“Sun Microsystems must have figured digital rights management never sounded so good when it recently announced a call for partners in its quest to use open source DRM to “compensate rights holders and stimulate innovation,” but Sun’s open DReaM (DRM everywhere available) Project is as scary as any other content control nightmare to open source and digital freedom proponents.”
As much as I can’t stand DRM….. it drives me up the wall……. and as often as I use it as a recruiting tool to get people away from windows….
I think we should embrace this. We all know that DRM will be touted as the next big thing even though there are very few, if any benefits to us.
By saying “our operating system supports DRM too” we can partake in the so-called benefits that no doubt will be touted.
The difference is enforcement. Various Linuces, Solaris(s), BSDs, and so on will support it, but not enforce it and cram it down everybody’s throats.
Having watched Sun for the past year they’ve proven that they are a friend of the OSS world. I think they deserve our trust, let’s see what happens.
Like I said, I can’t stand DRM. But nothing is going to stop the metallicas and dr dres of the world from pointing the finger at us.
We’re all thieves and must be stopped. It doesn’t matter the utter CRAP that they are putting on disk. Why would I want to buy any of that?
I agree that Sun has shown some kind feelings for OSS, but I disagree that we should trust any sort of DRM.
Saying that we should be able to tell companies that, yes, our OS supports DRM and that we implemented for no better reason than this is the same thing as teenage peer pressure.
Come on…everyone’s doing it!
In a few years, the public will either educate itself to why DRM is BAD, or they’ll be suckered into letting it stay. I believe it will be the former, and at that time there will be a massive “screw the industry”, because everyone will have realized that DRM is a Very Bad Thing.
And OSS/Linux will have already jumped on board. So rather than being a white horse, they’re nothing more than bottom feeders.
I agree. DRM is everything that FOSS is not. DRM is about making money for content producers and protecting them, the GPL (for example) is all about protecting users and to a much lesser extent protecting the authors.
That doesn’t mean DRM and OSS can’t go together, it just means they’re anathema to each other
.
I’d much rather be able to say “nope, no DRM on FOSS, it’s about helping people not screwing them!”
==========Saying that we should be able to tell companies that, yes, our OS supports DRM and that we implemented for no better reason than this is the same thing as teenage peer pressure.===========
I agree with you, but unfortunately we don’t have much choice. If we had more marketshare/userbase than we do then the argument could be different.
What it comes down to is the lesser of two evils. DRM is gonna happen. There’s not a whole lot we can do about it. We just don’t have the numbers.
But given the choice between having it rammed down our throats or merely supporting it, the choice is clear.
I also agree that people will realize what’s happened and give them all the finger, and that’s when I believe linux will become a major player in the desktop. Until then, we’ll just keep nibbling away……..
“The difference is enforcement. Various Linuces, Solaris(s), BSDs, and so on will support it, but not enforce it and cram it down everybody’s throats. ”
um, this new drm that microsoft will include is DESIGNED to cram it down our throats. if it’s not going to be designed that way on linux, are we gonna get to play hd dvd’s? no. Media companies want your computer locked down when you play *their* media. that way you can’t do anything sneaky to bypass the protection.
DRM is extremely important. Especially in business environments where there are Documents, Spreadsheets and Presentations which should be locked for everyone who is not supposed to read that data. I like the idea of having certain “user rights” to certain information.
Face it, we need rights management in this new world. The key point here is to have a DRM “standard”, an open standard would be sufficient. Something designed similar to the protocols which made the global network possible.
DRM is extremely important. Especially in business environments where there are Documents, Spreadsheets and Presentations which should be locked for everyone who is not supposed to read that data.
We already have that, and it is 100% possible to do this within the domain of your own company. That’s if you run the right software that is. We don’t need an overarching DRM system to do this.
Well, so you don’t understand what this DRM thing is all about. It will certainly not protect your Word documents from being read by not privigled users, it will not protect your privacy etc. This thing will instead prevent you from running any untrusted software. Including new operating system from company different than MS or Apple. Or sun
. It will also prevent you from playing your mp3s and watching youa DivX movies, since it will break someone’s “rights”. DRM is not about your rights, its about their’s rights.
The problem is that it’s *ONLY* about their rights.
These companies do have rights, like it or not. I try my best to remember that even though players like MS stomp on them frequently.
But DRM is a completely new ballgame. They are going way out in the field…. way over the line….. And are only alienating new customers as well as existing customers.
People aren’t stupid. If they know that they can’t use their music on their computer that will stop a large portion of the market from buying. They’ll look elsewhere. “Mac is gonna screw me too? I’ll keep looking. What’s this linux thing, i’m willing to try it if i can play my music.”
I’ve long past that stage. I say screw them. They’re not gonna treat me like that. I’ll go elsewhere. So now these linux companies can have my money.
I pass around Knoppix disks frequently. They don’t have to switch now. Just as long as the name/concept is out there. They’ll switch soon enough.
No DRM is pointless for that purpose. You require encryption for keeping private data private to those who shouldn’t have access.
Hogwash!!!
DRM will be used by the media companies to protect their content. I have no problem with them protecting their products; but I do have problems with how they are going to achieve their goals.
1) Hardware based DRM. As a consumer, why do I have to buy a system with hardware based DRM if I don’t watch movies on my PC? Some companies stand to make a large sum of money by connecting the dots to the hardware based DRM (MS)
2) DRM will exclude platforms. Will *BSD’s, Linux, Solaris have an equal opportunity at DRM if their wasn’t for an Open Source version coming to fruition.
3) DRM will be used to limit on where the content is played. So, if I am not on a platform that is supported by the media companies, I am out of luck for playing my movies/music/dvds when I am traveling to other locations. Does this apply to me? No, but it does apply to a large number of people.
You can do that with a CLI encryption program that “encrypts” and “decrypts”. Microsoft Office already supports password protection on almost all of its save operations.
That’s silly, you in no way need DRM for that. Besides that, unless the DRM is encrypting the data I guarantee I can get it out in under 10 minutes anyway! So why add on odd rules like “you can view this once” when you just wanna limit who can view it period.
Encryption is it man, there’s no need for DRM. Besides that, even the things you’re talking about aren’t a common need. Encrypted volumes will do all that most businesses want (which is protection for lost laptops).. And that’s been in XP since its release, and I believe you can do it in Linux in a fairly straightforward manner as well.
If you value freedom say no to DRM NOW or you will regret it later on. Be DRM aware and buy DRM-free devices instead of crippled ones. Most people don’t even know the creepy implications of DRM. Educate your friends about DRM and why it WILL be abused if we don’t stop it now.
> If you value freedom say no to DRM NOW or you will regret it later on.
If you want people to respect GPL, you must respect DRM.
Like it or not DRM is going to cover most media and OSX and Windows users will be able to pay and play. Linux users will be left out in the cold and then DVD-Jon comes around to cracking DRM and the Windows/OSX people will start saying open source users are spoilt children and/or cheap bastards who don’t want to pay for anything.
This is precisely the reason Linux or open source will never take off the desktop.
> If you want people to respect GPL, you must respect DRM.
The GPL respects the doctine of “first sale”, DRM doesn’t .
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine ).
If you buy a car, you can open it it up, take it apart, and combine it with the parts of a truck or a motorcycle. If you have an LP or tape, you can make your own mix album for yourself, add effects, or anything else you want to (except sell it or perform in front of a large number of people). That’s the doctrine of first sale and it’s one of the key things that make society work. Would you want to live in world where you were forced to use everything you bought in “only approved” ways?
The DRM takes that away. What’s more, because the there is no time limit on DRM, once something’s locked, it’s locked forever. It’s also a copyright that never expires, which is bad for society on the whole. If it weren’t for the expiration of copyrights, classics such as “It’s A Wonderful Life” would have disappeared because when it was first released, no-one cared about it until the copyright expired. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_A_Wonderful_Life )
To me, the real children are the industries that advocate DRM. They’re like 3 year old children who have never learnt to share and screem at the top of their lungs until they get their way. That’s not the way the world works. Society is based on *rules of conduct* and *negotiation* that allow people to work with each other to accomplish greater things. People are not naturally *evil* as the DRM industry likes to paint it. People will pay up when they think they’re treated fairly and respected. The success of iTunes proves it. But the success of iTunes depends critically on the fact that iTunes is *not* permanently locked. It gives you an inconvient escape hatch so if Apple ever goes out of business or decided to drop support of it’s iPod (as it did with the Newton), people don’t have to give up their whole collection.
People will pay up when they think they’re treated fairly and respected. The success of iTunes proves it.
And some of them will steal when they think they’re not treated fairly …
The problem is that by that so called “stealing” you are actually contributing more to the problem than you are by actually paying for it. By that “stealing”, you are giving the guys at organizations like RIAA and MPAA, an excuse to force these restrictions down our throats, wheter you mean to do it or not.
Believe me I know enough people who just abuse the situation. (like renting a movie and then making as many copies of them as they can, or selling DVDs of movies that are barely hitting movie theaters) Do you think thats fair use? I don’t.
Sorry not buying it, if people suddenly stopped making illegal copies, **IA would just take it as or at least claim the it is proff that DRM is working.
This is a loss, loss sitaution for everyone.
And no, I don’t believe that this ever has been about illegal copies, it is about control and making the consummers pay more and more for the music and movies.
People will always break the law. That’s largely irrelevent. The question is, can the prevalence of law breaking be reduced to a point where its no longer an economic issue?
The basic problem is that the content providers are being paranoid about this whole situation. There is no economic benefit in reducing the rate of piracy to zero. A far better approach is the one used by department stores with regards to shop lifting. Department stores assume products will get stolen. They factor this into their cost structure, and make allowances for these losses in their budgets. They’ve realized that, from an economic viewpoint, their best bet is to find the equillibrium point where the security measures on the products are just high enough to keep shoplifting to a tolerable rate, while being low enough to not drive away their customers.
The media industry doesn’t seem to want to find this profitable equillibrium. What they are pushing for is the equivalent of putting all the clothes in locked glass cabinets (requiring a clerk to open and retrieve the item you want), and not allowing any returns. If department stores tried that, the losses incurred from pissed-off customers would far outweigh any benefits from reduced shoplifting. I think the media industry is going to learn much the same lesson, though it will be particularly harsh for them, because, being monopolistic little SOBs, there is no free-market way for the problem to correct itself gradually. Instead, the correction will likely be sudden and painful for the industry.
> A far better approach is the one used by department
> stores with regards to shop lifting….The media
> industry … are pushing for is the equivalent of
> putting all the clothes in locked glass cabinets
Very good analogy. Back in the early 1900s, there were no supermarkets. People had to go to a clerk who worked in a counter and the clerk would get the food for you and you’d pay. Gas stations used to work the same way — an attendent used to fill up gas for you. These days, people are *gasp* able to pick their food themselves and serve their own gas unattended. When they’re done, they go to a clerk to pay (in some systems, even that’s been automated so you scan your own groceries, etc.).
Yes, there’s the possibility that people steal food or even eat it before it gets to the clerk. Yes there’s the possibility that people drive off without paying. It doesn’t matter. Supermarkets and gas stations have discovered that they make a lot more money by trusting people than not. So much more, that they can afford to accept losses for the crooks. The key thing is, as I’ve stated, most people are honest most of the time. When you treat people with respect, a few “shoplifters will be persecuted” signs are all that’s needed. You don’t need to put everything behind the counter and treat your customers like children.
dont forget tho that allmost any item in a supermarket is tagged with an alarm these days. try walking out the door with one of them under the coat and it will sound.
only way to avoid that is say wrapping a bag in tin foil and stuff the item in there. this is why more and more places dont want you to bring a bag or backpack inside.
and gas station most likely have your number plate on film the moment that you start pumping. anything else would be silly.
its not so much that they trust you more, its that they now have technical means that help monitor what you do without being intrusive.
thats realy the problem of drm, its intrusive. rather then stopping people from copying the files they should be all for it. but all files should be tagged so that if one showed up in the wild they would know who bought it and therefor where to land the law…
problem is that unlike a camera and a licence plate or a glued on alarm, fingerprints on files are so easy to remove or fake so that they point in the wrong direction. after all, its just a sequence of bits hidden inside a diffrent sequence of bits. some playing around with a editor will point you in the right direction about what is a fingerprint and what is media data.
> Supermarkets and gas stations have discovered that they make a lot more money by trusting people than not.
yeah that’s why they have video surveillance, goods tagged by anti-theft devices, security guards
That’s an interesting conclusion to come to. Desktop users are the most “childlike” of all users, be it on Windows, Linux, or Mac. Are you saying that Linux is respectable enough to make it in the server, workstation, and corporate markets, but is not respectible enough to make it on the desktop market? That’s rich! It never ceases to amaze me how self-involved the “desktop” crowd is, and how utterly convinced they are that without their support a product can never succeed!
That’s like saying “To support democracy, you must support totalitarian dictatorships.” Feh…One thing has little to do with the other. GPL is about giving the user rights. DRM is about taking them away. If you make your operating system properly, you don’t really need this crap. It’s all about giving the corporations rights at the expense of ordinary people. If you’re down with corporations walking all over others, then I guess there is a need for DRM in the brave new world.
Yes, i am a god on MY machines and nobody in a whole Universe will tell me what to do with the data on MY disk. If that means that I will not be able to watch movies and listen to the music, then there will be no movies and music.
I hope that there will be some sort of ant-virus software that could detect DRM content even if I am “allowed” to see it, which would warn me before I see it.
DG
If you value freedom:
Say no to file permissions, with file permissions you are restricting the rights of the users of a system.
Say no to firewalls, with firewalls you are restricting peoples access to your network.
Say no to SSL, with SSL you are restricting the right of the internet community to know your credit card details.
Say no to DRM, with DRM people are able to choose to protect their data and we definity can’t have that.
– Jesse McNelis
I mean, the Idea of having a properly documented, OSS DRM sounds secure and enforceable enough. I mean we already have SSL and GPG. Right?
Now if we could only have an LGPL media player with binary dvdcss decoding as well as drm.
Those who spread this no to DRM crap are, ironically setting us back from the Linux desktop. They claim that by embracing DRM technology we are giving away our freedom while in fact that’s, arguably, not the case. I mean, DRM has other uses than just putting DRM signatures in Audio/Video files. They can, among other things be used to _protect_ people from Identity theft.
And besides, maybe in Europe people can live without DRM, but here, in USA states and territories we have to comply with the existing laws, until we can get congress to change them (btw, could take years, like going to the supreme court)
Sun is committed to open standards, as they like to remind everyone every few minutes or so. OpenSolaris, OO.org, Liberty Alliance, etc.
If anyone can do DRM right, it’d be Sun. Not Microsoft, not Sony, not Intel. These other companies have corporate philosophies (regarding IP) along the lines of totalitarian dictatorships rather than being really open-standards-bearing. IBM throws a bone out every now and then, but their actions are comparatively trivial. Forget Microsoft. Sony is so big with multiple personality syndrome (movie division, games division, etc).
I have nothing wrong with watching commericals, or atleast having commercials in a DRM’d media file, that I am otherwise getting for free. Like watching a television show online, and sitting through commercials, TV networks need to make money to finance their shows.
I do have a problem with incompatibilities, and forcing me to use Windows Media Player, then I will just get commercial and DRM free media off of bittorrent.
So if they are going to do DRM, it mind as well be open-source(GPL-compatible), and an open-standard.
And it should be a choice.
And trust me, we will do this right – by making DRM a choice, not a mandate. It will be done in the open, with truly open source licensing and code, to protect one, and only one thing: a user’s right, whether they’re a media company or a computer company or little Sarah at her laptop, to choose.
CDDL is GPL/(LGPL?) incompatible
Sun has earned points with OASIS I agree (a lot of them), but OASIS and DReaM are licensed completely differently. While one is approachable to community other is not.
One is open, second is restrictive. Based on the fact that linux kernel is GPL based DReaM could never make it inside.
Am I against DRM? No, in fact I would be happy if something like DRM (open version) existed. But I do mind if standard is open or not. So I vote NO.
Groklaw article about incompatibility
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050205022937327
CDDL is GPL/(LGPL?) incompatible
And so are many other free software licenses.
One is open, second is restrictive. Based on the fact that linux kernel is GPL based DReaM could never make it inside.
And there are binary modules in the kernel as well, In fact I don’t think Linuz would have any problem(as the Linux copyright holder)
Plus, with enough documentation on DRM, i’m sure a talented, non zealot, kernel hacker could just make a GPL compatible implementation of Sun’s standard.
And there are binary modules in the kernel as well, In fact I don’t think Linuz would have any problem(as the Linux copyright holder)
Perhaps you should check your facts. Linus does not own the copyright to the entire kernel. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP and numerous other contributors all own their respective contributions/copyrights unless they assign them to Linus. This is why IBM is countersueing SCO over SCO’s infringement of IBM’s copyrights in the Linux Kernel. Check the copyright notices on a bunch of random files in the kernel and you will see that not all of the code is owned by Linus. An example:
linux-2.6.13.2/fs/jfs/jfs_dmap.c
/*
* Copyright (C) International Business Machines Corp., 2000-2004
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See
* the GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
*/
Perhaps you should check your facts. Linus does not own the copyright to the entire kernel. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP and numerous other contributors all own their respective contributions/copyrights unless they assign them to Linus. This is why IBM is countersueing SCO over SCO’s infringement of IBM’s copyrights in the Linux Kernel. Check the copyright notices on a bunch of random files in the kernel and you will see that not all of the code is owned by Linus. An example:
Perhaps you’re right, but the basic fact remains, and the Kernel still allows binary modules. And Besides why wouldn’t those other companies allow such thing as DRM?
CDDL is GPL/(LGPL?) incompatible
You mean the GPL is incompatible with CDDL. The GPL is a strict license that is incompatible with many licenses.
You mean the GPL is incompatible with CDDL. The GPL is a strict license that is incompatible with many licenses.
Yes, that is what he said. The incompatability goes both ways. GPL code cannot be relicensed under CDDL, and CDDL code cannot be relicensed under the GPL.
What exactly was the point of your comments anyways, other than to start a flamewar?
No – GPL is CDDL, and everything else, incompatible. It’s the most dictatorial license in the open source world – speaking of proprietary. GPL3 is going to be even worse – it’s going to be extortionist. GPL is DRM at its most extreme.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Groklaw’s reporting on the CDDL matter was an inflamatory piece of shit. Really. For Sun, the CDDL is truly a better license. In fact, I’d probably use the CDDL for a new project. There are plenty of reasons to not use the GPL (it can restrict adoption among businesses).
Also, it is true that the GPL is incompatible with the CDDL, not the other way around. RMS wants it this way. It’s just a matter of the GPL community complaining about not being able to assimilate the whole world under their banner. Well, that’s too bad.
Your comment is utterly moronic, and we are all stupider for having listened to you.
1) Nobody cares if the GPL can restrict adoption among businesses. This inane desire some people have to be the lapdog of corporate American never ceases to amaze me. I’m all for corporations, but I see no point in letting them mooch off of what the OSS community does for free! It’s been proven time and time again that depending on corporations is a bad idea. The Lisp community learned it, the Smalltalk community learned it, the BSD community learned it. There is a reason the GPL is the most successful and active open source license. It is built to protect the software, not to make it popular.
Let me give you a simple example of why the GPL is superior. CMUCL was licensed under a very liberal, BSD-style license. After some time, Scieneer, a Lisp company, took the CMUCL code, and made modifications to it to make it support multithreading well. What was the end result? Scieneer is plodding along, no more relevant than they ever were, and CMUCL still doesn’t have good multithreading. When Scieneer goes out of business, what will have come of that whole effort? Nothing! Nothing at all! History is rife with such examples.
2) Your semantic argument about the GPL being incompatible with the CDDL is childish. RMS couldn’t “want” the GPL to be incompatible with the CDDL! The CDDL postdates the GPL! Sun made a conscience decision to release a license incompatible with the GPL. That’s entirely their right, but to attribute the blame to the GPL is moronic.
CDDL is GPL incompatible, but its not more restrictive than the GPL (indeed, it is less so). The GPL incompatibility of the CDDL is an unfortunate matter of the legal details of the two licenses, not some sinister effort by Sun.
When it comes to DRM and digital content/entertainment, stop pointing the finger at Microsoft and instead point the blame where it belongs – in the direction of the content creators.
Truth is, when it comes to next-generation formats (eg – high-definition content), the DRM is going to be unleashed whether or not Microsoft chooses to support it or not. At least with Windows (and probably OSX too), you’ll have the option of playing it. With Linux, you’re not going to have shit. The best you can do is sit around and wait for DVD-Jon to crack it, and then you’ll be able to play it in whatever OS you want anyway.
Instead of switching operating systems, how about just not buying DRM content if you’re opposed to it? This includes DVDs with CSS encrypts/region codes along with songs on the iTunes music store, Napster, etc. Every time you buy any of these, you are, by default, openly supporting DRM, and telling content creators that you are more than happy to take it up the ass. Even if you can crack the DRM and play the content on whatever you want, by making the purchase, you are still saying with your money that DRM is acceptable.
So just don’t buy it. And don’t pirate either. People seem to think “Well, I can either buy it or steal it”, but people fail to see the third option – do neither of these. Remember, regarldess of what The Corporation would have you believe, digital entertain is not air – you don’t HAVE to have it. Some people justify piracy as a way of ‘getting even’, as they claim they are getting screwed by content creators. However, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to pay $15 for that CD, so don’t blame somebody else for something you willingly paid for, you f**king moron.
Stop making excuses and either pay for the shit and accept the fact that you are being screwed, or do without. DRM is always a choice. If it is being forced down your throat by your employer, then find a new employer!! Dig ditches if you have to, but don’t sacrifice your integrity simply because you want to play the next Spiderman movie on your OS of choice.
As a far as I understand the so far actual DRM implementation proposals (TPM) are all about making security by obscurty brute force enforceable. That is not possible when your kernel’s source code is both availble and freely changeable, so I guess that the point of the whole “support or not wrt to OSS” discussion is moot.
OSS desktop followers (me included) should start to get comfortable with a though that some media content will be outside of their reach.
What comes from my belief that the software world sooner or later will have to deal with such kind of the technology being mainstream is a twofold strategy:
– promote possible and ethical uses (if any) of the DRM hardware on OSS platforms and as usuall promote open standards
– as much as possible protest against uses of DRM where it isn’t strictly necessary and can be replaced by more oss friendly technologies. I gues that DRM is still a double edged sword even for MS but as soon as the the criticall mass is reached they will try to put it wherever possible (using arguments of security) as an effective anti OSS tactic.
It is posible. TPM module will boot only signed kernel. Thes mean you will have source, you can build your own kernel, but you will be not allowed to boot it, because it will be not signed by good signature and GPL can not do anything against this.
If this happends you will by forced to by your distribution to be able to play drm-ed content.
That’s actually not free software any more, and is what I meant by stating that the match is impossible.
You can never protect something that is abstract and is a couple of bits made for a platform constructed for easy bit-reproduction, manipulation and global communication.DRM or whatever mechanism to protect *digital* or other non-physical rights will never work and only cost money.
If you buy something physical like a car than you are the owner and can do whatever you want with it.
How many times does a particular song have to be paid for?Ideally the artists should only get paid for working,aka doing a concert,and once for every record sold.Furthermore royalties should be only valid for only *the artist* who made it and become obsolete if he/she dies,and can’t be renewed.
DRM is bad very bad,all missusage of abstract things and milking the herd.
Plus, with enough documentation on DRM, i’m sure a talented, non zealot, kernel hacker could just make a GPL compatible implementation of Sun’s standard.
Or rip out all that is pollution aka DRM :-0
And start a fork or distribute *free* kernel/distro.
Sure, he has the right to fork away the kernel, no one disputes that
The philosophy of DRM goes right against the founding philosophy of Open Source. Information deserves to be free, not heavily control and regulated. Although I do think studios do have the right to control their content, but not at such a draconian level.
All the arguments about using DRM for non-media-company-related uses are, frankly, piles of crap. As someone has pointed out, you can do that perfectly well already with any decent operating system. The _only_ new “feature” that DRM systems have is that they allow a completely _external_ entity to control your access to media you own. This can never be a good thing for the consumer, only for the company. Letting Fox control copyright enforcement is exactly like being happy about the BSA and RIAA seemingly running the police in certain cases…the law should be enforced by the state, not by private entities with a clear conflict of interest.
The only people who win is these crying baby called big companies that don’t want anything to be free even if the content suck or really old.
Copywrite for music, movies, software, books, or simular thing sould expire with in 4 to 5 years after they are release and place on this free to download website. Most people don’t bother with anything that old and it leave our mind for the newer thing.
So why add on odd rules like “you can view this once”
I’ve never seen anyone doing such thing. Can you post some link of a company doing it or some hard evidence?