my time and getting knowledge and a product I can sell out of it in return.

Well, at least you got your time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: /grinz/
by ma_d on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:47 UTC in reply to "/grinz/"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Well. Vista was sounding cool to me, then I remembered all this DRM stuff... Maybe they should sell a version with no DRM and no license fees paid. I certainly don't want my buck supporting consumer abuse.

Reply Score: 1

whose hardware is it?
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

if an operating system controls how you use your hardware that you purchased yourself, who does the hardware really belong to?

Reply Score: 0

RE: whose hardware is it?
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 01:26 UTC in reply to "whose hardware is it?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

if an operating system controls how you use your hardware that you purchased yourself, who does the hardware really belong to?

Exactly. If this one doesn't worry you...

I'll be sticking with Fedora, thanks.

Reply Score: 0

Observation...
by markjensen on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:26 UTC
markjensen
Member since:
2005-07-26

I see a lot of people posting "just wait until it is cracked" comments.

Does it seem odd that an Operating System seems to be designed that is incorporating features that do not meet the wants of its customers. And, the best hope being voiced is that someone will reverse-engineer the binary code and try to find a work-around for this?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Observation...
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:33 UTC in reply to "Observation..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

What you're seeing is the real damage done by digital piracy. People are increasingly willing to let the market screw people over as long as they believe that they can circumvent the rules.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Observation...
by raver31 on Wed 31st Aug 2005 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Observation..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

People are increasingly willing to let the market screw people over as long as they believe that they can circumvent the rules

Yeah, and it reinforces my belief that the vast majority of windows users are at heart pirates.
they do not care that Microsoft is spending a vast amount of time for content provider to get a way to legally stream video etc to them... they want "someone" to hack it so they can benefit.

how many of you windows boys have a legal copy of photoshop ? or dreamweaver ?

see my point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Observation...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Observation..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah, and it reinforces my belief that the vast majority of windows users are at heart pirates.
they do not care that Microsoft is spending a vast amount of time for content provider to get a way to legally stream video etc to them... they want "someone" to hack it so they can benefit.


While I agree 100%, I think the original post in this thread...

Does it seem odd that an Operating System seems to be designed that is incorporating features that do not meet the wants of its customers. And, the best hope being voiced is that someone will reverse-engineer the binary code and try to find a work-around for this?

...was also spot on too.

Copy restriction schemes exact an additional cost on the the honest people, and block only the lower skilled/knowledgeable dishonest folks. The rest find aggressive ways to copy everything with the minimal hassle.

I have seen some encouragement, though, in copy protection schemes that are intentionally weak. That way, the honest people can use what they bought as they would like. If they are honest, they will notice the shin-high white fence and not stamp on the garden. If they are not, the garden was going to be toast anyway...so why make your paying customer angry?

That said, I find it interesting that most heavy DVD and CD copiers are also some of the heaviest purchasers. It might be in the benifit of the media companies to encourage these people to buy more instead of punishing everyone. One way to do this is to stop acting like the customers are also untrustable thieves.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Observation...
by raver31 on Wed 31st Aug 2005 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Observation..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

One way to do this is to stop acting like the customers are also untrustable thieves.

but that is standard practise for microsoft...

eg - product activation

you have to prove to Microsoft that you are NOT a thief and have a valid windows.

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Are a bunch of w888ers for locking people in. DRM is perfect for them. They get people's money via the music industry - who licence their DRM, who licence music. Well I don't care. I'll continue to play my music and my blu-rays that I've licenced to enjoy on MY linux computer. This is one dime you're not getting your ugly hands on

Reply Score: 0

RE: Microsoft
by n4cer on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:31 UTC in reply to "Microsoft"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that unless your Linux distro supports similar content protection schemes or the protections are cracked you will not be able to play virtually any commercial blue-ray or other HD movies on Linux?

That's the whole point of these protection schemes being included in Vista. It's to give content providers the same protections they will have in every standalone player. Either Vista (and any other OS wanting to support such formats) supports the same protection methods or it just won't play blue-ray. Much like how SACD and DVD-A are unplayable or extremely limited on the PC currently. In short, Vista will do no more (in terms of content protection) than any non-PC player you will be able to buy.

MS is currently helping to make the upcoming standards more open than they otherwise would be -- pushing for things like managed copying so content can still be ripped to harddrives (which is a concern for people that have media servers) while preventing unauthorized redistribution (which is a concern for content owners).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Microsoft
by raver31 on Wed 31st Aug 2005 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the whole point of these protection schemes being included in Vista. It's to give content providers the same protections they will have in every standalone player

Was this ruling not overturned in a US court last month ?
Was the representatives of Hollywood studios not applying to had DRM included with all stand alone players and the judge said that they had no right to demand this ?

As far as I am aware, the full story of this was either on the register or onbbc news site. However, the point is this... Why is Microsoft continuing to add this into Vista, if legally, it is not needed ?

Reply Score: 2

Re: Obeservation...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Not really. MS doesnt have to cater to the buyer. They are the almighty MS. Who would dare not buy their next OS? Since businesses arent going to care one way or the other about DRM, they can use that install base to force the issue on the home consumer who doesnt really have a choice. How many PC's are sold without Windows anyway? And people think MS isnt a monopoly....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: Obeservation...
by Ressev on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:48 UTC in reply to "Re: Obeservation..."
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

No one said MS isn't a Monopoly. But I can think of quite a few companies who won't be upgrading to Vista from XP or even 2K since it would not be cost effective to do so unless they already upgraded a few years ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re: Obeservation...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:22 UTC in reply to "Re: Obeservation..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Umm... Sorry but M$ needs the average buyer -- I'm sure they can survive off of business licences, but for how long???

Look how long OS2 lasted before businesses hopped onto the "User's" OS, Windows...

Linus should be happy.

Reply Score: 0

most people just don't get it
by l3v1 on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:48 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is absolutely not that content providers want to protect their content against piracy. It's their right, do it.

The problem comes when they start telling you what you can do with the disks you purchased: that you can't make more than x copies of that cd for backup/car playing, or even can't make copies at all, that you can't grap your cd into mp3, but they graciously provide you crappy drm'd wma which you can't play in your ipod, that you can't make backups/copies of your movie disks (who's gona make new releases of Blade Runner in 30 years from now ?), that you give them money for a cd that will just randomly be able to play when put in different cd players, etc etc.

The problem is not protection of rights, the problem comes when their protection means taking away our freedom.

I don't care about how many billions mpaa/riaa put int heir pockets each year. All I care is that after I payed them the money (which, for the record, I do), just leave me alone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: most people just don't get it
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:09 UTC in reply to "most people just don't get it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Amen!

Reply Score: 0

Woo!
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft hates you all! These guys are seriously just digging themselves a hole IMO. And what has microsoft made that Newb-Joe-Hacker hasn't bypassed in a matter of 2 minutes... Can they stop you from using VLC with built in Codecs? Probably!

Seems a bit odd.

Once Americas Army 2.4 is out for Linux I'm long gone... Until then...

Reply Score: 0

Black Box
by ucedac on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:35 UTC
ucedac
Member since:
2005-07-13

Parts of the OS can be black boxed on hardware any time. Those are not trivial hacks. I'm not saying they can make an uncrackable system, but that they can build a really tough one.

But however that is good for MS is another question, if they annoy their userbase, they will provoke mass exodus to other platforms that are less restrictive.

I think that again what they will end doing is make it messy for the common guy.

Reply Score: 1

Aha
by Buck on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:38 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

"In short, the company is bending over backward--and investing considerable technological resources--to make sure Hollywood studios are happy with the next version of Windows..." - riiight... When you've done so many opressive and repressive things to your users already, why not just go for it again? And again, and again. After all, who cares? It's the Hollywood studios that matter, not users! Kinda brings old political carictures to mind showing greedy politicians...

Anyways, I hope by the time Vista is released I'm going to run Mac OS X and FreeBSD on all my computers. Wish everyone the same.

Reply Score: 1

It All Fits
by segedunum on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:40 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sandboxing. Look at what Microsoft are doing with .Net and encouraging developers to target .Net and run everything within the CLR and it all comes together. Microsoft wants outside programmers to run within an environment which will allow they to dictate how and what, and only Microsoft internally will be able to write native code for Windows. It's not just about DRM, as it extends to everything.

It's the boldest move Microsoft have made, and the next few years should be interesting.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It All Fits
by n4cer on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:06 UTC in reply to "It All Fits"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Unmanaged C++ and even ASM is still supported under Windows. .NET even has facilities for unmanaged code access. .NET/CLR is about security through verifiable code, nothing more. Should you choose to do so, you can create unverifiable code as well (supported OOTB via C++ and C#).

BTW, all .NET code is compiled to native before execution. You can pre-compile it and be limited to one architecture per binary like in C/C++ and other unmanaged languages, or you can save time, bandwidth, disk space, whatever, and distribute your code as IL that gets compiled to the native code of whatever architecture the end-user is using either at install time or at runtime.

If you don't want to use any MS-specific assemblies, you don't have to. Just write to the CLI-standard and run your code on .NET and any non-MS implimentation that is CLI-compliant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It All Fits
by segedunum on Wed 31st Aug 2005 19:43 UTC in reply to "It All Fits"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Unmanaged C++ and even ASM is still supported under Windows. .NET even has facilities for unmanaged code access.

For how long, because it is clear Microsoft are moving you away from it?

BTW, all .NET code is compiled to native before execution.

You're side-stepping the real issue there. It's that extra step that's important.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It All Fits
by n4cer on Thu 1st Sep 2005 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It All Fits"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

For how long, because it is clear Microsoft are moving you away from it?

The sooner, the better. That said, unmanaged code will run on Windows as long as there's a significant need to run it. It'll likely always be allowed, however the benefits of running it will greatly deminish. Unmanaged code devs will have to use interop to work w/ the system rather than managed devs using it as it is for many things now.

You're side-stepping the real issue there. It's that extra step that's important.

I'm side-stepping nothing. I stated a fact. That "extra step", if you mean compiling to native before execution, is important for performance.

More important is the verifiable IL that the apps are distributed in by default, which lessens the exploitability of your applications and eliminates the need for distribution of multiple binaries for each architecture. It also allows the code to be optimized for the exact machine on which it will run during that "extra step", and allows for more flexible and new types of application scenarios that unmanaged code could never safely emulate because of its lack of verifyability.

Reply Score: 1

Sigh... more lockin
by DigitalAxis on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:12 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

What this means now is the barriers to alternative OSes have gone up- not because people who use Linux/OS X/(something) want to pirate as much as the average person will want to be able to watch their DVDs and BluRay discs, and they won't legally be able to do that unless some company releases proprietary software to decode the Microsoft encryption.

I mean, I cannot legally view DVDs I OWN in Linux because of antipiracy restrictions (CSS).

Now with Microsoft getting Hollywood to use THEIR extensions they're making it so you HAVE to run their OS (or license their technology) to watch digital media. That means reverse engineering just to be able to do what Microsoft does or paying them money. And I bet #1 isn't legal. Suddenly all operating systems will have to have Microsoft code to be as useful as Windows, not because of technical failings but because of legal restrictions.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sigh... more lockin
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:52 UTC in reply to "Sigh... more lockin"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Now with Microsoft getting Hollywood to use THEIR extensions they're making it so you HAVE to run their OS (or license their technology) to watch digital media. That means reverse engineering just to be able to do what Microsoft does or paying them money. And I bet #1 isn't legal. Suddenly all operating systems will have to have Microsoft code to be as useful as Windows, not because of technical failings but because of legal restrictions.

This is one of my biggest caveats about using an alternative OS. Personally, if movies don't play in my OS of choice, I simply won't by them. But what happens when something that actually matters won't run either?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Sigh... more lockin
by ma_d on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh... more lockin"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Maybe you should quit supporting the DRM system then.. It's not like video standards are hard to have across platforms, it's that the lawyers have gotten in the way ... again. And who brought them in? Guess: The Corporations.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sigh... more lockin
by n4cer on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:55 UTC in reply to "Sigh... more lockin"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

The encryption isn't Microsoft's. It's the AACS' scheme along with CE industry standard output protections. Same as CSS on DVD (and any other media technology), if you get a license, you can play back whatever you want.

Linux only has a perceived barrier because the users generally expect software to be free and open source. If a distro or a ISV (like Ahead) licenses the technology and sells it, the barrier for Linux is no more than the one for Windows. Some distro vendors have already licensed Windows Media, mp3, and possibly DVD. They could do the same for Blue-Ray and other HD formats as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sigh... more lockin
by ma_d on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh... more lockin"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's very true. I think it was Linspire that licensed several of them?

Reply Score: 1

Hmph.
by DigitalAxis on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:18 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

"The studios are very good about not trying to design software," Paddleford said. "I've never had a studio say, 'We need an API (application programming interface) that does this.' But they do talk about, 'Well, we want to make sure that our theatrical content doesn't get played in any place but a theater.'"

Um, didn't he just say "They're not trying to dictate what we DO, they're trying to dictate what we do."

I call that "Let's try to find a way to keep ourselves relevant. I know, let's do everything Hollywood wants so we can be THE movie OS."

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So If I download a copy of Photoshop for example, which I never payed for, you are saying that is not stealing? I don't understand your logic. I got what other people payed thousands for, for free, and I am not stealing?

Sure when I buy it it's just a license to be allowed to use it, so in essence I would be stealing a license if I downloaded it. But it's still stealing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Anonymous
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:43 UTC in reply to "Anonymous"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something of the use of their property. How are you doing that if you are making an illegal copy of something?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anonymous
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Anonymous"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something of the use of their property. How are you doing that if you are making an illegal copy of something?

You are technically correct, but why are you arguing over a technicality? Just because it isn't stealing by the strictest definition, does that make it right? If it's wrong, then it's wrong, whether it is stealing or not.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Anonymous
by orestes on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anonymous"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Because if we don't pay attention to technicalities bad things happen. Bad things like Congress ****ing up Copyright law more grievously than they already have, twisting it well beyond its original purpose.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anonymous
by n4cer on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Anonymous"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

You're depriving them of the license fees that are usually attached to the acquisition of the product.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Anonymous
by orestes on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anonymous"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

That's if, and only if, you assume the pirate would have purchased the product had they not copied it illegally. Anyone who claims that's the case more than a fraction of the time is severely out of touch with reality.

Remember folks, a potential sale is not an actual sale until the potential buyer hands you the actual money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Anonymous
by orestes on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anonymous"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

In any case the entity whose copyright is being infringed has lost nothing tangible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Anonymous
by n4cer on Wed 31st Aug 2005 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anonymous"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Remember folks, a potential sale is not an actual sale until the potential buyer hands you the actual money.

And the increased availability of licensed products to be copied and used due to lack of protections lessens the potential for sales. Many who copy the product will undoubtedly retain it and continue to use it without ever considering paying for it because they don't feel they have too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Anonymous
by orestes on Wed 31st Aug 2005 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Anonymous"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

One might think, but I've never seen any actual proof it works that way.

Take music for example. Like mixtapes before it, P2P does wonders for helping bands get exposure they would not have gotten otherwise. That increased exposure leads to more sales, no matter what the RIAA would have you believe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Anonymous
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anonymous"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Remember folks, a potential sale is not an actual sale until the potential buyer hands you the actual money.

Well, if that kind of logic helps you sleep better at night ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Anonymous
by Morgan on Thu 1st Sep 2005 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Anonymous"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Okay, I work in law enforcement, so I'd like to think I know a little about this. It's called "Theft of Services". The letter of the law is thus:

16-8-5.

A person commits the offense of theft of services when by deception and with the intent to avoid payment he knowingly obtains services, accommodations, entertainment, or the use of personal property which is available only for compensation.


There you have it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Anonymous
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anonymous"
Anonymous Member since:
---

A person commits the offense of theft of services when by deception and with the intent to avoid payment he knowingly obtains services, accommodations, entertainment, or the use of personal property which is available only for compensation.

So, in the case of software if a licence to the software is no longer being sold it can be copied without having commited theft?

(Understand that I do not agree with this on moral grounds, though from that text it would seem to be the case. Also note that I am talking about the licence not the media as software can be distributed without physical media and the software companies -- and I've worked at some -- explicitly sell licences not bits and bytes.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Anonymous
by Morgan on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anonymous"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

To me, that seems to be a gray area; a company no longer in business wouldn't be able to sell it to you anyway, right? I assume BTW you are speaking of abandonware, for example old DOS and Win95 games that are no longer being sold (or resold by the company that bought them out) or something like MS Office 97 that is no longer being sold by MS. By the letter of the law, you are doing something illegal if you use a pirate key to unlock such old software, even though there is no way to legally register something that old. I don't like it either.

Always keep in mind too that there are OSS or freeware alternatives to just about every piece of commercial software package out there. Most of these don't have all the "features" the commercial software does, but in some cases it can actually be better.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Anonymous
by ucedac on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:23 UTC in reply to "Anonymous"
ucedac Member since:
2005-07-13

If I download a copy from Adobe's website (they offer trials) and after the expiration period I download another copy and use for other 30 days and on and on.

Am I stealing? No I am not stealing.

If I get the trial and activate it using a keygen, I'm not stealing either.

I can be acused of doing something morally wrong and even of illegal software use, but I'm not stealing.

If I make a copy of a broadcasted show on TV and pass a copy to a frend I'm not stealing either.

If I set up a counterfeit DVD distribution bussiness, you can acuse me of copyright infringement, illicit distribution and whatever law I'm infringing, but still I'm not stealing.

Stealing is when I take something from someone and deprive him of that possesion, making exact copies without the intention of profit is something different from depriving, don't you think so?

Reply Score: 1

Consumer Awareness
by JCooper on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:56 UTC
JCooper
Member since:
2005-07-06

We all know up until now people have seen Windows as "the PC" without knowing of an alternative. But as windows develops into something that restricts the use of that grey/black box under Joe User's desk, will the various mainstream news channels / papers make them aware of the limitations the $300 "upgrade" will force on them?

Its ultimately about consumer awareness, and hearing how Microsoft is limiting how you use your PC on the 6 o'clock news that I'm interested in. People need to understand what they're buying.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Consumer Awareness
by NeoChaosX on Wed 31st Aug 2005 04:01 UTC in reply to "Consumer Awareness"
NeoChaosX Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the media conglomerates also own the news channels, or at least have controlling stakes in them. You can forget about the mainstream news channels - if you want the general public to be aware of the fact that freedoms they're not even aware they have are taken away, you're going to have to do it the hard way and do it through word of mouth. Get it to as much people as you can - make it simple enough that they can understand, don't preach (I KNOW this is hard for many people, especially those who pray at the altar of GNU, but it just turns away the tech-illiterate more than it convinces them)

Of course, you also need to get people that aren't tech geeks to care to begin with, but that's a whole other thing...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Taking something you didn't pay for and were not given, is stealing. Only a liberal nut-job would think otherwise, and I know there are a lot of those.

Content providers cannot afford to work for free (neither can open source people by the way), so they want a company that will help them not get ripped off.

Microsoft does not like to get ripped off. They both like making money (even leftist open source types; free software, movies, audio is like free money, no?). Microsoft can help content providers. They both make money.

Linux people in general do not like to pay money, and are not averse to stealing content; or giving us free tools to do it, eh? Is this not so?

If you were a content provider, or have something to offer via a computer, who would you work with?

I love linux, and I think Microsoft charges an arm and a leg, but again, who would you work with?

Or, are you just lovie dovie, and want to help people, but are you going to hate people that don't give you things for free?

The Soviet Union didn't work guys. Some of you are pushing these 2 together, and the masses will buy MS Vista and their stuff will work, and other peoples os's won't work, and we will all have to pay higher prices because Microsoft will help producers not get ripped off and linux hackers will not. That would stink.

Stan

Reply Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You have it backwards. No respectable hacker would ever limit his tools over someone elses wallet, or even his own. That's OSS 101....
You're right. Content providers need to make profits; that's absolutely correct. And that's why they need laws to protect what they do and to ensure that those evil consumers (who support them) don't "steal" what they've done. Ok, that got a bit sarcastic at the end.

Let me explain what you've done. You've used what I call the "shock the common sense" argument. You know that:
1.) Everyone believes stealing is wrong, or everyone worth convincing.
2.) Everyone, in some respect, sees stealing as gaining something illegitimately.
3.) If you shock them, they'll instantly go backwards in their logic:
If stealing hurts people, cause it's wrong. And gaining things illegitimately is stealing; then illegitimate gains hurt people! The problem lies in that: When I copy something I can't possibly take from the party I copied from. What I do with that copy can hurt them, but my copy cannot; it's only a copy. I can't "steal" an idea: I can steal the credit for it.
Now of course there's always "you would have bought it if you hadn't copied" and "no economy can run for free" and blah blah blah ad naseum. And you'd be right. But you'd still have this problem: Piracy and Grand Theft Auto are very different problems and you cannot roll them into the same boat.

I'm a proud linux user. I buy stuff. I'd happily buy Free software if there were more retailers for it (I'd buy RHEL, but my school already buys it for me ;) ). There are a host of other people who do pay for things; and that's part of why organizations exist based on their donations...

Alright, I'm no socialist. But seriously, if I ever hear "the soviet union didn't work" again I'm going to scream. The Soviet Union came in under the same conditions as the Nazi's in Germany: The people were poor and without hope and willing to support anyone who could promise. Acting as if this is a valid test for any form of Government is a bit silly. The only reason we know nazism doesn't work is because we know we hate its ideals. However, I doubt many of us can hate the ideal of: Everyone works, everyone eats. If you want to disprove communism please do; but don't use the USSR as an example...
Once again. Hackers will not support DRM because it's anathema to what they do. Even if Hollywood wanted Linux DRM, no hacker would be willing to write it!
Linus won't even create a stable module ABI! As if he'd include a bit of code for DRM support.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh boy.
The reason you can't use the USSR is, as I tried to state, the USSR was doomed to start because it was a government started by greedy politicians for the benefit of greedy politicians (which is why I correllated it to nazism). It was able to come into power because the people were desperate and starving.
The same thing happened in the US at a similar time. In 1932 we elected Franklin D. Roosevelt. We reelected him more than any other president; and we followed him almost implicitly (after a while anyway). He made more change in our Government than any other president in US history, except maybe Abraham Lincoln. I'm not implying that what he did was neither good nor bad (although judging your politics I doubt you like him much); just that it was drastic and the people weren't about to stop him.
We don't very well say that conquerors can't be successful just because Hitler failed. No, we say it because Hitler failed, Rome fell, Napolean failed twice, the Japanese failed, the Britts fell, the Spanish fell (if you can call it falling), etc, etc, etc. Now, if you want to say that communism doesn't work by real world example than I suggest you provide a varied set of failures; not one lone example.
If you want a bad analogy, it'd be like if Edison had given up after trying one kind of filament (or just a few). I don't think communism works. But I'm not going to rely on the USSR as a proof.

"If the truth is shocking, how long has it been since you read the 10 Commandments even?"
I have them memorized. The problem, as I tried to elude to, is that IP is more complex when it comes to stealing than say your car. This is because, and I think this is obvious, your car is a tangible item with one possible existance (matter can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system). An idea however, such as a song, book, program, or set of data cannot be stolen in the same way: Because there's no direct loss. Indirect losses do occur; and this is what makes piracy wrong.
However, one doesn't have to jump to the farthest knee-jerk side of the fence they can and look for every legal and technological means of "protecting" IP. It's illegal for one to copy too much of a written work. Largely because this is plagiarism, but also because the old printing press companies weren't exactly run by the most honorable men: They needed copyright, as we do today, to own a work for a time so it can be profitable. But you could still do it in your own home. Legal or not, it didn't matter it was uninforcable. No one could tell you not to hand copy 3 pages of a book! If you gave that to your friend they wouldn't sue you, they'd never know.
Today though. We have computers. Which copy 3 pages in .3ns; and send to friends in 3 more seconds. Obviously, this is a problem because 3 pages quickly becomes all 'n' pages of the book! So we introduce DRM, and limit copies. Oops, that just made the copies for you to quote the book in your school paper limited... I think a typical ebook limit is around 10 copies per day right? A copy is a clipboard copy, in case that was unclear.

What about music? Say I buy James P Doggystyle's latest CD and I want to listen to it on all my cool gadgets I've bought. But alas, this cd comes with DRM enabled and I can only put it on 3 devices! But I have an ipod, itunes, jukebox, cd's, dvd-surround system, and an ipod shuffle! Obviously I'm just a cheap jerk who should buy a second copy of the cd right? Does that sound unlikely? It is. But the problem it should bring to mind is that DRM brings fine tuned enforcement of law over the masses. That can be a dangerous thing if it's not very carefully watched.

As for starving artists. The average pay for an American music star, according to Free Culture by Laurence Lessig, is $40,000 a year. Sound pretty good? Ever gone to an awards show? Ever heard of what Tony Braxton's label did when she got pregnant? Ever notice those great artists who only sell 50,000 cd's and then dissappear?

And then of course. There's the question of the possibility to make creative work without using other work for derivation. It's a fairly popular belief today that you can't create without deriving a good chunk of your work from other works. And I think if you give it some thought you'll realize just how much of what you do is derivative. I can't imagine writing a full program without using a few very popular algorithms, not to mention language concepts. I can't see writing a paper without seeing how my voice has changed from all the authors I've read (even English teachers tell you to read more literature to get a more mature voice). I don't see the content creators digging up everyone to repay them for their IP? Well, it's not IP I suppose then right?

This is so much more complicated than typical theft.. And if you go the wrong way with it you either end up with consumers destroying content providers or content providers ruling consumers. Either way, creativity stagnates.
I don't think DRM is the solution at all. It doesn't make piracy any harder for the real pirates, but it adds rules for the honest folks. It's about as good as the lock on your front door: It "keeps honest folks honest." Unfortunately, these folks have business in your house and they need to get in. (Yay, bad analogy!)

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Member since:
---

Are you saying the Bolsheviks were just greedy politicians? Didn't they also have an ideology that motivated them, and iconoclastic leaders like Lenin, Stalin, etc... and Krushchev who said 'we will bury you!' They had 1/5 of world land mass, vast resources, and brought up more than 1 generation that knew nothing but their ideology and tried it for 70 years. That's a pretty good test.

But besides them, didn't you notice I pointed out Cuba, North Korea, a number of African countries, and I'll add Vietnam, many latin American countries, etc... When I was a kids people worried communism would take over the world. With so much, what were they possibly short on? It's god of self failed.

>>The average pay for an American music star, according to Free Culture by Laurence Lessig, is $40,000 a year.
I don't know them/him. Who counts as a musician (see my other post)? If you have 10 stars making $7 million and 10,000 making $40,000 and 4,000 doing a gig once or twice a month and don't call themselves musicians, the average might be high, but what is the 'most common' salary? I would not think it is evenly distributed. If you know, say.

>>The problem, as I tried to elude to, is that IP is more complex when it comes to stealing than say your car.

Half true. My guess is the only complex part is that for some people they just have not figured out a way to steal a car and get away with it, right? Let me guess. You know people who 'buy' blank cd/dvd's (because they can't steal them easily), and then steal/copy movies onto them (because they can).

An idea for a wordprocessor or a spreadsheet, is common. There are only a few ways to do cut, copy, and paste, I agree. Everyone has to 'work' though, to create or write their own code. Stealing a finished product like an audio cd, program or movie dvd, is not the same. You did no work and made no payment, yet enjoy full use.

>>>I don't think DRM is the solution at all. It doesn't make piracy any harder for the real pirates, but it adds rules for the honest folks.

The honest folks are unfortunately not so honest. Should people blame the content providers or the pirates?

Stan

Reply Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The average pay for an American music star
pay for an American music star
an American music star
music star

Narrow it down for ya? We're talking about people with contracts under the big 5.

Every country you pointed out, except Korea which isn't a country, is completely impoverished. And they all were that way when they became communist. I really don't know of a single latin american country which is communist. I don't think North Korea can be considered communist either...

"You did no work and made no payment, yet enjoy full use."
Then mix cd's are fine, even if I didn't buy the components because I put work to make a new finished product? And ripping (changing formats) is fine, because I did work to make a new finished product?

"My guess is the only complex part is that for some people they just have not figured out a way to steal a car and get away with it, right?"
You either are unable to comprehend the difference between a tangible item and an idea, or you just refuse to.

"The honest folks are unfortunately not so honest. Should people blame the content providers or the pirates?"
When was the last time a problem was solved by blaiming a side and destroying it?
You have to understand both sides' alterior motives, and both sides honest motives and go from there. You can't just call one good and the other evil.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Ad ma_d : Completly agreed.

Just a little Nitpick : Matter can be destroyed in an closed system. electron + positron in a box -> gamma ray.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Truth blesses many, the Christian God blesses His people more, false gods don't. As Europe has slidden away more than us, so has their blessing and so is their civilization."

And people wonder where all the bad blood towards the US comes from... If people like you kept their mouths shut, the world would be a better place.

But turning to the matter at hand, do you know any starving musicians? I mean, anyone who's work is worth pirating...?

Reply Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

What?!
The reason there are two classes of musicians, poor and stars is because of the big five. If it weren't for the big labels there'd be no Christina's and Brittney's out there ruining the music scene with something they call art while actual artists starve. The point is, they are recompensed by cd sales; they're recompensed by concert funding and "selling out." The difference between your friend, assuming he's good, and a star is basically marketing. The heavy IP system aides that. When artists are owned (contracts) and sold (marketing) people get rich, but a lot more people get left washed out.
You can't steal a concert; well at least not if the Ushers kick out people without tickets!

Every song I've downloaded from a small artist was offered free by the artist to gain free publicity. And ya know what? Had I not had to wait, literally, 2 hours for a few songs I'd probably remember a few of them (it's hard to remember the name when you left the page 25 minutes before the song downloaded). And if I saw their cd in a store, I might buy it.

You're right though, it's a crumby family life. You should rebuke your friend for putting his family through that if it's really so bad. I've seen a lot of young marriages though, and time tends to be short because money is short: I think it's sort of normal wear and tear for most people.

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

are you genuinely retarded or was that just an act ?

why should a muslim, who is happy with his religion be changed to christianity just because you said a few words ?
it is fundamentalists, (MENTALists more like), such as you that give the US a bad name the world over.

Tell you what... If you really want to be more like "the lord Jesus Christ" I will volunteer to come round your house and crucify you.

Reply Score: 1

captain_knobjockey Member since:
2005-08-23

I understand what you are saying. I was watching a TV programme on Sunday morning a few weeks ago, and this fundamentalist minister called Morris Sirillo was saying that if I send him $10 US then he will "save" 1 member of my family with $5 and use the other $5 to go to Israel and convert a Jew to Christianity !!!!
I wonder how much he charges to convert muslims..
and does the $5 pay for some rental time of a mind control device

Reply Score: 2

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

you dont get it do you ?

they might want to live in us or uk, so what ?
as far as I was aware, both those countries do not force their citizens to change from muslim to christian........
or is this something that you and your church are pestering your government to change ?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

>>they might want to live in us or uk, so what ?

So what? You said they were 'happy' with their religion. If so, then why would a muslim want to leave the sea of Islamic paradise in the Middle East to come to another country founded on another religion?

You and they don't get it. The base beliefs of a civilization produce the fruits of that civilization, which make you happy or not.

>>or is this something that you and your church are pestering your government to change ?

What country are you from? Not yet, but I think it would be a good idea. Make them leave their 'convert or kill infidel' mentality at the border. From what I know, Germany requires school students to work in German, and Dutch Holland is taking actions to make sure immigrants assimilate into their society and learn about their new country instead of trying to change it. This from enlightened current experience.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109523/

If they succeeded in converting a Christian country after moving into it, they would just end up in another hell hole of their own making again anyway. Then where would they move to?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"What country do you live in?"

Outside of the US.

The hard truth is that most people don't like americans all that much, seeing them mostly as self-righteous and arrogant. And I'm not talking about terrorists or religious fundamentalists, I'm talking about your normal peace loving guy. He doesn't hate the US people, but doesn't particularly like them either.

Just step outside your aseptic dome for a while and see it for yourself.

"Can I assume you keep your mouth shut, and does that help anybody? And if I open mine and a muslim, or whoever turned to Christ, who helped more?"

See? You are a fundamentalist yourself. Do you call converting muslims to christianity helping?

There is nothing wrong with being a muslim, and it doesn't make them any better or any worse than christians.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are a fool. The bad blood towards the US isn't connected with religion at all. The thing is, religion serves as a "meeting place" for the US-hating power-hungry Bin Ladens of the world, not as a base of the hatred. These people hate the US, and use religion as an excuse. If they converted to christianity, they would find another excuse, but would still hate the US.

You, acting as if loving Christ is the solution for everything, are actually fueling the conflict. This will only stop when the US stops using their dominance as means to step all over other countries. Then, maybe the average non-american Joe would start liking the american people more, and then, those terrorist group leaders would have to pack their bags and go away, because they wouldn't have armys of ignorant minions to do their bidding.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

>>See? You are a fundamentalist yourself. Do you call converting muslims to christianity helping?

Well, it wouldn't hurt, but it's their choice.

>>There is nothing wrong with being a muslim, and it doesn't make them any better or any worse than christians.

You have not read any of the quran or the news have you? I'm sure they are many web sites. google:
http://www.answering-islam.org/

>>. . .they would find another excuse, but would still hate the US.

You don't even believe what they give as their own reasons, do you? They give muslim belief reasons.

>> You, acting as if loving Christ is the solution for everything, are actually fueling the conflict.

That is interesting. I am not killing anyone, they are, and somehow it's my fault?

>>This will only stop when the US stops using their dominance as means to step all over other countries.

How is the US stepping all over other countries? We help more people than anyone I know, even our enemies, and most of what 3rd world country leaders do is steal the money and take advantage of their own people.

Do you have any real reasons?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"You have not read any of the quran or the news have you?"

What news? I'm going to say this again: step out of your little aseptic dome. Go watch the news on a non-american TV channel, pick an european news channel, for instance. For best results, pick an european, non-UK, news channel.

I haven't read the quran, have you? There are plenty of quran-worshipers out there whose beliefs have nothing to do with fundamentalist rubbish. Just as there are plenty of americans out there whose beliefs have nothing to do with Waco-like rubbish. What if the world would see americans as sharing those kinds of beliefs, would you like it?

"You don't even believe what they give as their own reasons, do you? They give muslim belief reasons."

Bah! Belief reasons are just the crap they feed their ignorant followers. Just as "democracy" is the crap that is fed to the american people as reason for invading Iraq.

"That is interesting. I am not killing anyone, they are, and somehow it's my fault?"

Kind of, yes. They call americans the new crusaders to fuel more hatred amongst their followers. You, acting as a crusader, are just giving them the needed "proof".

"How is the US stepping all over other countries? We help more people than anyone I know, even our enemies"

Man... do you actually believe that b*llsh*t? The only help the US gives to other countries are mere side-effects of its self-serving actions, with only economic and geopolitical goals.

That "help" has made more harm than good, because it isn't true "help", it's "help with a catch".

Imagine you are a poor, poor man, living under a bridge, eating out of garbage cans... Now imagine some rich and powerful person comes along and offers you food and shelter, but later on you find out that he just wants you to be happy and healthy for when he robs you of one of your kidneys. Nice huh?

Think this is far-fetched? Look at Iraq. If there was a poll there, most of the people (the regular people, not the few terrorist/religious elements) would take Saddam any day over the caos they now live in. Hey, they would probably welcome Hitler as vice-president...

Reply Score: 0

To Stan
by ucedac on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:43 UTC
ucedac
Member since:
2005-07-13

Taking something you didn't pay for and were not given, is stealing. Only a liberal nut-job would think otherwise, and I know there are a lot of those.

Taking what from where?

Content providers cannot afford to work for free (neither can open source people by the way), so they want a company that will help them not get ripped off.

As far as I know last time I went to the cinema I paid about 15 for a couple of tickets, last time I bougth a DVD I paid about €40 for the Star Wars trilogy, I paid for my copy of Austin Powers I and II and I paid for The Powerpuff Girls DVD... I can go on and on.

I pay the stuff I buy at the counter, I do not steal from the media providers, mind you.

Microsoft does not like to get ripped off. They both like making money (even leftist open source types; free software, movies, audio is like free money, no?). Microsoft can help content providers. They both make money.

MS Is not getting ripped off at all, If they do not sell as much as they want is because (A) every damned computer out there comes with MS Windows because of agreements they made with manufacturers (monopoly?) (B) The biggest competitor MS has is themselves, because everybody runs windows and there are not many reasons to upgrade (unless you're the geek tipe) they sell less to corporations.

MS simply wants to ensure that hey continue owing the computer market after the media companies force everybody to have a "compliant computer" to play wonderful movies like "Stealth". A market dominance not based on technical merit precisely .

Linux people in general do not like to pay money, and are not averse to stealing content; or giving us free tools to do it, eh? Is this not so?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Linux people simply do not like to pay a premium for booting up a bloody motherboard and displaying the content they legaly buy on a video card.

If you were a content provider, or have something to offer via a computer, who would you work with?

Yes, I guess I will rather try to ensure mandatory sales rather than selling a product that customers may like. (Look at the status of the rubbish the music industry promotes nowadays)

I love linux, and I think Microsoft charges an arm and a leg, but again, who would you work with?

I work with the right tool that works the best for the problem I try to solve. On my desktop at work there is Windows, on my servers there is Linux/Windows wherever they fit. All licensed copies of window/redhat or debian.

Or, are you just lovie dovie, and want to help people, but are you going to hate people that don't give you things for free?

What are you talking about? Because the discussion is about media companies imposing you to buy multiple copies and taking away your right to share a movie with your mates under mutual non-profit agreement.

The Soviet Union didn't work guys. Some of you are pushing these 2 together, and the masses will buy MS Vista and their stuff will work, and other peoples os's won't work, and we will all have to pay higher prices because Microsoft will help producers not get ripped off and linux hackers will not. That would stink.

The other oses won't work because some pigopolist don't like competition or are too lazy to takle down the real pirates that run factories in asia, and make billions selling copies of overpriced rubbish.

How many copies do you think Georle Lucas won't sell because of internet piracy? I guess he won't sell many more copies to people who wasn't going to buy a copy in the first place. but I bet that many people not really interested in starwars will rather spend a pound or two in buying a copy from the "chinese guy" on the corner, than spending 15 on the original movie which they're not interested in.

Reply Score: 1

Hope for a massive Holywood revenue drop
by re_re on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:05 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

I hope this comes back to bite both Microsoft and Holywood in the ass so bad that they can never recover.

I know damn well I will never buy a movie or song with such restrictions. If i can't play it (Legally) free of these restrictions I won't play it plain and simple.

I hope the millions upon millions of people do the same thing so Microsoft and Holywood get the hint.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

... exactly this sort of thing.

Quibbling about the semantics (and yes, there are technicalities about civil law versus federal law but illegal is illegal and immoral is immoral) is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

The fact is that the *perception* of piracy has driven the content industries to want to lock down their content. That perception is in large part due to the efforts of pirates all over the globe combined with a downturn in sales being explained by marketing guys as 'not our fault.'

Is it fair? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not.

Do we have to live with it? Yes. We do.

Unless computer users can somehow convince an increasingly-paranoid content industry that piracy is not a problem, DRM will only get stronger and stronger.

Talk all you like about how signals can be copied 'in the clear' but try that when the link between the computer and display device carries signal strength monitoring to check degradation, and both devices have 32000 bit encryption or some other 'unbreakable' DRM.

Maybe that'll be broken, so the industry will create another DRM. And on it goes.

It's a war of escalation now. This is the way of the future.

Don't like it? Who cares. Unless you are representative of a large and very vocal group, your opinion has no value to the content industry.

Reply Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

No, computer users need to convince their congressmen to listen to citizens and logic and not lobbies. But that's true for every realm of American politics.

Reply Score: 1

The truth
by Sodapop on Wed 31st Aug 2005 03:11 UTC
Sodapop
Member since:
2005-07-06

The truth of the matter is that we can't do anything about this, hollywood has won.

Everybody and his mama will buy this OS and you know it. Sure, there will be complaints, but they will soon subside and life with DRM will intermingle and get along.

All we can hope for is that gas will go up to 100 a gallon and no one will be able to afford a computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The truth
by ma_d on Wed 31st Aug 2005 05:00 UTC in reply to "The truth"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't kid about that man. It may happen :/.

Reply Score: 1

Interesting...
by camo r on Wed 31st Aug 2005 06:27 UTC
camo r
Member since:
2005-08-26

Who here works for free? Really who?

I bet no one here is a software programmer or artist who have to make a living off their craft. And please don't mention OSS programmers who do this based off their desire to contribute to the community.
Corporations are their to make money for their share holders, period. So if said corporations want to protect their product which ever way they deem fit, let them.

For example, how are game companies supposed to recoup game expenses and make new games if people don't pay for the games in the first place?

Wait until somebody in congress suggests that Linux is a tool of piracy and passes legislation to impede it's progress until DRM becomes a part of the kernel itself.
With attitudes like what i've seen on this site, it might not take too long. Don't y'all forget who owns congress.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 06:43 UTC in reply to "Interesting..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Except for the fact that you're forgetting that the US government themselves use Linux, I'm sure the NSA would love to put DRM into their kernel...

Not to mention that Linux is NOT only programmed and used inside the US.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Interesting...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 08:32 UTC in reply to "Interesting..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I bet no one here is a software programmer or artist who have to make a living off their craft. And please don't mention OSS programmers who do this based off their desire to contribute to the community."

Well contrary to what you might be able to grasp. People have beliefs and principles. One of whom OSS is based on. Free knowledge. For us and our children for thousands of years to come.

That's why you see people donating their spare time coding and making software such as linux and other OSS software.

The fact that some get sponsored by companies goes to show that not only is it the right the to do, not only does it carry a great deal of foresight with it.. But it is also compatible with capitalism as we know it today. And it carries with it high ideals.

I'm not going to comment on the article in question. It's all dependant on customer awareness. And it's a fragile thing. Nothing is here to stop us ( as a people) to fuck ourselves over. But OSS and it's like gives hope. That some, and hopefully most of us will have the foresight to continue living in a free world. Trading and exchanging knowledge without selling your mum and grandmother to MPAA to do it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Interesting...
by John Nilsson on Wed 31st Aug 2005 22:10 UTC in reply to "Interesting..."
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

who have to make a living off their craft

In my world you get money from what people are prepared to pay for. Not from whatever you happen to spend your time and effort on.

who have to make a living off punding their head into a wall

you see how stupid that sounds?

/John

Reply Score: 1

Back on Topic; Windows Vista DRM
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 06:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This just puts it up as a reason for normal consumers not to upgrade to Vista.

Microsoft just keeps shooting themselve in the foot with this latest incarnation of windows.

Look at it this way... what company will upgrade to Vista, the requirements on it are just too high. 1gb of RAM recommended? And we know Microsoft's minimum requirements are usually at the spot where the OS will run, just not efficiently. It ever requires a much heftier video card.

What company in their right mind would upgrade all of their workstations just to run this? I know the company I work at wouldn't. We have better things to spend our money on.

Assuming that HD-DVD or Blue-Ray even take off, Which I am thinking is too soon, look at how long VHS was popular for, and DVD players are so cheap now that even the po' folks in the trailer parks can afford them.

Really, the only sales that Microsoft will get is from brand new computers of the likes of Dell, HP, etc. Anyone with an older system isn't likely to upgrade to it, and a lot of people (like my dear old mother) wouldn't be able to anyhow. Look at how many people stll run Windows 98 on their computers.

I think that Vista will be the biggest OS flop since Windows 1.0

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

What company in their right mind would upgrade all of their workstations just to run this? I know the company I work at wouldn't. We have better things to spend our money on.

Things can be tuned down, if you know what to do. It is a royal PITA and is not worth it on a single system, though it can be worth it for a dozen or more systems.

Can the footprint be reduced to W2K levels or smaller? Unlikely. Close? Probably...though W2K or XP would likely be tweakable below what Vista can be.

Reply Score: 0

Oh they'll upgrade to Vista alright.
by Quag7 on Wed 31st Aug 2005 07:19 UTC
Quag7
Member since:
2005-07-28

Windows users will of course upgrade to Vista eventually, as Windows users always have. Nothing Microsoft does - nothing - will drive people to other platforms. Windows users will enthusiastically upgrade and sacrifice freedom and functionality in the process, because for them, there is no other alternative.

Oh sure you can point at Macs, free UNIXes, etc. But the fact of the matter is momentum, exclusively, drives Windows, has always driven Windows, and always will drive Windows. People know Windows, they use it at work. And they may not be enthused about dropping XP or whatever they're running at first, but then the boss who always has to have the newest flavor of the month (or fastest laptop, or glass-topped desk) will get it. People will see it. It will have purty colors.

And then people will want it.

The public *wants* what the public *gets*. (I thought I could make it through a day without quoting Paul Weller, but once again I was wrong). It doesn't matter what Windows's virtues or drawbacks are. At first people will be sarcastic about Vista. They'll play the enlightened consumer and roll their eyes about "Oh there goes Microsoft again..."

And then, it will just take a few seeds in the consumer world - friends, co-workers, etc. to get it, and then everyone will want it. And then everyone will demand it. And in time most people will run it.

So in summary:

(1) Microsoft's activities will never drive the bulk of consumers to anything else, no matter how bad the next Windows, or the next one, or the next one is. People don't use Windows because they love it. They use it because it's ubiquitous, and what they're used to. This has nothing to do with MS's quality - Vista might be great otherwise; this is simply a law of computer physics.

(2) People fear and loathe change until it becomes a status symbol, which it will, which it has in the past, and will again. The status of running the new purty colored Windows will eventually be the incentive for people to switch over, along with the fact that it will be installed on new PCs, which are replaced frequently, at least in the middle class on up.

(3) Windows could cause disease, depravity, chaos, economic collapse, and make the Baby Jesus cry, and people will still buy it and insist that Macs are too small a market and too marginal and too proprietary (Macs could be made exclusively of water and people will still insist they're proprietary), and Linux and BSD and so on are too difficult and "not ready for the desktop." The whole World Wide Web would collapse if not for the "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles suddenly disappeared. "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles are the glue which holds the whole internet together (You thought that was TCP/IP, didn't you? WRONG!).

Imagine a web without "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles. Entire websites and businesses are built on this. I'm not saying these articles have valid points or not; simply that there are too many economic interests at stake which rely on "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" articles, that the fact or fiction of this popular thesis must be maintained at all costs. I mean, what is there left to publish?

(4) Alternative OS users will keep using what they are religious about. You don't like, you know, commit mortal sins by denying your OS three times before the cock crows, no matter how tempting Vista may be. A few heatseeking Judases will switch to Vista and call it the greatest thing since the orgy scene in Caligula (*), but by and large, the only defections which will occur are the trickle of free UNIX users to Macs.

I think Vista will be a great success in the long run...Either an instantaneous smash if Microsoft launches a campaign similar to the one for Windows 95 or a slowly building, but eventually highly profitable one, if it releases it quietly. I don't think there's anything Microsoft could do, or anything we can do, to have any effect on this whatsoever. In fact I think Vista will increase Windows's market share slightly.

(*) OK bad example, my bad.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

(4) Alternative OS users will keep using what they are religious about. You don't like, you know, commit mortal sins by denying your OS three times before the cock crows, no matter how tempting Vista may be. A few heatseeking Judases will switch to Vista and call it the greatest thing since the orgy scene in Caligula (*), but by and large, the only defections which will occur are the trickle of free UNIX users to Macs.

You must be old to remember that scene... :-)
An entire generation of pr0n actors and actresses already passed by...

Reply Score: 0

Everybody wins!
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 07:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

- Micro$soft wins!
- the MPAA wins!
- the RIAA wins!

...

erm... well, that sums up everyone that matters. Or doesn't it?

Reply Score: 0

v As the 101'st post, I would like to say
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:58 UTC
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

You mean one of the beautiful 30" Apple displays that aren't compatible with the encrypted video DRM? The ones that'll be stuck downsampling like everyone else? Those 30" displays?

Reply Score: 2

amusing
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 16:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I DO download music/movies and such. The funny thing is, they either get deleted immediately as not worth my time, OR I tend to go out and *GASP* BUY the CD or DVD since I now know it's actually worth OWNING. Wacky. I know. I SUPPOSE I could go out and do the same with Netflix or borrow them from the library too. Is that the same kind of stealing? I can't count the number of bands and CDs I've bought because I've downloaded random mp3s. Did Sci-Fi channel, or whoever, lose money because I downloaded the new Galactica series? Was that before or after I paid the 50$ at Best Buy for the DVDs because it was worth it to see it on the bigger TV screen with surround sound?

Yeah, I'm probably a rarity.

If Hollywood wants to deal with this they can stop bundling crap. I'm not going to pay 15$ ( yep, losing that price fixing lawsuit hasn't dropped the price on CDs at all ) on a CD where there's one or two songs on it that are actually worth listening to. Listen first.

Hollywood and RIAA really need to tread lightly in the upcoming months. Eventually someone is going to nail them in a lawsuit over whether we OWN the product or have LICENSED it's use. Because if we licensed it, then damnit, I'm NOT paying for the constant format upgrade to hear/see content I've already licensed. That'll hurt when we go to HD DVD/BluRay or whatever I'm sure.

If they want to get around the pirating "issue" they can. They choose not to. It's funny how the anime boxed sets are so cheap when they come out that it's not worth even downloading them. It's "cheaper" in time/money/effort to just buy them than to go through the trouble of getting them in other ways. Maybe they should look into that and stop calling all of their customers thieves...

Reply Score: 0

legislation
by re_re on Wed 31st Aug 2005 22:33 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

the war against DRM will only be won with Legislation from the gov't.. and who knows, it could happen.

Reply Score: 1